The company
Shaklee research studies
Shaklee talks about its science constantly, which makes it hard to tell what was actually published from what was announced. This page is the whole record in one place, with each entry labelled by how much scrutiny it survived.
The record, tier by tier
- The Landmark Study (2007) Peer-reviewed journal
Who ran it: Researchers led by Dr. Gladys Block of the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, funded by Shaklee Corporation.
What it was: A cross-sectional study comparing 278 long-term users of multiple Shaklee supplements against 602 non-users and 176 single multivitamin users drawn from the US national NHANES health surveys.
What it found: The multiple-supplement users had more favourable biomarkers on average, including HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, homocysteine, C-reactive protein, and blood pressure, and reported better self-rated health.
The honest caveat: Cross-sectional means a snapshot, not a trial. The Shaklee users were a convenience sample of health-conscious volunteers, so the design cannot separate the supplements from the lifestyle of the people who choose them. The paper says this itself.
Read the full paper in Nutrition JournalPubMed record (PMID 17958896)Shaklee’s own presentation of the study
- The telomere study, sometimes called Landmark II Company-reported, not peer-reviewed
Who ran it: Shaklee, in collaboration with the UCSF lab of Nobel laureate Elizabeth Blackburn, on 107 long-term users of Shaklee supplements.
What it was: Measured telomere length, a marker associated with cellular aging, in long-term supplement users against non-users.
What it found: Shaklee reports roughly 40% less telomere shortening across the adult age range in the supplement group.
The honest caveat: As far as I can find, this study was announced by the company and presented to distributors but never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Until it is, treat the number as a company claim carrying a famous collaborator’s name, not as settled science. If you find a peer-reviewed publication of it, I want the link.
- The "over 100 published papers" claim Company claim, partially checkable
Who ran it: Shaklee states it has published more than 100 scientific papers and presentations over its history.
What it was: A running count the company uses in its marketing, mixing peer-reviewed journal articles with conference abstracts and presentations.
What it found: Some entries are real journal articles you can look up. The total is not independently verifiable as a single list, and papers and presentations are very different things.
The honest caveat: When a brand cites a count, ask for the list. The checkable individual items, like the Landmark paper above, matter more than the number.
- The NASA collaboration Historical record
Who ran it: Shaklee worked with NASA in the 1990s on rehydration for shuttle astronauts.
What it was: Shaklee developed a customized rehydration beverage, Astro-Ade, used by shuttle astronauts.
What it found: A real piece of corporate history, and also not evidence that any supplement on sale today does anything in particular.
The honest caveat: I keep the full story, including what it does and does not prove, on its own page.
How to read company-funded research
Company funding does not make a study fake; most supplement research is industry funded because nobody else pays for it. It does mean you should check four things: was it peer reviewed, was there a real comparison group, does the design support the causal claim being made from it, and does the marketing match what the paper actually says. The Landmark Study passes the first two, and the paper itself is more careful than the slogans built on it. That gap between paper and slogan is where a buyer should focus.
Nothing on this page is a health claim, and none of it replaces your doctor. For what independent labs say about what is in the bottle, seequality and testing. For the wider question of the company itself, start at is Shaklee legit.
Questions people actually ask
Is the Shaklee Landmark Study legitimate?
It is a real study, run with UC Berkeley researchers, published in a real peer-reviewed journal, and funded by Shaklee, all of which you can verify from the paper itself. Legitimate and conclusive are different words though. It is a cross-sectional snapshot of health-conscious volunteers, which shows association, not proof that the supplements caused the better numbers.
Did the Landmark Study prove Shaklee supplements work?
No, and the paper does not claim to. It found that long-term users of multiple Shaklee supplements had better biomarkers than comparable non-users. People who take supplements for twenty years also tend to eat, sleep, and exercise differently. Proving cause needs a randomized trial, which this was not. What the study honestly supports: long-term Shaklee users were, as a group, in good health, with no signal of harm from long-term use.
Was the telomere study ever published?
Not in a peer-reviewed journal that I can find, and I looked, because it is the study I most get asked about. The collaboration with Elizabeth Blackburn’s lab is real and the company reports the results in its own materials. Until it appears in a journal, I list it as a company claim and label it that way on this page.
Where can I read the studies myself?
The Landmark paper is open access in Nutrition Journal, linked in the sources on this page along with its PubMed record. Shaklee’s own science pages are linked too, clearly marked as the company’s presentation rather than independent evidence. Nothing here requires my summary to be trusted.