way too complicated to know from home growing if something like that actually shifts the curve of results... maybe. too many variables changing... never comparing to a control group... unresolved. Anecdote in such a context is highly untrustworthy.
when a company doesn't actually test and prove results in a proper way, dietary supplements are an excellent example, it's usually for good reason...it's better to sell hope than prove themselves wrong. Or, in the absence of good research, that's usually correlated to the fact existing knolwedge may make it improbable to start. conserving energy is a good hypothesis, but if there are no pathways to allow such a thing. In the past i've seen peopel who think providing sugar can help the plant.. it might feed microbes which may indirectly help the plant, but you cannot give a plant glucose via the roots and have it used by the plant -- there are no biological pathways to make use of glocuse if it could b taken in by the roots. Can't assume it can enter the plant nor have a use without showing it to be true.
i'd try to find empircal data that supports the claims of the marketing folks selling superthrive. at best it'll be a maybe. Like myco, just not thoroghly proven...and that in itself is no accident (dietary supplement example above) ...
by reseraching it competently, they may destroy their own revenue stream, lol... conflict of interest.
Really comes down to personality.. those that want to do everything possible even if some of those behaviours are placebo. This strategy will inevitably fall prey to gimmicks -- not saying that as an insult - if a few good things result, it's an acceptable cost, eh?.And, those that want to do the basics well that account for 90-95% of the return - light, climate, basic nutrition would probably sum that up? Spectrum between, too.
whatever floats your boat....