One product, one panel, one record.
Hyperbiotics (Vital Nutrients) PRO-Men — label audit
The 2022 government record for this UPC disclosed, in the brand's own words, that its prostate claim was "based on 4 tablets per day, providing 1000mg of Meriva Curcumin Phytosome" — and offered a regimen that reached it. The 2025 record for the same UPC deletes that sentence, reduces suggested use to one tablet a day, and keeps the prostate claim. One tablet delivers 250 mg: 25% of the dose in the only study connecting that ingredient to a prostate outcome.
This page is an audit of a label. It records what this product’s panel discloses, what of that could be checked against a primary record, and what could not. The score below ranks this product on that disclosure and on nothing else.
The record this page rests on
- NIH label record
- Label read on
- The most recent dated artefact behind this page. Labels change; this is how old our reading of it is.
- Cohort
- D₂₇ founding teardown One of the 27 products taken apart at label level. That cohort is frozen and dated, so the audit’s published percentages cannot silently move.
- How deep this went
- Full forensic teardown Panel transcribed, every strain designator queried, every certification chased to its issuer’s own register, and the literature behind each marketing claim opened and read.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
34.1 out of 100
Rank 113 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score. This rank is shared with 1 other product — 2 products sit on 34.1 and are tied. They hold the position jointly; no tiebreaker is applied, because every tiebreaker available here would be a number the rubric deliberately refused to weigh, smuggled back in to make a list look tidier.
The score measures one thing: how much of what you are buying this company tells you, and how much of that survives being checked against a source that is not the company. It does not measure whether the product works — this site holds no efficacy data of its own, and 0 of 294 organism slots in the founding cohort carry a strain with a human randomised trial for any male-specific outcome, so nobody in this category has evidence that would support a ranking by effect.
Computed over 86% of the rubric by weight — the share of the five questions below this record could answer. The remaining question is unanswered, and unanswered is not nought: it leaves the divisor rather than dragging the score down. That share travels with the number and is never dropped — this score over 86% of the weight and the same score over all of it are different claims.
| Component | Weight | What was counted, and where | Fraction | Weight × fraction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain identity printed on the panel | 0.24 | 1 of 6 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 1 / 6 = 0.1667 | 0.0400 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 6 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 6 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| What the CFU count is measured against | 0.22 | Potency basis "both-endpoints": CFU figure printed yes, single basis stated yes, basis reaches expiry yes — 3 of 3. | 3 / 3 = 1.0000 | 0.2200 |
| Printed designators that lead to a human trial | 0.20 | 1 of 6 checked organism slots resolve to at least one human randomised trial under the designator exactly as printed. This counts whether the identity leads to a trial, never what the trial found. | 1 / 6 = 0.1667 | 0.033333 |
| Certification confirmed at the issuer’s own register | 0.14 | Every certification on this record is brand-asserted with the register unreachable, or not yet queried. An unreachable register is a fact about the verification infrastructure, not about this brand, so it may not move its position. | Not answered | — excluded from the divisor, not counted as nought |
0.293333 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.3411. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 34.1 above.
See this product’s row in the full ranking, alongside the other 153 scored products, or read what each of the five components asks and how to check it .
What this label discloses
Everything in this table is what the product itself states — on the printed panel, on the brand’s own page, or in the label record the manufacturer filed. Nothing in it is checked yet; checking is the next section.
| Disclosure | As recorded |
|---|---|
| CFU as printed | 5 billion CFU at manufacture; minimum 1.5 billion CFU at expiration |
| What that count is measured against | Both endpoints printed |
| Strain designators | Some organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 6 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Marketed to men |
5 billion CFU (At the time of manufacture. Minimum of 1.5 billion CFU at expiration.)
The panel’s own words on potency, verbatim.
The panel prints both a manufacture figure and an expiration figure, so the decline over shelf life is readable off the label itself.
Some organisms carry a printed strain designator and some are named by species only.
| Organism as printed | Designator as printed | Quantity as printed | What the designator resolves to | The query we ran |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L. plantarum (correct name: Lactiplantibacillus plantarum) | 6595 (Probi) | — not stated separately | Human RCT | "Lactobacillus plantarum 299" AND randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| L. reuteri (correct name: Limosilactobacillus reuteri) | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| L. fermentum (correct name: Limosilactobacillus fermentum) | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| L. casei (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus casei) | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| L. acidophilus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| B. longum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
What of that is verifiable
A disclosure is verifiable when a reader can open a record that neither we nor the brand controls and see the same thing. Below is every dated artefact this page rests on. What is absent from this list is not verified, however reasonable it sounds.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 270251 (opens in a new tab) captured Entered 2022-09-22, UPC 9 506000 116921, target group Adult Male (18-50 Years). The record carrying the four-tablet Meriva sentence and the two-tier dosing regimen.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 328456 (opens in a new tab) captured Entered 2025-04-24, same UPC 9 506000 116921 — verified against the storefront barcode and SKU HBMEN30, so this is provably the same SKU. Four-tablet sentence deleted, suggested use reduced to one tablet, prostate claim retained, target group changed to Adult (18-50 Years).
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 328457 (opens in a new tab) captured The 60-count record, UPC 9 506000 116686, matching storefront SKU HBMEN60. Carries both potency endpoints in the blend note and in Formula re: Contains.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 306768 (opens in a new tab) captured PRO-Women comparator.
How many of its strains have a human trial for what it is sold for
Across the frozen founding cohort, 0 of 294 organism slots (0.0%) carry an organism with a human randomised controlled trial for any male-specific outcome. Not for this product — for all 27 of the founding teardowns, taken together. That is the number to hold against any men’s probiotic, including this one.
Two further founding-cohort figures for context: only 43 of 294 organism slots carry a strain with any human RCT at all under the exact code printed on the label, and only 2 of 27 products have a published human trial of the finished formula — the thing actually in the bottle. All three figures divide by the frozen cohort of 27 teardowns and 294 organism slots, never by every teardown on this site.
For this product specifically, 1 organism slot carries a strain with a human RCT under the exact designator printed on the label.
A word on what a designator has to clear before it counts here. The organism must be named with the exact strain code that appears in the trial, the trial must be in humans, and the code must return that trial when a reader searches it. A species name does not qualify: the trials in this field are of strains, and a species contains thousands of them.
What it costs per day
$1.00 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $29.99 USD
- What that buys
- 30-tablet bottle (30 servings, 1 tablet per serving)
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://www.vitalnutrients.co/products/hyperbiotics-pro-men-probiotic — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
What certification it holds, checked at the issuer’s own register
A badge on a bottle is a claim like any other. Every row below was checked — or not checked — at the certifier’s own public register, never at the badge. Across the frozen founding cohort, 2 of 27 products hold a certification we could confirm at the issuer — a founding-cohort figure, not a count over every teardown on this site.
| Programme | Status at the issuer | Checked |
|---|---|---|
| None claimed | Not checked | not checked |
None claimed
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
The Vital Nutrients product page and both current government label records were searched for NSF, USP, Informed Choice, "third party", "third-party" and "certificate of analysis". No third-party testing or certification claim appears. The 2022 label carried a "Made in the USA" seal; the 2025 labels carry no GMP seal in the Seals/Symbols field at all.
How it differs from the same brand’s women’s version
Across the fourteen same-brand men’s-versus-women’s label diffs run inside the frozen founding cohort, zero men’s or default formulas contain a probiotic strain, identified by designator, that was selected on male-specific evidence. In eight of the fourteen the sex-specific differentiator is a botanical or a mineral, and in five of the fourteen the women’s SKU is better-specified, cheaper, or both — “better-specified” meaning the panel that discloses more, never the panel with more in it. The rule behind each of those counts, and all fourteen pairs classified against it , are published in full. Diffs run on teardowns added since sit outside this fourteen, and outside the sentence above.
Compared against Hyperbiotics PRO-Women. Diffed .
What the two panels differ by
- The entire differentiating active is a 250 mg slot: Curcumin Meriva Indena Phytosome Blend in the men's, Cran-Gyn (D-mannose plus cranberry, a Valensa International trademark) in the women's. DSLD 328456/328457 versus DSLD 306768
- Organism diff: four shared (L. plantarum, L. fermentum, L. acidophilus, L. reuteri), two men's-only (L. casei, B. longum), two women's-only (L. rhamnosus, B. bifidum). None of the four differing organisms is designated on either label, so there is no strain-level rationale for the swap and none is offered. DSLD 328456/328457 versus DSLD 306768
- The women's product adds magnesium 2 mg. DSLD 328456/328457 versus DSLD 306768
- PRO-Women's L. plantarum is species-only where the men's carries the 6595 designator — so on this one axis the men's SKU discloses more. DSLD 328456/328457 versus DSLD 306768
What is identical across the pair
- Proprietary Probiotic Blend 150 mg, 5 billion CFU at manufacture and 1.5 billion at expiration, six organisms, FOS 25 mg, sodium 10 mg, BIO-tract delivery — identical in both.
- Prices identical at $29.99 for 30 tablets and $49.99 for 60. No pink tax here, and equally no men's premium.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 deleted-four-tablet-meriva-disclosure
The 2022 record for this UPC states, verbatim: "Formulated with six targeted probiotic strains and Meriva Turmeric Curcumin Phytosome, PRO-Men is designed to support digestive, immune, cardiovascular, prostate, bone, and eye health, along with normal energy levels. Claim based on 4 tablets per day, providing 1000mg of Meriva Curcumin Phytosome." The same record offered a regimen that could reach it: "Daily Maintenance: Take 1 tablet once per day. Intense Support: Take 2 tablets twice daily." Four tablets is 1,000 mg — exactly the dose in the only study connecting Meriva to a prostate outcome. The 2025 records for the same UPC reduce suggested use to "Take 1 tablet once per day", delete the four-tablet sentence entirely, retain the prostate claim and promote it to the front panel, and change the DSLD target group from Adult Male (18-50 Years) to Adult (18-50 Years). The label now makes a prostate claim while instructing a dose that delivers one quarter of the curcumin the claim was built on, and the sentence that used to disclose the gap has been deleted.
The record: DSLD 270251 versus DSLD 328456 and 328457 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 2 the-prostate-evidence-is-one-unblinded-registry-study
PubMed returns exactly one paper for Meriva and the prostate: a self-described "pilot, product evaluation registry study", n=61, in men aged 55–65 with diagnosed symptomatic BPH on top of best standard management, with no randomisation, no blinding and no placebo, published in a supplement issue. It used 2 x 500 mg of Meriva per day. PRO-Men delivers 250 mg per tablet at one tablet a day, and is sold to men the label codes as 18–50 — an age band that barely overlaps the study population.
The record: PMID 23241931 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 3 prostate-support-re-attributed-from-the-curcumin-to-the-probiotics
The 2023 Hyperbiotics page attributed it correctly: "Urinary and Prostate Support from curcumin phytosome, clinically studied to support prostate health." The 2026 Vital Nutrients page attributes it to the bacteria instead: "Formula includes six research-backed probiotics that support prostate and urinary tract health while promoting a balanced gut microbiome." No strain on this label has any prostate or urinary trial — five are species-only, and the sixth, strain 299, returns zero under prostate, urinary and benign prostatic terms. The re-attribution is unsupported.
The record: Wayback 20230131204722 versus vitalnutrients.co, verified live 2026-07-30
Finding 4 clinically-studied-formula-with-no-trial-of-the-formula
"this clinically studied formula replenishes beneficial bacteria throughout the gastrointestinal tract and supports a healthy inflammatory response." No trial of this formula exists: "PRO-Men" AND probiotic returns zero, "BIO-tract" returns zero, "Hyperbiotics" returns zero.
The record: PubMed queries re-run 2026-07-30, all confirmed
Finding 5 strain-6595-is-299-not-299v
The panel's L. plantarum 6595 is strain 299 (DSM 6595), one character from 299v (DSM 9843) — the strain with 34 randomised-trial records and most of the L. plantarum IBS literature. A shopper, a retailer or an AI shopping assistant that sees "L. plantarum 6595, clinically studied" and reaches for the 299v evidence base is reaching for the wrong strain. The label is technically accurate and practically misleading.
The record: PMID 8779562 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 6 fifteen-times-survivability-rests-on-an-unpublished-in-vitro-comparison
"This formula offers up to 15X more probiotic survivability than standard vegetarian capsules, allowing us to offer superior results at a lower CFU." That sentence is the justification for a 5-billion-CFU product costing more per day than a 100-billion-CFU one, and it rests on a patent plus an in vitro comparison with no peer-reviewed publication anywhere.
The record: PubMed query "BIO-tract" returning 0, re-run 2026-07-30
Finding 7 proprietary-blend
No per-strain CFU split across the six organisms, so even the one designated strain cannot be tied to a dose.
The record: DSLD 328457 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 8 claims-across-seven-organ-systems-from-one-observational-study
The 2022 label claimed digestive, immune, cardiovascular, prostate, bone and eye health plus normal energy levels. The evidence base underneath is one registry study and one 1996 cell-line paper.
The record: DSLD 270251 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 9 no-third-party-testing-claimed
None claimed, so none to verify.
The record: vitalnutrients.co product page and DSLD 328456/328457, all searched 2026-07-30
What we could not verify
Every gap below is published rather than deleted. Most are derived automatically from the empty fields in this page’s own record, so a gap cannot be hidden by leaving a box blank.
- None claimed status
- The Vital Nutrients product page and both current government label records were searched for NSF, USP, Informed Choice, "third party", "third-party" and "certificate of analysis". No third-party testing or certification claim appears. The 2022 label carried a "Made in the USA" seal; the 2025 labels carry no GMP seal in the Seals/Symbols field at all.
- Any published evidence for the BIO-tract delivery technology
- "BIO-tract" returns zero PubMed records, as do "Hyperbiotics" and "PRO-Men" AND probiotic. The "15X more survivability" claim is a patent plus an unpublished in vitro comparison — and the label itself says so, which is to the brand's credit. But that claim is the justification for a 5-billion-CFU product costing more per day than a 100-billion-CFU one.
- Per-strain CFU across the six organisms
- Not disclosed.
- The source of the "Other Ingredients" line
- The teardown's Other Ingredients list for this product is not in DSLD at all — the otherIngredients field is empty on both 328456 and 328457. It matches the Vital Nutrients product page, and is sourced there rather than to the government record.
How to check every line of this page yourself
Nothing on this page requires trusting us. Every claim above resolves to a record you can open:
- Open the NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record linked at the top of this page. It is the label the manufacturer filed, not our transcription of it.
- Compare the CFU line and the suggested-use line against the disclosure table above. If they disagree with us, we are wrong and we want to know.
- Take any strain designator from the panel and run the query printed beside it. The query is published precisely so you can get a different answer than we did.
- Divide the price by the number of days the label’s own dose instructions make the container last. That arithmetic is the whole of the cost-per-day row.
- Search the certifier’s own register for this product, not for the brand. A company can participate in a programme without this product being on its list.
This product does one of the most useful things a label in this audit does, and one of the worst, and both are in the government’s own records.
The good thing first. The panel prints both potency endpoints:
“5 billion CFU At the time of manufacture. Minimum of 1.5 billion CFU at expiration.”
No other product in the 27 tells you this. It quantifies exactly what the rest of the category conceals: over shelf life, 5 billion becomes 1.5 billion. A 70% loss of viable organisms, printed by the manufacturer, on the label. That number cannot be transferred to other products — decay is strain-, matrix- and storage-specific — but it is the only such figure printed by any product in the frozen founding cohort of 27, and one of 11 across the 166 labels read that print both potency endpoints at all.
Now the sequence. Pull the 2022 label record for UPC 9 506000 116921 and read it:
“Formulated with six targeted probiotic strains and Meriva Turmeric Curcumin Phytosome, PRO-Men is designed to support digestive, immune, cardiovascular, prostate, bone, and eye health… Claim based on 4 tablets per day, providing 1000mg of Meriva Curcumin Phytosome.”
And its directions: “Daily Maintenance: Take 1 tablet once per day. Intense Support: Take 2 tablets twice daily.” Two tablets twice daily is four tablets — 1,000 mg of Meriva, which is exactly the dose in the only published study connecting Meriva to a prostate outcome. The 2022 label was internally consistent and honest: it told you the claim needed four tablets, and it told you how to take four tablets.
Pull the 2025 record for the same UPC. Suggested use is now “Take 1 tablet once per day”. The four-tablet sentence is gone. The prostate claim is retained and promoted to the front panel. And the target-group coding has changed from Adult Male (18-50 Years) to Adult (18-50 Years).
One tablet delivers 250 mg. That is 25% of the dose the claim was built on — and the sentence that used to say so has been deleted.
One correction on this page runs in the brand’s favour, and it matters. The original teardown concluded that the product’s designated strain, L. plantarum 6595, has no randomised trial of any kind and called the brand’s immune claim “false as written”. That was drawn from a search under one spelling. Searched under the name the literature actually uses — strain 299, an identity the teardown itself establishes — there are at least nine randomised-trial records. What survives is narrower and defensible: those trials are infection-prevention and colonisation endpoints in intubated, post-surgical and pancreatitis patients. None is an immune-health trial in healthy men, none is urological, and none is at this dose. The claim is unsupported, not false. This site does not publish the stronger version.
The one-character trap is still real, though, and it is the reason the mistake was easy to make in both directions: 6595 is strain 299. 299v — one letter apart — is the strain with 34 randomised trials and most of the L. plantarum consumer literature. It is not in this bottle.