Burntide Official Website › Burntide Reviews
Burntide Reviews: 4.7 Out of 5 From 986 Buyers
Burntide scores 4.7 out of 5 across 986 written reviews, and 91% of reviewers would recommend it.
The reviews come from 7,197 orders. 66% gave five stars, and the usual wait before a reported change is 3 to 6 weeks.
Thinking of trying it? See the packs.
The aggregate, the distribution, the roster and the criticisms. What this page does not have is transcripts, and it says so rather than manufacturing them.
The Burntide score, and the shape behind it
Start with the shape rather than the headline. An average is a single number standing in for 986 opinions, and the useful information is in how they are spread.
Percentages as published by the distributor, rounded, totalling 100.
Eighty-seven per cent gave four stars or five. Thirteen per cent gave three or fewer. Roughly one buyer in seven across 7,197 orders wrote anything at all, which is normal and which also means the silent majority is not represented here in either direction.
The number this page will not calculate. How many people stopped taking it. Nobody collects that, a review page cannot infer it, and the group least likely to write a review is the group that quietly gave up in week two.
The three Burntide review themes, with their counts
This is the part of the page that most review pages get wrong, so it is worth being explicit about what was supplied.
The distributor publishes three sentences of review text, and attaches each one to a group of reviewers. Five people are filed under the first, two under the second and one under the third. They are summary categories, not quotations, and the vendor documentation says so in as many words.
Fed into a quote-card component, three sentences across eight named people produce a page showing the same words five times in a column. That is the single most recognisable signature of a fabricated review page. The alternative, writing eight richer-sounding quotes, is manufacturing testimonials. So here is the third option: print what exists, with the count attached.
The habit stuck — 5 of 8
“Daily habit stuck. Reordered before the last bottle.”
Five of the eight. Every one of them had passed day 44 except Paul D., who wrote at day 14, and four of the five had bought six jars.
Fair at a month, thin in week one — 2 of 8
“Fair at a month. Wanted more in week one.”
Two of the eight, both four-star, both on three jars, both writing well past day 40. This is the criticism the star average hides.
Wanted a faster change, stopped early — 1 of 8
“Wanted a faster change. Called the desk. Stopped at two.”
One of the eight, the only three-star in the roster, writing at day 38 after two jars. He called the order desk rather than giving up quietly.
The recurring praise: A daily gummy that is easy to keep up, and a 60-day window to send it back.
The recurring criticism: A slow start. Several reviewers wanted more to have happened in week one.
Every named Burntide reviewer the distributor publishes
Eight reviewers are named with enough detail to publish. Every column below is real: the age, the city, the pack, the day they wrote on and the score they gave. The right-hand column is the theme their review was filed under, not a sentence they wrote.
| Reviewer | Age | City | Score | Pack | Written on | Filed under |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greg S. | 63 | Atlanta, GA | ★★★★ | 3 jars | Day 40 | Slow start |
| Chris H. | 48 | Sacramento, CA | ★★★ | 3 jars | Day 38 | Wanted faster |
| Leon L. | 44 | Austin, TX | ★★★★ | 3 jars | Day 52 | Slow start |
| Robert C. | 43 | Kansas City, MO | ★★★★★ | 6 jars | Day 51 | Habit stuck |
| Alan W. | 55 | Cleveland, OH | ★★★★★ | 6 jars | Day 45 | Habit stuck |
| Troy G. | 56 | Raleigh, NC | ★★★★★ | 3 jars | Day 48 | Habit stuck |
| David W. | 57 | Portland, OR | ★★★★★ | 6 jars | Day 58 | Habit stuck |
| Paul D. | 53 | Atlanta, GA | ★★★★★ | 6 jars | Day 14 | Habit stuck |
Two patterns fall out of that table, and neither is visible in a 4.7.
The day count. Seven of the eight wrote between day 38 and day 58. One wrote at day 14. Nobody in this roster formed a published opinion during week one, which puts the week-one complaint in context: it is a complaint about waiting, made by people who eventually waited.
The pack. Four of the five five-star reviewers had bought six jars. All three of the lower scores came from three-jar buyers. Eight people prove nothing, and this page will not turn that into a statistic, but it is exactly the sort of thing an average hides and a roster shows.
How this roster should be read. Eight names out of 986 written reviews is a sample the distributor selected. It is not a random draw, nothing on this page calculates anything from it, and it should be read as illustration rather than evidence.
The three Burntide lines attributed to a named buyer
Three lines are attributed to a single named person each. They are short because they were supplied short, and nothing has been added to them.
“Daily gummy.”
Greg, 63, Atlanta“Wait past week two.”
Chris, 48, Sacramento“Desk answered.”
Alan, 55, ClevelandThe middle one is the most useful thing on this page. It comes from Chris, the only three-star reviewer in the roster, who stopped after two jars and called this desk before he did. His advice to the next buyer was still to wait longer than he had.
