Why Supplement Labels Lie — A Guide to Proprietary Blends

Proprietary blends explained: what they hide and why it matters

A proprietary blend lists ingredients without revealing individual doses - meaning you might be paying for a product where the active ingredient appears at a fraction of the studied dose. In one analysis of 57 pre-workout supplements, Wax et al. (2021) found that over 70% used proprietary blends, making independent dose verification impossible. That's a problem worth understanding properly.

What the evidence actually shows about proprietary blends

The core issue isn't that blended formulas are inherently dishonest. It's that opacity makes it impossible to evaluate whether a product contains clinically relevant doses. This matters more than most people realise.

Take creatine monohydrate. The evidence for performance support is robust - Lanhers et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis of 22 RCTs (n=721) and found significant improvements in lower-limb strength with supplementation (standardised mean difference 0.24, 95% CI 0.05-0.43, p=0.01). But that evidence is built on a specific dose: 3-5g per day. A proprietary blend might list creatine monohydrate alongside 11 other ingredients in a 4g total blend. The maths simply doesn't work. You'd be getting dust.

Jagim et al. (2019) reviewed 100 commercially available pre-workout supplements and found that while 91% listed creatine as an ingredient, only 31% disclosed a dose at or above 3g. The rest were either undisclosed or below threshold. That's not a minor labelling quirk. That's selling the idea of an ingredient rather than a functional amount of it.

There's also a third-party testing dimension. Tucker et al. (2018) analysed 57 sports supplements and found significant discrepancies between labelled and actual ingredient quantities - including cases where listed ingredients were absent entirely. Proprietary blends make this kind of verification structurally harder, because there's no declared dose to compare against.

The biology: why dose actually determines effect

Pharmacology has a concept called the dose-response relationship. The effect of a compound isn't binary - it scales with concentration at the target tissue. Below a threshold, you get no measurable effect. Above it, you get the outcome studied in trials. This isn't controversial; it's foundational.

Consider glycine. Research is ongoing and large-scale human RCTs remain limited, but mechanistic work suggests it functions as a precursor to glutathione and plays a role in collagen synthesis - both processes where substrate availability influences output. If a blend lists glycine at an undisclosed dose within a 2g total complex, you have no idea whether you're getting 1800mg or 20mg. The biology doesn't care about the label.

The same logic applies to polyphenolic extracts. Grape seed extract, for instance, contains oligomeric proanthocyanidins (OPCs). Research into OPCs and vascular function is interesting but preliminary - large-scale human trials are limited, and I'd be overstating it to claim the mechanisms are settled. What I can say is that the dose used in the studies that do exist tends to be specific and consistent. If a brand won't tell you what dose they're using, you can't evaluate whether their product bears any resemblance to the studied intervention.

Taurine is another example. It's conditionally essential - synthesised endogenously but potentially insufficient under stress or exercise. Research is ongoing and definitive large-scale trials in healthy adults are limited, but the doses used in existing studies tend to cluster around 1-2g. Without dose disclosure, you're guessing.

Dosing: what clinical evidence actually supports

I'll focus on ingredients where the human evidence is clearest, because that's where dose precision matters most.

Creatine monohydrate: The most replicated dose in the literature is 3-5g daily for maintenance. Rawson & Volek (2003) reviewed 22 studies and found that lower doses (below 3g/day) consistently produced smaller or non-significant effects on muscle phosphocreatine resaturation. The authorised claim - that creatine increases physical performance in successive bursts of short-term, high intensity exercise - is supported specifically at this dose range. At Kojo, I use 5000mg of micronised creatine monohydrate. That's not a marketing decision. It's the dose that appears in the studies I trust.

Vitamin C: Authorised health claims - including contributions to immune function, normal energy-yielding metabolism, reduction of tiredness and fatigue, normal collagen formation, and protection of cells from oxidative stress - are supported at doses from 80mg upward, with 200-500mg being the range most commonly used in trials. Carr & Maggini (2017) reviewed the evidence across immune function endpoints and found consistent benefit at 200mg+, with diminishing returns above 1g for most people. I use 500mg - meaningful, not excessive.

Aged garlic extract: The human data here is thinner than I'd like. Some trials show effects on blood pressure and lipid markers at doses of 600-900mg, but sample sizes are small and replication is limited. Research is ongoing and I'd be overstating it to claim more. I use 600mg because it sits within the studied range, but I hold that with appropriate uncertainty.

Olive leaf extract and pine bark extract: Both contain polyphenols with preliminary evidence around cardiovascular and antioxidant endpoints. Research is ongoing and large-scale human trials are limited for both. I include them at 500mg and 150mg respectively - doses consistent with existing small-scale studies - but I won't dress that up as settled science.

How brands use proprietary blends to obscure underdosing

There's a specific technique I've seen repeatedly. A brand lists 15 ingredients in a "performance matrix" totalling 3g. Each ingredient sounds impressive. The total weight makes effective dosing of any single ingredient mathematically impossible. But the label is technically compliant - all ingredients are listed, just not their individual quantities.

This is sometimes called "fairy dusting" in the industry. You include a trace of a well-known ingredient - just enough to put it on the label - without providing a dose that does anything. The consumer sees the ingredient name and makes an association with the research. The brand gets the marketing benefit without the cost of actually using a functional dose.

Maughan et al. (2018) - writing in the British Journal of Sports Medicine - noted that the supplement industry's lack of mandatory dose disclosure creates conditions where "the presence of an ingredient on a label provides no guarantee of physiological relevance." That's a polite way of saying what I just said.

