Gelatine Sculpt Blog
How to check a dose when the label never gave you one
Four ingredients in this blend have a trial dose published in NIH’s weight-loss fact sheet, and chromium has a printed amount, which makes five comparisons. Every ceiling falls below its studied dose, two of the comparisons cannot be completed because no extract here is standardised, and one studied dose produced no effect on body weight, so a larger number would not have rescued it.
By the Gelatine Sculpt Editorial Desk · Last updated September 24, 2026
Five comparisons, and one axis to draw them on
This label publishes one amount: chromium, 0.7 mcg, 2% of the Daily Value. The other 22 substances sit inside a 200 mg proprietary blend with no weights, so the only quantitative fact published about each is its place in the declared order. That order runs heaviest first under 21 CFR 101.36(c)(2), so position n cannot weigh more than 200 divided by n milligrams. A ceiling is the most an ingredient could possibly be. It is never the amount in the bottle, and the real weight may be a small fraction of it.
Four blend ingredients have a published dose in our sources. With chromium that makes five comparisons, drawn here on one axis.
- Five comparisons, and one axis to draw them on
- African mango: a dose larger than the blend
- Coleus forskohlii: the dose that did not work
- Green tea and capsicum: the checks that stop
View as a table
| Ingredient | On this label | In the trials | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chromium picolinate | 0.0007 mg (printed) | 0.2 to 1 mg | printed on the label as 0.7 mcg; NIH trials used 200 to 1,000 mcg |
| Capsicum / capsaicinoids | 20 mg or less | 0.2 to 33 mg | the ceiling is for the fruit extract; NIH's range is for capsaicinoids alone |
| Coleus forskohlii | 22.2 mg or less | 500 mg | NIH: 500 mg standardized for 10% forskolin - and it had no effect on body weight |
| Green tea / catechins | 28.6 mg or less | 141 to 1207 mg | the ceiling is for the extract; NIH's range is for catechins alone |
| African mango | 50 mg or less | 300 mg | NIH: 150 mg twice a day, 300 mg total, for 10 weeks |
African mango: a dose larger than the blend
Position 4
NIH’s weight-loss fact sheet gives an exact protocol for Irvingia gabonensis: “150 mg IGOB131 or placebo 30-60 minutes before lunch and dinner (300 mg total daily dose) for 10 weeks” That is a daily figure, a schedule and a duration.
African mango seed extract is printed fourth, so at most 50 mg per serving. The trial’s daily dose of 300 mg is larger than the entire 200 mg blend, so even if African mango were the only thing in it and the other 21 members weighed nothing, one serving would still be a third short. At its actual ceiling the serving is at most one sixth of the studied dose, and the real amount can only be lower.
The fact sheet reports that “Irvingia gabonensis extract causes statistically significant reductions in body weight and waist circumference”, which is why the shortfall is worth naming: an ingredient with a positive finding attached, at a dose this bottle cannot reach.
Coleus forskohlii: the dose that did not work
Coleus forskohlii root extract is printed ninth, ceiling 22.2 mg. The trial material NIH describes is “500 mg standardized for 10% forskolin”, taken for 12 weeks, so the ceiling is roughly one twenty-second of it.
Then read what the trial found, which is the sentence that changes what the gap means: “Coleus forskohlii extract had no effect on body weight”
This is the one entry where both halves point the same way. A reader measuring only distances would record a large shortfall and move on, implying a bigger number would have been better. It would not. The studied dose did not work, so twenty-two times more of this ingredient would have produced the finding NIH already reports.
A dose gap is only bad news when the dose had good news attached. On this row it did not, and saying so costs the product nothing it had.
Green tea and capsicum: the checks that stop
Where it stops
Green tea leaf extract is printed seventh, ceiling 28.6 mg of extract. NIH reports that across its trials “doses of green tea catechins ranged from 141 to 1,207 mg”, and that “Green tea supplementation reduced body weight by a mean of 0.95 kg more than placebo”
Now the part that stops it. The published range is for catechins; the ceiling is for extract, and catechins are a fraction of an extract, so 28.6 mg of extract cannot carry 141 mg of catechins. The ceiling falls below the studied range before the extract is even standardised, and the standardisation figure that would finish the comparison is itself not published.
