This Longevity Supplement Is Everywhere… But Here's the Problem

Last year, I made a video about Mitoure, which is a $112 per month supplement that's supposed to eliminate old mitochondria and increase exercise performance for anti-aging. They even have clinical trials claiming MOPure increased muscle strength by 12% and endurance by 17% without exercise. If you remember that video, then you would know that these studies actually didn't show benefits for endurance, and they only saw increased muscle strength for the lower body, not upper body. But there's a lot more to the story. Recently, there was a new study on Mtopure that's also kind of sus and I've gained some insight from some of the additional flaws in their earlier studies that raises the question, is Mitour even a mphagy activator? Let's talk about the new study on immune system functioning. They took 50 healthy middle-aged adults and gave them 1,000 milligs of uronithan A or placebo for 4 weeks. Their primary goal of this study, what they wrote in the abstract was quote phenotypical changes in peripheral CD3 plus T- cell subsets and immune metabolic remodeling. This refers to changes in immune cell characteristics. However, if you examine the pre-registered clinical trial on clinical trials.gov, gov. The initial primary endpoint was quote change in percentages of CD3 plus T- cell immune cell population in particular number of CD8 plus T memory stem cells and naive like T- cells. In the published abstract, the authors report only an increase in naive like CD8 T cells and CD8 fatty acid oxidation. They don't mention that CD8 plus T memory stem cells and CD3 T cells, the primary endpoints didn't change. So basically they didn't see any change in the markers they were originally set out to investigate. That null result is stated only later in the full text in a single sentence with no further elaboration. Quote the percentage of T-memory stem cells remained unaltered in contrast to our previous invitro observations. If you look at their graph for their primary outcomes, then the only primary outcome with a statistically significant change was naive CD8 plus T cells and markers of CD8 cell proliferation and exhaustion like KI67 and TOX. T-memory stem cells remained unchanged and so did CD3, CD8 and CD4 cells. While some of these markers supported their hypothesis, more than half of their primary outcomes, T-memory stem cells and CD3 plus populations showed no change. Now this might sound like nitpicking but this kind of selective reporting creates a much more optimistic impression of your listen especially might appear. This is a classic example of reporting bias. You report only the positive outcomes that support your hypothesis and support your goals or your claims and you disregard and don't report about the findings that don't support your findings. This is especially concerning given the fact that they initially set out to research these things when they saw that there was no effect on these things. They shift their focus on other things that they measured, which wasn't even the initial goal. And they put 99% of the focus on these markers that did show a positive improvement. And then they glance over these markers, the ones they were initially supposed to research, and they only mention it very briefly and try to bury it in the text. There's a good reason why researchers are required to pre-register clinical trials. Pre-registration forces scientists to clearly define what they're measuring and what their hypothesis are before they see the data. This ensures transparency. You're held accountable for reporting all of the prespecified outcomes, not just the ones that support your hypothesis. When your results match your hypothesis, that's a positive finding. But if they don't, or if there's no significant effect, which is the case in this might study, you've reached a null result. And that's equally important to report. A no result means your hypothesis was wrong or unsupported and that's still valuable scientific information to know if it didn't work. The issue is that the authors clearly downplay the null result for the T-memory stem cells and the CD3 plus T cells which were their initial primary outcomes. In the conclusion of the paper, the authors state that uriththan A may help counteract age related immune decline. However, this claim is not well supported by their own data in the context of immune aging. T-memory stem cells are widely recognized as more critical than naive CD8 plus T- cells. T-memory stem cells are longived self-renewing cells capable of differentiating into all downstream memory and te- cell subsets including CD8 plus cytotoxic tea cells. The decline in T-memory stem cells is a key hallmark of immune aging. While the study did find a modest increase in naive CD8 plus T cells, it found no significant change in T-memory stem cells and CD3T cells, which was part of the pre-registered primary endpoint. This completely weakens the foundation for suggesting that urethane A meaningfully counteracts immune aging. What's more, the increase in CD8 cells isn't that significant. They saw only a 0.5% increase in phenotypic state where they looked less exhausted, 0.5%. and a 14.72% increase in fatty acid oxidation capacity. If you ask any immunologist, they would say that these changes wouldn't do much of anything to someone's immune system functioning, especially during aging, and especially