NAD injection dosage does not have a standard, trial-validated schedule. No human dose-finding trial has established a best subcutaneous or intramuscular amount, frequency or titration. The best-known IV pharmacokinetic study used 750 mg over six hours, but that was a one-day experiment in eight people, not a prescription template. A real protocol has to specify route, concentration, milligrams per dose, frequency and what happens when tolerability changes. A licensed prescriber sets those pieces for the individual rather than copying an IV study or an oral-supplement number.
For the larger clinical picture, the NAD+ injection overview covers what the molecule is and why it is offered. This page stays with the narrower question: how dosing decisions are made when the evidence does not supply a standard schedule.
Why NAD injection dosage has no standard table
Injectable NAD+ has no FDA-approved dosing label, and compounded preparations can differ in concentration and route. Most importantly, there is no published human trial that randomized people across several subcutaneous doses to find a minimum effective dose, a ceiling or a best frequency. That is what a genuine dose-finding study would do.
The direct human evidence is better read as a map of what researchers exposed participants to:
| Evidence | Route and exposure | What it can answer | What it cannot answer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grant et al., Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience (2019) | 750 mg IV over 6 hours; 8 active and 3 saline participants | Plasma and urine NAD+ metabolite timing during one infusion | A subcutaneous or IM dose, treatment frequency, or clinical outcome |
| 2026 injection-route pilot preprint | 100 mg NAD+ once daily for 3 days by IV, IM or subcutaneous route; 4–6 people per active route arm | Preliminary short-term route tolerability | An effective dose, a dose-response curve, or a maintenance schedule |
The 2019 IV study found no rise in measured plasma NAD+ or its metabolites during the first two hours, while urinary NAD+ and methyl-nicotinamide increased by six hours. That is pharmacokinetic information. It does not show that 750 mg is better than a smaller amount, or that repeating it produces a health outcome. The 2026 route study was a small preprint and had not been certified by peer review as of August 2026.
What 750 mg IV does and does not mean
The 750 mg number is widely repeated because it is concrete. Its context matters more than its size: the infusion ran at roughly 2 mg per minute for six hours. The investigators were tracking where NAD+ and related metabolites appeared in plasma and urine. They were not comparing doses or treating a defined condition.
Infusion rate is a separate dosing variable. A small 2026 retrospective report followed six people who received 500 mg IV on four consecutive days. All six reported moderate-to-severe symptoms during the infusions, including gastrointestinal symptoms, increased heart rate and chest pressure. Participants controlled the rate according to tolerance, and mean infusion time was 97 minutes. The authors explicitly called for larger dose and effectiveness studies (Reyna et al., Frontiers in Aging, 2026).
Those two IV reports do not conflict. They used different schedules, settings and rates in very small groups. Together, they show why an IV total cannot be detached from the time over which it is delivered.
Oral NR and NMN doses are context, not conversion math
Nicotinamide riboside (NR) and nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) are oral precursors that the body can use to make NAD+. They are not injectable NAD+, and there is no validated equation for converting their oral milligrams into an injection dose.
In a randomized trial of 140 healthy adults with overweight, oral NR at 100, 300 or 1,000 mg per day for eight weeks increased whole-blood NAD+ in a dose-dependent pattern; the 1,000 mg group rose 142% by the study's measure (Conze et al., Scientific Reports, 2019). A separate randomized trial assigned 30 healthy adults to oral NMN 250 mg per day or placebo for 12 weeks and reported increased whole-blood NAD+ in the NMN group (Okabe et al., Frontiers in Nutrition, 2022).
These trials establish that oral precursor research uses defined daily doses. They do not validate 250 mg, 500 mg or 1,000 mg as an injectable amount, because absorption, metabolism and route are different.
How a compounded NAD+ protocol is written
A defensible prescription is more than one number. It keeps five fields together:
| Prescription field | Why it changes the meaning |
|---|---|
| Concentration | A vial labeled 100 mg/mL contains 100 milligrams in each milliliter; syringe volume alone is not a dose |
| Milligrams per administration | This is the actual amount prescribed, distinct from the vial's total contents |
| Route | Subcutaneous, IM and IV administration have different volumes, delivery rates and evidence |
| Frequency | Published and compounded protocols range from daily schedules to several times weekly or weekly schedules; no trial has ranked them |
| Adjustment rule | The prescriber decides whether tolerability calls for a lower amount, different frequency or reassessment |
The NAD+ formulation offered by Promise is supplied at 100 mg/mL. That concentration makes the arithmetic legible, but it does not choose the dose. Fifty milligrams at that concentration occupies 0.5 mL; that is a calculation, not a recommendation. The prescription and vial label control. The same distinction matters across injectable compounds, as the guide to how often peptides are injected explains.
Why tolerance and source change the plan
What clinics often call flushing, warmth or pressure is one reason prescribers avoid treating the first written protocol as permanent. With IV administration, the 2026 retrospective data show that symptoms can constrain infusion rate. With subcutaneous or IM administration, the evidence is too sparse to define a validated titration ladder. NAD+ injection side effects covers the tolerability questions and thresholds for contacting the care team in detail.
Sterility is a different issue from dose. In 2024, the FDA warned compounders about food-grade NAD+ used in sterile injectable products after reports of severe chills, shaking, vomiting and fatigue consistent with excessive endotoxins. A smaller amount cannot make an unsuitable ingredient appropriate for sterile compounding. The prescription route adds a pharmacy label, documented concentration and an accountable clinical relationship that a grey-market vial does not provide.
The decision belongs in a clinical relationship
The NAD+ dispensed through Promise is a compounded medication, which is different from an FDA-approved product: the formulation offered here is not FDA-approved. The FDA explains that compounded medications do not undergo its premarket review for safety, effectiveness or quality (FDA, current as of August 2026). That status is a regulatory fact, not a treatment verdict: a licensed provider may still prescribe a compounded formulation, and that decision belongs to the patient and doctor.
A licensed provider reviews every request and sets the protocol only when NAD+ is appropriate; not everyone qualifies. Follow-up is where a dose is kept, changed or stopped based on the actual response rather than a schedule copied from somewhere else.
What the evidence supports saying
A study dose is not automatically a clinical dose. Human research supports saying that 750 mg has been tracked during one slow IV infusion, that 500 mg IV has limited real-world tolerability data, and that 100 mg by subcutaneous or IM injection has only preliminary pilot data. It does not support naming one of those numbers as the standard NAD+ injection dose. Route, concentration, frequency and tolerability still have to be resolved by the prescriber who knows the patient.