LookCloser record · 763515172012 · methodology v0.1
(180 Count) Creatine Monohydrate Gummies for Men & Women
Rebuilt from public sources on July 21, 2026.
Result
LOW 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.
1 of 6 public trust signals found · 1 product-specific concern
The short read
This gummy supplement contains Creatine Monohydrate. Creatine is a well-researched ingredient known for supporting muscle strength and performance. However, the listing doesn't provide the net weight or servings per container, so the dosage claim cannot be verified from public data, meaning you're taking the label's word for it. You can check if the "Supplement Facts" panel on the product bottle matches the information shown here.
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 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 caution01
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
!
Marketed differently from how it was studied
The listing uses “pre workout” framing, but published research attributes creatine monohydrate’s effect to studied as a daily supplement — the effect comes from muscle saturation over weeks, not from timing a dose before a workout. Sources: NIH ODS — Exercise & Athletic Performance fact sheet, ISSN position stand on creatine (PubMed).
Caution
Unresolved public record
What is still missing05
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
…
The listing doesn't publish enough to check the math
What this means: the listing doesn't publish net weight, per-serving dose, servings per container, so the dose claim can't be checked against physics from public data. That's neither a pass nor a strike — but it does mean you're taking the label on faith. Checkable products publish these numbers.
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
…
UPC valid, no independent record
Check digit passes; no third-party database record found yet. Coverage gaps are common — not a strike.
No data
…
180-day review-count history is on file
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 172 on 2026-01-29 to 164 on 2026-07-16 (net -8). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
No data
…
Gummy format note (applies to creatine gummies as a category)
Creatine is stable as dry powder but degrades toward inactive creatinine in moist, acidic media like gummies — the documented cause of widespread failures in published testing.
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
Can you send a clear photo of the full Supplement Facts panel?
It’s the one part of the label required to state what’s inside and how much. A seller who won’t show it before purchase is asking for trust the label would have earned.
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
Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 763515172012.
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.
2
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.