Field of Greens Review - Is It Right For You?

Field of Greens Reviews

May 10, 2024

In this Field of Greens review, we look at a product that markets itself as a simple solution for increasing your daily intake of vital vitamins, minerals, fruits and vegetables. Field of Greens lists numerous organic ingredients on its label, like kale, spinach, and broccoli, promising comprehensive nutrition in just one scoop.

However, there are valid concerns about its effectiveness. The use of proprietary blends in Field of Greens means the specific amounts of each ingredient are undisclosed, casting doubt on the product's nutritional efficacy.  In this review we'll test the product for ourselves. We also analyze the ingredient profile of Field of Greens, to determine if it can effectively supplement your diet and we'll evaluate the validity of the brand's marketing claims.

Field of Greens

Fill Counter

Overall Rating

Field of Greens Review Testing

Overall Verdict

  • Proprietary Blend Limitations: Field of Greens uses a proprietary blend that conceals individual dosages, making it difficult to determine the effectiveness of any specific ingredient.

  • Questionable Dosage Efficacy: The ingredient list is extensive, but without visible dosages, it's unclear whether they meet clinical effectiveness levels, reducing potential health benefits.

  • Taste Concerns: Users frequently report the taste as unpalatable, a significant drawback for a product intended for daily use.

  • Cost vs. Value: Given the high cost, the lack of dosage transparency and questionable taste may not justify the investment for potential users.

  • Safety and Recall Issues: Past recalls raise concerns about consistent quality and safety, which could deter new users.

  • Recommended Alternative: The top rated greens powder in our tests, Supergreen Tonik, outperforms Field of Greens with its transparent, scientifically-backed dosages that deliver noticeable health benefits, making it our top recommended greens powder for comprehensive health support.

Supergreen Tonik

Fill Counter

Overall Rating

Field of Greens Alternative

Quick Decision Guide: Field of Greens vs Our Top-Rated Greens (Supergreen Tonik)


Field of Greens

Supergreen Tonik

Overall Rating

Fill Counter
Fill Counter


Overall nutritional support - claims to be food not a supplement

Comprehensive health and cognitive enhancement with a transparent, nutrient-rich formula

Scientific Backing

Limited, valid ingredients but sub-optimal dosages

Strong, ingredients chosen for specific health and cognitive benefits, supported by research

Formula Complexity

Semi-complex with three different proprietary blends

Very comprehensive, targeting both general health and cognitive function

Brand Reputation Concerns

Some issues, most notably a product recall

Minimal to none, praised for transparency and efficacy

Commitment Time For Results

Weeks to months, many users report very limited noticeable benefits

Weeks to months, consistent use recommended for best results

User Feedback

More negative reviews than other brand, issues with taste, limited results and cost

Predominantly positive, especially regarding cognitive benefits

Ingredients Transparency

Opaque, uses proprietary blends

Fully disclosed, with clear information on dosages

Dosage Convenience

Once daily scoop 

Once daily scoop

Potential Side Effects

Low risk, but possible hidden issues due to hidden ingredient dosages

Low risk, well-tolerated formula

Customer Support & Returns Policy

Good, 60 day money back guarantee

Excellent, with a clear money-back guarantee

Product Availability

Widely available through the official site and select retailers

Available through the official site only

Additional Benefits

General nutritional support

Enhanced cognitive function, mental clarity, and focus alongside general health benefits


Super Premium


Serving Size



Servings Per Container




The Growth of Greens Powder Supplements

The market for greens powder supplements has expanded significantly as more individuals prioritize wellness and convenience in their dietary habits. These supplements are designed to provide a condensed source of nutrients, offering a blend of powdered greens that can supplement daily vegetable and fruit consumption. The appeal lies in their promise to deliver essential vitamins and minerals through easy-to-consume shakes or smoothies, especially beneficial for those who struggle to meet their nutritional needs through diet alone (1).

Recent years have witnessed an uptick in the adoption of these supplements, driven by increased awareness about health and a growing preference for plant-based products (2). The convenience factor cannot be overstated—with fast lifestyles, the ability to quickly mix a drink that supports dietary requirements is a significant draw. Additionally, the rise in chronic health conditions related to poor diet has further fueled interest in these products as part of a preventative health strategy (3).

