Everything We've Lab-Tested So Far: A Plain-English Recap

We've referenced individual lab results across a lot of posts by now, usually one product at a time, in the context of whatever ingredient that post was about. This post puts all of it in one place, organized honestly, including the parts where our documentation is stronger and the parts where it's weaker.

That last point matters, so it's worth stating clearly up front: not all of the testing behind our catalog is the same kind of testing. Some of it is finished-product analysis commissioned from an independent accredited laboratory. Some of it is documentation issued by our manufacturer that relays supplier data. Some of it is raw material certification from an ingredient supplier before that ingredient ever reached a finished product. These are genuinely different things, and a recap that presented them all as equivalent would be misleading regardless of how good the individual numbers look.

So this is organized by documentation strength rather than by product category, from strongest to weakest.

How to read a lab document, briefly

Three things determine how much weight a certificate of analysis actually carries.

Who ran the test matters most. An accredited independent laboratory, one with no financial stake in the outcome and external validation of its technical competence, produces a different quality of evidence than an internal quality control department or a supplier vouching for its own material. The recognized standard for laboratory competence is ISO/IEC 17025, granted by accrediting bodies such as A2LA, the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation, or PJLA, Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation.

What was tested matters next. Heavy metal screening, microbial safety, and potency verification are three separate analyses answering three separate questions. A document covering one says nothing about the others.

And the specification matters. A result reported against a defined numerical limit tells you whether something passed. A result reported without a limit tells you what was found but leaves the interpretation to you. Both appear in our documentation, and the difference is worth knowing.

Tier one: independently commissioned finished-product testing

This is the strongest documentation we have, and it covers our protein and electrolyte products.

Vanilla Protein Powder, lot L250409. Tested by Delta Labs of South Florida Corp, an ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited laboratory operating under PJLA accreditation number 114871, on finished product received April 22, 2025.

Protein content was verified at 23.0 grams per 29.95 gram serving using the Kjeldahl method, which is the recognized analytical standard for protein determination via nitrogen analysis rather than a calculated figure from the ingredient list. The full nutritional panel was measured directly: saturated fat at 1.09 grams per serving and trans fat at 0.08 grams per serving by gas chromatography with flame ionization detection, cholesterol at 22.32 milligrams per serving by the same method, total carbohydrates at 4.67 grams by high performance liquid chromatography, total dietary fiber at 1.73 grams by AOAC method 985.29, total sugars at 0.99 grams by HPLC with refractive index detection, and sodium at 50.65 milligrams by inductively coupled plasma analysis.

Heavy metals came back at or below the detection floor. Lead, arsenic, and mercury each measured below 0.00003 milligrams per serving. Cadmium measured at 0.000009 milligrams per serving. Combined heavy metals came in under the specification of not more than 0.2995 milligrams per serving.

Microbial testing followed USP 43 chapters 2021 and 2022. Total aerobic plate count came back at 30 colony forming units per gram against a limit of not more than 10,000. Yeast and mold came back below 10 CFU per gram against a limit of 1,000. E. coli, Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa all returned negative. Bile tolerant gram negative bacteria came back below 1,000 CFU per gram.

Chocolate Protein Powder, lot LOT241103. Tested by Certified Laboratories, an A2LA ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratory operating under certificate number 3034.01.

Heavy metals by ICP-MS: arsenic at 0.020 parts per million, cadmium at 0.096 ppm, lead at 0.032 ppm, and mercury not detected against a method detection limit of 0.001 ppm. Microbiological testing returned total plate count below 10 CFU per gram, yeast and mold below 10 CFU per gram, no growth on enrichment, and absence of coliforms, E. coli, Pseudomonas, S. aureus, Salmonella, and Candida albicans.

Chocolate Collagen Protein, lot LOT 112105. Also Certified Laboratories. Lead at 0.212 ppm, arsenic at 0.012 ppm, cadmium at 0.044 ppm, mercury not detected. Full microbiological panel returned the same clean results as above across every marker.

Electrolytes, both flavors. Lemon-Lime, lot B2CE85, and Raspberry, lot 14EAF7, were each tested separately rather than one result being applied to both.