If you're researching supplements for women, this matters particularly. Many products marketed specifically to women use proprietary blends with undisclosed doses of iron, folate, or magnesium - nutrients where deficiency is genuinely common and where dose precision has real consequences.

Why brands use proprietary blends: the legitimate argument

I want to be fair here. There is a genuine reason some brands use proprietary blends beyond obfuscation: intellectual property protection. If a company has invested in formulation research, they may not want competitors to immediately replicate their exact ratios.

I understand that argument. I just don't find it persuasive enough to justify withholding information from the person consuming the product. There's a difference between protecting a manufacturing process and hiding whether a customer is getting a functional dose of something. One is a business decision. The other affects someone's health decisions.

Some brands also argue that the synergistic effects of combined ingredients mean individual doses are less important. The human data on ingredient interactions in supplement contexts is genuinely thin, and I'd be overstating it to claim otherwise. But "we don't fully understand the interactions" is not a justification for opacity - it's an argument for more transparency, not less.

What to look for on a supplement label

Here's what I check when I look at a product that isn't mine:

• Individual ingredient doses listed in milligrams. Not "blend weight" - individual doses. If you can't see how much of each ingredient is in the product, you can't evaluate it.
• Doses that correspond to studied ranges. Cross-reference the dose against PubMed. It takes five minutes. If the dose is a tenth of what was used in the studies cited on the brand's website, that tells you something.
• Third-party testing certification. Informed Sport, NSF Certified for Sport, or Labdoor certification means an independent lab has verified that what's on the label is actually in the product.
• No "matrix" or "complex" language obscuring totals. "Antioxidant matrix: 200mg" containing eight ingredients is not informative. It's a red flag.
• Realistic total weights. If a capsule weighs 500mg and claims to contain 10 active ingredients at meaningful doses, the maths doesn't work. Capsule fill weights have physical limits.

This is relevant beyond performance supplements. If you're looking at supplements for stress and anxiety, the same principle applies - ashwagandha, for instance, has reasonable evidence at 300-600mg of a standardised extract, but that dose needs to be on the label for you to know you're getting it.

The regulatory picture in the UK

Post-Brexit, the UK operates under its own food supplement regulations, broadly inherited from EU Directive 2002/46/EC but now governed domestically. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Food Standards Agency (FSA) oversee supplements, but neither currently mandates individual ingredient dose disclosure within blends.

The Nutrition and Health Claims Register (NHCR) - the UK's retained version of the EU register - does require that authorised claims are only made when products meet specific conditions of use, including dose thresholds. So if a product carries the claim that "Vitamin C contributes to the normal function of the immune system," it must contain at least 12mg per 100ml or 15% of the NRV per serving. That's a minimum floor, not a ceiling - and it only applies to claimed nutrients.

For everything else - the polyphenols, the amino acids, the botanical extracts - there's no mandatory dose disclosure. Which means the burden falls entirely on the brand's honesty and the consumer's scepticism.

When I look at best greens powders UK 2026, this is one of the first things I check. Many greens powders are egregious examples of proprietary blending - 40 ingredients in a 10g serving, none with disclosed individual doses.

How to read a supplement facts panel properly

A few practical specifics:

1. Serving size first. Everything else is relative to this number. A "2-capsule serving" means the doses listed are split across two capsules - relevant if you're comparing per-capsule costs.
2. Check the form of the ingredient. "Magnesium" could mean magnesium oxide (poorly absorbed) or magnesium glycinate (better absorbed). The form matters. A dose of magnesium oxide that looks generous on paper may deliver far less elemental magnesium than a smaller dose of a better-absorbed form.
3. Look for standardisation percentages on botanical extracts. "Olive leaf extract 500mg" is meaningless without knowing the oleuropein percentage. "Olive leaf extract 500mg (standardised to 20% oleuropein)" tells you you're getting 100mg of the active compound - that's evaluable.
4. Cross-reference against the cited studies. If a brand cites a study on their website, look up that study. Check the dose used. Compare it to what's on the label.

Frequently asked questions

My honest take

I started Kojo partly because I got tired of not being able to evaluate the products I was using. I'd buy something, see a promising ingredient on the label, look up the research, and then realise I had no idea whether the dose in the product bore any resemblance to the dose in the study. That's a frustrating place to be.

The decision to list every ingredient and every dose on our label wasn't heroic. It was the minimum I thought was honest. And it came with a cost - full dose disclosure means competitors can replicate your formula easily. I made peace with that.

What I want to be clear about: transparent labelling doesn't automatically mean the formula is good. A product can disclose every dose and still use poor-quality ingredients, underdose everything, or make claims the evidence doesn't support. Transparency is necessary but not sufficient. It's the starting point for evaluation, not the end of it.

I'm also honest about the limits of my own formula. For ingredients like taurine, glycine, aged garlic extract, olive leaf extract, grape seed extract, and pine bark extract, the human evidence is genuinely thinner than I'd like. I include them at doses consistent with existing small-scale research because I think the mechanistic plausibility is reasonable - but I won't pretend the RCT evidence is settled, because it isn't. Research is ongoing on all of them.

What I can say with more confidence: creatine monohydrate at 5g has decades of solid human evidence behind it. Vitamin C at 500mg is well within the range where authorised health claims apply. Those two alone justify the formula's existence. Everything else is an honest attempt to include ingredients with reasonable preliminary evidence, at doses that at least correspond to what's been studied, with full disclosure so you can check my work.

That's the standard I think the industry should hold itself to. Most of it doesn't. Proprietary blends are how you know the difference.