What peer‑reviewed clinical trials exist for Gelatide or its core ingredients?
Executive summary
No peer‑reviewed clinical trials of Gelatide as a branded product have been identified in the provided reporting, and the manufacturer itself acknowledges an absence of published human trials for the product’s sublingual formulation and full ingredient combination [1]. Independent peer‑reviewed evidence in the sources is limited to isolated studies on gelatin (the protein) and extensive, but unrelated, clinical programs for prescription GLP‑1 agonists such as semaglutide — compounds not listed as Gelatide ingredients [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Gelatide as a product: no published RCTs or peer‑reviewed human trials found
Gelatide’s official materials concede that the formulation “lacks published clinical trials validating the complete ingredient combination,” that dosages are undisclosed, and that sublingual delivery claims are not substantiated by peer‑reviewed human studies [1]; independent reviews flagged the product’s marketing and common supplement ingredient mix as reasons for skepticism [6]. Taken together, the available reporting shows no peer‑reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing Gelatide itself or its advertised sublingual delivery in humans [1] [6].
2. What peer‑reviewed trials exist for gelatin or “gelatine” as an ingredient?
There is peer‑reviewed clinical research on gelatin as a protein source with metabolic or delivery roles: a randomized clinical trial comparing a supra‑sustained gelatin‑milk protein diet to other protein diets found that gelatin produced stronger short‑term hunger suppression and lower energy intake but did not improve long‑term weight maintenance in that study (Physiol Behav, 2010) [2]. Separately, a double‑blind randomized trial assessed the safety of intravaginal gelatine capsules used to deliver probiotic lactobacilli, demonstrating that gelatin can serve as a safe pharmaceutical excipient in at least one clinical context [7]. These trials document clinical use of gelatin (or gelatine) as an ingredient or delivery matrix, but they do not validate Gelatide’s specific formulation, dosing, or weight‑loss claims [2] [7].
3. The common botanical and stimulant components: limited or absent high‑quality RCT evidence in the supplied sources
Gelatide’s listed botanical thermogenic ingredients — raspberry ketones, green tea extract, guarana, maca, ginseng, and capsicum — appear in the product description and marketing critiques, but the provided reporting does not include peer‑reviewed randomized clinical trials for these individual ingredients in the context or doses used by Gelatide [6] [1]. The company’s nondisclosure of exact component dosages prevents cross‑referencing with any external trials that might show efficacy at specific amounts, a limitation explicitly noted by the manufacturer and independent reviewers [1] [6]. Therefore, based on the supplied sources, robust RCT evidence for Gelatide’s botanical mix either is not presented or remains unpublished.
4. Large, peer‑reviewed clinical programs exist for prescription obesity drugs — not for Gelatide — and why that matters
Multiple high‑quality, peer‑reviewed randomized trials and meta‑analyses document the efficacy and safety of prescription GLP‑1 receptor agonists such as semaglutide for diabetes and obesity, forming a well‑established evidence base [3] [4] [5] [8] [9]. These sources underscore a contrast: clinically proven pharmaceuticals with transparent dosing and trial registries differ fundamentally from over‑the‑counter supplements that rely on combinations of botanical extracts with limited or unpublished human RCT data [3] [4] [1]. The presence of rigorous trials for semaglutide in no way validates Gelatide’s claims because semaglutide is not listed among Gelatide’s ingredients and operates via a distinct pharmacological mechanism [1] [3].
5. Bottom line and gaps in the public record
The supplied reporting supports two clear facts: Gelatide has no published peer‑reviewed clinical trials of the product itself, and clinical research in peer‑reviewed journals exists for gelatin as a protein or excipient (with modest, mixed metabolic findings) and for prescription agents like semaglutide — but the reporting does not provide peer‑reviewed RCTs demonstrating that Gelatide’s specific botanical blend, sublingual delivery, or marketed weight‑loss effects are effective and safe in humans at disclosed doses [1] [2] [3]. Where sources do not report trials for particular botanicals at Gelatide’s undisclosed doses, this analysis refrains from asserting their absence beyond the supplied materials and instead highlights the evidentiary gap noted by both the company and independent reviewers [1] [6].