Tested in real-world conditions. Not just in the lab.
Pilots, nurses, runners, and basketball players: ZEROLIMITS was tested in settings where physical strain is part of everyday life. In addition, a clinical study was conducted with BIOSEN, which included both questionnaires and blood tests. This page lists all five studies, including their methodologies, results, and limitations. The information is presented in full—even when the numbers aren’t so encouraging.
Five studies, one page.
Each study has its own URL. The link takes you directly to the relevant section, without having to go through the overview page.
BIOSEN · Clinical Trial
ZEROLIMITS · Basketball
ZEROLIMITS · Caregivers
ZEROLIMITS · Runner
ZEROLIMITS · Pilots
Not every study is a clinical trial.
These terms are not interchangeable, and the difference determines what a number can actually convey. For each of our five studies, we use precisely the term that is methodologically appropriate.
Clinical Trial
Study protocol, approval from an ethics committee, defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, objective measurements, and an external publication with a permanently citable DOI. In our case, this applies exclusively to the BIOSEN study.
Pilot Study
A controlled study with a comparison group, random assignment, and blinding of participants and the research team, but with a small sample size and an exploratory research question. In our case, this is the double-blind basketball study.
Applied and Observational Study
A study conducted under real-world conditions, before and after, without a control group and without blinding. It describes what participants report and does not establish a cause-and-effect relationship. This applies to the studies involving nurses, runners, and pilots.
For us, no observational study becomes a clinical trial, and no pilot study becomes proof of efficacy. Whenever a figure is presented without a control group, that fact is noted.
Four inflammatory markers in the blood. All four were significantly reduced.
Six weeks, 60 participants, four Spanish hospitals. This is the only VITAMIC study in which measurements were taken in addition to collecting data: Blood samples were taken from 20 participants before and after they took the medication.
At a Glance
The key finding: the blood test results
Questionnaires measure how someone feels. Blood tests measure what is happening in the body. In the blood subgroup, four established markers of inflammation were measured before and after the six weeks. All four were significantly lower afterward, with three of them showing the highest level of statistical significance.
Measured inflammatory markers in the blood were significantly reduced after six weeks. The ENCHEPAX™ panel was analyzed, with all samples tested on the same analytical plate to rule out any bias.
An acute-phase protein produced by the liver. The most commonly measured inflammatory marker worldwide.
Acute-phase protein. A marker of systemic inflammatory response.
Acute-phase protein. It is associated with metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance.
Hepatic acute-phase protein. Elevated in cases of chronic inflammation and infection.
The data were analyzed using the t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Wilcoxon test, chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test, supplemented by hierarchical cluster analysis and principal component analysis (PCA). The PCA clearly distinguished the values measured before and after administration. Other markers measured, such as BDNF, RANTES, NCAM, and PF4, did not show consistent significance.
The Symptoms
Nine symptoms were assessed on a 10-point scale at the start of the study and after weeks 1, 2, 3, and 6. The results were analyzed across all 60 participants.
The reported symptoms improved significantly over the course of the study.
Highest level of significance among all symptoms assessed; significant starting in Week 6.
Musculoskeletal pain, decreasing across all measurement time points.
In addition, the EuroQol-5D quality-of-life scale showed positive trends.
Significant starting in week 3.
Significant starting in week 6.
Decreasing across all measurement time points.
Decreasing across all measurement time points.
Two other symptoms recorded—loss of smell and taste—showed no significant change. Both are virus-specific and are not related to the inflammatory response. For sleep disturbances and headaches, the p-values in the Fisher’s exact test were 0.086 and 0.07, respectively—values at the borderline of statistical significance; however, the differences were significant in the analysis of the Likert scales and in the pairwise comparison of the measurement time points.
Why These Findings Extend Beyond the Context of the Study
The original research question was post-viral. The markers measured are not. CRP, A2M, fetuin-A, and AGP are general inflammatory markers that are used in medicine completely independently of this research question.
These four markers are recognized indicators of low-grade chronic inflammation.
: Likert-scale symptoms, EuroQol-5D quality of life, and blood biomarkers all show the same trend.
A blood test result does not change simply because someone expects a certain outcome.
“BIOSEN, with its unique combination of curcumin, boswellia, and vitamin C, demonstrated a significant improvement in symptoms in the study.”
