Sports Research supplements review: are they worth it for lifters?

Four badges on the front, two that answer nothing and two that answer only when the analyte is named: what a testing-forward brand's bottle actually says

An American direct-to-consumer brand that leads with third-party testing on the front of every bottle, selling fish oil, collagen, a mushroom extract, a few minerals and the usual range of a wellness catalogue into the UK through marketplaces, is reviewed here by the badges it prints rather than by its catalogue, because the badges are the brand's pitch and a lifter needs to know what each one says. A testing-forward brand's front usually carries four. The first is non-GMO verified, a badge from a third-party project that certifies a product contains no genetically modified ingredients; it is true, it is audited, and on a magnesium glycinate, a fish oil or a collagen it answers no question a lifter has, because a mineral salt synthesised in a vessel, an oil pressed from fish and a peptide hydrolysed from hide cannot be genetically modified in any sense the badge was designed for, and the badge is printed because it sells to a market that reads it as a general mark of virtue. The second is gluten free, which on a product containing no grain is true and irrelevant for the same reason, and which matters only to a coeliac reading a product that might carry a grain-derived bulking agent. The third is third-party tested, which is the badge that could matter and does not until the analyte is named, since third-party tested for what is the whole of the question: a fish oil tested for heavy metals, which fish oil carries at very low levels after refining, and not for oxidation, which retail fish oils have been found to carry at levels above industry voluntary limits, has been tested for the risk it does not carry and not for the one it does. The fourth is a label-claim or purity statement, that the product contains what the label says at the amount stated, which is the potency and identity test and which is meaningful exactly when the brand will produce the certificate for the lot number that shows it.

So the review of a testing-forward brand is a review of whether the third and fourth badges name their analytes, and the analyte that matters differs by category. For a fish oil, the brand's largest category, it is oxidation: the peroxide value, which measures early oxidation, and the anisidine value, which measures the later products, combined as the TOTOX number, with industry voluntary limits that a fresh oil sits well under and that oxidised retail oils have been found to exceed, and alongside it the EPA and DHA per capsule read against the total oil, since a 1000mg capsule may carry a third of its weight as the two acids or two thirds. For a mineral or a mushroom extract, it is the heavy metals, lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium, since those raw materials come from soil, sea or substrate and absorb what is there. For a collagen, it is identity and the amino acid profile, since hydrolysed collagen is a peptide powder whose only quality questions are whether it is collagen and whether it is the grams it says. A brand that names those analytes on the certificate for the lot number has earned the third badge; a brand whose certificate tests a fish oil for metals and microbes and omits oxidation has printed the word on the front and tested around the risk.

The US label read in a UK kitchen, the badge premium priced against a UK tub, which products the badges earn and which they decorate, and the verdict

A UK lifter adds the conversion that any American label needs. The serving becomes the portion, and pence per day is run at the serving the panel means, which for a fish oil is often two or three softgels; the percent daily value column is set aside, since the American references differ from the UK nutrient reference values; international units become micrograms where a vitamin D is involved; the structure function statements the US panel permits, supports joint health, promotes healthy skin, are unauthorised health claims in the UK and are read as the other jurisdiction's; and the label's address shows whether an importer placed the tub on the UK market and became responsible for it, or whether the tub arrived through an anonymous marketplace account with nobody in the UK answerable. The badge premium is then priced: the brand's pence per day at the converted serving against a UK tub of the same category with the same analyte tested, and for a fish oil that means pence per 250mg of combined EPA and DHA, the adequate intake the European assessment sets, with the oxidation number on both certificates, and for a magnesium it means pence per elemental milligram with the four metals on both. A testing-forward brand's premium is worth paying when the certificate names the analyte the UK tub also names and the UK tub costs more per unit, and is a payment for the two irrelevant badges when it does not.

Which products the badges earn and which they decorate sorts the brand's catalogue for a lifter. The fish oil earns the testing badge if and only if the oxidation number is on the lot certificate, since that is the category's real risk and the one a testing-forward brand should be first to name. The collagen earns it when identity and the amino acid profile are on the certificate, and is then reviewed by grams per scoop against the 2.5 to 15 gram research band like any peptide powder. The mushroom extract and the minerals earn it when the four metals are on the certificate. The turmeric, the probiotics and the rest of a wellness catalogue carry the same four badges and the same question. The worked example carries the badge that matters without the three that do not: {FL}, batch tested for lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium with the analytes named and the certificate for the lot number sent on request, no non-GMO or gluten badge because neither answers anything about a magnesium salt, UK made under GMP and BRC with a UK address on the label, 1500mg magnesium bisglycinate stated as 300mg elemental at 80% NRV, 180 capsules for £19.99 at 22p a day, which is the UK tub a testing-forward brand's magnesium is priced against per elemental milligram. The verdict for a lifter is that a brand which leads with testing is worth it exactly when it names the analyte that matters for the category and produces the certificate for the lot number in hand, when the US label has been converted by an importer with a UK address, and when the premium over a UK tub with the same analyte tested is small; and that a brand which prints third-party tested on the front and tests around the risk on the certificate is a brand that has printed the word, which is what two of its four badges already were.