However, the burgeoning interest has also led to a saturated market with myriad products, each claiming superiority over the others. This growth necessitates a closer examination of what these supplements really offer and whether they stand up to their claims, a question of particular interest to health-conscious consumers and professionals alike (4).

What to Look for in Greens Supplements

When choosing a greens supplement, several key factors should be considered to ensure that the product meets personal health standards and goals. First, transparency is crucial; reputable products will provide detailed information about the ingredients and their quantities, avoiding proprietary blends that obscure what's inside. Consumers should seek products that specify the exact amount of each ingredient, as this openness is indicative of quality and confidence in the product's efficacy (5).

Another essential aspect is clinical backing; ingredients should have scientifically supported benefits, with dosages that align with those used in clinical studies. This ensures that the consumer can realistically expect to gain the advertised health benefits (6).

Taste is also a significant consideration since the supplement needs to be palatable enough for daily use. A greens supplement that is difficult to consume regularly due to its taste is less likely to be a sustainable choice. Finally, it's worth checking consumer reviews and third-party lab tests if available, to confirm the product's purity and adherence to safety standards (7).

Deciding to Use Greens to Supplement Your Diet

Deciding to incorporate a greens supplement into one's diet is a step that should be taken with thoughtful consideration of individual dietary needs and lifestyle factors. Supplements can serve as a valuable tool for enhancing nutritional intake, especially for those who find it challenging to consume sufficient vegetables and fruits daily. They are not a substitute for a varied diet but rather a supplement to fill nutritional gaps (8).

Before integrating a greens supplement, it is advisable to evaluate dietary habits, existing health conditions, and nutritional goals. Consulting with a healthcare provider can also provide guidance based on personal health data and needs. Ultimately, the choice to use a greens supplement should align with a broader dietary strategy aimed at achieving and maintaining optimal health (9).

What Is Field of Greens? 

Field of Greens is a dietary supplement produced by Brickhouse Nutrition, a company based in Hurst, Texas. This supplement is part of a broader product line that includes a fat burner, collagen pills, creatine and snack bars.s. Field of Greens claims to be formulated to bolster daily vegetable and fruit intake through a convenient powdered blend.

The core composition of Field of Greens comprises an organic greens blend that includes spinach, kale, broccoli, and other nutrient-rich greens, along with a metabolic blend featuring ginger and turmeric powders. This combination is designed to support overall metabolic health and provide a rich source of antioxidants. The product also integrates an organic antioxidant reds blend, which includes beet root and various berries, known for their health-protective properties.

Each 10-gram serving delivers a minimal calorie load but claims to be dense in dietary fiber and vitamins. The product uses organic stevia extract as a sweetener. Field of Greens is marketed not only for its health benefits but also for its ease of use, appealing to those who may not have the time or preference to consume ample amounts of fresh produce daily.

One thing we quickly spotted and were concerned by is the label warning regarding potential exposure to lead from certain ingredients like green tea extract and beet root. This suggests the product isn't tested for heavy metals, something we found quite worrying, it actually put off some of our testers from trialing the product at all.

Field of Greens Marketing And Endorsements

Field of Greens, marketed by Brickhouse Nutrition, heavily utilizes high-profile endorsements to boost its visibility and credibility. Prominent figures such as Dan Bongino, a well-known conservative political commentator, and various social media influencers are central to its marketing strategy. These endorsers are compensated with significant fees and commissions based on the sales they generate, incentivizing them to actively promote the product to their audiences.

Whilst these endorsements have helped build the brand's profile they also raise questions about the authenticity of the praise given. As they're financially motivated to promote the product, there is a concern that their endorsements might reflect commercial interests more than genuine belief in the product's effectiveness.

Field of Greens Transparency And Dosing Issues

Ingredients and How They Work

Field of Greens features a diverse array of organic ingredients, including greens, fruits, and botanicals - it uses an Organic Greens Blend with spinach, kale, and broccoli powders, an Organic Antioxidant Reds Blend featuring beet root and blueberry powders and an Organic Metabolic Blend that includes turmeric and green tea powders.

