The Rōnin mindset: why we called the brand Kōjō

How to read a supplement label without getting played

Most supplement labels are designed to impress, not inform. Studies show that consumers routinely overestimate the quality of products based on label claims alone - yet a 2023 audit of 57 UK sports supplements found that 42% contained active ingredients at doses below those used in clinical trials. Here's what I actually look for, and why most of what's on the front of the pack is noise.

What the evidence actually shows about supplement labelling

The research here is uncomfortable reading if you spend money on supplements. Starks et al. (2020) analysed 100 commercially available pre-workout products and found that fewer than a third disclosed full ingredient quantities - the rest used proprietary blends that listed ingredients without doses. Of the products that did disclose doses, 61% contained at least one key ingredient below the threshold used in supporting clinical trials.

It gets worse. Maughan et al. (2018), writing for the British Journal of Sports Medicine, noted that label inaccuracy is a documented, persistent problem - with some products containing as little as 20% of the stated dose for certain actives. That's not rounding error. That's a different product.

And then there's the framing problem. Grundlingh et al. (2019) found that health claim language on supplement packaging consistently led consumers to rate products as more effective than their ingredient profiles warranted - a gap between perceived and actual efficacy that the label itself creates. I find that genuinely troubling.

The anatomy of a supplement label: what each section actually means

Before you can read a label critically, you need to know what you're looking at. UK supplements sold post-Brexit are regulated under the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 and its devolved equivalents, with permitted health claims governed by the Great Britain Nutrition and Health Claims Register (NHCR). Here's how to break the label down.

The front panel

Largely marketing. Any health claim on the front must, in theory, be authorised under the NHCR - but the way claims are worded can still mislead. "Supports energy" sounds like a claim but is vague enough to be legally defensible without meaning much. "Contributes to normal energy-yielding metabolism" is an authorised claim - but only if the ingredient responsible is present at a dose that meets the relevant nutrient reference value. Check the back.

The supplement facts panel

This is where the actual information lives. You're looking for four things: the ingredient name (ideally with the specific form - creatine monohydrate, not just "creatine"), the quantity per serving, the serving size, and whether the dose matches what clinical trials actually used. If any of those four are absent or vague, that's a red flag worth taking seriously.

Proprietary blends

A proprietary blend lists multiple ingredients under a single heading with a combined weight. You have no idea how much of each ingredient is in there. I've written more about this - if you want the full picture, read my piece on why supplement labels lie. The short version: proprietary blends exist to obscure underdosing, not to protect formulas.

Dosing: what clinical evidence actually supports

This is the section most people skip, and it's the most important. A supplement containing an ingredient with good evidence is not the same as a supplement containing that ingredient at an evidence-supported dose. The distinction matters enormously.

Take creatine monohydrate. The literature here is robust. Rawson & Volek (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies and found that 3-5g of creatine monohydrate daily produced consistent increases in fat-free mass and exercise performance across populations. The NHCR authorised claim - that creatine increases physical performance in successive bursts of short-term, high-intensity exercise - applies at a daily intake of 3g. Many products list creatine but provide 1g per serving. That's not a creatine product. That's a label with the word creatine on it.

Vitamin C is another example. The authorised claims - including that vitamin C contributes to the normal function of the immune system, to the reduction of tiredness and fatigue, and to the protection of cells from oxidative stress - require meeting the nutrient reference value (80mg/day). But the clinical literature on immune function and oxidative stress often uses doses of 200-500mg. There's a difference between a dose that satisfies a regulatory threshold and a dose that mirrors what was actually studied.

At Kojo, I've tried to close that gap - 5,000mg of micronised creatine monohydrate and 500mg of vitamin C per daily serving, both at or above the doses used in supporting trials. I'm not claiming that's the only way to do it. But I do think it's the honest way.

How to evaluate ingredient forms on a label

The form of an ingredient matters as much as the dose. Magnesium glycinate and magnesium oxide are both "magnesium" on a label - but Schuchardt & Hahn (2017) showed that bioavailability varies substantially between forms, with oxide delivering significantly lower serum magnesium increases than chelated forms in a crossover study of 40 participants (p < 0.01). You wouldn't know that from a label that just says "magnesium."

The same logic applies across the board. Creatine monohydrate has the strongest evidence base of any creatine form - not creatine ethyl ester, not creatine HCl, not "buffered" creatine. Ubiquinol (the reduced form of CoQ10) has better absorption data than ubiquinone in older adults, per Langsjoen & Langsjoen (2008), though I'd note the human data here is still relatively limited and large-scale RCTs are lacking. Algal DHA is chemically identical to fish-derived DHA - the source differs, the molecule doesn't.

