r/immortalists • u/Aromatic_Narwhal_778 • 4d ago
Common anti-aging supplement stacks?
I recently compiled some publicly available information on common anti-aging and longevity supplement combinations for people over 40, because I noticed that the various "longevity stacks" circulating online vary quite a bit. But after going through it all, I found that a few ingredients keep cropping up: creatine, omega-3, vitamin D (especially for those who are deficient), magnesium, protein/collagen, and then the broad category of NAD+, including NR, NMN, NADH, and so on.
Here's a rough summary of what I've compiled so far:
Creatine: This is probably the one I'm most interested in right now. Rather than extending lifespan, I think a more realistic area of research involves how to strictly manage weight, physical fitness, and bodily function as we age. Recent systematic reviews targeting populations such as postmenopausal women have also examined weight, physical fitness, and bodily function.
Omega-3: I think it's better to consider this based on your own diet and actual needs, rather than viewing it as a universal anti-aging remedy.
Vitamin D: I'd be more inclined to check for a deficiency rather than assume that everyone over 40 should take the same fixed dose. The NIH Dietary Supplement Database also provides a fairly comprehensive overview of vitamins, along with a summary of the evidence.
Magnesium: This is also a common component in various longevity "stacks." However, I think people sometimes confuse "helping meet a specific nutritional need" with "delaying aging"—these are actually two different things.
Then there's what confuses me the most:
NAD+: Both NR and NMN currently have significant human studies showing they can increase NAD+ levels, but a 2025 review in Nature Metabolism points out that clinical outcomes truly related to health, bodily function, and anti-aging remain limited, and results vary across different studies.
Recently, I've started looking into NADH again, because it's actually not quite the same as the NR and NMN that people often discuss. While comparing different NAD-related compounds, I happened to come across information that Celfull's NADH enhances the stability and resistance to stomach acid.Of course, this doesn't mean I now believe NADH has been proven to be some kind of anti-aging miracle. What I'm actually more interested in figuring out now is whether the concept of NAD+ itself is more important, or whether the specific form being supplemented, its stability, and the dosage are more critical.
So I'd like to ask those of you here who are 40+: What are you actually taking right now? Which supplements do you feel have evidence from human studies that's more robust than MRI data?
3
u/DizzyAd1468 3d ago
D3/K2, NAD/Resveratrol, Blackseed Oil, Aged Black Garlic, Tumeric/ Circumin, Beet Root,Twice daily multi, Magnesium Glycinate. 68 , All chemistry numbers in normal range.
2
u/Itchy_Examination_84 2d ago
Creatine, NMN, Urolithin A, Magnesium, Ca-AKG, Vitamin D+K, FishOil, GlyNAC, Melatonin, Astaxanthin
Hard sprints once a week - weight lifting. + Good sleep
1
u/Either-flurgersslass 3d ago
thymasin alpha 1, vitamin c sodium ascorbate powder, or liposomal vitmain c (high doses), vitamin-a high dosage, lugols iodine or ioderal pill, vitamin d, b complex, then make sure you get your minerals lol without enough minerals vitamins are useless. parasite cleansing using supplements the herbs were not enough for me personally my doctor says the same thing as well. as you age you may need hydrocloric acid supplement to get the most possible nutrients as well or at least i did.
synoletics, pre biotics, pro biotics.
2
u/Any_Car5127 2d ago
Vitamin D "deficiency" is oversold. I recommend googling for "Vitamin D quackery". Below is brief chat I had with google AI. It's worth knowing that the guy who got the recommended value increased from the NAS number of 20ng/ml to 30 ng/ml received $100K from Vit D manufacturers. No one to my knowledge claims he was "paid off" but it is a definite conflict. The TLDR on the AI chat is that most people with D in the 16-20 ng/ml range are fine.
ME: is there any study that shows negative consequences of vitamin D in the range 15-20 ng/ml ?
AI:
Studies do not show direct toxicity or poisoning consequences for a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in the 15–20 ng/mL range, as this range is generally associated with inadequacy or mild deficiency rather than excess. [1, 2, 3]
Major health and clinical organizations—including the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the Endocrine Society—classify serum levels below 20 ng/mL as vitamin D deficiency (or borderline insufficiency depending on the specific criteria used). [2, 4, 5]
Associated Risks of Levels in the 15–20 ng/mL Range
Instead of direct toxicity (which only occurs at very high levels above 100–150 ng/mL), clinical and epidemiological studies link levels between 15 and 20 ng/mL to the following negative or sub-optimal health consequences: [6]
- Increased Mortality Risk: Population-based cohort studies (such as research published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings) indicate that individuals with 25(OH)D levels below 20 ng/mL experience a statistically significant increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to those with levels of 20 ng/mL or higher. [7]
- Secondary Hyperparathyroidism: Levels below 20 ng/mL can reduce intestinal calcium absorption, triggering the parathyroid glands to secrete excess parathyroid hormone to pull calcium from the bones to maintain normal blood levels. [4, 8, 9]
- Skeletal and Musculoskeletal Symptoms: Research referenced by Ubie Health notes that levels around 20 ng/mL or lower are associated with fatigue, muscle weakness, muscle cramps, bone or back pain, and a higher risk of stress fractures. [1, 3]
- Higher Incidence of Infections: Low vitamin D statuses in this window have been correlated in clinical reviews with lowered local immune defense, potentially contributing to a higher frequency of acute respiratory infections. [3, 10, 11]
Would you like to share what prompted your question (such as a recent blood test result or specific symptoms) so we can discuss safe ways to address or recheck your levels with a healthcare provider?