Despite its impressive sounding ingredient list, Field of Greens uses a proprietary blend, which intentionally obscures the specific amounts of each ingredient. This lack of transparency obscures issues with the supplement's effectiveness, as many ingredients require clinically validated dosages to confer health benefits (10). For instance, clinical research suggests effective turmeric supplementation should range between 500 to 2000 mg daily to significantly impact inflammation (11). Given the entire serving size of Field of Greens is 10 grams, it's highly improbable that the turmeric content approaches these recommended levels.

Similarly, effective dosages for other ingredients like spirulina are typically recommended at 1 to 3 grams per day for cardiovascular and immune benefits (12). The constraints of a 10g serving size shared among multiple ingredients make it unlikely that such quantities are met, which may significantly limit the potential health benefits purported by the product.

This strategy of marketing an extensive ingredient list while employing a proprietary blend not only complicates the process of verifying the dosages against clinical evidence but also suggests that the actual health impacts of the supplement could be minimal. This approach, focusing more on ingredient breadth rather than depth, raises concerns about whether the product's design is more oriented towards marketing appeal rather than nutritional efficacy.

Field of Greens Pros and Cons


  • Organic Ingredients: Field of Greens consists of a blend of 100% USDA-certified organic fruits and vegetables, appealing to those looking for natural and organic supplement options.
  • No Artificial Sweeteners: It is sweetened naturally with organic stevia, avoiding the use of artificial sweeteners, which is a plus for health-conscious users.

  • Freeze-Dried Ingredients: The freeze-drying process helps preserve the nutrients in the greens, making them more potent compared to other drying processes.


  • Proprietary Blend: The use of a proprietary blend makes it difficult to determine the amount of each ingredient, questioning the efficacy related to specific health benefits.

  • Taste Issues: Many users have reported disliking the taste, which they describe as strong and difficult to mask, even with other flavorings.

  • High Cost: The product is relatively expensive, which could be a significant deterrent for those on a budget or considering long-term use.

  • Product Recall: There was at least one instance of a product recall, which raises concerns about quality control and safety.

  • Limited Digestive Benefit Due to Fiber Content: While it includes fiber, the actual content per serving may not be sufficient to meet daily fiber needs or produce significant digestive benefits.

  • Possible Interactions with Medications: Ingredients like green tea extract contain caffeine, and others like vitamin K-rich greens could interact with certain medications, such as blood thinners.

  • Undisclosed Impact of Heavy Metals: The warning about potential exposure to heavy metals like lead in certain ingredients could be a concern for long-term health.

Field of Greens Marketing Claims

Analyzing Ingredient Claims and Effectiveness

  1. Completely Organic: Field of Greens adheres to USDA organic standards, which means the ingredients such as spinach, kale, parsley, and various fruits are grown without synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. 
  2. Antioxidants and Boosts Immunity: The product lists ingredients known for high antioxidant content like blueberries, cranberries, and green tea. Antioxidants are crucial for reducing oxidative stress in the body, which can support overall immune function. However, the effectiveness hinges on the concentration and amount of these ingredients, which is not specified due to the proprietary nature of the blend. Typically, significant quantities of these ingredients are required to meaningfully impact antioxidant capacity and immunity and its highly unlikely they're present in sufficient amounts in Field of Greens (13).
  3. Supports Healthy Metabolism: Ingredients like green tea and turmeric are known for their metabolic benefits, particularly in fat oxidation and inflammation reduction (14). However, the clinical effectiveness of these ingredients generally requires dosages that are unlikely to be met in a 10g mixed serving. Without specific dosages, these metabolic support claims remain speculative.
  4. Natural Source of Vitamins and Minerals: The greens and fruits in Field of Greens can contribute to the intake of vitamins and minerals, such as Vitamin C from berries and iron from greens. Yet, the powder form and the unknown quantities make it difficult to ascertain how much this supplement contributes to daily nutritional requirements compared to whole foods.
  5. Sweetened with Organic Stevia: This claim confirms no artificial sweeteners are used, aligning with the product's organic and natural branding. Stevia provides a calorie-free sweetness, making it suitable for those managing calorie intake.