given the fact that T- memory stem cells showed no statistical difference. Secondly, they also didn't research old people. Their research subjects were in their 50s who don't exhibit the degree of imunological decline seen in older populations such as the ones in their 70s and 80s. So based on their own data, it's wrong to say that urithnan A could help to counteract age related immune decline because based on their data, it's a pipe dream. Now this is just a single study and it's not enough to completely disregard urethane or mitoure. Researchers make mistakes and sometimes it's just a mistake or sometimes they just were too optimistic and they misinterpreted their data. However, the previous clinical trials on urthan have had similar issues in regards to transparency and interpreting the data. All of these studies and MOPure's own marketing makes it seem that Mtopure is the best longevity supplement out there, which is definitely not the case. In my first video on Mtopure, I shared a study that said that 4 months of Midapure supplementation upregulated mphagy markers in humans. Mphagy being the process of clearing out all mitochondria through the process of autophagy. However, I got some insight from a very reputable and very well published mitochondria researcher who share with me the glaring flaws in this study. First off, they started with 29 people in the placebo, 29 in the 500 milligrams of mitoure group, and 30 people in the 1,00 milligrams of mitoure group. However, they report the final outcome on mphagy markers on only six individuals. That's 80% fewer people than who are actually receiving mitoure in both the 500 and 1,00 mgram group. Six people is a very small sample size and I don't think it's enough evidence to claim that mitoure increases mphagy in humans based on this data especially when it looks like they excluded 80% of their sample size and ended up with only six people. What happened to those 80% of other people? Now the devil's advocate could be that to measure mphagy you need a muscle biopsy and that's a very uncomfortable and semi-p painful process. So most of the subjects probably would opt out of this uh procedure, but there's no mention of this in the paper. If 80% of the subjects decided not to get the biopsy, then they should have written about it in the paper, but they don't even mention it. They don't mention why there was a 80% drop in their sample size. They just report that they measured the mitophy markers in six people when there was 80% more people receiving the mito. And even then six people is a very small sample size to claim that mitoure is a mphagy activator and therefore good for muscle aging. They exclusively preframe mtopure as a mphagy activator in the new immune cell paper. The title of their paper is quote effect of the mphagy inducer urethan a on age related immune decline. They're writing it as a fact that mito is a mophagy activator but I wouldn't say it's a fact based on six people. The rest of the study looked at some functional fitness markers like grip strength, V2, peak power output, 6minute walk test, and hamstring strength. Hamstring strength increased by 10 to 12%. But interestingly, the 500 mg group saw the 12% increase, whereas the 1,00 mgram group saw only 9.8% increase. There's also something strange about these two graphs showing hamstring muscle strength and leg flexion. Can you spot it? Well, they look 100% identical. The only difference is the p values and numbers on the graphs, but the actual data points are 100% identical. This looks like copy pasted graphs and usually something like this would have the paper retracted. It's just another dot on the graph of suspicion. There was no statistical difference in hand grip strength. So no effect in upper body strength between uriththin A and placebo. There was a 1.6% increase in V2 peak in the 500 mg group and a 10% increase in the 1,00 mgram group. However, the placebo group has two massive outliers that drag down the results of the placebo group. And there are two massive outliers in the 1,00 mgram urolithin a group, which increases the V2 results. Without these outliers, there wouldn't have been any statistical significance between these groups. It might be just outliers and it's normal, but it's kind of a strange coincidence, especially given the fact that there was no statistical difference in peak power output or how fast they can go at peak effort. the peak power output was their initial primary endpoint which based on their data they didn't meet. That's another null hypothesis. They do write about it in the study that they didn't meet this primary endpoint but they do focus a lot more on the secondary outcomes like V2 and 6-minute walking test. But the V2 results are driven by four big outliers in the placebo and the 1,00 mgram uroliththn a group. Lastly, the 6-minute walk test. There was no difference for the 500 mgram group, but the 1,00 mgram group saw a 33 m increase. So these people were able to walk 33 m further during the 6 minutes compared to not taking urithna. Do whatever you will with this information. So based on this study, Mapure had very mixed results. They did see an increase in hamstring torque by 10 to 12%. But interestingly, the 12% increase was in the 500 mg group. The 1,00 mg group saw only 9.8% 8% increase in the V2 peak. The 500 mgram group saw almost no effects, only 1.6% increase in V2, whereas the 1,000 mg group saw