- Browse Businesses
- Guides
- Beauty & Fashion
- Consumer Tips
- Write a Review
- For Business
- Request a Review
- Discussions
- Backed by the National Science Foundation
- Sign up
- Log in
Supplement Clarity has a rating of 3.4 stars from 5 reviews, indicating that most customers are generally satisfied with their purchases. Supplement Clarity ranks 199th among Vitamins & Supplements sites.
Teaching nutrition at several colleges & universities, I field many questions on the topic of supplements. I routinely refer my students to Supplement-Geek. I've even included this site in an assignment where by my students survey a range of opinions from industry experts. I'm puzzled by the review submitted by Bernard, and would ask him a few questions: - If Joe's experience and credentials constitute "limited" Knowledge, giving him "just enough to be dangerous," What are Your standards of academic and industry Success in order to be considered credible? - What are your credentials? - Speaking so much about "science," can you support Your claims with One piece of evidence to show that Supplement-Geek sand bagged a review for a payoff? I won't hold my breath on those. What I will do is continue to refer my students, family and friends to Supplement-Geek, which is great source of unbiased information from a true professional. James Menz, MS, CSCS
I received a response about my earlier comments about Supplement Clarity from Joe C. Who seems to be the owner. He suggested that I take a look at his site to see how objective his reviews are. I did. I read his review/comparison of Viviscal vs. Nutrafol, two products that claim to regrow lost hair. I stand by my original comments. Anyone who encourages use of either of these is a snake oil salesman. They can likely get you a good deal on buying the Brooklyn Bridge! Earlier comments: While I would like to think that there are sites such as these, the probability is slim to none. Reviews are opinions and as such are inherently biased, it's human nature. The scientific studies they refer to are most likely not scientific. Why, because scientific studies are very expensive. They require fairly large, carefully selected populations ( age, race, gender etc) and are double-blind. I. e. Two groups, neither of which know if they are the group that is taking a placebo. They take place over time and generate largely quantitative rather than anecdotal results. The results are published in reputable scientific journals and the study/testing results must also be repeatable. Scientists only do studies that are about significant issues that are funded and will improve their reputations thus garnering more grants for more research. Unfortunately, nutritional supplements do not fall into the significant category. Compare it to Alzheimers. Who will fund the initial study, and, who is going to repeat the study? That is not to say that some people believe they have benefitted from a particular supplement or vitamin, it just means that these are opinions not measurable proof. Lastly, if Supplement Clarity sells nothing, how do they earn enough money to maintain their site and pay salaries? One has to wonder, if their links to purchase the reviewed products isn't some how connected to a "commission" And don't forget, even good 'ol Doctor Oz has been caught fibbing see "Last Week Tonight" with John Oliver.
I received a response about my earlier comments about Supplement Clarity from Joe C. Who seems to be the owner. He suggested that I take a look at his site to see how objective his reviews are. I did. I read his review/comparison of Viviscal vs. Nutrafol, two products that claim to regrow lost hair. I stand by my original comments. Anyone who encourages use of either of these is a snake oil salesman. They can likely get you a good deal on buying the Brooklyn Bridge!
Earlier comments:
While I would like to think that there are sites such as these, the probability is slim to none. Reviews are opinions and as such are inherently biased, it's human nature. The scientific studies they refer to are most likely not scientific. Why, because scientific studies are very expensive. They require fairly large, carefully selected populations ( age, race, gender etc) and are double-blind. I. e. Two groups, neither of which know if they are the group that is taking a placebo. They take place over time and generate largely quantitative rather than anecdotal results. The results are published in reputable scientific journals and the study/testing results must also be repeatable. Scientists only do studies that are about significant issues that are funded and will improve their reputations thus garnering more grants for more research. Unfortunately, nutritional supplements do not fall into the significant category. Compare it to Alzheimers. Who will fund the initial study, and, who is going to repeat the study?
That is not to say that some people believe they have benefitted from a particular supplement or vitamin, it just means that these are opinions not measurable proof. Lastly, if Supplement Clarity sells nothing, how do they earn enough money to maintain their site and pay salaries? One has to wonder, if their links to purchase the reviewed products isn't some how connected to a "commission" And don't forget, even good 'ol Doctor Oz has been caught fibbing see "Last Week Tonight" with John Oliver.
Teaching nutrition at several colleges & universities, I field many questions on the topic of supplements. I routinely refer my students to Supplement-Geek. I've even included this site in an assignment where by my students survey a range of opinions from industry experts.
I'm puzzled by the review submitted by Bernard, and would ask him a few questions:
- If Joe's experience and credentials constitute "limited"
Knowledge, giving him "just enough to be dangerous,"
What are Your standards of academic and industry
Success in order to be considered credible?