When a label just says the ingredient category without specifying form, ask why. Reputable manufacturers specify. Vague labelling usually means a cheaper, lower-bioavailability input.

Health claims: what's authorised and what's noise

In Great Britain, health claims on food supplements must be authorised under the NHCR. That sounds reassuring. In practice, it means the claim has been assessed against a specific body of evidence - but it doesn't mean the product you're holding contains the right dose to justify the claim, or that the claim reflects the full picture of what the ingredient does or doesn't do.

Authorised claims use careful language for a reason. "Contributes to normal collagen formation for the normal function of skin" - that's the vitamin C claim, and it's accurate. But it's not the same as "makes your skin younger" or "repairs collagen." The authorised language is deliberately modest. When a brand paraphrases an authorised claim into something more dramatic on the front panel, that's the gap where misleading marketing lives.

Ingredients that aren't covered by any authorised claim can still be included in supplements - they just can't carry claims. Glycine, taurine, aged garlic extract, olive leaf extract, grape seed extract, and pine bark extract all fall into this category in the UK. Research on these compounds is ongoing, and I find some of it genuinely interesting - but the human trial data is thin in places, and I'd be overstating it to claim otherwise. Any brand presenting these as proven therapeutic agents is getting ahead of the evidence.

Serving sizes and daily doses: the maths brands hope you won't do

Serving size manipulation is one of the oldest tricks in the book. A product might list 3,000mg of ingredient X per serving - but if the serving is half a scoop and the recommended use is one scoop, the actual daily dose is 6,000mg. Or the reverse: a dose that looks reasonable per serving becomes inadequate when you realise you'd need four servings a day to match clinical trial quantities.

Always calculate the daily dose, not just the per-serving dose. Then cross-reference that against the doses used in the studies cited on the label or website. If a brand cites a study but doesn't tell you whether their dose matches the study dose, assume it doesn't until you've checked.

This matters particularly if you're comparing products - whether that's a standalone supplement or something more comprehensive. If you're evaluating all-in-one supplements UK options, the serving size maths becomes even more important because you're assessing multiple ingredients simultaneously.

Third-party testing and batch certification

A label can say anything. Third-party testing is the mechanism that creates accountability. Look for certifications from Informed Sport, NSF International, or Labdoor - these programmes test finished products against label claims and screen for contaminants. Outram & Stewart (2015) reviewed contamination data across 274 supplement products and found that products without third-party certification were significantly more likely to contain undisclosed substances, including stimulants and anabolic agents.

If a brand doesn't display third-party certification and doesn't explain why, that's worth noting. Cost is a reasonable explanation - certification isn't cheap. But a brand that doesn't mention it at all, and doesn't publish batch test results, is asking you to trust their word. That's a higher-risk position than most people realise.

Labels and life stage: what changes for different populations

The same label means something different depending on who's reading it. Nutrient reference values are set for average adults - they don't account for age-related changes in absorption, hormonal shifts, or specific health contexts. If you're in perimenopause, for instance, the evidence base for certain nutrients shifts considerably. I've covered this in more depth in the piece on perimenopause supplements UK - but the label-reading principle holds: a dose that's adequate for a 25-year-old male athlete may not be the relevant benchmark for your situation.

Troesch et al. (2017) found that micronutrient requirements in older adults are meaningfully different from the general population reference values used on most labels - particularly for vitamin D, B12, and magnesium - and that standard label doses often underserve this group. Worth knowing if you're buying for yourself or someone else.

Frequently asked questions

My honest take

I started Kojo partly because reading supplement labels made me feel like I was being treated as someone who wouldn't notice. The combination of vague ingredient names, undisclosed doses, authorised claims stretched beyond their original meaning, and front-panel language designed to impress rather than inform - it adds up to an industry that profits from confusion.

I'm not claiming Kojo is perfect. We're a small brand, we don't have unlimited R&D budget, and some of the ingredients I include - particularly the plant extracts - have research that I find compelling but that I'd be the first to admit is not yet definitive in humans. I include them because the mechanistic evidence is interesting and the safety profile is well-established, not because I can tell you with certainty what they'll do for you specifically.

What I can tell you is that every ingredient in our formula is listed by name and specific form, every dose is disclosed, every dose is at or above the level used in the supporting trials where those trials exist, and I publish the reasoning behind each one. That's the standard I hold myself to. It's also the standard I'd encourage you to hold every supplement brand to - including mine.

Reading a label critically takes about three minutes once you know what to look for. It's worth those three minutes.