Confidence: 75%
B000QSTBNS
View on Amazon →Decision summary
A solid product, but not a clean win. The main trade-off is weaker ingredient form quality.
Best for
People prioritizing high absorption and overall formula quality.
Consider another option if
You want fewer compromises on formulation quality.
Score breakdown
Tap a module to see what it measures. A 0 can reflect missing disclosure, not just a negative result.
Dosage quality
6.9/10Acceptable 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).
The supporting evidence profile is relatively strong. The main limitation is that formula coherence is weak: diluted, decorative or overly complex.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Final verdict
A solid product, but not a clean win. The main trade-off is 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 Evidence is strong, but dose is below the optimal range
Dose is well positioned: Dose is strong and within effective ranges.
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
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
⚠ Dose is below commonly used clinical ranges
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.
⚠ Moderate evidence exists, but dose is below 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
Pasricha et al. systematic review iron and fatigue in non-anaemic women
BMJ Open • 2012
PMID: 23169929.0
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.
Calcium dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Iron 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.
Keep exploring the database to compare better-ranked supplements and ingredient guides.
