Uncut- A New Encapsulated Pre-Workout From Applied Nutriceuticals
- 01-04-2013, 09:13 PM
- 01-04-2013, 09:15 PM
By believing passionately in something that still does not exist, we create it. The nonexistent is whatever we have not sufficiently desired.
01-04-2013, 09:43 PM
01-04-2013, 10:30 PM
So they can keep America fat along with their wallets bc their hands r in The pockets of insurance and doctors???... Woa whered that come fromOriginally Posted by thebigt
01-04-2013, 11:06 PM
01-05-2013, 10:41 AM
01-05-2013, 12:38 PM
01-05-2013, 06:37 PM
Subbed for release!
SERIOUS NUTRITION SOLUTIONS
mack @ seriousnutritionsolutions.com
"Revolutionizing Sports Nutrition, One Product At A Time"
01-07-2013, 02:09 AM
01-07-2013, 12:59 PM
01-07-2013, 01:03 PM
01-07-2013, 01:09 PM
01-07-2013, 04:24 PM
Dirk Tanis, BA, MSci
Chief Operating Officer, Applied Nutriceuticals
01-09-2013, 01:04 PM
I was excited see this as this is one of the two new DSHEA compliant stimulants in HTP blog that I haven't tried.Originally Posted by mr.cooper69
Good stuff AppNut!
Sent from my iPhone using Am.com
"Jackie Treehorn treats objects like woman man."
01-09-2013, 01:51 PM
So when amentoflavone and caffeine in the product stimulating a release in calcium, would it be wise to supplement calcium alongside uncut for long term use?
01-09-2013, 01:56 PM
01-09-2013, 10:46 PM
01-09-2013, 10:59 PM
01-10-2013, 09:00 AM
01-10-2013, 09:41 AM
Waiting to hear more
Always open light. It’s not what you open with, it’s what you finish with. Louie Simmons
01-10-2013, 10:26 AM
"Calcium supplementation has been shown, in well-controlled clinical studies, to slow age-related bone loss and reduce the risk of hip and other fractures in middle aged and older men and women. Using U.S. data on the medical costs associated with hip fracture compared to the costs of preventive supplementation with calcium, Bendich et al. found that supplementation targeted at those at greatest risk could save over $2.5 billion/year . However, cost-effectiveness of calcium supplementation depends not only on the cost of the product, but on the efficiency of its absorption. All published cost-benefit analyses to date have assumed not only an average price per gram of calcium regardless of the salt, but equal bioavailability for all calcium sources.
Shangraw  had previously shown marked differences in dissolution of calcium supplement preparations, due solely to pharmaceutical formulation differences, and unpublished experience of one of us (RPH) has demonstrated that not all preparations of the same salt exhibit equivalent absorbability. Finally, Heller et al.  explicitly raised this question in their recent paper. It is reassuring, therefore, to note that, in this study, Os-Cal® and the non-pharmaceutic, precipitated calcium carbonate exhibited identical bioavailability values. Thus for at least one marketed calcium carbonate product, pharmaceutical formulation does not alter the intrinsic bioavailability of its calcium salt. The same conclusion is probably applicable to the marketed citrate product as well. This is because it did not differ from non-pharmaceutic calcium carbonate in this study and because we had previously shown that the bioavailability values of the pure carbonate and citrate salts were identical .
Interestingly, however, and not previously described, several small differences were noted in pattern of response between the citrate and carbonate sources. None was statistically significant in isolation, but taken together, their mutual consistency suggests underlying differences in metabolic response to the two salts. These effects were i) although the rise in total calcium was the same, slightly less of the increment in serum calcium following the carbonate products was carried as the ionized form and slightly more as the bound form, relative to the citrate salt; ii) PTH suppression was slightly greater for the Citracal® than for the Os-Cal®, and the difference approximately coincided with the time points at which the ionized calcium differences were most prominent; and iii) urine calcium excretion in the 5 to 24 hour pool was higher for the Citracal® than for Os-Cal®. The relative depression is shown most clearly in Fig. 4, which plots ionized calcium as a percent of total calcium and shows slightly lower values for the Os-Cal® from 5 to 9 hours. This relative depression may reflect a very slight degree of alkalosis due to exhalation of CO2 from the carbonate anion, but the reason for the delay after ingestion is unclear. Physiologically, these changes are mutually consistent, since a higher ionized calcium would be expected to lead to a greater depression of PTH release, to an increased filtered calcium load at the kidney and, through lowered PTH, to decreased tubular reabsorption of calcium. Although the greater rise in urine calcium with calcium citrate was not statistically significant in this study, it is worth noting that Heller et al.  reported a significant loss of calcium in urine following supplementation with calcium citrate (Citracal®) which was not seen with an equivalent dose of calcium carbonate (Os-Cal®).