The third is about the desk rather than the product, and it is worth separating: it says somebody picked up the phone. That is a real and much smaller claim than any claim about the blend, and this website would rather make the small claim it can support.
What the critical Burntide reviews actually say
The criticism in this record is narrow and consistent, and it is more useful than the praise.
Both four-star reviewers say the same thing: fair at a month, wanted more in week one. The three-star reviewer says a version of it with less patience attached. Nobody complains that the parcel was late, that the jar was wrong, that the gummies were unpleasant or that the desk went quiet.
So the complaint is about the gap between what a buyer expected in week one and what happened. That gap is set before the first gummy, by whatever the buyer read. It is the reason this website prints 3 to 6 weeks in the hero, in the timeline and in the pack recommendation, and the reason it argues for three jars rather than six.
There is a physiological reason a fortnight is too short a window for any judgement about this kind of change, and it is not specific to this product. Sumithran 2011 followed the counter-adjustments that follow one for a full year, and Greenway 2015 reviews the same ground.
Grading this Burntide review page against the FTC checklist
Applied to this page, the standard tests for a trustworthy review section give a mixed result, which is why the scorecard is printed rather than described.
| The test | This page | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Is the total number of reviews published? | Yes | 986 written reviews |
| Is the full distribution published? | Yes | Including the 5 per cent at two stars and below |
| Are negative reviews shown at the same size? | Yes | Three of the eight roster rows are four-star or lower |
| Are the reviews verbatim? | No | Three summary sentences, labelled as such |
| Are individual reviews independently verifiable? | No | No public review platform is linked |
| Is the collection method stated? | Yes | Collected by the distributor at purchase |
| Does the seller benefit from the score? | Yes | This desk earns when you buy |
Two rows read No and one reads Yes in the wrong direction. Those three are why the rest of this page is worth reading, and a review section that scored seven out of seven on its own scorecard would be the less believable document.
The Federal Trade Commission publishes the consumer version of this test, and its endorsement guides set out what a seller may and may not do with a testimonial. The question-and-answer version is the most readable of the three.
Six things this Burntide review page does not have
Everything a reader might reasonably want from this page and cannot have, listed rather than left to be noticed.
- Review transcripts. The distributor publishes summaries. There are three sentences and this page has printed all three.
- A link to a public review platform. None is supplied and inventing one would be worse than the gap.
- A measured outcome from any reviewer. Nobody in the record reports a measurement, and this page will not construct one.
- A comparison against people who took nothing. There is no control group. Every review here describes fifty days in which many things were happening at once.
- A count of people who stopped. Not collected by anyone.
- Reviews of this specific lot. The record is not broken down by production run, so nothing here is specific to lot BUR-26/BU-8514.
Any of those would make this page more persuasive. All of them would require making something up.
Questions about the Burntide review record
What is the Burntide rating?
Are these Burntide reviews verified purchases?
Why are there only eight named Burntide reviewers?
Why do five Burntide reviewers share one sentence?
What is the most common Burntide complaint?
How long did Burntide reviewers wait before writing?
Can I trust a 4.7 average on a supplement?
The research behind this Burntide page
Every source below was opened and checked. None of them studied Burntide itself; they concern the ingredients, at the amounts the researchers used.
- Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Advice. How To Evaluate Online Reviews. https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-evaluate-online-reviews
- Federal Trade Commission. Advertisement Endorsements: the FTC's Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising/advertisement-endorsements
- Federal Trade Commission. The FTC's Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
- Sumithran P, Prendergast LA, Delbridge E, et al. Long-term persistence of hormonal adaptations to weight loss. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(17):1597-604. PMID 22029981. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22029981/
- Greenway FL. Physiological adaptations to weight loss and factors favouring weight regain. Int J Obes (Lond). 2015;39(8):1188-96. PMID 25896063. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25896063/
Every page, every journal post, the bottle facts and the ingredients go through review by Dr. Chioma Okafor-Mbah, MD before they ship. We write these pages from the Burntide label, the Supplement Facts panel photographed on the jar, and the paperwork this desk holds. The review figures come from the distributor’s own record and we publish the critical ones at the same size as the positive ones. We cite public research for apple cider vinegar and beta-hydroxybutyrate, and we print “not published” wherever the label withholds a figure rather than estimating it. Where the manufacturer’s own listing artwork claims more than the panel supports, we say so on the page. Corrections are made on the page itself and the review date moves forward. Write to [email protected]. Last reviewed September 2026 by Dr. Chioma Okafor-Mbah, MD.
Order Burntide with the review record in front of you
4.7 out of 5 from 986 written reviews, 91 per cent would recommend, and thirteen per cent would not. Sixty days to decide for yourself.
Price shown at checkout · 4.7 / 5 from 986 reviews
Order Burntide On The Official WebsiteOne gummy a day · 30 per jar · 60-day money-back guarantee · lot BUR-26/BU-8514