Confidence: 95%
B00P8DW5IO
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
A strong option overall. Its main value comes from evidence quality, but the listed weaknesses are still worth checking…
Best for
People prioritizing high absorption and overall formula quality.
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
7.6/10Generally 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).
The supporting evidence profile is relatively strong. The main limitation is that calcium: below clinically studied range.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
A strong option overall. Its main value comes from evidence quality, but the listed weaknesses are still worth checking before buying.
A closer look at the main ingredients, how they influence the score, and the supporting evidence when available. Tap any ingredient to expand.
✔ Clinically effective dose with strong supporting evidence
Dose is within the optimal/effective range. Adequate, but not a key strength: Dose is directionally useful, but not a standout strength. The declared form supports strong absorption.
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
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
Dose is below the minimum effective threshold. A clear drag on the formula: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
Scientific evidence
Tang et al. meta-analysis calcium supplementation and fracture risk
BMJ • 2007
PMID: 17720017.0
Evidence inferred from established knowledge, not directly linked studies
A clear drag on the formula: Clinical dosing guidance is limited for this ingredient. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
No supporting studies or dosing references are currently available for this ingredient.
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
Calcium dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Phosphorus 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 Zinc supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
