Vitamins, minerals and omega-3s where the number on the front is rarely the number that matters. Elemental amounts, EPA and DHA totals, and what a serving really costs.
How we read these labelsThe UK’s value-brand creatine, reviewed against what creatine research actually shows. One ingredient, the right 3 g dose, a serving that adds up, and a banned-substance testing claim — at around half the price of the big-name tubs when it is on offer. The small high-street packs are the exception.
The other big UK value creatine, reviewed against what creatine research actually shows. One ingredient and one of the lowest prices per 100 g we have seen — but the serving on the pack is bigger than the 3 g the evidence and the label claim are based on, so you can make it last longer than it says.
The UK’s value-brand vegan protein, reviewed against what the plant-protein research actually shows. About 24 g of pea and fava bean protein per 30 g scoop, little salt and a short ingredient list — at roughly half the price per gram of Optimum Nutrition’s plant protein. The one caution is fava bean, for anyone with G6PD deficiency.
The most completely labelled whey we have looked at, and the one that makes the banned-substance claim the big brands only half-make. It publishes every macro and all nineteen amino acids per scoop — and charges about what the value brands do.
The UK price benchmark for whey, and the number every other tub should be measured against. A three-item label, £1.10 a serving on the brand’s own page, and a protein-content certification most rivals do not carry — set against a headline figure that flatters the range.
The UK’s value-brand casein, reviewed against what the protein research actually shows. About 23 g of slow-digesting milk protein in a 30 g scoop, a short ingredient list and a price per gram of protein well below the big brands — but the bedtime benefit it is sold on is mostly just extra protein.
Optimum Nutrition’s vegan protein, reviewed against what the plant-protein research actually shows. A 32 g scoop gives 24 g of pea and rice protein with a short ingredient list, and it is one of the few Optimum Nutrition products the brand names as Informed Sport registered. The catch is the small tub and a price per gram of protein that only looks fair on offer.
One active ingredient, its strength given in both units, USP verified for potency, and about six cents a day. The best-value product we have reviewed — on a manufacturer page that still contradicts its own label by a factor of two.
The UK’s best-selling creatine, reviewed against what creatine research actually shows. The ingredient is about as well evidenced as supplements get and the dose is right — but the label contradicts itself on serving size, and a plain creatine can cost half as much.
The other big UK value vegan protein, reviewed against what the plant-protein research actually shows. A five-source plant blend sweetened with stevia, cheap in the big bags — but it is less protein-dense than its rivals, and the protein per serving is described three different ways depending on where you look.
The best-selling whey protein in the UK, reviewed against what protein research actually shows. A fully disclosed 24 g serving and three years of daily use behind it — but the price, the testing claim and the question of whether you need it at all are worth settling first.
The UK’s value-brand weight gainer, reviewed against what weight-gain research actually shows. A 100 g serving gives about 388 kcal and 31 g of protein — a far more sensible size than the 1,250 kcal giants — but it is still mostly maltodextrin and oats you could buy for less, and the sugar content is not given on the listings we read.
The best-known casein in the UK, reviewed against what the protein research actually shows. It is a clean, fully disclosed 24 g of slow-digesting milk protein — but the “nighttime recovery” case mostly comes down to eating more protein, which any protein does, and the price per gram only makes sense in the bigger tub.
EPA and DHA itemised, fish species and countries named, and about 40 cents per gram of omega-3. The front says 1,000 mg of fish oil, the label’s own directions give you 1,200 mg of EPA and DHA a day, and a 200-softgel bottle lasts 50 days, not 100.
The big-serving rival to Serious Mass, reviewed against what weight-gain research actually shows. About 1,050 to 1,100 kcal and 56 g of protein per serving from a wider mix of carbohydrates and fats — and in the 6.8 kg bag it is the cheapest gainer we have priced. But the serving is still far bigger than most people need, and the allergen list is long.
The supermarket own-brand multivitamin, reviewed against what multivitamin research actually shows. One tablet a day, 23 nutrients and about 5.5p a day — the cheapest multivitamin we have priced by a wide margin. It will not do much for someone who already eats well, and the amounts per tablet are on the pack but not on the listings we could read.
The best-known mass gainer in the UK, reviewed against what weight-gain research actually shows. It does exactly what it says — about 1,250 kcal and 50 g of protein in one shake — but most of those calories are maltodextrin, the serving is far bigger than most people need, and a home-made shake does the same job for well under half the price.
The UK’s best-known men’s multivitamin, reviewed against what multivitamin research actually shows. One tablet a day with the NHS-recommended 10 µg of vitamin D and a long list of extras — but most men who eat reasonably do not need a multivitamin, its vitamin B6 sits just under the NHS limit, and it adds iron most men should not take.
