Field Guide Report. Public Sample. No privilege applies.
Twelve claims were evaluated against the labeled daily intake of 3240 mg EPA+DHA (2600 mg EPA, 640 mg DHA, two servings of two softgels). One claim is Green: triglyceride maintenance, supported at 95% of the effective arm in the verified dose-response trial. Seven claims are Amber, including muscle and inflammatory-response support, which enter Amber only at the full labeled intake and revert to Red at a single serving. Four claims are Red: cholesterol maintenance runs against pooled LDL data, cognitive support delivers 640 mg DHA against a 900 mg evidence base, and the whole-body and "advanced" wordings name nothing a study could measure. A redacted product specification file was reviewed. The oil is an ethyl ester concentrate with release minimums at or above label claim, and the open quality question is oxidation and assay through the 24-month shelf life.
Field Guide is Dryad Research's standard procedure for evaluating dietary supplement claims, maintained as a controlled standard operating procedure and currently at revision 1.4. Evaluation is conducted on the claims as supplied. Dryad does not write the claim set. Each claim is scored against the labeled daily intake, computed from the per-serving composition and the label's directions for use, on five dimensions (dose ratio, evidence depth, mechanistic continuity, category norms, and preclinical quality) weighted to a composite out of 27, and tested against two gates: whether the cited studies measured the claimed endpoint, and whether the studied populations translate to the product's consumers. Null and contradictory findings are documented with the same rigor as support. Where a product specification file is supplied, dose, ingredient form, and release controls are read from it rather than assumed.
Green means human clinical evidence supports the claim at the formulated dose. Amber means partial support with documented gaps. Red means the evidence does not support the claim at this dose. The intent is to standardize how the scientific basis for a claim set is presented so that informed decisions can be made. Scoring involves judgment, and what a company carries is a function of its own risk tolerance. The tiers are an evidence assessment, not legal advice.
| Ingredient | Form | Per serving | Supplier | SKU evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) | Fish oil concentrate (anchovy and sardine), ethyl ester | 1300 mg | Redacted | Named supplier concentrate. No SKU clinical file, platform evidence only |
| DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) | Same oil, ethyl ester | 320 mg | Redacted | Generic. Platform evidence only |
| Other omega-3 fatty acids | Same oil | 160 mg | Redacted | Not claimed |
| Softgel shell | Bovine gelatin, glycerin, purified water | 2 softgels | Redacted | Not claimed |
The label directs two softgels per serving and two servings per day, so substantiation is scored against the labeled daily intake: 2600 mg EPA, 640 mg DHA, and 3240 mg total EPA+DHA. The oil is a single named-supplier concentrate and the specification permits no substitutions, which is what keeps this record valid across lots.
| # | Claim as submitted | Tier | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Supporting cardiovascular health. | Amber | Contested at supplement doses. A 13-trial meta-analysis finds small reductions in myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death with linear dose-response, the Cochrane review of 86 trials finds little or no effect, and VITAL was null at 1 g/day. At the labeled 3240 mg daily intake the claim rests on surrogate risk factors and caps at Amber under the contradictory meta-analysis. [1], [2], [3] |
| 2 | Promoting whole-body health. | Red | Whole-body health names no measurable endpoint, so no dose can align to it and no study can anchor it. The Cochrane totality finding is little or no effect on mortality or cardiovascular health. No claim language is supported at any dose. [2] |
| 3 | Supporting blood-vessel health. | Amber | Pooled flow-mediated dilation improves 2.30% across 16 trials at 0.45 to 4.5 g/day, with the effect concentrated where function is impaired. The MARINA trial in 367 healthy adults was null at doses to 1.8 g/day, below the labeled 3.24 g daily intake. Amber on the surrogate with the healthy-population null documented. [4], [5] |
| 4 | Supporting muscle health. | Amber | At the labeled 3.24 g daily intake the dose reaches the tier where effects appear: the anchor trial in adults 60 to 85 dosed 3.36 g/day, and meta-analytic muscle-mass benefit sits above 2 g/day. A healthy-adult meta-analysis remains null on mass and function, which caps the claim at Amber. At one serving this claim is Red. [6], [7], [8] |
| 5 | Supporting a normal or healthy inflammatory response. | Amber | The labeled 3.24 g daily intake sits inside the 2 to 3.4 g range where attenuated inflammatory responses appear, and the healthy-subgroup meta-analysis finds CRP and TNF-alpha reductions with an EPA dose-response. The crossover trial was null on all three markers at 3.4 g/day, which holds the claim at Amber. At one serving this claim is Red. [9], [10], [11] |
| 6 | Providing "advanced" cardiovascular support. | Red | The qualifier is the claim, and it has no evidence class: "advanced" asserts superiority over an unnamed comparator no trial has tested. Without the qualifier this is Claim 1, Amber. As submitted it cannot be substantiated at any dose, and the narrative downgrades it to Red. [1], [2] |
| 7 | Helping maintain triglyceride levels already within the normal range. | Green | Pooled reduction of 0.368 mmol/L across 171 placebo-controlled trials. The labeled 3240 mg daily intake sits at 95% of the 3.4 g/day effective arm in the dose-response trial and well above the null 0.85 g/day arm, so Dose Ratio scores 2 and the composite holds the Green floor of 22. [12], [11] |
| 8 | Helping maintain cholesterol levels already within the normal range. | Red | No dose supports it. The Cochrane review finds little or no effect of supplementation on lipids apart from triglycerides, and pooled LDL rises 0.150 mmol/L, a DHA-driven effect (DHA monotherapy raises LDL 7.23 mg/dL, EPA does not). The evidence runs against the claim. [12], [13], [2] |
| 9 | Supporting healthy circulation. | Amber | A 71-trial dose-response meta-analysis finds blood-pressure reductions significant from 1 g/day with the optimum between 2 and 3 g/day, and the labeled 3.24 g daily intake sits just above that optimum. The under-45 subgroup shows no effect. The composite reaches 24, and the narrative holds the claim at Amber on the distance between a pressure surrogate and a circulation promise. [14], [15], [16] |
| 10 | Promoting blood-vessel elasticity. | Amber | The stiffness record is split: a 10-trial meta-analysis finds improved pulse wave velocity and compliance, the 2026 meta-analysis finds no PWV effect across 0.3 to 4.7 g/day, and healthy-adult trials to 1.8 g/day are null. A standalone elasticity wording carries more exposure than Claim 3's broader vessel claim on the same evidence. [17], [18], [5] |
| 11 | Enhancing mood. | Amber | EPA-predominant composition (80% EPA, 1960 mg EPA in excess of DHA at the labeled daily intake) matches the profile two meta-analyses identify as effective. Composite 24 would reach Green, but every pooled trial enrolled patients with a depressive episode, so the Disease-State cohort gate holds at Amber. Support-framed language is the form the record can carry. [19], [20] |
| 12 | Supporting cognitive health. | Red | The one positive trial used 900 mg/day DHA, and the labeled daily intake delivers 640 mg with no dose-response support at that level, so Dose Ratio scores 1 and forces Red. A Cochrane review of 4080 cognitively healthy adults found no cognitive benefit, which would cap at Amber even if the dose aligned. [21], [22] |
| # | Tier | Claim |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amber | "Supports cardiovascular health." |
| 3 | Amber | "Supports blood-vessel health." |
| 4 | Amber | "Supports muscle health." |
| 5 | Amber | "Supports a healthy inflammatory response." |
| 7 | Green | "Helps maintain healthy triglyceride levels already within the normal range." |
| 9 | Amber | "Supports healthy circulation." |
| 11 | Amber | "EPA-rich omega-3 to support a healthy mood." |
| 12 | Red | Content statement under SOP 10.5: "Contains 320 mg DHA per serving." |
Approved language is the wording the record supports at the labeled daily intake, gathered from Section 05. Amber wordings carry the legal-review convention noted in Section 06. Claims 2, 6, and 8 have no approved language, and Claim 10's endpoint is carried by the broader vessel wording of Claim 3.
Claims that share an endpoint are grouped and draw on the same evidence. Every claim carries the same three entries: the approved language, the evidence, and the limitations. Doses are the labeled daily intake unless stated per serving.
Claim 1 · Amber. Approved language. "Supports cardiovascular health."
Evidence. A 13-trial meta-analysis of 127,477 participants finds supplementation associated with lower risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99) with a linear dose-response for total CVD [1]. The Cochrane review of 86 trials concludes little or no effect on mortality or cardiovascular events while confirming the dose-dependent triglyceride reduction of about 15% as high-certainty evidence [2]. VITAL, the one large primary-prevention trial in a general population, was null on its primary composite at 1 g/day (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06) [3].
Limitations. The contradictory meta-analysis caps the claim at Amber (SOP 8.2). No outcome trial exists at the labeled 3240 mg daily intake in a healthy population, so the claim is carried by surrogate risk factors, principally the triglyceride effect, and wording that implies disease-risk reduction leaves the structure/function boundary.
Claim 6 · Red. Approved language. None.
Evidence. The record is Claim 1's. "Advanced" asserts superiority over an unnamed comparator that no trial has tested, so the narrative downgrades the claim to Red regardless of the underlying score (SOP 10.4).
Limitations. No study design could substantiate the qualifier as written. Without it this is Claim 1 with its Amber ceiling.
Claim 2 · Red. Approved language. None.
Evidence. "Whole-body health" names no endpoint a study could measure, so no dose can align to it and no trial can anchor it. The closest totality reading, the Cochrane review, finds little or no effect of long-chain omega-3 on mortality or cardiovascular health [2].
Limitations. Nothing through evidence changes this. The record supports only a specific, substantiated claim in its place.
Claim 3 · Amber. Approved language. "Supports blood-vessel health."
Evidence. Pooled flow-mediated dilation improves 2.30% (95% CI 0.89 to 3.72) across 16 trials at doses of 0.45 to 4.5 g/day, with the benefit concentrating in cohorts with impaired vascular function [4]. MARINA, the best population-matched trial, was null at all three doses to 1.8 g/day over 12 months in 367 healthy adults [5].
Limitations. MARINA's highest arm sits below the labeled 3.24 g intake, so it documents rather than caps (SOP 8.2). No healthy-population trial at the labeled intake exists, and support framing promises maintenance, not improvement. Both readings sit in this file.
Claim 9 · Amber. Approved language. "Supports healthy circulation."
Evidence. Across 70 trials, EPA+DHA lowers systolic pressure 1.52 mmHg and diastolic 0.99 mmHg against placebo, with a smaller significant effect in normotensive subjects [14]. The 71-trial dose-response analysis models significant reductions from 1 g/day with the optimum between 2 and 3 g/day [15], and the labeled 3.24 g daily intake sits just above that optimum.
Limitations. The under-45 subgroup is null [15] and DO-HEALTH was null at 1 g/day in 2157 healthy adults aged 70 and over [16]. Blood pressure is a surrogate at some distance from a circulation promise, so the narrative holds the claim at Amber under SOP 10.4 from a composite inside the Green band, and wording that migrates toward blood-pressure effects leaves the structure/function boundary.
Claim 10 · Amber. Approved language. None of its own. The endpoint is carried by Claim 3's wording.
Evidence. The elasticity record is split: a 10-trial meta-analysis finds improved pulse wave velocity (g = 0.33) and arterial compliance (g = 0.48) [17], the 2026 meta-analysis finds no PWV effect across 0.3 to 4.7 g/day [18], and MARINA was null on arterial stiffness at doses to 1.8 g/day [5].
Limitations. A standalone elasticity wording carries more exposure than the broader vessel claim on the same evidence, and both readings of the split record sit in this file.
Claim 4 · Amber. Approved language. "Supports muscle health."
Evidence. The anchor trial enrolled 60 healthy adults aged 60 to 85 for six months and increased thigh muscle volume 3.6% (95% CI 0.2 to 7.0), handgrip strength 2.3 kg, and one-repetition-maximum strength 4.0% [6]. Meta-analysis in the elderly places the muscle-mass benefit above 2 g/day [8]. The labeled 3.24 g daily intake is 96% of the anchor dose and above that threshold, so Dose Ratio scores 2.
Limitations. The meta-analysis restricted to healthy adults finds no effect on muscle mass or function, with only a very small strength effect (SMD 0.12) [7], a contradiction that caps the claim at Amber (SOP 8.2). The anchor evidence is adults 60 and over, and at a single serving the claim reverts to Red.
Claim 5 · Amber. Approved language. "Supports a healthy inflammatory response."
Evidence. The 68-trial meta-analysis finds significant CRP and TNF-alpha reductions in its healthy subgroup with a dose-response for EPA on CRP [9], and the labeled 3.24 g daily intake sits inside the 2 to 3.4 g range where the effect appears.
Limitations. The null record sits on both sides of the dose: 1400 mg/day for 18 weeks in 261 healthy adults did not change CRP or IL-6 [10], and the crossover trial was null on CRP, IL-6, and TNF-alpha at both 0.85 and 3.4 g/day [11]. The 3.4 g arm is a null at the aligned dose and caps the claim at Amber (SOP 8.2), against which the documented counterweight is 26 adults versus 68 pooled trials. At a single serving the claim reverts to Red.
Claim 7 · Green. Approved language. "Helps maintain healthy triglyceride levels already within the normal range."
Evidence. The pooled reduction across 171 randomized placebo-controlled trials is 0.368 mmol/L (95% CI 0.309 to 0.427) [12]. The dose-response trial lowered triglycerides 27% at 3.4 g/day EPA+DHA (P = 0.002) and did not reach significance at 0.85 g/day [11]. The labeled 3240 mg daily intake sits at 95% of the effective arm, Dose Ratio scores 2, and the composite is exactly 22.
Limitations. The claim depends on delivered dose. The specification guarantees release minimums at or above label claim with intentional overage, and the open question is assay at end of shelf life (Section 06).
Claim 8 · Red. Approved language. None.
Evidence. The Cochrane review of 86 trials finds little or no effect on lipids apart from triglycerides [2], and the direction on LDL is adverse: pooled LDL rises 0.150 mmol/L (95% CI 0.058 to 0.243) [12], an effect attributed to DHA (LDL +7.23 mg/dL, while EPA does not raise LDL) [13].
Limitations. Nothing through dose changes this. An EPA-only composition avoids the LDL rise but does not improve cholesterol at any dose.
Claim 11 · Amber. Approved language. "EPA-rich omega-3 to support a healthy mood."
Evidence. Supplements with EPA at or above 60% of EPA+DHA were effective (15 trials, 916 participants, effect size 0.532) while supplements below that ratio were not [19], and EPA-major formulations showed benefit across 26 studies and 2160 participants (SMD -1.03) [20]. The oil is 80% EPA and the labeled daily intake carries 1960 mg EPA in excess of DHA, inside the effective range.
Limitations. Every pooled trial enrolled participants with a depressive episode, a Disease-State cohort under SOP Section 7, so the claim holds at Amber regardless of its composite of 24. The submitted enhancement framing promises more than the record carries, and support framing is the form the evidence can hold.
Claim 12 · Red. Approved language. A content statement under SOP 10.5: "Contains 320 mg DHA per serving."
Evidence. The positive evidence is one trial: 485 adults aged 55 and over with age-related cognitive decline took 900 mg/day DHA for 24 weeks and made fewer paired-associate learning errors than placebo [21]. The labeled daily intake delivers 640 mg DHA, about 70% of that dose, so Dose Ratio scores 1 and forces Red (SOP 10.3).
Limitations. A Cochrane review of three trials in 4080 cognitively healthy adults found no benefit on cognitive function (MMSE mean difference -0.07, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.10) [22], a contradiction that caps at Amber on its own. DHA at 900 mg per day or above would be required, which this oil cannot deliver at the labeled serving count.
This is a public sample on a demonstration formula with real, verified literature: all twenty-three citations were opened against PubMed on the record date, negative evidence was searched per endpoint, and the citation verification log is on file. A client record additionally carries the full negative-evidence coverage map.
Notice. Field Guide is a trademark of Dryad Research. This document is a public sample prepared on a demonstration formula to illustrate the Field Guide procedure, and it is offered as reference material. It is not legal, regulatory, or medical advice, it is not a determination by any government agency, and no client relationship arises from reading it. Tier assignments are Dryad Research's evidence assessments under the Field Guide procedure, revision 1.4, as of the verification date and change as evidence changes. Dryad Research gives no warranty as to accuracy or completeness and accepts no liability for reliance. Corrections are welcome at hello@dryadresearch.com.
Detachable methodology exhibit. One row per claim, numbered as in the Section 04 matrix. D1 Dose Ratio, D2 Evidence Depth, D3 Mechanistic Continuity, D4 Ingredient Category Norms, D5 Preclinical Evidence Quality, each scored 1 to 3 and weighted per SOP Section 5 (Dose Ratio 3x, Evidence Depth 2x, Mechanistic Continuity 2x, Category Norms 1x, Preclinical Quality 1x). Score is the weighted composite out of 27. A score of 22 to 27 with no dimension at 1 is Green-eligible, 13 to 21 is Amber, and 9 to 12 is Red. The endpoint gate records whether the cited studies measured the claimed endpoint itself (Direct), an accepted intermediate marker (Surrogate), or neither (Tangential). The cohort gate records whether the studied populations match the product's intended consumers (Aligned), differ from them but plausibly extend (Translatable), or were enrolled for a diagnosed condition (Disease-State). Gates cap the tier and never add to it. Anchors counts independent human intervention studies assessed at or near the formulated dose, not trials pooled in a cited meta-analysis. Trial match records whether the marketed formulation matches the products studied in those anchors, and a mismatch caps Evidence Depth at 2.
| # | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | Score | Endpoint gate | Cohort gate | Anchors | Trial match | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 24 | Surrogate | Translatable | 2 | Yes | Amber |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | Tangential | Translatable | 1 | Yes | Red |
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 21 | Surrogate | Translatable | 2 | Yes | Amber |
| 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 18 | Direct | Translatable | 2 | Yes | Amber |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 18 | Direct | Translatable | 2 | Yes | Amber |
| 6 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 24 | Surrogate | Translatable | 2 | Yes | Red |
| 7 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 22 | Direct | Translatable | 2 | Yes | Green |
| 8 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | Direct | Translatable | 2 | Yes | Red |
| 9 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 24 | Surrogate | Translatable | 3 | Yes | Amber |
| 10 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 21 | Direct | Translatable | 3 | Yes | Amber |
| 11 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 24 | Direct | Disease-State | 2 | Yes | Amber |
| 12 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 15 | Direct | Translatable | 2 | Yes | Red |
Declared tiers sit at or below the computed ceiling on every claim. Claim 1 is capped at Amber by a contradictory meta-analysis (SOP 8.2), documented in Section 5.1. Claims 6 and 9 are narrative downgrades under SOP 10.4, which permits downward override only. The dimension weighting and tier bands shown are those of Field Guide revision 1.4 and are revised as the procedure evolves.