In the collagen market, some brands commission their own clinical studies specifically to generate strong marketing claims.
There is nothing wrong with funding research.
The problem starts when a spectacular percentage is presented without explaining how it was obtained.
One recent collagen study, commissioned by a Dubai-based supplement company and conducted by a CRO in Las Vegas, followed 40 women for 12 weeks.
There was:
- no placebo group
- no control group
- no blinding
- one single group taking the product
The women were also specifically recruited because they already had concerns about their skin and hair.
And here is the important part.
Some of the headline percentages later advertised as "measured" results were not obtained from instruments measuring skin hydration, hair growth or nail strength.
Participants rated themselves on structured 1-to-5 questionnaires, and the change in those scores was then converted into percentage improvements.
That methodology produced claims such as "more hydrated skin", "stronger hair", "faster hair growth" and "stronger nails". The company itself explains that these "measured" figures came from participant ratings converted into percentage change from baseline.
The CRO's own public summary highlights results such as 86% of participants saying their skin felt more hydrated and 77% reporting less hair damage and breakage.
That does not mean the product does nothing.
It means a percentage on an advertisement should never be interpreted without understanding the study behind it.
A self-reported improvement in an open-label study is not equivalent to a result from a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial using objective measurements.
Before comparing collagen brands by the biggest number, compare the quality of the evidence.
Big claims are easy to print.
Good science is harder.
Pearl Nutrition is built on Peptan® B 2000 LD, developed by Rousselot in France, backed by independent, peer-reviewed research.
Less ingredients. More standards.