Not What's Hot. What's Proven.

Not what's hot. What's proven.

You've been around long enough to watch this movie a few times.

An ingredient gets a magazine cover. Then a podcast. Then a documentary, and suddenly it's in every ad on your feed and stacked in a pyramid at the store. A few years later nobody says a word about it, and nobody explains why.

Usually the reason is simple: somebody finally ran a real trial. And the trial didn't say what the ad said.

I built Altrek on one rule — nothing goes in the bottle unless a randomized human trial says it works and years of data say it's safe. That rule keeps a lot of popular stuff out. Here's what's hot right now, what the data actually shows, and where I landed on each. This is the stuff nobody selling it will tell you.

Hot right now

NMN and NR — the longevity molecules

Sold as: reverse aging by refilling your NAD⁺.

This is the big one in longevity circles, and I sell longevity, so I looked hard. The pitch is real biochemistry: NAD⁺ is a coenzyme your cells run on, it drops as you age, and NMN and NR do reliably push it back up. That part is true.

Here's the part the ads skip. A 2026 systematic review pulled together 33 human trials. The molecules raised NAD⁺ every time — and the effects on the things you actually care about, like strength, metabolism, and how you age, came back "heterogeneous and often null." A separate meta-analysis found no benefit for muscle mass or function in older adults. The needle on the lab marker moves. The needle on your life mostly doesn't.

Where I landed: raising a number isn't the same as helping a man. When a trial shows NMN makes 60-year-olds stronger or live longer, I'll be first in line. It hasn't yet. It's not in your bottle.
Gallagher C, et al. Ageing Res Rev. 2026. Prokopidis K, et al. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2025.

Resveratrol — the red-wine pill

Sold as: the compound in red wine that switches on your "longevity genes."

The whole story rests on resveratrol activating SIRT1, a gene tied to longevity. It's a great story. So researchers tested it directly.

A 2025 meta-analysis of the human trials found resveratrol doesn't significantly change SIRT1 at all — the exact mechanism it's famous for. And a 2024 review that combed through nearly 200 resveratrol trials across 20 years concluded there is still "no conclusive clinical evidence to advocate its recommendation in any healthcare setting." Two decades of studying it, and that's the verdict.

Where I landed: a supplement named after its mechanism should probably hit its mechanism. This one doesn't. Out.
Mansouri F, et al. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2025. Brown K, et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2024.

Greens powders

Sold as: a scoop of "superfoods" that covers your fruits and vegetables.

I like the idea too. But a greens powder is a proprietary blend, which means the label lists 40 impressive-sounding plants and never tells you how much of any one you're getting. Usually it's a dusting.

When a greens supplement was actually put to the test in 2026, 30 days of it left body composition, metabolic markers, and diet quality unchanged — and on the main aging clock, biological age drifted the wrong way. Separately, when researchers gave people the leafy greens themselves, blood pressure didn't budge. The ingredients that do have real data, like green tea, work as themselves, at a known dose. A scoop of mystery powder isn't that.

Where I landed: if an ingredient earns its place, it goes on the label with a number next to it. That's the opposite of a greens blend.
Robinson LA, et al. Front Nutr. 2026. Sundqvist M, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020.

Testosterone "boosters"

Sold as: the natural way to jack up your T — usually by a guy in a gym who's clearly on something else.

The backbone of this category is tribulus and maca. Systematic reviews are blunt: neither reliably raises testosterone in men. Tribulus has been sold as a T-booster for decades on essentially no human evidence for testosterone.

Now the honest nuance, because that's the whole point of this page. A couple of herbs here — fenugreek, and especially ashwagandha — do have real trial data for modest testosterone bumps in men. So it's not that every herb is snake oil. The loud ones on the ads (tribulus, maca) are just the ones the science doesn't back.

So why isn't ashwagandha in Altrek? Because it carries published reports of liver injury. It's probably fine for most men — but "probably fine" is a call you make with a doctor watching your labs, not something you take blind in a daily foundation. Anything that needs that kind of supervision doesn't belong in here. That's the exact line I draw — and if ashwagandha interests you, it's worth doing under a physician's eye, once you know your numbers.

Where I landed: no "booster" herb is in your foundation. Zinc, magnesium, and vitamin D3 are — not because they spike your T, but because your body can't make testosterone without them. A supply line, not a stimulant. If your T is genuinely low, that's a lab draw and a doctor, not a scoop.
Santos HO, et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019. Vilar Neto JO, et al. Nutrients. 2025. Smith SJ, et al. Adv Nutr. 2020.