Capsicum annuum fruit extract is printed tenth, ceiling 20 mg, and NIH is unusually specific: “Doses of capsaicinoids ranged from 0.2 mg in a single meal to 33 mg/day for 4 weeks” Here something different happens, because a ceiling of 20 mg sits inside that range. This is the one row where the label’s maximum is not obviously below the studied dose.
And it still cannot be checked. The range is for capsaicinoids, the ceiling is for whole fruit extract, and no standardisation is printed. A page wanting to sell would call that a match; one wanting to condemn would assume a low percentage. Neither is published.
Why no shortfall is stated as a distance
Every comparison here is a ceiling against a published dose, so the finding is that the label cannot reach the dose, not that it falls short by a stated multiple. The real amounts are not published and can only be smaller.
Chromium: one printed amount, and the verdict on it
Chromium is the only substance here with a figure against its name: 0.7 mcg, given as 2% of the Daily Value. NIH gives the Daily Value as “The DV for chromium is 35 mcg for adults and children age 4 and older”, so 2% is arithmetically right.
The same fact sheet describes the weight-loss trials, in which “doses of chromium picolinate were 200 to 1,000 mcg/day” The low end is 286 times the printed amount, and at the higher of the two dose instructions the factor is still 143.
Then the sentence to read before that gap impresses anyone. NIH’s own conclusion about those trials is: “Research suggests that supplementation with chromium, mainly in the form chromium picolinate, reduces body weight and body fat percentage to a very small, but statistically significant, extent. However, these effects have little clinical significance.”
So the honest reading is not that a larger number would have worked. It is that the one amount this label prints sits far below doses that produced an effect NIH already calls clinically insignificant. Both are findings, and printing only the first would mislead.
What five checks are actually worth
Five comparisons: one studied dose larger than the whole blend, one that produced no effect on body weight, two that cannot be completed for want of standardisation, and one printed amount far below a range whose results NIH calls clinically insignificant.
Makes a gap look worse
Micrograms and milligrams are a thousand apart. Both sides of every comparison here were put into milligrams a day first.
Makes a gap look smaller
A published dose is usually given for the compound measured, not the extract carrying it. No extract on this label is standardised to a marker compound, so no ceiling here can be converted into catechins, forskolin, capsaicinoids or glycyrrhizin.
What a ceiling can prove
That the label cannot reach the dose. Not by how much, because the real amount can only be smaller than the ceiling.
None of that says the product does nothing, and none of it could. No published trial on the finished Gelatine Sculpt formula appears in anything we have read, so every source on this site describes a single ingredient or the product category rather than this bottle. What it establishes is narrower: where a published dose exists, this label cannot reach it, and on two of the four the check cannot even be finished.
The method is set out as a procedure on the label-reading guide and the ceilings are derived on the blend post. If an ingredient is your reason for buying, ask the order desk on +1 (925) 231-0148 before the card is charged.
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.
Try Gelatine Sculpt with 60 days to change your mind
Three bottles is $59 each with free US shipping, and the guarantee runs 60 days from purchase.
Order desk +1 (925) 231-0148 · opening hours not published
Questions
Gelatine Sculpt: common questions
Which ingredients here have a published dose?
Would more coleus forskohlii have worked?
Why can two comparisons not be finished?
References
- National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. Chromium: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Chromium-HealthProfessional/
- National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. Dietary Supplements for Weight Loss: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WeightLoss-HealthProfessional/
Every source above was opened and read on September 24, 2026. None of them tested Gelatine Sculpt itself. They describe the named ingredients and the product category, which is a different thing from testing this finished formula.
Keep reading
Next on this site
What a proprietary blend actually tells you, and what it does not
The descending-order rule in 21 CFR 101.36(c)(2), the 200 divided by n ceiling worked through on this blend, and the four things it cannot tell you.
Six of twenty-three: reading an advert against its own label
The seller's ingredient graphic shows six substances. The panel on the bottle names twenty-three. What the other seventeen are, and what that does not prove.
What the label prints, line by line
The panel transcribed as printed, misspellings included, with the blend total, the one amount and the twenty-two blanks in their own rows.