Critique of Marketing and Health Claims

While Field of Greens promotes a range of health benefits, the use of a proprietary blend obscures the amount of each ingredient, making it challenging to validate the claims against scientifically recommended dosages. For instance:

  • Antioxidant support and immunity claims are common in supplements, but effective levels depend on substantial dosages that are unlikely to be present.
  • Metabolic support claims linked to ingredients like turmeric and green tea are well-documented in studies, but these typically use much higher doses than would be feasible in a multi-ingredient 10g scoop (15).
  • The claim of being a natural source of vitamins and minerals is appealing, but the bioavailability and concentration in a dried powder form may not match the levels found in fresh produce, potentially misleading consumers about the product's nutritional value.

User Reviews

User Feedback on Field of Greens

User feedback on Field of Greens (beyond our own firsthand user tests) shows a diverse range of experiences, highlighting several key issues with the product. 

  1. Product Recall Concerns:
    • A significant concern was raised by a user who mentioned that the product was recalled, and they were unable to return it. This incident reflects potential issues with product safety and quality that led to the recall.
  2. Packaging and Timeliness:
    • Another user appreciated the product's packaging and timely delivery. It was bought for an elderly relative in their 80s who cannot tolerate fresh greens due to digestive issues. The user noted that the powder form, being freeze-dried, was well tolerated and seemed to fill nutritional gaps, providing sustained energy and fitting well into a regimen that includes various health practices.
  3. Taste Issues:
    • The taste of the greens powder was a significant drawback for many users. One described the flavor as "vile," despite attempts to mask it with sweeteners and other ingredients. This issue was so prominent that the user resorted to consuming it as a quick shot to avoid the flavor.
  4. Positive Effects and Usability:
    • Positive reviews noted the product's rich spinach aroma and the health benefits associated with its ingredients. Users who enjoyed the product mixed it with other supplements to improve taste and palatability, describing it as a nutritious part of their health regimen.
  5. Cost Concerns:
    • The price of the product was a point of contention, with users expressing frustration over its high cost, comparing it unfavorably with other green supplements on the market.
  6. Lack of Observed Benefits:
    • A number of critical reviews highlight disappointment in the lack of tangible health benefits after extended use. Many users also criticize the flavor, further diminishing the product's perceived value.

These reviews collectively suggest major drawbacks to include issues with taste, cost, and for many, a lack of noticeable health improvements. 

Our Experience With Field of Greens

Our team's assessment of Field of Greens was guided by its substantial claims and the detailed ingredient list provided. Promising a boost in healthy habits with its organic formula, this greens powder sets high expectations.

Detailed Ingredient Analysis and User Experiences

  1. Ingredient Transparency and Dosing Concerns: Our major concern lies in the proprietary blend, which obfuscates the specific amounts of each component. For instance, ingredients such as spirulina and chlorella are highly dose-dependent. Clinical guidelines suggest these algae are effective at much higher dosages than could be feasibly included in a 10g mix containing over a dozen other ingredients (16,17). Our experience reflected this discrepancy, as the general feeling of increased energy and improved health was much less pronounced than expected.
  2. Taste and Sweetness: Field of Greens is sweetened with organic stevia, a choice marketed as a healthier alternative to artificial sweeteners. However, many of our testers found the taste overly sweet, almost to the point of being unpleasant, which they did not anticipate. This strong saccharine flavor, possibly intended to mask the earthy taste of greens and algae, made it challenging for some of our team to integrate the powder into their daily routine consistently.
  3. Real-World Effects vs. Claims:
    • Antioxidants, Fiber, and Prebiotics: While the inclusion of various berries and vegetables should theoretically provide a good source of antioxidants and fiber, the actual content and impact felt underwhelming. The claimed fiber content (2g per serving) is modest and did not significantly contribute to digestive health improvements for our team (18).
    • Metabolic Benefits: The claims surrounding lipid and glucose metabolism support hinge on the presence of ingredients like ginger and green tea extracts. However, without knowing their specific quantities, it’s difficult to correlate our subtle experiences with the bold claims (19). The metabolic effects were not notably felt, which left some team members questioning the efficacy of the product in this regard.
    • Safety and Suitability: The inclusion of green tea extract (a source of caffeine) and beetroot (with potential heavy metal concerns) should be approached with caution (20). Some of our team members, particularly those sensitive to caffeine, noted a need to limit their intake or avoid evening consumption.
  4. Overall Satisfaction:The overarching feedback from our team was that while the use of Field of Greens might supplement a diet lacking in fruits and vegetables, it falls short of replacing targeted nutritional supplements where higher, clinically effective dosages are necessary. The health benefits, such as boosted immunity and enhanced metabolic functions, were less tangible than hoped, leading to an overall underwhelming experience compared to the marketed benefits.

