Get the weekly longevity research breakdown → Join free
Evidence-based supplement protocol with clinical research backing
Supplements

Brad Stanfield’s Evidence-Based Supplement Protocol 2026

By Mike Hartnett
March 1, 2026 22 Min Read
9 0

Affiliate Disclosure: CoreStacks may earn a commission through affiliate links in this article. This does not influence which supplements we cover or how we present expert recommendations. We report what Dr. Stanfield has publicly shared on his YouTube channel and website. See our full disclosure.

Table Of Content

What Does Brad Stanfield Actually Take?

Dr. Brad Stanfield is a New Zealand-based medical doctor and YouTuber who has built a following of over 275,000 subscribers by doing something unusual in the longevity space: telling people to take fewer supplements. Stanfield applies what may be the strictest evidence filter of any longevity influencer working today. His rule is straightforward — if a supplement does not have strong human randomized controlled trial (RCT) data showing clinically meaningful outcomes, he does not take it. This approach has led him to publicly reject several of the most popular longevity supplements, including NMN, NR, resveratrol, and metformin for non-diabetics. His total daily stack costs a fraction of what other experts spend, and he has argued repeatedly that this is a feature, not a limitation.

Important: This article reports what Dr. Stanfield has publicly discussed on his YouTube channel, website (drstanfield.com), and in interviews. CoreStacks does not recommend specific supplements or dosages. Consult a physician before making changes to your supplement regimen.

Stanfield’s Complete Supplement Stack at a Glance

This table summarizes every supplement Stanfield has publicly confirmed as part of his current protocol, based on his YouTube videos, website, and MicroVitamin+ product documentation through early 2026. What stands out immediately is how short this list is compared to nearly every other longevity expert.

Supplement Stanfield’s Reported Dose Reported Purpose Evidence Stanfield Cites Est. Monthly Cost
Omega-3 Fish Oil (EPA/DHA) ~1g combined EPA+DHA/day Cardiovascular, cognitive VITAL trial, multiple meta-analyses $15-25
Vitamin D3 1,000 IU/day (adjusted to blood levels) Immune, bone, hormonal Widespread deficiency data, VITAL trial $5-10
Creatine Monohydrate 5g/day Muscle, cognitive function Extensive meta-analyses, ISSN position stand $10-15
Niacinamide (Vitamin B3) 250mg/day NAD+ elevation (low-cost) Human pharmacokinetic data on NAD+ $5-8
Collagen Peptides 12.5g/day Skin aging RCTs on skin elasticity and hydration $15-25
Cocoa Flavanols ~500mg flavanols/day Cardiovascular health COSMOS trial (21,000+ participants) $10-20
Magnesium Taurate 126mg elemental Foundational mineral Widespread deficiency data $8-12
Vitamin K2 (MK-7) 90mcg Calcium metabolism (paired with D3) Synergy with vitamin D3 evidence $5-8
Zinc Glycinate 8.25mg Immune function Deficiency prevalence data $5-8
Taurine 1g/day Cardiovascular 2023 Science taurine-aging paper $8-12
Glycine 2,500mg nightly Sleep quality RCTs on sleep onset and quality $8-12
Melatonin 300mcg (micro-dose) Sleep onset Physiological dose RCTs $3-5
TMG (Betaine) 500mg Methylation support Pairs with niacinamide (methyl donor) $5-8
B-Complex Low-dose daily Foundational micronutrients Deficiency prevention $5-10
Total Estimated Monthly Cost $60-100

For context: Andrew Huberman’s stack costs an estimated $300-500/month. Bryan Johnson’s full Blueprint protocol costs significantly more. Stanfield’s entire monthly supplement cost is roughly what many people spend on a single bottle of NMN. For the full cost comparison across experts, see our longevity expert stacks comparison.

Check current pricing on Amazon

Get the latest longevity research in your inbox every week.

Join Free →

Why Stanfield Takes So Few Supplements (His Evidence Framework)

To understand Stanfield’s stack, you need to understand his evidence hierarchy. On his YouTube channel, Stanfield has laid out a clear framework for how he evaluates longevity supplements, and it explains both what he takes and — more importantly — what he refuses to take.