What This Study Cannot Show
This study is our greatest asset. That is precisely why we identify its limitations just as clearly as we do its findings.
- No control group. The study design is single-arm; all participants received BIOSEN. A direct comparison with a placebo was not part of the study. Therefore, an expectation effect cannot be ruled out for the subjective symptoms. This does not apply to the blood test results.
- Open-label. The participants knew what they were taking. A blinded design would have provided further validation of the subjective endpoints.
- Sample size: 60 participants in total, 20 of whom underwent blood testing. This is above average for a dietary supplement, but too small for regulatory conclusions.
- Population: 90 percent women, average age 42.6 years, recruited through patient organizations. The generalizability of this study to other groups cannot be directly inferred from the results.
- Observation period: six weeks. The study does not address long-term effects.
- Concomitant medication. Existing treatments continued and were not monitored. BIOSEN was the only change; discontinuing it would not have been ethically justifiable.
- Publication. The study has been published with a DOI in the *Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research* and is therefore permanently citable. Nevertheless, we do not classify it as peer-reviewed because there is no evidence of a robust peer-review process for this journal.
The strength of this study lies in its design, not in the journal: an ethics review by a university hospital, four clinics, objective blood test results, p < 0.001. That is exactly how we present it. More information about the ingredients can be found on the BIOSEN product page.
Full text and permanent citation: Mera Cordero, F. M. (2022), Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, 47(3). DOI 10.26717/BJSTR.2022.47.007512
The next experience could be yours.
Over 3,000 customers, many of whom have been with us for years. Try it risk-free for 30 days.
- 30-day money-back guarantee for new customers
- Free shipping with every subscription
- Can be paused or canceled at any time, with no minimum term
ZEROLIMITS vs. a placebo
16 players from the Junior Basketball Bundesliga, four weeks, two groups. Eight were given ZEROLIMITS, and eight were given a control product that was identical in appearance and taste. None of the players knew which group they were in.
At a Glance
How the Blindfold Was Constructed
What “double-blind” means: Neither the participants nor the people supervising and conducting the measurements know who is in which group. There are five criteria involved, and all five are met.
was a blindedtrial. The participants did not know which bottle contained the active ingredient.
Both solutions were identical in appearance and taste.
; 1:1 allocation based on bottle numbers.
Blindedby the CoachThe head coach didn't know the group assignments; he saw only bottle numbers.
, the study leader, used a blindeddesign. In the three performance tests as well, it was not known who had received which treatment.
It follows that the study is double-blind. This is important because it eliminates the two most common sources of bias: the expectation effect among participants—since no player knew whether they were receiving the active ingredient— And the measurement bias on the part of the researchers, because even the coaches and test administrators did not know, and therefore could not unconsciously influence either the coaching or the performance tests in any particular direction. The subsequent statistical analysis was not conducted with additional blinding; that would be the next step and is discussed below.
Results Compared to Placebo
Eighteen parameters were measured weekly on a 10-point scale and pooled over the four weeks. Eight of them were significantly higher than those in the placebo group.
better recovery than in the placebo group. This was the strongest individual effect in the study, with p < 0.001 and a large effect size of Cohen’s d = 0.95.
7.09 vs. 6.00 · p < 0.001 · Cohen's d = 0.95
concentration7.78 vs. 6.86 · p < 0.001 · Cohen's d = 0.97
: 7.47 vs. 6.63 · p = 0.003 · Cohen's d = 0.77
: 7.34 vs. 6.51 · p < 0.001 · Cohen's d = 0.92
7.12 vs. 6.34 · p = 0.001 · Cohen's d = 0.85
: 7.34 vs. 6.60 · p = 0.001 · Cohen's d = 0.82
: 7.38 vs. 6.71 · p = 0.021 · Cohen's d = 0.58
: 6.97 vs. 6.43 · p = 0.045 · Cohen's d = 0.50
Cohen’s d describes the effect size independently of the sample size: values of 0.2 or higher are considered small, 0.5 or higher are considered medium, and 0.8 or higher are considered large. Six of the eight significant values fall within the range of a large effect size.
And the values with no significant difference
Although five additional parameters were higher in the ZEROLIMITS group, they did not reach the significance level. We are including them here because a list of results without the non-hits is not a complete list of results.
