SHOP BEST SELLERS
Shop our best selling products
Type: Performance Supplements
Protein Powder
Type: Performance Supplements
Electrolytes - Stick Packs
Type: Performance Supplements
Electrolytes
Type: Performance Supplements
Creatine Monohydrate
Type: Core Supplements
Source Magnesium
Type: Core Supplements
Vitamin D3 & K2
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Shampoo
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Conditioner
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Tallow Soap (Lemongrass)
Type: Performance Supplements
Raw Honey
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Tallow Sun Balm
Pure ingredients
Raw ingredients. Ancient wisdom. Modern results. Every product contains only what nature intended:
- Grass-fed tallow rich in bioavailable nutrients
- Raw honey and adaptogenic herbs in their purest form
- Regeneratively sourced proteins, never denatured
- Zero synthetic additives or lab-made fillers
Small-batch wellness our ancestors would recognize. Because when you honor nature's integrity, your body knows the difference.
Purely Natural, Perfectly You
Let customers speak for us
I’ve been really impressed with this soap. It’s made with clean ingredients, which was important to me, and it works wonderfully. I wash my hands frequently while cooking, and unlike many other soaps, this one doesn’t leave my hands feeling dry or tight. My hands feel clean, soft, and comfortable after every wash. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a gentle, high-quality hand soap.
As a longtime follower of Purishh, I usually buy whatever they sell because I trust them. This gives me the hydration I need, and it tastes good. I also learned from them that just drinking plain water isn’t always enough for your body. Highly recommend.
These electrolytes are truly the best, ive turned several of my friends onto it, really help with hangover to, but in general i give this product a 10/10
The taste is unbelievable snd the best honey I’ve had.
Outstanding! Quick shipping! Love the glass jar. My hair has never looked so good!
Every time I use it the feeling never gets old for me. I feel like I’m in a spa and it leaves my hair so hydrated. There’s no other product better than this. I always buy back up so there’s no gap of time where I don’t have it. However, the shipping is so fast you’ll have it right away.
Why Purishh?
Pure Ingredients
Handpicked and ethically sourced from trusted, natural farms.
Effective Results
Each product is designed to protect, nourish, and enhance your skin’s natural balance.
Holistic Wellness
Embrace a balanced lifestyle with supplements and creams that work in harmony with your body.
Frequently Asked Question
What makes Purishh products different from conventional supplements or skincare?
What makes Purishh products different from conventional supplements or skincare?
Purishh’s mission is to return to the raw, unprocessed power of nature. Every product is formulated with 100 % natural ingredients and no synthetic preservatives, fillers, or dyes. For example, the Raw Honey Butter contains whipped Wagyu beef tallow, cold‑pressed olive and coconut oils, mango butter, raw honey and beeswax – it moisturizes deeply and can even replace conventional lotion. The Raw Tallow Sunbalm uses grass‑fed tallow, non‑nano zinc oxide and organic oils to provide mineral sun protection while nourishing the skin. Purishh’s Protein Powder combines grass‑fed whey and hydrolyzed collagen with organic superfoods to deliver 26 g of easily digestible protein with zero added sugar. Across their range, Purishh keeps ingredient lists short and transparent, using only what is necessary to support health and well‑being.
Are Purishh’s ingredients ethically and sustainably sourced?
Are Purishh’s ingredients ethically and sustainably sourced?
Yes. The founders emphasize sustainable sourcing and ethical treatment of animals and land. Tallow for the skincare range is hand‑sourced from 100 % grass‑fed, Wagyu, halal cattle in New Zealand, ensuring humane slaughter and optimal nutrient quality. Olive and coconut oils are single‑origin, cold‑pressed. The whey in Purishh protein powder comes from grass‑fed cows raised without hormones or antibiotics, and the collagen is hydrolyzed for better absorption. These practices mean customers receive products that are both pure and sustainable.
Why does Purishh use beef tallow in its skincare products?
Why does Purishh use beef tallow in its skincare products?
Grass‑fed beef tallow is biocompatible with human skin; its fatty‑acid profile closely resembles natural sebum, so it’s absorbed efficiently. Properly rendered tallow is a vitamin powerhouse, naturally supplying vitamins A, D, E, and K that support cell turnover, immune function, and antioxidant protection. Tallow also contains oleic, stearic and palmitic acids that strengthen the skin’s barrier, calm inflammation and maintain moisture. Grass‑fed tallow offers a high concentration of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), an anti‑inflammatory fatty acid. These nutrients collectively help Purishh’s Raw Honey Butter and Raw Tallow Sunbalm to moisturize, nourish and protect the skin without clogging pores or causing irritation.
How is Purishh protein powder different, and why is it easy to digest?
How is Purishh protein powder different, and why is it easy to digest?
Many conventional protein powders use cheap sources and add artificial thickeners or sweeteners that cause bloating and digestive discomfort. Purishh starts with grass‑fed whey processed via cold‑filtration, which preserves natural enzymes and bioactive peptides that aid digestion. It also adds hydrolyzed bovine collagen to support joints, skin and gut health. The powder uses organic monk fruit for sweetness and contains no carrageenan, gums, sucralose or artificial preservatives, so it mixes smoothly and is gentle on the stomach. Each serving provides 26 g of complete protein with only 1 g of fat and zero sugar, making it suitable for keto, gluten‑free and non‑GMO diets.
What are Purishh Electrolytes, and how do they support hydration?
What are Purishh Electrolytes, and how do they support hydration?
Purishh’s Electrolytes formula offers clean hydration without the artificial colors and preservatives found in many sports drinks. Each serving includes over 800 mg of unrefined Himalayan salt, providing sodium and trace minerals, plus magnesium malate and potassium chloride. Organic fruit powders (raspberry or lemon‑lime) and monk fruit sweetener give a natural flavor without sugar. The formula helps replenish electrolytes lost through exercise, supports muscle function, and is keto‑friendly.
What is Raw Shilajit, and how should it be used?
What is Raw Shilajit, and how should it be used?
Raw Shilajit is a resin harvested from high‑altitude Himalayan rocks. It forms from decomposed plant material and is rich in minerals and fulvic acid. Traditionally used as an adaptogen, Shilajit helps boost energy, improve stamina and support overall health. Purishh provides 100 % pure Himalayan shilajit. Users typically dissolve a pea‑sized amount in warm water, tea or milk. Due to its potent minerals, start with a small dose and consult a healthcare professional if you have existing medical conditions.
