Innerbody's medically-reviewed team concludes Mitopure is a research-supported, NSF Certified for Sport product that can be a worthwhile investment for mitochondrial/muscle health despite a high price, but flags that capsules occasionally leaked in their testing, the powder is only available in one flavor, and long-term safety data beyond several months is still limited.
Mitopure® Powder
How we scored this product Show the full breakdown
Bevisning gates dose: the evidence grade sets the ceiling, and the dose decides how much of that ceiling the product reaches. Value = inverse of price-per-trial-dose-day. Community = mean sentiment of external reviews. Säkerhet caps applied after weighting.
This score is our editorial judgment, not a scientific standard. We combine published evidence, dose, price, transparency, and consumer signals into one composite: this is our method, not a peer-reviewed clinical rating. A higher score means a product does better on the factors we weight, not that it is medically proven to work.
Question 1
Does the molecule work?
Does the molecule work?
The science behind each active ingredient, independent of which brand sells it.
The only longevity ingredient with a replicated RCT showing muscle-strength gains.
Question 2
Is this bottle good?
Is this bottle good?
The specific product: dose, price, transparency, and what buyers report.
Question 3
What's the catch?
What's the catch?
Säkerhet flags, transparency gaps, dosing concerns, and recurring buyer complaints.
Quick verdict
The numbers
Data verification
Per-ingredient breakdown
All product data is checked against original sources. Prices, doses, and testing status are updated when product pages change. Bevisning grades are reviewed when new human RCTs are published. Read how we verify.
What's inside
Consumer signals
Consumer signals gathered from 1 platform.
Low confidence, small sampleConsumer sentiment compiled from 1 public source (Cell Reports Medicine (Singh 2022)). Small sample size, treat as directional only.
positive sentiment
Compiled from a Cell Reports Medicine (Singh 2022) listing located during manual research; not independently re-verified against the live page at build time.
These are consumer sentiment signals. They do not measure whether the product actually works. See our evidence section for that.
What others say, with a source hierarchy
We treat external opinion very differently depending on where it comes from. Tier A is our strongest signal. Tier C is background sentiment only. Tier Rejected is what we excluded, listed openly so you can see what we discarded.
These reviews are aggregated from third-party sources, not written by NO1GEVITY. Each entry shows its source, retrieval date, and whether the source has an affiliate or paid relationship. We do not edit reviews to change their meaning. Disclosure policy.
Independent deep reviews, lab tests, certificates of analysis
Our strongest external evidence. Long-form independent reviews, physical-product lab work, and third-party certifications.
Timeline's product passed independent third-party potency testing while the majority of tested competitors did not, reinforcing that Timeline's NSF Certified for Sport claim reflects real label accuracy.
ConsumerLab's freely visible summary states clinical research on urolithin A for muscle health shows only 'limited benefit' in both young active adults and middle-aged/older adults, a notably more cautious framing than Timeline's own marketing.
Aggregated sentiment (Trustpilot, Reddit)
Mood indicator only. We never use aggregate stars as evidence of efficacy.
Mixed/thin evidence, Trustpilot coverage of Timeline's official domain is fragmented across at least four country-specific subdomains (timeline.com, timeline.co.uk, timelinenutrition.com, and regional variants) each with small, inconsistent sample sizes (2-42 reviews) and ratings ranging from 2.5 to 4.5 out of 5.
Sources we transparently discard
Marketing-quoted press, obviously fabricated aggregate ratings, or heavy-affiliate 'reviews'. Listed openly so you can see what we excluded.
Vendor-hosted reviews are not independent, Timeline controls collection, display, and moderation of this feedback.
The article's own disclosure states, 'In partnership with Timeline... we only endorse produkter we believe in,' and it functions as a sponsored interview/advertorial rather than an arm's-length review.
Community threads and aggregate ratings
Additional public mentions we located, kept separate from the deep independent reviews above.
Full 1000 mg dose showed clinically meaningful strength gain in the trial arm.
Vår sammanfattning
Bevisning, what actually backs this product
Longevity brands rarely test their exact finished product. We separate what's tested from what's inferred.
Research behind this product
The studies that established the trial dose and evidence grade for each active ingredient in this product. Click through to read the original paper.
Claim check, vendor claims vs. our reading of the evidence
Not medical advice. We list the strongest claims made by the brand and check each against traceable evidence.