- What are your credentials?
- Speaking so much about "science," can you support
Your claims with One piece of evidence to show that
Supplement-Geek sand bagged a review for a payoff?
I won't hold my breath on those. What I will do is continue to refer my students, family and friends to Supplement-Geek, which is great source of unbiased information from a true professional.
James Menz, MS, CSCS
Jim, thanks so much and I'm both flattered and honored to be part of your students curriculum.
Supplement geek is using a "limited" knowledge base to evaluate products and his only interest is money... he has advertisement sites that pays him every time someone visits his sites or clicks on his "advertisements "... plenty incentive to bag or boast on products that will line his pockets. He has just enough education behind him to be dangerous and is so full of himself and his true intelligence on supplementation. The ONLY reason he gets one star rating from me is because you have to give a rating and one star is as low as it will allow you. Shoddy work on his part and full of opinions, half truths and extremely poor knowledge of science. Irresponsible on his part to being leading people down paths that are truly looking for help and stumble on to his site. He talks about studies and such and shows his ignorance of ANY type of study as not having "human" studies... those in the science field would know that YOU CANT preform human studies until certain protocol is done with other studies on animals, tissue and EVENTUALLY human... wow, most rookies in science know those protocols and he professes to have science education background... BEWARE!
Bernard K, I thank you for taking the time post your review although I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of me and my website. I have been investigating dietary supplements since the 1990s. I do not have an ax to grind and I go where the evidence takes me. Yes, I put emphasis on human clinical studies and that is because we are people and human evidence is more important than evidence stemming from lab animals, etc. People studies are just more relevant to people.
Your critique mentioned the ads on my site. These are the same types of ads that Site Jabber uses too. The ads come from Google. Since both and Site Jabber and Supplement Geek (me) give away their content for free, the Google ads provide a very ethical way for website owners to help maintain their sites. Your assessment of how the ads works is not correct.
I have written a more detailed reply to your critique on my website if you care to look at it. Hopefully it will help.
Supplement geek has given very unbiased reviews on 100s of supplements thst the everyday consumer probably just can't review on a scientific level.
I was shocked to see the slanderous nature of Bernard K's criticism on the reviews done by Supplement Geek.
I would love to see where Bernard Is coming from and what company he is afilitated with.
Hi Pete, that is very kind of you to say. Thank you so much :)
This website USED TO BE CALLED supplement geek.com; but because of a trademark dispute, Joe Cannon's site is now SUPPLEMENTCLARITY.COM. I humbly disagree with Bernard about supplement-geek.com's review. Of course everyone knows you cannot do human testing of new products without going through a rigorous protocol. I was a research coordinator with a major university a while back, using cancer protocols, so I'm familiar with research. HOWEVER, the products supplement-geek reviews are supplements (things people are already buying and using) with ingredients people already have in our bodies or things we have all been eating or taking all of our lives! Supplement-geek.com reviews "claims"that these supplement companies make about their products. It's different than cancer drugs or other new drugs or combinations. All Supplement-geek is pointing out in some cases is that no human studies have been done to correlate the claims with some scientific proof! He uses PubMed.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, NIH, and other reputable sites for his information. He never says anyone should or should NOT buy anything. It is just information for consumers to use. As for ads, which website DOESN'T have ads? No one is COMMANDING anyone to press the ad buttons. These are the reasons I humbly disagree with you. I HAVE NEVER MET NOR AM I RELATED TO Supplement-geek.com.
Roseann, thank you SO much for saying all that. I appreciate it more than you know. I am also happy you took notice of the emphasis I place on the clinical studies, pubmed, NIH and ClinicalTrials.gov. It takes a lot of work to sift though it all. I am glad you noticed :)
Gain trust and grow your business with customer reviews.
Hi Daniel, I am the owner of Supplement Clarity. First, I want to applaud your obvious desire to help people understand supplements and science better. Your comment title “study their studies” is a testament to that.
But as I read your comment, I got the impression you never visited my website. I say this because:
You refer to my reviews as “their” when it is "I" who write the reviews. The About page of my site spells out who I am. I have been investigating supplements for over 20 years and have a BS in chemistry and biology and a MS in exercise science.
You say the studies “they” refer to are “most likely not scientific” but If you visited my website and looked around, you’d clearly see I link to peer reviewed studies in pubmed. While it is true what you say –studies can be expensive – I make this clear also when I discuss the research.
I often pay attention to sample size, dosage used, in vitro vs in vivo studies, potential side effects and even such things whether the researchers own stock in the companies whose products they research.
In short, I think you would change your mind about my site and rating if you gave me a chance. If not, I will understand. Regardless, I will still continue to do what I do.
Best,
Joe