Nerve Recovery Max, a ten-ingredient capsule for everyday nerve comfort

Check 01

What this panel does right, and why that comes first

This panel hides nothing. There is no proprietary blend, and every one of the ten things declared on it carries its own printed amount. That is genuinely rare and it is said first. Which is also why the single line that is wrong matters as much as it does.

Tap to enlarge

Read it from the top. The serving is 2 Capsules and the container holds 30. Then four nutrient lines, each with a weight and a percentage of the Daily Value against it. Then six more ingredients, each with a weight of its own and the panel’s double asterisk where a percentage would go. Then the footnote, as printed: ** Daily Value (DV) not established.

What is not there is the thing that usually takes a page of its own. There is no proprietary blend. No group of ingredients shares a single declared weight, so no figure on this site has to be derived from an ordering rule, and nothing here is a maximum standing in for an amount. The manufacturer printed ten amounts and kept none of them back. This page credits that before it checks anything, because a page that only ever finds fault is not checking a label. It is campaigning, and a reader cannot tell the difference between a campaign and a check unless the check sometimes comes out clean.

Point 1: 1Point 2: 2Point 3: 3Point 4: 4

Select a number on the label, or use the arrow keys.

01The four vitamin lines

Four nutrients with a Daily Value, each with a printed amount and a printed percentage. Three of the percentages recompute. Check 02 is the fourth.

02The six weight-only lines

Six more ingredients, each with its own printed milligram figure and the panel’s double asterisk in the percentage column, because no Daily Value is established for any of them.

03No proprietary blend

There is no blend line on this panel and no group of ingredients sharing one weight. That is the single most useful thing about it.

04The Distributed By block

The bottle reads Nerve Recovery Max, Akron, OH 44301 with the number (888) 869-0440. That is not this site and not the order desk.

The Other Ingredients line reads: Hypromellose (vegetable capsule), Oat Fiber Powder, Brown Rice Flour, Magnesium Stearate, Silicon Dioxide. 5 substances, none of them nutrients and none of them carrying an amount, which is the ordinary format. The first of them is the capsule itself. The panel also prints its botanical names with the plant part in brackets, which is more specific than many labels manage: the ashwagandha line names the root, the turmeric line names the root, and the broccoli line is reproduced on this site exactly as it is printed on the bottle, down to the parenthetical.

That is the whole instruction, and it comes from the Supplement Facts panel. A serving size, a count, and nothing else. There is no frequency, no time of day, no duration and no missed-dose instruction, so this site prints none of those either. A serving is 2 capsules and the bottle holds 30 servings, so a bottle is 30 days at one serving a day - and the panel does not say to take one serving a day. That is the arithmetic, and the gap in it, together. Where the label is silent this site is silent: how to take it says so at greater length rather than filling the gap, and the label page prints the panel again with every line annotated.

One more thing on this panel belongs in a check of it rather than in a footnote. The bottle reads Nerve Recovery Max, Akron, OH 44301 with the number (888) 869-0440. That is not this site and not the order desk. For anything to do with an order placed here, call +1 (302) 200-3480.

Check 02

The one line that is wrong: Vitamin B6 at 1.7 mcg and 100%

Everything in Check 01 is why this matters. A panel that prints ten amounts and hides nothing is asking to be read closely, and read closely it has one line on it that cannot be right.

The panel prints Vitamin B6 (as Pyridoxine hydrochloride) at 1.7 mcg, with 100% in the percentage column. Two federal sentences govern that line. The first is the reference table itself. 21 CFR 101.9(c)(8)(iv) lists vitamin B6 with its unit and its Daily Value, and the entry reads “Vitamin B6 | Milligrams (mg) | 1.7” ^{21 CFR 101.9} FDA publishes the same figure in plain language on its own Daily Value page: “1.7mg” ^FDA NIH ODS states it as a sentence: “The DV for vitamin B6 is 1.7 mg for adults and children age 4 years and older” ^{NIH ODS}.

