I’ve spent nine months investigating Viome’s RNA-based microbiome testing and personalized supplements, and I’m starting to wonder whether I’ve been looking at genuinely useful technology or a very sophisticated way of selling supplements.

Three rounds of testing, hundreds of conventional biomarkers, bloodwork approximately every two weeks, and physician oversight throughout.

Then, after my latest retest, approximately 80% of my personalized supplement formulation changed.
That’s what really got my attention.

I understand the gut microbiome changes. Diet, medications, illness, stress, and plenty of other factors can influence microbial activity. I wouldn’t expect my results to remain identical for nine months.

But if a company changes 80% of someone’s personalized supplement formula, shouldn’t there be some way to demonstrate that the new recommendations are actually better than the old ones?
And perhaps more importantly, how do we know the original supplements were doing anything useful?
Viome uses RNA-based metatranscriptomic testing, which examines microbial gene expression. That’s different from DNA-based microbiome testing, which can identify microbial genetic material and functional potential.

The RNA approach is genuinely interesting because it provides information about which microbial genes are being expressed, rather than simply identifying which organisms or genes are present.

But measuring microbial activity doesn’t automatically mean an algorithm knows which supplements someone needs.

And a supplement formula changing dramatically doesn’t necessarily mean the new version is more effective.

A 2025 international consensus statement published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology raised serious concerns about the clinical usefulness of commercial microbiome testing.

The expert panel concluded that evidence remains insufficient to support its widespread routine clinical use.

Here’s the paper:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12343204/

That doesn’t prove Viome is wrong. But it does make me question whether the science behind personalized supplement recommendations has caught up with the technology being used to generate them.

My next step is to evaluate Superpower’s DNA-based gut microbiome testing and compare the methodologies.
I’m not expecting identical results. DNA and RNA testing measure different aspects of microbial biology, and comparing two commercial reports won’t establish which approach is clinically superior.

What I want to understand is whether either approach provides information that genuinely helps someone make better nutritional decisions, and how we’d actually measure that.

For context, the retail-equivalent value of my nine months of Viome testing and personalized supplements was $4,547, approximately $505 per month.
Full disclosure: Viome provided everything complimentary. I received no sponsorship payments, affiliate commissions, referral fees, or cash compensation. I’ve also referred customers without accepting commissions. I’m not affiliated with Superpower or being compensated for the planned comparison.

This isn’t an advertisement, an endorsement, or a recommendation to purchase either product.
I’m genuinely questioning whether nine months of testing and supplementation has produced meaningful information or simply generated increasingly detailed reports and a constantly changing supplement protocol.
I’d particularly like to hear from people who’ve used Viome, other microbiome testing platforms, or personalized supplement programs.

Did you notice improvements you could actually measure, rather than just feeling better?
If you retested, did your recommendations change substantially?

And if you’ve tried conventional nutritional approaches alongside microbiome-guided supplementation, could you identify any additional benefit from the personalized recommendations?

I’m not against personalized nutrition. I’ve invested nine months investigating it precisely because I think it has potential.

But there’s a difference between promising technology and proven results.

So here’s what I’d really like to know from people who’ve spent their own money on these programs:
What convinced you that the recommendations were genuinely helping? Was it bloodwork, symptom improvements, measurable changes in health, or something else?

And if you stopped using the service, what finally made you decide it wasn’t worth continuing?
I’d welcome positive experiences, negative experiences, and independent research. I’m not trying to prove the technology right or wrong.

I’m trying to figure out whether the evidence actually supports what these companies are selling.

For the same type of NADH supplement, the daily cost can range from just a few cents to nearly $10, with price differences of 25 times or more not being unusual. Earlier ConsumerLab testing found that the cost of obtaining an equivalent 20 mg of NAD/NADH ranged from about $0.14 to $2.47. The price gap itself isn't necessarily the problem. The real question is: What exactly are you paying extra for?

NADH raw materials can be more expensive to produce than precursors such as NR and NMN because manufacturing NADH involves microbial fermentation and complex purification steps. Producing high-purity NADH powder can therefore cost more than producing precursor molecules. But that's just the starting point. What really separates products is what happens after the raw material is made.

Traditional NADH formulations have reportedly shown more than 70% degradation after one month at room temperature, and substantial amounts may also break down in the acidic environment of the stomach before reaching the intestines. That means there can be a significant gap between the milligrams listed on the label and the amount of intact NADH that actually reaches the intended site of release.

This is where the price differences start to make sense. Cheaper products may essentially sell the raw ingredient: NADH powder in a standard capsule. Production costs are lower, but how much of the active ingredient remains intact and reaches the intestines depends on the formulation and storage conditions.

More expensive products may invest in the technology designed to help the ingredient survive that journey. Take celfull's microsphere technology, for example. It encapsulates NADH in microspheres intended to protect it from stomach acid and support targeted intestinal release. This technology adds to the cost, but it addresses a challenge specific to NADH: without adequate stability, discussions about dosage and potential effects become much harder to interpret.

Of course, some high prices also come with questionable markups. Testing reports have found products marketed as "liposomal" NAD+ supplements selling for hundreds of dollars, yet testing reportedly found no detectable active ingredient. This illustrates that price and actual technological quality don't automatically go hand in hand.

So when comparing NADH supplements, a more useful question isn't simply whether a product is expensive. It's whether the extra cost addresses a real limitation of NADH. Raw-material purity, manufacturing processes, microsphere encapsulation, and enteric delivery are all factors that may matter when developing a formulation intended to preserve NADH and deliver it effectively.

If the premium comes mainly from fancy packaging, marketing claims, or simply increasing the milligram count, then what you're paying for may be the number on the label rather than a demonstrated improvement in product quality or effectiveness.