Confidence: 79%
B078JZQ5QL
View on Amazon →Decision summary
A solid product, but not a clean win. The main trade-off is weaker formulation coherence.
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
7.9/10Generally 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
Creatine: 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
A solid product, but not a clean win. The main trade-off is weaker formulation coherence.
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
Strong contributor: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The declared form supports strong absorption.
Scientific evidence
Avgerinos et al. meta-analysis creatine and cognitive function
Experimental Gerontology • 2018
PMID: 33578433.0
Brose et al. systematic review creatine and muscle strength
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise • 2003
PMID: 12945830.0
ℹ Dose is within established clinical ranges, but lacks direct studies
One of the weaker points: Dose is below the ranges usually used for stronger effects. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.
Clinical dosing guidance
Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.
⚠ Strong evidence exists, but dose may be too low to be effective
A clear drag on the formula: Dose is likely below clinically useful levels. The declared form supports strong absorption.
Scientific evidence
Martineau et al. meta-analysis vitamin D supplementation and respiratory infections
BMJ • 2017
PMID: 26864360.0
Bischoff-Ferrari et al. meta-analysis vitamin D fracture prevention
BMJ • 2009
PMID: 20198382.0
⚠ 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
Evidence inferred from established knowledge, not directly linked studies
Adequate, but not a key strength: Clinical dosing guidance is limited for this ingredient.
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.
Formula design looks less coherent than stronger alternatives
The formulation appears less focused than better-built options.
Vitamin D dose looks below clinically effective levels
Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.
Calcium 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 Creatine supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.
