Health
“CrossFit athletes taking Ovomet® (eggshell membrane) for 50 days saw a 62.1% improvement in tendon integrity, according to a study cited as PubMed PMC2711914." (Post image text: "PUBMED: PMC2711914")”
Plain restatementA 50-day course of 300 mg/day Ovomet eggshell membrane produced a 62.1% improvement in a measure of tendon integrity in CrossFit practitioners, and this finding is reported in the paper indexed as PMC2711914.
General information only - not medical advice.
This claim does not hold up. The study ID in the post, PMC2711914, is a 2009 trial of a different eggshell membrane product in 67 people with knee osteoarthritis. It has nothing to do with CrossFit athletes, Ovomet, or a 62.1 percent result. The 62.1 percent figure actually comes from a separate 2017 paper on 22 CrossFit participants, where it described average improvement in self-reported joint pain, not tendon integrity, and the comparison group improved 33.1 percent on the same measure. In that same study, tendon stiffness in the supplement group did not improve at all, it stayed flat, while the placebo group's reading fell. That paper was written entirely by employees of the company that sells Ovomet and was published in a journal whose publisher has been found liable in a US court for deceptive publishing practices. The wording in the post matches supplement retailer marketing copy rather than anything written in a scientific paper. This is general information only and not medical advice.
[drifted from the evidence:] CrossFit athletes taking Ovomet® (eggshell membrane) [drifted from the evidence:] for 50 days saw a 62.1% improvement in tendon integrity, [drifted from the evidence:] according to a study cited as [drifted from the evidence:] PubMed PMC2711914." [drifted from the evidence:] (Post image text: "PUBMED: PMC2711914")
[added by the neutral restatement:] A 50-day course of 300 mg/day Ovomet eggshell membrane [added by the neutral restatement:] produced a 62.1% improvement in [added by the neutral restatement:] a measure of tendon integrity [added by the neutral restatement:] in CrossFit practitioners, and this finding is reported in the paper indexed as PMC2711914.
Red-tinted words in the claim drifted from the evidence. Green-tinted words are what a neutral restatement needs.
The trace / claim to source
- A real study of Ovomet eggshell membrane in CrossFit practitioners over 50 days exists (Aguirre et al. 2017).
- The number 62.1% appears in that study.
- Ovomet is a standardized eggshell membrane ingredient from Eggnovo, and a 300 mg daily dose is the commonly studied amount.
- The study did measure Achilles tendon stiffness by ultrasound, and it did report a difference between the supplement group and the placebo group on that measure.
- Eggshell membrane does contain collagen and glycosaminoglycans, as described in the broader literature.
- Endpoint swap: the 62.1% refers to average improvement in self-reported joint pain on WOMAC and VAS questionnaires, not to tendon integrity. This is the central distortion.
- Fabricated citation link: the paper labelled PMC2711914 is a 2009 knee osteoarthritis trial of NEM brand eggshell membrane in 67 arthritis patients. It is a different product, dose, population, duration, and endpoint set. The viral citation points to a paper that does not contain the claimed finding. Date and context mismatch plus misattribution.
- Omitted comparator: the control group also improved 33.1% on the same pain measure, so the placebo-adjusted difference is far smaller than 62.1%.
- "Improvement" misstates direction: the Ovomet group's tendon stiffness stayed flat at 0.6 N/mm. Any claimed benefit rests on the placebo group declining, not on the supplement group improving. Exaggeration.
- Marketing as evidence: the claim's wording traces to retailer product copy, not to the study text.
- Temporal overreach: a 22-person preliminary study described by its own authors as preliminary is presented as settled evidence about connective tissue.
- Independence problem: all authors were employees of the ingredient manufacturer, published in a journal from a publisher found liable for deceptive publishing practices. The post presents the result as if it were independent clinical validation.
- "Recent study" framing for a 2017 paper.
- The full statistical tables, p-values, and confidence intervals of the 2017 paper were not retrieved in full, so the statistical significance of the tendon stiffness difference could not be confirmed. The abstract and results text found do not report one.
- The exact allocation of the 22 participants between Ovomet and placebo arms was not confirmed.
- Whether the 62.1% refers to the WOMAC composite, a WOMAC subscale, or the VAS score is not clear from the available text.
- Whether the Journal of Osteoporosis and Physical Activity version is a duplicate publication or a related companion analysis could not be confirmed.
- No independent, non-manufacturer replication of the tendon finding was located.
The cited identifier does not match the claim. PMC2711914 is a 2009 knee osteoarthritis trial of a different branded ingredient. Sixty-seven patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral NEM 500 mg (n = 34) or placebo (n = 33) daily for 8 weeks, with the primary endpoint being change in overall WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index and its pain, stiffness, and function subscales measured at 10, 30, and 60 days. Rapid responses were seen for mean pain subscores (15.9% reduction, P = 0.036) and mean stiffness subscores (12.8% reduction, P = 0.024) after only 10 days of supplementation. That paper involves no CrossFit athletes, no Ovomet, no 50-day protocol, no tendon imaging, and no 62.1% figure. The 62.1% figure comes from a different, non-PubMed-indexed paper. In the Ovomet CrossFit study, Ovomet supplementation improved subjective joint pain perception by an average of 62.1% among CrossFit athletes, in a design with 22 athletes aged 37 ± 7 years, with ultrasound measurement of Achilles tendon stiffness used as an assessment tool. WOMAC and EVA questionnaires were applied pre and post intervention to assess subjective pain, and the treated group reported an average improvement of 62.1% compared to 33.1% in the control group. So 62.1% is a self-reported pain score change, not a tendon measurement. What the study actually reported for the tendon was not an improvement. The Achilles tendon stiffness result shows a maintenance of the value in the Ovomet treated group (0.6 N/mm ± 0.3 to 0.6 N/mm ± 0.2) while in the placebo group a decrease of 37.5% (0.8 N/mm ± 0.3 to 0.5 N/mm ± 0.1) was observed. The treated group's tendon stiffness did not rise at all.
Complete reasoning
The reply is formatted for pasting into the thread where the claim is circulating.
Ask this case
Answers come only from the case file above; nothing is added.
Does the study PMC2711914 support the claim about CrossFit athletes and tendon integrity?
No. PMC2711914 is a 2009 trial of a different eggshell membrane product tested in 67 people with knee osteoarthritis. It does not involve CrossFit athletes, Ovomet, or a 62.1 percent tendon result.
Where does the 62.1 percent figure actually come from?
It comes from a separate 2017 study of 22 CrossFit participants, and it describes average improvement in self-reported joint pain on WOMAC and VAS questionnaires, not a measurement of tendon integrity.
Did Ovomet actually improve tendon stiffness in that 2017 study?
No. The Ovomet group's Achilles tendon stiffness stayed flat at 0.6 N/mm, while the placebo group's reading dropped. Any apparent difference came from the placebo group declining, not from the supplement group improving.
Was the control group's improvement mentioned in the claim?
No. The control group also improved 33.1 percent on the same self-reported pain measure, so the placebo-adjusted benefit is much smaller than the 62.1 percent figure implies.
Is the 2017 study independent, reliable evidence?
The study's authors were all employees of the company that makes Ovomet, and it was published in a journal from a publisher found liable in a US court for deceptive publishing practices. The paper itself also describes the research as preliminary, and no independent replication of the tendon finding was located.