Is The Jellyfish Memory Supplement A Hoax

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in jellyfish memory supplement, Supplements and Health

Are The Claims Too Good To Be True?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

jellyfish memory supplementDid another phony nutritional supplement, the jellyfish memory supplement, just bite the dust? You’ve seen the TV ads reminding us that our memory starts to fade as we age. You’ve heard the claims about a protein derived from a jellyfish improving your memory. You’ve seen graphs summarizing a clinical study proving the product works. It all sounds so compelling. Are those claims too good to be true? According to the FTC and the New York Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division, the answer is yes.

Is The Jellyfish Memory Supplement A Hoax?

On January 9th 2017, the FTC and the New York Attorney General’s office sued the makers of the “jellyfish memory supplement,” accusing the company of making false and unsubstantiated claims that the product improves memory, provides cognitive benefits, and is “clinically shown” to work.The FTC complaint alleged that the marketers relied on a study that failed to show that their product works better ftcthan a placebo on any measure of cognitive function. In their joint press release the FTC said “The marketers of [the jellyfish supplement] preyed on the fears of older consumers experiencing age-related memory loss. But one critical thing these marketers forgot is that their claims need to be backed up by real scientific evidence.” The New York Attorney General said “The marketing for [the jellyfish supplement] is a clear-cut fraud, from the label on the bottle to the ads airing across the country. It’s particularly unacceptable that this company has targeted vulnerable citizens like seniors in its advertising for a product that costs more than a week’s groceries, but provides none of the health benefits that it claims.”

Why Were The Clinical Study Results So Misleading?

clinical studyI am a strong supporter for innovation in supplement development. However, innovative products should be backed up by published clinical studies showing significant benefit before being marketed to the public. Unfortunately, the clinical study cited for the “jellyfish memory supplement” does not meet this standard.

  • The study has not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. That means the study has not been independently reviewed by anyone not associated with the manufacturer.
  • When you actually analyze the data, it turns out that the improvement in memory was inconsistent from subject to subject, and the overall results were not statistically significant.
  • The graph shown on TV shows a 20% improvement in memory in just 90 days. In fact, that degree of improvement was only experienced by a very small subset of users. Most users experienced either no improvement or an insignificant 5-10% improvement. The graph the company used to market their product was clearly misleading.

Why Was The Scientific Rationale For The Product So Misleading?

misleading studyApoaequorin, the jellyfish protein in question, is a calcium binding protein. The manufacturer claims that it improves calcium balance in the body, which improves brain function. There are numerous fallacies in that model. For example:

  • Apoaequorin is not found in humans. In fact, the manufacturer does not even use the protein found in jellyfish. They use a synthetic version produced through genetic engineering.
  • Calcium balance is very tightly regulated in the human body. There is no evidence that the addition of apoaequorin, or any other calcium binding protein, improves calcium balance or brain function in humans.
  • Proteins do not enter our bloodstream intact. They have to be degraded to individual amino acids before they can be absorbed. That means when you take a pill containing apoaequorin protein, all you get is a release of amino acids into your bloodstream.
  • Finally, even if you were magically able to get apoaequorin protein into your bloodstream, it couldn’t cross the blood-brain barrier. The only reliable means of getting proteins into the brain is by cranial injection, and I don’t think anyone is going to be doing that for mild cognitive impairment.

The emperor has no clothes! Don’t get me wrong. As someone who is moving into my “golden years,” I would love to see this product succeed. I would love for them to produce clinical evidence that their product makes a statistically significant improvement in memory. I would love for the data to be good enough that it could be published in a peer reviewed journal. I would love for the jellyfish memory supplement to be legitimate. However, I suspect the FTC will win this one. I suspect another bogus product is about to bite the dust.

What Does This Mean For You?

This is just one of many examples of supplements that have first rate marketing, but second rate science. As a consumer, you need to be eternally vigilant. Unfortunately, most of you are not scientists, so it is very difficult for you to evaluate the claims. The FDA does it’s best to shut down products that are dangerous to your health. The FTC does it’s best to shut down products that make unfounded claims. I will do my best to warn you about about bogus products. However, none of us can keep up with all the dangerous and bogus products that flood the marketplace. At the end of the day, your best defense is to remember that famous quote “If it sounds too good to be true…” The jellyfish memory supplement sounds too good to be true.

The Bottom Line

  • The FTC and New York Attorney General have sued the manufacturers of the “jellyfish memory supplement” that has been so widely advertised on TV. The FTC alleges that the claims for that product are “false and unsubstantiated.”
  • The clinical study cited by the manufacturer was flawed because:
    • The results had not been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. That means the study has not been independently reviewed by anyone not associated with the manufacturer.
    • The results were not statistically significant.
  • The scientific rationale for the product was flawed because:
    • The “jellyfish protein” is not found in humans. In fact, the manufacturer does not even use the protein found in jellyfish. They use a synthetic version produced through genetic engineering.
    • Proteins must be degraded to individual amino acids before they can be absorbed into the bloodstream. That means when you take a pill containing “jellyfish protein”, all you get is a release of amino acids into your bloodstream.
  • Even if you were magically able to get the protein into your bloodstream, it couldn’t cross the blood-brain barrier. The only reliable means of getting proteins into the brain is by cranial injection, and I don’t think anyone is going to be doing that for mild cognitive impairment.
  • I will do my best to alert you about bogus supplements. The FDA and FTC will do their best to protect you. However, none of us can keep up with all the dangerous and bogus products that flood the marketplace. At the end of the day, your best defense is to remember that famous quote “If it sounds too good to be true…”

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (4)

  • EROCA

    |

    I am passionate about your wonderful skill to define the truth. You are surely living with your music being shared with the world. I am happy to share this.

