Which peer-reviewed studies tested Memory Blast ingredients and what doses did they use?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No peer‑reviewed studies of a product called “Memory Blast” or its exact proprietary blends appear in the supplied reporting; several sources state specific branded supplements (IQ Blast Pro, MemoBlast, Memo®) lack direct peer‑reviewed clinical trials of their proprietary formulas [1] [2]. Independent randomized trials do exist for some individual ingredients commonly found in brain supplements (for example, combinations including Ginkgo biloba, Panax ginseng, and phosphatidylserine are discussed in peer‑reviewed literature) — one clinical trial of a triple natural formula (Memo®) measured Mini‑Mental State Examination scores in mild cognitive impairment [3].
1. No direct peer‑reviewed trials for the named “Memory Blast” proprietary formula
Search results show multiple marketing and review pages for branded products (IQ Blast Pro, MemoBlast, Memory Lift) but do not provide peer‑reviewed trials of those proprietary formulations. Investigative posts and consumer‑watch analyses explicitly report that no peer‑reviewed studies exist for at least some of these brands’ specific formulas — for example, MalwareTips concluded “none of which exist for IQ Blast Pro” when discussing peer‑reviewed evidence, and Infoquu stated “No peer‑reviewed studies exist on MemoBlast’s specific formulation” [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention a peer‑reviewed trial labeled “Memory Blast” or that tests that exact product name.
2. Studies exist for individual ingredients and some multi‑ingredient formulas (example: Memo® trial)
While brands often claim evidence “backing” ingredient lists, the supplied scientific literature includes peer‑reviewed trials of ingredient combinations, not the commercial proprietary blends advertised. One peer‑reviewed clinical trial evaluated a product named Memo® — a natural triple formula including Ginkgo biloba, Panax ginseng and royal jelly — and reported effects on Mini‑Mental State Examination scores in patients with mild cognitive impairment [3]. That paper discusses prior studies showing cognition effects for Ginkgo and Panax and notes limited human data for royal jelly [3].
3. Marketing materials conflate ingredient evidence with product validation
Multiple vendor or promotional pages claim their blend is “science‑backed” by citing research on constituent herbs or molecules rather than trials on their finished supplement (examples: IQ Blast Pro and MemoBlast marketing pages) [4] [5] [6]. Independent reviewers call this out: Infoquu warned the presence of studied ingredients does not validate a proprietary mix without transparent dosages and direct trials [2]. MalwareTips and other watchdog pieces flagged that many brand claims rest on general ingredient research rather than product‑level clinical data [1].
4. Dosage transparency matters — supplied sources report limited label dose disclosure
Reviews emphasize that many commercial products hide precise ingredient dosages in “proprietary blends,” undermining the ability to compare to doses used in peer‑reviewed trials [7] [2]. The Memo® clinical trial is valuable because it tests a defined formula and dosing regimen in patients [3]. For the other brands in the supplied results, available marketing/review pages either do not publish full dosages or reviewers say doses are unverified on third‑party testing [5] [7] [2].
5. What the chosen peer‑reviewed study (Memo®) actually used and found
The Memo® trial tested a specified triple‑ingredient formula and measured Mini‑Mental State Examination outcomes in mild cognitive impairment patients; the paper reports cognitive benefits but also calls for larger, longer studies to confirm effects [3]. The article explicitly notes prior supportive studies for Ginkgo biloba and Panax ginseng and sparse human data for royal jelly [3]. Exact dosing details beyond this high‑level description are found in the peer‑reviewed article itself [3].
6. How to interpret claims and next steps for verification
Given the supplied sources, do not equate ingredient‑level evidence with proof that a named commercial product works at its marketed dose. Independent reviewers advise requiring: 1) peer‑reviewed clinical trials on the finished product; 2) transparent ingredient dosages matching those trials; and 3) third‑party certificate‑of‑analysis testing. Infoquu and other reviewers emphasize that without these, claims remain unvalidated [2] [7]. Available sources do not mention any peer‑reviewed clinical trials for a product explicitly called “Memory Blast.”
Limitations: this review is limited to the documents in the provided search results; other peer‑reviewed articles may exist outside these sources but are not cited here.