The second sentence is the one that binds a supplement panel to that table. 21 CFR 101.36(b)(2)(ii)(B) requires the nutrients on a Supplement Facts panel to be declared “using the units of measurement and the levels of significance given in § 101.9(c)(8)(iv)” ^{21 CFR 101.36}. So the unit for this line is not a house choice. It is milligrams, because the table says milligrams, and the panel is bound to the table.

Now the arithmetic, which is one division. 1.7 mcg is one thousandth of 1.7 mg, because a microgram is one thousandth of a milligram. Against a Daily Value of 1.7 mg, 1.7 mcg is 0.1%. 21 CFR 101.36(b)(2)(iii)(C) sets the rounding: “The percentages based on RDI’s and on DRV’s shall be expressed to the nearest whole percent” ^{21 CFR 101.36}. To the nearest whole percent, 0.1% is 0%. The panel prints 100%.

Be precise about what that is and what it is not. It is a labelling finding. It is not a recall, not an enforcement action, not a safety test and not a statement that anything in the bottle is harmful. Nobody is hurt by a microgram of vitamin B6. What the line tells a reader is narrower and more useful: one of the four percentages on this panel was not produced by working from 21 CFR 101.9(c)(8)(iv), and that is worth knowing before trusting any other figure on the bottle to be exact.

It also has a second consequence, and that one is not narrow at all. A reader who sees 100% of the Daily Value for a B vitamin on a nerve product may reasonably conclude their B6 is covered, and act on it. Check 05 is about what that conclusion costs.

Check 03

What proves it is a typo: the other three recompute exactly

A single wrong percentage could be a different convention, a different reference table or a different reading of the rule. On this panel it is none of those, and the reason is the three lines beside it.

Every other nutrient on this panel comes out to the percent. Not approximately, and not within a point. Exactly the figure printed, using the Daily Value FDA publishes and the rounding 21 CFR 101.36(b)(2)(iii)(C) requires: “The percentages based on RDI’s and on DRV’s shall be expressed to the nearest whole percent” ^{21 CFR 101.36}

Read the last two columns together. Vitamin D3 at 20 mcg against a 20 mcg Daily Value is 100%, and the panel prints 100%. Folate at 383 mcg DFE against 400 mcg DFE is 95.75%, which rounds to 96%, and the panel prints 96%. Vitamin B12 at 2 mcg against 2.4 mcg is 83.33%, which rounds to 83%, and the panel prints 83%. Three for three.

That is what makes the B6 line a typo rather than a convention. Somebody on this project had the reference table open and used it correctly three times in a row, including on the hardest line of the four. A panel produced by someone working from a different table, or from no table, does not get three of four right to the percent and miss the fourth by a factor of 1,000. The error is in one unit on one line, and the rest of the column is evidence of care.

Check 04

The folate line is right, and it is the best-executed line on the panel

This check finds nothing wrong. It is here because the folate line is the one place on this label where the manufacturer did something that takes real care, and a page that reported only the failures would have hidden it.

The panel prints Folate at 383 mcg DFE, with 230 mcg folic acid in the parenthetical and 96% in the percentage column. Those are three different numbers describing one ingredient, and they have to agree with each other through a conversion factor that the regulation sets out in a footnote rather than in the table.

The factor is in footnote 7 to the table at 21 CFR 101.9(c)(8)(iv), and it reads: “DFE = Dietary Folate Equivalents; 1 DFE = 1 mcg naturally occurring folate = 0.6 mcg folic acid.” ^{21 CFR 101.9} Folic acid is the synthetic form, and it is absorbed more completely than the folate in food, so the regulation converts it: a microgram of folic acid counts as more than a microgram of dietary folate equivalents. Divide rather than multiply. 230 divided by 0.6 is 383.33, and to the whole microgram that is 383 mcg DFE, which is exactly what the panel prints.

Then the percentage. 383 mcg DFE against the 400 mcg DFE Daily Value is 95.75%, which to the nearest whole percent is 96%. The panel prints 96%. Both halves of the line are right, and the second one is right only because the first one was.