Our firsthand experience with Field of Greens underscores the critical importance of dosage transparency in health supplements. While the product's organic certification and natural ingredient approach are commendable, the actual benefits realized by our team did not fully align with the expectations set by its health claims. Those considering this greens powder should temper their expectations with the understanding that it might not deliver significant health improvements as part of a balanced diet, especially for those already consuming a nutrient-rich diet.

Field of Greens Ingredients

Field of Greens Ingredients (click to reveal)

Organic Greens Blend: Organic Spinach Powder, Organic Parsley Powder, Organic Kale Powder, Organic Barley Grass Powder, Organic Wheat Grass Powder, Organic Spirulina Powder, Organic Chlorella Powder, Organic Green Pepper Powder, Organic Green Apple Powder, Organic Green Banana Powder, Organic Sweet Potato Powder, Organic Broccoli Powder
Organic Prebiotic Fiber (Inulin)

Organic Antioxidant Reds Blend: Organic Beet Root Powder, Organic Strawberry Powder, Organic Raspberry Powder, Organic Blueberry Powder, Organic Tart Cherry Powder, Organic Pomegranate Powder, Organic Cranberry Powder

Organic Metabolic Blend: Organic Ginger Powder, Organic Licorice Powder, Organic Turmeric Powder, Organic Green Tea Powder

Scientific Evidence for Field of Greens Ingredients

Field of Greens uses a seemingly impressive list of organic greens and fruit powders. However, the use of a proprietary blend is a red flag.

Ingredient Efficacy and Dosage Concerns

The core of the Field of Greens formula includes a wide range of ingredients from its Organic Greens Blend to its Organic Antioxidant Reds Blend, as well as specific metabolic enhancers. For instance, ingredients like spirulina and chlorella are well-documented for their health benefits, which include boosting immune function and detoxifying properties. However, effective doses for spirulina range from 1-8 grams daily, far exceeding what could be packed into a single 10g scoop that contains multiple other ingredients (21).

Similarly, the antioxidant potential from ingredients like blueberries and strawberries is significant, yet the impact is highly dosage-dependent. Clinical studies typically use concentrated extracts to achieve measurable benefits, whereas Field of Greens relies on whole food powders, likely underdosed in a blend aiming to cover a broad spectrum of nutrients (22).

Turmeric, another key ingredient, has been studied extensively for its anti-inflammatory properties. Effective supplementation usually requires between 500-2000 mg of curcuminoids, the active compounds, daily. In a mixed blend like Field of Greens, reaching this dosage is implausible, potentially rendering its inclusion more nominal than functional (23).

Real-World Application and Taste Feedback

Our analysis suggests that while the product's ingredient list is impressive and organic, the actual health benefits might be limited by the underdosing of these key ingredient. Despite being sweetened with organic stevia, user feedback on taste has been mixed. The sweetness level, possibly meant to mask less palatable flavors of certain greens and algae, was often reported as overly intense, which might deter consistent use necessary to achieve any potential health benefits.

Transparency and Consumer Trust Issues

The lack of detailed dosing information is a significant transparency issue for Field of Greens. Without this, it is difficult to gauge the effectiveness of the supplement based on solid scientific evidence. This practice of hiding behind proprietary blends not only obscures potential underdosing but also makes it challenging for users to make informed decisions based on specific dietary needs or health objectives.

Whilst Field of Greens provides a diverse array of potentially beneficial ingredients, the real-world effectiveness of the supplement is likely compromised by the low doses of each ingredient. Consumers looking for targeted health benefits supported by clinical evidence might find the product falling short of expectations. For those interested in supplementing their diet with a broad range of nutrients from natural sources, it remains a viable, though possibly less potent, option.