What is the Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol?
What is the Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol?
The Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol is a step‑by‑step program designed to help restore gut health naturally. It includes dietary recommendations, lifestyle tips and natural supplements to support the intestinal lining. The protocol focuses on removing irritants, replenishing beneficial bacteria and repairing the gut barrier. It is not a medical treatment, so customers with chronic digestive issues should consult a healthcare professional before starting.
How should I store Purishh products?
How should I store Purishh products?
Store supplements and protein powders in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight. Skincare products like Raw Honey Butter and Raw Tallow Sunbalm are natural and free from artificial stabilizers; keeping them at room temperature helps maintain texture. If you live in a hot climate, refrigerating tallow‑based balms can prevent melting. Always use clean hands or a spatula to avoid introducing bacteria.
When will my order ship, and how long will delivery take?
When will my order ship, and how long will delivery take?
Purishh asks customers to allow 2–3 business days for processing and production before an order ships. Once dispatched, average transit times are 7–10 business days; however, natural disasters, holidays and weather can cause delays. Free standard shipping is offered on orders over US$150 (or equivalent), and shipping costs for smaller orders are calculated at checkout. Purishh cannot guarantee exact delivery dates because delivery is ultimately the responsibility of the shipping carrier.
Can I subscribe and save on regular purchases?
Can I subscribe and save on regular purchases?
Yes. Purishh offers a subscription program for products like protein powder. Subscribing gives 10 % off the regular price, and you can choose delivery intervals (e.g., monthly). Subscriptions auto‑renew, but you may skip or cancel at any time through your account.
Are Purishh products allergen‑free or suitable for special diets?
Are Purishh products allergen‑free or suitable for special diets?
Purishh formulates products without common synthetic additives, but some items may contain potential allergens. The protein powder contains whey (a dairy product) and collagen derived from bovine sources; it is unsuitable for vegans or those with dairy allergies. The Electrolytes formula is gluten‑free, sugar‑free and keto‑friendly. Always review ingredient lists carefully and consult your healthcare provider if you have specific allergies or dietary restrictions.
Where are Purishh products made?
Where are Purishh products made?
Purishh sources ingredients globally, such as New Zealand Wagyu tallow and Himalayan shilajit, but manufactures products in small batches under rigorous quality control. By keeping production small and hands‑on, Purishh can maintain freshness and ensure every batch meets the highest standards.
Pür Insights
Shilajit and Testosterone: What the Research Really Says
Most ingredients in the ancestral-health space get talked about like the research behind them is either settled science or complete mythology, and shilajit lands squarely in this problem. You'll see it described as an ancient, all-powerful adaptogen that fixes everything from fatigue to fertility, or you'll see the skeptics dismiss it as another expensive folk remedy with nothing real behind it. Neither version is accurate, and neither is particularly useful if you're trying to make an informed decision about whether this is something worth taking. There's also a different kind of dishonesty that runs through a lot of shilajit marketing specifically: citing "research" without telling you which research, how large it was, or what it actually measured. One study tends to travel a long way in this category, getting described as "clinical trials show" or "studies demonstrate" in a way that implies a breadth of evidence that doesn't exist. We'd rather show you the actual study and let you evaluate it than borrow false confidence from a citation we're not really earning. The honest version is narrower and more interesting than both poles of the usual debate. There is real, published clinical research on shilajit and testosterone specifically. It's a single study, not a body of replicated evidence, and we're going to tell you exactly what it found, what it didn't find, and what that means for how seriously you should take the claim. Then we're going to walk through what's actually behind our own batch, because "shilajit" on a label tells you almost nothing without knowing what's in the jar. What shilajit actually is Shilajit isn't a plant, a root, or an herb in the conventional sense. It's a mineral-dense resinous substance that forms over centuries as plant matter decomposes slowly under pressure within mountain rock, in the Himalayas, Altai range, Caucasus, and a handful of other high-altitude regions. The result is a thick, tar-like material that oozes from cracks in rock during warmer months. It's been used in Ayurvedic medicine for a very long time, usually described in terms of its rejuvenating or adaptogenic properties, and it's rich in a class of compounds called fulvic and humic acids, which are part of what makes it distinct from a simple mineral supplement. The fulvic acid component is where most of the modern research interest lives. Fulvic acid is a natural organic compound produced by microbial decomposition of plant matter, and it appears to function partly as a carrier, helping minerals and other compounds cross cell membranes more efficiently. That's a plausible mechanism for why a mineral-rich, fulvic-acid-heavy substance might have broader physiological effects than just its mineral content alone, though "plausible mechanism" is different from "proven outcome," and we'll come back to that distinction throughout. Why the label tells you almost nothing Before getting into the research, it's worth sitting with a problem specific to shilajit that doesn't apply to most other supplement ingredients: the word itself, on a label, is essentially meaningless without more information. When a protein label says "whey concentrate," that describes a reasonably well-defined ingredient with known composition and a standardized manufacturing process. When a label says "shilajit," it could describe raw, unpurified resin collected off a mountainside, a powdered extract standardized to a specific fulvic acid percentage, a product that's been adulterated with other materials, or something synthetic that shares a name with the real thing but shares little else with it. The variation in what's actually being sold under this label is enormous, not at the edges but at the center. Consumer testing organizations have found dramatic differences in the fulvic acid content of marketed shilajit products, and heavy metal contamination in unpurified or inadequately purified versions is a well-documented concern in the category, not an edge case. This matters for evaluating the research, not just for evaluating a product. When a clinical trial uses "purified shilajit" standardized to a specific composition, what the participants actually took is categorically different from what someone is getting from a cheap online order that's never been independently verified. The research isn't interchangeable with the product, and the product certainly isn't automatically equivalent to the research, just because they share a name. The study everyone is citing In 2016, a research team led by S. Pandit published a clinical trial in the journal Andrologia looking specifically at whether purified shilajit affected testosterone levels in healthy male volunteers. This is the study that almost every shilajit-and-testosterone claim you'll see anywhere traces back to, whether the brand citing it admits that or not. Here's what it actually found. Forty-five healthy men between the ages of 45 and 55 were divided into two groups: one took 250 milligrams of purified