Methodology
Every review on inareview is a label, evidence and disclosure analysis, scored out of 10 on the published rubric below. I have not consumed the products I review. What I do instead is read every primary document a buyer cannot easily reach — the Supplement Facts panel, the brand’s own testing pages, the clinical literature and the certifier registers — and show you the working.
This page explains exactly what that means, what each band of the score stands for, and every score published so far. If a review ever does involve hands-on use, it will say so in its own opening section.
What kind of review is this?
A label-and-evidence analysis, not a hands-on trial. All 13 product reviews published on this site to date state this in their own opening section, and none of them claims otherwise.
I want to be blunt about it, because plenty of sites are not. I have not swallowed the capsules, drunk the shakes, or brewed the teas. Where a review describes taste, texture or how something felt, it is reporting what the brand’s customers say and labelling it as such — never passing someone else’s experience off as mine.
That is a weaker basis than a controlled trial and I would rather say so than dress it up. It is also a genuinely useful one, because it is good at the part most reviews skip entirely:
- Whether the dose on the front of the pack is the dose you actually get.
- Whether a testing claim can be found in the certifier’s public register, or only on the brand’s own page.
- What the product costs per unit of active ingredient, against every alternative in the same category.
- Whether the instructions on the product conflict with published safety guidance.
Those four questions decide most purchases, and none of them requires me to take the product. Taste and tolerance do require it — which is why this site does not tell you how anything tastes.
How a review is built, step by step
Six steps, applied identically to every product, ending in a single inareview Score out of 10.
- Source the documentation. The Supplement Facts panel from every major retailer that stocks the product, the brand’s own quality, testing and FAQ pages, and its current direct prices.
- Read the label against the claim. Elemental dose versus compound weight, serving size in capsules or scoops, and whether anything sits inside an undisclosed proprietary blend.
- Check the evidence. Each active ingredient against published research — clinical trials, systematic reviews, and the safety literature from the NIH and the National Library of Medicine. Where the evidence is weak or missing, the review says so.
- Verify the testing claims. Any certification is checked in the certifier’s public register, not taken from the brand’s page. See below.
- Do the arithmetic. Price per 100 mg of elemental ingredient, or per gram of protein, across every size and every competitor in the category.
- Score and revisit. A single number against the rubric below, with a verdict on who the product is — and is not — right for. Reviews are revisited as formulations, prices or evidence change.
What the inareview Score means
The score is one number out of 10 covering four things: formulation and dose, strength of the evidence, transparency of labelling and testing, and price per unit of active ingredient. It is not an average of customer stars and it is not weighted by commission.
| Band | What it means |
|---|---|
| 8.0 – 10 | Buy with confidence. Label accurate, dose meaningful, testing verifiable in a public register, price defensible against the category. |
| 7.0 – 7.9 | Good, with one specific caveat. Usually price, a hidden dose, or a test result the brand holds but does not publish. |
| 5.5 – 6.9 | Works for a narrow buyer only. Read who it is not for before ordering. |
| 4.0 – 5.4 | Not recommended. The product may be harmless; the offer is not worth the money. |
| Below 4.0 | Avoid. A claim or a usage instruction on the product conflicts with published safety guidance. |
Every score published so far
Thirteen products scored between 6 September and 12 September 2026: lowest 3.5, highest 8.5, median 7.5, mean 7.2. Five of the thirteen carry no affiliate link. The full list, so you can check the distribution rather than take my word for it:
| Score | Product | Affiliate link? |
|---|---|---|
| 8.5 | NOW Foods Magnesium Glycinate | Yes |
| 8.5 | Thorne Magnesium Bisglycinate | Yes |
| 8.5 | Solaray Magnesium Glycinate | Yes |
| 8.0 | Pure Encapsulations Magnesium Glycinate | Yes |
| 8.0 | LEANFIT Whey Protein | No |
| 8.0 | PERFECT Sports Diesel NZ Whey Isolate | No |
| 7.5 | Doctor’s Best Magnesium Glycinate | Yes |
| 7.5 | Good Protein All-in-One Shake | No |
| 7.0 | Revolution Nutrition High Whey | No |
| 7.0 | Qunol Magnesium Glycinate | Yes |
| 6.5 | Dr. Berg Electrolyte Powder | Yes |
| 5.5 | Yu Sleep | Yes |
| 3.5 | All Day Slimming Tea | No |
One of those products runs an affiliate programme I chose not to use: All Day Slimming Tea scored 3.5, recommending it would contradict the verdict, so that review carries no paid link. Yu Sleep, at 5.5, does carry one. Its review says so at the top and again in the verdict, the link points to the cheaper single bottle rather than the six-bottle bundle its seller pushes, and the score was fixed before the link was added. The rest carry no link because no programme was available in the markets this site serves.