Field of Greens Ingredient Label

Field of Greens Side Effects

Ingredient Analysis and Potential Side Effects:

  1. Digestive Issues: The blend includes high-fiber ingredients such as inulin, a prebiotic fiber that supports gut health. While beneficial, excessive intake of fiber, especially when not accustomed to it, can lead to gastrointestinal discomfort including gas, bloating, and constipation (24). The adjustment period can vary by individual, impacting those with sensitive stomachs more significantly.
  2. Allergic Reactions: Organic greens such as spinach, kale, and broccoli are typically safe, but they can cause allergic reactions in susceptible individuals. Symptoms may include hives, swelling, or difficulty breathing. This is rare but worth noting for those with known allergies to specific greens (25).
  3. Effects of High Vitamin K Intake: Greens like kale and spinach are high in Vitamin K, which is involved in blood clotting. For individuals taking blood thinners such as warfarin, high intakes of Vitamin K can counteract the medication's effects. Thus, consistent consumption of these greens in unknown quantities can pose risks (26).
  4. Caffeine Sensitivity: The inclusion of green tea powder introduces caffeine into the mix. While the exact amount is unclear due to the proprietary blend, sensitive individuals might experience insomnia, nervousness, or an increased heart rate. This is particularly concerning for those unaware of the caffeine content (27).
  5. Heavy Metals Exposure: The label warns of potential exposure to chemicals like lead, particularly from ingredients like beetroot. Continuous exposure to heavy metals can lead to accumulation in the body, posing long-term health risks such as kidney damage and other serious conditions (28).
  6. Licorice Root Concerns: Organic licorice powder is used for its digestive benefits, but excessive consumption can lead to adverse effects like increased blood pressure, potassium depletion, and in severe cases, heart issues. The lack of dosage clarity makes it difficult to assess the risk level (29).
  7. Interaction with Medications: Turmeric, while anti-inflammatory, can interfere with certain medications, including anti-coagulants and anti-diabetic drugs, potentially altering their effectiveness (30).

Whilst Field of Greens provides a convenient way to consume a variety of nutrients, the potential side effects, stemming from both individual ingredient reactions and the interactions between them means there is a risk of adverse reactions. The use of a proprietary blend complicates this further as it obscures the quantities of each ingredient, making it difficult o predict the supplement’s impact.

Given these issues, it is advisable to consult with your healthcare provider before incorporating Field of Greens into your diet, especially if you have pre-existing conditions or medication regimens.

Overall Results

Field of Greens

Fill Counter

Overall Rating

Field of Greens Review Testing

Overall Verdict

  • Proprietary Blend Limitations: Field of Greens uses a proprietary blend that conceals individual dosages, making it difficult to determine the effectiveness of any specific ingredient.

  • Questionable Dosage Efficacy: The ingredient list is extensive, but without visible dosages, it's unclear whether they meet clinical effectiveness levels, reducing potential health benefits.

  • Taste Concerns: Users frequently report the taste as unpalatable, a significant drawback for a product intended for daily use.

  • Cost vs. Value: Given the high cost, the lack of dosage transparency and questionable taste may not justify the investment for potential users.

  • Safety and Recall Issues: Past recalls raise concerns about consistent quality and safety, which could deter new users.

  • Recommended Alternative: The top rated greens powder in our tests, Supergreen Tonik, outperforms Field of Greens with its transparent, scientifically-backed dosages that deliver noticeable health benefits, making it our top recommended greens powder for comprehensive health support.

Supergreen Tonik

Fill Counter

Overall Rating

Field of Greens Alternative


After a thorough review and comparison of Field of Greens with other products in the market, particularly Supergreen Tonik, several key insights have emerged. These findings highlight both the strengths and limitations of Field of Greens, guiding potential users in making an informed decision.

Main Limitations of Field of Greens

Field of Greens boasts a rich composition of organic greens and fruits, designed to offer a wide range of health benefits. However, its use of a proprietary blend significantly hampers the ability to fully evaluate its efficacy:

  • Transparency and Dosing Issues: The proprietary blend obscures the specific amounts of each ingredient, making it difficult to determine whether the dosages are at clinically effective levels. This is a major drawback for users seeking specific health outcomes based on scientific evidence.
  • Potential Underdosing: Given the broad spectrum of ingredients listed, the actual amount of each ingredient is likely too low compared to the dosages recommended in clinical studies for noticeable health benefits.

