Scientifically proven
Tested in real-world conditions. Not just in the lab.
Pilots, nurses, runners, and basketball players: VITAMIC ZEROLIMITS was tested in settings where physical strain is part of everyday life. This was accompanied by a clinical study conducted with BIOSEN. You can find detailed information on all the methods and results here.
CLINICAL STUDY · BIOSEN®
Four inflammatory markers in the blood.
All were significantly reduced.
A six-week clinical study involving 60 participants from four Spanish cities—conducted under the direction of Dr. Francisco Mera Cordero and published in the Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research. What makes this study unusual is that it measures not only how participants feel, but also the measurable changes occurring in their blood.
"BIOSEN, with its unique combination of curcumin, boswellia, and vitamin C, demonstrated a significant improvement in symptoms in the study."
Dr. Francisco Mera Cordero · Director of Studies
How the study was structured.
A multi-method approach using three validated instruments—combined with objective blood tests in a subgroup.
Design
Single-arm, open-label, low-intervention study. All participants took 2 × 10 drops of BIOSEN daily for 6 weeks.
Symptom Assessment
Structured questionnaires on 9 symptoms using a 10-point Likert scale. Administered at enrollment and at weeks 1, 2, 3, and 6.
Quality of Life
EuroQol-5D (a validated instrument) and the Post-COVID Functional Scale (PCFS) to assess functional impairment in daily life.
Blood analysis (n=20)
ENCHEPAX™ Biomarker Panel — all samples are processed on the same analytical plate to avoid bias.
Statistics
t-test, Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon, chi-square, Fisher's exact test. Additionally: hierarchical cluster analysis and principal component analysis (PCA).
Population
60 adults with persistent post-viral symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Average age: 42.5 years. Participants were recruited from four Spanish clinics.
Four markers. All significantly reduced.
Unlike questionnaires, blood test results cannot be influenced by expectations. In the blood subgroup (n=20), four key inflammatory markers were measured before and after the 6-week period—all four showed a statistically significant reduction.
| Biomarkers | Type | Clinical Significance | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| CRP | Acute-phase protein (liver) | The most common inflammatory marker worldwide. Elevated levels are associated with chronic inflammation, joint pain, and cardiovascular risk. | p < 0.001 *** |
| A2M | Acute-phase protein (liver) | A marker for systemic inflammatory response. Elevated in cases of chronic inflammation and liver stress. | p < 0.001 *** |
| Fetuin-A | Acute-phase protein (liver) | Associated with metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, and vascular calcification. | p < 0.001 *** |
| AGP | Acute-phase protein (liver) | Hepatic acute-phase protein. Elevated in cases of chronic inflammation and infection. | p < 0.01 ** |
The statistical analysis was performed using several methods—the t-test, the Wilcoxon test, and principal component analysis (PCA)—which revealed a clear distinction between pre- and post-values. Three of the four markers reached the highest level of significance (p < 0.001).
Seven out of nine symptoms
showed significant improvement.
Nine symptoms were assessed on a 10-point Likert scale at five measurement time points. The analysis included all 60 participants.
Two specific symptoms (loss of smell and taste) showed no significant change—but both are primarily virus-specific symptoms unrelated to the general inflammatory response.
Why these findings
extend beyond the context of the study.
The original research question focused on post-viral conditions. However, the markers and symptoms measured are universal—they play a role in inflammatory medicine far beyond this specific context.
CRP & Co.
The four markers measured are established indicators of chronic, low-grade inflammation—a condition associated with joint pain, fatigue, cardiovascular risk, and accelerated aging.
Sleep & Inflammation
The link between inflammation and sleep quality is well documented in the medical literature. The parallel improvement in both parameters observed in the study is consistent with this picture.
Cognitive Clarity
Concentration showed the highest statistical significance of all subjective symptoms, with p < 0.01. Mental clarity is one of the most common concerns among the 50+ target group.
Multi-method consistency
If three independent measurement instruments (Likert-scale symptoms, EuroQol quality of life, blood biomarkers) point in the same direction, this is an indication of structural consistency—which is difficult to explain by chance or expectation.
What the study “
” cannot show.
Complete transparency is an essential part of any reputable study. The following methodological limitations have been documented and should be taken into account when evaluating the study.
Known Limitations
- No control group: single-arm design; all participants received BIOSEN. A direct comparison with a placebo was not part of this study. However, the objectively measured blood values are not susceptible to placebo effects.
