Any companies have any studies on THEIR products?
- 08-27-2007, 07:12 PM
Any companies have any studies on THEIR products?
To clear up the obvious, I originally started this thread in another board and am moving it over here to create discussion on this board...
I was just thinking recently and I was wondering:
I see many companies cite clinical studies but their own products have never been tested (most likely because it is not required by law). Do any of the products talked about on this forum have documented, scientific research to substantiate product claims?
If I have the choice between going with a company that provides me w/ clinical studies (aka proof) that their product lives up to it's claims vs. a company that makes an identical product but merely cites documented research on the ingredients incorporated into their product but not THEIR specific batch, I'm going to go with the company that has put the time, effort and money (which seems to be a huge issue with these "reputable" companies) into allowing me to rest assured that I'm getting what I'm paying for.
How else can you tell a product is working 100%? The point of doing such studies is -at least IMO and to mention it again- to have proof that your product does what you're telling the consumers it claims it does. Most supplement consumers could care less about clinical research because not only do they not know any better but no one would think there would be any need for it since one might assume that nutritional supplements are supposed to be derived from FOOD but as well know, even food is something that is becoming questionable with the the way crops are being farmed, harvested and treated w/ many different types of questionably safe chemicals and additional ingredients.
Thanks for all your responses and I hope for a good discussion!
- 08-27-2007, 07:20 PM
I thought not too long ago there was a talk of a new law that was trying to be passed by the FDA that would require just that, actual testing of the products that these supplement companies are selling, and then having to prove that they reall do what they say they do.
I could have dreamed that, or just made it up though, so don't quote me word for word on that.
08-27-2007, 08:08 PM
Such suggestions as the one you mentioned have come about largely in response to lax practices by some nutritional
supplement makers. Real nutritional supplements are typically considered food but the fact is that many nutrition companies are considered drug companies. Most companies boast about scientific research and such – if they have a research staff at all – it consists of two or three people.
08-27-2007, 08:28 PM
The following products have clinical studies funded by the company:
Molecular Nutrition's X-Factor
Ergopharm's 6-OXO (love this stuff)
Muscletech has clinical studies done but they're bull****.
08-27-2007, 08:37 PM
Do you know how much money it would cost to fund a worthwhile study on such a product? On top of this, everyone and their brother would tear it down because the study was funded by the company, which may cause bias to the results. In turn, funding such research would do nothing more than wasting profits to open doors for people to point even more fingers.
Because of this, really the only studies that would serve as possibly valuable (depending on how well they can be designed with their budget) would be an independently funded study (i.e. some rich f*cker decides to give some scientists enough money to research a product to see if it is worthwhile).
Because of this and possibly a few other reasons, it is best just to cross-reference from clinical trials.
Example: Beta-Alanine, works according to clinical trials. If a company makes a beta-alanine product with a few other 'goodies' in it, what would testing their beta-alanine in particular prove other than "Hey, we spent thousands of dollars to prove what we already know."
08-27-2007, 10:07 PM
08-27-2007, 10:11 PM
I agree with the sinner and bucknuts, damn we Ohio people are intelligent.
The only way that I would think you need a certificate is for things like hormonals.
08-27-2007, 10:30 PM
I think what dannyboy is wondering about is why you can't search studies on something like Xtend or Cell-tech on PubMed.
I do, of course, have to agree with your first statement: we Ohioans is jeenyusses
09-02-2007, 01:48 PM
There costs are certainly prohibitive. Think about it this way: if you want to do a double blind experiment for some supplement that claims to help you put on lean mass, for example, you'd have to find, say, 12 individuals who are willing to adapt their lifestyle (go on a controlled diet, have measurements taken often, etc.) for at least a week or two. And even then your results might be meaningless depending on how advanced the trainees are, what kind of routines they do, etc.,
This varies by the type of supplement, but people's time is pretty expensive.
There are published studies that claim that novice body builders don't need more than 0.7g of protein per 1lb body weight for the first month of their training...
09-02-2007, 02:02 PM
Correct....a halfway decent university study (if you can even get one willing to whore itself out for a private product company) costs anywhere from $10k-$45k depending on how rigorous it is.
This cost would then be factored into the product cost, which would raise the price anywhere from 30-100 percent.
Then, of course, as soon as you post your study (one of the reasons X-Factor was willing and able to perform studies is because MN has a patent) 25 companies come out of the woodwork, copy (or almost copy) your formula. Not only that, they will use YOUR study in THEIR marketing, and can charge MUCH less, since the cost of studies did not come from their pockets.
If the FDA has its way, you will never get to see a new supplement again, and will have to wait for drug companies to release anything.
Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless
09-02-2007, 03:09 PM
Effects of beta-alanine supplementation on exercise performance during a competitive wrestling season: An 8-week open label study.
