← Alla produkter

Basis

Combo · Capsule · 30 portioner#2 / 2 in Combo
6.1
Overall score · out of 10
6.1
Overall score · out of 10
Dose vs. studies6.1
Transparency7.0
Value6.7
Community4.5
Formulation5.0
Tier 2
Product RCT (not peer-reviewed)
Product-specific RCT exists but was not peer-reviewed.
Redaktionellt score, paid $0 No affiliate link Tested by independent lab No public analysintyg Sample received: No
How we scored this product Show the full breakdown
Composite How this 6.1 is built. 0.55 × 6.1 + 0.20 × 7.0 + 0.10 × 6.7 + 0.10 × 4.5 + 0.05 × 5.0 = 6.1 out of 10. Säkerhet caps applied after. 6.1
6.1 composite
Dose vs. studies55%6.1
Transparency20%7.0
Value10%6.7
Community10%4.5
Formulation5%5.0

Bevisning gates dose: the evidence grade sets the ceiling, and the dose decides how much of that ceiling the product reaches. Value = inverse of price-per-trial-dose-day. Community = mean sentiment of external reviews. Säkerhet caps applied after weighting.

This score is our editorial judgment, not a scientific standard. We combine published evidence, dose, price, transparency, and consumer signals into one composite: this is our method, not a peer-reviewed clinical rating. A higher score means a product does better on the factors we weight, not that it is medically proven to work.

Read the full method →

Question 1

Does the molecule work?

The science behind each active ingredient, independent of which brand sells it.

The NAD+ precursor with the strongest safety file and EU approval.

2 landmark RCTs · US: GRAS, NDI accepted · EU: Authorised Novel Food (Commission Reg 2020/16)

Resveratrol's more bioavailable cousin, mostly used in blends.

1 landmark RCT · US: Dietary supplement · EU: Food supplement
Question 2

Is this bottle good?

The specific product: dose, price, transparency, and what buyers report.

Dose vs research
83% av studiedosen
Below the full trial dose
Cost at trial dose
$2.40/day at trial dose
What one effective daily dose actually costs
Transparency
7.0/10 · No public analysintyg
Independent batch testing confirmed
Consumer signals
1 reviews across platforms · 3.8/5 · medium confidence
Operational signal only, never used as clinical evidence
Question 3

What's the catch?

Säkerhet flags, transparency gaps, dosing concerns, and recurring buyer complaints.

No public analysintyg
Certificate of Analysis not published
Without a public analysintyg, batch purity and potency cannot be independently verified.
Buyer complaints
Reddit: Community view: pioneering but out-competed on both price and dose since 2023.
Recurring themes from consumer review platforms.
Redaktionellt verdict

Quick verdict

6.1 / 10
Best for
Basic coverage
Avoid if
Only 83% av studiedosen, No public analysintyg
Full-dose status
83% av studiedosen
Pris/month
$60
COA status
Not public
Biggest caveat
Dose is 83% of the trial dose.
Nearest alternatives

The numbers

Pris
$60
per bottle · 30 portioner
Dose vs. research
Överensstämmer med studier 83%
of published effective dose
$ / day at studied dose
$2.40
what one effective daily dose costs
$ / g active
$6.67
per gram of active substance
Independently checked

Data verification

Pris
$60
Verified n/a
Dose
83% av studiedosen
Verified n/a
COA status
Not public
Verified n/a
Bevisning grade
BD
Per-ingredient breakdown
BNR
DPterostilbene
Verified n/a

All product data is checked against original sources. Prices, doses, and testing status are updated when product pages change. Bevisning grades are reviewed when new human RCTs are published. Read how we verify.

What's inside

Ingredient
Dose in this product
Trial dose
Bevisning
NR
The NAD+ precursor with the strongest safety file and EU approval.
250 mg 83% av studiedosen
300 mg
Pterostilbene
Resveratrol's more bioavailable cousin, mostly used in blends.
50 mg 50% av studiedosen
100 mg
3.6 /5
Medium confidence
Rated on 2 platforms (2 sources, no structured review counts)
Source diversity: 46%
LabdoorReddit
ComplaintsCommunity view: pioneering but out-competed on both price and dose since 2023.
Last checked: 2026-08-07

Consumer signals

3.8 out of 5 across 1 verified reviews on 2 platforms.

