Study Hijacking: When “Science-Backed” Isn’t Backed By Your Product

Just Because a Study Exists Doesn’t Mean Your Supplement Works

You’ve seen it: “Clinically proven to boost focus!” But did the study use the same ingredient? Same dose? Same delivery? Probably not. This is study hijacking — borrowing credibility from real science… while selling something completely different.

🔍 What Is Study Hijacking?

Citing a legitimate scientific study — but for a different form, dose, or delivery method than what’s in the product.

Example:

• Study used 200mg Suntheanine® + caffeine → improved reaction time
• Your supplement has 50mg generic L-Theanine → cites the same study

That’s not “backed by science.” That’s borrowing science.

🧪 How Companies Do It

• Say: “PQQ shown to support mitochondria!”
  But use 5mg, not 20mg — and not BioPQQ®
• Say: “Lion’s Mane supports memory!”
  But use mycelium on grain, not fruiting body
• Say: “MCT oil boosts ketones!”
  But use slow C10/C12 oils, not fast C8

They let the science do the talking — while their product stays silent.

🚪 How They Get Away With It

• Phrases like “studies show” or “research suggests” are vague
• No legal requirement to match the study conditions
• Consumers assume “if it’s in the study, it works”

🔴 Red Flag to Watch For

❗ If a brand cites a study but uses a different ingredient, lower dose, or cheaper form — the claim doesn’t apply.

Always ask:

• Was it the same compound?
• Same amount?
• Same population?

If not — it’s hijacked science.

⚖️ Real Example: FTC Warning Letters (2022) to CBD Companies

The FTC issued warnings to multiple CBD brands for citing studies on pure, pharmaceutical-grade CBD — while selling low-potency, untested products with minimal CBD content. They were told to stop making unsupported claims.

✅ Outcome: Brands revised marketing materials and removed misleading citations.