ASA Adjudication on My Goodness Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad and an email, for For Goodness Shakes! sports supplement, both included an image of a bottle of the drink and small print that stated “*Read about the clinical trial online at … ”

a. The magazine ad included text that stated “ … We’ve even been clinically proven to help you recover. Drinking For Goodness Shakes! after training instead of water or isotonic sports drinks can help you recover the power to do 40% more.* I’ve personally seen the benefits (it’s helped me knock 15 minutes off my marathon time ... )”.

b. The email included text that stated “ … sports drinks are NOT EQUAL. A recent clinical trial found athletes who used For Goodness Shakes! after training recovered more power and did 40% more at their next session than those that used water or isotonic sports drinks.* … WANT THE POWER TO DO 40% MORE? … ”.

Issue

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) challenged whether the claim in both ads that For Goodness Shakes could recover the power to do 40% more than water or isotonic drinks, was misleading, and could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

My Goodness said the product was designed because there were no dairy based recovery drinks on the market at the time. Since launching the product they had received anecdotal feedback from athletes and sports coaches that it had proved effective in helping athletes recover after sport. Independent scientific evidence was therefore sought to investigate and quantify any performance benefit.  They chose to have the product included in the study they based the claim in the ads on because it was designed to replicate a real life training regime, by testing commercially available products once a day for three days using performance markers, which were the most interesting, relevant and motivating measures for real athletes, as measurement.  They said the ads were placed specifically in sports media. They were directly relevant to the target audience, who were sports and nutrition literate and were avid readers of technical information such as clinical trials.  They said the study, which proved significance at a 95% confidence interval, was managed independently for the purpose of an academic paper; aside from providing the product free of charge, My Goodness were not involved in the study or its publication.       

My Goodness submitted the study. They said it had an acceptable design, the sample sizes of the individual groups were robust and reasonable for a sports nutrition study and the population size of 24 individuals, added further weight to the statistical conclusions.  They said that had been confirmed by a research organisation and sent a copy of a letter from that organisation. My Goodness said proving significance at any given confidence interval provided built-in protection against small sample sizes by building in a higher burden of proof.  They said the diets of participants had not been characterised. However they believed that would not have a meaningful impact on results; supporting research showed that time was of the essence for post-exercise sports nutrition and in the study diet was controlled for two hours after exercise therefore it was unlikely that variations in habitual diet would have created the results observed.  

They said the study was intended to replicate real life, where consumers would choose a commercially available drink rather than measuring their consumption to match macro-nutrient content; the beverages used in the study were selected for that reason.  My Goodness accepted that the drinks were not matched for macro-nutrient content. However the study was designed around representative consumer behaviour and they therefore believed the comparison was fair; again, the research organisation had confirmed that was an appropriate methodology.  The authors of the study had attempted to offer mechanistic physiological explanations of the results; while they were interesting and supported by other research those hypotheses had not been used as the basis of the claim in the ads, which only claimed the study showed that drinking the product conferred an advantage.

My Goodness said it was possible to challenge the methodology, sample size and controls of any scientific study. However the peer review process was crucial in determining whether the study was robust or significantly flawed.  The study had been peer reviewed by two separate journals and the research organisation had confirmed it was scrutinised by independent and anonymous scientists in the field.  They said they had waited for the results of the study to be published in a peer reviewed journal before making any claims.  The authors of the study had retained the full data results, however My Goodness sought clarification from them in relation to the claims that would be supported for use in their advertising material. They submitted further details of the results, as well as of the claims the authors considered were supported, and abstracts of studies related to the benefits of drinking carbohydrate and protein in recovery as well as to the benefits of milk-based drinks and to nutrient intake timing being critical after exercise, which they believed also supported the claims.              

My Goodness said they had been advised by appropriate experts; they believed the claim was not misleading and was substantiated by the study as well as by other research.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted the 24 participants in the study had an average age of 21 years and the results were recorded over three days. We noted those 24 people were split into four groups of six, each group consuming a different drink; we were concerned that a sample size of only six people in each of the groups was a very low number upon which to base such a performance claim.  We noted there was no measurement of how well the participants recovered from exercise to perform at their next session before the study was conducted and considered that the athletes own recovery rates could have affected the outcome.  We also noted for some measures used in the study (delayed onset muscle soreness/perceptions of muscle soreness) there was no significant difference between the groups.  We acknowledged the study was conducted using the product itself. It recorded that the effect of consuming 500ml of the drink immediately after exercise, and another 500ml within two hours, was to reduce exercise induced muscle damage 48 hours later and stated the results "would apply to athletes starting on a new training programme involving a high component of eccentric exercise or those increasing intensity of exercise involving eccentric muscle actions ...".  It also stated that further research was needed " ... to make unequivocal conclusions on the value of one treatment over the others".  We noted the two claims the authors of the study considered were supported specified the drink was consumed after exercise that caused muscle damage/stiffness as well as that tests were conducted over three days and allowed the participants to do 40% more work on day three compared to those who consumed a carbohydrate sports drink.  

We noted the ads each included an image of a bottle of the drink. We considered that the images, in conjunction with the claim, were likely to be interpreted to mean that drinking one bottle of For Goodness Shakes could help consumers do 40% more.  We also noted however the results of the study were based on participants having consumed a total of 1000ml of the drink, which equated to two standard servings of 500ml, within two hours after exercise.  We considered the overall impression of the ads, in particular the text in ad (b) " ... athletes ... did 40% more at their next session ... ", was such that they were likely to be interpreted to mean that consumers of all ages who drank one bottle of the product would be able to "do 40% more" whenever they next chose to participate in any form of training.  We considered ad (a) also implied a cumulative effect beyond 48 hours in the testimonial " ... its helped me knock 15 minutes off my marathon time ... ".  

We considered that we had not seen robust evidence to support the implied claim that one bottle of For Goodness Shakes could help athletes of all ages do 40% more whenever they next chose to participate in any form of training.  We concluded that the ads were misleading.

Ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 19.1 (Other comparisons) and 50.1 (Health and beauty products and therapies).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We told My Goodness not to make claims for which they did not hold robust substantiation in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)