What to check on the label

Questions people also ask

Is Sports Research a good brand for lifters?

An American direct-to-consumer brand that leads with third-party testing on every bottle is worth it for a lifter exactly when its third-party tested badge names the analyte that matters for the category and the certificate for the lot number in hand shows it, the TOTOX oxidation number for a fish oil, lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium for a mineral or a mushroom extract, and identity and amino acid profile for a collagen; its non-GMO and gluten free badges are true and answer no question a lifter has about a salt, an oil or a peptide, and a UK buyer adds the label conversion and the importer's address before pricing the premium against a UK tub with the same analyte tested.

What does third-party tested actually mean on a supplement?

Only that an outside laboratory tested something, which is the beginning of the question rather than its answer: tested for what, on which batch, by which laboratory, against which limits; a fish oil tested for heavy metals, which refined fish oil carries at very low levels, and not for oxidation, which retail fish oils have been found to carry above industry voluntary limits, has been tested for the risk it does not have, and a badge on the front without an analyte on a certificate for the lot number is a printed word; the certificate names the laboratory, the batch, the analytes and the results or the badge has earned nothing.

Does non-GMO matter for supplements?

Almost never for the products a lifter buys: a magnesium salt synthesised in a vessel, a fish oil pressed from fish, a hydrolysed collagen from hide, a creatine made in a reactor and a vitamin crystal cannot be genetically modified in any sense the badge was designed for, so the badge is true, audited and irrelevant, printed because it sells to a market that reads it as a general mark of virtue; the ingredients where the question could arise are plant-derived, soy lecithin, corn-derived maltodextrin or a plant protein, and even there the badge speaks to a preference rather than to any quality or safety outcome.

How do I know if a fish oil supplement is rancid?

By the oxidation values on the certificate for the lot number: the peroxide value measures early oxidation, the anisidine value the later breakdown products, and the two combined give the TOTOX number, with industry voluntary limits that a fresh oil sits well under and that oxidised retail oils have been found to exceed; a brand that tests its fish oil for heavy metals and microbes and does not report oxidation has tested around the category's real risk; at home, a fishy or paint-like smell on a pierced softgel and an oil that is cloudy rather than clear are the crude signs, and a tub stored warm or past its date is suspect regardless.

Are American testing-forward brands better than UK brands?

Not by nationality; the badges a testing-forward brand prints are either irrelevant to the product, non-GMO and gluten free on a salt or an oil, or meaningful only when the certificate names the analyte, and a UK brand that names the same analyte on the certificate for its lot number has met the same standard without the badges, with the advantage that its label needs no conversion and carries a UK address by default; a UK lifter prices the American brand's premium at the converted serving against the UK tub with the same analyte tested, per 250mg of EPA and DHA for a fish oil or per elemental milligram for a magnesium, and pays it only when the certificate justifies it.

Sources

1. The fish oil oxidation literature: peroxide and anisidine values combined as the TOTOX number measure the oxidation of a fish oil, with industry voluntary limits, and oxidised oils have been found in retail products, so a third-party oxidation result is a meaningful test for a fish oil in a way a non-GMO badge is not. PubMed record
2. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products. Scientific opinion on Dietary Reference Values for fats: Adequate Intake of 250mg combined EPA and DHA per day for adults. EFSA Journal 2010;8(3):1461. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1461
3. The heavy metals analysis literature: inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry is the standard method for quantifying lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic in dietary supplements against regulatory maximum levels. PubMed record
4. The US Supplement Facts panel rules, 21 CFR 101.36: serving size and servings per container, amount per serving with percent Daily Value, an asterisk where no Daily Value is established, proprietary blends declared by total weight, and other ingredients listed below the panel. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-D/section-101.36

Related answers

• Nature's best supplements review: is it worth it for lifters?
• British Supplements or Nutrition Geeks review: is it worth it for lifters?
• Boots sleep supplements review: is it worth it for lifters?
• Best supplements for muscle gain holland and Barrett review: is it worth it for lifters?
• Supplements for Sleep Holland and Barrett review: is it worth it for lifters?
• 21st Century supplements from which country review: is it worth it for lifters?