We had not designed the study to evaluate this issue, and, indeed, we had not anticipated it. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the finding of a slight increase in calcium excretion with the citrate source is consistent with what we had reported previously . In that earlier investigation, despite identical tracer-based absorption fractions for the citrate and carbonate salts of calcium, there was a tendency for the urine calcium increment to be greater with the citrate than with the carbonate. We had attributed that finding to a calciuric effect of absorbed citrate, but, in view of the ionized calcium findings in this study, it may, instead, reflect a mild alkalotic effect of the carbonate salt.
On a methodologic note, it may be worth mentioning that the increments in urine calcium were substantially more variable than the increments in serum calcium. The coefficients of variation (CVs) of the serum and urine calcium increments at their peak values (3 and 5 hours for serum and 0 to 5 hours for urine), for all calcium sources, were 38% to 60% for serum and 77% to 99% for urine. This roughly twofold greater variability underscores, as we have noted previously , the relative weakness of using the rise in urine calcium to estimate absorptive performance, particularly for loads as small as 500 mg.
For this study, the retail cost per 1000 mg of ingested calcium was between $0.16 and $0.20 for the marketed calcium carbonate product and between $0.24 and $0.38 for the marketed calcium citrate product. Since both sources exhibited equivalent bioavailability, it is clear that the carbonate source was the less expensive of the two per unit of absorbed calcium and would therefore exhibit a more favorable cost-benefit relationship in a cost-effectiveness analyses such as set forth in Table 4. Additionally, although not usually considered in cost benefit analysis, the greater calcium density of carbonate-based products means that fewer pills are needed to achieve a desired supplement intake, a factor known to influence patient compliance .
In this study we used 25(OH)D as a rapid and efficient means of ensuring approximately equivalent vitamin D status in all subjects. Such treatment would not be a part of population-level supplementation, and its costs are, accordingly, not a part of our calculations. Vitamin D is contained in both of the supplements tested here, and its cost is, therefore, already factored into the analysis summarized in Table 4.
While we tested only two commercially available products in this analysis, our purpose was not so much to contrast these two specifically as to use them as examples for a type of calculation and analysis that should be performed for all marketed calcium supplement products. It was beyond the scope of this project to undertake an exhaustive survey of different pharmaceutical formulations, although we believe this should be done. It is a matter of commonplace experience that there are many other alcium products available, at least some of which explicitly meet the USP disintegration and dissolution standards for calcium upplements (and therefore can be presumed to have a bioavailability comparable to what we found here). Their prices range from as low as $0.09 per 1000 mg to as much as $0.53. Lacking bioavailability data for most of these products, it is uncertain whether any of them would exhibit an advantage over the products tested here.
In conclusion, based upon bioavailability, cost and clinical efficacy, calcium carbonate, in the form of Os-Cal®, would appear to be a good choice for calcium supplementation in a US population at risk for both low bone mineral density and hip fracture."
Dirk Tanis, BA, MSci
Chief Operating Officer, Applied Nutriceuticals
01-10-2013, 12:06 PM
Its interesting that as high in calcium as the western diet is the amount of osteoporosis cases seen. Osteoporosis is basically non existent in other parts of the world and they consume much less calcium. Mainly due to the fact that many americans work sedentary jobs and in other countries they do much more manual labor which is probably the reasoning behind bone strengthening. A little off topic but interesting none the less.
01-10-2013, 12:36 PM
01-10-2013, 12:37 PM
01-10-2013, 12:45 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By HYBRID in forum NutraplanetReplies: 3Last Post: 12-11-2012, 10:09 PM
- By NxtGenCowboy in forum Athletix SportsReplies: 105Last Post: 02-10-2012, 08:44 PM
- By SamBoz19 in forum Company PromotionsReplies: 32Last Post: 01-21-2009, 02:31 PM
- By NutraPlanet CS in forum NutraplanetReplies: 8Last Post: 08-31-2008, 12:20 PM
- By TheMyth in forum SupplementsReplies: 18Last Post: 01-01-2008, 09:16 PM