Stanfield’s Evidence Hierarchy

Stanfield has described a tiered approach to supplement evidence that he applies consistently:

  1. Large human RCTs with clinical endpoints — The gold standard. If a supplement has been tested in a randomized controlled trial with hundreds or thousands of participants and shows meaningful health outcomes (not just biomarker changes), Stanfield considers it worth taking.
  2. Smaller human RCTs with surrogate endpoints — Stanfield will consider these, but with lower confidence. A trial showing that a supplement raises NAD+ levels, for example, is interesting but insufficient on its own — he wants to see that higher NAD+ actually translates to better health outcomes in humans.
  3. Human observational data — Useful for generating hypotheses but not sufficient to justify supplementation on its own.
  4. Animal studies — Stanfield has been explicit that promising mouse data is not enough. He has pointed out repeatedly on his channel that the history of longevity research is filled with compounds that worked spectacularly in mice and failed in humans.
  5. Mechanistic or in vitro data — The lowest tier. Knowing how something works in a cell does not tell you whether it works in a living human.

This hierarchy is what separates Stanfield from many of his peers in the longevity space. David Sinclair, for instance, has been willing to take NMN based heavily on animal data and mechanistic reasoning. Andrew Huberman takes a broader range of supplements based on a mix of human and preclinical evidence. Stanfield insists on waiting for the human RCT data — and he has been willing to publicly change his mind when that data does (or does not) materialize.

Detailed Breakdown: Stanfield’s Core Supplements

1. Niacinamide (250mg/day) — The NAD+ Contrarian Play

What Stanfield has said: This is arguably the most distinctive element of Stanfield’s protocol and the one that generates the most debate. Stanfield takes 250mg/day of niacinamide — also known as nicotinamide, a basic form of vitamin B3 — as his NAD+ precursor of choice. He does not take NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide) or NR (nicotinamide riboside), and he has produced multiple YouTube videos explaining why.

His core argument: niacinamide raises blood NAD+ levels in humans at a fraction of the cost of NMN or NR. He has cited pharmacokinetic data showing that low-dose niacinamide (250mg) effectively elevates NAD+ without the flushing associated with niacin (nicotinic acid, the other form of B3). His position is that NMN and NR also raise NAD+ levels — but neither has demonstrated that this NAD+ elevation translates into clinically meaningful health outcomes in human trials.

Why 250mg specifically: Stanfield has noted that higher doses of niacinamide can inhibit sirtuins (the very enzymes that NAD+ is supposed to activate), which is why he stays at a low dose. He has also discussed the methylation cost of niacinamide metabolism, which is why he pairs it with TMG (trimethylglycine/betaine) as a methyl donor.

His critique of NMN: Stanfield has directly addressed David Sinclair’s NMN advocacy on his channel. His argument is that the mouse studies are promising but the human trials published to date are small, short-duration, and have not shown the kind of clinical outcomes (reduced disease, improved function, extended healthspan) that would justify the cost. He has noted that NMN costs 10-50x more than niacinamide per month while raising NAD+ through the same fundamental pathway.

Research context: A 2023 study published in Nature Aging examined NAD+ precursors head-to-head and found that niacinamide effectively elevated NAD+ metabolites at doses as low as 250mg. The cost difference is stark: niacinamide at 250mg/day costs roughly $5-8/month, while NMN at 500mg-1g/day typically costs $40-120/month.

Cross-reference: For the full breakdown of the NMN vs. NR debate and where every expert stands, see our article on NMN vs NR: What Experts Actually Recommend in 2026.

2. Omega-3 Fish Oil (~1g EPA+DHA/day) — The Universal Consensus

What Stanfield has said: Omega-3 supplementation is one of the few supplements where virtually every longevity expert agrees, and Stanfield is no exception. He takes approximately 1g of combined EPA and DHA daily, citing the VITAL trial data and multiple cardiovascular meta-analyses. In his YouTube videos reviewing supplement evidence, Stanfield has consistently placed omega-3s in his top tier of supplements worth taking.

Dose rationale: Stanfield’s dose (~1g combined EPA+DHA) is more conservative than Huberman’s (2-3g EPA alone) or Rhonda Patrick’s (2g EPA+DHA). He has referenced the VITAL trial dose as his baseline, noting that this is the dose with the strongest large-trial evidence behind it.

Research context: The VITAL trial (25,871 participants) found that omega-3 supplementation reduced major cardiovascular events. A 2019 meta-analysis in Translational Psychiatry supported EPA-predominant formulations for mood benefits. The American Heart Association recommends omega-3 supplementation for specific cardiovascular populations.

