Linkedin Facebook

GoNo is a Healthy Food MedTech Company.
We have solved the problem of what one should eat for their health and longevity,
backed by unbiased clinical studies and presented in an easily digestible way.

Our Story - Functional Food for Optimal Health

Adam G. Southam – Founder

Like many that have been diagnosed with chronic disease, a single routine check-up changed the life of GoNo founder Adam Southam. His doctor, Elizabeth Klodas, told him he had abnormally high levels of fat in his blood, a condition called hyperlipidemia, that could lead to heart attack or stroke. Instead of reaching for medications first, his physician prescribed a book that taught simple dietary changes. His deadly triglyceride levels plummeted from 1830 to 410 points in 90 days. His doctor then prescribed a high quality fish oil and his triglycerides dropped another 200 points. Adam tells an amusing story of shopping for fish oil, and the confusion that he experienced in trying to choose from dozens of options. Most physicians and pharmacists are not trained in nutrition or functional food and his journey caused him to create our algorithm the relies wholly upon significant verifiable clinical facts. Adam created GoNo to guide others to treat or prevent disease using Functional Foods, tools, and reliable resources.

Our Solution - Patented Efficacy Engine®

The Efficacy Engine is a tool that utilizes a team of over 500 experts and nationally recognized medical data to assign letter grades (A, B, C, D, E, F) to ingredients based on how effective they are. A grade “A” ingredient, for example, is associated with positive outcomes for a given condition or goal based on clinical research that meets rigorous bias, study size, study time, method, quality and effectiveness requirements. Because all foods, supplements, and recipes on our site have every one of their ingredients in our database, these grades can be applied to each ingredient in a product or recipe resulting in a product report card. The report card shows how effective each active ingredient is at preventing and/or treating particular medical conditions based upon the independent studies tied to said ingredient. We do not conduct studies, assess studies, grade studies, pay for studies or have any ownership or control of any organization that does. 

Facts vs Fiction

There are many grading systems we believe in, but all are not equal.
Some of the best-known systems are shown below. Knowledge is power. Judge for yourself.

Entity

Grading System

Details

GoNo

GoNo ‘s patented algorithm utilizes peer-reviewed clinically proven scientific evidence from major medical research organizations including the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins University, the Cleveland Clinic, the University of Minnesota, Stanford University, Oxford, Yale, and Harvard.

Amazon, Ebay, Google, Target, Walmart, etc

Consumer ratings are valuable measures of service, comfort, flavor, design or quality. However, product effectiveness and medical facts are not represented by scientific evidence and clinical studies in these ratings. These ratings are not scientific and only represent a segment of the population that happens to have an opinion about a product purchased from the retailer. 

Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports employs over 100 dedicated scientists, researchers, and technicians in over 60 labs. Their findings are very good but are not peer-reviewed.

Energy Star

EnergyStar is a program run by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The ratings show the energy consumption of products and devices using different standardized methods and are very accurate.

Good Housekeeping

The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval began in 1909 with a limited warranty for consumer replacement. They test for quality and safety and involve consumers in their testing process. Formal scientific processes are not mentioned on their website. 

Underwriters Laboratories

UL Standards are created by UL and used to assess products, test components, materials, systems, renewable energy, food, and water. The UL Listing logo is used by organizations that have met those standards.

Harvey Balls

Harvey balls are round ideograms used for visual communication of qualitative information. They provide a comparison to indicate the degree to which a participate item meets a particular criterion and may be completely subjective.

Why is this Important?

Food and supplements are not regulated by the FDA, and while false advertising is illegal, fake news exists. Most family physicians and pharmacists are not trained in food sciences or nutrition. The most reliable, consistent and impartial source of food and nutrition facts are clinical studies conducted by independent researchers, colleges, universities, hospitals, etc. Our grading system is based entirely upon these studies. To further assure legitimacy, these studies are peer-reviewed and graded.  

Grading

Grading Details

Effective

This product has a very high level of reliable clinical evidence supporting its use for a specific indication. Products rated Effective are generally considered appropriate to recommend. To achieve this Effectiveness Rating a product is supported by all of the following: 

  • Evidence consistent with or equivalent to passing a review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada, or similarly rigorous approval process.
  • Evidence from multiple (2+) randomized clinical trials or meta-analysis including several hundred to several thousand patients (level of evidence = A).
  • Studies have a low risk of bias and high level of validity by meeting stringent assessment criteria (quality rating = A).
  • Evidence consistently shows POSITIVE outcomes for a given indication without valid evidence to the contrary.

