- Many supplements claim "clinically proven" without trials on their exact formulas
- Certifications vary; independent testing like NSF holds higher reliability than basic approvals
- Misinformation may cause skepticism, hindering trust in evidence-based nutrition and treatments
A patient in her early forties visited me recently. She was health-conscious and always checked labels and did her research. For eight months, she had been taking a collagen supplement that looked trustworthy, with a polished website, positive reviews, and a big 'clinically proven' label. She asked why she wasn't seeing any results. When I asked her to show me the studies the brand mentioned, we reviewed them together. All the studies were done on pharmaceutical-grade collagen peptides at much higher doses than her supplement had. The product itself had never been tested.
She was not naive. She just trusted the brand's marketing, which was designed to influence her choices.
The Gap Nobody Tells You About
From what I see with my patients, there is a common misunderstanding that the wellness industry encourages through its marketing. Many people do not realize there is a big difference between an ingredient that has research behind it and a product that has actually been tested. Most supplement companies take advantage of this confusion.
PubMed, the world's largest database of medical research, is open to everyone, including marketing teams. A brand might make a sleep supplement with ashwagandha, find three solid studies on ashwagandha's effect on cortisol, link to them on their website, and call the product 'research-backed.' The studies are real, and ashwagandha has been studied. But the brand does not mention that their exact product, at their dose and in their formula, has never been tested. The science supports the ingredient, not the product itself.
This difference matters for real reasons. Many studies use pharmaceutical-grade extracts at doses that are much higher than what you find in store-bought supplements. Mixing five ingredients together can act very differently in the body compared to studying just one on its own. A study done on older patients with a deficiency does not tell you much about a healthy person in their thirties taking a daily supplement. All this important context is lost between the research and the product's marketing.
Why the Language Gets Away With It
I see this all the time in my clinic. Patients show me product pages on their phones with labels like 'science-backed,' 'clinically proven,' and 'research-supported.' In India, these terms do not have a set legal meaning, so brands have a lot of freedom. 'Clinically proven' should mean a randomised controlled trial was done on that exact product, at the right dose, in real people, and published in a journal. But in reality, it often just means someone found a study on a similar ingredient and put a badge on the website.
A young man in his late twenties came to see me after spending nearly Rs 15,000 over six months on a 'testosterone support' supplement. Each ingredient had some research behind it, but the product itself did not. When my patient asked the brand's customer service for clinical trial data on their formula, they only sent links to studies on ashwagandha, zinc, and shilajit as separate ingredients. That was all.
What Actually Holds Weight
Before buying any supplement, it helps to ask a few questions. Does the brand link to studies on the actual product or just on the ingredients? Is the dose in the product similar to what the research used? Were the studies done on people, or only on animals or cells? Has a third party independently tested the product?
When it comes to certifications, it is important to know what each one means. FSSAI approval is just the legal minimum for supplements in India, so when a brand shows it off, they are only showing they meet basic rules, not high standards. US FDA compliance is often seen on Indian products, but the FDA does not approve dietary supplements like it does medicines; it only checks that they are not clearly unsafe. The EU's EFSA rules are much stricter, and products that pass EFSA's Novel Food checks or meet EU GMP standards are held to a higher bar. Certifications from groups like NSF International or Informed Sport matter more because they are independent and require regular testing. If a brand hides its formula behind a 'proprietary blend,' it could be making real verification a lot harder than needed.
The Larger Stakes
What worries me most is not the money people spend but what happens next. After months of using something that does not work, people often become more skeptical about nutrition and evidence-based supplements in general. They may think nothing works when, really, it was just one product with misleading marketing. This kind of skepticism can have real effects in the clinic. It makes it much harder to help people when a proven treatment could actually benefit them.
Clearly, questioning what you hear about a product does not make you difficult or distrustful. It makes you an informed patient. An industry that speaks the language of science without always holding itself to scientific standards is counting on you not to ask. Ask anyway.
(By Dr. Akshat Chadha, General Physician and Lifestyle Medicine Specialist, Hope & Care, Navi Mumbai)
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. NDTV is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.
