However, as I read this study and found a variety of logistical problems that are obvious to the average person (no science degree necessary). Other have brought up other problems with this study. Here are some of the points that has been made:

• “one was excluded on the basis of a high daily antioxidant intake”

  This is proof that this study does not apply to people who who are already taking antioxidants. So if you were to take a daily multivitamin the study is irrelevant to you. If you eat fruit or otherwise try to be healthy this study doesn’t apply. In short, it’s irrelevant to MonaVie’s entire customer-base, people looking to be more healthy.

• “Because the ORAC testing did not result in a trend toward increased antioxidant activity, it was not used in the subsequent randomized controlled trial.”

  The basis of 90% of MonaVie’s marketing was for a number of years ORAC score. Now they are saying that it’s essentially useless and since it didn’t show MonaVie’s Dr. Schauss want he wants to see (increased antioxidant activity), he’s going to ignore it. That’s very convenient.

• “Thus, the analysis of the pilot study was based on five study participants from whom repeat blood draws were performed.”

  So the basis of this study is 5 people. That’s the entire sample size. It’s not very persuasive, especially when they rejected the person above for actually being healthy.

• “The study participants were instructed to avoid vigorous exercise for a period of 24 h prior to arriving at the clinic. They were also instructed to eat a light meal and to avoid meat, fruits, or greens, as well as to abstain from consuming alcohol, coffee, or melatonin the night before. Subjects were scheduled to arrive at the clinic following an overnight fast and were instructed to consume no food, vitamins, or other nutritional supplements the morning of each study day.”

  So the subjects couldn’t exercise, eat healthy foods like fruit or greens that contain antioxidants, or take vitamins. Alcohol and coffee in moderation also have antioxidant properties, so they were eliminated as well. So they are letting one group have antioxidants (in the form of MonaVie) and another not. I don’t know what scientists were really expecting to show, but it’s something that’s already clear to everyone. There’s some amount of antioxidants in MonaVie, BUT that might be less than a single blueberry since the scientists had no comparison.

• “A recent study assessed the increase in plasma antioxidant capacity after the consumption of either an antioxidant-poor meal or the same antioxidant-poor meal with the addition of a known quantity of whole fruits added (8). This study showed that the consumption of an antioxidant-poor meal results in a decrease in plasma antioxidant capacity and that adding fruits to the same meal not only prevented this decrease but also led to an increase in antioxidant capacity.”

  So this study doesn’t advance what that study already showed. Eating fruit is good for you. So avoid antioxidant-poor meals and add some fruits and greens to your diet.

There’s more to the study… (like how MonaVie’s Dr. Schauss had to fix the study by giving subjects four servings of MonaVie – $7.60 of retail value – before they got the results they wanted… Also how they measured the results quickly after drinking MonaVie, suggesting that the antioxidant effect is short-lived and you may have to drink $40 or more a day to see the results listed)… but I’m pressed for time now and I’m going to leave these as an exercise for the reader for now…

This argument is known as an Appeal to Authority and is known as a a logical fallacy. From Wikipedia the flaw logic goes something like:

“Appeal to authority as logical fallacy

A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter
3. therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association.

The first statement is called a ‘factual claim’ and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an ‘inferential claim’ and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.”

The idea that there’s something special about the acai berry because Schauss has reportedly been studying is flawed. Wikipedia further notes:

“… experts can still be mistaken, willfully deceptive, subject to pressure from peers or employers, have a vested financial interest in the false statements, or have unusual views (or views that are widely criticized by other experts) within their field, and hence their expertise does not always guarantee that their arguments are valid.”

You can make a case that all of them to MonaVie. As we know MonaVie does try to suppress the truth and is willfully deceptive in the ORAC score of it’s juice. Numerous doctors prove that MonaVie’s “experts” have unusual views with in their field. Lastly, we know the vested financial interest in the false statements.

These are all good reasons to completely discount anything that Dr. Schauss says.

I was initially quite excited that freeze-dried acai could scientifically be proven to have far greater ORAC scores than other berries. Perhaps it is the scientific break-through that he claims it to be. To review, here’s what Alex Schauss says:

I would have needed another three screens to the right of my computer to let that arrow accurately define it’s difference compared to freeze-dried samples of other foods that we looked at – that the USDA looked at. It was off the chart.(Timestamp of 2:23)

The bold emphasis there is mine. There’s also this:

again you can see the high bar that is acai and all of these others which are moisture equivalent and they are also freeze-dried samples. So you can there is a vast difference between the two. So Gram to gram… (Timestamp of 3:43)

I had always contended that Schauss was measuring two different things: one freeze-dried acai… the other typical berries. This would be a troubling comparison because most everyone knows that water makes up 90% of fruit. If you take the water out of acai you can get 10x more ORAC score if you are measuring “gram to gram” of something that still has 90% of it’s water. As such, I always thought that we needed a fair test, one that is moisture equivalent as he states. And now that we have it, let’s celebrate the freeze-dried acai berry, right?

Unfortunately, we can’t break out the party hats yet. My friend Vogel as usual digs up the hard evidence to discount that information, noting the following:

• The bar chart falsely quotes one of Schauss’ studies [J Agric Food Chem. 2006;54(22):8604-10] as the source of this data, when in fact his study did not report the ORAC values of other fruits.
• Schauss says, From our results the H-ORAC of freeze-dried acai was 996.9 umol TE/g, which is significantly higher than that of most dark colored berry or any fruit or vegetable tested to date when appropriately converting fresh weight to dry weights(14).
• Reference #14 in the previous bullet point was a study listed the ORAC values for various non-freeze-dried fruits published by Wu et al. [J Agric Food Chem. 2004;52:4026-37].
• The H-ORAC values for “full moisture” cranberry and blueberry listed in the Wu article are about 92 per gram
• Since we know that 90% of the weight of full moisture berries is water, we would need to multiply the cranberry and blueberry by 10 to get their freeze-dried ORAC score.
• That gives us 996.9 umol TE/g for acai vs. 920 umol TE/g for blueberry cranberry. Dr. Alex Schauss didn’t seem to convert for wet vs. dry very well. Acai still wins, but by less than 10% – clearly not the “three computer screens” that Dr. Alex Schauss says suggests.

This victory for minor victory for freeze-dried acai is short-lived… the paper goes on to say:

Contradictorily and surprisingly, the contents of anthocyanins, proanthocyanadins, and other polyphenol compounds in this freeze-dried product were found to be much lower than those found in blueberry or other berries with elevated H-ORAC values. To make things even more confusing, the total phenolics in acai was found to be only 13.9 mg/g GAE

The interesting thing to me is that this is exactly what Men’s Journal said about MonaVie, “[MonaVie Active] tested extremely low in anthocyanins and phenolics… even apple juice (which also tested poorly) has more phenolics…”

Now is a good time to mention that freeze-dried acai and MonaVie are not one in the same. Most distributors will talk about freeze-dried acai, and then hand you a bottle of MonaVie as if it’s the same thing. We know the ORAC scores on MonaVie from other AIMBR tests and that’s not any prettier.