• The parenthetical is the harder half. A label may print a folate figure in DFE and say nothing about the form. This one names the form and the amount of it, which is what lets a reader check the conversion rather than take it on trust.
• The rounding is in the right direction. 383.33 to the whole microgram is 383, not 384. Rounding a folate figure up is the ordinary way this line goes wrong, and it did not go wrong here.
• It is the only line on the panel with two steps in it. The other three vitamins are one division each. This one is a conversion and then a division, and both came out.

So this page does not present the folate line as an error, anywhere, and no other page on this site does either. It is correct and it is well executed, and saying so is the only thing that makes the finding in Check 02 worth reading. A desk that calls every line a defect has told the reader nothing about any of them.

Check 05

The part that matters most: Vitamin B6, this condition, and what the UL exists for

Read the next part carefully, because it is the one place on this page where a careless sentence would do real harm. Nothing here says this bottle will damage anybody’s nerves, and nothing here implies it. The intended 1.7 mg is about one 59th of the Tolerable Upper Intake Level, and the amount actually printed is a thousandth of that again. The risk in this part belongs to a habit, not to a capsule.

Here is why the B6 line is not just a labelling slip on this particular product. This is a nerve-comfort supplement, and vitamin B6 is the one ingredient on its panel that federal sources affirmatively connect to causing the kind of problem the product is sold to help with. NIH ODS puts it to consumers in one sentence: “taking high amounts of vitamin B6 from supplements for a year or longer can cause severe nerve damage” ^{NIH ODS}, “leading people to lose control of their bodily movements” ^{NIH ODS}. In its professional fact sheet it gives the clinical detail: “chronic administration of 1–6 g oral pyridoxine per day for 12–40 months can cause severe and progressive sensory neuropathy” ^{NIH ODS}.

That is why a Tolerable Upper Intake Level exists for this vitamin at all. NIH ODS describes how the figure was set: “the FNB halved the dose used in these studies to establish a UL of 100 mg/day for adults” ^{NIH ODS}. So the ceiling for adults is 100 mg a day, and it was set by halving the lowest dose in the studies that produced the harm.

The scale, stated plainly, because the scale is the whole point

The intended amount on this label is 1.7 mg, which is inside the ordinary adult intake NIH ODS publishes of 1.3 to 2.0 mg a day. Against the 100 mg Upper Intake Level, 1.7 mg is about one 59th of the ceiling. And the amount actually printed on the panel, 1.7 mcg, is one thousandth of that again, which is a negligible quantity of vitamin B6 by any reading. Neither figure is anywhere near the doses in the harm literature, and this page does not suggest otherwise. Nerve Recovery Max is not going to damage anybody’s nerves through its vitamin B6 content, and no sentence on this site says or implies that it will.

The honest point is a different one, and it is about a habit rather than a bottle. A reader with numb feet who is told by a label that their B6 is at 100% of the Daily Value has been given a reason to stop thinking about B6. A reader who is told the same thing by three labels, and adds a B-complex on top because B vitamins are good for nerves, is stacking a nutrient whose upper limit exists specifically because too much of it over months causes the symptom they are treating. The number of products it takes to reach 100 mg a day is small. That is the person this context protects, and it is the reason both halves of this check travel together everywhere on this site.

The cautions page carries the rest of what the sources publish about every ingredient here, and who it is for is the same question from the reader’s side. Neither page makes a claim about this formula, because No published trial on the finished Nerve Recovery Max formula was supplied with this stock and none appears in any source this desk opened. Every reference on this page describes a single named ingredient, a category of ingredients, or a labelling regulation. That is a different thing from testing this capsule.

Check 06

The dose gaps, and the one amount that lands

Three of the six weight-only ingredients have a federal figure to be compared with. The comparison is published with the agency’s own hedge attached in every case, and one of the three comes out in the product’s favour.

