One product, one panel, one record.
mindbodygreen advanced probiotic+ (with bloat support) — label audit
The one trial that tested this product's exact three-strain combination, with bloating as its primary endpoint, in a population with self-reported bloating, found nothing: "Product efficacy was not shown in the primary analysis for bloating nor for the secondary efficacy analyses. The placebo functioned similarly as the probiotic product." The product is sold on "Beat the bloat."
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
- Addendum — outside the founding denominators Torn down 2026-07-31, after the founding cohort of 27 was frozen. It sits outside every D27 denominator the site publishes.
- 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.
- What did not survive verification
- Part of this page was refuted or could not be reproduced One thing on this page is a comparison rather than a proof, and it is marked as such. DSLD 245192 is titled "Probiotic+" while the SKU on sale is "advanced probiotic+ with bloat support", and no UPC was obtained for the current SKU — so "B420 was removed from this product" is not a sentence this site states. What is stated, and what the records support, is that a 2021 government-recorded mindbodygreen probiotic label carried four strains including B420 at 10 billion CFU, that the current label carries three of those four at identical doses and no B420, and that the page still runs a "Support your healthy weight" tile. Separately, the "ISO-certified labs" claim names no lab and no certificate, so it can be neither confirmed nor refuted. The null-trial finding and the dose comparison are verified against the primary literature and stand as written.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
82.9 out of 100
Rank 29 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score. This rank is shared with 6 other products — 7 products sit on 82.9 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 | 3 of 3 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 3 / 3 = 1.0000 | 0.2400 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 3 of 3 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 3 / 3 = 1.0000 | 0.2000 |
| What the CFU count is measured against | 0.22 | Potency basis "none-stated": CFU figure printed yes, single basis stated no, basis reaches expiry no — 1 of 3. | 1 / 3 = 0.3333 | 0.073333 |
| Printed designators that lead to a human trial | 0.20 | 3 of 3 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. | 3 / 3 = 1.0000 | 0.2000 |
| 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 |
0.713333 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.8295. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 82.9 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 | Per strain: NCFM 10 Billion CFU, Bi-07 10 Billion CFU, HN019 2 Billion CFU |
| What that count is measured against | No basis stated |
| Strain designators | All organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 3 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
No basis is stated anywhere. The full page HTML and the complete JSON-LD FAQ block (10 question-and- answer pairs) were searched for "expiration", "expiry", "end of shelf life", "at manufacture", "at time of", "potency guaranteed" and "guarantee". Nothing establishes whether the count is measured at manufacture or at expiry. The only related statement is about storage: "No, you don't need to store it in the refrigerator! advanced probiotic+ with bloat support has been formulated to be shelf-stable (no chilling required)."
The panel’s own words on potency, verbatim.
A CFU number appears with no temporal basis of any kind. A count with no basis is not a quantity; there is no date at which it is claimed to be true.
Every organism on the panel carries a printed strain designator. Whether those designators lead anywhere is a separate question, answered below.
| Organism as printed | Designator as printed | Quantity as printed | What the designator resolves to | The query we ran |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | NCFM | 10 Billion CFU | Human RCT | "NCFM"[tiab] AND (randomized[pt] OR randomised[tiab] OR "randomized controlled trial"[pt]) → 36; "NCFM"[tiab] → 268; "Lactobacillus acidophilus"[tiab] AND "NCFM"[tiab] → 235 |
| Bifidobacterium lactis (correct name: Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis) | Bi-07 | 10 Billion CFU | Human RCT | "Bi-07"[tiab] AND (randomized[pt] OR randomised[tiab]) → 6; "Bi-07"[tiab] OR "Bi07"[tiab] → 59 |
| Bifidobacterium lactis (correct name: Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis) | HN019 | 2 Billion CFU | Human RCT | "HN019"[tiab] AND (randomized[pt] OR randomised[tiab]) → 6; ("Bifidobacterium lactis"[tiab] OR "Bifidobacterium animalis"[tiab]) AND "HN019"[tiab] → 106 |
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.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — mindbodygreen-advanced-probiotic-plus-pdp-2026-07-31https://shop.mindbodygreen.com/products/probiotic — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured HTTP 200. The Supplement Facts panel is present as real HTML text on the page rather than as an image — the exception in this category and the source of every panel figure here. Also the source of the JSON-LD pricing, the FAQ block and every claim quotation.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 245192 (opens in a new tab) captured Brand "Mindbodygreen", product "Probiotic+", UPC 6 93749 00693 0, 30 capsules, 1/day, entered 2021-04-22, on-market. Four strains — NCFM 10 Billion, Bi-07 10 Billion, B420 10 Billion, HN019 2 Billion — and Thorne Research, Inc. as manufacturer. Used strictly as dated evidence of a previous formulation, not as a record of the SKU on sale.
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, 3 organism slots carry 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
$2.67 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $80.00 USD
- What that buys
- 30-capsule bottle (30 servings, 1 capsule daily), one-time purchase
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://shop.mindbodygreen.com/products/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 |
|---|---|---|
| "Four rounds of testing for purity and safety in ISO-certified labs" | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
"Four rounds of testing for purity and safety in ISO-certified labs"
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
Also claimed: "Verified that key ingredient quantities match supplement facts", "Verified within safety limits of heavy metals, contaminants, mold, yeast or harmful bacteria", and in the FAQ "each supplement in mindbodygreen's portfolio … is third-party tested for purity and potency by ISO-certified labs." No laboratory is named, no certificate number is given, and no accreditation body (A2LA, ANAB, IAS) is cited. "ISO-certified" is not itself a product certification — ISO 17025 accredits a laboratory's competence and says nothing about this product's contents. There is no issuer register to check because no issuer is identified. Note the scope trap: "verified that key ingredient quantities match supplement facts" is a potency-at-test claim, and it is paired with no at-expiry guarantee. Testing that the bottle matched the panel on the day it was tested is not the same as the bottle matching the panel on the day you swallow it.
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.
This brand sells no women’s counterpart to this product, so there is no diff to run.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 the-only-trial-of-this-three-strain-combination-was-null-for-bloating
Airaksinen K et al., Benef Microbes 2019;10(6):617-627 (PMID 31131616) is the one trial covering NCFM, Bi-07 and HN019 together. Two weeks, n=156, adults with self-reported bloating and functional constipation, primary outcome bloating. Verbatim: "Product efficacy was not shown in the primary analysis for bloating nor for the secondary efficacy analyses. The placebo functioned similarly as the probiotic product." Only a post-hoc flatulence signal survived. The authors are the strain owner's own scientists — affiliation stated in the abstract as "DuPont Nutrition and Health, Global Health & Nutrition Science". And the trial was not under-dosed relative to this product on the strains that matter: identical NCFM at 10 billion, and HN019 at 10 billion, five times higher than the 2 billion here. "Beat the bloat" is the exact endpoint that failed.
The record: PMID 31131616, verified by efetch 2026-07-31; surfaced by ("NCFM"[tiab] AND "Bi-07"[tiab] AND "HN019"[tiab]) → 4
Finding 2 ideal-dose-claim-against-a-ten-times-higher-trial
The page states, verbatim, "Each of the three strains … has clinical studies showing that they do ease bloat… And we included each strain at it's ideal dose.*" The positive NCFM + Bi-07 bloating trial (PMID 21436726) used 2 × 10^11 CFU/day — 200 billion — twice daily for 8 weeks in patients with functional bowel disorders. This product delivers 20 billion from that pair, once daily, and claims onset "starting in 2 weeks". Note also that at the 8-week timepoint the primary bloating score comparison was p=0.06 and not statistically significant; only the change score held (P<0.01). The trial is weaker than the marketing implies before the dose gap is even counted.
The record: PMID 21436726, verified by efetch 2026-07-31, against the brand's own panel
Finding 3 cfu-basis-unstated-in-a-product-that-argues-about-cfu
No potency basis anywhere on the page or in its FAQ. This is more pointed here than elsewhere, because the brand devotes an entire FAQ answer to CFU counts — "A higher CFU count doesn't automatically indicate that a probiotic is going to work better… What's also important is how stable the probiotic strains are in the environment they will be stored" — and never says when its own number is measured. A brand that argues dose-versus-research this carefully knows exactly what an at-expiry guarantee is.
The record: Full page HTML and JSON-LD FAQ block, string-searched 2026-07-31
Finding 4 the-weight-strain-was-removed-and-the-weight-claim-stayed
DSLD 245192 (entered 2021-04-22, brand Mindbodygreen, product "Probiotic+", UPC 6 93749 00693 0, 30 capsules, 1/day) transcribes four strains: NCFM 10 Billion, Bi-07 10 Billion, B420 10 Billion and HN019 2 Billion — 32 billion total. The current panel carries three, with the survivors at exactly the same doses, totalling 22 billion. B420 was removed outright, taking 31% of the total with it. B420 is the strain in that lineup with a human weight and adiposity literature — "B420"[tiab] AND (weight[tiab] OR adiposity[tiab] OR obes*[tiab]) returns 6, and "B420"[tiab] AND (randomized[pt] OR randomised[tiab]) returns 1 (PMID 30525950). The brand's own video-review tiles on the current page still advertise "Support your healthy weight". The claim outlived the strain most associated with it.
The record: DSLD 245192 against the live panel, both read 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 5 iso-certified-labs-with-nothing-to-check
"Four rounds of testing for purity and safety in ISO-certified labs", with no lab named, no certificate number, and no accreditation body cited. ISO 17025 accredits a laboratory's competence; it is not a product certification and says nothing about this bottle's contents.
The record: shop.mindbodygreen.com/products/probiotic and its FAQ, quoted verbatim 2026-07-31
Finding 6 most-expensive-in-batch-by-roughly-seven-times
$2.67 a day at the one-time price, against $0.37–$0.48 for the cheapest product in its batch — for 22 billion CFU against that product's 30 billion. Defensible on strain identity, which is real and rare. Not defensible on potency.
The record: JSON-LD Product offer, price 80.0, InStock, read 2026-07-31
Finding 7 unfilled-template-tokens-in-the-discount-claims
The page renders a persistent marquee reading "SAVE % WITH A 3 MONTH SUPPLY" in which the discount number is literally absent — an unfilled token repeated roughly fifty times across the page. Several price widgets likewise render as "$00" and "SAVE 0 %" until hydrated. Sloppy rather than deceptive, but a shopper reading the static page sees percentage claims with no percentage.
The record: shop.mindbodygreen.com/products/probiotic static HTML, read 2026-07-31
Finding 8 anonymous-gastroenterologist-testimonial
A testimonial in the review rail opens "I am a gastroenterologist and have used different types of probiotics…" and is attributed only to "Verified Customer". An authority signal with no verifiable identity.
The record: shop.mindbodygreen.com/products/probiotic review rail, read 2026-07-31
Finding 9 named-timeframes-raise-the-substantiation-bar
"Increase regularity starting in 2 weeks*" and "Optimize regularity & bowel movements in 3 weeks" put a named timeframe on a named outcome. The wording stays inside structure/function grammar and carries the FDA disclaimer, so no disease claim is made — but a dated promise raises the substantiation bar rather than lowering it, and the bloating half of it is what the null trial tested.
The record: shop.mindbodygreen.com/products/probiotic, quoted verbatim 2026-07-31
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.
- "Four rounds of testing for purity and safety in ISO-certified labs" status
- Also claimed: "Verified that key ingredient quantities match supplement facts", "Verified within safety limits of heavy metals, contaminants, mold, yeast or harmful bacteria", and in the FAQ "each supplement in mindbodygreen's portfolio … is third-party tested for purity and potency by ISO-certified labs." No laboratory is named, no certificate number is given, and no accreditation body (A2LA, ANAB, IAS) is cited. "ISO-certified" is not itself a product certification — ISO 17025 accredits a laboratory's competence and says nothing about this product's contents. There is no issuer register to check because no issuer is identified. Note the scope trap: "verified that key ingredient quantities match supplement facts" is a potency-at-test claim, and it is paired with no at-expiry guarantee. Testing that the bottle matched the panel on the day it was tested is not the same as the bottle matching the panel on the day you swallow it.