- Sample size: 60 participants in total, including 20 in the blood subgroup. This is typical for clinical trials of dietary supplements, but small for regulatory purposes.
- Open-label: The participants knew they were taking BIOSEN. A blinded design would have further reduced the risk of subjective bias.
- Study population: 90% of the participants were female; the average age was 42.5 years. The generalizability of these findings to other demographic groups cannot be directly inferred from this study—however, the biological mechanisms measured (CRP reduction) are independent of gender and age.
- Observation period: Six weeks are sufficient to demonstrate measurable effects—no conclusions regarding long-term effects can be drawn from this study.
DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2022.47.007512 · Ethics Approval: Hospital Clínico de San Carlos, Madrid
PILOT STUDY · ZEROLIMITS®
Recovery, concentration, strength.
Four-week comparison with a placebo.
A randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study involving 16 male basketball players (ages 16–18) from the NBBL roster of Science City Jena. ZEROLIMITS was compared with a placebo solution that was identical in appearance and taste over a four-week period—under real-world training conditions.
How the study was structured.
Developed in collaboration with NBBL head coach Jan de Buhr. Goal: To gather initial data on the impact of ZEROLIMITS on recovery and selected performance tests under real-world training conditions.
Randomization
1:1 allocation using numbered bottles. Eight players received ZEROLIMITS, and eight received a placebo that was identical in appearance and taste.
Blinding
Simple-blind: The participants did not know which bottle contained the active ingredient and which contained the placebo. The two solutions were indistinguishable in appearance and taste.
Subjective Metrics
Weekly self-report on a 10-point Likert scale covering 16 parameters—ranging from recovery and concentration to sleep quality and muscle soreness.
Objective Performance Tests
3-RM bench press (maximum upper-body strength), drop jump height (explosive strength), and 30 free throws (concentration under stress) — measured before and after the intake phase.
Analysis
Mean values ± standard deviation, t-tests (independent and paired), effect sizes according to Cohen's d. Significance level α = 0.05.
Pre-Survey Check
The baseline survey revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups—the groups were comparable at the start of the study.
Three areas with significant impact.
Effect sizes of Cohen’s d ≥ 0.8 are considered large in sports science. In the ZEROLIMITS group, values around Cohen’s d ≈ 0.9 were observed in the three most important areas—which is remarkable for a pilot study of this size.
Eight of sixteen metrics
are statistically significant.
When pooled across all four weeks, the ZEROLIMITS group showed statistically significantly better results than the placebo group in eight of the sixteen subjective metrics assessed (p < 0.05).
| Metric | ZEROLIMITS Ø | Placebo Ø | Difference | p-value | Cohen d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recovery | 7,09 | 6,00 | +18,2% | < 0,001 | 0,95 |
| Concentration | 7,78 | 6,86 | +13,5% | < 0,001 | 0,97 |
| Mental Resilience | 7,47 | 6,63 | +12,7% | 0,003 | 0,77 |
| Subjective Strength | 7,34 | 6,51 | +12,7% | < 0,001 | 0,92 |
| Agility | 7,12 | 6,34 | +12,3% | 0,001 | 0,85 |
| Reaction Time | 7,34 | 6,60 | +11,3% | 0,001 | 0,82 |
| Speed | 7,38 | 6,71 | +9,8% | 0,021 | 0,58 |
| Coordination | 6,97 | 6,43 | +8,4% | 0,045 | 0,50 |
Scale 1–10. Mean values pooled across all four weeks per group. p-values from independent t-tests. Effect sizes according to Cohen: d ≥ 0.2 = small, ≥ 0.5 = medium, ≥ 0.8 = large. Eight additional metrics measured (including sleep quality, mobility, and respiration) did not reach statistical significance but consistently showed trends in favor of the ZEROLIMITS group.
, a major new addition to the ZEROLIMITS Group.
Three performance tests before and after the supplementation phase: 3-RM bench press (maximum strength), drop jump (explosive strength), and 30 free throws (concentration under pressure).
| Test | ZEROLIMITS Δ | Placebo Δ | p (within ZL) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-RM Bench Press (kg) | +3.9 ± 3.0 | +3.2 ± 3.2 | 0.009 |
| Drop-Jump Height (cm) | +1.1 ± 2.3 | +0.3 ± 0.8 | 0.268 |
| Free Throws (0–30) | +0.1 ± 1.1 | +0.5 ± 1.4 | 0.763 |
In the 3-RM bench press, maximum strength increased statistically significantly (p = 0.009) within the ZEROLIMITS group, while the placebo group narrowly missed the significance level (p = 0.059). In a between-group comparison, the difference was not significant given this sample size. A ceiling effect was observed in free throws: the NBBL players already had very high success rates at the start of the study.