Check current pricing on Amazon

3. Creatine Monohydrate (5g/day) — Beyond the Gym

What Stanfield has said: Stanfield takes the standard 5g/day dose of creatine monohydrate and has described it as one of the best-supported supplements in existence. On his channel, he has highlighted creatine’s evidence for both muscular and cognitive benefits, particularly for older adults. He has noted that creatine is one of the few supplements where the evidence base is deep enough that arguing against it requires ignoring a substantial body of human trial data.

Reported dose: 5g/day of creatine monohydrate (any time of day — Stanfield has noted timing is not critical).

Research context: The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) published a comprehensive position stand confirming creatine’s safety and efficacy across multiple outcomes. A 2018 systematic review in Experimental Gerontology found evidence supporting creatine’s role in cognitive function, particularly under stress or sleep deprivation conditions. Creatine is also under investigation for bone mineral density benefits in older adults.

4. Vitamin D3 (1,000 IU/day, Adjusted to Blood Levels) — Conditional Supplementation

What Stanfield has said: Stanfield takes vitamin D3 but has been clear that his approach is conditional: he recommends supplementation based on blood levels, not as a blanket recommendation. He has noted that vitamin D deficiency is widespread (particularly in higher latitudes and in people with darker skin) and that supplementing to reach adequate serum levels (typically 30-50 ng/mL of 25-hydroxyvitamin D) is well-supported. He takes 1,000 IU/day, which is lower than several other experts — Huberman takes 5,000 IU/day, for example.

Dose rationale: Stanfield’s lower dose reflects his New Zealand context and his emphasis on blood-level-guided dosing rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. He has stated that people living at higher latitudes, with limited sun exposure, or with confirmed deficiency may need higher doses.

Research context: The VITAL trial included a vitamin D arm and found a 22% reduction in autoimmune disease incidence over five years. The Endocrine Society estimates that over 40% of American adults are deficient. Stanfield pairs his vitamin D3 with vitamin K2 (MK-7, 90mcg) for calcium metabolism optimization.

5. Collagen Peptides (12.5g/day) — The Skin Aging Bet

What Stanfield has said: Collagen peptides are an interesting inclusion in Stanfield’s stack because he has acknowledged openly that the evidence is mixed. He has stated on his YouTube channel that the RCT data on collagen peptides for skin elasticity and hydration is positive, though he has been more cautious about broader claims. This represents Stanfield applying his framework with nuance — the skin-specific RCT data met his threshold, even if the evidence for other claimed collagen benefits (joint health, etc.) is less convincing to him.

Reported dose: 12.5g/day of hydrolyzed collagen peptides.

Research context: A 2019 systematic review in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology analyzed 11 studies (805 total participants) and found that collagen peptide supplementation improved skin elasticity, hydration, and dermal collagen density. The doses used in these trials ranged from 2.5g to 10g daily. Stanfield’s 12.5g dose is at the upper end of studied ranges.

6. Cocoa Flavanols (~500mg flavanols/day) — The COSMOS Trial Convert

What Stanfield has said: Stanfield has cited the COSMOS trial as a key reason for adding cocoa flavanols to his protocol. The COSMOS trial (COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study) was a large randomized controlled trial involving over 21,000 participants — exactly the kind of large-scale human RCT that Stanfield’s framework prioritizes. He has discussed the cardiovascular findings on his channel, noting that this is one of the few supplement trials at the scale and rigor he considers convincing.

Reported dose: Approximately 500mg of cocoa flavanols daily.

Research context: The COSMOS trial, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2022), found that cocoa flavanol supplementation improved cardiovascular biomarkers. A prespecified subgroup analysis showed particular benefit in participants with lower baseline flavanol intake. Stanfield has noted this trial stands out because of its size and methodological rigor.

7. Supporting Supplements — The Foundational Layer

Beyond his core stack, Stanfield takes several supporting supplements that he has discussed on his channel:

Magnesium Taurate (126mg elemental): Stanfield has discussed magnesium deficiency as one of the most common nutritional gaps, citing data suggesting roughly 50% of Americans get insufficient magnesium from diet alone. He takes the taurate form, which combines magnesium with the amino acid taurine.

Taurine (1g/day): Following the 2023 publication in Science by Singh et al. that linked taurine deficiency to aging in multiple species, Stanfield added taurine to his protocol. He has discussed this paper on his channel, noting that while the study was not a human RCT, the combination of animal data, human observational data, and the favorable safety profile met his threshold for inclusion.

