Nomio (broccoli-sprout shots)
Evidence: weak
A plausible antioxidant mechanism and heavy elite buzz, but no published, independent evidence that it improves running performance. The marketing is years ahead of the data.
Not medical advice
This is a general knowledge base, not medical or dietary advice. If you are injured, unwell or weighing up a supplement or a change to your diet, speak to a doctor, physiotherapist or registered dietitian who knows your situation.
Keep it in proportion
The basics are where the real gains are: consistent volume, sleep and adequate fuelling. Weigh anything below honestly, and do not let a marginal or over-marketed aid pull attention from the things that actually move the needle.
Nomio is a concentrated broccoli-sprout shot, recently fashionable among elite endurance athletes, that delivers isothiocyanates such as sulforaphane. These activate the NRF2 pathway, which raises the body’s own antioxidant defences. The marketed claims are a roughly 12% reduction in blood lactate, about 10% lower oxidative stress, enhanced training adaptation, and faster recovery (Nomio claims and evidence).
What the evidence actually shows
The mechanism is real and interesting, and unlike most antioxidants, NRF2 activation works by upregulating the body’s own defences rather than swamping the system with exogenous antioxidants, which is at least theoretically less likely to blunt adaptation. But the case stops well short of the claims. The supporting study is company-reported, and the headline outcomes are biomarkers, not performance: a fall in blood lactate at a given effort is not a faster race, and lactate is in any case a fuel, not the cause of fatigue. There is no published, independent trial showing Nomio makes runners faster over any distance. It is a brand-new commercial product, and the acknowledged missing piece is precisely the one that matters.
A familiar pattern
Nomio comes from researchers in the Karolinska and GIH circle that produced the original beetroot-nitrate work, and it follows the same template: a plausible Scandinavian-lab mechanism, a commercial product, enthusiastic elite adoption, and confident marketing built on biomarker studies ahead of hard performance evidence. Elite uptake is a signal worth noting, not proof, and the funding and evidence-quality questions are the ones set out under evaluating supplement claims. The honest verdict for now: mechanistically promising, unproven for performance, and not worth the money until independent trials show a real-world benefit.