, p = 0.234 · Cohen's d = 0.29
p = 0.178 · Cohen's d = 0.34
, p = 0.475; Cohen's d = 0.17
, p = 0.515; Cohen's d = 0.16
; p = 0.106; Cohen's d = −0.40
The Objective Performance Tests
In addition to the self-assessment, three objective tests were administered before and after the four-week period: maximum strength in the bench press over three repetitions, jump height in the drop jump, and thirty free throws.
Significant within the ZEROLIMITS group, p = 0.009. Placebo +3.2 kg, p = 0.059. No significant difference between the groups, p = 0.679.
—about three times as high as in the placebo group ( ), with a difference of +0.3 cm, but not statistically significant, p = 0.479.
Virtually unchanged in both groups. Ceiling effect among trained NBBL players.
With 16 participants, there is insufficient statistical power for group comparisons in objective tests, regardless of how well the study was blinded.
“As part of a pilot study, we investigated the effect of VITAMIC ZEROLIMITS® on the performance of young basketball players. We tested three key performance parameters: drop jump, 3-RM bench press, and 30 free throws. The results provide initial interesting insights into possible correlations between taking ZEROLIMITS® and athletic performance in youth competitive sports.”
What This Study Cannot Show
This study is the only one that is randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. It is therefore our most methodologically robust ZEROLIMITS study. Nevertheless, it remains a pilot study with 16 participants, and these limitations still apply.
- Sample size: 16 participants. This is sufficient for the pooled subjective measures, but not for reliable group comparisons in the objective tests.
- Primarily subjective endpoints. Self-assessment on a scale of 1 to 10, supplemented by three objective tests at two time points. No wearables, no blood tests. However, because of the blinding, expectation effects are largely ruled out here.
- Four weeks. The study does not address long-term effects or habituation.
- A limited population. Male junior competitive athletes between the ages of 16 and 18. The findings of this study cannot be generalized to other groups.
- No correction for multiple testing. This is standard practice in an exploratory pilot study, but would be required in a confirmatory follow-up study.
- Not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The study was designed and evaluated in an association setting and funded by VITAMIC.
A result based on 16 participants remains an indication, not proof. The value of this study lies in the fact that it is the only one of our five that allows for a true comparison: two groups, randomly assigned, and no one in the room knew who had which bottle. Given these conditions, the fact that the eight significant values correspond exactly to the ranges identified by the other three ZEROLIMITS studies carries significantly more weight. What this means for training is explained on the ZEROLIMITS in Sports page .
Get a head start on your training now.
Your new daily routine to naturally support your workout. Try it risk-free for 30 days.
- 30-day money-back guarantee for new customers
- Free shipping with every subscription
- Can be paused or canceled at any time, with no minimum term
Four weeks of 12-hour shifts.
49 certified nurses from several hospitals in Vienna. Night shifts, shift changes, constant stress: It’s hard to imagine a tougher real-world test. And no other professional group in the DACH region evaluates a healthcare product more critically.
At a Glance
The results after four weeks
Data were collected both before and after. The table shows the percentage of participants who reported an improvement, followed by the absolute numbers.
reported feeling less exhausted after four weeks. That’s 36 out of 49 participants.
36 of 49
31 of 49
26 of 49
, Who Is Emotionally Resilient23 of 49
13 out of 32 who had reported symptoms at the start
14 of 49
10 out of 39 who had reported symptoms at the start
Sleep, at 29 percent, is the lowest figure in the study. This makes sense: For shift workers, sleep quality is determined more by the work schedule than by anything else. We’re showing this figure anyway, rather than just listing the top three rows.
Energy Value in Detail
Energy was the only metric that was measured as a score both before and after, making it directly comparable.
Average energy score on a scale of 1 to 10, an increase of 1.45 points. The median rose from 5 to 7.
, 31 out of 49 participants reported a higher value
, 12 of 49 participants reported no change
6 out of 49 participants
, 10 out of 49 participants reported an increase of 3 points or more
Where the effect occurs
When broken down by the initial value, the pattern becomes clear: Growth occurs where energy levels were low at the start.
