What users noticed after a few weeks of Cell Vitality
With the Cell Vitality Pilot Survey 2025, we wanted to better understand what users perceive in their daily lives after several weeks of using NooQ™ Cell Vitality. Not in a laboratory, not under controlled conditions, but in normal life. The survey was voluntary and anonymized. The goal was not to prove efficacy, but to gather initial insights from the real daily lives of participants. That is, indications of whether and in which areas participants subjectively reported changes.
Important: The results come from a community survey and do not replace a clinical study. They solely reflect participants' subjective experiences.
The most frequent feedback at a glance
- More perceived energy
- Better mental focus
- Higher resilience in everyday life
- Improved sleep quality
- Good tolerability
For many participants, it wasn't a single burst of energy that was crucial, but rather a more stable progression through the day.
Starting point of the community survey
Many participants already pay attention to a fundamentally healthy lifestyle. They are active or at least occasionally athletic. At the same time, a large proportion works in a typical office job, which means that daily exercise is often neglected. Also striking is the high interest in health topics, especially among participating women.
Figure 1 - Primary motivation for participation
Many primarily wanted to improve their energy levels and generally feel better in their daily lives. This initial motivation is important because precisely these areas later became particularly visible in the self-reports: energy, mental focus, and a more stable feeling in everyday life.
What changes were most frequently reported?
In the follow-up survey, the mean values in all dimensions surveyed were higher than at baseline. These results are descriptive and based on self-reports. They show how participants perceived their situation after a few weeks compared to the start. Cognitive and energetic dimensions were particularly striking: mental focus, stable energy, and restorative sleep.
Pre and Post Mean Values - Relative Change
Energy level: +15.3 percent.
Mental focus: +20.6 percent.
Immune system: +11.8 percent.
Digestion: +8.4 percent.
Mood and balance: +10.9 percent.
Sleep quality: +14.7 percent.
General well-being: +9.2 percent.
For many participants, less an individual energy boost was crucial, but a more stable progression through the day. This refers to a daily routine with fewer slumps and more reliability in terms of energy, focus, and resilience. 49% of respondents reported feeling more capable. Another 23% described a more stable feeling of resilience or robustness. The greatest relative changes were reported in mental focus and energy, with sleep quality closely following.
Figure 2- Difference in mean values of all participants
The breakdown by gender also showed different shifts depending on the dimension. Men reported higher self-assessments in all areas, while changes in women focused more strongly on energy, concentration, and mood. Across the groups, one thing remains particularly relevant: the majority of participants noticed a perceptible change after a few weeks.
In general, it can be said that many participants rated their energy and resilience higher after a few weeks. This is an interesting real-world signal. Tolerability was rated as good by most. Individual feedback concerned mild digestive issues or, when taken in the evening, difficulty falling asleep.
What can be concluded from the results?
The survey suggests that many people are looking for greater vitality and better recovery in their daily lives. In self reported assessments, participants reported higher scores across all measured dimensions after several weeks, with the strongest improvements observed in mental focus and energy, followed by sleep quality.
Importantly, the findings are less about maximising performance and more about supporting a steadier day to day experience with fewer energy drops and greater resilience in everyday life.
As real world data collected through a voluntary and anonymised survey, these results do not constitute evidence of efficacy. However, they do indicate that more than half of the participants perceived a positive change after only a few weeks.
For us, these observations are not an endpoint but a starting point. Ultimately, we are interested not only in laboratory markers, but also in how people experience their everyday lives. This is where we see the connection between scientific research and meaningful quality of life.
Methodology of the Pilot Survey
An anonymised online survey using subjective ratings on a scale from 1 to 10.
Two measurement time points: baseline survey (n = 56) and follow up survey (n = 42).
The samples were not fully identical. There was no individual matching of baseline and follow up responses.
Age distribution in the follow up survey: 35 to 44 years (n = 22), 45 to 54 years (n = 8), 25 to 34 years (n = 6), 55+ years (n = 5), 18 to 24 years (n = 1).
Gender distribution in the follow up survey: male (n = 26), female (n = 16).
No statistical significance testing was performed. Due to the self reported nature of the data, the absence of a control group, and the lack of paired participant matching, no causal conclusions can be drawn from these findings.
