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

A Low Carb Diet and Weight Loss

Posted January 15, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Do Low-Carb Diets Help Maintain Weight Loss?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

low carb dietTraditional diets have been based on counting calories, but are all calories equal? Low-carb enthusiasts have long claimed that diets high in sugar and refined carbs cause obesity. Their hypothesis is based on the fact that high blood sugar levels cause a spike in insulin levels, and insulin promotes fat storage.

The problem is that there has been scant evidence to support that hypothesis. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of 32 published clinical studies (KD Hall and J Guo, Gastroenterology, 152: 1718-1727, 2017 ) concluded that low-fat diets resulted in a higher metabolic rate and greater fat loss than isocaloric low-carbohydrate diets.

However, low-carb enthusiasts persisted. They argued that the studies included in the meta-analysis were too short to adequately measure the metabolic effects of a low-carb diet. Recently, a study has been published in the British Medical Journal (CB Ebbeling et al, BMJ 2018, 363:k4583 ) that appears to vindicate their position.

Are low carb diets best for long term weight loss?

Low-carb enthusiasts claim the study conclusively shows that low-carb diets are best for losing weight and for keeping it off once you have lost it. They are saying that it is time to shift away from counting calories and from promoting low-fat diets and focus on low-carb diets instead if we wish to solve the obesity epidemic. In this article I will focus on three issues:

  • How good was the study?
  • What were its limitations?
  • Are the claims justified?

 

How Was The Study Designed?

low carb diet studyThe investigators started with 234 overweight adults (30% male, 78% white, average age 40, BMI 32) recruited from the campus of Framingham State University in Massachusetts. All participants were put on a diet that restricted calories to 60% of estimated needs for 10 weeks. The diet consisted of 45% of calories from carbohydrate, 30% from fat, and 25% from protein. [So much for the claim that the study showed low-carb diets were more effective for weight loss. The diet used for the weight loss portion of the diet was not low-carb.]

During the initial phase of the study 161 of the participants achieved 10% weight loss. These participants were randomly divided into 3 groups for the weight maintenance phase of the study.

  • The diet composition of the high-carb group was 60% carbohydrate, 20% fat, and 20% protein.
  • The diet composition of the moderate-carb group was 40% carbohydrate, 40% fat, and 20% protein.
  • The diet composition of the low-carb group was 20% carbohydrate, 60% fat, and 20% protein.

Other important characteristics of the study were:

  • The weight maintenance portion of the study lasted 5 months – much longer than any previous study.
  • All meals were designed by dietitians and prepared by a commercial food service. The meals were either served in a cafeteria or packaged to be taken home by the participants.
  • The caloric content of the meals was individually adjusted on a weekly basis so that weight was kept within a ± 4-pound range during the 5-month maintenance phase.
  • Sugar, saturated fat, and sodium were limited and kept relatively constant among the 3 diets.

120 participants made it through the 5-month maintenance phase.

 

Do Low-Carb Diets Help Maintain Weight Loss?

low carb diet maintain weight lossThe results were striking:

  • The low-carb group burned an additional 278 calories/day compared to the high-carb group and 131 calories/day more than the moderate-carbohydrate group.
  • These differences were even higher for those individuals with higher insulin secretion at the beginning of the maintenance phase of the study.
  • These differences lead the authors to hypothesize that low-carb diets might be more effective for weight maintenance than other diets.

 

What Are The Pros And Cons Of This Study?

low carb diet pros and consThis was a very well-done study. In fact, it is the most ambitious and well-controlled study of its kind. However, like any other clinical study, it has its limitations. It also needs to be repeated.

The pros of the study are obvious. It was a long study and the dietary intake of the participants was tightly controlled.

As for cons, here are the three limitations of the study listed by the authors:

#1: Potential Measurement Error: This section of the paper was a highly technical consideration of the method used to measure energy expenditure. Suffice it to say that the method they used to measure calories burned per day may overestimate calories burned in the low-carb group. That, of course, would invalidate the major findings of the study. It is unlikely, but it is why the study needs to be repeated using a different measure of energy expenditure.

#2: Compliance: Although the participants were provided with all their meals, there was no way of being sure they ate them. There was also no way of knowing whether they may have eaten other foods in addition to the food they were provided. Again, this is unlikely, but cannot be eliminated from consideration.