- What the 22 billion CFU is measured against
- Nothing on the page or in its ten-item JSON-LD FAQ states a potency basis, in a product whose FAQ argues at length about CFU counts and specifically raises "how stable the probiotic strains are in the environment they will be stored" as the thing that matters — and then omits the one disclosure that would let a buyer evaluate it.
- Whether DSLD 245192 and the SKU on sale are the same product
- The government record is titled "Probiotic+"; the live SKU is "advanced probiotic+ with bloat support". Three of four strains carry identical doses across the two, which makes a rename plus reformulation the most economical reading — but no UPC was obtained for the current SKU, so single- product continuity is not proven. The comparison on this page is published as a dated formulation comparison, not as a proven substitution.
- Who manufactures the product now
- DSLD 245192 lists the manufacturer as Thorne Research, Inc. The current panel says only "Manufactured for: mindbodygreen, Miami, FL 33133" and names no manufacturer. The contract relationship appears to have changed and is now undisclosed.
- The "ISO-certified labs" claim
- No lab, no certificate number, no accreditation body. Unverifiable by construction — there is no register to query.
- The identity of the gastroenterologist testimonial
- A review-rail testimonial opening "I am a gastroenterologist and have used different types of probiotics…" is attributed only to "Verified Customer". An authority signal with no verifiable identity.
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 is the best-disclosed label in its batch, and that is exactly why its problem is worth writing down carefully.
Three organisms, three real strain designators — NCFM, Bi-07, HN019 — each with its own CFU figure rather than a blend subtotal, on a Supplement Facts panel published as machine-readable HTML text instead of a photograph. No proprietary blend, no “and other strains” tail. Almost nothing else in this category does all three of those things at once. The strains are genuinely well-studied: 36, 6 and 6 randomised human trials respectively.
So the question is not whether the strains have been studied. It is whether the studies support this dose for this claim.
The product is sold on bloating. “Reset your gut. Beat the bloat.” And there is exactly one published trial of this three-strain combination, with bloating as its primary endpoint, in adults with self-reported bloating. Its result, verbatim: “Product efficacy was not shown in the primary analysis for bloating nor for the secondary efficacy analyses. The placebo functioned similarly as the probiotic product.”
The usual defence — that the trial under-dosed — does not work here. That trial used the same 10 billion CFU of NCFM and five times more HN019 than this bottle contains. It was run by the strain owner’s own scientists, at DuPont, who published the null.
The positive trial the claim more likely leans on is Ringel-Kulka 2011, on NCFM and Bi-07 together. That trial dosed 200 billion CFU a day, twice daily, for eight weeks, in patients with functional bowel disorders. This product is 20 billion from that pair, once a day, promising results “starting in 2 weeks.” One tenth of the dose, half the frequency, faster onset. And at the trial’s eight-week timepoint the primary bloating comparison was p = 0.06 — not significant.
Against all that, the page says: “we included each strain at it’s ideal dose.”
Where the product is dose-defensible, and it deserves the credit: HN019 at 2 billion sits essentially on the low-dose arm of Waller 2011 (1.8 billion), which significantly shortened whole gut transit time over fourteen days. The regularity claim has a matching trial at a matching dose. That is more than most products here can say about anything.
Two footnotes. The 2021 government record for a mindbodygreen probiotic label lists four strains, including B420 at 10 billion CFU — 31% of the old total — and B420 is the one in that lineup with a human weight literature. The current label has three strains at identical doses and no B420, while the page still runs a “Support your healthy weight” tile. The record is titled “Probiotic+” and the product is now “advanced probiotic+ with bloat support”, so this page reports that as a dated comparison and not as proof of a swap.
And for $2.67 a day — roughly seven times the cheapest product in its batch — the one thing this label never tells you is when the 22 billion is measured. Not at manufacture, not at expiry, nowhere. In a brand that devotes a whole FAQ answer to why CFU counts and storage stability matter.