Medium confidence

Consumer sentiment compiled from 2 public sources (Labdoor, Reddit).

3.8/5 · mixed sentiment

ThemesLabdoor passed on purity; docked for under-dosing versus 2026 research levels.

Compiled from a Labdoor listing located during manual research; not independently re-verified against the live page at build time. Rating converted from 100-point to 5-point scale.

1 threads discussed · negative sentiment

ComplaintsCommunity view: pioneering but out-competed on both price and dose since 2023.

Compiled from a Reddit r/longevity listing located during manual research; not independently re-verified against the live page at build time.

These are consumer sentiment signals. They do not measure whether the product actually works. See our evidence section for that.

Independent external anchors

Public sources on this same product, unrelated to NO1GEVITY. NIH DSLD is the US government's registered label database (shown verbatim). SuppCo.com is a separate, unaffiliated commercial site with no partnership or data-sharing arrangement with us. NO1GEVITY scores are computed independently of both.

Unaffiliated third-party site
SuppCo.com

SuppCo is a separate, unaffiliated supplement-tracking site with no partnership, data-sharing agreement, or business relationship with NO1GEVITY. We are not endorsed by them and they do not endorse us. The two facts below are individually verified against the manufacturer or NSF; the outbound link is provided only so readers can independently cross-check on a third-party site if they want to.

Tested by independent lab, Yes

What others say, with a source hierarchy

We treat external opinion very differently depending on where it comes from. Tier A is our strongest signal. Tier C is background sentiment only. Tier Rejected is what we excluded, listed openly so you can see what we discarded.

These reviews are aggregated from third-party sources, not written by NO1GEVITY. Each entry shows its source, retrieval date, and whether the source has an affiliate or paid relationship. We do not edit reviews to change their meaning. Disclosure policy.

Tier A

Independent deep reviews, lab tests, certificates of analysis

Our strongest external evidence. Long-form independent reviews, physical-product lab work, and third-party certifications.

ConsumerLab
No affiliate relationship Not a paid placement

ConsumerLab maintains a page covering Elysium, but the substantive test results and ratings sit behind a paid membership wall.

Finding: Not accessible, full report is members-only
How we use it: Classified as Tier A in principle (ConsumerLab is a legitimate independent lab-testing organization), but we could not extract any specific findings; treated as unverified rather than cited as supporting or refuting evidence.
New York Times (general longevity-supplement coverage, not Basis-specific)
No affiliate relationship Not a paid placement

General-category skepticism: longevity supplements as a class lack proof of lifespan extension in humans, and the sector is described as under-regulated.

Finding: No Basis-specific figures; six consulted medical professionals/researchers stated that no supplement has been proven to extend human lifespan in substantial clinical studies
How we use it: Used only as category-level context on the state of longevity-supplement evidence broadly; does not mention Basis or Elysium by name, so it cannot be used as product-specific evidence.
ALSUntangled (No. 42), Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration journal
No affiliate relationship Not a paid placement

An independent academic patient-advocacy group assessed NRPT/Basis specifically for ALS use and concluded they could not recommend it for that condition due to a total absence of preclinical ALS models, case reports, or ALS-patient trials, while corroborating the safety data from the Dellinger trial.

Finding: Confirmed no serious adverse events in the Dellinger 2017 8-week trial; only 'mild diarrhea' reported at the higher (2X) dose; noted a cost of roughly $1/capsule
How we use it: Used to corroborate the short-term safety profile reported in Dellinger 2017 via an independent academic source; explicitly not used as efficacy evidence, since the ALSUntangled review is about ALS treatment potential, not general healthy-aging benefit.
Tier B

Registered dietitians and physicians, without affiliate ties

Credentialed commentary from clinicians who disclose no paid relationship. Useful as supporting critique but not a substitute for a clinical outcome trial.

The Nad Review (comparison/review site)
Has affiliate relationship Not a paid placement

Describes Basis as a legitimate, trial-backed, third-party-certified product but poor value relative to competitors on a cost-per-dose basis.