about 10% increase in V2, which is driven by two massive outliers. Naturally, you would see some sort of consistency between the dosages and like a dose response curve. You would expect that if the higher dose group, the 1,00 mgram group, sees an increase in V2, you would also expect that this group will also see an increase in the hamstring strength. But that's not the case. In the hamstring strength, the 500 mgram group saw greater results than the 10,000 milligram group. Whereas in the V2, the 500 milligram group saw almost no effects and the 1,000 milligram group saw 10% increase in effects. So which dose should you take? Should you take the 500 milligram group or should you take the 1,000 millig group? Maybe it depends on your goals, but myapure markets urthan a to improve your endurance based on 500 millig. The truth is the 500 millig has almost no effects on endurance. I'm definitely not convinced that Majapur would increase muscle endurance or endurance performance. And an even earlier study proves it even further. It was published in JAMAMA in 2022 and they gave 30 healthy older adults between age of 65 and 90 1,000 mg of urthan a for 4 months. They did conclude in their paper that mopure increased endurance. However, after 4 months, there was no significant difference in the 6-minute walking test compared to placebo. So, how did they conclude that uran increases endurance? They measured endurance by looking at the ability to repeatedly contract muscles at 70% max effort. And at the two-month mark, the Mtopure group saw a significant improvement in endurance. However, at the 4-month mark, there was no difference between the placebo group and the MOPure group as both groups endurance had increased. So yes, Mitoure increased endurance by the two-month mark, but by the four-month mark, the placebo group also saw increase in endurance. So there was no statistical difference between the two groups. So based on this logic, if you wanted to increase your endurance, you would have waited two additional months and you would have gotten the same benefits as if you had taken Mudapure. The author still concluded and it shared in their marketing that Mudapure increases endurance by 17%. But that conclusion was based on a finding at the middle of the study and by the end of the study, there was no difference in endurance. As you can see throughout this video, MPure has very good marketing. They have very convincing marketing. But in my opinion, the real data about Miture isn't as optimistic. And the real data about Mopure suggests that it has very mixed results and the results you do get aren't significant. The biggest irony in all of this is that MOPure is most often promoted by alternative medical doctors and health influencers who criticize big pharma and big food. Mtopure is owned by the company Timeline Nutrition who received a large amount of investment from Nestle. Yes, Nestle, one of the biggest food companies in the world and according to a lot of those same influences is the root of all health problems in the world. But right now, Nestle is having those same influencers that criticize it, promote it expensive, overpriced supplement that has a lot of sketchy and misrepresented studies. The most likely explanation to this is that these influencers and doctors, they didn't read the studies or they didn't understand these studies. They just read the abstract. They believed that Maper told them, and they didn't looked into the data. That's the most charitable interpretation. The least charitable interpretation is that they do understand it, which is not likely the case, and they still promote it because of money. After all, it's a supplement that costs $120 a month for a single ingredient. And you know that they have very high profit margins at that price. That's because they own the patent for Euro A and they can get away with charging $120 a month because they have no competition. I actually got an email from Timeline Nutrition a year ago with an offer to become their affiliate. Well, obviously they didn't watch my first video where I criticized their research findings and I obviously just ignored their email because I wouldn't be making this video here. I'm not saying that Mtopure is the worst supplement in the world or it's actively harming your health. It's just that the effects of Mapure are grossly overstated. The average customer gets the impression that MOPure is pretty much the best longevity supplement out there. It's backed up by clinical trials, etc., etc. But as I showed you in this video, MOPure doesn't increase upper body strength. It doesn't really increase endurance. It doesn't really change immune cells that significantly. It's questionable whether or not it really increases mphagy markers. and the only thing it does is increase hamstring torque by about 10%. Keep in mind that these studies are done with no exercise, you're expected to gain significantly more effects on your muscle strength and endurance by just exercising. For example, just 8 weeks of resistance training in older adults has been seen to increase muscle strength by 180%, muscle size by 9% and walking speed by 48% compared to placebo. So, compared to exercise, mitour is pennies. It has small effects, but I wouldn't rank it as a god tier supplement if that makes sense. If you want to know how I rank a 100 other common popular supplements from worst to best, then check out this video