Guide
What a proprietary blend is, and why this label does not have one
A proprietary blend is one declared weight standing in for several named ingredients, and it is legal. What it cannot withhold is the order: 21 CFR 101.36(c)(2) requires descending order of predominance by weight, so the ingredient at position n cannot exceed the blend total divided by n, and every figure of that kind is a maximum rather than a measurement. Nerve Recovery Max has no proprietary blend. All ten declared things on its panel carry their own printed amount. This page runs the arithmetic anyway, over the six lines here with a printed weight and no established Daily Value, because it is the one circumstance where the ceiling can be set beside the answer.
By the Mynerverecoverymax Editorial Desk · Last updated October 12, 2026
The method in four lines
Read time under a minute- A blend hides the weights, not the order. 21 CFR 101.36(c)(2) requires descending order of predominance by weight.
- So position n of a blend weighing T is at most T divided by n. Every figure of that kind is a maximum and never an amount.
- Nerve Recovery Max has no proprietary blend. All ten declared things carry their own printed amount, so none of that arithmetic is needed here.
- Run over the six unvalued lines here, the bounds are loose by factors of between 1.7 and 6.8. Which is what a ceiling is.
What a proprietary blend withholds, and what it cannot
A proprietary blend is one weight standing in for several ingredients. It is legal, it is common, and it is the largest thing a label can withhold while still being a complete label.
What a blend line gives you
One number: the combined weight of everything indented beneath it. It bounds the group as a whole.
What it withholds
Every individual weight. A reader cannot tell whether one name is almost all of the total or almost none of it.
What it cannot withhold
The order. 21 CFR 101.36(c)(2) requires descending order of predominance by weight.
Begin with what this page is for, because it is unusual. Nerve Recovery Max has no proprietary blend. All ten declared things on its panel carry their own printed amount, so nothing below is needed to read this bottle. It is here because the next bottle a reader picks up very likely does have one, and because running the method over a panel whose answers are printed is the only way to show what a blend costs a reader.
The ordering rule, and the only bound it gives
One requirement in the labelling regulation turns a blend from a closed box into something a reader can do arithmetic on, and it is a requirement about sequence rather than about size.
21 CFR 101.36(c)(2) requires the ingredients in a proprietary blend to be declared in descending order of predominance by weight 21 CFR 101.36. Nothing in that rule says how much of anything is present. What it says is that the name above weighs at least as much as the name below.
From that single fact one bound follows. If the list runs from heaviest to lightest and the whole blend weighs T, the ingredient in position n cannot weigh more than T divided by n. The ingredients above it are each at least as heavy, so n copies of its own weight would already exceed the total. A figure of that kind is a ceiling. It is the most the ingredient could possibly weigh, never the amount in the capsule, and the real weight can be very much smaller.
Its strength runs the wrong way round. At the top of the list the first name is held to the blend total restated, which rules nothing out. It says most at the foot.
Every federal sentence on this site is reproduced verbatim from a page this desk opened. The descending-order requirement is described above rather than quoted, because this panel has no blend line for it to govern.
The arithmetic a blend forces, worked where the answer is known
Here is the method run over a real panel. The six lines below are not a blend and never were. They are the six ingredients on this label with a printed weight and no established Daily Value, and the point of the table is the last two columns.
Suppose a manufacturer had taken those lines, added them up and printed the total as a single proprietary blend. The total would be 675 mg, because that is what the six printed amounts come to. A reader would then have the total, the order, and nothing else.
| Rank | Ingredient | The division | A blend would allow | The panel prints | How loose the bound is |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Alpha Lipoic Acid | 675 ÷ 1 | 675 mg or less | 400 mg | 1.7 times the amount |
| 02 | Benfotiamine | 675 ÷ 2 | 338 mg or less | 150 mg | 2.3 times the amount |
| 03 | Acetyl L-Carnitine | 675 ÷ 3 | 225 mg or less | 50 mg | 4.5 times the amount |
| 04 | Ashwagandha Powder | 675 ÷ 4 | 169 mg or less | 25 mg | 6.8 times the amount |
| 05 | Broccoli Powder | 675 ÷ 5 | 135 mg or less | 25 mg | 5.4 times the amount |
| 06 | Turmeric Powder | 675 ÷ 6 | 113 mg or less | 25 mg | 4.5 times the amount |
Read the fourth column against the fifth. Every ceiling is larger than the amount, and most are very much larger. At the top the bound is 1.7 times the real weight; at its worst here, more than 6.8 times. That is what a maximum is.
The rounding goes up, because a bound rounded down would claim the label permits less than it does. And where two lines carry the same weight, as three do here, their sequence is not determined by predominance at all.
10 amounts, printed, with no proprietary blend. A serving is 2 capsules and the bottle holds 30 of them.