Finding: Estimated annual cost of roughly $480 to 720/year for Basis versus $240 to 420/year for competing NR produkter
How we use it: Used with disclosure as a Tier B affiliate-model comparison source for relative pricing context only; not used for efficacy claims.
Rejected

Sources we transparently discard

Marketing-quoted press, obviously fabricated aggregate ratings, or heavy-affiliate 'reviews'. Listed openly so you can see what we excluded.

Innerbody (comparison table, not a dedicated teardown)
Has affiliate relationship Not a paid placement

The page is a review of Innerbody's own competing NAD+ supplement, with Basis appearing only in a pricing/dose comparison table, not as an independently tested product.

Finding: Basis listed at roughly $40/pouch, 250 mg NR per portion, ≈$5.33 per gram of active ingredient, the highest cost-per-gram among the NAD-precursor produkter compared
How we use it: Rejected as an independent teardown because Innerbody sells a directly competing product on the same page; the pricing data point is noted only as third-party-sourced context on relative cost, not as an endorsement or independent evaluation of Basis.
Trustpilot
No affiliate relationship Not a paid placement

Very small, inconsistent sample; recent visible feedback centers on subscription billing problems (irregular shipment frequency, difficulty cancelling) rather than product efficacy.

Finding: Review count and rating are inconsistent across snapshots (roughly 6 to 34 reviews; ratings clustering around 2.0 to 3.4/5); one visible juni 2024 review described billing/subscription complaints and raised quality concerns
How we use it: Rejected as Tier B evidence because N is far below the site's N>500 threshold for treating Trustpilot as reliable; referenced only qualitatively, as a data gap, not as a quantitative satisfaction score.

Community threads and aggregate ratings

Additional public mentions we located, kept separate from the deep independent reviews above.

Labdoor · 76
mixed

Labdoor passed on purity; docked for under-dosing versus 2026 research levels.

Read source → Unverified · we received no payment for this listing
Reddit r/longevity
negative

Community view: pioneering but out-competed on both price and dose since 2023.

Read source → Unverified · we received no payment for this listing

Vår sammanfattning

Elysium Basis is an NR + pterostilbene combination supplement (250 mg NR + 50 mg pterostilbene per 2-capsule serving) from a company founded by MIT aging researcher Leonard Guarente, and it is the product behind the most-cited human NAD+ trial in this category, Dellinger et al. 2017, a randomized, dubbelblind, placebokontrollerad study run by an independent CRO on the exact label dose. That trial supports the vendor's headline '40% NAD+ increase' claim, but it was fully funded by Elysium and authored entirely by Elysium employee-shareholders, which caps it at Tier 2 rather than Tier 1, and it measures a biomarker rather than a health outcome. Basis also carries genuine third-party quality backing (NSF Certified for Sport) and survived years of patent and trade-secret litigation with its original ingredient supplier, ChromaDex, though a jury did find Elysium liable for breaching that supply agreement. Buyers should treat the NAD+ increase claim as real but sponsor-generated, and should note that independent, non-sponsor evidence specifically on Basis, from ConsumerLab, Trustpilot, or major consumer-health outlets, is either inaccessible or too thin to corroborate or refute the vendor's claims independently.

Bevisning, what actually backs this product

Longevity brands rarely test their exact finished product. We separate what's tested from what's inferred.