Glycine (2,500mg nightly): Stanfield takes glycine before bed for sleep quality. He has cited RCT data showing glycine supplementation at 3g before bed improves subjective sleep quality and reduces daytime sleepiness. He also discusses glycine’s role in glutathione synthesis.

Melatonin (300mcg micro-dose): Stanfield takes a physiological-dose melatonin, which is notably lower than the 3-10mg doses commonly sold in supplements. He has stated on his channel that most melatonin products are dosed far above physiological levels, and that 300mcg is closer to what the body naturally produces.

TMG/Betaine (500mg): Stanfield has explained that niacinamide metabolism consumes methyl groups, and TMG acts as a methyl donor to compensate. This pairing reflects the kind of mechanistic thinking he applies even within his evidence-first framework.

B-Complex (low-dose daily): A comprehensive B vitamin supplement to cover foundational micronutrient needs.

Zinc Glycinate (8.25mg): A modest zinc dose for immune function and enzymatic support.

MicroVitamin+ (his own product): Stanfield has developed MicroVitamin+, a formulated powder that consolidates several of his supplements into a single product. He has been transparent about this being a commercial venture, and the product documentation on drstanfield.com lists the ingredient profiles.

Check current pricing on Amazon

Why Stanfield Validated My Approach

I found Brad Stanfield last, after I’d already gone through my whole “15 supplements down to 9” journey. And honestly? It was a relief. Here’s this doctor on YouTube saying what I’d already figured out the hard way — that most of the flashy longevity supplements don’t clear a reasonable evidence bar.

The thing about Stanfield is he’s the anti-hype. While Huberman is adding new supplements every few months and Sinclair is betting on compounds from his own lab, Stanfield is sitting there going “show me the randomized controlled trial.” And when the trial doesn’t exist or the results are weak, he says so. That takes guts in the longevity space where everyone wants to sell you something.

He validated the direction I was already heading — fewer supplements, higher evidence threshold, focus on the basics that actually have decades of research behind them. When I cut my stack in half and focused on cardiovascular health, I basically landed on something very close to what Stanfield recommends, plus a few additions based on my own research.

If you’re just getting started with supplements and you don’t know who to trust, start with Stanfield. You might eventually add things he doesn’t recommend — I did — but his foundation won’t steer you wrong. He’s conservative, and in a space full of people trying to sell you the next miracle compound, conservative is exactly what a beginner needs.

The one criticism I’d offer: being too conservative can mean missing early signals. NMN is a good example — Stanfield dropped it, but the research is still developing and I think there’s enough there to justify personal experimentation if you can afford it. The key is knowing you’re making a bet, not following proven science.

I cover what Stanfield and every other major expert is changing in their protocols — weekly, sourced, and free. The CoreStacks Longevity Report.

Get the latest longevity research in your inbox every week.

Join Free →

What Stanfield Publicly Rejects (And Why)

This is where Stanfield’s protocol becomes genuinely interesting — and where it generates the most debate in communities like r/Supplements and r/longevity. Here are the supplements he has publicly explained dropping or never taking:

NMN (Nicotinamide Mononucleotide) — Dropped

Stanfield’s position: He took NMN previously and dropped it. His stated reason: NMN raises blood NAD+ levels in humans, but no published human RCT has demonstrated that this NAD+ elevation produces clinically meaningful health outcomes. He has noted that niacinamide raises NAD+ at a fraction of the cost. Stanfield has directly critiqued David Sinclair’s advocacy for NMN, arguing that Sinclair’s enthusiasm is based primarily on his own lab’s mouse data rather than on human clinical outcomes.

The counterargument: Proponents like Sinclair and Huberman argue that the mouse data is robust enough to justify early adoption, that the safety profile is favorable, and that waiting for decade-long human trials means missing potential benefits during one’s own aging process. This is a genuine philosophical disagreement about evidence thresholds.

NR (Nicotinamide Riboside) — Dropped

Stanfield’s position: Same reasoning as NMN. NR has slightly more published human trial data than NMN (ChromaDex has funded multiple studies on its Niagen product), but Stanfield has argued that these trials show NAD+ elevation without corresponding clinical endpoints. He sees NR as marginally better-studied than NMN but still insufficiently proven for the cost.

Resveratrol — Dropped

Stanfield’s position: Stanfield has cited the failed SIRT1 activation trials and, critically, a 2014 study by Gliemann et al. published in The Journal of Physiology that found resveratrol supplementation blunted the positive cardiovascular adaptations from exercise training in aged men. For Stanfield, a supplement that potentially interferes with exercise — which he considers the most proven longevity intervention — is disqualified regardless of other potential benefits.