What the study “
” cannot show.
This study is explicitly designed as a pilot study. The observed effects are an initial indication, not proof. The following limitations are documented.
Known Limitations
- Sample size: With n = 16, this study is a pilot study. Statistical tests on small samples have limited statistical power, particularly for between-group comparisons.
- Single-blind, not double-blind: The players were blinded, but the coaches and study team were informed of the group assignments. A double-blind design would be methodologically sounder.
- Subjective endpoints: The majority of the metrics collected are based on self-reporting using a Likert scale. Blinding the players reduces this bias but does not eliminate it.
- Short duration: Four weeks are sufficient to observe initial trends, but too short to draw conclusions about long-term effects or adaptation.
- Target population: Male junior competitive athletes (ages 16–18) — The findings are not applicable to other age groups, genders, or activity levels.
- Not a peer-reviewed publication: The study was designed and evaluated within an association setting. It did not undergo external scientific review.
FIELD OBSERVATION · ZEROLIMITS®
If something works at the hospital
, it works everywhere.
A four-week observational study involving 49 nurses from several hospitals in Vienna—one of the most physically and mentally demanding professions in the DACH region. Before-and-after measurements were taken, with honest acknowledgment of the study’s methodological limitations.
How we proceeded.
This survey is an observational study—not a clinical trial. It is intended as an honest real-world test, not as scientific proof of efficacy.
Design
Prospective, without a control group, without blinding. Standardized online questionnaire administered before starting the treatment and after four weeks.
Scales
Numerical 1–10 Likert-scale items for energy, sleep, concentration, and emotional stability. Categorical items for fatigue, pain, digestion, infections, and medication.
Recruitment
Certified nursing staff from several hospitals in Vienna. Participation was voluntary; no compensation was provided. The analysis was based on 49 complete before-and-after pairs.
Anonymization
The data was analyzed anonymously using paired IDs. Participants could withdraw their responses at any time.
Key figures from the "
" before-and-after survey.
Four findings derived directly from the before-and-after data of the 49 participants.
Which areas have changed.
Percentage of participants who report an improvement in the respective areas — sorted by the strength of the finding.
Sleep outcomes are expected to be less pronounced due to the participants’ shift work. Muscle/joint and digestive function were evaluated only in individuals who reported symptoms at the start of the study (subgroups).
Direct quotes from the questionnaires.
A selection of original responses from the final questionnaire—unedited and reproduced verbatim.
Critical opinions are also documented—one participant cited the taste as the reason for discontinuing use early. These opinions are deliberately not omitted.
Methodological limitations.
Transparency regarding the limitations of this study—it is an observational study of clinical practice, not a scientific demonstration of efficacy.
Known Limitations
- No control group: There is no placebo control group and no blinding. The possibility of expectation effects cannot be ruled out.
- Subjective self-report: No blood test results, no biometric markers. What is documented here is the participants’ perception.
- Four weeks is a short time: Several participants have noted this themselves. This study leaves open the question of what would happen with longer-term use.
- Variable compliance: Shift work and individual taste preferences sometimes led to irregular intake.
- Selection bias: Nursing staff volunteered to participate—and may have been particularly health-conscious.
FIELD OBSERVATION · ZEROLIMITS®
Tested in the cockpit.
For demanding workdays.
A field study involving commercial pilots, air traffic controllers, and military pilots under real-world operating conditions. This is a professional group that undergoes regular medical examinations and for whom concentration, reaction time, and sleep quality are essential.
How the observation was structured.
Prospective, open-label, under real-world conditions. No control group, no blinding—deliberately designed as a practice-based observation study in a highly stressed occupational group.
Population
Commercial airline pilots (ATPL), military pilots, air traffic controllers, and helicopter pilots. 75% of the participants have more than 10 years of professional experience, and 75% of those have more than 15 years.
Operations Profile
65% short-haul (typically 3–4 legs per flight), 35% long-haul (time zones, cumulative fatigue). Average flight duration: approximately 12 hours, up to a maximum of 16 hours.
Data Collection
Pre-study questionnaire on demographics, occupational profile, and baseline well-being. Follow-up surveys at regular intervals (start, weeks 1, 2, 3, 4) via an online survey.