shilajit twice daily for 90 days, and the other took a placebo for the same period. At the end of the trial, the shilajit group showed statistically significant increases in total testosterone, free testosterone, and DHEA compared to the placebo group. Sperm count also showed a significant increase. The effect was not trivial in relative terms. Total testosterone increased meaningfully compared to the start of the study, and compared to what the placebo group experienced over the same period. That's a real finding, from a real, peer-reviewed, placebo-controlled trial. We're not going to dismiss it, because that would be as dishonest as overstating it. What the study didn't find, and why that matters Here's where most brands stop telling the story, and where we want to keep going. This was a single trial with 45 participants. One study, regardless of how well it's designed, is not the same thing as a body of replicated evidence. Science generally requires an initial finding to be reproduced by independent research groups, in different populations, before a conclusion hardens into something you can present as established fact. For shilajit and testosterone specifically, that replication is limited. There are other published studies on shilajit and male health markers, including some looking at sperm quality, and some looking at fatigue and general vitality, but the specific testosterone finding from the Pandit trial hasn't been robustly replicated at the scale or consistency you'd need to call it settled. The population studied also matters. Healthy men between 45 and 55 is a specific group, one where natural testosterone decline is already underway, and where there may be more room for a nutritional or adaptogenic intervention to show a measurable effect compared to men in their twenties who are already producing testosterone at higher baseline levels. Whether the same effect holds in younger men, in men with clinically low testosterone, or in other populations is not something this one study can tell you. The dose matters too. The trial used 250 milligrams twice daily of a purified, standardized form of shilajit. What's in a given jar of shilajit on a supplement shelf varies enormously, in purity, in fulvic acid percentage, in processing method, and in contamination risk. The "shilajit" being cited in headlines about testosterone research is a controlled research preparation, not a guarantee about what ends up in a product with the same word on the label. None of this means the finding is wrong. It means it's early, specific to a certain group, and highly dependent on the actual quality and composition of the shilajit being taken. Those are real limits, and they're the difference between "this is promising and worth taking seriously" and "this is a proven testosterone booster," which it isn't, based on the current evidence. Why shilajit quality is its own entire conversation This is the part that matters as much as the research, and it gets skipped almost entirely in most shilajit marketing, because it involves admitting that most of what's sold under this name is not actually what the research was done on. Raw shilajit collected from mountainsides contains not just fulvic acid, minerals, and beneficial compounds, but also heavy metals, fungal contaminants, and a range of other substances you don't want to be consuming. The entire premise of using it safely as a supplement depends on proper purification, which is both a real process and a wildly inconsistent one across the industry. Products that skip adequate purification, or that use something resembling shilajit rather than the real thing, are not uncommon. Authenticity testing and heavy metal testing on shilajit specifically aren't optional niceties, they're what separates a product you can take with reasonable confidence from one that's carrying a risk most people don't know to look for. A high fulvic acid percentage is generally considered a marker of quality. Low-grade or adulterated shilajit often tests below 20 percent fulvic acid. Better sourced, properly processed material runs considerably higher. What's actually behind our batch Here's where we stop talking about shilajit in general and start talking about ours specifically. Our shilajit is sourced from the Altai Mountains in the Kosh-Agach district of the Republic of Altai, Russian Federation, a high-altitude region with a long history of shilajit collection and one that tends to produce mineral-dense material distinct from the more commonly sold Himalayan sources. The batch went through a full technical specification including heavy metal testing, microbial testing, radionuclide screening, and authenticity verification. The authenticity test result was a plain, explicit "Authentic," not a claim from the label, but a result from the analysis itself. The fulvic acid content on our current batch came back at 72 percent. Humic acid at 8.3 percent. To put the fulvic acid number in context: the clinical trial used a preparation with a known, controlled composition. Our batch's 72 percent fulvic acid is toward the high end of what you'll see in quality shilajit, and meaningfully above the numbers that tend to show up on cheaper or adulterated products. We didn't put that number on the label because it sounded impressive. We sourced to that standard and then confirmed it was actually what we received. Heavy metal results across the batch: lead at 0.67 milligrams per kilogram against a permitted level of 6, cadmium at 0.12 against a limit of 1, arsenic at 0.08 against a limit of 12, mercury under 0.01 against a limit of 1. Every marker well inside the permissible range, not hovering near it. Microbial testing covered pathogenic bacteria including salmonella, coliform, and Staphylococcus aureus, all absent. Yeast and mold not detected. Radionuclide screening for strontium specific activity came back under 3 becquerels per kilogram. The full panel also covers a remarkably detailed picture of what's in this material beyond just safety markers: potassium at 42,300 milligrams per kilogram, calcium at 24,800, magnesium at 1,958, phosphorus at 900, sodium at 1,478, iron at 240, manganese at 40, zinc at 11.5, copper at 6.84, selenium at 1.20, cobalt at 0.69, and a complete amino acid profile across all major amino and imino acids. Shilajit's mineral richness isn't a vague marketing claim. In a well-sourced batch, it's a measurable, reportable fact. So what can you actually say about shilajit and testosterone? Here's the honest version, calibrated to what the actual evidence supports. There is one peer-reviewed, placebo-controlled trial showing that purified shilajit taken at 500 milligrams daily for 90 days produced significant increases in total testosterone, free testosterone, and DHEA in healthy men aged 45 to 55. That finding is real. It hasn't been replicated at the same scale, which limits how much confidence you can place in it as a categorical conclusion. The effect, if real, is likely most relevant to men in midlife where testosterone is already declining naturally, and less predictable in other populations. Whether any given shilajit product produces the same effect as the research preparation depends entirely on what's actually in the product: fulvic acid percentage, purity, processing method, and absence of contaminants. Most shilajit products on the market can't answer those questions with a lab report. Ours can, which is the most honest thing we can offer on top of pointing you to the research. We're not going to tell you our shilajit "boosts testosterone" as a guaranteed outcome, because that overstates what a single trial in a specific population actually establishes. What we can tell you is that we sourced toward the quality that the research preparation represents, that we verified what we received with an independent batch analysis, and that the underlying ingredient comes with more genuine scientific interest behind it than most of what gets sold in the same category. What else shilajit is actually being researched for Testosterone gets the headline, but it's