[dannyboy9]

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!

[MakaveliThaDon]

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.

[dannyboy9]

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.

[bearmeat]

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****.

[thesinner]

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."

[BUCKNUTS]

Originally Posted by MakaveliThaDon

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.

If this happens the supplement companies would pass the cost on to you and me, which means I wouldn't be buying the few things that I do.

[crader]

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.

[thesinner]

Originally Posted by crader

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.

Unless they manufacture the ingredients in-house (very uncommon), it's common practice for the suppliers to attach a CoA, MSDS, or both as "proof" that you got what you paid for. (not sure if that's what you're referring to with certificate). If you (the customer) are ever really all that concerned, I'm sure you could contact whatever supplement company and ask.

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

[Polynomial]

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...

[dsade]

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.

[Skircus7]

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: bkern@center.k12.co.us

Abstract
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.

[dannyboy9]

Originally Posted by thesinner

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.

I don't know exact numbers and figures but I know that every marketed, "popular" company complains about the funding (or the evident lack of). I definitely see where you're coming from, it would take a company that actually generates a substantial amount of profit to fund such research and clinical testing. Speaking of "research", most companies like to market themselves by using phrases with the words "science" and "research" or a blend of both to glitter their name up, so to speak. The fact is that most companies - if they have a research staff at all - it consists of two or three people.

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?

Originally Posted by thesinner

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."

I understand the concept that the ingredients have been proven and it is true what you're saying. Everyone knows "vitamin C is good for you", yes. That's a given, but if my body isn't utilizing it, how "good" can it be? It's another evident fact that not all vitamin C products, for example, are being utilized properly by the body for many reasons - mainly, all of which point to it being the manufacturing company's fault. Common sense (not to mention ethics) would lead us to assume that all products are created equal but if that were the case, there would be no need for 100 different companies making the same kind of product. As common sense AND realistic thinking correctly allow us to assume: not all products are created equal under any circumstances. What it seems to come down to is the way the product is marketed.

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?

Originally Posted by Polynomial

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.

The point of the randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical tests wouldn't be to display results because results will always vary. It's about showing that the product does what it's supposed to do from a biological standpoint. The biological activity is what matters. It's only common sense that there are far too many factors to be able to prove that everybody is going to gain the same spectrum of benefits as far a results go but as long as it does what it's supposed to do, some might gain 12 lbs. with a certain product ,as you mentioned, and others might gain 7. Heck, some might even gain 20. That's why it's misleading, almost a deceitful tactic, when companies claim that a certain product will give you certain results.

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.

[jjohn]

Our product is supported by valid studies.

[dannyboy9]

Are you talking about X-Factor?

Is it clinically tested in a randomized, double-blind [placebo controlled] clinical tests?