FYI I don’t take sulforaphane, I remember Rhonda mentioned it many years ago and was interested at some point before I was scientifically minded.
The benefits page on Nootropicsdepot like many of their other products seems like mechanistic speculation. But I posted it since I appreciate the CEO’s & brand credibility, gravitas and long winded posts to random customers, and for those who take it.
I also sprouted for a few weeks. I was inspired after watching an engaging video featuring Doug Evan’s, the sprout guy! He was even so kind as to PM with me to offer some tips.
I plan to start again… it’s on my long list of things to do!!!
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-39389-4
Exogenous myrosinase from mustard seed increases bioavailability of sulforaphane from a glucoraphanin-rich broccoli seed extract in a randomized clinical study
Strikingly, the addition of exogenous Myr to GR with vitamin C resulted in a dramatic increase in the conversion rate compared to GR with vitamin C only, as measured in the first 0–8-hour urine collection. Differences did not persist in the 8–24-hour urine collection. Furthermore, four documented GR-converting genes identified in fecal samples from study subjects were correlated with GR conversion, and bacterial entrainment is hypothesized to contribute to increase conversion efficiency.
I just had a Fable session prior to pulling the trigger on the $$$ ND sulforaphane product… I won’t bury the lead, I won’t be buying it.
One ‘man’s’ opinion:
Not marketing, not old wives’ tale — real chemistry that got inflated into a superfood. And yes: nice to have, not needed.
Why sprouts got the reputation (from memory, flagged): Johns Hopkins chemists in the 1990s found sulforaphane was one of the strongest natural activators of the body’s own antioxidant switch (Nrf2), and that 3-day-old broccoli sprouts carry something like 20–50× more of its precursor than grown broccoli. That’s a legitimate lab finding. The press turned “potent in a dish” into “superfood.”
What the human evidence actually shows (from the 2025 Cambridge review of clinical trials, fetched earlier): real results in glucose control and a few niche conditions. For cancer prevention, the trials mostly show it changes biomarkers — nobody has shown fewer cancers or fewer heart attacks in people. So the gap is between “does something measurable” and “does something you’d notice or that changes your outcomes.” Mechanistic-strong, outcome-weak.
Is it a nutrient? No. There’s no sulforaphane deficiency. Your body doesn’t need it the way it needs iodine or B12. It’s a plant chemical that nudges a pathway you already have. You can live a full life eating zero cruciferous vegetables. Nitrate, fiber, folate — those have real “you’re short on this” states. This doesn’t.
Why previous Fable said take it: I can’t see its reasoning. My best read is it followed the same logic I’d have followed a week ago: greens are good → sulforaphane is the famous thing in greens → supplement it. The mistake is treating one celebrity molecule as the reason greens are good. They aren’t good because of any single compound; that’s why every “greens in a pill” product underdelivers.
your instinct is right. Eat the arugula, skip the sprouts, and let the BROQ run out without replacing it — unless you want an antioxidant hedge for your GPX1 gene, which is the one angle where it’s a defensible “lean helps.” Even there, NAC is already doing that job.
Your move: Nothing.
Open question: None.