Fact sheet
| Founded | 2018 in Hamburg by Alexander Adlung and Alexander Jansen |
| Manufacturer | ZENKOH GmbH, Leverkusen |
| Focus | Plant-based supplements, mostly complex formulas (several coordinated ingredients) |
| Positioning | Vegan, without fillers/additives, “demonstrably effective ingredients”, made in Germany |
| Range | Around 70 products with descriptive names (e.g. RUHEPOL, SONNENFREUND, KRAFT RESERVE) for areas such as nerves, immune system, metabolism, menopause |
| Distribution | Own online shop, Amazon, over 200 pharmacies |
NATURTREU differs from many competitors through its complex philosophy: instead of single substances, it markets combinations of micronutrients, adaptogens and medicinal plants (e.g. ashwagandha, rhodiola, milk thistle). The value for money is often praised. Note: the brand is still young, much information comes from the company itself, and independent test reports are so far limited.
What is relevant for metabolism?
Care is needed here, because adaptogens and medicinal plants are readily loaded with big promises:
- Micronutrient components: Where a complex contains documented micronutrients at sensible doses (e.g. vitamin D3/K2, magnesium), the same applies to deficiency correction as for any supplement: useful with a proven deficit established, otherwise questionable.
- Adaptogens (e.g. ashwagandha): There are indications of effects on stress and sleep, but the study situation is heterogeneous and transferability to glucose metabolism is unclear open. The indirect route is interesting: if a supplement really improves stress or sleep, that could theoretically have a positive effect on glucose regulation – but this chain of reasoning is not proven for the specific product open.
- Complex logic: That a combination automatically works better than single substances is a marketing promise, not a given open. Combinations can be sensible – but they don’t have to be.
For my path the stress aspect is especially relevant: in my CGM documentation I regularly see that stress-intensive night call-outs raise my glucose level even without eating single-case observation. Whether an adaptogen measurably changes that is exactly the kind of question where I have to honestly separate “interesting hypothesis” from “proven”.
Critical points I keep in mind
- Proximity to health claims: Descriptive product names and application areas move close to health-related statements. I check what is actually proven – and what is merely implied.
- Testimonial-heavy communication: Much of the messaging runs via expert and influencer voices. That does not replace studies.
- Dosage within the complex: In combination products, the individual dosing of the active ingredients is decisive – “in it” does not mean “effectively dosed”.
My test plan (tests pending)
- 1. Ingredient analysis: Which active ingredients at which dose? Comparison with the available evidence per substance.
- 2. Evidence traffic light per product: Classification of the core claims as established / plausible / open.
- 3. Stress-context observation: If I take an adaptogenic product over several weeks, I document my CGM patterns on call-out and rest days – explicitly as an uncontrolled single-case observation (n=1), not as proof of efficacy.
- 4. CGM for edible forms: If a product contains carbohydrates/sweeteners, I measure the glucose response.