Amazon
Submitted listingNo price confirmed
Exact page checked on 2026-07-23; current price was not retained.
View on Amazon ↗
Exact product checked · GTIN 18788123491REDMOND · observed 2026-07-23
Quick read · REDMOND
Redmond Re-Lyte Hydration Electrolyte Powder
The retained record does not contain a marketing claim that can be scored yet; product facts and open checks follow.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 23, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
Quick read · 0 useful findings
What is worth knowing.
Headlines first. Open evidence only when you want the source trail.
What remains open 3
- Not yet in NIH's public label registry.
- No FDA recall matched this brand in the current search.
- Barcode checksum is valid; no independent product record was found.
These are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
Research behind the findings
Dose and research context
Ingredient context used alongside the captured panel. These sources do not test this product or establish safety or effectiveness.
Buying options
Where you can check or buy it
Open the seller leads before buying, then confirm the flavor, count, and serving size. Their prices are visible, but LookCloser does not claim savings until the pages share a UPC/GTIN.
Brand website
Likely match · UPC absent$45.99
Worth checking before you buy; exact-unit identity is not established.
Matches same brand and product wording. Confirm the size and flavor before buying because the UPC is not published.
Check brand website ↗Walmart
Not confirmedNo price confirmed
No matching product page was confirmed in the current record. Search results cannot be attached as this product until the UPC/GTIN matches.
Search Walmart ↗iHerb
Not confirmedNo price confirmed
No matching product page was confirmed in the current record. Search results cannot be attached as this product until the UPC/GTIN matches.
Search iHerb ↗Candidate brand page publishes a review aggregate
The candidate page's review pool may differ from the observed listing. Because the page does not publish a matching UPC/GTIN, LookCloser does not attribute that review aggregate to this exact sellable unit.
Prices and stock are point-in-time observations. Candidate pages are never used as product evidence. No affiliate links; LookCloser earns nothing from these sellers.
Want the complete evidence trail?
The summary stops at product-specific facts. The full report preserves every source, calculation, limitation, and unresolved check for review or sharing.
Open the full evidence trailSources, edge cases, and every unresolved check
Confirmed evidence
What checked out00
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Nothing could be independently confirmed from the available record.
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 missing08
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 5 actives sum to 510 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.
Photo-read pack math is internally consistent
60 servings × 6.3 g = 378 g, matching the printed net weight 380 g (Net Wt. 13.40oz (380g)). This checks agreement within the photo read; it is not an independent contents test.
Research context is available for the listed ingredients
Published sources describe how magnesium have been studied. This is ingredient context only; the record does not establish that this product delivers the studied dose or outcome. Sources: NIH ODS — Magnesium fact sheet, PubMed search: magnesium glycinate supplementation.
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 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.
This item belongs to a catalog variation family
The paid catalog links this exact item to a parent listing. Review counts on public product pages may be shared across sizes, flavors, or other variants, so the count history is listing context — not evidence that reviewers received or tested this exact variant.
180-day review-count history is on file
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 589 on 2026-01-26 to 726 on 2026-07-13 (net +137). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
UPC valid, no independent record
Check digit passes; no third-party database record found yet. Coverage gaps are common — not a strike.
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 018788123491.
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.
Record built July 23, 2026. Sources: source listing observed at check time · USPTO Trademark Search · Keepa exact-listing history · NIH / published research · certification and regulator records where available. LookCloser publishes evidence and gaps; it does not advise for or against any supplement. Evidence-based corrections welcome.