- 10 amounts printed, none in a blend
- 2 capsules a serving, 30 servings a bottle
- Price and terms shown at checkout, before you pay
Why none of that applies to this bottle
The table above is a demonstration, not a reading of this label. On the panel in front of this desk there is no total to divide and no position to divide it by.
- Ten declared things, ten printed amounts. Every line carries its own figure.
- No proprietary blend. No group of ingredients shares a declared weight.
- Four percentage lines, all four checkable. Against the table at 21 CFR 101.9(c)(8)(iv), with one division each.
- Six weights with a double asterisk and the footnote printed underneath. ** Daily Value (DV) not established.
The consequence runs through every page on this site. No sentence here carries the words at most about an ingredient weight. The ingredients page gives each of the ten declared things its printed figure, and the label page prints the panel line for line.
It also changes what the gaps are: a frequency or a time of day, a duration, extract ratios and standardisation and a certificate of analysis. That list does not include a single ingredient weight, which on a blend label is usually the whole of it.
What an open panel actually buys a reader
The difference is not abstract. It decides which questions can be asked at all, and here it turns three of the six unvalued lines into comparisons rather than guesses.
Lets you ask whether the group as a whole is plausible
With one total and an order, the only honest question is about the group. A reader can bound each name from above and nothing further.
Lets you ask whether each amount matches a published figure
Three of the six weights here can be held against a published federal figure. Alpha Lipoic Acid is printed at 400 mg against 600 mg a day. Benfotiamine is printed at 150 mg, inside the 120 to 900 mg a day NIH ODS publishes. Acetyl L-Carnitine is printed at 50 mg against 1 to 3 grams a day, which NIH ODS publishes only for trials in Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.
Can tell you whether the formula works
An open panel is not a trial, and openness is not accuracy either, which is why the finding on this site is a wrong unit on a line whose amount was printed in full.
The third tab keeps this page honest. An open panel is not a verdict on the formula, and six of the ten declared things are addressed by no federal source this desk opened. This site never cites PubMed or PMC as a federal finding: the National Library of Medicine runs that index, and an entry in it is not an agency position.
The one amount here that lands inside a published federal range
Benfotiamine is printed at 150 mg a serving, and NIH ODS 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 That is said as plainly as the gaps are. The same paragraph asks for better evidence: “Well-designed studies with larger sample sizes and longer durations are required” NIH ODS
Four things the method cannot do, wherever it is used
The method is worth having because its limits are as clear as its results. Here they are, so nobody has to find them out on a bottle that matters.
A ceiling is not an amount
It is the most an ingredient could weigh if the order is the only constraint. Below, one bound is off by a factor of more than 6.8.
Ceilings cannot be added
Each is a separate worst case from the same total, so adding them exceeds the blend.
It is weakest where readers want it most
The first name is held only to the blend total, which rules nothing out.
It says nothing about absence
A low ceiling does not show that an ingredient is present in a small amount. It bounds in one direction only.
Run it on any panel that prints a blend: find the total, count the positions, look for a figure inside the list, and divide. A printed amount inside the blend, or a standardisation percentage, would tighten the bounds; printing every amount, as here, removes the method rather than tightening it. The panel-reading guide applies the same scepticism to the column that is printed on this panel.
NIDDK owns this condition and publishes the sentence these pages treat as the most important on them: “For safety reasons, talk with your doctor before using supplements or any complementary or alternative medicines.” NIDDK Peripheral neuropathy has causes that need diagnosing, and some of them are treatable.
A label that prints its amounts, and one line that is still wrong
This panel hides nothing, which is rarer than it should be, and it is why the finding on this site is about a unit rather than about a secret.
See the price on the seller’s page
- 10 amounts printed, none in a blend
- 2 capsules a serving, 30 servings a bottle
- Price and terms shown at checkout, before you pay
Questions
Nerve Recovery Max: common questions
Does Nerve Recovery Max have a proprietary blend?
No. All ten declared things on the panel carry their own printed amount, and none of them shares a weight with any other. That is why no figure anywhere on this site is a ceiling.
Does printing every amount mean the label is accurate?
No, and this site is the demonstration. This panel prints ten amounts and hides none of them, and one of its four percentage lines still cannot be right: 1.7 mcg against a published Daily Value of 1.7 mg is 0%, not the 100% printed beside it.
References
- Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Section 101.36. Nutrition labeling of dietary supplements. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2024-title21-vol2/xml/CFR-2024-title21-vol2-sec101-36.xml
- NIH Office of Dietary Supplements. Thiamin: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Thiamin-HealthProfessional/
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Peripheral Neuropathy. https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/preventing-problems/nerve-damage-diabetic-neuropathies/peripheral-neuropathy
Every source above was opened and read on October 12, 2026. None of them tested Nerve Recovery Max itself. They describe single ingredients and the categories they sit in and the labelling regulations that govern this panel, which is a different thing from testing this finished formula.