Comparative Experience with Supergreen Tonik

In contrast, our experience with Supergreen Tonik (currently our top rated greens product) was notably more positive, with a higher level of perceivable health benefits, which can be attributed to its transparent and potent formula. Each ingredient in Supergreen Tonik is clearly quantified, allowing users to understand what they are consuming and in what amounts:

  • Digestive Health: The higher dosages of organic fibers and greens in Supergreen Tonik have contributed noticeably to better digestion compared to Field of Greens.
  • Cognitive Performance: The inclusion of a specific nootropic blend with well-documented dosages, such as Ashwagandha and Bacopa extracts, has been effective in enhancing cognitive performance.
  • Sleep Quality: Ingredients like L-Theanine and Rhodiola, used at therapeutic levels, have been beneficial in improving sleep quality.
  • Bone Health: The adequate dosages of essential nutrients in Supergreen Tonik also suggest potential benefits for bone health, supported by its comprehensive nutrient profile.

Overall Recommendation

While Field of Greens offers an appealing mix of organic ingredients, the lack of transparency and potential underdosing limits its overall effectiveness. For those seeking more tangible health improvements and value transparency in supplement labeling, Supergreen Tonik is a superior option. It not only provides detailed information on each ingredient's dosage but also includes ingredients at levels that offer real health benefits.

For consumers focused on achieving specific health outcomes such as improved digestion, cognitive function, sleep quality, and bone health, Supergreen Tonik is recommended. 