    Reply

  • Merlena Cushing

    |

    I very much agree with Eroca…Your ability to share “your music” with the world is a blessing to all of us. Likely few take the time to thank you for your generosity, so I am doing so now and want to assure you that I often pass on your articles. This is a fantastic one. I have been skeptical of those “jellyfish” ads from the beginning.

    Reply

  • Merlena Cushing

    |

    I saw a Prevagen ad again tonight, so maybe the suits against them were dismissed. Hmmmmm.

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear Merlena,
      They are contesting the suit. These things take time to resolve.
      Dr. Chaney

      Reply

Leave a comment

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

READ THE ARTICLE
READ THE ARTICLE

Latest Article

High Protein Diets and Weight Loss

Posted October 16, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Do High Protein Diets Reduce Fat And Preserve Muscle?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Healthy Diet food group, proteins, include meat (chicken or turkAre high protein diets your secret to healthy weight loss? There are lots of diets out there – high fat, low fat, Paleolithic, blood type, exotic juices, magic pills and potions. But recently, high protein diets are getting a lot of press. The word is that they preserve muscle mass and preferentially decrease fat mass.

If high protein diets actually did that, it would be huge because:

  • It’s the fat – not the pounds – that causes most of the health problems.
  • Muscle burns more calories than fat, so preserving muscle mass helps keep your metabolic rate high without dangerous herbs or stimulants – and keeping your metabolic rate high helps prevent both the plateau and yo-yo (weight regain) characteristic of so many diets.
  • When you lose fat and retain muscle you are reshaping your body – and that’s why most people are dieting to begin with.

So let’s look more carefully at the recent study that has been generating all the headlines (Pasiakos et al, The FASEB Journal, 27: 3837-3847, 2013).

The Study Design:

This was a randomized control study with 39 young (21), healthy and fit men and women who were only borderline overweight (BMI = 25). These volunteers were put on a 21 day weight loss program in which calories were reduced by 30% and exercise was increased by 10%. They were divided into 3 groups:

  • One group was assigned a diet containing the RDA for protein (about 14% of calories in this study design).
  • The second group’s diet contained 2X the RDA for protein (28% of calories)
  • The third group’s diet contained 3X the RDA for protein (42% of calories)

In the RDA protein group carbohydrate was 56% of calories, and fat was 30% of calories. In the other two groups the carbohydrate and fat content of the diets was decreased proportionally.

Feet_On_ScaleWhat Did The Study Show?

  • Weight loss (7 pounds in 21 days) was the same on all 3 diets.
  • The high protein (28% and 42%) diets caused almost 2X more fat loss (5 pounds versus 2.8 pounds) than the diet supplying the RDA amount of protein.
  • The high protein (28% and 42%) diets caused 2X less muscle loss (2.1 pounds versus 4.2 pounds) than the diet supplying the RDA amount of protein.
  • In case you didn’t notice, there was no difference in overall results between the 28% (2X the RDA) and 42% (3X the RDA) diets.

Pros And Cons Of The Study:

  • The con is fairly obvious. The participants in this study were all young, healthy and were not seriously overweight. If this were the only study of this type one might seriously question whether the results were applicable to middle aged, overweight coach potatoes. However, there have been several other studies with older, more overweight volunteers that have come to the same conclusion – namely that high protein diets preserve muscle mass and enhance fat loss.
  • The value of this study is that it defines for the first time the upper limit for how much protein is required to preserve muscle mass in a weight loss regimen. 28% of calories is sufficient, and there appear to be no benefit from increasing protein further. I would add the caveat that there are studies suggesting that protein requirements for preserving muscle mass may be greater in adults 50 and older.

The Bottom Line:

1)    Forget the high fat diets, low fat diets, pills and potions. High protein diets (~2X the RDA or 28% of calories) do appear to be the safest, most effective way to preserve muscle mass and enhance fat loss in a weight loss regimen.

2)     That’s not a lot of protein, by the way. The average American consumes almost 2X the RDA for protein on a daily basis. However, it is significantly more protein than the average American consumes when they are trying to lose weight. Salads and carrot sticks are great diet foods, but they don’t contain much protein.

3)     Higher protein intake does not appear to offer any additional benefit – at least in young adults.

4)     Not all high protein diets are created equal. What some people call high protein diets are laden with saturated fats or devoid of carbohydrate. The diet in this study, which is what I recommend, had 43% healthy carbohydrates and 30% healthy fats.

5)    These diets were designed to give 7 pounds of weight loss in 21 days – which is what the experts recommend. There are diets out there promising faster weight loss but they severely restrict calories and/or rely heavily on stimulants, they do not preserve muscle mass, and they often are not safe. In addition they are usually temporary.  I do not recommend them.

6)    This level of protein intake is safe for almost everyone. The major exception would be people with kidney disease, who should always check with their doctor before increasing protein intake. The only other caveat is that protein metabolism creates a lot of nitrogenous waste, so you should drink plenty of water to flush that waste out of your system. But, water is always a good idea.

7)     The high protein diets minimized, but did not completely prevent, muscle loss. Other studies suggest that adding the amino acid leucine to a high protein diet can give 100% retention of muscle mass in a weight loss regimen – but that’s another story for another day.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

UA-43257393-1