not the only thing the research has looked at, and some of the other areas are at least as well-supported. Altitude sickness and adaptation is one. The Ayurvedic use of shilajit as a supplement for people at high altitude is backed by some plausible mechanistic reasoning, given its effect on cellular energy metabolism and its mineral content, though the human evidence here is limited. Chronic fatigue syndromes and general energy is another area where small studies have shown positive signals, again not definitive, but consistent enough to show up across more than one research group. There's also a meaningful body of work looking at shilajit's effects on mitochondrial function, which is plausible given the fulvic acid component's proposed role in electron transport, though this area of research is still quite early in terms of clinical translation. The honest summary is that shilajit has a genuinely interesting research profile across several areas, none of which has reached the level of certainty where you'd call any specific claim fully established. It's in a different category from something like creatine, which has been studied thousands of times across decades and populations. It's also in a clearly different category from ingredients with essentially no clinical research at all, which describes a lot of what's in the supplement market. Promising and understudied is the accurate position, and it's a real one worth holding rather than collapsing it into either end of the hype-versus-dismissal spectrum. What else shilajit is actually being researched for Testosterone gets the headline, but it's not the only thing the research has looked at, and some of the other areas are at least as well-supported, even if they don't travel as far in marketing copy. Altitude sickness and adaptation is one. The traditional Ayurvedic use of shilajit as a supplement for people at high altitude is backed by some plausible mechanistic reasoning, given its proposed effect on cellular energy metabolism and its mineral density, though the human evidence is limited to small studies. Chronic fatigue and general energy support is another area where signals have appeared across more than one research group, consistent enough to be worth noting but not definitive. There's also a growing body of work looking at shilajit's effects on mitochondrial function, specifically in the context of fulvic acid's proposed role in electron transport and cellular energy production. This is genuinely interesting mechanistic territory. It's also very early in terms of clinical translation, meaning the research at this point mostly describes what appears to happen in cell or animal models rather than in controlled human trials at scale. Interesting is the accurate descriptor, not proven. One other area worth naming plainly: the sperm quality finding from the same 2016 Pandit trial. The study found significant improvements not just in testosterone but in total sperm count, motility, and activity, all relevant measures of male reproductive health that are separate from testosterone itself. This finding gets mentioned less often because testosterone is a more marketable headline, but the sperm quality data is arguably as significant a result from the same trial, and it's worth knowing the study wasn't just a one-dimensional testosterone measurement. What the Altai source actually contributes A brief word on geography, because it matters more in this ingredient than most. Shilajit's mineral composition varies meaningfully depending on where it's collected, which mountain range, which altitude, which underlying rock composition. Himalayan shilajit is the most commonly sold, partly because of name recognition and the cultural association with Ayurvedic medicine. Altai shilajit, from the mountain ranges of Siberia and Central Asia, has its own profile, often higher in certain mineral concentrations and with a slightly different fulvic acid-to-humic acid ratio depending on the specific region. Neither source is categorically superior. What matters more than the regional origin is the processing quality, the purity verification, and the actual batch testing, because a perfectly sourced shilajit handled poorly between the mountain and the jar is worse than a less romantically sourced shilajit that's been properly purified and independently tested. We mention the Altai origin because it's where ours actually comes from, not because the name is doing work a lab report should be doing instead. A practical note If you're taking shilajit specifically hoping for a testosterone effect and you're in your twenties or thirties, the one trial that exists wasn't done on you, and we can't tell you whether the effect would be the same in a younger population. If you're in midlife and interested in supporting testosterone naturally through nutritional means while maintaining your overall mineral status, the evidence is at least coherent with that goal, calibrated honestly rather than oversold. Shilajit mixes into warm water or can be taken directly and dissolved under the tongue. It has a distinctive, slightly bitter, mineral-forward taste that's an acquired preference for some people. The hardening behavior in cold and softening in warmth is a real, expected property of genuine resin-based shilajit and actually functions as a positive indicator of authenticity rather than a defect in the product, which we'll address more fully in a separate post dedicated specifically to that question, including how to tell real shilajit from the fakes. The bottom line on shilajit and testosterone: the research is real, it's limited, and the quality of the product you're taking matters enormously in whether the research is even relevant to what's actually in the jar. We think we can speak to all three of those honestly, and this post is our attempt to do exactly that rather than let a single study travel further than it actually goes.
Learn more
Do You Actually Need Electrolytes?
We're going to start this one with an answer most companies selling an electrolyte product would rather not lead with: probably not, at least not the way the wellness industry has been telling you for the last several years. That's not us talking ourselves out of a sale. It's the honest starting point for a real conversation about who actually benefits from a dedicated electrolyte product and who's just been sold a solution to a problem they don't have. There's a real, specific, well-supported answer underneath all the noise, and it depends almost entirely on what your diet and your activity level actually look like, not on whether you saw a compelling ad for a flavored powder. This post is going to talk you out of buying our own product if you don't actually need it, and talk you into understanding exactly why you might if you do. Both outcomes are fine with us. A customer who buys something they didn't need ends up annoyed eventually, and a customer who understood exactly why they needed something tends to stick around. What electrolytes actually are Electrolytes are minerals that carry an electrical charge once dissolved in your body's fluids, mainly sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, and chloride. They're not exotic. They're the same minerals doing the same jobs they've always done: regulating how fluid moves in and out of your cells, letting your nerves fire signals, letting your muscles contract and relax, and keeping your blood volume and blood pressure in a workable range. You lose them primarily through sweat and urine, and you replace them primarily through food, which is the part that gets conveniently skipped in most electrolyte marketing. A balanced diet with any real food in it, meat, vegetables, dairy, salt used in cooking, already supplies a meaningful amount of all five. The question worth asking isn't "do I need electrolytes," because the answer to that, taken literally, is always yes, your body needs them to function. The actual question is whether you need to supplement beyond what food already provides, and that answer changes a lot depending