LookCloser.aipublic evidence record

LookCloser record · lc-f4388cdb · methodology v0.1

TASTY GAINS Creatine Gummies - 90g of Creatine Monohydrate

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 product states it contains 90g of Creatine Monohydrate. However, the exact serving size and number of servings per container are not provided, so the daily dose cannot be fully confirmed. The current record has not analyzed the authenticity of customer reviews. You can check the "Supplement Facts" panel on the product's actual packaging to see if it matches the ingredient amounts listed online.

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 out01

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 (creatine monohydrate). For example, creatine monohydrate: 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).

Confirmed

Documented concerns

What needs caution01

These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.

!

Dose is higher than studies used

label claims 90000 mg/serving — above the range commonly used in research (3–5 g/day maintenance across trials (short loading phases use more)). Sources: NIH ODS — Exercise & Athletic Performance fact sheet, ISSN position stand on creatine (PubMed).

Caution

Unresolved public record

What is still missing03

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 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

Reviews not analysed yet

Marketplace rating 4.1★ across 307 ratings. Authenticity not analysed: burst, purge and stockout patterns need price/review history.

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

What is the product’s UPC or GTIN?

The barcode is how a product gets matched to outside records — certification registries, label databases, recall data. Without it, almost nothing can be cross-checked.

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.

4

Where are the ingredients sourced, and where is the product manufactured?

“Made in USA” can describe only the final bottling step. Ask which country the actives came from and whether the facility is audited.

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

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.

Read the full report — free →

Want to know if this changes?

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.