Any companies have any studies on THEIR products?

[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]

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]

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: [email protected]

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]

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?

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?

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?

 

[haiz69]

Gaspari has some.

 

[thesinner]

Are you talking about X-Factor?

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

double-blind studies are placebo controlled.

 

[jjohn]

Are you talking about X-Factor?

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

Double blind placebo controlled.

 

[dannyboy9]

double-blind studies are placebo controlled.

Good point. Thank you for your contribution to the thread thesinner.

(Not being sarcastic, I know you said that because it might have seemed like I didn't know what you said to be true but I did. I know you had good intentions so no sweat)

 

[jjohn]

double-blind studies are placebo controlled.

Indeed

 

[thesinner]

Good point. Thank you for your contribution to the thread thesinner.

(not being sarcastic, I know you said that because it might have seemed like I didn't know what you said to be true but I did....)

I think I might try to put up a thread reviewing research methods (provided I get some free time). I kind of want to clear up some things with the differences in different studies, what all the different study jargons mean, and the value held by 'beta-testing'.

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.

 

[dannyboy9]

I think I might try to put up a thread reviewing research methods (provided I get some free time). I kind of want to clear up some things with the differences in different studies, what all the different study jargons mean, and the value held by 'beta-testing'.

Sounds like a great idea ts. Most companies think they can get away with very general statements like that they have published studies or backed by science, etc. Putting together a thread like the one you have in mind will educate the consumers and allow them to know the right questions to ask and what answers they should expect.

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.

You're saying more than necessary. Even the companies themselves wouldn't put that much thought and effort into answering a question like that. All you/they have to say is this:

And to put a blatant answer to why supp companies don't do such research on their supplements, here it is:

Because they can

They might even save some money and put B/c in place of the "because". They might not even capitalize the 'b' because that would cost some more money.....

Gosh....so stingy. :icon_lol:

 

[thesinner]

Gosh....so stingy. :icon_lol:

It can come off as stingy, but you also have to remember that passing on info to the consumer is also passing on info to "the enemy".

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). :lol:

 

[dannyboy9]

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:thumbsup: :lol:

 

[jjohn]

Do you have an idea of the cost of the patent? This is outrageous, and some still copy the formulas anyways.

 

[dannyboy9]

Do you have an idea of the cost of the patent? This is outrageous, and some still copy the formulas anyways.

LOL!

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.

 

[thesinner]

LOL!

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.

Molecular Nutrition has multiple patents.

 

[jjohn]

LOL!

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.

This is call a long term investment. Most don't want to do this, and prefer a quick buck. That doesn't mean you make tons of money, that means you invest tons of money.

You cannot legally copy a product for it's claims, but some just do it anyways.

 

[dannyboy9]

Molecular Nutrition has multiple patents.

I meant something MN isn't going to be doing [again] anytime soon.

 

[dsade]

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:thumbsup: :lol:

So be honest, you would really have no problem at all paying $150 for 100 grams of Creatine Monohydrate, and eliminating most of the other product formulas on the market (xtend, etc) due to cost prohibition, if it meant having 2-3 studies on each particular brand?

Oh, and most herbals and naturally occurring compounds cannot be patented.

 

[thesinner]

Let's also not forget that 99% any research done on any potential supplement CANNOT prove anything. Effects of body composition, athletic performance, etc. are studied through correlation because other underlying variables (i.e. experience, genetics, etc.) can only be controlled to a certain degree. You will soon become familiar with the words

Research suggests......

Fact of the matter is, it is yet to be proven that cigarettes cause cancer. Through correlation there is a definite link between the two, and "research suggests" cigarette smoke can lead to lung cancer or other diseases.

 

[thesinner]

This is call a long term investment. Most don't want to do this, and prefer a quick buck. That doesn't mean you make tons of money, that means you invest tons of money.

You cannot legally copy a product for it's claims, but some just do it anyways.

It's not so much a quick buck, but for most supplements, the ends wouldn't justify the means.

It takes a lot of time and money to get a patent. There's no sense going after it unless you are 100% certain the product will (1) Be able to continue great sales for the protection period (2) Will be approved. Granted there's some stupid patents that get handed out (*cough* cordless jumprope), there's also a fair number of good ideas that have been rejected. (3) Can afford to apply for the patent

There's probably some other things I can't think of off the top of my head. But yeah, a patent is a lot of work that's often times unnecessary.

 

[dannyboy9]

So be honest, you would really have no problem at all paying $150 for 100 grams of Creatine Monohydrate, and eliminating most of the other product formulas on the market (xtend, etc) due to cost prohibition, if it meant having 2-3 studies on each particular brand?