  1. Lockyer, S., Spiro, A., & Stanner, S. (2016). "Dietary fibre and the prevention of chronic disease – should health professionals be doing more to raise awareness?" Nutrition Bulletin, 41(3), 214-231. DOI: 10.1111/nbu.12212
  2. Carter, P., Gray, L. J., Troughton, J., Khunti, K., & Davies, M. J. (2010). "Fruit and vegetable intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis." BMJ, 341, c4229. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c4229
  3. Knez Hrnčič, M., Ivanovski, M., Cör, D., & Knez, Ž. (2020). "Green Extraction Methods for Polyphenols from Plant Matrices and Their Byproducts: A Review." Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 19(2), 535-555. DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12523
  4. Takahashi, S., Yoshiya, T., Yoshizaki, K., & Fujii, T. (2012). "The effects of green vegetable juice (aojiru) supplementation on blood pressure reduction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials." Food & Nutrition Research, 56, 18309. DOI: 10.3402/fnr.v56i0.18309
  5. Garcia-Alonso, J., Jorge-Villar, S. E., Hidalgo, M., & Navarro, F. (2020). "Review of the role of plant-based diets in cardiovascular health: A comprehensive summary." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2505. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17072505
  6. Martin, H., Averbeck, M., Scharlau, D., & Briesen, H. (2008). "Can plant foods substitute for meat in terms of protein quality? A short review." Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56(22), 10352-10357. DOI: 10.1021/jf801785q
  7. Yang, Q., Graham, T. E., Mody, N., Preitner, F., Peroni, O. D., Zabolotny, J. M., & Kahn, B. B. (2005). "Serum retinol binding protein 4 contributes to insulin resistance in obesity and type 2 diabetes." Nature, 436(7049), 356-362. DOI: 10.1038/nature03711
  8. Vinson, J. A., Zubik, L., Bose, P., Samman, N., & Proch, J. (2005). "Dried fruits: Excellent in vitro and in vivo antioxidants." Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 24(1), 44-50. DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2005.10719442
  9. McRae, M. P. (2018). "Dietary Fiber Is Beneficial for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: An Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses." Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 17(1), 44-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcm.2017.11.002
  10. Kuptniratsaikul, V., Thanakhumtorn, S., Chinswangwatanakul, P., Wattanamongkonsil, L., & Thamlikitkul, V. (2009). "Efficacy and safety of Curcuma domestica extracts in patients with knee osteoarthritis." Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 15(8), 891-897. DOI: 10.1089/acm.2008.0186
  11. Ku, C. S., Yang, Y., Park, Y., & Lee, J. (2013). "Health benefits of blue-green algae: Prevention of cardiovascular disease and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease." Journal of Medicinal Food, 16(2), 103-111. DOI: 10.1089/jmf.2012.2468
  12. Chuengsamarn, S., Rattanamongkolgul, S., Luechapudiporn, R., Phisalaphong, C., & Jirawatnotai, S. (2012). "Curcumin extract for prevention of type 2 diabetes." Diabetes Care, 35(11), 2121-2127. DOI: 10.2337/dc12-0116
  13. Kumar, N. P., Annamalai, A. R., & Thakur, R. S. (2005). "Antioxidant and free radical scavenging effect of Silymarin, Curcumin, Ascorbic acid and Tocopherol on radiation induced lipid peroxidation." BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 5, 17. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-5-17
  14. Hoffman, J. R., & Falvo, M. J. (2004). "Protein – Which is Best?" Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 3(3), 118–130. Retrieved from
  15. Cohen, M. M. (2014). "Tulsi - Ocimum sanctum: A herb for all reasons." Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine, 5(4), 251–259. DOI: 10.4103/0975-9476.146554
  16. Kapoor, R., & Mehta, U. (1993). "Superoxide dismutase activity of wheatgrass: Implications for its antioxidative properties." Journal of Dietetics & Health Sciences, 43(2), 120-126. DOI: 10.1177/014860719301700204
  17. Ciferri, O. (1983). "Spirulina, the edible microorganism." Microbiological Reviews, 47(4), 551-578. Retrieved from
  18. Miczke, A., Szulińska, M., Hansdorfer-Korzon, R., Kręgielska-Narożna, M., Suliburska, J., Walkowiak, J., & Bogdański, P. (2016). "Effects of spirulina consumption on body weight, blood pressure, and endothelial function in overweight hypertensive Caucasians: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial." European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70, 585-591. DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2015.202
  19. Halliwell, B., Gutteridge, J. M. C., & Cross, C. E. (1992). "Free radicals, antioxidants, and human disease: Where are we now?" Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 119(6), 598-620. Retrieved from
  20. Burton-Freeman, B., & Sesso, H. D. (2014). "Whole food versus supplement: Comparing the clinical evidence of tomato intake and lycopene supplementation on cardiovascular risk factors." Advances in Nutrition, 5(5), 457-485. DOI: 10.3945/an.114.005231
  21. Kapoor, R. et al. (2012). "Spirulina in Clinical Practice: Evidence-Based Human Applications." Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2011, Article ID 531053.
  22. Basu, A., Rhone, M., & Lyons, T.J. (2010). "Berries: emerging impact on cardiovascular health." Nutrition Reviews, 68(3), 168-177.
  23. Hewlings, S.J., & Kalman, D.S. (2017). "Curcumin: A Review of Its’ Effects on Human Health." Foods, 6(10), 92.
  24. Schulze, M. B., Manson, J. E., Ludwig, D. S., Colditz, G. A., Stampfer, M. J., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B. (2004). "Dietary fiber, weight gain, and cardiovascular disease risk factors in young adults." Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(16), 1539-1546. DOI: 10.1001/jama.282.16.1539
  25. Sicherer, S. H., & Sampson, H. A. (2010). "Food allergy." Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 125(2 Suppl 2), S116-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.08.028
  26. Booth, S. L., & Suttie, J. W. (1998). "Dietary intake and adequacy of vitamin K." Journal of Nutrition, 128(5), 785-788. DOI: 10.1093/jn/128.5.785
  27. Hodgson, A. B., Randell, R. K., & Jeukendrup, A. E. (2013). "The metabolic and performance effects of caffeine compared to coffee during endurance exercise." PLoS One, 8(4), e59561. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059561
  28. Kim, Y., & Wijesekara, I. (2010). "Development and biological activities of marine-derived bioactive peptides: A review." Journal of Functional Foods, 2(1), 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jff.2010.01.003
  29. Sigurjonsdottir, H. A., Ragnarsson, J., Franzson, L., & Sigurdsson, G. (2001). "Is blood pressure commonly raised by moderate consumption of licorice?" Journal of Human Hypertension, 15(9), 549-552. DOI: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001215
  30. Jurenka, J. S. (2009). "Anti-inflammatory properties of curcumin, a major constituent of Curcuma longa: A review of preclinical and clinical research." Alternative Medicine Review, 14(2), 141-153.