Scales
Subjective self-assessment using Likert scales (1–10) and categorical response options. Measures: energy level, focus, sleep quality, reaction time, mental clarity, recovery time after flights, and fatigue.
General Conditions
During the observation period, diet, exercise, work schedules, sleep patterns, and other supplements remained unchanged—the participants altered only one variable.
Analysis
Quantitative analysis of self-reported data (means, distributions, pre-post comparisons for complete data sets). Qualitative analysis of the open-ended final question.
What the pilots reported.
The survey administered at the end of the study assessed participants’ retrospective self-reports regarding fatigue, focus, sleep, and willingness to recommend the program.
Among the three participants with complete baseline and Week 4 data, all four measured dimensions improved—without a single instance of stagnation or deterioration. Sleep quality showed the strongest effect, with an increase of 3.0 points.
From the cockpit.
A selection of original comments from the open-ended response fields at the end of the study.
What the observation
cannot show.
This observational study has its limitations—and that is precisely what is openly communicated here. Its strength lies in the credibility of the professional group, not in proof of efficacy.
Known Limitations
- No control group / no placebo arm: In principle, effects may be attributable to the placebo effect, the Hawthorne effect, or self-selection.
- No blinding: The participants knew they were taking ZEROLIMITS—expectation effects can influence the outcome.
- Small sample size: 14 usable participants, of whom only 3 had complete pre- and post-tests. Low statistical power.
- Self-reported endpoints: No objective measurements such as reaction time tests, EEG, or sleep trackers. Self-assessment is prone to bias.
- Incomplete data collection: Most participants have a single data point, not continuous time series.
- Heterogeneous population: a mix of commercial airline pilots, military pilots, air traffic controllers, and helicopter pilots. Subgroup analyses are not possible.
FIELD OBSERVATION · ZEROLIMITS®
22 runners from California.
From a return to running as a hobby to a marathon personal best.
A case study involving 22 long-distance runners from California—ranging from recreational runners returning to the sport to elite marathon runners (personal bests under 2:30). Observation period: the first few weeks through month 3 of regular use.
How the observation went.
Structured self-reporting at the start and at regular intervals over several months. The main analysis covers the core set of reliable data: the first few weeks through month 3 of use.
Design
Prospective observational study without a control group or blinding. Participants received ZEROLIMITS and documented their self-assessments using structured online questionnaires.
Scales
Numerical 1–10 Likert-scale items for 13 dimensions—ranging from recovery and sleep quality to athletic confidence and stress management. Free-response answers are also included.
Population
22 active long-distance runners, average age 28. 82% train more than 5 times a week, and 64% have more than 10 years of running experience.
Range of Services
From a comeback after a break of several years to elite level: 5K personal best of 13:43, marathon personal bests of 2:22 and 2:28, half-marathon personal best of 1:14.
Data Window
For the quantitative analysis, the time period with the most complete data sets was used (the first few weeks through month 3, n=9–17 per measurement point). Qualitative individual statements from later time points are identified as such.
Analysis
Comparison of baseline vs. follow-up measurements for the 13 Likert-scale dimensions. Analysis of the paired subgroup with complete pre- and post-measurement data (n=9).
Sleep, Recovery, Performance.
The trends in the paired subgroup (n=9 with baseline and 4-week data) show a consistent pattern: improvements in all 13 dimensions assessed.
Improvements in all areas surveyed by
.
Comparison of baseline vs. Week 4 for the paired subgroup (n=9). Percentage change in the mean score on the 10-point Likert scale.
What the runners reported
.
A selection of the documented statements from the open-ended response fields. Verbatim and unedited.
What the observation
cannot show.
This observational study is explicitly designed as a real-world trial in a challenging patient population—not as a controlled clinical trial. The following limitations are documented.
Known Limitations
- No control group: There is no placebo control group. Placebo effects cannot be ruled out—therefore, the improvements cannot be attributed solely to the product.
- Self-reported data: All data are based on subjective self-assessment using a Likert scale. No biomarkers or objective performance data were collected (personal records were established during the course of training, not through standardized tests).
- Small paired subgroup: The quantitative analysis of the changes is based on n=9 complete pre/post data sets. The statistical power is limited.
- Heterogeneous population: From hobby runners returning to the sport to elite marathon runners—the subgroups are too small for separate analyses.
- Confounders: During the follow-up period, some participants changed their training volume or diet, or sustained injuries—these variables were not controlled for.
