What ingredients are claimed on Burn Peak supplement labels and how do they compare across product versions?
Executive summary
Burn Peak’s labeling is inconsistent across listings: the company’s own clarification stresses a pure BHB ketone-salt formula—Magnesium BHB, Calcium BHB, and Sodium BHB—while multiple third‑party pages and retail listings attribute plant extracts, stimulants, vitamins and other herbal blends to products bearing the same name (examples include green tea extract, bilberry, brahmi, lutein, vitamin B12, maqui, rhodiola and more) [1] [2] [3]. Independent reviews and vendor pages warn that different sellers show different ingredient lists, creating real consumer confusion about which “Burn Peak” formulation a buyer will receive [2] [4].
1. Company claim: Burn Peak as a straight BHB ketone-salt product
The issuer identified as the brand has publicly clarified that its authentic product is an exogenous ketone supplement composed specifically of Magnesium BHB, Calcium BHB and Sodium BHB, and that it does not include botanical extracts, “pink salt” recipes or herbal compounds—an assertion framed as a transparency move amid market expansion [1].
2. Contradictory marketplace listings: plant extracts, stimulants and vitamins
Several third‑party reviews, retail listings and aggregated consumer pages describe entirely different ingredient profiles for products called “Burn Peak.” Those listings attribute green tea extract (a caffeine source), various superfood or “superfruit” blends (maqui, amla, cacao, astaxanthin, schisandra), adaptogens (rhodiola), botanicals (bilberry, brahmi), lutein, and vitamin B12 to Burn Peak formulations—ingredients not present in the company’s BHB‑only clarification [3] [2] [5].
3. Two plausible explanations: formula variants, counterfeit products, or marketing conflation
Available reporting outlines two competing explanations: the brand says the authentic product is BHB salts only [1]; independent watchdog and review pages observe multiple ingredient lists in the wild and suggest either variant formulations or disparate products using the same name are being sold [2]. The materials do not conclusively identify whether these divergent ingredient lists reflect legitimate versioning by the manufacturer, unauthorized resellers altering labels, or different products simply sharing the “Burn Peak” name [1] [2].
4. Consumer risk and practical implications
Conflicting ingredient information poses safety and efficacy risks: buyers seeking exogenous ketones could unknowingly ingest stimulants (green tea extract/caffeine) or botanicals that interact with medications, and allergy or dietary‑preference concerns (vegan, gluten) may be misrepresented. Review pages also report customer service and refund complaints tied to purchases from unauthorized sellers—evidence that the marketplace confusion has tangible consumer‑experience consequences [4] [6].
5. How sources frame credibility and agendas
The company’s statement emphasizes transparency and science-based formulation, which serves an explicit commercial and reputational agenda [1]. Independent review and consumer sites often combine affiliate marketing, user testimonials and aggregates that can amplify variant claims; some of those pages include promotional language and affiliate disclosures, which should temper reliance on them as neutral sources [4] [7]. Neither side provides third‑party lab certificates or regulatory filings in the items supplied here.
6. What’s not found in current reporting
Available sources do not provide independent laboratory test results confirming which ingredients are present in retail bottles sold by specific vendors; they also do not show a manufacturer’s scanned Supplement Facts panels tied to individual SKUs for cross‑comparison. Sources don’t document a regulator-issued recall or enforcement action related to mislabeling of Burn Peak (not found in current reporting) [1] [2] [4].
7. Practical guidance for consumers and journalists
Given the contradictory listings, buyers should: 1) request the exact Supplement Facts and lot number from the seller before purchase; 2) prefer purchases from the manufacturer’s official site referenced in their clarification and verify the ingredient panel against the company statement [1] [8]; and 3) treat third‑party retail product pages with caution because they show widely varying ingredient claims [2] [3]. Journalists should seek scanned labels and third‑party lab analyses to resolve whether multiple formulas exist or whether white‑label/unauthorized products are causing the divergence [1] [2].
Limitations: my analysis uses only the supplied sources and therefore cannot confirm which specific bottles in circulation contain which ingredients; absent independent lab testing or SKU‑level labeling, definitive attribution of the discrepancies is not possible from current reporting [1] [2] [4].