Marketing language is written to sound like evidence. Here are the claims you will meet most often, what usually sits behind them, and the one question that tells you which is which.
Words like sirtuins, AMPK, mTOR, autophagy or NAD+ describe a mechanism — something that happened in cells. A mechanism is a reason to run a trial, not a result.
Ask: Did anything happen to people’s health, or only inside cells?
Where ClinEvident shows it: Human Outcome dimension →Almost always a study in yeast, worms, flies or mice. Most findings in animals do not carry over to people, and no supplement has been shown to extend human lifespan.
Ask: Which species was it?
Where ClinEvident shows it: Signal Source dimension →A biomarker moved — a number in a blood test. Many biomarkers can be changed without any change in how long or how well people live.
Ask: Did the trial measure a health outcome, or only a lab value?
Where ClinEvident shows it: Biomarker Relevance dimension →Someone ran a trial on the ingredient — often at a different dose, form or duration — not on this product. The phrase also says nothing about what the trial found.
Ask: Same molecule, same form, same dose as the trial? And was the result positive?
Where ClinEvident shows it: Knowledge: dose and form →Usually relative risk. Going from 2 in 100 people to 1 in 100 is a 50% relative reduction but only a 1-point absolute difference.
Ask: Out of 100 people, how many fewer had the outcome?
Where ClinEvident shows it: Trial details on each profile →Often a single trial — small, short, not yet repeated, or paid for by the company that sells the product. One study is a starting point.
Ask: How many independent trials agree, and how many people were in them?
Where ClinEvident shows it: Evidence depth marker →US labels may list a blend’s total weight without the amount of each ingredient, so the dose of any one ingredient cannot be checked against the trials.
Ask: How much of each ingredient is in a daily serving?
Where ClinEvident shows it: Knowledge: units and dose →A “structure/function” claim. In the US a supplement can make it without FDA review, which is why it carries an asterisk and the line “This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.” The vagueness is deliberate: it claims no measurable effect.
Ask: What specific, measurable effect is being claimed?
Where ClinEvident shows it: Coverage: marketing claims with no trial →A patent protects an invention; it says nothing about whether it works. A credential is not evidence either.
Ask: Setting the patent and the credentials aside, what do the trials show?
Where ClinEvident shows it: How grades are built →A stack whose parts were each studied alone, if at all. Whether the combination does more than its parts — or less — is a separate question that is rarely tested.
Ask: Was the combination itself tested?
Where ClinEvident shows it: Combinations →Then look the ingredient up. Every ClinEvident profile answers these five questions for the molecule, and our grade tells you how strong the published evidence is — not whether something is right for you. That is a conversation for you and your clinician.
Many ingredient trials are run in Japan, China and South Korea and registered in national databases rather than ClinicalTrials.gov. The registry used says nothing about a study’s quality; it just tells you where to look.
How ClinEvident uses this evidence: ClinEvident gives evidentiary weight only to published human study results. Trial details come from the published papers themselves. Some registries, including the WHO platform, restrict use of their data for commercial purposes, so we point you to them to review records directly. ClinEvident is not affiliated with or endorsed by WHO or any registry.
We describe common marketing tactics, not particular brands or products. ClinEvident takes no sponsorship and no payment for placement.
This page describes how to evaluate evidence. It is not medical advice. ClinEvident grades are opinions based on its published methodology and the studies it cites.