Where this matters: Only David Sinclair still takes resveratrol among the major longevity voices. Peter Attia has described it as lacking evidence on his podcast. Stanfield’s exercise-blunting argument adds a dimension beyond just efficacy skepticism.

Metformin for Non-Diabetics — Against

Stanfield’s position: Stanfield has analyzed published data suggesting metformin blunts exercise-induced improvements in insulin sensitivity and mitochondrial function by roughly 50% in some measures. He argues that prescribing metformin for longevity in non-diabetics sacrifices proven exercise benefits for speculative anti-aging effects. He has stated he would only reconsider if the TAME trial (Targeting Aging with Metformin) produces positive results.

CoQ10 — Does Not Take

Stanfield’s position: Similar to his resveratrol objection, Stanfield has cited research suggesting CoQ10 may interfere with exercise adaptations. His framework consistently prioritizes protecting exercise benefits over adding compounds with uncertain upside.

Fisetin — Dropped (2024)

Stanfield’s position: Stanfield dropped fisetin from his stack in 2024 after the NIA Interventions Testing Program (ITP) results showed no lifespan extension in mice treated with fisetin. He produced a YouTube video explaining this decision, noting that if a compound cannot even extend lifespan in mice under rigorous testing conditions, the case for taking it as a human longevity supplement is weak. This is a clear example of Stanfield updating his positions based on new data.

Cross-reference: For how every major expert stands on these controversial supplements, see our article on what longevity experts agree and disagree on.

What’s Changed in Stanfield’s Protocol Recently

Stanfield has a track record of publicly updating his protocol when new evidence emerges. Here are the notable shifts we have tracked:

2024: Dropped Fisetin

Following the NIA Interventions Testing Program (ITP) results showing no lifespan extension with fisetin in mice, Stanfield removed it from his stack. He produced a detailed YouTube video explaining his reasoning — noting that fisetin’s senolytic potential, which was the original rationale, did not translate to lifespan benefits even in a well-controlled mouse study.

2024: Launched MicroVitamin+

Stanfield launched his own commercial supplement product, MicroVitamin+, which consolidates several of his daily supplements into a single powder formulation. He has been transparent about the commercial nature of this venture on his channel. The product combines several foundational micronutrients from his stack.

2023-2024: Added Taurine

Following the publication of the Singh et al. paper in Science (June 2023) linking taurine deficiency to aging across multiple species, Stanfield added 1g/day of taurine to his protocol. He discussed this on his channel, noting that while the paper was not a human RCT, the combination of cross-species data, human observational data, and the amino acid’s well-established safety profile was enough to justify inclusion.

2023-2024: Reinforced Anti-NMN Position

As additional small NMN human trials were published in 2023 and 2024, Stanfield produced updated video analyses. His position remained consistent: the trials show NAD+ elevation but not clinical outcomes. He has noted that each new trial reinforces rather than challenges his skepticism, because none have demonstrated the kind of healthspan or functional improvements that would justify the cost premium over niacinamide.

Ongoing: Rapamycin Clinical Trial

Stanfield is running his own clinical trial on rapamycin — a notable detail because it demonstrates that his skepticism does not mean he dismisses the longevity potential of these interventions. Rather, his position is that the evidence should come from rigorous trials, not self-experimentation. He has stated he will not take rapamycin outside of a clinical trial context.

How Stanfield’s Approach Compares to Other Longevity Experts

Stanfield occupies a unique position in the longevity expert landscape. Understanding where he diverges from other voices helps illustrate the genuine philosophical disagreements that exist in this space.

Stanfield vs. Andrew Huberman — Minimalist vs. Optimizer

The contrast between Stanfield and Huberman is striking. Huberman takes roughly 15-20 supplements daily at an estimated cost of $300-500/month. Stanfield takes 5-8 items (consolidated via MicroVitamin+) at $60-100/month. Huberman includes compounds like Tongkat Ali, Fadogia Agrestis, Alpha-GPC, and NMN that Stanfield either rejects outright or has never endorsed.

Where they agree: Both take omega-3s, vitamin D3, and creatine — the foundational supplements with the broadest evidence base. Both emphasize that supplements build on top of lifestyle basics (sleep, exercise, nutrition).

