Gene-based, personalized dosing.

Scientific substantiation of gene-based dosing

For the finished, fully personalized combination product there are no large randomized studies proving an outcome benefit over standardized supplementation. That is true for personalized nutrigenetics as a whole — and we don't claim otherwise.

What is substantiated is the level beneath it: the individual gene-nutrient interactions on which the adaptation is based — each graded by confidence. Well-documented, repeatedly replicated examples, each with a peer-reviewed review:

Part of the interpretation is — as everywhere in medicine — an expert recommendation. For a slightly deficient vitamin D level, five different doctors would probably recommend five different dosages, and all five are legitimate. Precision here does not mean the one true number, but a professionally grounded, transparent interpretation within a sensible corridor.

How the dosage is derived

1. Base recommendation per nutrient

   by sex and age — not a lifelong fixed value, but one that changes from year to year.

2. Factors are added or subtracted

   Higher body weight means more energy conversion and a higher consumption of the energy nutrients; competitive sport raises the requirement; and all of it shifts with age.

3. Genetic strengths and weaknesses

   are analyzed and, where a weakness is present, weighted using studies or in-house scores: maximum genetic risk leads to the maximum active-ingredient dose, a below-average genetic problem to a below-average dose.

4. Blood values take precedence

   where available: a deficiency always leads to the maximum dose of the nutrient, an excess always to its exclusion — independent of the genetics.

5. Safety ceiling

   Even with a particularly healthy diet plus supplementation, we stay below the EFSA Upper Safe Limits (Tolerable Upper Intake Level). In some cases additional statutory maximum amounts for food supplements apply, which we comply with — even where studies would suggest a higher dosage.

Robustness of the precision claims

• Over 700 quintillion possible outcomes arise purely from combinatorics: we analyze more than 50 genes, each with 3 possible states (genotypes). This yields 700 quintillion different potential genetic profiles — the number of theoretically possible starting constellations that the system responds to.
• Down to the microgram: every single nutrient is dosed to the microgram for the individual person, and each person can receive different microgram values. There is no coarse grid (not either 1 g of vitamin C or none at all), but a fine, algorithmically calculated gradation per active ingredient and person.

Dosing in the lower range

The system deliberately also regulates requirements downward. The charge of subtherapeutic dosing does not hold up professionally, because a different frame of reference applies:

• Meeting requirements rather than pharmacotherapy: "Subtherapeutic" is a pharmaceutical term — the active ingredient would have to reach a therapeutic threshold. The reference here is the physiological requirement, not a therapeutic threshold.
• Turning it down is a feature: a lower dose is professionally correct when genotype or blood value point to a lower requirement — and in order to avoid over-supply. For many micronutrients, more is not better, but U-shaped in its risk (iron, vitamin A, selenium, zinc/copper balance, folic-acid masking).
• Effective means meeting the individual requirement, not hitting a fixed high dose. The doses remain within evidence-based nutritional ranges — adjusted up and down, but not at trace level.
• Delimitation: genuine deficiency or disease states belong in medical hands (the medical track). The lifestyle product optimizes intake within the healthy range.