This is it Optimizera weekly newsletter delivered every Friday by the Verge’s chief reviewer Victoria’s song who dissects and discusses the latest items and potions that promise to change your life. Optimizer will arrive in our subscribers’ mailboxes at 10:00 a.m. ET. Sign up for a subscription Optimizer here.
I’m willing to bet you’ve received an ad for Athletic Greens – also known as AG1. They’re impossible to miss on podcasts, and it seems like almost every wellness influencer on every social media platform has advertised them at some point.
AG1 is a green powder containing more than 70 ingredients. Most of these are freeze-dried plant powder blends. Basically, instead of taking a multivitamin or eating actual vegetables, green powders like AG1 claim to be a more convenient way to ensure you’re getting all your essential nutrients. Suggested benefits are improved energy levels, gut health, digestion, focus and immunity. You know, the things that annoying nutritionists say come from a balanced diet.
I take AG1 first thing in the morning before work. I feel much healthier and better in my bodysay influencers wearing yoga gear, raising a glass of cloudy green liquid. In recent commercials, actor Hugh Jackman tap dances and annoys his downstairs neighbors as the “quality vitamins, probiotics and superfoods” in AG1 give him boundless energy. Hey must drink it every morning if he has to do eight Broadway shows a week, Jackman says with a toothy, friendly smile.
Wolverine isn’t the only one getting a boost. AG1 announced in a football-themed ad that it was “supporting” three student health researchers.
“At AG1, we believe that when you have clinical support, you should support research that moves science forward,” a baritone-voiced announcer said over footage of young academics posing on the 50-yard line.
None of the other smart, scientific-sounding words hit as hard as “clinically supported.” In the wellness wild west, you’ll see this descriptor plastered across a sea of marketing materials and falling awkwardly from the mouths of celebrity spokespeople. The implication is simple: Unlike snake oil salesmen, we care about science. We do research. We they are trustworthy.
But what does “clinically supported” really mean?
When I go through AG1 videos on TikTok, I see some skeptical nutritionists and health professionals. Taking AG1, they say, will only result in expensive pee. Even so, the general consensus is that although AG1 can be expensive and multivitamins are not necessary for most healthy people, do do a lot of research.
What kind of research? To find out, I hopped over to the AG1 Research Studies website. I’m greeted with a huge text that reads: “The next generation AG1 is clinically supported.” The accompanying ad has words like “research” and “clinical discovery.” Any claims, it says, are “backed by extensive research into the ingredients and the finished formula.” I am told that the impact of AG1 Next Gen is measurable. Beside this sublime advertisement, a hand holds a Petri dish-like disk with a small scoop of green powder in the center.
On this page you see buzzwords like “biomarkers”, “bioavailability”, “microbiome”. From time to time “clinical” is thrown in for good measure. There are little explanatory blocks with even more scientific-sounding phrases like “randomized, placebo-controlled trials” and “gold standard.” Tables and graphs accompany each section. I’m shown professional shots of the research team, many of whom have “Dr.” in front of their names and, impressively, what appears to be a jumble of letters behind them, denoting their various bona fides. There are more headshots of science and innovation advisors.
After scrolling for what feels like an eternity, I get to a section called “peer-reviewed research,” which lists each published study, a brief description, and a link.
If I were an average consumer, I wouldn’t get this far down the page. If I did, it would look pretty legit. As a health technology reviewer, they exist several red flags before I even click on a single study link.
A classic wellness marketing strategy is to stick a viral marketing sticker next to actual scientific terms or concepts with research behind them. In this case, a marketing label like “superfood” can live comfortably alongside terms like “probiotics” and “microbiome.” The former simply means “nutrition-rich food.” The last two refer to the type of live bacteria and ecosystem of microbes that live in your gut. Add the word “clinical” and a sleek packaging and it’s easy to convince anyone that your product is more than just a supplement. It is scientifically proven and therefore trustworthy.
But what is the point of clinical trials for a supplement? Clinical trials are required for drugs and medical treatments, but are not required for supplements because they are not overseen by the Food and Drug Administration. Scroll down far enough on the AG1 page and you’ll find this statement:
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The information on this page is provided for informational purposes only.
“The term ‘clinically tested’ is context-dependent and can represent a wide range of quality evidence. In the vitamin and supplement market, it is often used as a marketing term rather than a standardized scientific label,” says Dr. Julia Adamian, an internal medicine specialist at NYU Langone Health.
“In some cases, ‘clinically tested’ may even be based on customer reviews or limited observational data. As we know, this is not the most reliable form of evidence, especially when incentives are offered for positive feedback.”
In order to evaluate the credibility of a clinical trial, Adamian brought to my attention several criteria:
- Who conducted and funded the study?
- What specific outcomes were assessed?
- Where were the results published?
That’s a great start. We also have several other criteria in scientific reporting, such as examining sample size and reviewing methodology. Sure, the AG1 site provides a summary, but if you really want to check the credibility of a wellness company, it’s a good idea to see the results for yourself.
Among the peer-reviewed journals listed on his website, he mentions AG1 Nutrients, Microorganisms, Current problems of microbiology, Journal of Functional Foods, Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutritionand Limit. These are actually peer-reviewed journals and not white papers. (Wellness companies sometimes try to pass off internal research or white papers as peer-reviewed, meaning that other scientists are evaluating the work itself.) This means that not all peer-reviewed journals are viewed equally. Limitfor example, it has many offshoots and a mixed reputation among academics after having to retract 122 articles in 2025 for unethical behavior such as improper disclosure of conflicts of interest.
On this topic: Of the non-paid studies – the average consumer probably wouldn’t subscribe to a scientific journal – all were funded by AG1, and several of the authors were also AG1 employees. This is common in wellness, but it means that these are not truly independent studies.
In terms of results, the published studies had fairly clear abstracts and were quite honest in their findings. I say they were honest because in several cases the results showed that taking AG1 had little or no impact.
In one study designed to measure the impact on the gut microbiome, researchers found that taking AG1 increased the amount of two probiotic strains… because they were ingredients in AG1. They concluded that this meant the probiotics had entered the intestines. This study also found no negative change in bowel movements. That said, if you were hoping it would help you poop better, this study is completely inconclusive. This is partly because this study had a small sample of 30 healthy adults. Anyone suffering from digestive problems was also excluded from the study, which is likely to reduce the variables. This means that if you suffer from gastrointestinal problems, these results may not apply to you either.
In short, the published studies of AG1 boiled down to this: It probably won’t hurt you to take AG1. It probably won’t change your life either.
But there is a catch. Published studies are for the original AG1 formulation. Fancy charts and tables at the top of the page? They refer to data from newunpublished studies for AG1 Next Gen — a reformulated version of AG1 currently available for purchase on the web.
The only information that can be reviewed for the new “clinically supported” AG1 Next Gen is the brief summaries that were presented at conferences last year and the footnotes at the very bottom of the website. Not every summary reported funding, but those that did confirmed that AG1 paid for these studies. In an easy-to-navigate drop-down menu, AG1 says it can take years to fully publish everything in a peer-reviewed journal.
When I delved down the AG1 rabbit hole, the goal was to investigate how true the marketing of the product was. Wellness branding often slips into a science—and that can be incredibly difficult for the average person to recognize in the age of influencer marketing. AG1 has a well-crafted and slick marketing side. Its ads tell a cohesive story that is based on decades of wellness and supplement trends. And since no research is required for the supplement, AG1 is spending a lot of money to document that his product does what you would think freeze-dried spinach does.
But calling it “clinically supported” it isn’t supported by most people as they think. If I had to rate the credibility of the AG1, I would simply say: This product is sus.