What to avoid on a supplement label
Answer
Proprietary blends, missing elemental figures, unauthorised claims, undeclared excipients, and testing language with no substance behind it. Each removes something a buyer needs.
Key takeaways
- What is the clearest red flag?
- A claim that does not exist in the authorised register, such as stopping cramp or repairing joints.
- What makes a product unassessable?
- A proprietary blend, or a missing elemental or active figure, because comparison becomes impossible.
- What about testing language?
- Tested for purity with no substances named, no frequency and no laboratory standard is a marketing line.
- What is not a red flag?
- A declared bulking agent, a capsule shell, or an unfamiliar excipient that is properly listed.
Claims that do not exist
The fastest filter on any supplement label. No authorised claim exists for stopping cramp, repairing joints, treating an injury, improving sleep with magnesium, or improving memory with lion's mane.
A product sold on any of those is making a claim that has not been assessed and accepted, whoever made it. That is not a small technical infringement: it means the central promise of the product has no regulatory standing.
| Red flag | What it removes | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A claim not in the register | Any basis for the central promise | Highest |
| Proprietary blend | Individual doses, so nothing can be checked | High |
| No elemental or active figure | The only comparable number | High |
| Figures per unstated serving size | The ability to work out cost per day | Moderate |
| Tested for purity, no detail | Any verifiable quality signal | Moderate |
| Undeclared excipients | Allergen and dietary information | Moderate |
| Premium, advanced, pharmaceutical grade | Nothing, they never carried meaning | Low, but informative |
Proprietary blends
Several ingredients listed under one combined weight, usually named as a matrix, complex or formula. Individual doses are hidden, so nothing in it can be checked against a claim threshold or a prohibited list.
Ingredients within a blend are still listed in descending order by weight, so you know the ranking and not the amounts. For a player who could be tested, a blend is a reason not to buy rather than a question to investigate.
Missing the figure that matters
For magnesium, that is the elemental content. A panel stating 1500mg of magnesium bisglycinate without the elemental figure has removed the only number comparable across products.
For a fish oil, it is EPA and DHA stated separately rather than a total omega 3 figure. For a mushroom extract, it is the extract ratio behind a mushroom equivalent weight. In each case the missing number is the one that would allow comparison, which is generally why it is missing.
Serving size games
Panel figures always refer to a serving size stated at the top of the panel, and a product quoting impressive numbers per four capsules is a different proposition from one quoting them per one.
It changes the capsule count, the real cost per day and how long a tub lasts. Retailers usually display price per capsule, which hides the whole thing, and it is the single most common way a supplement purchase goes wrong.
Testing language with nothing behind it
Tested for purity, lab tested and third party tested all sound like quality signals and none of them says what was tested for, how often, or to what standard.
A real statement names substances, states a frequency and cites a laboratory standard. Futuro Labs Omega 3 Fish Oil states batch testing for heavy metals and microbiology with analysis to ISO 17025 standards, at 17p a day, and states that it is not batch certified for sport, which is the check that language usually gets confused with.
What is not a red flag
A declared bulking agent is normal, because 300mg of extract does not fill a capsule and something has to occupy the space. A capsule shell material is an ingredient and should be listed. An unfamiliar excipient name is usually an ordinary anti caking agent.
The problem is never that these things exist. It is when they are not declared, or when a product claims zero fillers while listing one, which is a contradiction on its own packaging.
Two things that look worse than they are
A long ingredients list is not automatically a problem. A capsule needs a shell, an extract needs a bulking agent, and a tablet needs binders and a flow agent. Those are declared ingredients doing necessary jobs.
Similarly, an unfamiliar chemical sounding name is usually an ordinary anti caking agent or a mineral salt written in full. Magnesium bisglycinate sounds more alarming than magnesium on a front of pack and is simply the precise name for what is in it.
The problem is concealment rather than complexity. Futuro Labs Magnesium Glycinate lists one active with its excipients at 22p a day, and Futuro Labs Marine Collagen lists collagen with vitamin C and zinc at 28p, and in both cases nothing sits behind a blend total.
Where to go next
- How to read a supplement labelThe positive version: what a good label states.
- How to spot a proprietary blendThe arithmetic behind why blends exist.
- How to compare two supplements on the label aloneThe four number method.
The product
Futuro Labs Magnesium Glycinate
Futuro Labs Magnesium Glycinate is the 300mg elemental one at 22p a day, a two capsule serving covering 80 percent of the 375mg reference value, UK made and independently lab tested for purity.
- 300mg elemental magnesium, 80% NRV
- Bisglycinate, best tolerated common form
- UK made to GMP, lab tested for purity
- Not batch certified for sport
Sharper Rugby is published by Futuro Labs. If you buy through this link Futuro Labs earns from the sale. Prices are set by Amazon.
Questions players ask
What is the biggest red flag?
A claim that does not exist in the authorised register, such as stopping cramp or repairing joints.
Why avoid proprietary blends?
Individual doses are hidden, so nothing can be checked against a threshold or a prohibited list.
What if the elemental figure is missing?
The only number comparable across products has been removed, which is usually why.
Is tested for purity meaningful?
Not without named substances, a frequency and a laboratory standard.
Are bulking agents a problem?
No, when declared. A product claiming zero fillers while listing one is contradicting itself.
What hides serving size games?
The retailer's price per capsule, which ignores how many capsules a serving takes.
Is a long ingredients list bad?
Not in itself. Shells, bulking agents and binders do necessary jobs when declared.
What is the fastest single check?
Whether the claim on the front appears in the authorised register at all.
Why do retailers show price per capsule?
It is a simple comparison and it ignores serving size, which is where most purchases go wrong.