Profound Focus: a debut formula that publishes all seven doses, and what each dose is actually standing on

Profound Supplements does not exist on a shelf yet. It has a founder — Tim Gritzman, previously a partner and general manager at New York retailer Natural Body, per Stack3d’s late-August announcement — and, since 2 September, a published formula for its first product. No price, no launch date, no customer. This is a review of a formula, written before it reaches a tub.

Stack3d’s formula report gives a milligram figure for each of the seven named ingredients. Every number below comes from that report, and a finished panel will also carry excipients it says nothing about — so read this as seven disclosed actives, not a photographed label.

What is published

Two numbers that survive the check

enXtra at 300 mg. OmniActive’s own page puts 300 mg behind its claims of up to five hours of alertness with no effect on heart rate or blood pressure. Whatever you make of supplier-sponsored evidence, the capsule matches the dossier it is sold on.

affron at 28 mg. The 2017 Kell trial in Complementary Therapies in Medicine gave 128 adults self-reporting low mood either 28 mg of affron a day, 22 mg, or placebo, for four weeks. The 28 mg arm separated from placebo on total mood disturbance; 22 mg produced no treatment effect. Profound is on the arm that worked, though a scientist from affron’s own supplier is among the authors. Note the outcome, too: mood, not cognition. This is a focus product.

The number that does not

Sabroxy is Sabinsa’s standardised extract of Indian trumpet tree bark — a minimum of 10 percent oroxylin A, 15 percent baicalein and 6 percent chrysin, per the supplier, whose page names no dose and cites no trial.

There is one trial, and as of 3 September 2026 it is still the only human trial PubMed indexes for this extract and cognition — its authors called it the first. Lopresti and colleagues, in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience in 2021, randomised 82 volunteers to placebo or 500 mg twice daily for twelve weeks — 1,000 mg a day. Profound Focus carries 300 mg, under a third of the studied intake, and that is not a rounding matter. Two qualifiers travel with it: the population was older adults with self-reported cognitive complaints, not healthy people chasing an afternoon, and Sabinsa funded the study, with the group’s founder among the authors. None of that makes the finding worthless. It makes 300 mg a bet that a third of a dose does a third of something.

The trade name with the thinnest file

Eutropoflavin is the interesting entry, because the trade name does all the persuading. Run it through PubMed and, as of 3 September 2026, the database reports the phrase as not found and returns nothing. Search the chemical name, 4’-dimethylamino-7,8-dihydroxyflavone, and three records come back: a TrkB-agonist study in a Huntington’s mouse model, a mouse behavioural paper, and a synthesis paper, 2010 to 2013.

The careful version matters, because the careless version is wrong. That is a date-stamped result from one database under two names, and it does not prove no human data exists — unindexed work, trials in progress and an unpublished dossier are all invisible to that query. It establishes only that a buyer checking this ingredient the ordinary way cannot, today, find a human study to check it against.

Two more rows sit in a different fog. Polygala tenuifolia extract at 300 mg and SalidroPure at 30 mg arrive with no standardisation figure in the published panel, and an extract with no marker compound is a name and a weight, not a comparable dose — the gap this desk flagged in the Beyond Raw panel last month. TTFD at 30 mg is a fat-soluble thiamine derivative, ordinary at that amount.

Plainly: these are supplements. Nothing we could open shows a regulator standing behind any of it, and “branded ingredient” means a company owns a trade name, not that anybody signed anything off. The FDA has evaluated none of these statements, none is meant to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent a disease, and a seven-ingredient capsule alongside prescription medication is a pharmacist’s question.

Pros and cons

Verdict

The score is for the formula, not the product, which does not yet exist to be scored. Disclosure earns most of it, and disclosure is also what buys you the argument: two rows check out against their suppliers’ own numbers, one sits at under a third of the daily amount in the only human trial PubMed indexes for it, and one returns nothing at all under the trade name on the panel. You know that only because Profound published the figures, which is the whole case for publishing them. We will look again when there is a tub.