Start with that one, because it is the one a sales page would have led with and this label never mentions. Benfotiamine at 150 mg per serving sits inside a range a federal source publishes for this exact condition. NIH ODS, in its thiamin fact sheet, reports: “Three studies found that, compared to placebo, 120–900 mg/day benfotiamine with or without other B-vitamins decreased the severity of neuropathy symptoms” ^{NIH ODS}. 150 mg is inside 120 to 900 mg a day. That is the one amount on this panel that lands, and it is worth saying as plainly as the gaps are. In the same breath the same fact sheet asks for better evidence: “Well-designed studies with larger sample sizes and longer durations are required” ^{NIH ODS}. Both sentences are from the same paragraph and both are printed here.

Then the two that fall short, in different ways. Alpha Lipoic Acid at 400 mg sits below the 600 mg a day used in trials of 6 months to 4 years in people with diabetic polyneuropathy ^{NIH ODS}. NCCIH is the one federal page this desk opened that states a neuropathy conclusion for any ingredient on this label, and it states it with a hedge inside the sentence: “alpha-lipoic acid might be helpful for reducing pain associated with diabetic neuropathy” ^NCCIH. The hedge is not rhetorical. The same page gives the split: “3 studies found improvements in symptoms, and 5 studies did not.” ^NCCIH So the conclusion is qualified at source, the studied amount is 600 mg a day, and the panel prints 400 mg.

Acetyl L-Carnitine at 50 mg is the one that needs the most care, and the care is not about the size of the gap. NIH ODS publishes doses for acetyl-L-carnitine of 1 to 3 grams a day ^{NIH ODS}, and those doses are for trials in Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias. NIH ODS does not mention neuropathy of any kind on its carnitine page. The only doses it publishes are for a different condition entirely. The finding attached to them is also qualified: “The effects of acetyl-L-carnitine supplements in Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia remain unclear” ^{NIH ODS}. Setting 50 mg against 1 to 3 grams a day is therefore a comparison across two different conditions, and this page states that rather than letting the ratio stand on its own.

The remaining three weight-only ingredients have no federal dose to be compared with at all: ashwagandha powder, broccoli powder and turmeric powder. That is not a criticism of the amounts printed beside them. It means the printed amount is the whole of what can be said, and Check 07 is about what that silence covers. The ingredients page sets each of the ten against its own source, one card at a time.

Check 07

Federal silence: six of the ten, and one with no federal record at all

Six of the ten things this label declares are addressed by no federal source this desk opened in connection with nerve pain. That is not a verdict on them and it must not be read as one. It is the state of what could be read, and on this label it is the commonest fact there is.

Each of the six was actively checked against the complete NCCIH index, the NIH ODS fact-sheet list, NIDDK’s own peripheral neuropathy page and FDA’s Dietary Supplement Ingredient Directory, rather than searched for once and missed. And a note on method: this site never cites PubMed or PMC as a federal finding. The National Library of Medicine runs the index; the papers in it are third-party work, and an index entry is not a federal position.

The one with no federal record of any kind

Broccoli Powder (Brassica Oleracea)(leaf) is the outlier on this panel and it deserves its own paragraph. No federal fact sheet, no efficacy finding, no dose and no safety page exists for broccoli powder at all. The only federal records are grant abstracts, which are funding documents, and third-party label transcriptions in a database. Neither is a finding. A grant abstract records that money was awarded to ask a question. It is not an answer to the question, and a label transcription in a federal database is a copy of a label, not a finding about one. The panel prints 25 mg of it per serving, and that printed figure is the entire quantity of published information about this ingredient in this product.

The two with a finding, a safety list and no dose

Ashwagandha and turmeric both have an NCCIH page, and neither page carries a dose or mentions nerve pain. On ashwagandha, NCCIH: “There isn’t enough evidence to determine if ashwagandha is helpful for any other health conditions” ^NCCIH. And a caution that belongs beside it: “Although it is rare, there have been a number of cases that link liver injury to ashwagandha supplements.” ^NCCIH On turmeric, NCCIH: “We don’t know enough to definitively conclude if turmeric or curcumin is beneficial for any health purposes.” ^NCCIH With the same kind of caution attached: “liver damage has been reported in some people who have consumed these bioavailable formulations.” ^NCCIH The only pain condition discussed on the turmeric page is knee osteoarthritis, which is not what this product is sold for.

