Innovation nation: Smart approach to dietary supplement formulation

Editor's note: This is a debut column as part of an “Innovation nation” series of articles on formulating innovative dietary supplement products.

This is my 45th year in the dietary supplement industry, and for 38 of those years, I’ve formulated dietary supplements for many companies. Each year, I believe my formulations have improved as I’ve gained more knowledge and experience in my craft.

Certainly, my approach to formulation has changed over the decades, and I’ve had the opportunity to speak at industry trade shows — such as SupplySide West and Natural Products Expo West — about the approach I think has the most validity.

This article explores a smart approach to dietary supplement formulation that will yield a product most likely to provide the desired results and, consequently, most likely to result in repeat sales based on retailer and consumer satisfaction. I offer recommendations on what not to do as well as what to do.

Fairy dusting

Don’t “fairy dust” your formulations. The dietary supplement industry is rife with fairy dust products that not only contain completely inadequate doses of the nutraceuticals that are supposed to be providing a beneficial effect, but all too often do not even provide the right form of the nutraceutical in question. While the fairy dusting approach to formulation will absolutely result in the production of low-cost products allowing companies to maximize profits, it is unethical. You’ll just be charging consumers for products that won’t do anything for them.

Proprietary blends

The original idea behind proprietary blends was to allow a supplement brand to protect its intellectual property (IP), preventing other brands from outright copying its formulation. However, I’ve observed the vast number of proprietary blends are simply a way to hide fairy dusting and fool consumers into thinking the blend is something with value. For those of us with extensive nutraceutical knowledge, it’s easy enough to review the total dose of the blend and estimate if it contains a clinically relevant dose of each of its component nutraceuticals. Unfortunately, in many cases, the components in these proprietary blends are not clinically effective. This falls under the category of W.C. Fields’ immortal words, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t.” Of course, there are some nutraceutical pre-blends sold by raw material suppliers with research demonstrating efficacy. These are the exceptions to the rule. Unless you’re using such a pre-blend, I recommend against the use of misleading proprietary blends.

Clinically relevant doses of the correct nutraceuticals

The most important consideration in dietary supplement formulation is to use clinically relevant doses of the correct nutraceuticals shown in human research to be effective for the purpose intended. If the studies showed that 300 milligrams (mg) of a specific herbal extract was found to be effective, then use 300 mg, not 150 mg. If the research showed the herbal extract was standardized at a specific percentage of one or more active/marker compounds, then formulate with the material that provides the same percentages of the same compounds.

Such specificity should be the rule of thumb in choosing the best nutraceutical to use in your formulation. For example, if a study shows that 240 mg of Ginkgo biloba extract standardized for 24% terpene lactones and 6% ginkgolides was effective, then don’t use a 10:1 gingko extract for which the raw material specification does not identify the percentage of active/marker compounds present.

Avoid redundant mechanism of action

In 2019, I spoke at SupplySide West on the topic of “Formulating cutting-edge products to address stress.” During that session, I noted a formula should avoid the use of nutraceuticals with redundant mechanisms of action. Here are some of the examples I gave for a stress formula:

--- Limbic system support using L-theanine (for increasing alpha brain waves) and CBD (to maintain high levels of endocannabinoids).
--- Adrenal support using adaptogenic herbs such as rhodiola (Rhodiola rosea) or ashwagandha (Withania somnifera).
--- Neurotransmitter support using saffron (Crocus sativus, for serotonin, dopamine and glutamate) and lemon balm (Melissa officinalis, for acetylcholine receptor activity).

In each of these examples, the mechanism of action was different. Multiple mechanisms of action are likely to yield better results than focusing one mechanism to the exclusion of all else. During the session, I further noted that it was unnecessary to formulate a product with both rhodiola and ashwagandha, since both of these herbs act as adaptogens. Often, I see products that like to double-up or triple-up sources of adaptogens. In my opinion, this is redundant and lacks evidence to suggest any advantage.

Paint by the numbers

Now that we’ve discussed a few critical aspects of the formulation process, here is my “paint by the numbers” approach to formulation:

Conclusion

Be smart when you formulate dietary supplements for your product line. Avoid fairy dusting, misleading proprietary blends and redundant mechanisms of action for nutraceuticals. Make sure to use clinically relevant doses of the correct nutraceuticals and follow my “paint by the numbers” approach to formulation.

Following these guidelines will give you the best possible chance for the creation of an effective dietary supplement that will work for the purpose intended, resulting in happy retailers and consumers, and repeat sales for your brand.