Metabolic & Cardiometabolic
Anti-Spike Formula supplement decreases postprandial glucose spike by 40 percent
In plain terms: Does the "Anti-Spike Formula" supplement cut glucose spikes by 40%?
Leans against Metabolic & Cardiometabolic 💰 Industry COI noted🔬 Includes disconfirming
RefutedContestedStrong support
consensus score -0.28
No independent trial of the combined product exists, so the specific 40% claim is untested; only individual ingredients have (mixed) data.
📅 Last reviewed: 2026-07-14 ⓘ
Evidence ladder
How far up the ladder this claim has climbed. A high consensus on a low rung means "consistent so far," not "proven in people."
Top evidence so far: All trials, pooled (Meta-analysis)
MechanismIn-vitroAnimalObservationalRCTMeta-analysis
How the studies fall
1 support 4 contradict 2 tested null 4 mixed · 11 sources, 5 independent groups
The evidence (11)
| Source | Grade | Stance | Quality | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Venugopal 2024 · Nutrients | RCT | mixed | low | Placebo-controlled crossover found a mulberry-leaf/apple-peel nutraceutical lowered postprandial glucose and insulin, supporting multi-ingredient blends but not the specific formula or 40%. |
| Beejmohun 2014 · BMC Complement Altern Med | RCT | contradicts | low | Ceylon cinnamon extract reduced postprandial glucose in healthy volunteers — separate ingredient; no test of the multi-ingredient formula. |
| Sun 2025 · Nutrients | RCT | tested-null | low | Randomized crossover in prediabetic adults found mulberry leaf plus corn silk inhibited carbohydrate enzymes and lowered postprandial glucose, corroborating the alpha-glucosidase mechanism. |
| Mela 2020 · Nutr Metab (Lond) | RCT | mixed | moderate | RCT testing 8 plant extracts found effects varied widely with several offering little benefit and GI-tolerance trade-offs, showing plant-extract glucose-blunting is inconsistent. |
| Thondre PS, Butler I, Tammam J, Achebe I, Young E, Lane M, Gallagher A 2024 · Nutrients | RCT | contradicts | moderate | Full text (Nutrients 2024;16(11):1670, PMC11174565, doi 10.3390/nu16111670; ISRCTN18212231, retrospectively registered). TESTS THE BLEND'S PRINCIPAL ACTIVE ALONE, NOT THE ANTI-SPIKE FORMULA: 'Three doses of Reducose dietary supplements containing 200 mg, 225 mg, or 250 mg mulberry leaf extract, standardised to contain 5% (w/w) DNJ' given 10 min before a mixed meal (150 g white bread + 50 g egg mayo, 68.7 g carbohydrate), double-blind placebo-controlled four-way crossover, n=37 completers of 43 recruited, all lean healthy normoglycaemic adults. No other ingredient of the blend - the cinnamon of s25249234, the chromium of s12081828 - was administered, and no combined-product arm exists anywhere in this trial. THE MAGNITUDE UNDERSHOOTS THE CLAIMED 40%: glucose iAUC 120 fell 30%, 33% and 32% (p=0.003, 0.001, 0.002), with no dose gradient ('There were no significant differences between the glucose iAUCs for the three doses of Reducose'), so the recommended 250 mg dose delivers about 32%, not 40%. ENDPOINT MISMATCH ON THE CLAIM'S OWN OBJECT: iAUC 120 is total area over two hours, not the 'spike'; on the spike itself, mean peak glucose was 6.0/5.9/6.0 vs 6.6 mmol/L placebo, and peak EXCURSION above baseline - derived from the Table 2 and Table 4 means, not reported by the authors - falls from 1.9 to 1.4/1.3/1.3 mmol/L, i.e. 26-32%. No confidence intervals are given for any of the percentage reductions, so 40% is under-shot on every point estimate but NOT statistically excluded here; that is exactly what separates this row from s28225835, which reads contradicts because its interval (-26.0 to -2.0 at the normal 250 mg dose) does exclude 40%. Stance therefore stays mixed - real reduction, wrong magnitude, wrong subject. Population is the most flattering available to the claim (lean, healthy, normoglycaemic), and the study is sponsor-owned: 'This research was funded by Phynova Group Limited', with two Phynova employees drafting the manuscript and the corresponding author employed by the funder. The paper CITES a 42%/40% reduction from Thondre 2021 (Nutr Metab 2021;18:41, a sucrose-solution challenge by the same group) - a citation, not a measurement made here, and that source is not in the vault. |
| Lown, Fuller, Lightowler, Fraser, Gallagher, Stuart, Byrne, Lewith 2017 · PLoS One | RCT | contradicts | moderate | Tests the blend's principal active alone (Reducose mulberry leaf extract, 5% DNJ) against 50 g maltodextrin, not the Anti-Spike Formula, and lands far short of the 40% figure: glucose pIAUC fell 14.0% (-26.0 to -2.0) at the normal 250 mg dose and 22.0% (-33.9 to -10.0) at DOUBLE dose, with the half dose null (-6.1%, p=0.316) - so the 95% CI excludes a 40% reduction even at twice the usual dose, in n=37 lean normoglycaemic adults. The endpoint is 120-min positive incremental AUC, not peak spike, and the combined multi-ingredient product remains untested. |
| Asbaghi 2020 · Pharmacol Res | meta-analysis | mixed | moderate | Meta-analysis found chromium modestly improved glycemic indices in T2D but effects were small and population-dependent, weak support for chromium as a spike blocker. |
| Cherta-Murillo 2025 · J Nutr | RCT | supports | moderate | RCT found milk with mulberry leaf extract reduced early glucose and insulin responses in a food matrix (magnitude modest, not ~40%). |
| Zarezadeh 2023 · Diabetol Metab Syndr | meta-analysis | tested-null | low | Umbrella meta-analysis reported inconsistent glycemic effects of cinnamon across reviews, real but heterogeneous and modest, not a reliable 40% spike cut. |
| Althuis 2002 · Am J Clin Nutr | meta-analysis | contradicts | moderate | Meta-analysis found chromium had no significant effect on glucose or insulin among non-diabetic individuals, weakening chromium's contribution to any glucose-spike claim in healthy users. |
| Moridpour 2024 · Phytother Res | meta-analysis | mixed | moderate | Dose-response meta-analysis of 24 RCTs found cinnamon lowered fasting glucose/HOMA-IR/HbA1c in T2D but not insulin, and postprandial-spike effects were not the endpoint, a contested benefit. |
Disagree, or know a study we missed?
We grade by evidence, not opinions. The way to weigh in is to point us to a study we haven't cited (check the evidence table above first), or to flag a problem with one we have. Every submission is reviewed; if it holds up, the grade updates and shows in Science Changes Its Mind.
Opens a short form. You'll sign in with Google so submissions are tied to a real account — we don't display your identity, and we only accept a link we can verify (PubMed, DOI, ClinicalTrials.gov).
Educational only, not medical advice. Grades and scores reflect published evidence weighted by study design and quality; see the methodology.