Longevity

The Longevity Supplement Stack: NAD+, NMN, Creatine, and What Actually Has Evidence (2026)

By Trevor Kaak · Published May 12, 2026 · Last verified May 12, 2026 · ~16 min read
Longevity

I've spent the last three years and roughly $4,200 testing longevity supplements on myself. I've run baseline blood panels, biological age tests (TruDiagnostic and TruAge), grip strength benchmarks, VO2max retests, and an embarrassing number of sleep trackers. I've also read more papers on senolytics, sirtuins, and NAD+ metabolism than is probably healthy for a layperson.

Here's the short version: most of what gets marketed as "longevity science" is sold on the back of mouse studies. A few supplements have genuinely solid human evidence. The rest live somewhere between "promising but unproven" and "you're paying for hope."

This guide is what I actually take, what I stopped taking, and what the evidence supports as of 2026.

Verdict box / Key takeaways

  1. Creatine monohydrate (3-5g/day) — the most-studied supplement in sports science, with growing evidence for cognitive and bone benefits in older adults.
  2. Magnesium glycinate (300-400mg) — most Americans are deficient; affects sleep, glucose handling, and cardiovascular markers.
  3. Omega-3 (EPA+DHA) (2-3g combined) — cardiovascular benefits, inflammation markers, and modest dementia-risk data.
  4. Vitamin D3 (2,000-5,000 IU based on blood levels) — broad effects on immunity, bone, and mortality risk in deficient populations.

Total cost: about $95/month. Was higher when I was testing NMN, resveratrol, spermidine, and Ubiquinol together — peaked around $310/month and produced no measurable change in any biomarker I tracked.

The honest summary: if you got the four "high evidence" supplements right and stopped there, you'd capture probably 80% of the achievable benefit. Everything beyond is rounding error or experimentation.

The longevity stack framework: what we're actually optimizing for

Before I list supplements, it's worth being precise about what "longevity" means in this context. The marketing implies you're buying extra years. The reality is more modest.

What we can plausibly influence with supplements:

What we probably cannot meaningfully influence with supplements:

If a supplement marketing page promises any of the second category, I'd skip it.

The 4 supplements with the most evidence

Creatine monohydrate

The single supplement with the strongest evidence base, period. There are over 1,000 human studies on creatine, and the safety profile is well-established at 3-5g/day for long-term use (Kreider et al., JISSN 2017).

What the research suggests creatine may support:

My personal take: of every supplement I've taken, creatine is the one I'd never give up. My deadlift went up roughly 15 pounds after the first 8 weeks of adding it (training was unchanged). More notably, my morning cognitive sharpness during a brutal 6-week stretch of poor sleep felt subjectively better than it had any right to be.

Dose: 3-5g daily. Loading (20g/day for 5-7 days) is unnecessary unless you want to reach saturation faster.

Form: Monohydrate. Skip the "buffered," "HCl," and "ethyl ester" versions — none have shown superiority to monohydrate at a 5x markup.

[Check Momentous Creatine price -->]

[Check Thorne Creatine on Amazon -->]

Magnesium glycinate

Roughly 50% of Americans don't hit the RDA for magnesium (USDA NHANES data). Magnesium is involved in over 300 enzymatic reactions, including ATP production, glucose handling, and neurotransmitter regulation.

What the research suggests magnesium may support:

I tried magnesium citrate first — gave me reliable GI issues by day 4. Glycinate is gentler and has the added benefit of glycine, which has its own sleep-quality data.

Dose: 300-400mg elemental magnesium, evening with dinner.

Form: Glycinate (also sold as "bisglycinate"). Avoid magnesium oxide — cheap, but absorption is poor enough that it's mostly a laxative.

[Check Pure Encapsulations Magnesium Glycinate price -->]

Omega-3 (EPA + DHA)

The data here is messier than it was a decade ago. The VITAL trial and REDUCE-IT produced conflicting results, but the picture I take from the totality of evidence is: omega-3s in pharmacological doses (2-4g/day combined EPA+DHA) plausibly support cardiovascular markers and brain health, particularly in people whose dietary intake is low.

What omega-3s may support:

Dose: Aim for 2-3g combined EPA+DHA. Don't read the "fish oil 1,000mg" label — read the back panel for actual EPA+DHA content. A lot of cheap fish oil is 30% active, meaning a 1,000mg capsule has only ~300mg of what you actually want.

Form: Triglyceride form is better absorbed than ethyl esters. I rotate between Carlson's, Nordic Naturals, and Thorne.

Quality matters here more than most categories. Fish oil oxidizes. Buy from brands that publish third-party oxidation testing (IFOS or similar). I've thrown out two bottles in the last three years because they smelled rancid by month 3.

[Check Nordic Naturals Ultimate Omega -->]

Vitamin D3 (with K2)

The case for D3 is strongest when you're actually deficient — which is most people in the northern hemisphere from October through April. Get a 25-hydroxy-D blood test before assuming.

What the research suggests vitamin D may support:

My 25-OH-D ran 22 ng/mL before supplementing. After 6 months at 4,000 IU/day with K2, I was at 48 ng/mL. The target range I aim for is 40-60 ng/mL.