Supergut’s everyday fibre powder, reviewed against the research. Four low-FODMAP prebiotic fibres, 6 g a scoop, sensible claims about regularity and gut health — and about $10 a tub cheaper than the company’s GLP-1 powder. The weak spots are a blend with no individual amounts and a price per gram well above plain fibre.
The value sports-shop men’s multivitamin, reviewed against what multivitamin research actually shows. It is cheap for what it lists — vitamins, minerals and a long run of herbal extracts including ginseng, ginkgo and royal jelly — but the extracts are almost certainly too small to matter, some carry real interaction risks, and listings disagree on how many tablets to take.
Supergut’s meal-replacement shake — also sold as GLP-1 Boosting Prebiotic Shakes — reviewed against the research. Each serving gives 15 g of prebiotic fibre (20 g in Mocha Latte) and 15 g of protein with about 1 g of sugar, and it is the format closest to the product in Supergut’s own diabetes trial. But it is sold on GLP-1 claims that trial never measured, the fibre blend is undisclosed, and at about 90 kcal a serving it is too light to replace a meal on its own.
The gym-shelf men’s multivitamin, reviewed against what multivitamin research actually shows. The vitamin doses are sensible and the vitamin D is right for a UK winter — but most men who eat reasonably do not need a multivitamin, the extras are too small to matter, and it costs up to ten times as much a day as a supermarket A–Z.
A one-a-day magnesium caplet, reviewed against the research. Each caplet gives 125 mg of magnesium from five well-absorbed forms, with vitamin B6 and vitamin C, in a sustained-release tablet. The forms are good; the dose is about half of what sleep and stress studies used, the blend hides how much of each form you get, the 15 mg of B6 is above the European safe upper limit for daily use, and it costs several times more than plain magnesium glycinate.
Supergut’s snack bar, reviewed against the research. Each bar gives 10 g of fibre and 10 g of protein for about 140 to 150 kcal with almost no sugar — a genuinely filling snack. But it is sold on GLP-1 and cravings the evidence does not support, it is sweetened with erythritol and allulose, and per gram of fibre it costs more than any other Supergut product.
The first company to sell live Akkermansia muciniphila, with one of the cleanest labels in the supplement aisle — and a dose roughly 100 times below the amount used in the first randomised human trial of this organism, where the heat-killed form did more than the live one Pendulum sells.
Nano-emulsified sleep drops built on a sensible idea — 0.9 mg of melatonin rather than the usual megadose — and sold on a 3,400-person study with no name, a 67 per cent weight-loss statistic with no source, and a formula containing 5-HTP with no warning of any kind attached to it.
This category includes multivitamins, greens powders, probiotics, sleep formulas, minerals and products for general resilience. The breadth makes label reading more important. A multivitamin and a probiotic do not share a mechanism, evidence base or safety profile. “Supports wellness” says almost nothing until the ingredient, dose and intended outcome are defined.
A supplement is most defensible when it addresses a plausible gap: a documented deficiency, a life stage with established requirements, a restricted diet or a specific use supported by evidence. More ingredients do not create more insurance. They can create duplication, interactions and doses that are simultaneously too small to help and large enough to complicate the label.
Compare vitamin and mineral amounts with established daily values and tolerable upper limits. Check chemical forms where absorption or tolerability differs. For probiotics, strain identity matters; a species name alone cannot be mapped to a strain-specific trial. For botanicals, look for the plant part, extraction ratio and standardisation. For greens powders, ask what problem the powder is meant to solve and whether the blend discloses enough to test that idea.
Evidence: strong for correcting deficiency, not universal benefit at any dose. Baseline status, age and clinical context matter. High-dose routines deserve professional oversight rather than guesswork.
Evidence: depends on the outcome and the person. Different salts contain different amounts of elemental magnesium and vary in gastrointestinal tolerance. A front label stating the compound weight can be misleading if the Supplement Facts panel does not make the elemental amount clear.
Evidence: outcome-specific. Check the actual EPA and DHA amounts, not just “fish oil 1,000 mg.” Food intake, indication, oxidation control and medicine interactions affect the decision.
Evidence: strain-specific. A trial on one strain cannot validate every capsule with the same genus. Viable count at the end of shelf life, storage instructions and the exact strain designation are basic checks.
Evidence: often difficult to map to the finished product. Proprietary blends, small servings and changing botanical sources make confident conclusions hard. They should not be presented as replacements for fruit, vegetables, protein or medical care.
Natural does not mean interaction-free. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, liver or kidney disease, surgery, anticoagulants and multiple medicines change the risk calculation. Check for duplicated nutrients across a multivitamin, fortified foods and single-ingredient products.
For regulatory context, see the FDA’s dietary supplement guidance for consumers.
I would rather see five fully disclosed ingredients with a clear purpose than 40 ingredients sprinkled into a “daily foundation” blend. The label should let you test the idea behind the product. If it cannot, the marketing is doing more work than the formula.
