jaakonpallo
Member
- Awards
- 0
For joints, i think it's 5% vs 10% extract. Opinions...what is better?
I think primaforce has the highest but it didn't treat my joints as well as super cissusI don't want to hijack this thread, but where I can find the highest extract?
Why do you want the highest extract?I don't want to hijack this thread, but where I can find the highest extract?
I've been reading around that alongside chronic use, the highest extract has test boosting effects.Why do you want the highest extract?
Very, very little. If you want a test booster then get a test boosterI've been reading around that alongside chronic use, the highest extract has test boosting effects.
I've always looked at their later absence of stating the standardization and just calling it a prop as a way for them to have the ability to use whatever they could get their hands on at the time Their batches definitely varies and most of the time the stuff works well but then sometimes it doesn't work as well.SNS uses the standardized for 5% ketosterones which it the preferred for joint,tendons. USP doesn't list theirs. In the past I think that had 10% and 20% stated on different batches
Why is 5% preferred?SNS uses the standardized for 5% ketosterones which it the preferred for joint,tendons. USP doesn't list theirs. In the past I think that had 10% and 20% stated on different batches
USPRep surely this must not be trueI've always looked at their later absence of stating the standardization and just calling it a prop as a way for them to have the ability to use whatever they could get their hands on at the time Their batches definitely varies and most of the time the stuff works well but then sometimes it doesn't work as well.
Touey read post 11 much more relevant...USPRep surely this must not be true
A study with no control subjects??? I would get a refundTouey read post 11 much more relevant...
We patented the extract, which costs well over 100,000 dollars of filing and legal fees to vary our raw material.
And then we funded a University study, again, which costs well over 100,000 that is published to vary our raw material...
Better for joint issues???Why is 5% preferred?
How does SNS test for Ketosterones?
Why is it better?Better for joint issues???
There is new emerging science and reasons not to have a control group but I get your point. The study went through the peer review process and was published.A study with no control subjects??? I would get a refund
Not doubting the results of your study(cissus works no doubt about it) but I thought it was a "mistake" by the manufacturer that the placebo was not sentThere is new emerging science and reasons not to have a control group but I get your point. The study went through the peer review process and was published.
What are you basing your 5% is better claim? A study probably since you are attacking a study??
presumably it could be that we said the 5% is better in the past.
I recall you had the patent even before you stopped disclosing the standardization %. So what does the patent have to do with the matter at hand, that Super Cissus no long discloses standardization % and it has had a history of using different standardization %'s (which in and of itself is odd seeing how much of the importance was placed on the patent so one would assume that there wouldn't be the need to change the use of standardization %'s, unless the patent isn't for the standardization % and instead for the extraction/standardization method).1. We discovered the Joint Benefits and the reason there is a Cissus Joint Category
2. Our Extract is Patented
3. Our extract has a published clinical study
Not bad?
What is the history of using different standardizations?I recall you had the patent even before you stopped disclosing the standardization %. So what does the patent have to do with the matter at hand, that Super Cissus no long discloses standardization % and it has had a history of using different standardization %'s (which in and of itself is odd seeing how much of the importance was placed on the patent so one would assume that there wouldn't be the need to change the use of standardization %'s, unless the patent isn't for the standardization % and instead for the extraction/standardization method).
I'm not knocking the product as it's one of the few USPLabs products I use regularly, but from personal experience, not all bottles I've used worked the same. Some have been "weaker" than other bottles I've used.
its all assumptions...Not doubting the results of your study(cissus works no doubt about it) but I thought it was a "mistake" by the manufacturer that the placebo was not sent
Anecdotally, the lower % seems to have more effects on joints health than the higher~ possible due to the higher extracts have more effect on cortisol...a lot of the assumptions about the higher % are really unknown still to date
I do recall Super Cissus having had used 10% and then later 20% and now you guys just don't disclose this at all anymore. So touting it being patented doesn't make much sense or appear to even play a role if it goes from 10% one day to 20% later down then line and now the label just states it's an extract from the stem of the plant.What is the history of using different standardizations?
the higher percent extract was used in symmetry X...
your first statement is false. As I said the higher percentage was used in Symmetry X.I do recall Super Cissus having had used 10% and then later 20% and now you guys just don't disclose this at all anymore. So touting it being patented doesn't make much sense or appear to even play a role if it goes from 10% one day to 20% later down then line and now the label just states it's an extract from the stem of the plant.
At minimum, what would be the reasoning of changing the labeling to now just state that it's an extract from the stem of the plant when initially (this is from memory here) the original RX stated 10% (10% of what is unknown). Then there's the fact that not only myself but other users have experienced a variance in potency from using different bottles over time, this would indicate to me that something in the product changed. So we have the label change (which made little to no sense), personal experience of a change in product potency (along with many other users anecdotally experiencing the same thing of a fall off in potency), and then with your point of the product being patented, two very curious things.
Where in my statement is false? My personal experience with the product over the years or the fact that you guys changed the labeling? Both points are 110% true statements as 1) my personal experience and the anecdotal experience of others can not really be argued to be false as these are what our experiences have been with the product and 2) the label in fact DID change.your first statement is false. As I said the higher percentage was used in Symmetry X.
the double standards, if a company uses "anecdotal" they get crushed, but turn the tables and its ok...
1st statement as the first paragraph about standardization is false. a 20% was never used.Where in my statement is false? My personal experience with the product over the years or the fact that you guys changed the labeling? Both points are 110% true statements as 1) my personal experience and the anecdotal experience of others can not really be argued to be false as these are what our experiences have been with the product and 2) the label in fact DID change.
I didn't even slam the product or USPLabs, really the only question I posed here thus far has been what the reasoning was to change the labeling.
Not really worth spatting about but I could have sworn it was much more recent that that..maybe 1.5 years ago?1st statement as the first paragraph about standardization is false. a 20% was never used.
The labeling changed 3 years ago, possibly even 4.
Thus I qualified my statement by stating that I recalled the 10% and 20%, though I've seen multiple people suggest that there was a change from 10% to 20%. However, regardless of that, the labeling change was never explained and there seems to be no good reason for the label to change if the contents of the product is the same from day one.1st statement as the first paragraph about standardization is false. a 20% was never used.
The labeling changed 3 years ago, possibly even 4.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
SNS Cissus XT Powder - 120 Grams - Now Available | Supplements | 13 | ||
Best joint ingredients (SNS Cissus-XT) | Supplements | 24 | ||
Cissus and Noopept by SNS on SALE at NUTRIVERSE | Company Promotions | 10 | ||
Expired SNS Cissus-XT? | Supplements | 10 | ||
SNS CISSUS XT | Supplement Logs | 25 |