Strongest evidence tier
Tier 2Product RCT (not peer-reviewed)
2 studies mapped
Tier 2Product RCT (not peer-reviewed)
Repeat dose NRPT (nicotinamide riboside and pterostilbene) increases NAD+ levels in humans safely and sustainably: a randomized, dubbelblind, placebokontrollerad study
Dellinger RW, Santos SR, Morris M, Evans M, Alminana D, Guarente L, Marcotulli E · 2017 · npj Aging and Mekanismer of Disease · n=120 · 250 mg NR + 50 mg pterostilbene/day (NRPT 1X, the exact Basis label dose); a second arm tested 500 mg NR + 100 mg pterostilbene/day (NRPT 2X) · 8 weeks treatment + 30-day follow-up
on this exact productpeer-reviewed
The 1X (label-dose) arm raised blood NAD+ by an average of 40% at day 30, sustained through day 60; the 2X arm rose ~90% but partially declined by day 60. No serious adverse events; one possibly-related case of nausea in the 1X group.
This is the exact Basis formulation and exact label dose (250 mg NR + 50 mg PT), randomized, dubbelblind, placebokontrollerad, and run through an independent CRO (KGK Synergize). However, the trial was fully funded by Elysium, all six named authors were Elysium employees and shareholders at the time (disclosed in the paper), and Elysium supplied both the placebo and investigational product. A 2018 correction (npj Aging Mech Dis. 2018;4:8) added missing product-sourcing disclosures. Endpoint measured is a biomarker (blood NAD+), not a clinical/health outcome.
Conflicts: Sponsored and fully funded by Elysium Health; all six authors were Elysium employees and shareholders; sponsor supplied placebo and product.
Tier 4Ingredient RCT (different dose)
Nicotinamide riboside is uniquely and orally bioavailable in mice and humans
Trammell SAJ, Schmidt MS, Weidemann BJ, Redpath P, Jaksch F, Dellinger RW, Li Z, Abel ED, Migaud ME, Brenner C · 2016 · Nature Communications · n=12 · Single oral doses of 100 mg, 300 mg, and 1000 mg NR (no pterostilbene tested), 7-day washout between doses · Single-dose pharmacokinetic study (acute, not chronic)
ingredient-levelpeer-reviewed
NR was shown to be safely and orally bioavailable, producing a dose-dependent rise in the blood NAD+ metabolome; no serious adverse events; NAAD identified as a sensitive biomarker of NAD+ repletion.
This is a foundational NR pharmacokinetics paper, not a Basis-specific study, it tests NR alone (no pterostilbene) at single acute doses (100/300/1000 mg) rather than Basis's chronic 250 mg/day co-formulation with pterostilbene. Two of the authors (Dellinger, Jaksch) later became Elysium/ChromaDex-affiliated. Useful for establishing that NR itself is orally bioavailable and safe, but does not test the finished Basis product.
Conflicts: Two of nine authors (Dellinger, Jaksch) had industry ties (later Elysium/ChromaDex); academic co-authors from University of Iowa and Dartmouth. Funding sources not fully re-verified in this pass.
Bevisning

Research behind this product

The studies that established the trial dose and evidence grade for each active ingredient in this product. Click through to read the original paper.

Claim check, vendor claims vs. our reading of the evidence

Not medical advice. We list the strongest claims made by the brand and check each against traceable evidence.

Supported
“Basis increases and sustains NAD+ levels by 40%”
This figure comes directly from the sponsor-funded Dellinger et al. 2017 trial's 1X (label-dose) arm, which measured a 40% mean NAD+ increase at day 30, sustained to day 60 (evidence_registry, Tier 2). The number is accurately quoted, but it reflects a single sponsor-funded trial measuring a biomarker, not an independently replicated or health-outcome finding.
Partial support
“Clinically proven in a dubbelblind, randomized, placebokontrollerad clinical trial”
The trial design (dubbelblind, randomized, placebokontrollerad, N=120) is accurately described and was run by an independent CRO (KGK Synergize). However, 'clinically proven' overstates what a single, sponsor-funded, employee-authored biomarker trial establishes; no independent replication of the NAD+ result on this exact formulation was found.
Supported
“Developed by Dr. Leonard Guarente, MIT sirtuin/aging researcher”
Guarente is a verifiable MIT biology professor and director of the Paul F. Glenn Center for Biology of Aging Research, and multiple independent outlets (MIT Technology Review, New York Magazine/The Cut, Business Insider) confirm his role as Elysium co-founder and chief scientist.
Supported
“NSF Certified for Sport”
Independently confirmed via a 2018 press announcement and NSF/USADA program documentation (https://www.biospace.com/elysium-health-announces-its-cellular-health-product-basis-is-nsf-certified-for-sport). We could not verify a current specific lot certification in this pass, but the certification program itself is real and third-party administered.
Not supported
“Exclusive rights / patent-backed NR technology (as alleged in prior marketing and litigation context)”
ChromaDex alleged in litigation that Elysium falsely represented exclusive patent rights over NR for anti-aging use; separately, the ChromaDex/Dartmouth NR composition patents (US 8,197,807 and 8,383,086) were ultimately invalidated as unpatentable natural phenomena, a ruling affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2023 (https://fedcircuitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/22-1116-Opinion.pdf). No enforceable exclusive NR patent supports Basis's formulation.

