Science-based! For mice or for men?
Not every study is relevant
Every month, more than 130,000+ new scientific publications appear worldwide. It may sound like a lot of knowledge, but not every study has the same value.
The validity of a study depends on several factors, including:
- Study design: Was it conducted on cell cultures, mice or humans
- Sample size: The more participants, the more reliable the result.
- Methodology: Was the statistical work done properly or were there distortions
Studies are rarely black or white. Usually, there are many gray areas, uncertainties and contradictory results. But in marketing, this is not often mentioned. Instead, you read: “New study proves...”, but what exactly has been proven remains unclear.
→Scientific studies: good, bad and how to understand them
The gold standard of clinical studies is the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (RCT). It is expensive, but without patent protection, there is no incentive to finance such studies for food supplements. Instead, only inexpensive preclinical studies on cell cultures or animals are often used, but these are not sufficient for evidence-based decisions. Why we are explaining this.
Marketing loves “study-based”
Unfortunately, many companies use the term “study-based” to make products appear more credible. Dietary supplements in particular like to adorn themselves with this label, even if the study situation provides more questions than answers.
A classic example is NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide). Unfortunately, it is sometimes aggressively touted as a longevity miracle because it increases NAD+ levels, which is supposedly good for your longevity. It sounds promising, but:
- Most studies have only been conducted in mice. Even in these animal experiments, there were no clear advantages for lifespan.
- Human studies are still very limited and also show no clear long-term effects.
- In addition, possible side effects have also hardly been researched.
But unfortunately NMN is being sold as “study-based” even though there is no solid evidence of health benefits.
→NAD+ Deep Dive: A Revolution for Your Longevity Protocol?
Why preclinical studies are not enough
Even if active ingredients show an effect in preclinical studies, this does not necessarily mean that this is also relevant for humans. Why? Because we are not mice! Results from animal experiments or cell studies cannot automatically be transferred to humans.
The fact is: over 90 percent of all drugs that show promise in animal testing fail later in human studies.
The case of resveratrol as a warning
A very questionable study in rodents made headlines worldwide: resveratrol could prolong life. The hype was huge, GlaxoSmithKline invested millions. But neither the renowned ITP program nor Glaxo was able to reproduce the results. In the end, a legal dispute with the scientist ensued. Human studies showed no clear effect, poor bioavailability and possible side effects.
Nevertheless, resveratrol is still marketed as a ‘study-based’ dietary supplement – a prime example of how scientifically refuted claims can be kept alive through clever marketing.
→ Between hype and reality: Resveratrol in longevity research
Do your homework
If you don't want to fall victim to dubious marketing messages, there is only one way: do your own research or rely on trustworthy, independent sources. Yes, it takes some effort, but there is no shortcut.
Use reputable sources of information such as
- Examine.com provides science-based, independent analysis of dietary supplements.
- PubMed (pubmed.gov) is the world's leading biomedical research database. You can search for studies directly there.
- Cochrane Reviews provide systematic reviews that summarize and evaluate multiple studies on a topic.
If you want to make informed decisions, you can't avoid thorough research. Science is not an advertising slogan, but a complex and often lengthy process. Use independent sources, question evidence, and don't be fooled by catchy promises.
Sources: