Blog
The Trimoryndaily blog
The Trimoryndaily blog covers the questions buyers ask most, at more length than a product page allows: what a standardisation is and why it is the number that matters, why a before-and-after photograph is not a claim, and how to check a percent Daily Value in ten seconds.
Latest posts
The three posts, in more detail
Standardisation is the number that matters
The most useful of the three if you are comparing supplements at all. It explains what a standardised extract is, why the research is done on compounds rather than on plants, the four reasons labels leave the figure off, and what an extract ratio gives you instead. It ends on our own product, which prints five standardisations and is the reason every sum on this site could be done.
A photograph is not a claim, and that is the point
About the part of a weight-loss page that no rule reaches. Claims are regulated as sentences; a transformation photograph asserts four things at once and states none of them. The post sets out the six things that would have to accompany one for it to be publishable, and then lists what was actually in the asset folder that came with this product.
How to check a percent Daily Value in ten seconds
The FDA revised its Daily Value table in 2016 and several figures moved. A panel can carry an arithmetically correct percentage against a table that no longer applies. The post explains how to spot one, what it tells you about the artwork, and why it is usually a process problem rather than a safety one — using the one percentage on our own panel as the example.
How these posts are written
Every quote comes from a source we opened
NIH ODS, NCCIH, Memorial Sloan Kettering and the FDA. If we could not open it, it is not quoted.
No invented studies
No reference numbers we did not check, and no “a 2019 study found” without a link to the study.
Posts may argue against the product
All three of these do. The first explains why our own standardisations make our own sums possible; the second is about the marketing folder that arrived with our own product; the third is about the one percentage on our own panel. That stays in.
A visible last-updated date
Matching the dateModified in the page's structured data.
Corrections go to the top of the queue
Send them to the site team.
Why read a seller's blog sceptically
Including this one. Most supplement blogs exist to occupy search results for questions buyers ask on the way to a purchase, and the articles are written backwards from the answer the seller wants.
So here is the test to apply to any of them. Does the post ever reach a conclusion that costs the seller money? Does it quote sources you can open and check? Does it name a specific weakness in the product being sold, rather than only in other people's products?
On this blog the answers are on the page. The first post ends by pointing out that our own standardisations are what make the criticism on this site possible. The second is a piece about stock transformation photographs, written about the folder that arrived with the product we are selling. The third works through the one arithmetic error on our own panel. Those are the passages to weigh when deciding how much of the rest to trust.
Product pages, if that is what you came for
| If you want | Read |
|---|---|
| What is in the bottle | Ingredients |
| The panel, row by row | Label facts |
| Whether it suits you | Who it is for |
| Safety and blood sugar | Safety |
| Packs and cost per day | Pricing |
| Category background | Guides |
Where these three ideas came from
Each post started as a problem while building the product pages, which is why they are narrow and why they are specific.
The standardisation post came from noticing that this product prints five of them. It is the first label we have read where the manufacturer’s own figures were enough to finish every sum, and working out why that is rare took long enough to be worth writing down.
The photograph post came from opening the asset folder and finding three before-and-after images of women who have nothing to do with this product. That is not a niche complaint about one supplier; it is what a great many weight-loss pages are built from, and no rule reaches it.
The Daily Value post came from one row. The riboflavin percentage on this panel is arithmetically correct against a table the FDA replaced in 2016, and checking that took ten seconds — which seemed worth explaining, since most readers have never been told the table changes.
Reading them in order
- Start with the standardisation post if you are comparing products right now. It is the most immediately useful and the method transfers to every package on the shelf.
- Read the Daily Value post next. It is the shortest and it gives you one more check to run on any panel, in ten seconds, with a calculator.
- Finish with the photograph post. It is the least practical and the most consequential, because it is about the part of a weight-loss page that no rule reaches.
Between them they cover the three ways a supplement package misleads without lying: a number that is not what it appears to be, a percentage measured against the wrong thing, and an image that makes a claim nobody has to stand behind.
What is not on this blog
- No “top ten fat burners” posts. These exist to occupy a search result and are assembled from other sites’ assemblies.
- No before-and-after anything. No photographs, no timelines, no progress narratives.
- No customer stories. There are no customers on this site at all, and the verdict page explains why.
- No “studies show” without a link. If a claim is made here, the document it rests on is one click away.
- No posts about competitors. A seller’s comparison of its own product with someone else’s is worth precisely nothing, whatever the table looks like.
What is left is three posts about reading a label. That is a thin blog by the standards of this industry and an accurate one.
Why a seller's blog is usually worthless, and how to tell
Most supplement blogs exist to occupy search results for questions buyers ask on the way to a purchase. The articles are written backwards from the answer the seller wants, which is why they all reach it.
There are three tests, and they take about a minute between them.
- Does the post ever reach a conclusion that costs the seller money? If every paragraph tends towards the purchase, the piece is an advertisement with paragraph breaks.
- Do the sources open, and do they say what the post claims? Not whether there is a reference list — whether the links go to documents that support the sentences attached to them. This fails more often than it should.
- Does it name a specific weakness in the product being sold? Generic caution about “choosing a quality supplement” is not that. Naming the row on your own panel that does not hold up is.
On this blog: the first post ends by explaining that our own standardisations are what make the criticism on this site possible. The second is about the stock transformation photographs that arrived in the folder with the product we sell. The third works through the one arithmetic error on our own panel.
Those are the passages to weigh when deciding how much of the rest to trust — and the same three tests are worth running on any other page selling the same product.
Who writes these
The Trimoryndaily editorial team, which is a working description of a job rather than a claim to credentials. Nobody here is a physician, a pharmacist or a laboratory scientist.
What the team does is read the bottle, read the primary sources, and write down what the two of them say. Where the sources carry nothing — as they do for two of the eleven rows on this product — we say so and stop, which produces shorter and duller pages than the alternative and is the only version of them that is true.
The full editorial rules are on the about page, and the list of everything that came with this product that was declined is immediately beneath them.
Read the panel first, then decide
Thirty capsules, one a day, eleven rows itemised and five of them standardised — the best-disclosed label we have read. It is also a label whose two best-studied weight ingredients sit at a fraction of the amounts the research used. The live price and the 60-day return terms are both on the seller’s checkout screen.
60-day window · Questions first? Call +1 (323) 391-7425