Biotin — the hair, skin and nails vitamin

Sold as: thicker hair and stronger nails, at 5,000 to 10,000 mcg a pop.

Two problems. First, in men without a true deficiency, the evidence that biotin does anything for hair is thin. Second — and this is the one nobody mentions — those megadoses can throw off your blood work.

High-dose biotin interferes with a lot of common lab tests, including the troponin test used to diagnose a heart attack and the panel used to check your thyroid. The FDA put out a safety communication about it. There are published cases of men and women whose results were thrown off and whose care got tangled up because of it. The population risk is lower than the headlines, but a hair gummy carries plenty to matter, and your doctor usually has no idea you're taking it.

Where I landed: a foundation shouldn't quietly sabotage the blood test that tells you whether you're having a heart attack. If you take biotin, tell your doctor and stop it a few days before labs.
U.S. FDA Safety Communication, 2019. Frame IJ, et al. Am J Clin Pathol. 2019.

The pattern

Every one of these ran the same play. Promising early data, a loud market, and then a real trial that found nothing — or found harm. Sometimes the trial had to be stopped because letting it continue wasn't ethical.

That's not an argument against supplements. It's an argument for a standard: a randomized human trial that says it works, and years of data that say it's safe, before it goes in the bottle — not a decade after it's been selling.

That standard is expensive. It costs me ingredients my competitors sell freely and the flashy claims that come with them. I think that's exactly the trade a man your age wants me to make.

You don't get fooled by the guy in the gym-supplement commercial anymore. Neither do I. Here's every ingredient that did make the cut, and the trial behind it.

Not what's hot. What's proven.

You've been around long enough to watch this movie a few times.

An ingredient gets a magazine cover. Then a podcast. Then a documentary, and suddenly it's in every ad on your feed and stacked in a pyramid at the store. A few years later nobody says a word about it, and nobody explains why.

Usually the reason is simple: somebody finally ran a real trial. And the trial didn't say what the ad said.

I built Altrek on one rule — nothing goes in the bottle unless a randomized human trial says it works and years of data say it's safe. That rule keeps a lot of popular stuff out. Here's what's hot right now, what the data actually shows, and where I landed on each. This is the stuff nobody selling it will tell you.

Hot right now

NMN and NR — the longevity molecules

Sold as: reverse aging by refilling your NAD⁺.

This is the big one in longevity circles, and I sell longevity, so I looked hard. The pitch is real biochemistry: NAD⁺ is a coenzyme your cells run on, it drops as you age, and NMN and NR do reliably push it back up. That part is true.

Here's the part the ads skip. A 2026 systematic review pulled together 33 human trials. The molecules raised NAD⁺ every time — and the effects on the things you actually care about, like strength, metabolism, and how you age, came back "heterogeneous and often null." A separate meta-analysis found no benefit for muscle mass or function in older adults. The needle on the lab marker moves. The needle on your life mostly doesn't.

Where I landed: raising a number isn't the same as helping a man. When a trial shows NMN makes 60-year-olds stronger or live longer, I'll be first in line. It hasn't yet. It's not in your bottle.
Gallagher C, et al. Ageing Res Rev. 2026. Prokopidis K, et al. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2025.

Resveratrol — the red-wine pill

Sold as: the compound in red wine that switches on your "longevity genes."

The whole story rests on resveratrol activating SIRT1, a gene tied to longevity. It's a great story. So researchers tested it directly.

A 2025 meta-analysis of the human trials found resveratrol doesn't significantly change SIRT1 at all — the exact mechanism it's famous for. And a 2024 review that combed through nearly 200 resveratrol trials across 20 years concluded there is still "no conclusive clinical evidence to advocate its recommendation in any healthcare setting." Two decades of studying it, and that's the verdict.

Where I landed: a supplement named after its mechanism should probably hit its mechanism. This one doesn't. Out.
Mansouri F, et al. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2025. Brown K, et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2024.

Greens powders

Sold as: a scoop of "superfoods" that covers your fruits and vegetables.

I like the idea too. But a greens powder is a proprietary blend, which means the label lists 40 impressive-sounding plants and never tells you how much of any one you're getting. Usually it's a dusting.

When a greens supplement was actually put to the test in 2026, 30 days of it left body composition, metabolic markers, and diet quality unchanged — and on the main aging clock, biological age drifted the wrong way. Separately, when researchers gave people the leafy greens themselves, blood pressure didn't budge. The ingredients that do have real data, like green tea, work as themselves, at a known dose. A scoop of mystery powder isn't that.

