Name: Aptonia Casein5
Brand: Aptonia
SKU: 3583788488729

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality67/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

La caséine est une protéine d'absorption lente. CASEIN 5 une formue,e constituée à 100% de casetne maceflatre Issue du lait. Les protéines participent au maintien et à la croissance de la masse musculaire. Chaque dose de 30g contient 23. lg de protéines enrichies en caséine micellaire, 5,0 g d'acides amnes Proténes de lait nchcs en caséine micellaire (95,3%), cacao maigre en poudre, arôme, acesutfame de potasstum et sucralose. Fabnqué dans un atelier utilisant : gluten, Œuf, sulfites, crustacés, Nous conseillons une prise avant le coucher 40n effet Brotonne sera beneflque pendant la nuit. Vous pouvez aussi compléter votre alimentation en consommant un shaker de CASEtN 5 en substitut de repas, Vappott protéique total moyen recommandé, chez les sportifs, est de 1 à 1 5g/kg de poids corporel:jour, Les 2/3 des apports protetques devant étre apportés par une alimentation variée et équilibrée. Én cas de consommation prolonaee (> a 2 mois). demandez consetl à un meaecin ou un diététicien. Ce produit est contre-indiqué en cas d insuffisance renaie, hepatique et pour les femmes enceintes et .les personnes de moins de 14 ans. En complement d'une actWlte physique, tt est Important de conserver une alimentation vavs.et équil(brée et un mode de vie sain. Tenir hors de portée votre 0 Mélanger 250 ml d'eau des enfants Se conformer a la dose matière recommandée is. Mélanger pendant 30 secondes et déguster Pour a deux cutiieres de CASEIN 5 (soit dans un shaker 250 ml de lait. Conserver dans un endroit frais et sec. obtentr une boisson plus onctueuse, vous pouvez mélanger C 4*'ci-dessous. Bsen refermer

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

—

/100

Nutrition profile

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 71/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

Nutrition score measures nutrient profile only. Processing, environment, label quality, and data confidence stay separate so missing data or formulation signals do not silently change nutrition quality.

The data is partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
Impact: medium
Non-sugar sweeteners (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
Impact: high

Some source data is incomplete for this product: energy per 100g, sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, quantity, category, nutrition panel, and allergens. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality67/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

—

/100

Nutrition profile

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 71/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

The data is partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (50%).
Impact: medium
Non-sugar sweeteners (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
Impact: high

Aptonia Casein5

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Aptonia Casein5

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Mittesuhkrulised magusained

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs