Which is better, nutrition geeks or British supplements?

Why a versus between two small direct brands is not decided by forums, the five documents that decide it, and the first three cells: the company register, the claims against the register, and the certificate by lot

Which of two small UK direct-to-consumer supplement brands is better is a question the forums answer every day with an opinion and a page cannot answer with a name, for a reason that serves the reader: two small direct brands, selling similar commodity products through their own sites and a marketplace at similar prices with similar promises of purity and testing, differ in exactly five places, and all five are documents that a reader can obtain and a forum cannot see. A versus between them is a table with five rows and two columns, filled by the reader from the brands' own replies and two public registers, and the better brand is the one with more cells filled, whatever the forums say about either. The brands are not named in the body of this page, by rule, and the rule is also the method: a page that filled the table today would be wrong whenever either brand changed its answer, and the table filled by the reader is right on the day it is filled.

The first row is the company register. Each brand's food business operator, named on its label and in its site's terms, is searched in the company register for its incorporation date, its filing history and its registered address, and the cell is filled with what is found: a company trading for years with accounts filed on time and an address that is a premises is one cell, and a company registered recently with a virtual office address and filings overdue is a different one. Small direct brands are often young, and youth is not a fault; a filing history that matches the brand's claimed age and a director who is a person rather than a formation agent are what the cell records.

The second row is the claims against the register. The health claims on each brand's label and product page are taken as worded, searched by nutrient on the Great Britain register, and the cell is filled with whether each claim appears there in its authorised wording with its conditions of use met, or whether the label extends the wording, promising sleep, cortisol, immunity or recovery where the register permits normal function and the reduction of tiredness. A small direct brand that writes its labels to the register has done the one thing the regulator asks and the cell is full; a brand whose product page promises what the register does not has an empty cell and a problem that is not the reader's opinion. The third row is the certificate of analysis by lot, obtained by the same email to each brand, with a lot number from a tub or a request for the most recent batch, asking for the certificate: a brand that sends it within days, naming the laboratory and the tests, fills the cell; a brand that sends a general statement, a certificate for an unrelated lot, a redacted document or nothing leaves it empty. This is the cell that most often decides a comparison between two small brands, because the promise of testing is cheap and the document is not.

Three rows filled from a register, a register and an email, and the fourth and fifth rows, the manufacturing standard and the ingredient list, the two cells that decide most comparisons, the rule that ends it, and the worked example's own cells, which is the next section.

The fourth and fifth cells, the named manufacturing standard and the same product's ingredient list; the two cells that decide most comparisons; the rule that ends it and the tie-break; the worked example's five cells; and the verdict

The fourth row is the manufacturing standard. Each brand's site is read for where its products are made and to which standard, and the cell is filled with a named standard that a reader can verify, good manufacturing practice certification of the facility and, for many UK facilities, the retail consortium's standard, with the certifying body's name, or with the absence of one: made in the UK to the highest standards is a description, GMP and BRC certified at a named facility is a cell. Small direct brands almost never make their own products, and the question is which contract manufacturer makes them and what that facility holds; a brand that names its manufacturer's certification, or sends it on request, has filled the cell, and a brand that will not say where its products are made has left it empty for a reason the reader can guess.

The fifth row is the ingredient list of the same product from each brand, a magnesium, a vitamin D, a creatine, whichever both sell, read in descending order of weight: the form of the active, the stated elemental amount and its percentage of the reference value, the capsule material, and everything after the active, which is excipient. The cell is filled with the count and the names, and two small brands selling the same nutrient often differ here more than anywhere, one stating the elemental amount and the other the compound weight that makes the number look larger, one with three ingredients and the other with six, one with a vegetable capsule and the other with gelatin. This row is the one a reader can fill from the two labels without an email, and it is the row that tells the reader whether the two products are the same product at all.

The rule that ends the comparison is more cells filled wins, and it ends most comparisons between small direct brands quickly, because the two cells that decide them are the certificate by lot and the named standard, where one brand has the document and the other has the adjective. Two brands with all five cells filled are compared on the tie-break, price per day at the labelled elemental dose, computed from the tub rather than read from the site, and then on the ingredient list's excipient count for the reader who cares; two brands with three cells each are a choice between two brands the reader should not be choosing between. The forums' opinions about either brand's customer service, taste or packaging are read afterwards, as satisfaction rather than as evidence, in the patterns the competition regulator describes.

The worked example's own five cells are filled in the open so the method is seen to apply to the seller: {FL} has a UK company on the company register with filings and a premises address; four claims on the label in the Great Britain register's wording, normal muscle function, normal psychological function, normal nervous system function and the reduction of tiredness and fatigue, and nothing beyond them; a certificate of analysis for lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium released by lot number on request, naming a UK laboratory; a UK facility certified to GMP and BRC; and a three-item ingredient list, magnesium bisglycinate, an HPMC capsule and rice flour, stating 1500mg bisglycinate as 300mg elemental at 80% NRV; two capsules with the evening meal, 180 capsules for £19.99 at 22p a day. The full label breakdown is here.

The verdict: neither of two small UK direct brands is better until the reader fills the five-document table, the company register entry, the claims against the register, the certificate by lot, the named manufacturing standard and the same product's ingredient list, from the brands' own replies and two public registers. More cells filled wins, the certificate and the standard decide most comparisons, price per day breaks a tie, and the forums are read afterwards for satisfaction rather than evidence.

What to check on the label

Questions people also ask

How do I compare two small UK supplement brands fairly?

With a five-document table rather than a forum: each brand's company register entry, with its incorporation date, filings and address; each label's claims checked against the Great Britain register; a certificate of analysis each will send for a lot number in reply to the same email; the manufacturing standard each names and a reader can verify; and the ingredient list of the same product from each, read in descending order of weight; the better brand is the one with more cells filled, the certificate and the standard decide most comparisons, and price per day at the labelled dose breaks a tie.

Why does this page not say which brand is better?

Because the answer is a set of documents that change, and a page does not: the two brands' company register entries, their label claims, their replies to a certificate request and their named standards are different on different days, so a page that picked a winner today would be wrong whenever either brand changed its answer, while the table filled by the reader from the brands' own replies and two public registers is right on the day it is filled; the names stay out of the body for the same reason, and the method applies to any two small direct brands a reader has in mind.

What is the one thing that usually decides between two small supplement brands?

The certificate of analysis by lot, obtained by sending both brands the same email with a lot number and asking for the certificate for that batch: a brand that sends it within days, naming the laboratory and the tests, has turned a promise of testing into a document, and a brand that sends a general statement, an unrelated lot, a redaction or nothing has not, and the promise of testing is cheap where the document is not; the named manufacturing standard is the second deciding cell, a verifiable GMP and BRC certification against an adjective.

Are small direct-to-consumer supplement brands trustworthy?

As trustworthy as their five cells: a small direct brand that is a registered company with a filing history, writes its labels to the register, sends a certificate by lot, names a verifiable manufacturing standard and prints an honest ingredient list is as trustworthy as any large brand and usually cheaper, while a small brand with a recent registration, extended claims, no certificate, an unnamed manufacturer and a compound-weight label is a brand the reader should not buy from whatever the forums say; youth is not a fault and an empty cell is.

How does this site's magnesium fill the same five cells?

In the open: a UK company on the company register with filings and a premises address; four claims on the label in the Great Britain register's wording, normal muscle function, normal psychological function, normal nervous system function and the reduction of tiredness and fatigue, and nothing beyond them; a certificate of analysis for lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium released by lot number on request, naming a UK laboratory; a UK facility certified to GMP and BRC; and a three-item ingredient list stating 1500mg magnesium bisglycinate as 300mg elemental at 80% NRV, at 22p a day.

Sources

1. Companies House: the UK's public register of companies, searchable free by name or number, showing registered office, incorporation date, officers and filed accounts. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/
2. Retained Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, and the Great Britain nutrition and health claims register. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-britain-nutrition-and-health-claims-nhc-register
3. The batch release and certificate of analysis framework: a product has a written specification for identity, assay, contaminants and physical properties, each batch is tested against it before release, and the certificate of analysis for a batch reports the results against the specification, so that batch-to-batch consistency is read by comparing certificates across lot numbers. PubMed record
4. The supplement manufacturing standards: Good Manufacturing Practice, the BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety and ISO 22000 are the facility-level certifications a contract manufacturer holds and a brand may cite. https://www.brcgs.com/our-standards/food-safety/

Related answers

• British Supplements or Nutrition Geeks review: is it worth it for lifters?
• Is British Supplements regulated?
• Is British Supplements legit Reddit?
• How do I tell if my supplements are fake or real?
• Is British Supplements a legitimate company?
• Is British supplements a genuine company?