The two vitamins where the silence is easy to misread

Vitamin B12 is the line a reader is most likely to get wrong, so this page is explicit about it. The words neuropathy and nerve damage never appear on the NIH ODS vitamin B12 page. Numbness and tingling do appear, and they appear as symptoms of a deficiency: “Neurological changes, such as numbness and tingling in the hands and feet, can also occur” ^{NIH ODS}. That is a different claim from a finding that supplemental B12 relieves nerve pain, and this site never runs the two together. On the form, which labels often lean on, NIH ODS is blunt: “No evidence indicates that absorption rates of vitamin B12 in supplements vary by form of the vitamin.” ^{NIH ODS} Vitamin D3 is the second: No federal source this desk opened connects vitamin D to neuropathy or nerve pain.

Those six entries are not a quality score and nothing on this site treats them as one. What they record is the kind of statement the documents support, which is a different and more useful thing than a verdict. The ingredients page prints all ten as cards, the printed amount on the front and the source on the back.

No published trial on the finished Nerve Recovery Max formula was supplied with this stock and none appears in any source this desk opened. Every reference on this page describes a single named ingredient, a category of ingredients, or a labelling regulation. That is a different thing from testing this capsule.

Check 08

What the agency that owns this condition actually says

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy is NIDDK’s subject. It publishes the patient page, it defines the condition, and it is the federal body a reader with numb feet is most likely to be pointed at by a clinician. On supplements it has one sentence, and this site prints it wherever it is relevant.

Read what that sentence is and what it is not. It is not a finding that supplements do not work. It is not a warning, and it is not a prohibition. It is an absence of a recommendation from the agency best placed to make one, published by that agency in its own words. An absence of a recommendation is a weaker thing than a negative finding and a much weaker thing than an endorsement, and the only honest way to report it is to quote it and stop.

NIDDK follows it with the sentence this site treats as the most important one on the page: “For safety reasons, talk with your doctor before using supplements or any complementary or alternative medicines.” ^NIDDK That is not boilerplate here. Peripheral neuropathy has causes that need diagnosing and some of them are treatable. A reader who buys a capsule instead of keeping an appointment has made the one decision this page would most like to prevent, and no sentence on this site encourages it.

• This page promises no result. Nothing on this site says Nerve Recovery Max will reduce pain, restore sensation, repair a nerve or change a test result, because nothing supplied with this stock supports a claim of any kind and no trial on the formula exists to support one.
• This page promises no timeline. No material supplied with this stock states one, and the timeline page says so at length rather than inventing a number of weeks.
• This page is not a diagnosis and not a substitute for one. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

One of the supplied reviews makes the point better than this desk can. Marcy G.’s entry reads “Wanted five-day relief like the headline.” No five-day claim appears in any material supplied with this stock, and this site makes no claim about a timeline at all. A reader who went looking for a five-day promise and did not find one on this site found the right site. There is no such claim here to find.

Check 09

The reviews, what recomputes in them, and what does not

Ten named reviews with portraits, a score of 4.4 on a 5-point scale, a written count of 1,103 and an order figure of 4,691 were supplied to this desk as part of a stock pack. All ten are published on the reviews page, in full and labelled. None of them can be verified: no order ID, no purchase record and no contact details came with any of it.

And the first thing to say about it is that it reconciles. Multiply each value by its share, add the five products and divide by 100, and the supplied distribution averages 4.42. The figure published beside it is 4.4. The difference is 0.02, which is rounding and nothing else, and the shares add to 100 per cent so nothing is missing from the table. This desk checked it expecting a gap and did not find one. A page that only ever finds fault is not checking anything, so the clean result is printed with the same prominence a failure would have had.