, n = 28 · from 3.96 to 6.32
n = 14 · from 6.50 to 7.29
n = 7 · from 8.00 to 7.86
If you start at 8 out of 10, there’s hardly any room to go up. The last line shows a slight decline and is listed here just like the first one.
Three individual findings
Each of these three values applies only to the subset that specified the characteristic at the beginning. The denominators are shown below them.
10 out of 15 had three to four infections per year and spent more than four weeks in a hospital setting
9 out of 16 who took painkillers at least once a week
Without a control group, no cause can be inferred from these figures. They describe what the participants reported, not what ZEROLIMITS achieved.
“I don’t need to take a nap after work anymore—I just have more energy. I was already taking the drops before, but only once a day, and I didn’t experience this effect then.”
“Unfortunately, I can’t stand the taste of frankincense over the long term. Although the drops help improve my quality of life, I can no longer take them.”
What This Study Cannot Show
An observational study is not proof of efficacy. It describes what people report under real-world conditions.
- No control group. Expectation and placebo effects cannot be ruled out. These figures do not establish a cause-and-effect relationship.
- Self-reported data. No blood test results, no objective measurements. Data was collected exclusively through questionnaires.
- Four weeks is a short time. Several participants say so themselves; we quoted one of them above.
- Shift work as a confounding factor. Irregular medication times and rotating shifts have a particularly strong impact on sleep outcomes.
- Selection. Participation was voluntary. People who sign up for a survey like this tend to be more health-conscious than the average person.
- Gender distribution. 82 percent of the participants were female. This is consistent with the nursing industry, but makes the results less meaningful for male target groups.
- Not published in a peer-reviewed journal and funded by VITAMIC.
What makes this survey valuable nonetheless is that nursing staff are medically trained, work under constant real-world stress, and evaluate health products critically. And the three most prominent factors—exhaustion, energy, and concentration—are exactly the same three identified in the other three ZEROLIMITS studies. The ZEROLIMITS website describes this same stressful situation in terms of work and focus.
Six months on a long-haul flight.
22 long-distance runners in California, ranging from a runner returning to the sport after a five-year hiatus to a marathon runner with a personal best of 2:22. They were followed for six months, and their performance was analyzed based on the data available for the first four weeks.
At a Glance
The most important single factor: sleep
At each measurement point, participants were asked whether they found their sleep to be very restful. The percentage increased steadily over the four weeks.
rated their sleep as very restful. At the start of the study, 4 out of 15 did so; after four weeks, 10 out of 12 did.
, Answer 4 of 15
, 8 of 17 answers
8 of 15 answers
, 9 of 16 answers
: 10 of 12 answers
The denominator decreases over the weeks because not all participants responded at every point in time. With 12 responses in Week 4, each individual accounts for about 8 percentage points. This is an important factor to consider when interpreting this figure.
All recorded values, from the start through Week 4
Analyzed based on the nine participants for whom data are available for both time points. Scale of 1 to 10.
5.89 to 7.56
6.67 to 8.33
: 6.67 to 8.22
6.44 to 7.78
: 6.67 to 7.89
: 6.67 to 7.89
: 5.78 to 6.78
's total performance:6.56 to 7.67
6.56 to 7.56
6.33 to 7.22
: 6.89 to 7.67
: From 6.78 to 7.44
's recovery:from 7.00 to 7.67
Nine participants is a small sample size. What is noteworthy is not so much the specific percentage values as the fact that all thirteen values surveyed point in the same direction and none of them is decreasing.
The Data, Presented Transparently
This study has a problem that we won’t hide: The response rate drops off starting in the second month. For this reason, we are only analyzing data up to week 4 and are not presenting aggregate figures for the later months.
, solid baseline
: Highest Response Rate in the Study
, good
, good
: good, still usable · last time evaluated
: A Significant Decline Begins
, now only readable as a direction
, very small
: Cannot be evaluated
: no data
A six-month study period sounds good. Four weeks of that are feasible. That’s exactly how we’re communicating this study.
“It took me about three days to recover. Usually, it takes five on average.”
“I didn’t get as much sleep as usual this week, but I still feel well-rested, no matter how many hours I slept.”
What This Study Cannot Show
This study provides the strongest individual statistic in our portfolio and, at the same time, the weakest data set over the entire time period. Both should be mentioned together.
