LookCloser record · 018788106210 · methodology v0.1
Redmond Re-Lyte® Hydration Electrolyte Powder
Rebuilt from public sources on July 21, 2026.
Result
MODERATE public verifiability
This product can't be verified from public data Neither good nor bad — the checks below show what this listing publishes and what it withholds. Verifiable products publish more. Evidence availability only; this does not establish safety or effectiveness.
3 of 6 public trust signals found · 0 product-specific concerns · $0.77 per serving
The short read
This product lists amounts for each electrolyte ingredient, allowing comparison to published research. The intake method aligns with how research on magnesium, especially in its glycinate form, is conducted. The listed quantities of magnesium and other electrolytes are physically possible within the serving size. You can verify the serving size listed on the bottle matches the Supplement Facts panel.
Why this result?
We ran this product through public-record checks — label math, barcode registries, FDA recall lists, published lab tests. This banner sums up what those checks could and couldn’t confirm. Green means nothing public contradicted the label — not proof it works or is safe. Gray means the data to check simply isn’t public: a gap, not a verdict. We show the evidence; the conclusion is yours.
Confirmed evidence
What checked out02
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
✓
Taken the way the research studied it
Nothing in this listing contradicts how these ingredients were studied (magnesium). For example, magnesium: daily oral use; chelated forms (glycinate) are studied for absorption — note labels may state compound mass rather than elemental magnesium, which differs ~7-fold. Sources: NIH ODS — Magnesium fact sheet, PubMed search: magnesium glycinate supplementation.
Confirmed
✓
Every ingredient amount is disclosed
The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.
Confirmed
Documented concerns
What needs caution00
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
No contradictions or product-specific cautions were found at this check depth.
Unresolved public record
What is still missing06
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
…
Listed amounts fit the serving
Technical check only: the panel’s 4 actives sum to 1,295 mg, which fits inside the ≈6,300 mg serving. This means the numbers are physically possible — it does not mean the formula was validated or the contents confirmed.
No data
…
Photo-read pack math is internally consistent
60 servings × 6.3 g = 378 g, matching the printed net weight 380 g (Net Wt. 13.40 oz. (380g)). This checks agreement within the photo read; it is not an independent contents test.
No data
…
No label filed with NIH's public catalog
The NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database has no matching label yet. Ingestion lags the market — recorded as a gap, not a strike.
No data
…
No recall found — which is not the same as being tested
This means only that no enforcement record matched the brand name — it does not mean the product was tested, reviewed, or cleared by FDA. New and untested products also have no recall records.
No data
…
Barcode record is too sparse to confirm identity
Open Food Facts resolves 018788106210 to "Relyte Electrolyte Mix" (Re-Lyte Hydration), but that record lacks enough exact brand/product detail to confirm or contradict this listing.
No data
…
180-day review-count history is on file
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 678 on 2026-01-26 to 831 on 2026-07-15 (net +153). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
No data
What to ask and check
What would settle the open questions
Why is this shown?
Everything we couldn’t verify is something a person can still ask about. Rather than leave gaps sitting as dead ends, we turn each one into a specific question — the exact document, citation, or number that would settle it — plus the things you can confirm yourself with the bottle in your hand.
Ask the brand or seller
1
Is this label filed with NIH’s Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD)?
Filing is voluntary, so absence proves nothing — but a filed label puts the full ingredient table on public record where anyone can read it.
Most brands and sellers publish a contact route. A clear answer adds evidence to the record; no answer leaves the question open.
Check for yourself — no one’s permission needed
1
Compare the panel on the bottle in your hand to the one shown in this record.
Ours was read from listing photos and can contain reading errors. The physical label is the source of truth — if they disagree, tell us and we’ll correct the record.
2
Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 018788106210.
A mismatch between the barcode on the box and the one on the listing is worth pausing over — it can indicate a different variant, a repack, or a counterfeit.
3
Check the lot number and expiry on the bottle against any COA you’re given.
A certificate that doesn’t name your lot doesn’t describe what you’re holding.
These are the open questions on this specific record — not a warning about the product, and not a suggestion to buy or avoid it. Getting them answered is how you decide for yourself.
The full report is free no signup · no paywall
Every check, claim, label read, dose comparison, registry search, source, and date. Free to read, download, and share.
Supplements are repeat purchases. Formulas get reformulated, lots get recalled, brands finally publish the lab report they were asked for. We can watch this record and email you only if something changes.
Your address is used for this one purpose. No newsletter, no marketing, no third parties, no tracking pixels — and every email carries a one-click unsubscribe that needs no login. We store the address, the record, and the date. Nothing else.
Record built July 21, 2026. Sources: source listing (live fetch) · brand's own storefront · published independent assays (NOW Foods 2024, SuppCo 2025; brand-level) · PubMed · openFDA · Open Food Facts · NIH DSLD · LookCloser ingredient KB. Evidence-tiered statements of documented fact; conclusions belong to the reader. Beta: this report isn’t yet independently archived — treat it as a well-sourced starting point, not a certificate. Evidence-based corrections welcome.