The only human study providing a compelling reason to try nicotinamide riboside is the one showing a drop in blood pressure in hypertensive adults [1]. But this was a very small group of patients. If it does that in most people (which it may not) then that alone is a compelling reason to use it providing the price is low.<p>However, it isn't a compelling reason for the sizable expense of developing this outgrowth of sirtuin / calorie restriction research. That funding and person-years of researcher time could have gone towards far more effective programs such as senolytic development, or other SENS damage repair approaches to aging.<p>Not all NAD+ precursors are the same. The evidence in animal studies suggests that some (such as nicotinamide [2]) do basically nothing. The most effective approaches appear to be infusions, but they are not cheap.<p>Currently nicotinamide riboside is produced by one company in the US, and the retail price reflects that. If you do decide to take it for the long term at the dosage from the studies of 1g/day or so, it is considerably cheaper to order by the kilogram from Chinese manufacturers (plenty of manufacturers on Alibaba) and run the necessary mass spectrometry and other tests per batch to ensure quality (plenty of providers on Science Exchange).<p>While you are taking it, consider that this is small potatoes. It is a tiny effect in the grand scheme of things. Exercise has a larger and more reliable outcome. The research community should be doing better than this (and is in the case of senolytics) and people outside the research community need to become better at telling the difference between marginal and useful approaches to the challenge of aging.<p>[1]: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03421-7" rel="nofollow">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03421-7</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2018.02.001" rel="nofollow">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2018.02.001</a>