Confidence: 54%
B002DYJ0N4
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
Only budget-focused buyers with flexible standards.
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
6.6/10Acceptable 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
Zinc: dose within clinically studied range (evidence A). The main limitation is that magnesium: below clinically studied range.
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.
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 below the ranges usually used for stronger effects.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
✔ 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
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. 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
⚠ Strong 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 label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.
Scientific evidence
Boyle et al. systematic review magnesium and subjective anxiety
Nutrients • 2017
PMID: 28145455.0
Dong et al. meta-analysis magnesium intake and type 2 diabetes risk
Diabetes Care • 2011
PMID: 21868780.0
Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.
Magnesium dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Calcium form is not clearly declared
Exact ingredient form is not disclosed on the label.
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.
