How to spot an unsubstantiated supplement claim

The longevity and wellness supplement market has a claims problem. Scroll through any NAD+, NMN or "biological age" ad on Instagram or TikTok and you'll find bold, specific promises: reverse your age by five years, boost cellular energy by 40 per cent, the world's first ultimate age blocker. Few of these claims would survive contact with the UK's actual advertising rules if anyone bothered to check.

Here's what to look for before you believe one.

The "pilot study" that isn't a study

Under the CAP Code, health claims need to be backed by robust evidence held before the claim is made, not gathered afterwards to justify it. Watch for phrases like "our pilot testing showed" or "an internal trial found." If there's no named journal, no registered trial number, and no way to check the sample size, it isn't evidence in any sense that would satisfy the Advertising Standards Authority. It's marketing dressed as science.

Borrowed authority

A doctor, dermatologist or scientist attached to a brand tells you something about the founders' credentials. It tells you nothing about whether the specific claim on the ad has been substantiated. Credentials and evidence are two different things, and brands rely on readers conflating them.

Superlatives with nothing behind them

"World's first," "award-winning," "the only supplement that…" Ask: first at what, award from whom, only compared to what. If the ad doesn't say, it's because the comparison wouldn't hold up.

Borrowed editorial voice

Claims sometimes appear as a quote from a journalist or publication rather than as the brand's own words. It doesn't matter who said it first, if an advert reproduces and amplifies a claim, the advertiser owns it under ASA rules just as much as if they'd written it themselves.

Population mismatch

A supplement for general wellness citing a clinical trial run on people with a diagnosed condition (diabetics, postmenopausal women, cancer patients) is quietly borrowing evidence that doesn't apply to you. Check who the trial participants actually were.

Proprietary blends and vague dosing

If a label lists "32 clinically studied ingredients" but won't tell you the dose of the one doing the work, that's not transparency, it's a way to sound thorough while hiding an underdosed formula.

Comparison tables with no named comparator

"Us: £70. Traditional supplements: £130+." Which ones? Sourced how? A comparison you can't verify isn't a comparison, it's a number picked to look favourable.

The pattern across all of these is the same: evidence that sounds impressive but doesn't survive being asked how do you know that. Every claim I make about Tremodi (dose, sourcing, authorisation status) is written to survive that exact question, because most of the market currently doesn't. If you want to see how, the FAQ has the detail.