What peer‑reviewed clinical trials exist testing ASEA products and what were their findings?
Executive summary
Peer‑reviewed clinical evidence for ASEA products is sparse, mixed in quality, and leans toward showing no clear benefit in randomized trials while a few peer‑reviewed case reports and company‑promoted abstracts claim positive signals worthy of further study [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Independent, placebo‑controlled trials that have been reported are either negative or only available as abstracts, and several company‑linked trials remain unpublished in full form [1] [2] [3] [5].
1. The randomized, double‑blind trial that found no performance benefit
A university‑hosted, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled study testing ASEA’s redox supplement in young fit adults reported no significant improvements in core aerobic outcomes—VO2max, time to VO2max, ventilatory threshold, or maximal heart rate—after two weeks of daily supplementation, contradicting manufacturer ergogenic claims [1]. That report explicitly concluded ASEA did not improve aerobic performance in that cohort [1].
2. Small cycling studies: abstracts, deletions and negative signals
Industry and independent summaries point to a small literature in cyclists: one 20‑participant double‑blind, placebo‑controlled time‑trial study reported essentially negative results (ASEA did not improve time‑trial performance) and another small 17‑cyclist study (not placebo‑controlled) was noted but later removed from the web, reducing transparency and independent verification [2]. These reports exist largely as abstracts or brief summaries rather than full peer‑reviewed articles, limiting their evidentiary weight [2].
3. Metabolomics and FASEB abstracts: company promotion vs. peer review
ASEA and affiliated sites point to a metabolomics study and FASEB abstracts indicating increased fatty‑acid mobilization or other biomarker changes in cyclists after short‑term ingestion; these findings are often cited by the company’s materials as supportive evidence [5] [6]. Independent observers caution that abstracts and company‑published summaries do not substitute for full peer‑reviewed trials with raw data and reproducible methods, and at least one commentator emphasized the inadequacy of abstract‑only evidence [2].
4. Case reports in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: peer‑reviewed but limited
Several peer‑reviewed case reports and small case series published in 2025 describe apparent clinical or biomarker improvements in children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy after ASEA administration, including reductions in creatine kinase and slight functional gains in individual patients [3] [4]. These papers were published in open‑access venues and underwent external peer review, but as case reports they cannot establish efficacy or causation and often involve concomitant therapies, which the authors acknowledge [3] [4].
5. Unpublished registered trials and the company narrative
A registered clinical trial titled “Effect of ASEA on Energy Expenditure and Fat Oxidation in Humans” is reported to have been conducted circa 2013 but its results are not publicly available, creating a gap between trial registration and accessible outcomes [3] [4]. ASEA’s corporate materials and science pages highlight select abstracts and internal summaries as evidence of benefit, yet independent reviewers and skeptics stress that these company‑linked reports do not replace independent, full‑text, peer‑reviewed randomized trials [5] [6] [2].
6. What the peer‑reviewed record supports and what it does not
The peer‑reviewed randomized trial evidence that is publicly accessible and independent shows no clear performance benefit for ASEA in athletic endpoints [1] [2]. Peer‑reviewed case reports suggest biologic activity in very specific clinical anecdotes (Duchenne case reports) but lack the methodological rigor to support general efficacy claims [3] [4]. Company claims and abstracts point to possible biomarker effects, but those are not equivalent to replicated, independent clinical trials demonstrating meaningful health outcomes [5] [6] [2].
7. Bottom line and research gaps
Current peer‑reviewed randomized evidence available in the public domain does not demonstrate clear benefit of ASEA products for athletic performance, while a few peer‑reviewed case reports and unpublished or abstract‑only trials raise hypotheses rather than confirm efficacy; the record is notable for unpublished registered trials and company‑promoted abstracts, underscoring the need for independently funded, fully published randomized trials with transparent data [1] [2] [3] [5].