- No control group, no blinding. Expectation and self-selection effects cannot be ruled out.
- Self-reported data without objective measurements. No blood test results, no wearable data, no standardized performance tests.
- Only nine participants provided complete before-and-after data over the four weeks.
- There was a significant decline in the response rate starting in month 2. The data from months 3 through 6 cannot be analyzed.
- Field-related disruptions. Two participants were injured or fell ill during the study; one case of mononucleosis and one thigh injury were documented.
- Some dates were filled in retroactively, which limits the accuracy of the recollection.
- Not published in a peer-reviewed journal and funded by VITAMIC.
The value of this survey lies in its consistency: Thirteen metrics were collected, all pointing in the same direction, along with independent feedback from a group that closely monitors their bodies on a daily basis. The complete breakdown is available on the ZEROLIMITS product page .
Concentration, when it's not optional.
20 professional pilots and air traffic controllers on active duty, 14 of whom were fully evaluable. Time zone changes, night flights, shifts lasting up to 16 hours. A professional group that undergoes regular medical examinations and for whom alertness is not a matter of convenience.
At a Glance
The Results
Fourteen evaluable participants, four weeks, endpoints measured partly as yes/no questions and partly on a scale from 1 to 10.
reported feeling less exhausted after four weeks. That’s 11 out of 14 participants; 3 reported no change.
11 of 14
10 of 14
10 out of 14 · 3 showed significant improvement, 7 showed some improvement, 1 showed a decline
10 of 14 · 3 undecided, 1 no
9 of 14 · Average 7.1 out of 10
7 out of 14 · 2 significantly longer, 5 slightly longer
; median across all evaluable participants
The three complete sequences
For three participants, both baseline and final values are available for all four dimensions. For all three, all four values improve; not a single one remains the same or decreases.
Average change on a scale of 1 to 10
Average change
: Mean change
Average Change
Of course, three people are not enough to draw a reliable conclusion, but these figures were collected nonetheless.
“I started using ZEROLIMITS during an extremely mentally challenging period while I was retraining to fly a new aircraft. It feels like it has helped me tremendously in managing physical and mental stress, as well as my energy levels and recovery.”
“I haven’t noticed any changes. This may be because I’m already taking a variety of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and herbs as supplements. The effect of ZEROLIMITS on me is minimal to nonexistent.”
What This Study Cannot Show
Methodologically, this is the weakest of our five studies. We are including it nonetheless because it was conducted and because omitting it would be dishonest.
- No control group, no placebo arm, no blinding. Placebo, Hawthorne, and self-selection effects cannot be ruled out.
- Small sample size. 14 evaluable participants, only 3 of whom had complete before-and-after comparisons.
- Exclusively self-reported outcomes. No reaction tests, no sleep trackers, no objective measurements.
- A heterogeneous group. Given the size of this group, it is not possible to analyze airline pilots, military pilots, air traffic controllers, and helicopter pilots separately.
- Inconsistent data collection. Several scales and categorical questions were mixed together, which limits the ability to directly compare the endpoints.
- Data quality. Duplicate participants and seven questionnaires without a clear assignment had to be corrected during the post-analysis.
- Open-label study design. New participants are being enrolled on an ongoing basis; the figures shown here refer to the 4-week cohort from January through April 2025.
- Not published in a peer-reviewed journal and funded by VITAMIC.
This survey is not suitable for drawing regulatory conclusions, and we do not draw any such conclusions from it. What remains is this: a professional group that works under constant demands for alertness reports findings consistent with those of nurses, runners, and basketball players—including the voice that finds no effect. For shift work and long workdays, we have this on the ZEROLIMITS for Work and Focus .
Where fields of study converge.
A single result could be a coincidence. But the same trend across four separate groups, in four different locations, under four different types of stress is far less likely to be a coincidence. That is precisely where the value of this portfolio lies—not in a single percentage figure.
Three Topics, Four Studies with ZEROLIMITS
The four studies use different scales and reference values. The values themselves are not directly comparable. However, the general trend is comparable.
The clinical BIOSEN study stands apart methodologically because it was the only one to measure objective blood values. However, it fits into the same overall picture: concentration reached the highest level of significance among all symptoms assessed, and fatigue and sleep improved across all measurement time points. The same three topics, just measured using a different method.