Why would I have to pay more because a company does studies on their product? How cheap of a company are we talking about?:wtf:

If a company does clinical testing on their studies to prove it's true efficacy (basically, that it does what it's supposed to do once you ingest it), that's not going to knock the rest of the products off the market, just make them look inferior. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, and most herbals and naturally occurring compounds cannot be patented.

You can't patent the ingredients, you can patent formulas. Basically, the proportions in which the ingredients are blended together to make a product -that can be patented. Good point.

 

[dsade]

All costs are passed on to the consumer in order to maintain an acceptable margin.

 

[thesinner]

Why would I have to pay more because a company does studies on their product? How cheap of a company are we talking about?:wtf:

If a company does clinical testing on their studies to prove it's true efficacy (basically, that it does what it's supposed to do once you ingest it), that's not going to knock the rest of the products off the market, just make them look inferior. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sinner Nutrition (fictitious company) is going to make a creatine product. This product consists of Creatine Monohydrate, Dextrose, and BCAA's. So SN decides to take your advice and conduct clinical University testing. They spend $20k for a randomized triple blind study on the effects of their creatine product, SinnerCrea. Testing shows that SinnerCrea was 300% more effective than the placebo group.

Dsade Incorporated (another fictitious company with no relation to the dsade of AM....as far as I know ) comes along, and mixes Creatine Monohydrate, Dextrose, and BCAA's to make TheSamething. DI's product is 60% cheaper because they didn't have to pay for the research. So tell me, what the heck is the difference between SinnerCrea and TheSamething that would purport the consumer to buy SinnerCrea over TheSamething? SinnerCrea is has been clinically tested for it's effects in correspondence with placebo (mind you this does not 'prove' anything), but TheSamething is...well....the same thing. It also costs 60% less money, and has received great anecdotal feedback.

You can't patent the ingredients, you can patent formulas. Basically, the proportions in which the ingredients are blended together to make a product -that can be patented. Good point.

Proprietary blends are a joke (sinner hates proprietary blends). It withholds important information from the customer, and the likelyhood of them being patented is not very likely. The ones that say "patent pending"....yeah, they're not getting a patent.

 

[Eric Potratz]

We don’t do full blown placebo controlled, double blind clinical studies, (Most sup companies don’t have the backing to fund $50k plus clinical studies) but we do gather in-house testers to run saliva and blood hormone levels…



-Pp

 

[dannyboy9]

All costs are passed on to the consumer in order to maintain an acceptable margin.

In Layman's Terms, that means:

To make up for the lack of funds a company has, they charge the consumer to make up for it by increasing the price of their products, right?

Proprietary blends are a joke (sinner hates proprietary blends). It withholds important information from the customer, and the likelyhood of them being patented is not very likely. The ones that say "patent pending"....yeah, they're not getting a patent.

I agree with you on that one. I don't deal with proprietary blends, I prefer patented blends.

The clinical testing is not for anything else but to know if the supplements you are taking are being absorbed and assimilated into the bloodstream where they are available to the cells.

Are your supplements creating any biological activity and if so, is it the corresponding biological activity related to that specific supplement?

How do you know that?
Have you done blood work?

There's no other way to know unless the company is proving you with the clinical tests I'm talking about.

Every company should have peer reviewed research on their products. The key word here is peer reviewed. That means it is unbiased, legitimate research vs. advertising research where you pay someone to publish your research in what looks like a legitimate journal. Otherwise, I'm taking a company's word for it that their stuff is being utilized efficiently by my body - I know I'm trustworthy but I don't know about these companies...

 

[dsade]

In Layman's Terms, that means:

To make up for the lack of funds a company has, they charge the consumer to make up for it by increasing the price of their products, right?

No. I would highly recommend you take some business and economics courses.

What I mean is that all costs are factored into the retail price, and adding an addition $20k WILL be factored into the price of the product you are trying to buy.

 

[thesinner]

In Layman's Terms, that means:

To make up for costs to fund such research, they pass the expenses consumer to make up for it by increasing the price of their products, right?

Fixed your post. And in order to make a profit (I'm sorry but without a profit, there's no point in selling a supplement), it has to be done this way.

I agree with you on that one. I don't deal with proprietary blends, I prefer patented blends.

What patented blends are you referring to? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Kre-alkalyn, and that's barely worth my dime: it's just Creatine Monohydrate with some buffering salts (to maintain a pH of 12). I really don't think this was as 'groundbreaking' as the creator convinced the patent offices it was. He just bridged off effervesent creatine (creatine + alka seltzer).

The clinical testing is not for anything else but to know if the supplements you are taking are being absorbed and assimilated into the bloodstream where they are available to the cells.

