Supplement Clarity reviews
While I too 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 the site you describe sells nothing, how do they earn enough money to maintain their site and pay salaries? And don't forget, even good 'ol Doctor Oz has been caught fibbing see "Last Week Tonight" with John Oliver.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.