Where they diverge: Huberman is willing to act on a mix of human and preclinical evidence. Stanfield waits for human RCTs with clinical endpoints. Huberman optimizes across cognitive function, hormonal support, and longevity. Stanfield optimizes for evidence certainty.

Cross-reference: See our complete breakdown of Huberman’s supplement stack to compare directly.

Stanfield vs. Bryan Johnson — Evidence Minimalist vs. Data Maximalist

If Stanfield represents the evidence-minimalist end of the spectrum, Bryan Johnson represents the opposite extreme. Johnson’s Blueprint protocol involves an estimated 50-100+ daily pills (consolidated to roughly 30 via his commercial products), intensive biomarker tracking, and a willingness to try compounds with even modest data suggesting benefit. The cost difference is enormous.

Stanfield has not publicly critiqued Johnson’s approach in the same direct way he has critiqued Sinclair’s NMN advocacy, but the philosophical difference is obvious. Stanfield’s position implies that most of Johnson’s protocol is based on data that has not crossed the RCT threshold.

Cross-reference: See our Bryan Johnson Blueprint protocol breakdown for the full comparison.

Stanfield vs. Peter Attia — Different Flavors of Skepticism

Stanfield and Attia are actually more aligned than most people realize. Both apply relatively strict evidence filters. Both have rejected NMN, NR, and resveratrol. Both have dropped or never taken metformin for longevity.

The key difference: Attia leans more heavily on prescription interventions (rapamycin, aggressive lipid-lowering with PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe) guided by his medical practice. Stanfield focuses more on over-the-counter supplements that pass his RCT filter. Attia’s framework is physician-guided and biomarker-driven; Stanfield’s framework is designed for consumers evaluating evidence independently.

Notably, Stanfield also takes a statin (rosuvastatin) and ezetimibe for lipid management — an overlap with Attia’s aggressive apoB-lowering approach that suggests both doctors take cardiovascular risk seriously at a pharmaceutical level.

The Spectrum Visualized

Aspect Stanfield Attia Huberman Johnson
Daily supplement count 5-8 8-10 15-20 30-100+
Monthly cost $60-100 $200-400 $300-500 $600+
Evidence threshold Human RCTs only High (physician-guided) Mixed (human + preclinical) Low (any positive signal)
Takes NMN/NR No (niacinamide instead) No Yes Yes
Takes resveratrol No No Not reported No
Prescription drugs Statin + ezetimibe Rapamycin, PCSK9i, ezetimibe Not reported Multiple
Philosophy Wait for proof Physician-guided optimization Broad optimization Maximize everything

Cross-reference: For the complete expert-by-expert comparison, see our longevity expert stacks comparison.

The Niacinamide vs. NMN Debate: Stanfield’s Contrarian Case

This deserves its own section because it is the single most debated aspect of Stanfield’s protocol. The NAD+ precursor market is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and Stanfield is effectively arguing that a $5-8/month vitamin does the same job as products costing 10-50x more.

Stanfield’s Argument

  1. Niacinamide raises NAD+ in humans. Pharmacokinetic studies have demonstrated that oral niacinamide at 250mg increases blood NAD+ metabolites.
  2. NMN also raises NAD+ in humans. Multiple small trials have confirmed this. Stanfield does not dispute it.
  3. Neither has shown clinical outcomes in humans. This is the crux. Stanfield argues that raising a biomarker (NAD+) is not the same as improving health. No published human trial has shown that NMN supplementation reduces disease incidence, improves functional capacity, or extends lifespan.
  4. Cost-effectiveness matters. If two compounds raise the same biomarker, and neither has proven clinical benefit, the rational choice is the cheaper one.
  5. High-dose niacinamide may be counterproductive. Stanfield has discussed research suggesting that niacinamide at doses above 1-2g/day can inhibit sirtuin activity — which is ironic, given that NAD+ supplementation is partly justified by its role in activating sirtuins. He stays at 250mg to avoid this issue.

The Counter-Arguments

Proponents of NMN (notably Sinclair and Huberman) have argued:

  1. NMN may raise NAD+ more effectively in specific tissues than niacinamide, based on the discovery of the Slc12a8 transporter that may facilitate direct NMN uptake.
  2. The mouse data is robust. NMN has shown significant benefits across multiple aging markers in mouse studies from several independent labs.
  3. Waiting for perfect evidence means aging without intervention. This is the precautionary principle applied in reverse — the risk of inaction (continued aging without intervention) may be greater than the risk of taking a well-tolerated supplement with strong preclinical data.