on who's asking. It's worth knowing a little about how this category got so big, because the history explains a lot about why the marketing leans the way it does. Sports drinks built around electrolyte replacement go back to the 1960s, originally developed for college football players training in serious heat, a genuinely narrow, intense-exercise use case. Over the following decades, that same basic formula got marketed further and further from its original audience, eventually reaching people doing a thirty-minute gym session in an air-conditioned room, a use case the original product was never actually designed around. The science didn't change. The marketing radius just kept expanding to cover more people who didn't need what the product was originally built to solve, and a newer wave of electrolyte brands has continued that same expansion into general daily wellness, regardless of activity level, diet, or climate. The "everyone is dehydrated" myth A few years ago, "you're probably dehydrated" became one of the most repeated lines in wellness marketing, applied to almost anyone regardless of their actual activity level, climate, or diet. It's a compelling line because mild dehydration symptoms, fatigue, brain fog, a mild headache, overlap with about a dozen other completely unrelated causes, which makes it easy to nod along and buy something. Here's the part that gets left out: your body has a genuinely sophisticated system for managing fluid and electrolyte balance on its own. Your kidneys constantly adjust how much sodium and water you retain versus excrete, and your thirst response, while not perfect, is a reasonably reliable signal for a healthy person under normal conditions. For someone eating a varied diet, drinking water when they're thirsty, and not engaging in unusually intense exercise or heat exposure, the idea that they're walking around in a constant, unaddressed state of electrolyte depletion simply isn't well supported. That doesn't mean hydration doesn't matter, or that thirst is a perfect, instant signal in every situation. It means the blanket "everyone needs to be supplementing electrolytes constantly" framing is doing more to sell product than to describe how human physiology actually works for most people, most days. Who genuinely needs more: heat, sweat, and sustained effort This is where the real, well-established use case for electrolyte supplementation actually lives. Sweat carries a meaningful amount of sodium, along with smaller amounts of potassium and magnesium, and the rate of loss scales with how much you're sweating and for how long. A casual half hour walk isn't going to meaningfully deplete you. An hour or more of hard training, manual labor in the heat, or any activity where you're visibly and continuously sweating is a genuinely different situation, where water alone can dilute your remaining sodium faster than your body can rebalance it, which is part of what's actually behind the cramping and fatigue people associate with "needing electrolytes" during long efforts. People working outdoors in hot climates, endurance athletes, anyone training hard for more than an hour at a stretch, and people adjusting to a new hot environment are the clearest, best-supported cases for needing more than food and water alone typically provide. This isn't a niche or exotic group, and it's not limited to professional athletes either, plenty of people doing physically demanding jobs or serious weekend training fall squarely into it. It's a specific, identifiable set of circumstances, and if you're in one of them regularly, a dedicated electrolyte product is solving a real problem rather than an imagined one. Who genuinely needs more: low-carb, keto, carnivore, and fasting This is the use case that gets the least attention in mainstream electrolyte marketing, and it happens to be the one most relevant to a lot of people reading this. When you significantly cut carbohydrates, whether that's a ketogenic diet, a carnivore approach, or just a sustained low-carb pattern, your insulin levels drop. Insulin has a direct effect on your kidneys' sodium handling: lower insulin signals your kidneys to excrete more sodium, not less. That's a well-documented physiological mechanism, not a side effect specific to any particular diet brand or program, and it's the actual reason behind what people commonly call "keto flu," a cluster of fatigue, headache, and lightheadedness that shows up in the first week or two of carb restriction, largely traceable to faster sodium and water loss than people are used to. There's a second compounding factor specific to this audience: a lot of the sodium in a typical Western diet comes from processed and packaged food, not from cooking with salt directly. Someone who switches to a whole-foods, low-carb, or ancestral-style way of eating often cuts out most of that processed sodium at the exact same time their kidneys are excreting more of it because of the insulin effect described above. Two things pushing in the same direction, less coming in, more going out, which is exactly why this specific dietary pattern is one of the more legitimate, well-supported reasons to pay closer attention to electrolyte intake rather than assuming food alone will cover it the way it might for someone eating a more conventional, processed-food-heavy diet. Extended fasting carries a similar effect, for similar reasons, lower insulin and no food intake at all to supply sodium during the fasting window. If you're someone doing extended fasts regularly, this is worth planning around rather than discovering the hard way partway through a long fast. You don't need a powder to fix this It's worth saying plainly, since we'd rather be useful than just sell you the convenient version: a powdered electrolyte product is not the only way to address any of this, and it's not even the most traditional one. Salting your food generously, drinking bone broth, and eating potassium-rich whole foods like leafy greens, avocado, and the meat itself can cover a meaningful share of what someone on a low-carb or carnivore diet needs, without buying a separate product at all. People managed carb restriction and physical labor in hot climates for a very long time before flavored electrolyte powders existed as a category. What a product like ours actually offers on top of that is convenience and consistency, a known, measured amount of sodium, magnesium, and potassium in one scoop, mixed into water in under a minute, which matters most specifically when you're mid-workout, traveling, or otherwise not in a position to be salting food or sipping bone broth in the moment. That's a real, legitimate reason to reach for a powder instead of a saltshaker. It's a convenience reason, though, not a "this is the only way to get what you need" reason, and we'd rather you understand the difference than assume the powder is doing something a kitchen couldn't. Signs worth paying attention to None of this is a diagnosis, and we're not going to pretend a flavored powder can tell you what's actually going on in your body. But a few signs are worth noticing, especially if they show up specifically during or after heavy sweating, in the first week or two of starting a low-carb diet, or during an extended fast: muscle cramps, a dull headache, lightheadedness when standing up quickly, and a kind of fatigue that doesn't match how much you actually exerted yourself. All of these have other possible causes too, simple under-hydration, poor sleep, overtraining, plain old stress, so context matters more than the symptom alone. If a headache or cramp shows up reliably in one of the specific situations described above, that's a reasonable signal worth addressing. If it's showing up randomly, unrelated to diet or exertion, that's worth a conversation with a doctor rather than an assumption that more sodium will fix it. Why "more sodium" isn't universally good advice either It's worth being honest about the other side of this too, because the wellness industry's electrolyte messaging tends to flatten a genuinely