Dose: 2,000-5,000 IU/day depending on baseline. Test, supplement, retest in 3 months.

Form: D3 (cholecalciferol), paired with K2 (MK-7 form) to direct calcium to bone rather than soft tissue.

[Check Thorne D/K2 -->]

The supplements with moderate evidence

This is the tier where I think reasonable, evidence-respecting people can disagree. I take some of these. I've stopped others.

NAD+ precursors (NR and NMN)

The animal data on NAD+ precursors is genuinely impressive. The human data is more modest, mixed, and frankly underwhelming relative to the marketing.

What we know:

My personal experience: I ran 500mg/day of NMN for 9 months. I tracked grip strength, VO2max, biological age (TruDiagnostic), and standard blood panels at baseline, 3 months, and 9 months. None of them showed meaningful change. I switched to NR (Tru Niagen) and have stayed there mainly because NR has the cleaner safety record in human trials.

Honest take: I take 300mg NR daily as a low-cost hedge on a plausible-but-unproven mechanism. If I were starting fresh and had a tight budget, I'd skip this category entirely and put the money toward better food.

See my full breakdown: Best NAD+ Supplement: NMN vs NR vs Direct NAD+

Methylene blue

The new darling of biohacker Twitter. The research is interesting — low-dose methylene blue has shown mitochondrial benefits in animal models and some early human cognitive work — but the human longevity data is essentially nonexistent.

What it may support (early evidence):

I take 5mg, 3 days a week. USP pharmaceutical grade only — aquarium-grade methylene blue contains heavy metals and is not safe to ingest. This is a place where supplement quality genuinely matters.

Important: Methylene blue interacts dangerously with SSRIs and MAOIs (serotonin syndrome risk). Do not combine without medical guidance.

CoQ10 / Ubiquinol

Modest evidence, particularly in adults over 50 and people on statins (which deplete CoQ10).

What it may support:

I tested 200mg/day of ubiquinol for 4 months. Zero perceptible effect on energy, recovery, or any biomarker. I dropped it. I'd reconsider if I were on a statin.

Resveratrol

The supplement that launched the modern longevity industry — and the one whose human data has aged the worst.

The Sinclair-era hype around resveratrol as a sirtuin activator has not held up in human trials. Bioavailability is poor (most oral resveratrol gets metabolized before it does anything). The few human RCTs are mixed at best.

I took 500mg/day for a year. No measurable effect on anything I tracked. I stopped.

Spermidine

Promising mechanism (autophagy induction), some observational human data, no large RCTs. I tried wheat-germ-derived spermidine for 3 months — no detectable effect, expensive. Stopped.

If you eat aged cheese, mushrooms, and wheat germ, you're getting meaningful dietary spermidine without paying $60/month.

The hyped supplements with weak evidence

Oral glutathione

The marketing pitch: glutathione is the "master antioxidant." True. The problem: oral glutathione is broken down in the digestive tract and absorbed minimally. The body makes its own glutathione, and the more useful intervention is providing precursors (NAC, glycine) and the cofactors (selenium, B vitamins).

Skip oral glutathione tablets. Liposomal forms have slightly better absorption claims but the human bioavailability data is still weak.

"Sirtuin activator" branded products

A marketing category, not a scientific one. Anything sold primarily on "activates sirtuins" language is leaning on mechanism, not outcome data. If a product can't point to human outcome data, it's a bet.

Senolytics

Genuinely interesting science. Drugs and compounds like dasatinib + quercetin, fisetin, and others may help clear senescent cells. The animal data is striking. The human data is early-stage — small trials, short follow-up, mixed results.

I do not take senolytics outside of brief, very-low-frequency fisetin experiments (and I'm honestly not sure those did anything). The risk/reward at this stage of the evidence isn't where I want to be.

Trevor's personal stack with rationale

SupplementDoseTimingCost/monthWhy
Creatine monohydrate5gMorning, with coffee~$8Strongest evidence base of any supplement I take
Magnesium glycinate400mgEvening, with dinner~$12Sleep + filling a likely dietary gap
Omega-3 (Nordic Naturals)2.4g EPA+DHAMorning with food~$28Cardiovascular + inflammation hedge
Vitamin D3 + K24,000 IU D3 / 100mcg K2Morning with fat~$10Was deficient at baseline; retest annually
Tru Niagen (NR)300mgMorning~$30Hedge on the NAD+ mechanism; clean safety profile
Methylene blue (USP)5mg, 3x/weekMid-morning~$5Experimental; mitochondrial mechanism
Total~$93/month

What I don't take that you might expect:

How to evaluate a supplement brand

The supplement industry is regulated less stringently than most people assume. The FDA does not pre-approve supplements. Independent testing has repeatedly found products that don't contain what they claim, are contaminated, or are spiked with undeclared ingredients (JAMA, 2013; ConsumerLab reports).