Lemon-Lime heavy metals: lead 0.051 ppm, arsenic 0.024 ppm, cadmium 0.003 ppm, mercury 0.005 ppm. Raspberry: lead 0.095 ppm, arsenic 0.029 ppm, cadmium 0.004 ppm, mercury 0.002 ppm. Both flavors also received independent microbiological analysis, with total plate count and yeast and mold both below 10 CFU per gram and every pathogen marker returning absent.

One honest note on these Certified Laboratories heavy metal reports: the specification column reads "Only Report," meaning the laboratory measured and disclosed the values without evaluating them against a predetermined pass or fail limit. The numbers are real and independently measured. The interpretation of whether they're acceptable was not part of what the lab was asked to determine, which is a meaningful distinction from a result reported as passing a defined specification.

Tier two: manufacturer-issued documentation

This tier covers our magnesium complex and creatine, and the documentation is genuinely different in character from tier one.

Magnesium Complex, lot 071225. Documentation issued through Manifest Labs, manufactured December 4, 2025, best by December 2028.

Every active ingredient was verified individually against its labeled amount using USP/NF current chapter 2091 methodology: magnesium glycinate at 250.0 milligrams against a 250.00 milligram specification, magnesium malate at 75.0 against 75.00, magnesium citrate at 100.0 against 100.00, magnesium L-threonate at 75.0 against 75.00, vitamin B6 as pyridoxine at 5.0 against 5.00, zinc gluconate at 10.0 against 10.00, and boron aspartate at 1.0 against 1.00. Average total capsule weight came in at 670 milligrams against a 686 milligram specification with a 10 percent tolerance, and average fill weight at 570 against 586 with the same tolerance.

Microbiological results conformed across total plate count below 10,000 CFU per gram, E. coli negative in 10 grams, yeast and mold below 1,000 CFU per gram, and Salmonella negative in 25 grams, tested under USP/NF chapters 61 and 62. Excipients are rice flour and magnesium stearate. The capsule is size 0 clear gelatin.

Creatine Monohydrate, lot 341125. Also through Manifest Labs, manufactured November 29, 2025, best by November 2028.

Creatine monohydrate content was verified at 4,976 milligrams against a 5,000 milligram specification with 10 percent tolerance, using HPLC. Sodium came in at 39.85 milligrams against a 40.00 milligram specification by ICP-MS. Microbiological results conformed across the same four markers as the magnesium complex. No excipients.

Now the honest qualifications on this tier, which we've stated in previous posts and will keep stating.

The magnesium documentation carries an explicit note that the information is based on the certificate of analysis received from the supplier and is not intended as a substitute for strict quality control analysis by the customer of the product. That is a materially weaker form of documentation than independently commissioned finished-product testing, and we're not going to present it as equivalent.

Additionally, neither the magnesium nor the creatine documentation includes a heavy metals panel. Both cover potency and microbial safety. Neither covers heavy metal contamination. That's a genuine gap in our current documentation for these two products, and closing it is on our list.

Tier three: raw material supplier certification

Shilajit powder, batch 02.00600. This is the most extensively detailed document in our entire catalog and simultaneously the one requiring the most careful framing, because it is a raw material supplier certificate rather than a finished-product test we commissioned.

The material is sourced from the Kosh-Agach district of the Republic of Altai in the Russian Federation, tested against Technical Conditions 9345-037-39193650-03 and the Technical Regulations of the Customs Union on food product safety, TR CU 021/2025. The testing methods are Russian GOST standards rather than USP methods, which are legitimate national standards but a different framework from the pharmacopeial methods used elsewhere in our catalog.

The results are genuinely comprehensive. Heavy metals: lead at 0.67 milligrams per kilogram against a permitted level of 6, cadmium at 0.12 against 1, arsenic at 0.08 against 12, and mercury below 0.01 against 1. Pesticide screening for heptachlor and aldrin both returned not detected against limits of 0.01. Microbiological testing found pathogenic flora including salmonella not detected in 10 grams, mesophilic aerobic and facultative anaerobic microorganisms below 1x10² against a limit of 1x10⁴, coliform bacteria not detected in 0.1 grams, Staphylococcus aureus not detected in 0.1 grams, B. cereus not detected in 200 grams, and yeast and mold not detected.