Regelverk status
Rules change often. We record when we last verified each row. See the full regulatory timeline →
What we could not verify
We list this openly. If a claim isn't backed by a source we can trace, we'd rather flag it than repeat it.
- No public, batch-specific Certificate of Analysis (CoA) for the powder was located on Timeline's website, third-party testing is asserted (NSF Certified for Sport, cGMP, FSSC 22000, ISO 9001) but consumers cannot inspect a per-lot CoA themselves.
- The exact formulation (powder vs. softgel vs. unbranded capsule) used as the oral dosing vehicle in the pivotal muscle-function trials (Andreux 2019, Singh 2022 Cell Reports Medicine, Liu 2022 JAMA Network Open) is not explicitly disclosed in the publicly available materials we reviewed, so we cannot confirm those specific strength/endurance results were generated with the exact commercial powder stickpack.
- EU, UK, and Swiss regulatory status for urolithin A as a novel food appears to be in different stages across jurisdictions (some sources describe it as 'authorised' for Amazentis specifically, while the UK Food Standards Agency and Swiss FSVO show applications still in progress/pending as of 2025), we could not fully reconcile these into one settled EU-wide status.
- Independent, large-sample Trustpilot data specific to Timeline's official domain (timeline.com) is thin and fragmented across country subdomains (e.g., the main US Trustpilot page shows only a handful of reviews, while a UK subdomain 'timelinenutrition.com' shows a separate small review pool), we could not verify a single authoritative, high-N Trustpilot score for the brand.
- ConsumerLab.com has written content referencing comparative testing of Timeline Mitopure against competitor urolithin A produkter, but the full test results/verdict are behind a paywall we could not access; we relied on a secondary independent lab report (SuppCo) for quantitative purity data instead.
- We could not verify whether the head-to-head, five-formulation Mitopure pharmacokinetic trial (NCT06362018) is sponsored by or affiliated with Amazentis/Timeline, nor have its results been published, so the definitive powder-vs-softgel-vs-gummy bioequivalence question remains formally open.
-
Trustpilot aggregator
This is a brand-level customer-service profile for timeline; it does not isolate Mitopure® Powder.
verified 2026-08-07Open source → -
Reddit r/Supplements community forummixed sentiment
Community discussion exists, with positive mentions of clinical evidence and Urolitin A benefits alongside concerns about the high price. No single Reddit thread is treated as a representative product review.
no direct URLchecked 2026-08-07 -
Timeline on-site reviews own platform4.5/51113 reviews
Timeline displays first-party powder reviews on its public page.
verified 2026-08-07Open source → -
Amazon customers aggregator
An Amazon listing for this exact product was located. The product URL is not retained because marketplace listings can change.
no direct URLchecked 2026-08-07
Redaktionellt notes
Full trial dose in one stick. Vanilla flavor.
Why this scored this way
This Timeline Nutrition Mitopure® Powder scores 8.6, making it one of the highest-scoring produkter on the site. It delivers the full 1000mg trial dose of Urolitin A with grade A evidence (strong human trial data). At $4.64/day it's among the more expensive options in Mitochondrial.
What drives the score up
- Dose-evidence score of 10.0 reflects good alignment with trial doses.
- Tested by independent lab (transparency 8.0).
- Community score of 9.0 with positive consumer feedback.
- Urolitin A is dosed at the full research level with grade A evidence (strong human trial data).
What drags it down
- No public analysintyg available for independent verification.
- At $4.64/day it's on the expensive side.
Why you'd choose it
- You want Urolitin A from a Timeline Nutrition product.
- You want a tested by independent lab product.
- You want doses that align with published research.
Why you might skip it
- You want a product with a publicly available CoA.
- You want a cheaper option (this is $4.64/day).
Where this sits
Spot an error?
If you are the manufacturer or brand owner of Mitopure® Powder and believe any data on this page is incorrect (wrong dose, wrong ingredient, wrong price, missing certification, outdated status), you can request a correction.
We review every request, verify it against primär sources, and publish any change with a dated note in the version history above. Corrections from brand owners are treated the same as corrections from anyone else: verified before they move.
Request a correction →Similar produkter
All Mitochondrial →The next highest-scoring produkter in Mitochondrial, same scoring method, same rules.