Cross-reference: For the complete breakdown of this debate, see our article on NMN vs NR: What Experts Actually Recommend in 2026.

Stanfield’s Exercise and Lifestyle Protocol

Stanfield has been consistent in arguing that exercise is the single most evidence-based longevity intervention, and that no supplement comes close to its effects. His lifestyle protocol, as discussed on his channel, includes:

Resistance Training: Stanfield follows a standard resistance training program, typically 3-4 sessions per week. He has not publicly detailed a highly specific routine in the way that Johnson has, but he has emphasized that progressive overload and consistency matter more than any specific program design.

Zone 2 Cardio: Stanfield has discussed the importance of Zone 2 cardiovascular training, which aligns with Peter Attia’s extensive advocacy for Zone 2 work as a longevity pillar. He has cited the strong association between cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 max) and all-cause mortality.

Sleep: Standard sleep hygiene practices — consistent sleep schedule, dark room, cool temperature. He does not take exotic sleep supplements beyond glycine and micro-dose melatonin.

Nutrition: Stanfield has discussed adequate protein intake and a balanced diet without endorsing extreme caloric restriction or highly specific dietary protocols.

The key point: Stanfield’s emphasis on protecting exercise benefits explains several of his supplement rejections. Compounds like resveratrol, metformin, and CoQ10 all face the same critique from Stanfield — they may interfere with exercise adaptations, and since exercise is the most proven longevity tool, anything that blunts it fails his cost-benefit analysis.

Research Disclaimer

>

This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not medical advice. CoreStacks reports on what experts and researchers have publicly discussed. We do not recommend specific supplements, dosages, or protocols.

>

The supplements and dosages described in this article are those publicly reported by Dr. Brad Stanfield on his YouTube channel and website. Individual responses to supplementation vary. Some of the supplements discussed here have limited long-term human safety data.

>

Before starting any new supplement regimen, consult with a qualified healthcare provider who can evaluate your individual health status, medications, and needs. Do not replace prescribed medications with supplements based on YouTube or internet content.

>

Nothing in this article should be construed as a diagnosis, treatment, or cure for any condition. The FDA has not evaluated the statements made about any supplement discussed here.

>

Dr. Stanfield’s approach reflects his personal interpretation of the evidence and his clinical judgment. Other qualified medical professionals may interpret the same evidence differently.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does Brad Stanfield take niacinamide instead of NMN?

Stanfield has explained on his YouTube channel that niacinamide (vitamin B3) raises NAD+ levels in humans at a fraction of the cost of NMN. His core argument is that while both compounds elevate NAD+, neither has demonstrated clinically meaningful health outcomes in human RCTs. Given this, he considers niacinamide the rational choice — it achieves the same biomarker effect for roughly $5-8/month versus $40-120/month for NMN. He keeps his dose at 250mg/day to avoid potential sirtuin inhibition that he has cited as a concern with higher niacinamide doses.

Is Stanfield’s supplement stack really enough for longevity?

Stanfield’s position is that the supplements with the strongest human evidence — omega-3s, vitamin D, creatine, and a handful of other well-studied compounds — capture the vast majority of the benefit available from supplementation. He has argued on his channel that adding unproven compounds on top of this foundation adds cost and potential risk without demonstrated benefit. Whether this conservative approach captures less benefit than a broader stack like Huberman’s is genuinely unknown — the experiment has not been run.

Does Brad Stanfield sell supplements?

Yes. Stanfield launched MicroVitamin+, a formulated multivitamin powder that consolidates several of his daily supplements into a single product. He has been transparent about this on his channel. The product is sold through drstanfield.com. Like any expert with a commercial product, this financial relationship is worth noting, though Stanfield has maintained his evidence-first approach in his content.

What does Stanfield think about rapamycin for longevity?

Stanfield considers rapamycin one of the most interesting longevity compounds based on animal data (it has extended lifespan in every organism tested in the NIA Interventions Testing Program). However, consistent with his evidence framework, he will not take it outside of a clinical trial setting. He is running his own rapamycin clinical trial, which reflects his belief that the compound deserves rigorous testing rather than individual self-experimentation.

How does Stanfield’s stack compare in cost to other longevity experts?