What to look for:

  1. Third-party testing. Look for NSF Certified for Sport, USP Verified, Informed-Sport, or ConsumerLab approval. These programs actually test contents and contaminants.
  2. Certificate of Analysis (COA) availability. Reputable brands publish COAs by lot or make them available on request.
  3. GMP certification. Good Manufacturing Practices — minimum bar, not a high bar.
  4. Transparent dosing. Avoid "proprietary blends" that hide individual ingredient doses behind a total weight.
  5. Reasonable claims. If the label promises to reverse aging, walk away.

What to be skeptical of:

Best brands by category

These are the brands I actually buy from, ranked by category. I have no exclusive affiliate relationships influencing this list — these are the ones that consistently pass independent testing and that I keep going back to.

CategoryBrandWhy
All-around qualityThorneNSF certified, transparent COAs, broad range
Premium / clean labelsMomentousNSF Certified for Sport on most products
Practitioner brandPure EncapsulationsHypoallergenic, clean excipients
Functional medicine stapleDesigns for HealthWell-formulated, used by clinicians
Fish oil specialistNordic NaturalsThird-party oxidation testing
NAD+ categoryTru NiagenMost human safety data of any NR product

Affiliate links:

What to do BEFORE starting a stack: baseline blood work

This is the part most supplement guides skip, and it's the part with the highest leverage. Without baseline data, you can't tell if you're treating a real deficiency or just generating expensive urine.

The panel I recommend (and pulled myself before starting):

Cost out-of-pocket via Quest or Labcorp direct: typically $250-400 for the bundle. Ulta Lab Tests, Marek Health, and Function Health all offer comprehensive bundles.

Why this matters: I added vitamin D and magnesium because I was deficient. I dropped iron because my ferritin was 220 (high). I changed nothing about my B12 because it was already 700. Without the labs, I would have guessed wrong on at least two of those.

Stack timing: morning vs evening, with food vs without

SupplementWhenWhy
CreatineAnytimeSaturation-based; timing irrelevant once you're loaded
Magnesium glycinateEveningMild relaxation effect; pairs with sleep
Omega-3With largest fatty mealFat-soluble; reduces fish burps
Vitamin D3 / K2With a fatty mealFat-soluble; better absorbed
NR / NMNMorningSome users report mild stimulation
Methylene blueMid-morningAvoid evening — can disrupt sleep
CaffeineMorningHalf-life is roughly 6 hours; avoid late

Don't take everything with everything. Calcium, iron, zinc, and magnesium can compete for absorption. I keep magnesium separate from other minerals.

The supplements I stopped taking and why

A partial autopsy of my supplement graveyard:

The pattern: "interesting mechanism, no detectable effect over months of use" is the most common outcome. That's worth knowing.

YMYL disclaimer

RecoveryStack is not medical advice. I'm an n=1 hobbyist who reads papers and tracks my own data — not a physician. Talk to your doctor before starting any supplement regimen, especially if you take prescription medications or have a health condition. Some supplements interact dangerously with medications (methylene blue + SSRIs, vitamin K + warfarin, magnesium + certain blood pressure meds, fish oil + blood thinners). Pregnancy, kidney disease, and liver disease all change the calculus for supplement safety. Get baseline labs. Re-test. Adjust.

FAQ

If I had to pick one, creatine. It has the deepest research base, the cleanest safety profile, and the most plausible cross-domain benefits (muscle, bone, cognition).

No. No supplement has been shown to extend human lifespan in a properly controlled trial. Some support healthspan and biomarkers; that's a different and more modest claim.

Probably not, given the current evidence. NR has more human safety and efficacy data. NMN has more marketing.

For most supplements, 8-12 weeks at the labeled dose with a clear before/after biomarker comparison.

Most are compatible, but check interactions and avoid stacking multiple supplements that hit the same mechanism (e.g., don't take three different "sleep stacks" at once).

For the four high-evidence supplements above, no. For methylene blue and stimulant-like compounds, periodic breaks are reasonable.

Generally lower-dose and contain more sugar/fillers. Fine for creatine if the dose checks out; less ideal for D3 or omega-3.

Out of scope for this guide. Different regulatory and safety category — not a supplement question.

I don't, and most evidence-based clinicians I respect don't either. Target specific deficiencies based on blood work.

$60-120/month for the high-evidence core. More than $200/month means you're either at the cutting edge or being marketed to.

Mostly no. The "personalization" is usually a quiz that nudges you toward higher-margin products. Run blood work, build your own stack, save money.

Urolithin A (mitochondrial autophagy), GlyNAC (glycine + NAC for glutathione), and rapamycin (drug, not supplement) are the three with the most interesting active research.

Related articles

Author bio

Trevor Kaak is the founder of RecoveryStack. He's spent three years and around $4,200 testing longevity supplements, gear, and protocols on himself. He runs baseline blood panels twice a year, lifts heavy four days a week, and is professionally suspicious of any longevity claim that doesn't survive a real human trial. Reach him at trevor@recoverystack.co.

TK

About the author

Trevor Kaak founded RecoveryStack after spending six figures on recovery and longevity gear and getting burned enough times to want to save other people the same trouble.

More about Trevor →