The authenticity test returned "Authentic." Taste conformed to the expected bitter-tart profile and color conformed to the expected fine brown or black powder.

Fulvic acid measured 72 percent, humic acid 8.3 percent, moisture 4.0 percent. Radionuclide screening for strontium specific activity returned below 3 becquerels per kilogram.

The full mineral panel: potassium 42,300 milligrams per kilogram, calcium 24,800, magnesium 1,958, sodium 1,478, phosphorus 900, iron 240, aluminum 230, boron 48, manganese 40, zinc 11.50, copper 6.84, barium 5.00, lithium 3.25, molybdenum 1.23, selenium 1.20, nickel 1.07, cobalt 0.69, vanadium 0.41, silver 0.18, and lanthanum 0.17, with beryllium, tungsten, tin, bismuth, thallium, tellurium, antimony, and chromium all below detection thresholds.

The vitamin panel and full amino acid profile were also measured and reported, with alanine highest at 800.5 milligrams per 100 grams, followed by tyrosine at 720.50 and proline at 620.10.

That's an unusually detailed document, and the numbers are real. What it is not is a finished-product test commissioned by us from an independent US laboratory, and that distinction is worth keeping clear rather than letting the impressive level of detail obscure it.

Cosmetics: a different regulatory framework

Our soap, shampoo, and conditioner are cosmetics rather than dietary supplements, which means they're governed by different regulations and tested against different standards. All three were documented by Nüvue Labs against USP35-NF-30 quality standards, with attestations of compliance with FDA cosmetic regulations including the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 and Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Tallow Soap, batch D26070001, manufactured April 16, 2026: pH at 10.6 against a 10 to 12 specification, density at 1.040 grams per milliliter against a 0.904 to 1.190 range, viscosity at 11,100 against a 9,500 to 13,000 range. Total aerobic bacterial count below 10 CFU per gram against a limit of 1,000, and total mold and yeast count below 10 against a limit of 100.

Shampoo, batch M25160001, manufactured April 13, 2026: pH at 5.84 against a 5.5 to 6.5 specification, density at 1.040 against 1.000 to 1.100, viscosity at 11,000 against 5,000 to 15,000. Microbial results matched the soap, below 10 CFU per gram on both markers.

Conditioner, batch M25190001, manufactured January 5, 2026: pH at 5.16 against a 4.5 to 5.5 specification, density at 0.98 against 0.850 to 1.120, viscosity at 40,000 against 10,000 to 50,000. Microbial results again below 10 CFU per gram on both.

The pH figures are the most practically meaningful numbers here, since hair and skin behave measurably differently depending on the pH of what's applied to them, as we've covered in detail elsewhere.

One honest qualification on this tier as well: these documents carry a note that testing was performed by in-house or approved third-party laboratory, which does not fully resolve the independence question the way a named external accredited lab does.

What isn't here yet

Two gaps worth naming directly rather than leaving for someone to notice.

Our Vitamin D3 and K2 product is not included in this recap. We are currently working through its batch documentation with the manufacturer and will publish those figures once that process is complete and we're confident in what we're presenting. We'd rather leave a gap in a transparency post than fill it with numbers we haven't fully verified.

Heavy metal panels are missing from our magnesium and creatine documentation, as noted above. Both products have verified potency and microbial safety. Neither currently has heavy metal screening in the documentation we hold, and extending that coverage is the most concrete improvement available to us right now.

What all of this actually means

The numbers above are real and checkable against the documents they came from. What they establish is specific and bounded: these particular batches, tested on these particular dates, by these particular laboratories, using these particular methods, returned these particular results.

They don't establish that every future batch will read identically, which is precisely why batch-specific documentation matters more than a single certificate published once. They don't cover every possible contaminant or quality question, since a heavy metal panel says nothing about pesticides and a potency test says nothing about microbial safety. And the strength of the documentation genuinely varies across our catalog, from independently commissioned finished-product analysis at one end to supplier-relayed raw material certification at the other.

We think publishing that variation honestly is more useful than presenting a uniform impression of rigor that the underlying documents wouldn't support. If you want to see any specific document referenced here, ask and we'll send it.