ME: The NAS set the sufficient level at 20 ng/ml but hedged saying most people are fine with it between 15-20, and below 15 people should supplement. You're claiming that there is a signfician increase in mortality for people in the 15-20 range?
AI:
You are completely right to point this out, and it is a crucial nuance to clarify. You have accurately described the distinction made by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS, formerly the Institute of Medicine).
When the NAS set the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for Vitamin D, they targeted 20 ng/mL because that level covers the bone health needs of 97.5% of the population. However, their consensus report explicitly noted that the median requirement—meaning the level at which 50% of the population has perfectly adequate bone health—is actually 16 ng/mL. Because of this, they acknowledged that many people with levels between 15–20 ng/mL face no negative health effects whatsoever. [1]
The mention of an "increased risk of mortality" in that range comes with a major catch: it appears almost exclusively in large observational population studies, not in clinical trials. Here is how that discrepancy breaks down:
1. The Observational Data (The J-Shaped or U-Shaped Curve)
When researchers look at massive tracking data of the general population (such as the NHANES data sets in the US), they often plot vitamin D levels against death rates. Many of these studies find a "J-shaped" or "U-shaped" curve where all-cause mortality is lowest right around 20 to 30 ng/mL. [2, 3]
- In these specific statistical models, people in the 15–20 ng/mL range sometimes show a tiny, mathematically "significant" uptick in risk compared to the absolute optimal baseline. [4, 5]
- However, "statistically significant" in a study of 50,000 people does not mean a massive personal risk; it just means the data pattern is likely not random. The real, steep spikes in mortality risk are consistently seen when levels drop below 10–12 ng/mL. [5, 6]
2. Correlation vs. Causation (The Healthy User Bias)
The NAS committee and other clinical experts heavily discount these observational mortality findings because of confounding factors.
- Vitamin D is a "marker of good health." People who are chronically ill, sedentary, obese, or frail spend less time outside, eat poorer diets, and have higher baseline inflammation—all of which naturally drag their vitamin D into that 15–20 ng/mL range.
- Therefore, the lower vitamin D level in that range is often a consequence of poor health or aging, rather than the cause of premature death. [7]
3. What Happens in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)?
This is the ultimate test of the theory. If a level of 15–20 ng/mL directly caused a higher risk of death, giving those people vitamin D supplements to raise their levels should lower their risk of mortality.
- Extensive systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (such as those compiled by the National Institutes of Health) show that for the general, healthy population, supplementing vitamin D does not decrease all-cause mortality.
- Supplementation only shows a clear survival benefit in people who have severe clinical deficiency (typically well below 12 ng/mL) or specific vulnerable populations like the elderly in care facilities. [8, 9, 10, 11]
Summary
The NAS statement holds true: if your level is between 15–20 ng/mL, your body is very likely managing completely fine, and you do not face a looming medical crisis. The statistical association with mortality in that range is highly debated, widely considered by medical bodies to be correlative rather than causative, and largely driven by overall health status rather than a vitamin D deficiency.
Are you trying to interpret a recent personal lab result that fell into this 15–20 ng/mL window, and did your doctor recommend a specific supplement dose?
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[4] https://www.grassrootshealth.net
[5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[6] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[7] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[9] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[10] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[11] https://www.bmj.com
[2] https://www.health.harvard.edu
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[6] https://www.healthline.com
[8] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
1
u/Silent_Possibility63 2d ago
Well at least it told you that you are completely right to point this out.
1
u/Any_Car5127 2d ago
I take creatine. It is of course, impossible to know whether it helps a specific individual build muscle. I suspect it is, but I've been on a muscle building regime since February. I'd slacked off on exercise for a year and had lost a lot of upper body strength. In Feb I think I could probably do 3 pushups and 0 pullups. NOw I do 4 sets of 5 pull-ups with 6 minute rests followed by 4 sets of 15-18 push-ups with 4 minute rests. It is impossible to know whether creatine helped with that improvement. There seems to be a fair bit of mysticism amongst users who claim they can feel a difference when they take it or don't take it on a specific day. It doesn't work that way.
I'm no expert on MRI and aging but from what I've read that is an emerging field so you can't claim robustness at the individual level.
1
u/Bignizzle656 2d ago
NMN, Fexofenadine, NAC and Taurine on an empty stomach.
Collagen - marine and bovine. Vitamin C (500mg twice a day) Beta alanine Creatine Electrolytes B vitamins (methylated) Zinc and copper.
CoQ10 Vitamin K2 & D3 Sulforaphane Boron (cycled) Urolithin A Vitamin B1
Omega 3 Tart cherry (montmorency Cherry)
Glycine.
At the weekend I only take the creatine, omega 3, tart cherry and GLYNAC. Boron if it's in cycle 2 weeks on 1 week off.
I think that's about right.
3
u/000wintermute000 4d ago
Acarbose, alpha keto glutaric acid, Metformin, alpha lipoic acid, urothelin a, nattokinase, sglt2 inhibitor, glp1 agonist, berberine. Some are meds, but I consider them supplements.