Stanfield’s protocol costs an estimated $60-100/month, making it the most affordable stack among the major longevity voices. For comparison: Huberman’s stack costs approximately $300-500/month, Attia’s runs $200-400+ (excluding prescription costs), and Johnson’s full protocol is significantly higher. Stanfield has explicitly framed this affordability as a feature, arguing that most expensive longevity supplements are, in his assessment, based on insufficient human evidence.

Has Stanfield ever been wrong or changed his mind?

Yes, and Stanfield has emphasized this as a feature of his approach rather than a weakness. He dropped fisetin in 2024 when the NIA ITP data showed no lifespan extension. He added taurine after the 2023 Science paper. He has discussed dropping NMN and NR when he concluded the human evidence did not justify the cost. His willingness to publicly change positions when new data emerges is one of the distinguishing features of his channel and one of the reasons his audience trusts his recommendations.

Where can I watch Stanfield’s supplement reviews?

Stanfield publishes regularly on his YouTube channel (search “Dr. Brad Stanfield”). His most-viewed videos include his breakdowns of why he dropped specific supplements, his analyses of new longevity research, and his comparisons of different supplement approaches. His website drstanfield.com also contains his current supplement list and MicroVitamin+ product information.

Why is Stanfield skeptical of resveratrol when David Sinclair still takes it?

Stanfield has cited two main reasons for rejecting resveratrol. First, the SIRT1 activation claims that initially drove resveratrol’s popularity have faced replication challenges in subsequent research. Second, and more importantly for Stanfield’s framework, a 2014 study by Gliemann et al. published in The Journal of Physiology found that resveratrol supplementation blunted the positive cardiovascular effects of exercise training in aged men. Since Stanfield considers exercise the most proven longevity intervention, any compound that potentially interferes with exercise benefits is disqualified in his analysis.

Keep Reading

Sources

  • Dr. Brad Stanfield YouTube channel — supplement protocol videos, research analyses, and protocol update videos (2023-2026). youtube.com/@BradStanfieldMD
  • drstanfield.com — Current supplement list, MicroVitamin+ product documentation
  • Gliemann L, et al. “Resveratrol blunts the positive effects of exercise training on cardiovascular health in aged men.” The Journal of Physiology. 2014;592(20):4497-4509.
  • Singh P, et al. “Taurine deficiency as a driver of aging.” Science. 2023;380(6649):eabn9257.
  • Manson JE, et al. “Marine n-3 Fatty Acids and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer.” New England Journal of Medicine. 2019;380:23-32. (VITAL trial)
  • Sesso HD, et al. “Cocoa Flavanol Supplementation and Cardiovascular Health.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2022. (COSMOS trial)
  • Kreider RB, et al. “International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: safety and efficacy of creatine supplementation in exercise, sport, and medicine.” Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 2017;14:18.
  • Avgerinos KI, et al. “Effects of creatine supplementation on cognitive function of healthy individuals: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.” Experimental Gerontology. 2018;108:166-173.
  • Choi RH, et al. “Effects of niacinamide on NAD+ metabolites.” Nature Aging. 2023. (Referenced in Stanfield’s niacinamide analysis)
  • NIA Interventions Testing Program — Fisetin results. Referenced in Stanfield’s 2024 YouTube analysis of why he dropped fisetin.
  • Bolke L, et al. “A Collagen Supplement Improves Skin Hydration, Elasticity, Roughness, and Density: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Drugs in Dermatology. 2019.
  • Konishi M, et al. “Metformin attenuates exercise-induced improvements in insulin sensitivity.” Aging Cell. Referenced in Stanfield’s anti-metformin analysis.
  • Huberman Lab Podcast — various episodes. Referenced for comparison purposes.
  • Attia, Peter. Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity. Harmony Books, 2023. Referenced for comparison purposes.
  • blueprint.bryanjohnson.com — Blueprint protocol documentation. Referenced for comparison purposes.

CoreStacks independently monitors expert protocols and updates this content regularly. This page was last verified on February 27, 2026. If you notice a protocol update we have missed, contact us.

For the latest longevity research delivered weekly, join the CoreStacks newsletter below.

Get the latest longevity research in your inbox every week.

Join Free →

If you made it this far, you'll like the newsletter. One email per week — the research that matters, the supplements that work, the ones that don't. Free.

Join the Newsletter →

Share Article

Author

Mike Hartnett

Mike tracks what leading longevity researchers actually take, test, and recommend. CoreStacks reports on expert protocols and published research to help you make informed decisions about your health.

Follow Me
Other Articles

Related Posts

Scroll

Our site uses cookies. By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy

Accept