How I check a third-party testing claim
In the certifier’s public register, never on the brand’s own page. “Third-party tested” printed on a tub tells you nothing on its own: not which laboratory, not which batch, not whether the result was ever published.
Two worked examples from reviews on this site, one that passed and one that did not:
- Thorne. The brand states its Magnesium Bisglycinate is NSF Certified for Sport. NSF publishes a searchable register of certified products, the product is listed in it, and the review says so. That is the only testing claim on the magnesium comparison that did not rest on the company’s own description of itself.
- NOW Foods. The brand describes laboratory accreditation that I could not locate in the accrediting body’s own register. The review reports it as the company’s claim and flags explicitly that I could not verify it. It is not presented as a failure, because an absent register entry is not proof of absence — but it is not presented as verified either.
Where a certification cannot be confirmed, the review says which register I searched and what I found. That is the difference between checking and repeating.
How I assess home fitness machines
Machine reviews use the same principle as everything else here: documents, not impressions. I have not used the treadmills, walking pads, rowers or home gyms I compare, and those pages say so in their opening section. What I do is read the documents a buyer rarely reads in full and compare them side by side.
Four things are checked for every machine:
- Specification against real use. Continuous motor power (not peak), belt or deck size, maximum user weight, speed and incline range, read from the manufacturer’s manual or spec sheet rather than the listing headline.
- Durability evidence. The warranty terms for frame, motor and parts, any recall in the US Consumer Product Safety Commission database, and recurring failure patterns in large samples of verified buyer reviews, reported as patterns and labelled as buyer reports.
- Practicality. Footprint in use and folded, machine weight, whether an app or subscription is needed for basic functions, and noise only where the manufacturer publishes a figure.
- Price and support. Price for what you get, return window and who pays return shipping, and how the brand handles warranty claims according to its own terms.
What this method cannot tell you is how a machine feels underfoot, how loud it is in your home, or how it holds up after two years of daily use. Where those matter, I say so rather than guess. If a review ever involves hands-on use, it will be labelled as such.
How affiliate links work here
The verdict is written first. The link question comes afterwards, and only if a link would not contradict the verdict. Some links on this site earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
The practical consequence is on the table above: five of thirteen scored products carry no link at all, including the lowest score on the site. Full detail is in the affiliate disclosure and the editorial policy.
Corrections
Errors get fixed and the correction is visible, not quietly patched. If you can show that something here is wrong, email contact@inareview.com and it will be corrected.
Prices and formulations are checked on the date stated in each review and change without notice, so always read the label on the product you actually receive. Nothing on this site is medical advice; see the medical disclaimer.
Frequently asked questions
Have you personally used the products you review?
No. All 13 product reviews published to date are label, evidence and disclosure analyses, and each one states that in its opening section. If a future review involves hands-on use, it will be labelled as a hands-on trial and the difference will be obvious.
Then how can you score a product you have not taken?
The score measures formulation, evidence, transparency and price per unit of active ingredient. All four are determined by documents, not by experience. What this method cannot tell you is how something tastes or whether it upsets your stomach, and this site does not claim to answer those questions.
What does a score of 7.0 actually mean?
Good, with one specific caveat that the review names. Qunol scored 7.0 because its “high absorption” claim overstates what the published bioavailability data supports. Revolution Nutrition scored 7.0 for a different reason, stated in its own review. The band is the same; the reason is always specific.
Do brands see reviews before publication?
No. No brand pays for a review, approves copy, or influences a score. Products are bought or independently sourced rather than supplied by the brand.
How often is the score table updated?
Whenever a new product is scored or an existing score changes. The date at the top of this page reflects the most recent revision.