Why We Left These Ingredients Out of GRNS (And Why It Matters)

Most supplement marketing focuses on what's in a product. We think what's not in GRNS is equally worth discussing because many of the ingredients we deliberately excluded are standard in competing products, and understanding why we excluded them explains what we were trying to build.

Artificial Sweeteners (like Stevia, Sucralose or Aspartame)

Many greens powders use stevia or other non-nutritive sweeteners to cover the taste of overly bitter blends. But these can leave a lingering aftertaste and in some people, even cause bloating or digestive discomfort.

Why we skipped it:
We wanted a mild, neutral refreshing flavour that didn’t rely on masking agents. GRNS is lightly earthy and smooth enough to mix with water or blend into smoothies without the artificial sweetness.

Artificial sweeteners are effective at flavour masking. They're also cheap and stable. But a 2022 study in Cell demonstrated that sucralose and saccharin both commonly used in supplement products significantly altered gut microbiome composition and impaired glycaemic response in healthy adults. For a product explicitly designed to support gut health, including compounds that demonstrably alter the gut microbiome in negative ways is a formulation contradiction we weren't willing to make.

Cheap Fillers & Bulking Agents (Like Maltodextrin)

Maltodextrin is a processed starch used as a bulking agent, carrier material, and texture improver. Its glycaemic index is higher than table sugar. Animal and in vitro research suggests it promotes growth of E. coli and other gram-negative bacteria that produce lipopolysaccharides the endotoxins that drive the systemic inflammation associated with gut dysbiosis. It adds cheap bulk and improves mixability; it provides zero nutritional value and likely worsens the gut environment we're trying to support.

Proprietary Blends for Active Ingredients

Proprietary blends are the primary mechanism by which supplement companies include impressive ingredient names at therapeutically irrelevant doses. We don't use them for active ingredients. The adaptogens, probiotics, fibre, and key micronutrients in GRNS have individually disclosed amounts because you cannot assess whether a formula is worth paying for without knowing what dose you're actually getting.

The practical test: look at the ashwagandha dose in a proprietary blend greens powder versus what the clinical trials showing cortisol reduction used (300600mg). If the blend doesn't disclose amounts, there's no way to know whether the dose is meaningful. We chose transparency not as a marketing differentiation but as a prerequisite for honest claims about efficacy.

Hidden “Superfood Buzzwords” with No Dosage Backing

Ever seen a label stacked with exotic-sounding ingredients like wheatgrass, matcha, lion’s mane, or ashwagandha but with no dosage listed? Many of these are just included in tiny trace amounts for marketing appeal.

Why we skipped it (sort of):
We actually included many of these powerhouse ingredients in GRNS but we included them at functional, evidence-backed dosages, and we listed every amount on the label. So you’re getting benefits, not buzzwords.

GRNS is built on the principle that the most important decisions in formulation are often negative ones what you choose not to include is as revealing as what you choose to put in. Every ingredient exclusion above reflects a deliberate choice to prioritise the user's health over manufacturing convenience or marketing effectiveness.

Frequently Asked Questions

If inulin is such a good prebiotic, why avoid it?
It's a very good prebiotic for Bifidobacterium stimulation one of the most potent available. The problem is tolerability: a significant proportion of users experience notable gas and bloating, which is both uncomfortable and reduces compliance. A slightly less potent prebiotic that users will actually take consistently every day is more valuable than a highly potent one they stop taking because of side effects. Psyllium husk achieves meaningful prebiotic effects with dramatically better tolerability.

Does avoiding artificial sweeteners mean GRNS is less palatable?
We think it means it's more palatable monk fruit provides a cleaner, less polarising sweetness than stevia (which carries a liquorice aftertaste that many people find unpleasant) and without the concerns about artificial sweetener effects on the gut. Taste is subjective, but the monk fruit profile is consistently preferred over stevia by people who are sensitive to stevia aftertaste which is a meaningful proportion of the population.

Are proprietary blends ever justified?
They can be if a manufacturer has genuinely novel combinations or ratios that represent intellectual property worth protecting, there's a legitimate argument. In practice, the greens powder category is not characterised by novel proprietary innovations it's characterised by formulas that use the same ingredients as everyone else at undisclosed doses. We can't think of anything in GRNS that requires dose secrecy. Transparency is the default, and proprietary blend exceptions should carry the burden of proof.