by Glenn H. Sullivan, PhD and Guillermo E. Sanchez, PhD


When considering 100-gram comparisons of the products created using the Standard Enzyme Treatment (SET) process versus QNI’s Enhanced Enzyme Treatment (EET) process, it is critically important to understand the role bioavailability plays in the nutritional potency of an ingredient versus simply the aggregate (globular) nutritional analyses in documentation of nutrient profiles.  While there is no direct clinical trial to prove our claim that the product of the EET process (NutraIso®) is significantly better, it is important to consider other meaningful facts.

Patentability.  First, the most important clinical study was completed in 2002 by Dr. Qureshi based on products produced by the SET process.  Although there were many attempts to get a patent using the results of that comprehensive clinical trial, no one was ever able to achieve patent status for the SET process.  The problem was that the SET process did not achieve the performance levels required by the USPTO to rise above ‘prior art’ standards in nutritional potency (i.e. not ‘unique’ and ‘no surprising result’). In contrast, QNI’s EET process did achieve the performance levels required to rise above the ‘prior art.’ As documented in the Patent Examiner’s approval report, the EET process was both ‘unique’ and ‘a surprising result.’ Simply put, QNI’s patented EET process achieved patent status because the process was scientifically documented as being superior to the SET process.

Laboratory Analysis.  Second, the aggregate nutritional analysis for NutraIso® (EET) conducted independently by AIB Labs versus the nutritional analysis conducted internally by others using the SET process only addresses the standard aggregate (globular macronutrient) nutritional profile of the individual ingredients analyzed (protein, fat, carbohydrate, etc.). This is true in all macro analyses as they do not analyze the bioavailability of each nutritional component.  Thus, while the 100-gram reports for SET and EET derived products appear to be equal, the antioxidant embodiment of the EET product (NutraIso) is significantly higher and therein lies an important key to significantly improved bioavailability.

As documented in the OA Laboratory analysis (summarized below), the EET process yields significantly higher availability of fats (antioxidants and carbohydrates) and protein (peptide profile) as compared to the SET process. When looking at the SET versus EET comparisons for protein in terms of gram weight, it shows that the SET gram weight for protein is 0.86 grams versus 2.99 grams for the EET. Herein lies the reason why the 100-gram report for the SET product is not equal to the 100-gram QNI report for NutraIso in terms of nutritional potency – bioavailability. The EET hydrolyzed protein is over three times that of the SET. Going back to the aggregate analysis for protein in the 100-gram reports, it is important to note that proteins in the aggregate are macromolecules (globular proteins) of long amino acid residues, and that’s how they are analyzed and reported in 100-gram reports. These protein macromolecules are only somewhat water soluble and must be further broken-down (hydrolyzed into short chains of peptides) to achieve greater bioavailability and the bioactive benefit within the human body (catalyzing metabolic functions, nutrient efficacy, etc.).

This is significant because in commercial practice, the hydrolyzed value of EET derived product in this example requires significantly less aggregate protein to achieve the same end benefit of the SET derived product when incorporated into a nutritional supplement formulation. Thus, over three times the SET derived product would be required to achieve the same performance result as the EET derived product (NutraIso).

Infant Nutrition Clinical Trial.  In a clinical trial conducted with lactating mothers and their breastfed infants, the bioavailability of NutraIso was clearly demonstrated by producing a meaningful change in the key metrics of newborn infants.  With lactating mothers’ diets solely supplemented by a regiment of NutraIso, this result was achieved through both the increased “quantity” produced by lactating mothers as well as the increased “quality” of the breast milk received by the infants.  Without the exceptional bioavailability of NutraIso, the additional breast milk would not have been produced and the nutrients would not have made it into the mother’s system to be passed on to the infants.

The Bottom Line.  100 grams of SET derived product is not equivalent to 100 grams of EET derived product (NutraIso) in terms of nutritional potency.

For additional information email


Leave a Reply