Where I landed: if an ingredient earns its place, it goes on the label with a number next to it. That's the opposite of a greens blend.
Robinson LA, et al. Front Nutr. 2026. Sundqvist M, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020.

Testosterone "boosters"

Sold as: the natural way to jack up your T — usually by a guy in a gym who's clearly on something else.

The backbone of this category is tribulus and maca. Systematic reviews are blunt: neither reliably raises testosterone in men. Tribulus has been sold as a T-booster for decades on essentially no human evidence for testosterone.

Now the honest nuance, because that's the whole point of this page. A couple of herbs here — fenugreek, and especially ashwagandha — do have real trial data for modest testosterone bumps in men. So it's not that every herb is snake oil. The loud ones on the ads (tribulus, maca) are just the ones the science doesn't back.

So why isn't ashwagandha in Altrek? Because it carries published reports of liver injury. It's probably fine for most men — but "probably fine" is a call you make with a doctor watching your labs, not something you take blind in a daily foundation. Anything that needs that kind of supervision doesn't belong in here. That's the exact line I draw — and if ashwagandha interests you, it's worth doing under a physician's eye, once you know your numbers.

Where I landed: no "booster" herb is in your foundation. Zinc, magnesium, and vitamin D3 are — not because they spike your T, but because your body can't make testosterone without them. A supply line, not a stimulant. If your T is genuinely low, that's a lab draw and a doctor, not a scoop.
Santos HO, et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019. Vilar Neto JO, et al. Nutrients. 2025. Smith SJ, et al. Adv Nutr. 2020.

Biotin — the hair, skin and nails vitamin

Sold as: thicker hair and stronger nails, at 5,000 to 10,000 mcg a pop.

Two problems. First, in men without a true deficiency, the evidence that biotin does anything for hair is thin. Second — and this is the one nobody mentions — those megadoses can throw off your blood work.

High-dose biotin interferes with a lot of common lab tests, including the troponin test used to diagnose a heart attack and the panel used to check your thyroid. The FDA put out a safety communication about it. There are published cases of men and women whose results were thrown off and whose care got tangled up because of it. The population risk is lower than the headlines, but a hair gummy carries plenty to matter, and your doctor usually has no idea you're taking it.

Where I landed: a foundation shouldn't quietly sabotage the blood test that tells you whether you're having a heart attack. If you take biotin, tell your doctor and stop it a few days before labs.
U.S. FDA Safety Communication, 2019. Frame IJ, et al. Am J Clin Pathol. 2019.

The ones that already had their day in court

These aren't trendy anymore — they're the cautionary tales. Big trials, clear verdicts, and a reason two of them are deliberately missing from your bottle.

Beta-carotene

Sold for decades as a lung-protecting antioxidant. Then two large trials tested it head-on. One found 18% more lung cancer and 8% higher death in men taking it. The other was stopped early for 28% more lung cancer. A third study found the same signal again, mostly in former smokers.

Where I landed: there's none in Altrek — which means no vitamin A on the panel at all. A lot of men over 45 used to smoke, and I can't know that when someone buys this off the shelf or online. (N Engl J Med. 1994 & 1996.)

High-dose vitamin E

The antioxidant darling of the 1990s. Then SELECT gave 400 IU/day to 35,533 men and found 17% more prostate cancer. Another trial found more heart failure.

Where I landed: we carry 30 mg — about a ninth of that, near what you'd get from food, at the dose used in a 13,000-person trial. Not the megadose that got into trouble. (JAMA. 2011 & 2005.)

High-dose selenium

Launched on one promising 1996 cancer-prevention trial. Two decades later the definitive study in 35,533 men found no cancer benefit, and follow-up tied that same 200 mcg dose to 55% more type 2 diabetes.

Where I landed: Altrek uses 100 mcg, not the 200 you'll see everywhere. Your food already gives you most of what you need. (JAMA. 2009. Ann Intern Med. 2007.)

The pattern

Every one of these ran the same play. Promising early data, a loud market, and then a real trial that found nothing — or found harm. Sometimes the trial had to be stopped because letting it continue wasn't ethical.

That's not an argument against supplements. It's an argument for a standard: a randomized human trial that says it works, and years of data that say it's safe, before it goes in the bottle — not a decade after it's been selling.

That standard is expensive. It costs me ingredients my competitors sell freely and the flashy claims that come with them. I think that's exactly the trade a man your age wants me to make.

You don't get fooled by the guy in the gym-supplement commercial anymore. Neither do I. Here's every ingredient that did make the cut, and the trial behind it.