two-sided picture into one constant message: more sodium, always, for everyone. For a large share of people eating a typical diet heavy in processed and restaurant food, sodium intake is already well above what's needed, often substantially so, which is the entire basis for the long-standing, mainstream public health guidance to moderate sodium intake. Telling that person to add a daily electrolyte supplement on top of an already sodium-heavy diet isn't filling a gap, it's adding to a surplus that may already be more relevant to their health than a deficit ever was. This is exactly why the honest answer to "do you need electrolytes" can't be a single universal yes or no. It depends heavily on what the rest of your diet already looks like and what you're doing physically. Someone eating mostly whole foods at home, cooking with salt deliberately, and doing moderate activity is in a very different position than someone eating mostly packaged and restaurant food, or someone who's cut carbs hard and trains for two hours a day. Treating those as the same person with the same need is where a lot of this industry's messaging falls apart under any real scrutiny. There's one more context worth a brief, separate mention: short-term illness involving vomiting or diarrhea causes real, rapid fluid and electrolyte loss, which is exactly why oral rehydration solutions are standard medical practice in that situation, not a wellness trend dressed up in clinical language. That's a genuinely different scenario from everyday supplementation, and it's not something we're going to give specific guidance on here, since the right response to ongoing illness is a conversation with a doctor, not a blog post about a flavored powder. We mention it only because it's a real, well-established use case for electrolyte replacement that has nothing to do with exercise or diet, and it's worth knowing the category has legitimate medical roots alongside its athletic ones. What's actually in our blend, and what we can honestly tell you about it Our electrolytes are built around Himalayan salt as the sodium source, alongside magnesium malate and potassium chloride, in both our lemon-lime and raspberry flavors. That's the formulation as it's listed on the product itself. Here's where we want to be precise about what's actually been independently verified versus what's listed on the label. Both flavors have gone through independent heavy metal testing and microbial safety testing, run separately on each flavor rather than assumed to match, the way we've walked through in detail elsewhere. Lemon-lime came back at 0.051 parts per million lead, 0.024 arsenic, 0.003 cadmium, and 0.005 mercury. Raspberry came back at 0.095, 0.029, 0.004, and 0.002 respectively. Microbial testing came back clean on both, every pathogen marker absent. What we don't yet have is a separate, independent lab verification of the exact milligram amounts of sodium, potassium, and magnesium in the finished product, the way we do for things like our creatine and magnesium complex. That's part of the same nutritional-verification buildout we've mentioned in other posts, contamination and microbial safety testing across every flavor first, full potency verification on every product as the next phase. We'd rather tell you exactly where that stands than imply a level of verification on the mineral content specifically that we haven't actually completed yet, and we'll update this post, or write a follow-up, once that testing is in hand rather than letting the gap sit quietly unmentioned. When water alone is genuinely enough If your day involves normal activity, a typical diet with real food in it, and no extended fasting or aggressive carb restriction, plain water is doing the job it's supposed to do, and a flavored electrolyte drink isn't filling a gap that actually exists. This applies to most light exercise too. A casual run, a normal gym session under an hour, a long walk, none of these are draining your sodium and potassium fast enough for it to matter, and treating every single workout like an endurance event is a habit the marketing around this entire category has encouraged for reasons that have more to do with selling product than with anything your body actually needs in that moment. Where the calculation changes is intensity and duration stacking together, an hour or more of hard, sweat-soaked effort, heat exposure on top of physical work, or the dietary contexts described above layering on top of normal activity. That's the point where food and water alone may not be keeping pace with what you're losing, and a dedicated product starts solving a real, specific problem instead of an imagined one. How to actually use it, if you've decided you need it If you've read through the sections above and recognized your own situation, heavy sweating, hot conditions, low-carb or carnivore eating, extended fasting, the practical use is simple: a serving mixed into water, generally once a day for most people in these categories, more on days with longer or harder sweating sessions, and less or none on lighter, more sedentary days even within the same week. There's no benefit to taking more than what addresses your actual loss; electrolytes aren't something your body stores up an excess of for later use the way it does with some nutrients, and significant excess sodium intake on top of an already adequate diet isn't doing you a favor just because the source is a flavored powder instead of table salt. Timing matters less than people assume. Spreading a serving across a long workout or hot day tends to be more useful than front-loading it all beforehand, though either approach works reasonably well for most people who aren't pushing toward the extreme end of endurance effort. If you're fasting, taking it during the fasting window itself, since it carries effectively no calories from the minerals themselves, is the most common and sensible approach, and it won't meaningfully interrupt whatever metabolic state the fast is meant to support. The honest bottom line We make an electrolyte product, and we'd still rather tell you the truth about who actually needs one than sell it to everyone who reads this far. If you're sedentary, eating a varied diet, and not restricting carbs aggressively, you're very likely getting what you need from food already, and the most useful thing this post can do for you is save you the purchase. If you're sweating hard and often, training for long stretches, eating low-carb or carnivore, or fasting regularly, the case for paying attention to this is real, specific, and grounded in actual physiology rather than a vague sense that everyone should be more hydrated all the time. That's the kind of answer we'd rather give than a universal yes, even on our own product page. A supplement company telling you that you might not need its product isn't a contradiction, it's just what happens when you'd rather be useful to the right person than convincing to everyone. If you've made it this far and you're still not sure which category you fall into, the honest test is simple: think back over the last week and ask whether you sweated through a full hour of hard effort more than a couple of times, whether you've cut carbs hard enough to notice the early fatigue that comes with it, or whether you're fasting for extended stretches regularly. If none of that describes your week, you probably don't need to add anything beyond what you're already eating and drinking. If even one of those does, that's not a marketing conclusion, it's just where the physiology actually points, and it's the same conclusion we'd want you to reach whether or not it led you back to our own shelf. We'd rather write the version of this post that costs us a few sales than the version that sells more bottles by pretending the answer is always yes. If that's the wrong business decision, it's one we're comfortable making, because the alternative is the same trick the rest of this category has been running for years, and we don't think it's actually built much real trust along the way.
