POTASSIUM · 1,000 mg per serving
Evidence →The same-name panel row declares 1,000 mg per serving, matching the 1,000 mg listing claim.
Exact product checked · GTIN 850055539532DEAL SUPPLEMENT · observed 2026-07-23Package says manufactured for: Arena Nutrition Inc · 1249 S Diamond Bar Blvd,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Quick read · DEAL SUPPLEMENT
Electrolytes Powder
Marketing check: 1 checks out, 2 remain partly or independently unverified.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 23, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
Marketing claims, checked
Does the marketing hold up?
Couldn’t verify means public proof was not found; it is not a mark against the product. Ingredient research is not treated as a trial of this exact product.
✓Checks out1
◐Partly confirmed1
Advertised health or performance benefit
Evidence →Published research exists for ingredients in this formula — see Related research below. Whether this product’s doses match those studies could not be confirmed.
?Couldn’t verify independently1
“Third-party tested”
Evidence →No named laboratory or lot-specific certificate was found for this exact product. The retained brand page repeats a testing claim but names no issuer. IFOS, USP, and Informed-Sport were not checked in this record. This is a public-evidence limit, not a finding that testing did not occur.
Quick read · 2 useful findings
What is worth knowing.
Headlines first. Open evidence only when you want the source trail.
Checks outIs the label honest?
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.
Evidence and sources
The listing claims 1 g; the photo-read Supplement Facts panel shows Potassium at 1 g per serving — the listing text and its photo-read panel agree; this is internal consistency, not independent testing.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingChecks outIs the label honest?
Every declared ingredient has an amount · 6 quantified rows.
You can compare each declared dose with research instead of guessing what is hidden inside a blend.
Evidence and sources
The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingWhat remains open 3
- Not yet in NIH's public label registry.
- Barcode checksum is valid; no independent product record was found.
- No dated review-history series is on file yet.
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.
Dose vs research
1 g declared
The panel declares 1 g per serving, in the 200–420 mg/day context cited in the research.
Comparison, not a safety verdict
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.
Amazon
Submitted listingNo price confirmed
Exact page checked on 2026-07-23; current price was not retained.
View on Amazon ↗Brand website
Likely match · UPC absent$31.95
Worth checking before you buy; exact-unit identity is not established.
Matches 69 servings, 1,000 mg. 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 ↗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 to inspect the evidence?
The full report shows every source, the exact unresolved question, and the documentation that would settle it.
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.
The dose claim fits the serving — physically possible
Claimed potassium 1,000.0 mg is 15% of the ≈6,500 mg serving (serving size printed on the packaging (photo-read from listing images)) — within physical limits.
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.
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 missing07
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
Review-count history: not available
Marketplace rating not shown★ — rating count unavailable. No exact-listing count history was available, so no review-pattern claim is made.
“Lab tested” claimed, but no lab or report named
The observed listing and the likely official brand product page both claim third-party testing. Neither names the laboratory or links a product- or lot-specific report; no matching NSF product entry is retained. Repeating the claim across two pages confirms the brand publishes it, not that testing occurred.
Listing claim matches the label panel
The listing claims 1 g; the photo-read Supplement Facts panel shows Potassium at 1 g per serving — the listing text and its photo-read panel agree; this is internal consistency, not independent testing.
Photo-read pack math is internally consistent
69 servings × 6.5 g = 448.5 g, matching the printed net weight 454 g (1 lb (454 g) powder). 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.
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
Answered by the panel: the 1 g listing number equals Potassium 1 g + Manganese 0.1 mg. What lot-specific document confirms those declared amounts?
The panel resolves what the headline number includes. The remaining question is whether the product in hand matches those declared amounts; ask for a lot-specific certificate of analysis.
2
Can you send the certificate of analysis (COA) for the lot number on my bottle?
A real COA names the testing laboratory, the test date, the lot it covers, and what was measured. “Third-party tested” with no document behind it is a marketing sentence.
3
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 850055539532.
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.