What does not survive the same treatment is the prose. The entries share a structure and they share objects, and the sharing is checkable without knowing anything about who wrote them:

This desk cannot prove who wrote those entries and does not claim to. What that pattern shows is assembly, not authorship. It does not establish that nobody wrote them, it does not establish who assembled them, and it is not a finding about the formula. It is the kind of thing that does not happen when ten people write about a bottle independently:

• The same dog leash is the daily cue in one entry and the shelf the bottle lives on in another, 600 miles apart.

Two things the supplied reviews say that the supplied sales material does not

• A reviewer says the sales page had no panel. Sharon L.’s entry reads “Video page had no panel. I followed the bottle that arrived.” The material supplied to this desk names no ingredients either. The panel on this site was transcribed from the bottle.
• A reviewer answers a headline this desk never saw. Marcy G.’s entry reads “Wanted five-day relief like the headline.” No five-day claim appears in any material supplied with this stock, and this site makes no claim about a timeline at all.

The same rule governs the byline at the top of this page. A real, living, named physician was supplied with this stock as having reviewed every page, every post, the bottle and the ingredients. No clinician review was supplied with this stock, and this site will not borrow a name to fill the slot. An empty slot is checkable. A name without a review is not. The name appears nowhere on this site and in no structured data. The about page sets out the whole method.

Check 10

Buying it, with no price and no guarantee term published

This is the check that has nothing to compute. No price and no guarantee term is published in any material supplied with this stock, so this page prints neither. Where a figure would normally sit, the fact that there is no figure sits instead.

That is unusual enough to be worth stating as a finding of its own, because it runs the opposite way to everything above. The label on this product discloses every milligram of every one of the ten things in it. The sales material supplied with it discloses neither the price nor the terms of the guarantee. One document is more open than most and the other is closed, and both facts are published here rather than averaged into a single impression of the seller.

Supplied, not verified

The seller's own ingredient panel, as supplied

The panel transcribed at the top of this page was read off the bottle. Sharon L.’s entry reads “Video page had no panel. I followed the bottle that arrived.” The material supplied to this desk names no ingredients either. The panel on this site was transcribed from the bottle.

Reproduced from the stock pack supplied with this product; not verified here.

What this page can tell you instead

• What a bottle holds. 60 capsules, 30 servings of 2 capsules. At one serving a day that is 30 days, and the panel does not say to take one serving a day.
• Where the order is formed. You are being taken to the Nerve Recovery Max order page, where the order is formed and the price is confirmed before you pay. This site does not take payment and does not set the price.
• Who to call about an order you have placed. +1 (302) 200-3480. Order support - tracking, changes and refunds. Opening hours for that desk are not published, and this site does not borrow the website desk’s hours to fill the gap.
• Where a return goes. 9 West 57th Street, Floor 31, New York, NY 10019, USA. Send full name, email address and order ID, and note that the buyer pays return shipping, and should use a tracked service. Refunds take 3 to 5 business days after they credit the return, then 5 to 10 days for the card to show it.
• What the website desk can and cannot do. [email protected] answers website desk - pages, typos, privacy and press from Monday to Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm ET. It cannot see orders.

Where the supplied material and the label disagree

The label wins, every time. The disagreement is published rather than resolved in silence, because a reader who was shown only the winner would have no way to check the call.

In one paragraph

Set against what it was obliged to publish, this label does better than most. There is no proprietary blend, all ten declared things carry their own printed amount, the plant part is named for each botanical, and three of the four Daily Value percentages recompute exactly, including the folate line, which takes two steps and gets both of them right. Against that: one line, Vitamin B6 (as Pyridoxine hydrochloride), prints 1.7 mcg where the regulation sets the unit at milligrams, and 100% where the printed amount produces 0%; six of the ten are addressed by no federal source this desk opened in connection with nerve pain, and one of those has no federal record of any kind; two of the three ingredients with a federal dose to compare sit below it, and the third sits inside its range; and no price and no guarantee term is published anywhere. If you are buying it, buy it knowing those things. And if you are already taking another B vitamin, or you have numbness you have not had looked at, read the cautions page and talk to a doctor before you order rather than after.