This is Optimizer, a weekly newsletter sent every Friday from Verge senior reviewer Victoria Song that dissects and discusses the latest gizmos and potions that swear they’re going to change your life. Optimizer arrives in our subscribers’ inboxes at 10AM ET. Opt in for Optimizer here.

I’m willing to bet you’ve been served an ad for Athletic Greens — also known as AG1. It’s impossible to escape them in podcasts, and it seems like almost every wellness influencer on every social media platform has done an ad for them at some point.

AG1 is a greens powder containing over 70 ingredients. Most of it is freeze-dried vegetable powder blends. Basically, instead of taking a multivitamin or eating an actual vegetable, greens powders like AG1 claim to be a more convenient way to make sure you’re getting all your essential nutrients. The proposed benefits are better energy levels, gut health, digestion, focus, and immunity. You know, things that pesky dieticians say will come from eating a balanced diet.

I take AG1 first thing in the morning before work. I feel so much healthier and better in my body, say yoga-set-wearing influencers, holding up a glass of murky green liquid. In recent ads, actor Hugh Jackman tap dances, annoying his downstairs neighbors, because the “quality vitamins, probiotics, and superfoods” in AG1 give him boundless energy. He must drink it every morning if he’s to do eight shows on Broadway a week, Jackman says with a toothy, affable smile.

Wolverine isn’t the only one getting a boost. AG1 announced in a football-themed ad that it’s “endorsing” three student health researchers.

“At AG1, we believe that when you’re clinically backed, you should back research that moves science forward,” a baritone-voiced announcer intones, over footage of young academics posing on the 50-yard line.

None of the other smart, science-sounding words hit quite as hard as “clinically backed.” In the wellness wild west, you’ll see that descriptor plastered across a sea of marketing materials and falling awkwardly from the mouths of celebrity spokespersons. The implication is simple: Unlike the snake oil salesmen, we care about science. We do the research. We are trustworthy.

But what does “clinically backed” actually mean?

Scrolling through AG1 videos on TikTok, I see some skeptical dieticians and health professionals. Taking AG1, they say, will just result in expensive pee. Even so, the general consensus is that while AG1 might be pricey and multivitamins aren’t necessary for most healthy people, they do conduct a lot of research.

What kind of research? To find out, I hopped on over to AG1’s Research Studies webpage. I am greeted by giant text that reads, “The next generation of AG1 is clinically backed.” In the accompanying blurb, there are words like “research” and “clinical discovery.” Any claims, it reads, are “substantiated by multiple bodies of research on ingredients and the finished formula.” I’m told that the impact of AG1 Next Gen is measurable. Next to this lofty blurb, a hand holds out a petri dish-like disc with a small mound of green powder in the middle.

Throughout this page you see wellness buzzwords like “biomarkers,” “bioavailability,” “microbiome.” Every so often, “clinically” is sprinkled in for good measure. There are little explainer blocks with even more science-sounding phrases like “randomized, placebo-controlled trials” and “gold standard.” Charts and graphs accompany each section. I’m shown professional headshots of the research team, many of whom have “Dr.” in front of their names and an impressive-seeming jumble of letters after, denoting their various bona fides. There are more headshots of science and innovation advisers.

After scrolling for what feels like an eternity, I arrive at a section titled “peer-reviewed research” that lists each published study, a brief descriptor, and a link.

If I were the average consumer, I would not get this far down the page. If I did, this would look pretty legit. As a health tech reviewer, there are several red flags before I even click on a single study link.

A classic wellness marketing strategy is to stick a viral marketing label next to actual scientific terms or concepts with research behind them. In this case, a marketing label like “superfood” can live comfortably next to terms like “probiotics” and “microbiome.” The former just means “nutrient-dense food.” The latter two refer to a type of living bacteria and the ecosystem of microbes that live in your intestines. Add the word “clinical” and sleek packaging, and it’s easy to convince everyone your product isn’t just a supplement. It’s scientifically proven, and therefore, trustworthy.

But what is the point of clinical studies for a supplement? Clinical trials are a must for drugs and medical treatments, but aren’t required of supplements, as they’re not overseen by the Food and Drug Administration. Scroll down far enough on AG1’s site, and you’ll find this disclaimer:

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. Information on this site is provided for informational purposes only.

“The term ‘clinically tested’ is context-dependent and may represent a wide range of evidence quality. In the vitamins and dietary supplements market, it is frequently used as a marketing term rather than a standardized scientific designation,” 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.”

To evaluate a clinical study’s trustworthiness, Adamian pointed me to a few criteria:

That’s an excellent start. In science reporting, we also have a few other criteria, like examining sample size and reviewing methodology. Sure, AG1’s site provides summaries, but if you really want to vet a wellness company’s trustworthiness, it’s a good idea to review the results yourself.

Of the peer-reviewed journals listed on its site, AG1 lists Nutrients, Microorganisms, Current Issues in Microbiology, Journal of Functional Foods, Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, and Frontiers. These are, in fact, peer-reviewed journals and not white papers. (Wellness companies sometimes try to pass off internal research, or white papers, as peer-reviewed, which means other scientists review the work itself.) That said, not all peer-reviewed journals are viewed equally. Frontiers, for example, has many offshoots and a mixed reputation among academics after it had to retract 122 articles in 2025 for unethical actions like improperly disclosing conflicts of interest.

On that topic: Of the non-paywalled studies — the average consumer likely wouldn’t subscribe to a science journal — all were funded by AG1, and several authors were also AG1 employees. That’s common in wellness, but it means these aren’t truly independent studies.

As for outcomes, the published studies had fairly clear abstracts and were pretty honest in their findings. I say they were honest because in several instances, the results showed there was little to no impact of taking AG1.

In one study designed to measure the impact on the gut microbiome, researchers found taking AG1 increased the amount of two probiotic strains… because they were ingredients in AG1. This, they concluded, meant the probiotics reached the intestines. This study also found no negative change to bowel movements. Meaning, if you were hoping this would help you poop better, this study is wholly inconclusive. That’s partly because this study had a small sample size of 30 healthy adults. Anyone suffering from digestive issues was also excluded from the study, likely to reduce variables. That means if you do suffer from gastrointestinal problems, these results also may not apply to you.

In summary, AG1’s published studies boiled down to this: It likely won’t hurt you to take AG1. It just likely won’t change your life either.

But there’s a catch. The published studies are for the original formulation of AG1. The fancy graphs and charts at the top of the page? They refer to data from new, unpublished studies for AG1 Next Gen — a reformulated version of AG1 that you can currently buy on the site.

The only reviewable information for the new “clinically backed” AG1 Next Gen are brief summaries that were presented at conferences last year and footnotes at the very bottom of the website. Not every summary disclosed funding, but the ones that did confirmed AG1 paid for those studies. In a collapsible menu that’s easy to scroll past, AG1 says it may take years to fully publish everything in a peer-reviewed journal.

When I dove down the AG1 rabbit hole, the goal was to examine how truthful its product marketing was. Wellness branding often slips into science-washing — and that can be incredibly hard for the average person to spot in the age of influencer marketing. AG1 has a well-crafted, slick marketing page. Its ads tell a coherent story that’s founded upon decades of wellness and supplement trends. And, considering that doing any research for a supplement isn’t required, AG1 is spending a lot of money to document that its product does what you’d think a freeze-dried spinach powder does.

But calling it “clinically backed” isn’t the endorsement most people think it is. If I were to grade AG1’s trustworthiness, I’d simply say: This product is sus.