LookCloser.aipublic supplement evidence
Exact product checked · GTIN 739768820000CFUKING · observed 2026-07-23
The useful read · CFUKING

CFUKING NMN 1,000 mg Per Serving Maximum Strength

Listing claim matches the Supplement Facts panel

Rebuilt from public sources on July 23, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.

60capsules · 30 servings
Checks out

Listing claim matches the Supplement Facts panel

What is advertised is what the label declares. This checks internal consistency; it is not an independent test of the contents.

Checks out

Every declared ingredient has an amount · 1 quantified rows.

You can compare each declared dose with research instead of guessing what is hidden inside a blend.

Public context

Research links are available for NMN.

Use the linked research to check whether the ingredient and outcome you care about are actually connected. Ingredient evidence does not verify this product.

Shopper scorecard

The useful findings, in decision order.

Only product facts and comparisons earn a card. Pipeline gaps stay collapsed.

01

Is the label honest?

Checks outLabel and serving arithmetic

Listing claim matches the Supplement Facts panel

The listing claims 1 g; the photo-read Supplement Facts panel shows NMN at 1 g per serving — the listing text and its photo-read panel agree; this is internal consistency, not independent testing.

Why it mattersWhat is advertised is what the label declares. This checks internal consistency; it is not an independent test of the contents.

Open the source-linked finding
Checks outNIH / published research

Every declared ingredient has an amount · 1 quantified rows.

The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.

Why it mattersYou can compare each declared dose with research instead of guessing what is hidden inside a blend.

Open the source-linked finding
05

Will it do what you want?

Public contextNIH / published research

Research links are available for NMN.

Published sources describe how NMN have been studied. This is ingredient context only; the record does not establish that this product delivers the studied dose or outcome. Sources: PubMed search: nicotinamide mononucleotide human trial, ClinicalTrials.gov — NMN.

Why it mattersUse the linked research to check whether the ingredient and outcome you care about are actually connected. Ingredient evidence does not verify this product.

Open the source-linked finding
What remains open 2
  • Not yet in NIH's public label registry.
  • Barcode checksum is valid; no independent product record was found.

These are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.

Relevant research · quick links

Read the ingredient evidence directly

These links provide the public research context used alongside the captured panel. They do not establish safety, effectiveness, or product quality.

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.

Read / share full evidence →
Open the full evidence trailSources, edge cases, and every unresolved check

Confirmed evidence

What checked out02

These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.

Nmn dose matches the amounts used in studies

label claims 1000 mg/serving — within the range commonly used in research (human trials to date mostly use 250–1,000 mg/day). Sources: PubMed search: nicotinamide mononucleotide human trial, ClinicalTrials.gov — NMN.

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.

Listing claim matches the label panel

The listing claims 1 g; the photo-read Supplement Facts panel shows NMN at 1 g per serving — the listing text and its photo-read panel agree; this is internal consistency, not independent testing.

No data

Research context is available for the listed ingredients

Published sources describe how NMN have been studied. This is ingredient context only; the record does not establish that this product delivers the studied dose or outcome. Sources: PubMed search: nicotinamide mononucleotide human trial, ClinicalTrials.gov — NMN.

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

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.

No data

180-day review-count history is on file

Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 19 on 2026-01-31 to 110 on 2026-07-14 (net +91). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.

No data

UPC valid, no independent record

Check digit passes; no third-party database record found yet. Coverage gaps are common — not a strike.

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

Answered by the panel: 1 g of the 1 g headline is nmn. Which independent lab can confirm that amount in this product?

The panel resolves the front-label arithmetic. The remaining question is lot-specific contents and stability; published category testing gives context, not a test of this product.

2

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 739768820000.

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.