Regelverk status

Rules change often. We record when we last verified each row. See the full regulatory timeline →

What we could not verify

We list this openly. If a claim isn't backed by a source we can trace, we'd rather flag it than repeat it.

  • Elysium has never submitted its own New Dietary Ingredient Notification (NDIN) to the FDA for Basis, NR, or pterostilbene as sold in this product, it relies on ChromaDex's ingredient-level NR GRAS/NDI filings rather than a product-specific FDA submission, per court filings in the SDNY litigation (https://www.sdnyblog.com/files/2022/02/ChromaDex.pdf).
  • ConsumerLab's Elysium/Basis page exists but its full test results and ratings are members-only/paywalled; we could not independently verify ConsumerLab's specific findings on Basis (https://www.consumerlab.com/elysium/).
  • Trustpilot's aggregate rating and review count for elysiumhealth.com could not be pinned to one reliable current figure, different snapshots and third-party trackers report anywhere from 6 to 34 reviews and ratings ranging roughly 2.0 to 3.4 out of 5, well under the N>500 threshold this site requires to treat Trustpilot as Tier B evidence (https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.elysiumhealth.com).
  • No long-term (beyond the ~60-day Dellinger 2017 follow-up window) randomized trial on hard clinical or health-span endpoints (e.g., mortality, disease incidence, physical function) was located for Basis, existing trial data covers only the NAD+ biomarker and short-term safety.
  • Pterostilbene's specific FDA regulatory status (GRAS or NDI) as formulated in Basis was not independently confirmed in this research pass.
  • Innerbody's comparison table places Basis, not a dedicated Innerbody teardown of Basis; the page found during research is primarily a review of Innerbody's own competing NAD+ product, with Basis appearing only as a pricing comparison line item, so no independent Innerbody lab teardown of Basis itself could be verified.
Important to know
NRAlmost all commercial NR uses licensed Niagen® from ChromaDex. If a product doesn't say Niagen, ask why.
PterostilbeneHigh-dose pterostilbene can raise LDL. Keep to <150 mg/day unless working with a clinician.

Redaktionellt notes

The original NR + pterostilbene combo. Under-dosed by 2026 research standards.

In plain language

Why this scored this way

This Elysium Health Basis scores 6.1, making it below the site average. It delivers 250mg of NR (83% of the 300mg trial dose) with grade B evidence (promising human data, not yet comprehensive). At $2.40/day it's among the more expensive options in Combo.

What drives the score up

  • Dose-evidence score of 6.1 shows decent alignment with trial doses.
  • Tested by independent lab (transparency 7.0).

What drags it down

  • No public analysintyg available for independent verification.
  • Limited consumer feedback (community score: 4.5).
  • At $2.40/day it's on the expensive side.

Why you'd choose it

  • You want NR from a Elysium Health product.
  • You want a tested by independent lab product.

Why you might skip it

  • You want a product with a publicly available CoA.
  • You want a cheaper option (this is $2.40/day).
  • You prefer produkter with substantial consumer feedback.
Go deeper

Where this sits

Varumärke owners

Spot an error?

If you are the manufacturer or brand owner of Basis and believe any data on this page is incorrect (wrong dose, wrong ingredient, wrong price, missing certification, outdated status), you can request a correction.

We review every request, verify it against primär sources, and publish any change with a dated note in the version history above. Corrections from brand owners are treated the same as corrections from anyone else: verified before they move.

Request a correction →
Same shelf

Similar produkter

All Combo →

The next highest-scoring produkter in Combo, same scoring method, same rules.

Same maker

Other produkter from Elysium Health

Varumärke profile →