Confidence: 51%
B0BS3X3HQS
View on Amazon →SuppScoreLab compares supplement products for informational purposes. We do not sell products directly, and some links may take you to third-party retailers.
Decision summary
Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker ingredient form quality.
Best for
Buyers comparing price and availability and okay with a middle-of-the-pack option.
Consider another option if
You care a lot about label clarity and want fewer unknowns.
Score breakdown
Tap a module to see what it measures. A 0 can reflect missing disclosure, not just a negative result.
Dosage quality
7.3/10Generally solid dosing
Checks whether labeled ingredient amounts fall within clinically studied ranges (not just regulatory minimums). Low/0 can reflect under-dosing or missing amounts (e.g., proprietary blends).
Explore next
Dose 7.3/10 · Bioavailability 0.1/10 · Coherence 2/10
Ingredient form quality suggests suboptimal ingredient forms.
Some ingredient forms are not declared on the label.
This is a multi-ingredient product. The score reflects formulation quality, not efficacy for a specific health goal.
Zinc: dose within clinically studied range (evidence A). The main limitation is that formula coherence is weak: diluted, decorative or overly complex.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker ingredient form quality.
A closer look at the main ingredients, how they influence the score, and the supporting evidence when available. Tap any ingredient to expand.
✔ Dose aligned with moderate supporting evidence
Supports the formula, but not a major driver: Clinical dosing guidance is limited for this ingredient.
Scientific evidence
Pea proteins oral supplementation promotes muscle thickness gains during resistance training: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial vs. whey protein
J Int Soc Sports Nutr • 2015
PMID: 25628520.0
✔ Clinically effective dose with moderate supporting evidence
Dose is within the optimal/effective range. Solid but not a standout: Dose is directionally useful, but not a standout strength. The declared form supports strong absorption.
Scientific evidence
Norton & Layman review leucine and mTOR activation in protein synthesis
Journal of Nutrition • 2006
PMID: 16365087.0
✔ Clinically effective dose with strong supporting evidence
Dose is within the optimal/effective range. This is a limiting factor: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
Scientific evidence
Singh & Das Cochrane review zinc for common cold
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews • 2011
PMID: 22553186.0
Prasad et al. RCT zinc supplementation and testosterone in elderly men
Nutrition • 1996
PMID: 8875519.0
✔ Clinically effective dose with moderate supporting evidence
Dose is within the optimal/effective range. A clear drag on the formula: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
Scientific evidence
Pasricha et al. systematic review iron and fatigue in non-anaemic women
BMJ Open • 2012
PMID: 23169929.0
ℹ Dose is within established clinical ranges, but lacks direct studies
Dose meets the minimum effective range, but is below the optimal dose used for stronger effects. This is a limiting factor: Dose is directionally useful, but not a standout strength. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
Dose is below the minimum effective threshold. A clear drag on the formula: Dose is below the ranges usually used for stronger effects. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
Scientific evidence
Tang et al. meta-analysis calcium supplementation and fracture risk
BMJ • 2007
PMID: 17720017.0
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
Formula design looks less coherent than stronger alternatives
The formulation appears less focused than better-built options.
Magnesium dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Magnesium form is not clearly declared
Exact ingredient form is not disclosed on the label.
Read our methodology overview to understand how SuppScoreLab combines multiple scientific dimensions into one practical score.
View methodology →This evaluation is based on the product label and declared Supplement Facts available at review time. It does not verify laboratory-tested composition, purity, or batch-level quality. This content is educational and not medical advice. Consult a qualified healthcare professional for personal health decisions. Affiliate disclosure: SuppScoreLab may earn a commission from qualifying Amazon links.
See the best Protein Powder supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