Learn more
Why We Test Every Flavor on Its Own
Here's an assumption that sounds reasonable and is actually wrong: if you've tested the vanilla, you've basically tested the chocolate too. Same base formula, same factory, same everything except one ingredient swapped in for flavor. Why pay for two full lab reports when one tells you almost the entire story? We get why that logic is tempting. It's also exactly backwards, and the gap between "sounds reasonable" and "is actually true" is the whole subject of this post. It's also, if we're honest, the kind of shortcut that would be very easy to take quietly, since most customers have no way to know whether a brand tested every flavor or just one, and a lot of brands seem to be betting on exactly that. It's not really about flavor, it's about ingredients "Flavor" is a misleading word for what's actually happening when a chocolate version of a product exists alongside a vanilla one. You're not adding a taste, you're adding an entirely different ingredient, with its own sourcing, its own growing conditions, and its own risk profile, layered on top of a base formula that's otherwise the same. Vanilla flavoring and cocoa are about as different, from a contamination-risk standpoint, as two ingredients can be while still ending up in the same category of product. That distinction gets lost because "flavor" sounds like a finishing touch, something added at the end that doesn't change much. In practice, it's often the single ingredient most likely to shift a product's contaminant profile, because it's frequently the one ingredient in the formula sourced from an entirely different supply chain than everything around it. Natural doesn't mean uniform It's worth pausing on something that sounds like good news but actually cuts the other way: real, recognizable flavor sources, actual cocoa, actual fruit extracts, actual botanicals, carry more agricultural variability than synthetic flavor compounds do, not less. A synthetic flavoring molecule, made in a controlled chemical process, tends to be extremely consistent batch to batch, because it isn't grown in soil that varies by season, region, and rainfall. A real ingredient is grown, which means it inherits whatever that specific patch of earth happened to contain that year, for better and occasionally for worse. That's not an argument for switching to synthetic flavoring, to be clear. It's an argument for being honest about what choosing real ingredients actually obligates a brand to do afterward. A lot of "clean" and "natural" branding in this industry leans entirely on the front half of that sentence, real ingredients, recognizable names, nothing synthetic, while quietly skipping the back half, the testing that real, variable, agriculturally-sourced ingredients actually require to back up the claim that they're safe in the amounts being used. Saying "we use real cocoa" is the easy part. Proving that the specific batch of real cocoa in your specific order came back clean is the part that actually costs something. We use real ingredients because we'd rather deal with that variability than swap in something synthetic for the sake of predictability, but it's worth being honest that this choice is exactly why testing each flavor matters more for us than it might for a brand built entirely on synthetic, lab-formulated flavor compounds. The same logic applies to natural color sources, which show up across the catalog in things like our soap, where ingredients like raw honey and lemongrass oil are doing double duty as both scent and a genuinely agricultural ingredient with its own sourcing story. Choosing "real" over "synthetic" is a tradeoff, not a free upgrade, and the testing burden it creates is part of that tradeoff, not a separate inconvenience layered on top of it. The cocoa example, specifically Cocoa is the clearest version of this problem, and it's worth understanding why, because it's not a minor or obscure issue. Cacao plants are unusually efficient at pulling cadmium out of soil compared to a lot of other crops, which means cocoa and chocolate products, across the entire industry, not specific to any one brand, tend to carry naturally higher cadmium levels than products without cocoa in them. This isn't a contamination scandal or a manufacturing defect. It's a basic feature of how the plant interacts with the ground it grows in, and it's well documented enough that consumer testing organizations have flagged elevated cadmium and occasionally lead in mainstream dark chocolate bars for years, and it's drawn enough regulatory attention in some markets that chocolate makers have had to pay closer attention to where their cacao is sourced from. This isn't unique to chocolate, either, it's just the most widely reported example. Different crops accumulate different trace metals at different rates depending on their biology, which is exactly why a flavor swap is never just a flavor swap from a testing standpoint. Rice tends to take up arsenic more readily than most grains. Certain leafy greens concentrate nitrates. None of that makes any of these foods unsafe in normal amounts, it just means the specific thing worth checking for shifts depending on what you're actually testing, and a lab that knows to look for cadmium in a cocoa-containing product is doing something genuinely different than one running a generic panel and calling it equivalent. None of that makes cocoa dangerous to eat. Soil composition varies enormously by region, and plenty of cocoa sourcing comes back clean. What it does mean is that "we tested the vanilla batch and it was clean" tells you nothing useful about whether the chocolate batch is also clean, because the entire reason a chocolate product might carry different heavy metal levels has nothing to do with the rest of the formula. It's specifically about the one ingredient that isn't in the vanilla version at all. Assuming one flavor's results apply to another isn't just a shortcut, it's testing the wrong variable and calling it equivalent. What we actually found, flavor by flavor Here's where this stops being theoretical and starts being our actual lab reports, flavor by flavor, exactly as each one came back rather than smoothed into a single summary. Our vanilla protein went to Delta Labs of South Florida, and protein content was verified by the Kjeldahl method at 23.0 grams per serving, right on the label. Heavy metals on that batch came back essentially at the floor of what the testing can even detect: lead, arsenic, and mercury all below 0.00003 milligrams per serving, cadmium at 0.000009 milligrams per serving, all comfortably inside the combined heavy metal limit set for that test. Our chocolate protein went through a separate process entirely, tested at Certified Laboratories rather than assumed to mirror the vanilla results. That batch came back with lead at 0.032 parts per million, arsenic at 0.020, cadmium at 0.096, and mercury not detected at all. Worth being precise about what that test actually was: this particular report was a "report the result" test rather than a pass or fail against a printed numeric limit, which is a different kind of document than the vanilla one, and we're not going to blur that distinction just because both reports use the word "heavy metals." What we can tell you honestly is that these are small numbers, well below the range that's drawn attention in cocoa products generally, on a flavor where we specifically expected cadmium to be the number worth watching given everything explained above. The fact that we were watching for it, and that it came back low, is the entire point of testing it separately in the first place. Our chocolate collagen protein, a related but distinct batch, went through the same independent process and came back with lead at 0.212 parts per million, arsenic at 0.012, cadmium at 0.044, and mercury not detected. Different lot, different result, run on its own rather than borrowed from anything else in the catalog. The microbiological side of that same batch came back clean too, total plate count and yeast and mold both under 10 colony-forming units per gram, with the full pathogen panel, coliforms, E. coli, Pseudomonas, Staph, Salmonella, and Candida albicans, all coming back absent. Two separate reports, chemical and microbiological, both run specifically on the chocolate batch rather than inherited from anywhere else. It's not just about cocoa Electrolytes are a quieter version of the same lesson. Our lemon-lime and raspberry flavors aren't separated by an ingredient as different as cocoa is from vanilla, but they're still built around different flavor and color sources, and we test each one on its own rather than treating "electrolytes" as a single product with two paint jobs. Lemon-lime came back at 0.051 parts per million lead, 0.024 arsenic, 0.003 cadmium, and 0.005 mercury. Raspberry came back at 0.095 lead, 0.029 arsenic, 0.004 cadmium, and 0.002 mercury. Neither set of numbers is concerning, but notice they're not identical, and they're not supposed to be treated as if they were just because