What these five studies are—and what they are not.
This page explains the limitations of each study. Five points apply to all of them.
Applies to all five studies
- All five studies were initiated and funded by VITAMIC. None of them were conducted independently of us.
- Only one of the five is a clinical study that has received ethical approval and includes objective blood test results. The other four rely primarily on self-reported data.
- Only one of the five had a placebo-controlled (double-blind) group. The other three ZEROLIMITS studies are before-and-after observational studies without a control group.
- None of the five has been published in a scholarly journal with a verifiable peer-review process. The BIOSEN study has been published with a DOI and can be cited permanently; nevertheless, we do not classify it as peer-reviewed.
- When a figure is presented without a control group, we do not claim to establish a cause. We simply report what the participants have said.
Most dietary supplements don’t have a single study of their own. We have five; we present them in full and explain where their limitations lie. What remains is the feedback from 167 people who took BIOSEN or ZEROLIMITS under real-world conditions.
What a methodologically robust follow-up study would require
The basketball study is randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. This means that the study design is no longer its biggest weakness. Five points would nevertheless make it significantly stronger.
The analysis is conducted using anonymized group labels A and B; unblinding is documented only after the analysis is complete. While participants, the coaching staff, and the test administrators are blinded, this is not the case here.
: 16 participants provide pooled subjective data but do not allow for a reliable group comparison in the objective performance tests.
Four weeks will show whether and when something happens. They say nothing about long-term effects or tolerance.
: At least one laboratory value, such as inflammatory markers in the blood, as in the clinical BIOSEN study.
: Planning, data collection, and analysis conducted by an entity with no financial interest, followed by submission to a peer-reviewed journal.
The most common questions we get asked about our programs.
Were the VITAMIC studies conducted independently?
No. All five studies were initiated and funded by VITAMIC. This is stated on this page for each individual study and in the transparency section. The BIOSEN clinical trial was led by Dr. Francisco Mera Cordero and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hospital Clínico de San Carlos in Madrid; the data analysis was conducted by the respective study teams.
Has the BIOSEN study been peer-reviewed?
We do not classify it as peer-reviewed. The study was published in 2022 with a DOI in the *Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research* and is therefore permanently citable; however, there is no evidence of a robust, independent peer-review process for this journal. The study’s strength lies in its design: ethics approval, four hospitals, and objective blood test results.
How many people participated in total?
167 participants across five studies: 60 in the BIOSEN clinical trial, 16 in the basketball pilot study, 49 in the observational study with Viennese nursing staff, 22 in the observational study with California runners, and 20 in the observational study with commercial pilots.
What is the difference between a clinical trial, a pilot study, and a post-marketing surveillance study?
A clinical trial has a study protocol, an ethics committee approval, defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and objective measurements. A pilot study is controlled and blinded, but small and exploratory; in our case, it is double-blind. An observational study collects data under real-world conditions before and after intervention, without a control group, and therefore does not establish a cause-and-effect relationship. Of our five studies, one is a clinical trial, one is a pilot study, and three are observational studies.
Which study had a placebo group?
Only the pilot study involving 16 young basketball players from Science City Jena. Eight players received ZEROLIMITS, and eight received a control solution that was identical in appearance and taste. The study was double-blind: neither the players, nor the coach, nor the study staff knew who was in which group.
How long did the participants take the product?
Four of the five studies lasted four weeks; the BIOSEN clinical trial lasted six weeks. The observational study involving the California runners formally lasted six months, but due to a sharp drop in the response rate, the data were analyzed only up to week four.
Where can I read the original BIOSEN study?
It is freely available under DOI 10.26717/BJSTR.2022.47.007512 in the Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Volume 47, Issue 3, December 2022, published under a CC-BY 4.0 license.
Tested, documented, available.
ZEROLIMITS was evaluated in four studies involving 107 participants, while BIOSEN was evaluated in a clinical study involving 60 participants and blood tests.
The studies involving ZEROLIMITS consist of one placebo-controlled pilot study and three observational studies, primarily based on self-reported data, initiated and funded by VITAMIC. The BIOSEN study is a clinical trial without a control group. Individual results may vary. Dietary supplements are not a substitute for a balanced and varied diet and a healthy lifestyle.