Kern BD, Robinson TL, Manninen AH. Physical Education Department, Center High School, 500 S. Broadway Center, Colorado 81125, USA.Email: [email protected]
Background: The goal of wrestlers during a competitive season is to maintain or lose body weight without compromising athletic performance. However, some studies have reported decrements in exercise performance associated with weight loss and/or the strain of a competitive season. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine the effects of 8 week beta-alanine (B-ala) supplementation on exercise performance in Division II collegiate wrestlers during a competitive season. Methods: 25 college wrestlers (age 18 to 22 y) volunteered to participate in this study, and 18 subjects (mean BMI 24.7 ? 3.7) completed the study. Each participant ingested 4 g/d of B-ala in an open-label manner during the final eight weeks of their competitive season. The subjects followed a standard training protocol for collegiate wrestling as dictated by the head coach. They were also required to maintain uniform body mass during the entire eight weeks, as per weight bracket allowance during the competitive season. Before and after supplementation, subjects performed a 400 m sprint and 90 degree flexed-arm hang to exhaustion. Immediately prior to and following the pre treatment and post treatment 400 m sprint, subjects blood lactate was taken via finger stick and analyzed to determine lactate increase during the 400 m sprint. Results: The subjects showed significant decrease (p<0.01) in 400 m sprint time (? 3.5 s ? 2.4 s, mean ? superdrol) and significant increase (p<0.01) in 90 degree flexed-arm hang (+ 8.5 s ? 8.35 s, mean ? superdrol). No significant change (p>0.05) in blood lactate values were observed. Conclusion:The results of our study suggest that supplementation of B-ala may improve exercise performance in wrestlers during a competitive season. Because of the design of this experiment, it is impossible to identify exactly how much of the positive effects experienced by the subjects was a direct result of the supplementation. However, due to the large increase in performance and the similarity of results in comparison to other B-ala studies, we feel our study strongly suggests efficacy of B-ala supplementation. The ergogenic effects of B-ala supplementation during a competitive wrestling season needs to be confirmed in placebo-controlled trials.
Acknowledgments:Athletic Edge Nutrition donated the products and ~150 US dollars for lactate measurements. No other funding was received. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
09-03-2007, 03:23 PM
I'm not talking about studies that are done with the possibility of the results being biased or no such thing. I'm talking about products that are clinically tested in randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical tests conducted by independent laboratories such as say... Stanford, Harvard, Scripps Institute, and George Washington University and then, being published in professional, peer-reviewed medical journals such as:
♦ Journal of the American Medical Association
♦ The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
♦ The Journal of the American Dietetic Association
♦ The Journal of Applied Physiology
♦ The American Journal of Cardiology
♦ The Journal of Nutrition
Cross referencing doesn't mean anything except that you're using information everyone already knows and making a product based on the information that's out there. Now what happens if 3 other companies make a product identical to it? Not like that hasn't happened already anyway. All you have to do is compare the products that circulate this board and at times, the only difference between some products are the amounts of the ingredients that are incorporated into the product - some companies put more, some put less and some even add a few more "goodies" as you mentioned. What then, influences one's decision when choosing between say, 3 of the same type of products? The company that has a better way with words?
How can a consumer tell if the supplement - or the "goodies" as you referred to them as- are being absorbed & assimilated into the bloodstream where they are available to the cells?
Now, if we were talking about a Sustained Release Vitamin C product for example and the claim was that supplementing with a specific brand of Sustained Release Vitamin C would create the biological activity equivalent to eating 1 1/2 oranges every hour for five hours, I would want to see some proof of those claims.
09-03-2007, 05:28 PM
09-03-2007, 05:33 PM
Are you talking about X-Factor?
Is it clinically tested in a randomized, double-blind [placebo controlled] clinical tests?
09-03-2007, 05:36 PM
09-03-2007, 05:36 PM
09-03-2007, 05:44 PM
09-03-2007, 05:45 PM
09-03-2007, 05:45 PM
09-03-2007, 05:50 PM
And to put a blatant answer to why supp companies don't do such research on their supplements, here it is:
They can sell plenty of products without the research.
09-03-2007, 05:57 PM
09-03-2007, 06:09 PM
As dsade had mentioned earlier, it's super easy for a competator to come along, read your companies write-up and research, copy it, and sell it for $10 cheaper. And there you have it, all that hard work and all you're left with is other companies banking off it.
A company is only going to pass on enough info to get just enough people to buy it. Skeptics ain't worth their dolla.
I hope I don't have to re-educate AM on the first law of thermodynamics (everything functions at minimal energy/effort).
09-04-2007, 08:42 AM
Passing on what "info"? All the clinical testing is proving is that a product does what it's supposed to do. No company has come out with anything innovative or "new", so to speak, because there's nothing "new" out on the market. The "fad ingredients" most of these companies try to market haven't been deemed safe for long-term use and there's still on-going research with many of these ingredients. The stuff that has been proven already (vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidants, herbs, etc.) are the foundation of 99.9% of the products circulating the market - again, nothing new. What I'm proposing is that companies start doing some clinical testing on their products in specific, to display their efficacy, nothing more and nothing less.
If a company is worried about the competitor copying a formula or something along those lines, get a patent on your formula. Otherwise, it just proves that a product isn't really all that the company is trying to make it out to be. A great, intellectual company has patents on their stuff, otherwise it's really no different than the other products out on the market sitting right next to them at the shelves of the stores.
Thermodynamics is the name of the game with many companies it seems. You're right, nice diction
09-04-2007, 08:48 AM
Do you have an idea of the cost of the patent? This is outrageous, and some still copy the formulas anyways.
09-04-2007, 08:55 AM
That's obviously not something Molecular Nutrition going to be doing anytime soon. Too much money? That says a lot about just how much money MN really makes....
Anyway, You can't copy formula if it's patented if I'm not mistaken....correct me if I'm wrong though. I'm here to learn just like everyone else so don't hold back my brother.
Similar Forum Threads
- By clk in forum AnabolicsReplies: 48Last Post: 12-09-2015, 07:03 PM
- By rochabp in forum SupplementsReplies: 5Last Post: 07-06-2010, 11:23 AM
- By saggy321 in forum SupplementsReplies: 2Last Post: 04-12-2010, 09:22 PM
- By matic22 in forum SupplementsReplies: 31Last Post: 09-19-2008, 01:03 PM