the base electrolyte formula underneath is the same. Microbial testing was run separately too, both flavors checked individually for total plate count, yeast and mold, and the full pathogen panel, all coming back clean on each. The takeaway isn't that raspberry is somehow worse than lemon-lime, and we'd actively push back on anyone trying to read it that way. It's that even a small difference in flavoring or coloring is still a different ingredient, sourced separately, and "separately sourced" is exactly the phrase that should trigger a separate test, every time, regardless of how minor the difference looks on the label or how silly it might seem to run two full panels on what's essentially the same product with a different fruit note. What this actually costs us It would be considerably cheaper to test one flavor per product line and assume the rest follow. Fewer samples shipped, fewer invoices from the lab, fewer batches held up waiting on results that haven't come back yet. Multiply that across every flavor of every product, electrolytes, protein, anything else we add a variant to down the line, and the cost difference between testing everything separately and testing one representative version adds up fast, in dollars and in the time it adds to every single launch. We're not going to pretend that tradeoff doesn't exist, because it does, every single time we launch a new flavor of anything. There's a logistics cost too, beyond the invoice. Every separate sample is its own shipment, its own intake at the lab, its own place in the queue, its own turnaround time. A flavor launch that could theoretically ship the moment manufacturing finishes instead waits on a result that hasn't come back yet, sometimes for more than a week. That's a real delay, a real cost to moving fast, and a real incentive for a brand under pressure to cut that corner quietly, since almost nobody checking the shelf would ever know the difference. What that tradeoff buys instead is the ability to say something specific and true about every single product we sell, rather than a true statement about one flavor stretched to cover the others by implication. A brand that tests one flavor and lets the marketing copy imply the rest are equally verified is making a claim it hasn't actually earned. We'd rather spend the extra time and the extra invoice than be that brand, even on the products where the difference between flavors is genuinely small. How to check whether a brand actually does this You can't tell from a label alone whether a brand tested every flavor or just one and called it close enough. The label looks identical either way, same claims, same badges, same reassuring language regardless of what actually happened behind it, same confident tone whether the document behind it exists or not. What you can do is ask, directly, for the specific Certificate of Analysis tied to the specific flavor and lot number on the product actually in front of you, not a general "our products are tested" page, and not a single COA posted once and left up indefinitely regardless of which flavor or batch someone happens to be asking about. A brand that can hand you the exact document for the exact flavor you're holding is doing what we're describing in this post. A brand that hands you one COA and lets you assume it covers everything in the lineup isn't necessarily lying outright, but it's letting you draw a conclusion the paperwork doesn't actually support, which is its own quiet kind of dishonesty even if every individual sentence on the label is technically true. The difference between those two situations is invisible until you ask the specific question, which is exactly why it's worth asking, on our products and on anyone else's. Where we're still building this out In the interest of the same honesty we're asking you to extend us elsewhere: heavy metal and microbial safety testing happens independently across our flavors, but full nutritional verification, the kind of Kjeldahl protein test we ran on our vanilla batch, isn't yet something we've run separately on every single flavor variant. That's a gap we're actively closing rather than one we're going to paper over by implying it's already done. Here's the honest reasoning behind why safety testing came first. If a batch is contaminated or carries a microbial problem, that's a real, immediate risk to anyone who drinks it, regardless of how accurate the protein number on the label happens to be. If a batch is slightly under or over its exact protein claim, that's a labeling accuracy issue, a real one, worth fixing, but not the same category of urgency. We built out the safety testing across every flavor first because it mattered more first, and we're extending the same rigor to potency verification on every variant as the next phase, not because the order doesn't matter, but because it genuinely does, and we'd rather sequence it honestly than claim we'd already finished something we hadn't. Contamination and microbial safety are the non-negotiable tests that happen on everything, every flavor, every time. Full nutritional-panel verification on every variant is the next standard we're building toward, and we'd rather tell you exactly where that stands today than let "we test every flavor" imply more completeness than currently exists. The same principle, a different axis If you've read anything else we've written about testing, you've probably noticed a pattern: we don't trust a single good result to stand in for everything else, ever, on anything. Testing every batch instead of testing once is about time, the same formula drifting slightly from one production run to the next. Testing every flavor instead of testing one is about ingredients, a formula that looks like a small variation but actually introduces a different sourcing chain entirely. They're two different axes of the same underlying refusal to extrapolate from a result that doesn't actually cover what's being claimed. It's worth naming the third axis too, even though this particular post is mostly about the second one: different product categories entirely, our cosmetics versus our supplements versus anything else we eventually add to the catalog, get held to entirely different testing standards because they're answering entirely different questions. A microbial limit that makes sense for a capsule you swallow isn't automatically the right limit for a soap bar you rinse off and never ingest, and a heavy metal panel built for a dietary supplement isn't the same panel a cosmetic regulation expects, or needs. Batch, flavor, and category are three separate reasons the same word, "tested," can mean wildly different amounts of actual rigor depending on which one a brand is quietly skipping, and most people reading a label have no way of knowing which axis, if any, actually got covered. As we add new scents or flavors to any line going forward, soap, electrolytes, anything else, the same standard applies before launch, not as an afterthought added once someone asks. A new lemongrass-soap variant, or a new electrolyte flavor, doesn't inherit a pass from whatever scent or flavor came before it. It starts from zero, the same as everything already on the shelf did. Most shortcuts in this industry look reasonable from a distance. "We tested the formula" sounds complete until you ask which formula, which batch, which flavor, and realize the answer is usually "one of them, a while ago." We'd rather the answer always be "this exact one, recently, on its own," even when that's the slower and more expensive way to run a company. Why this matters more than it sounds like it should A cocoa-flavored product carrying a different heavy metal profile than a vanilla one isn't a flaw specific to any single brand. It's a basic fact about how that ingredient interacts with soil, true industry-wide, whether a company chooses to test for it or not. The actual choice a brand makes isn't whether the difference exists, it's whether they're willing to go looking for it. We'd rather know, batch by batch and flavor by flavor, than assume. That's a slower, costlier way to run a supplement company, and it's also the only version of "tested" that means anything once you understand what a single shared result is actually capable of telling you, and what it isn't. If there's one thing worth taking away from this beyond our own specific numbers, it's a question worth asking of anything you buy, from us or from anyone else: when a brand says a product is tested, ask which specific version of it actually got tested, how recently, and against what standard. Most of the time, that question has a clear, satisfying answer. Sometimes it doesn't, and the silence that follows is usually more informative than anything printed on the label. That's really the whole post, stretched out: a label is a promise, and a Certificate of Analysis is the only thing that actually backs that promise up, flavor by flavor, batch by batch, ingredient by ingredient. We'd rather keep producing the second thing than get comfortable resting on the first.
Learn more