Probiotics aren't absorbed into the bloodstream. They aren't absorbed at all. (extreme case, of course)

Very rarely are studies done on whether or not the supplement is absorbed into the bloodstream because, quite frankly, no one really cares. If you look at products like HMB and glutamine, there's buttloads of research showing that they do get absorbed into the bloodstream, and into cells. There's also a buttload of research suggesting that all this is worth jack squat because clinical studies have seen very little evidence that they have any use for trained athletes.

Are your supplements creating any biological activity and if so, is it the corresponding biological activity related to that specific supplement?

How do you know that?
Have you done blood work?

There's no other way to know unless the company is proving you with the clinical tests I'm talking about.

Every company should have peer reviewed research on their products. The key word here is peer reviewed. That means it is unbiased, legitimate research vs. advertising research where you pay someone to publish your research in what looks like a legitimate journal. Otherwise, I'm taking a company's word for it that their stuff is being utilized efficiently by my body - I know I'm trustworthy but I don't know about these companies...

Is it illegal to cross-reference clinical studies utilizing the exact same compound through the exact same method of administration? Because that's what a lot of companies do. I agree, if you're going to cite data, you need proper citation. But most companies do that anyhow.

Next weeks lesson: What can be considered "Common Knowledge"

 

[dannyboy9]

I would highly recommend you take some business and economics courses.

Unnecessary statement, regardless of whether it's true or not. Considering that I'm currently in college, I believe those courses will be taken in due time. I subtly requested to be spoken to in Layman's terms (regarding this matter anyway but you seemed to have missed my subtle request anyway) because as I mentioned: I'm here to learn. Thanks for pointing out the evident though, I appreciate it. I'm sure you meant well.

What I mean is that all costs are factored into the retail price, and adding an addition $20k WILL be factored into the price of the product you are trying to buy.

Right...what did I say. Since the company lacks the funds to be able to do the clinical research on their own without having to compensate for it because they spend all their money on advertising and marketing *inhale/exhale*, then they pass the expense on to the customer. And what you said about "adding an addition $20k WILL be factored into the price of the product you are trying to buy".... I'm assuming you meant the fact that about $20k was spent to do such research is going to be factored into the final outcome of how much the prices will increase, correct?

You said exactly what I said but the way I put was in it's raw form. You decided to use business and economics terms.

I prefer you K.I.S.S. (I don't mean the "stupid" part)

 

[thesinner]

Unnecessary statement, regardless of whether it's true or not. Considering that I'm currently in college, I believe those courses will be taken in due time. I subtly requested to be spoken to in Layman's terms (regarding this matter anyway but you seemed to have missed my subtle request anyway) because as I mentioned: I'm here to learn. Thanks for pointing out the evident though, I appreciate it. I'm sure you meant well.

I'm sure dsade meant well. It's just that we're starting to delve into things that go past layman, and it gets hard to explain without him having to teach you complex business/economics principles. I'm sure once you've taken some courses, and whatnot, you'll see how the business world works (it's a crazy place).

 

[dannyboy9]

Probiotics aren't absorbed into the bloodstream. They aren't absorbed at all. (extreme case, of course)

But they would be more useful if they're actually utilized, correct? The bloodstream point was relating more so to supplements like vitamins, etc.

Very rarely are studies done on whether or not the supplement is absorbed into the bloodstream because, quite frankly, no one really cares.

Yeah, I know. Ignorance is bliss. Well, I care how my money is spent and I want to sure I get every dollars worth. What's the point of spending my money on something that is not going to be utilized/absorbed like they should therefore, not delivering the benefits I'm looking to get which is the main reason I'm buying the product in the first place.

If that was the case, I could just take placebo and I wouldn't be able to know if what I'm taking is doing me any good because heck, who cares? :toofunny: Without the clinical research, you're assuming what you're taking is working and with some things, you just can't "tell" if it's working. You would have to get blood work done or something along those lines - forget that.

I see what's going on though..Companies are just too lazy, too broke and too shady. It probably would also have a lot to do with the fact that the Legal Departments feel that the results would match up to their products. LOL Go figure. That was the case with Herbalife, I wouldn't be surprised if the case is similar with other companies.

 

[dannyboy9]

I'm sure dsade meant well. It's just that we're starting to delve into things that go past layman, and it gets hard to explain without him having to teach you complex business/economics principles. I'm sure once you've taken some courses, and whatnot, you'll see how the business world works (it's a crazy place).

Oh no, I'm most definitely going to assume he did. I rather do that than assume he didn't and turn this into a 9 year old bickering match as it does on other boards (let's not mention any names:hammer: )

I appreciate all you folk's patience though, sincerely, I do. Thanks for sticking with me this long and allowing me to get a clearer picture of how things work on this side of the industry!:goodpost:

 

[thesinner]

Yeah, I know. Ignorance is bliss. Well, I care how my money is spent and I want to sure I get every dollars worth. What's the point of spending my money on something that is not going to be utilized/absorbed like they should therefore, not delivering the benefits I'm looking to get which is the main reason I'm buying the product in the first place.

