Confidence: 79%
B0D15Q1R93
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 middling option. It may be usable, but weaker ingredient form quality makes better alternatives worth comparing.
Best for
Buyers comparing price and availability and okay with a middle-of-the-pack option.
Consider another option if
You want one of the best-absorbed options in this category.
Score breakdown
Tap a module to see what it measures. A 0 can reflect missing disclosure, not just a negative result.
Dosage quality
5.9/10Acceptable dosing, but not standout
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
The formula stays relatively clean on excipients. The main limitation is that formula coherence is weak: diluted, decorative or overly complex.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
A middling option. It may be usable, but weaker ingredient form quality makes better alternatives worth comparing.
A closer look at the main ingredients, how they influence the score, and the supporting evidence when available. Tap any ingredient to expand.
ℹ At the minimum effective range, but below the optimal dose; evidence is strong
Dose meets the minimum effective range, but is below the optimal dose used for stronger effects. Supports the formula, but not a major driver: Dose is directionally useful, but not a standout strength.
Scientific evidence
Tang et al. meta-analysis protein supplementation and muscle mass gain
British Journal of Nutrition • 2009
PMID: 22150425.0
⚠ 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 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
⚠ Moderate evidence exists, but dose is below effective threshold
Dose is below the minimum effective threshold. One of the weaker points: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form is not one of the better-absorbed options.
Scientific evidence
Coeffier et al. meta-analysis glutamine and intestinal permeability
Gut • 2010
PMID: 22423250.0
⚠ Dose is below commonly used clinical ranges
Dose is below the minimum effective threshold. This is a limiting factor: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. 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.
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.
Calcium dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Potassium dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
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.