#3: Generalizability: This is simply an acknowledgement that the greatest strength of this study is also its greatest weakness. The authors acknowledged that their study was conducted in such a tightly controlled manner it is difficult to translate their findings to the real world. For example:

  • Sugar and saturated fat were restricted and were at very similar levels in all 3 diets. In the real world, people consuming a high-carb diet are likely to consume more sugar than people in the other diet groups. Similarly, people consuming the low-carb diet are likely to consume more saturated fat than people in the other diet groups.
  • Weight was kept constant in the weight maintenance phase by constantly adjusting caloric intake. Unfortunately, this seldom happens in the real world. Most people gain weight once they go off their diet – and this is just as true with low-carb diets as with other diets.
  • The participants had access to dietitian-designed prepared meals 3 times a day for 5 months. This almost never happens in the real world. The authors said “…these results [their data] must be reconciled with the long-term weight loss trials relying on nutrition education and behavioral counseling that find only a small advantage for low carbohydrate compared with low fat diets according to several recent meta-analyses.” [I would add that in the real world, people do not even have access to nutritional education and behavioral modification.]

 

low carb diet and youWhat Does This Study Mean For You?

  • This study shows that under very tightly controlled conditions (dietitian-prepared meals, sugar and saturated fat limited to healthy levels, calories continually adjusted so that weight remains constant) a low-carb diet burns more calories per day than a moderate-carb or high-carb diet. These findings show that it is theoretically possible to increase your metabolic weight and successfully maintain a healthy weight on a low-carb diet. These are the headlines you probably saw. However, a careful reading of the study provides a much more nuanced viewpoint. For example, the fact that the study conditions were so tightly controlled makes it difficult to translate these findings to the real world.
  • In fact, the authors of the study acknowledged that multiple clinical studies show this almost never happens in the real world. These studies show that most people regain the weight they have lost on low-carb diets. More importantly, the rate of weight regain is virtually identical on low-carb and low-fat diets. Consequently, the authors of the current study concluded “…translation [of their results to the real world] requires exploration in future mechanistic oriented research.” Simply put, the authors are saying that more research is needed to provide a mechanistic explanation for this discrepancy before one can make recommendations that are relevant to weight loss and weight maintenance in the real world.
  • The authors also discussed the results of their study in light of a recent, well-designed 12-month study (CD Gardener et al, JAMA, 319: 667-669, 2018 ) that showed no difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat versus a healthy low-carbohydrate diet. That study also reported that the results were unaffected by insulin secretion at baseline. The authors of the current study noted that “…[in the previous study] participants were instructed to minimize or eliminate refined grains and added sugars and maximize intake of vegetables. Probably for this reason, the reported glycemic load [effect of the diet on blood sugar levels] of the low-fat diet was very low…and similar to [the low-carb diet].” In short, the authors of the current study were acknowledging that diets which focus on healthy, plant-based carbohydrates and eliminate sugar, refined grains, and processed foods may be as effective as low-carb diets for helping maintain a healthy weight.
  • This would also be consistent with previous studies showing that primarily plant-based, low-carb diets are more effective at maintaining a healthy weight and better health outcomes long-term than the typical American version of the low-fat diet, which is high in sugar and refined grains. In contrast, meat-based, low-carb diets are no more effective than the American version of the low-fat diet at preventing weight gain and poor health outcomes. I have covered these studies in detail in my book “Slaying The Food Myths.”

Consequently, the lead author of the most recent study has said: “The findings [of this study] do not impugn whole fruits, beans and other unprocessed carbohydrates. Rather, the study suggests that reducing foods with added sugar, flour, and other refined carbohydrates could help people maintain weight loss….” This is something we all can agree on, but strangely this is not reflected in the headlines you may have seen in the media.

The Bottom Line

 

  • A recent study compared the calories burned per day on a low-carb, moderate-carb, and high-carb diet. The study concluded that the low-carb diet burned significantly more calories per day than the other two diets and might be suitable for long-term weight control. If confirmed by subsequent studies, this would be the first real evidence that low-carb diets are superior for maintaining a healthy weight.
  • However, the study has some major limitations. For example, it used a methodology that may overestimate the benefits of a low-carb diet, and it was performed under tightly controlled conditions that can never be duplicated in the real world. As acknowledged by the authors, this study is also contradicted by multiple previous studies. Further studies will be required to confirm the results of this study and show how it can be applied in the real world.
  • In addition, the kind of carbohydrate in the diet is every bit as important as the amount of carbohydrate. The authors acknowledge that the differences seen in their study apply mainly to carbohydrates from sugar, refined grains, and processed foods. They advocate diets with low glycemic load (small effects on blood sugar and insulin levels) and acknowledge this can also be achieved by incorporating low-glycemic load, plant-based carbohydrates into your diet. This is something we all can agree on, but strangely this is not reflected in the headlines you may have seen in the media.
  • Finally, clinical studies report averages, but none of us are average. When you examine the data from the current study, it is evident that some participants burned more calories per hour on the high-carb diet than other participants did on the low carb diet. That reinforces the observation that some people lose weight more effectively on low-carb diets while others lose weight more effectively on low-fat diets. If you are someone who does better on a low-carb diet, the best available evidence suggests you will have better long-term health outcomes on a primarily plant-based, low-carb diet such as the low-carb version of the Mediterranean diet.

For more details read the article above.

 

 

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