Is there a serving size?
The first line of the panel. Without it nothing else on the label has a unit, and the container cannot be turned into a supply.
An ingredient name tells you what was chosen. Only a number tells you whether it can do anything.
To check a supplement against its evidence you need four things: the serving size, the amount of the ingredient per serving, the standardisation if it is an extract, and the dose used in the studies you are comparing with. A Supplement Facts panel supplies the first three when it is complete. Where an ingredient sits inside a proprietary blend, descending order of predominance under 21 CFR 101.36(c) still lets you calculate a ceiling. Where no panel is published at all, none of the four is available and no comparison can be made.
Every ingredient in this aisle has a literature behind it, and every one of those literatures is written in doses.
That is not a technicality. It is the difference between a finding and a gesture. A trial that reports an effect reports it at a dose, for a duration, in a population, and the dose is not a detail of the study — it is the intervention. Change it by a factor of ten and you are no longer testing the same thing.
So when a pack names an ingredient that has been studied, it has told you something real and stopped one step short of the thing that matters. The honest question is never is this ingredient studied? It is is this amount of this ingredient studied?
That second question has an answer on a good label and no answer at all on a bad one, and learning to tell the two apart takes about ten minutes.
All four, or the comparison does not work. Most labels give you two or three.
| What you need | Where it comes from | What happens without it |
|---|---|---|
| Serving size | The first line of the Supplement Facts panel | Every other number on the panel loses its unit. A milligram figure without a serving is not an amount |
| Amount per serving | The ingredient's own line on the panel | Nothing can be compared. Inside a blend, a ceiling can still be calculated |
| Standardisation | A percentage beside an extract, e.g. 25% gymnemic acids | A weight of powder cannot be converted into a quantity of the compound the trials measured |
| The studied dose | The paper, monograph or public-health source you are comparing with | You are comparing against nothing — which is what a marketing claim invites |
Notice that three of the four are printed on a complete label and the fourth is a fifteen-minute search. This is not specialist work. It is arithmetic that a label either enables or prevents.
Memocept is a memory supplement in 30-capsule bottles, one capsule a day. Its panel declares seven ingredients and prints an amount for every one of them — and that disclosure is what lets anyone see how far below the studied doses those amounts sit. We publish the arithmetic rather than the adjectives.
Order NowRead the label firstOne. Read the serving size, and check it against the suggested use. A panel written per two capsules and an instruction to take one are describing different doses. Where they disagree, you have found the first problem before you have read a single ingredient.
Two. Find your ingredient's line and take the number. If it has one, you are nearly finished. If it is inside a proprietary blend, take the blend total, count the position of your ingredient in the list, and divide. That gives a ceiling, never a floor.
Three. Convert it, if it is an extract. 400 mg standardised to 25% gymnemic acids is 100 mg of the compound. 400 mg of gymnema extract with no percentage is 400 mg of a bag whose contents are unstated.
Four. Find the studied dose and set the two side by side. Write both numbers down with their units. Almost every disappointment in this aisle is visible at this step, and most of them are visible by a factor rather than a margin.
Five. Say what you found out loud. The studies used 400 milligrams; this bottle can contain at most 25. That sentence is worth more than any number of paragraphs about a plant's traditional use.
Always write the two numbers with their units, next to each other, before you form an opinion. Micrograms and milligrams differ by a thousand, and the difference is invisible in prose and obvious in a column.
This is the case most guides skip, and it is more common than it should be — particularly when a product is sold from images rather than from a shelf.
If a seller publishes no Supplement Facts panel, the method above stops at step one. There is no serving size, so there is no amount per serving; there is no amount, so there is nothing to standardise; and there is nothing to set beside the studied dose.
What you can still do is worth listing, because it is not nothing:
Count what is named. An ingredient list without amounts still tells you what is in the bottle and in roughly what order the brand chose to present it.
Read the whole-container quantity. A 30-capsule bottle cannot contain more of an ingredient than thirty times whatever is in one capsule. If the studied dose of an ingredient is a gram a day and the bottle holds three grams in total, the entire container is three days of it. That comparison needs only the net quantity printed on the front.
Telephone the seller. Ask for the serving size and the servings per container. Both are required on the panel, so both exist; you are asking somebody to read you two lines. How readily that happens is itself information.
Buy the smallest pack and read the panel when it arrives. The bottle carries the document. Everything you needed to choose a larger pack is printed on it, which is an argument for buying one and deciding afterwards.
Whole-container volume against daily studied dose. It needs no serving size, no amount and no standardisation — only the net quantity printed on the front of every bottle.
A dose below the studied range does not prove a product does nothing. It proves that the evidence being pointed at does not apply to it, which is a narrower claim and the only one the arithmetic supports.
Equally, a dose that matches the studied range does not prove a product works. It proves the amount is in the right territory. Form, absorption, the rest of the formula and the quality of the underlying research all still matter, and the research in this aisle is frequently thin regardless of dose.
And a source that reports a result usually reports its own limitations alongside it — small samples, short durations, heterogeneity between studies. Those belong in the comparison too. A meta-analysis that pools seven small trials and says so is telling you how much weight to put on its own number.
What the comparison gives you is a floor for the conversation. It moves the question from does this plant have a literature, which is almost always yes, to does this bottle deliver what that literature tested, which is answerable, checkable, and the only version of the question a buyer can act on.
The first line of the panel. Without it nothing else on the label has a unit, and the container cannot be turned into a supply.
Count them, then count the ones with no figure. That ratio describes a product's disclosure better than anything on the front of the bottle.
Fifteen minutes and a named source. Write their number beside the label's number, with units, and most of the decision makes itself.
It is a general explainer about reading labels and sources, not advice about any particular product and not medical advice of any kind. No dietary supplement may lawfully claim to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent a disease, and a dose comparison is not a judgement about whether anything is safe or suitable for you. If you take prescription medicine or manage a health condition, the person who prescribes for you is the right person to ask.
Disclosure is what lets you see that they are not. The monograph we read puts arginine daily dosage trends at 6 to 30 grams in three divided doses, against 400 mg here counting both arginine forms. The NIH records a citrulline malate protocol at 8 grams, against 100 mg here. Beta-alanine was studied at 1.6 to 6.4 grams a day, against 40 mg.
We cannot tell you that, and neither can the teal label, because it does not say how much of anything is in it. What we can do is list the specific cautions our sources record and let you take them to a clinician: the huperzine and cholinesterase-inhibitor interaction, the rhodiola and losartan interaction, and the caffeine question.
In one important respect, yes: it prints an amount for every dietary ingredient. There is no blend and nothing hidden inside a total. That is the disclosure this desk asks for on every product it reviews.
Descending order of predominance means the first ingredient is the heaviest, the second no heavier than the first, and so on. If seven ingredients total 151 mg, the one in position n can be no more than 151 divided by n. That upper bound is the only number the label permits us to calculate, so it is the only number we print.
Thirty days, taking the printed label at its word: 30 capsules, one a day. Note that every bottle photograph in this pack shows 60 capsules, and that no label matching a 60-count bottle was supplied to us. All supply arithmetic on this site uses 30.
We cannot calculate it, because no price was published. At one capsule a day a printed bottle is thirty days, so the arithmetic is simple once you have the figure in front of you at checkout.
One bottle is 30 capsules at one a day, so a bottle is thirty days and the 60-day guarantee still has thirty left to run when it ends. The guarantee runs from purchase, not from delivery, and the price is shown at checkout.
Order NowRead the label firstNo price was published to us. We print no figure we have not seen ourselves. · 60-day guarantee from purchase · Not for under 18, pregnancy or nursing