Probably Effective

This product has a  high level of reliable clinical evidence supporting its use for a specific indication. Products rated “Likely Effective” are generally considered appropriate to recommend. To achieve this Effectiveness Rating a product is supported by all of the following:                                                                           

  • Evidence from multiple (2+) randomized clinical trials or meta-analysis including several hundred patients (level of evidence = B).
  • Studies have a low risk of bias and high level of validity by meeting stringent assessment criteria (quality rating = B).
  • Evidence consistently shows POSITIVE outcomes for a given indication without significant valid evidence to the contrary.

Marginally Effective

This product has some clinical evidence supporting its use for a specific indication; however, the evidence is limited by quantity, quality, or contradictory findings. Products rated “Possibly Effective” might be beneficial, but do not have enough high-quality evidence to recommend for most people. To achieve this Effectiveness Rating a product is supported by all of the following:

  • One or more randomized clinical trials or meta-analysis (level of evidence = A or B) or two or more population based or epidemiological studies (level of evidence = B).
  • Studies have a low to moderate risk of bias and moderate to high level of validity by meeting or partially meeting assessment criteria (quality rating A or B).
  • Evidence shows POSITIVE outcomes for a given indication without substantial valid evidence to the contrary. Some contrary evidence may exist; however, valid positive evidence outweighs contrary evidence.

Possibly Ineffective

This product has some clinical evidence showing ineffectiveness for a specific indication; however, the evidence is limited by quantity, quality, or contradictory findings. People should be advised NOT to take products with a “Possibly Ineffective” rating. To achieve this Effectiveness Rating a product is supported by all of the following:   

  • One or more randomized clinical trials or meta-analysis (level of evidence = A or B) or two or more population based or epidemiological studies (level of evidence = B).
  • Studies have a low to moderate risk of bias and moderate to high level of validity by meeting or partially meeting assessment criteria (quality rating A or B).
  • Evidence shows NEGATIVE outcomes for a given indication without substantial valid evidence to the contrary. Some contrary evidence may exist; however, valid positive evidence outweighs contrary evidence.

Probably Ineffective

This product has a very high level of reliable clinical evidence showing ineffectiveness for its use for a specific indication. People should be discouraged from taking products with a “Likely Ineffective” rating. To achieve this Effectiveness Rating a product is supported by all of the following:   

  • Evidence from multiple (2+) randomized clinical trials or meta-analysis including several hundred patients (level of evidence = A).
  • Studies have a low risk of bias and high level of validity by meeting stringent assessment criteria (quality rating = A).
  • Evidence consistently shows NEGATIVE outcomes for a given indication without significant valid evidence to the contrary.

Ineffective or Hazardous

This product has a very high level of reliable clinical evidence showing ineffectiveness for its use for a specific indication. People should be discouraged from taking products with an “Ineffective” rating. To achieve this Effectiveness Rating a product is supported by all of the following:     

  • Evidence from multiple (2+) randomized clinical trials or meta-analysis including several hundred to several thousand patients (level of evidence = A).
  • Studies have a low risk of bias and high level of validity by meeting stringent assessment criteria (quality rating = A).
  • Evidence consistently shows NEGATIVE outcomes for a given indication without valid evidence to the contrary.

Our Methodology

Our customers  are able to complete their own MyHealth Profile once registered at our website wherein they can specify their health/fitness goals, medical conditions and/or prescription/OTC drug usage. Our patented methodology delivers a list of products based upon the efficacy of the ingredients in any given product in achieving health/fitness goals and/or preventing/treating medical conditions according to the clinical studies.  

The technology works like this in delivering the product list:

  1. Every ingredient for every product we sell is listed in a database.
  2.  Our customer provides information to us in the MyHealth Assessment.
  3.  Ingredients are rated using the Natural Medicines methodology.
  4. Products with Ingredients ranked A, B or C are shown in descending order of relevant efficacy.

 The methodology works somewhat differently when browsing products at random through the website:

  1. Every ingredient for every product we sell is listed in a database
  2. User enters their Health Profile information
  3. Grades show up beside each product based upon the methodology described above. Products with D, E and F ingredients are not shown in the Efficacy Engine results. 

The methodology and system are fully dependent upon our customer entering complete data and is limited to the clinical studies and efficacy ratings of ingredients currently in our database. Unless otherwise specifically stated in a given product description, none of the statements relating to any product have been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and no products are intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or condition. The gradings attributable to each product represents the gradings of the clinical studies for ingredients contained within each product. No representation is made to the overall effectiveness of any product. Ingredients, when combined, may diminish or enhance the effectiveness of other ingredients. Always seek advice of a licensed medical practitioner before beginning any food or nutrition regimen and NEVER alter prescription medications without consulting a physician or pharmacist.