Did you read the rest of what I had posted in that paragraph? There's been plenty of properly controlled studies showing that a lot of supplements are properly absorbed, but show no significant benefit.

If that was the case, I could just take placebo and I wouldn't be able to know if what I'm taking is doing me any good because heck, who cares? :toofunny: Without the clinical research, you're assuming what you're taking is working and with some things, you just can't "tell" if it's working. You would have to get blood work done or something along those lines - forget that.

Most reputable companies have properly cited clinical references to support their claims.

 

[dannyboy9]

Most reputable companies have properly cited clinical references to support their claims.

Stick with me:

Citing clinical references doesn't prove that a product does what the cited references prove the ingredients contained in the company's product is supposed to do because we don't know if the ingredients are being properly assimilated.

Are all vitamin C products made the same?
No. Obviously not, because if they were, there wouldn't be 400 different companies all with a vitamin C supplement.

That's why there's 100 different products on the market that are all similar because it can be like that. It all just comes down to marketing because as I mentioned before, you can only take the company's "word" for it that the product does what it's supposed to do. Unless the company is using the same batch of ingredients that were used in the cited references, it's a game of Russian Roulette.

 

[thesinner]

Stick with me:

Citing clinical references doesn't prove that a product does what the cited references prove the ingredients contained in the company's product is supposed to do because we don't know if the ingredients are being properly assimilated.

Are all vitamin C products made the same?
No. Obviously not, because if they were, there wouldn't be 400 different companies all with a vitamin C supplement.

That's why there's 100 different products on the market that are all similar because it can be like that. It all just comes down to marketing because as I mentioned before, you can only take the company's "word" for it that the product does what it's supposed to do. Unless the company is using the same batch of ingredients that were used in the cited references, it's a game of Russian Roulette.

first off:The Clinical studies cited don't 'prove' anything....they only suggest an outcome.


Second: What's so different about vitamin C vs. Vitamin C used in the cited references:

Let's look at CoA's to get a better example of what I'm getting at:
A certificate of analysis is done by taking a small sample size from the finished batch of whatever product was being made. This small sample is destroyed through various testing procedures to ensure quality. The quality of the test sample is then assumed for the rest of the batch. Obviously, this is not perfect; however, if we test all of it for quality, we won't have any product to sell.


This debate is starting to annoy me. If your still not convinced by anything a supplement company does, simply do not buy it. It's that simple.

 

[dannyboy9]

This debate is starting to annoy me. If your still not convinced by anything a supplement company does, simply do not buy it. It's that simple.

Ahh....how is it that line from the movie "Seven" goes?...

"It's impressive to see a man feeding off his emotions"....something like that I believe.

Anyhow. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss the inferiority of the majority of the companies out on the market. Have a great day folks!

 

[dsade]

Ahh....how is it that line from the movie "Seven" goes?...

"It's impressive to see a man feeding off his emotions"....something like that I believe.

Anyhow. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss the inferiority of the majority of the companies out on the market. Have a great day folks!

I hope you feel justified in your smug superiority, without really even understanding how a company is conceived and formed, and made viable.

Good day to you.

 

[dadream]

Well you have to admit Dannyboy does raise a few good questions: Supp companies shouldn't make rediculous claims without backing them up. Indeed it would jack prices up, similar to the cost of prescription meds. The rx meds have been rigorously studied whereas the majority of the supps out there have not been. The compromise is cost. And luckily we have great websites like this one to post user feedback so the consumer can weed out all the garbage and make an informed decision on which to purchase. It has been my experience that most supps aside from the basics and a few others are pretty much worthless anyways meaning the money spent on them was not worth it and could have been better spent on food. My advice stick with the tried n true--> FOOD, atleast you don't have to worry if its working or not.:think:

 

[dsade]

I agree that they should not make absurd claims...now define an absurd claim?

And what about the companies that make claims that are reasonable based on studies of mechanism and the individual ingredients, putting the pieces of the puzzle together to form new product.

Look at something like Lipoderm Ultra. Transdermal delivery systems are effective (based on studies), and skin has certain properties that allow fror different carriers to deliver certain ingredients. Now, the formula itself has gotten VERY positive reviews, leaving little doubt in a lot of people's minds that the formula DOES work as claimed. The mechanism/mode of action for the formula, as well as the individual ingredients is spelled out, yet there are no studies on it...simply because it is cost prohibitive.

These products would otherwise never see the light of day...EVER.

 

[dadream]

:goodpost:

A very valid point indeed.

By ubsurd claims i was thinking along the lines of Muscle Tech even though they claim to have studies done.