Only 12 of AG1’s 75 ingredients have clinical trial data supporting their efficacy [Healthline]. That single statistic might not have mattered much a year ago. But in early 2026, a large-scale JAMA study tracking 27,000 adults over five years landed with force. It’s making many people reconsider that $99 monthly subscription.
The timing matters. AG1, formerly Athletic Greens, has become arguably the most visible supplement brand on the planet. It’s valued at roughly $3 billion and endorsed by seemingly every podcast host with a microphone. The new research raises an uncomfortable question: does the science match the marketing?
What the JAMA Study Actually Found
The study followed 27,000 adults and compared health outcomes between three groups: those taking premium all-in-one supplement blends like AG1, those using basic multivitamins, and those taking no supplements at all. After five years, researchers found no significant difference in health outcomes between the premium supplement group and the basic multivitamin group. Biomarker improvements like vitamin D levels, inflammatory markers, and metabolic indicators were essentially identical.
Perhaps more striking was the finding on nutrient interference. When 75-plus ingredients are crammed into a single scoop, many compete for the same absorption pathways. The study estimated that actual absorption may drop to 30-40% of labeled amounts in complex blends. A targeted supplement with fewer ingredients doesn’t face the same bottleneck.
“The evidence for greens powders is weak; multivitamins have more robust data for filling gaps.” [Washington Post]
This doesn’t mean AG1 is harmful or that nobody benefits from it. Some people genuinely notice improved energy or digestion, and individual variation is real. But the data suggests that for most participants, a $10-per-month multivitamin performed just as well as a $99 alternative.
How AG1 Built a $3 Billion Empire
AG1’s dominance isn’t really a nutrition story. It’s a marketing one. The company reportedly spends around $100 million annually on podcast sponsorships and influencer partnerships, appearing on shows hosted by Joe Rogan, Tim Ferriss, and Andrew Huberman. That kind of saturation creates a powerful sense of consensus: if every health-focused voice you trust recommends it, the product must work.
At $99 per month, AG1 costs 10-15 times more than comparable greens powders. Ingredient analyses suggest the formula costs roughly $8-12 to manufacture, yielding gross margins above 88%. None of this is unusual in the supplement industry. Many brands operate similarly. But AG1’s premium positioning makes the gap between cost and price especially visible.
To be fair, AG1 does offer genuine convenience. Mixing one scoop is simpler than managing multiple bottles. For some people, that ease is worth paying for. The question the JAMA data raises isn’t whether convenience has value, but whether it has this much value.
What Nutritionists Actually Recommend
A 2025 poll from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics found that 78% of surveyed nutritionists do not recommend AG1 or similar greens powders to their clients [Academy of]. That’s a striking disconnect from the brand’s cultural presence.
Most registered dietitians suggest a simpler framework:
-
Start with whole foods. Nutrients from vegetables, fruits, and proteins absorb 2-3 times more effectively than synthetic forms in powders.
-
Get blood work done. A basic nutritional panel identifies actual deficiencies rather than guessing.
-
Supplement targeted gaps. Common shortfalls like vitamin D, B12, and magnesium are more effectively addressed with standalone supplements, typically $15-30 per month total.
This approach won’t look as photogenic on a kitchen counter. But many people report feeling more confident knowing their supplementation is based on their own biology rather than a one-size-fits-all formula.
The Real Cost-Benefit Analysis
Photo by The math is worth exploring. A daily serving of AG1 runs about $3.30. A comparable nutrient profile, 200g of mixed vegetables plus a basic multivitamin, costs roughly $1.50. Over a year, AG1 totals approximately $1,188.
That same $1,188 could cover:
- Quarterly nutritional blood panels, about $400 per year
- High-quality targeted supplements, about $200 per year
- A meaningful bump in your organic produce budget
- Roughly $300 left over
Convenience genuinely matters, and some people find the ritual of their morning scoop motivating. That’s a real benefit. But for anyone feeling the financial stretch of a $99 monthly subscription, it’s worth knowing that the JAMA data doesn’t support a meaningful health advantage over far less expensive alternatives.
The 2026 JAMA study didn’t declare AG1 dangerous or fraudulent. It simply found that premium all-in-one supplements didn’t outperform basic alternatives for most people. AG1’s $3 billion valuation reflects extraordinary marketing, not extraordinary nutrition science. For anyone curious about where their supplement dollars create the most value, a conversation with a dietitian and a simple blood panel might be the most sustainable starting point. Sometimes the gentlest approach, targeted, personalized, affordable, turns out to be the most effective one.
