Hi,
My name is Mark Faulkner and to make sure that I offer full disclosure to this forum, I am the President of Vireo Systems, Inc. (VSI) and one of the inventors of CON-CRET (CC). I am intrigued by all the banter and am appreciative of the opportunity this thread provides for me to respond the comments and questions. There are quite a few but I'll do my best to address most of them.......and if I miss something that you'd like to query me further on, any of you are welcome to call or email me at 800-251-4166 or through the VSI website.
So to just dive in, Mr. Fidget, I certainly understand your being irritated by information that either is or appears to be unfounded. I think this market has generally conditioned people to be skeptical and to expect that most of what they hear/see/read is not reliable. My background, my formal education and training, and my professional experience is in the sciences and I have been utterly flabbergasted at what I see/hear/read in this market and what passes as science (actually, it's offensive to the profession). As very quick background, prior to starting VSI, I owned a forensic toxicology lab that specialized in doping control (i.e. performance enhancement drug testing for NCAA, NFL, Olympic, etc. organizations)...prior to that I worked at the national headquarters of Abbott Labs...and my degree is in physics, with a heavy emphasis on math and bio-chem. And I apologize that the VSI website is so limited and only 1 page but candidly, that's on purpose. It is simply to guide people to us if needed, but when you deal with as many government regulators as I do (FDA, EPA, OSHA, DOT, Homeland Security, ATF, etc. plus ISO, cGMP, and others) you learn the value of keeping a low profile...NOT because there is anything to hide (we are inspected and audited regularly and nothing could be hidden!) but simply because we choose to make ourselves no more of a boisterous target than we already are...and I don't know why when you called there wasn't an answer but we are here and I'm always happy to receive calls (or even give tours). We are not open 24/7 so if you called during off hours, that may be why you didn't reach anyone but there is always the option of leaving a message and we are diligent about returning calls. If it was during business hours, then either all lines were busy and it rolled to the answering service or we were simply out to lunch. Regardless, please feel free to call again or provide me your number and I'll call you.
But, do know that VSI is very real. We are smaller than many of the large supplement companies, and dietary supplements are not our lead business, but we have been involved in creatine and amino acid research for a number of years (ever since a professional athlete we were testing said "fine, you're taking away my steroids, so then come up with something legal that helps me do my job...I have to recover...I have to get up on Mondays and Tuesdays and perform after being in the equivalent of multiple car wrecks each weekend...I don't take steroids to look great, I take them to recover and do my job" -- that catalyzed research to find something better).
And so that you know, yes, we have a division here called Besway Systems, Inc. (BSI) and BSI manufactures (in different space) industrial solvents that are largely used in the recycling world. On the other hand, VSI operates in a clean-room facility and is a separate company but co-located on our 3 acre property. BSI has been around for 35 years and is award-winning ISO 9001-2000 plant. VSI achieves the same level of excellence in it's field, as well. VSI operates under FDA and cGMP guidelines as if it was a pharmaceutical company.
And while I like levity, I'm not sure I would find it in ProMera's (PM) claims (being "hilarious")...PM is the company that markets CC for VSI who makes CC. And while there is a mountain of anecdotal evidence of CC's superior performance against any other creatine, I agree with you that anectodal evidence is not a good replacement for substantiated science. The reason for the brief (thin?) reports on the CC website are two-fold -- 1) space for detail that many find either mind-numbing or difficult to plow through, and 2) some of our data is simply proprietary. I know you all realize the competitiveness in this market and we are trying to make up a lot of money that has been expended in research and development over a number of years.
The solubility study that you refer to on the website is one that is not bull****. It was performed and has been repeated on 3 occasions in university settings by extremely competent Ph.D scientists and chemists, and according to accepted analytical chemistry research guidelines (the most recent of which demonstrated even greater than 59x greater solubility). And while it's not rocket science, it's not "veiled" either in terms of what we accomplished and proved -- and the great thing is, you can do it yourself if you so choose...say the word and I'll guide you on doing a simple home version of it. But the clear reality is that if a creatine is not soluble and in solution, it's not going to get into your bloodstream...it will cause you stomach problems (like AE14 mentioned) and then be excreted out your feces.
And the solubility is not based on smaller particle size as questioned by Mr. Ecosocialist (which was a good conjecture, though, and normally plays a significant role), the solubility (and therefore effectiveness or performance enhancement) of creatine has mainly to do with it's conjugation...that is, it's carrier molecule(s). CC is simply a better conjugation that uses a carrier that has been known in the Rx drug world for years to be safe and work well. And yes, Mr. Capnsavem, CC is creatine HCl. There has been a patent issued on it and we have others pending because we believe it to be that special (and the results have demonstrated that to be the case), especially when compared to creatines like you mentioned (dicreatine malate) and others like creatine pyruvate and the citrate products, too. Those have not shown the dramatically increased solubility or plasma uptake that CC has shown. And with regard to plasma uptake (the measure of what actually gets into your bloodstream), we, with 2 major universities (ask me if you want their names) performed an FDA bioequivalence assessment of CC vs. creatine monohydrate (CM) and were invited to present our findings at the International Society of Sports Nutritionists (ISSN) meeting last year. The results were a 70% increase in plasma uptake with CC as compared to CM. I believe the scientists that were in attendance were as surprised and impressed as we were pleased...and again, the study design, parameters, data, and results were reviewed by qualified scientific peers. And while the researchers were at it, they dosed and calculated the plasma uptake of other popular products based on their recommended doses and they did not fare as well as CM vs CC (i.e. the difference with CC was much higher than 70%).
Back to Mr. Fidget, I sort of agree with Mr. Hardknock that your tone is aggressively negative and you indicate why but if there are other reasons, I encourage you to either call me or write in here or something so that I have a chance to address and rectify the situation if we have done other things to offend you. I never want that to happen...and frankly, thanks again for expressing your frustration so that it can be addressed vs. just stewing on it.
I will counter Mr. Shipman that CC is NOT total junk...I would publicly stack it up against any other creatine in any category of assessment and know that it will out perform them. I know that because that's what we did for 6 years, we made sure it was better than anything else and very unique or I wouldn't have been so interested in the molecule.
And back to Mr. Eco (and Mr. AntonG4).......I think you are right that most of those magazines are just "endorsements", but we pay no one to say nice things about CC. Everyone who comments on it, whether The Rock or Mike Bridges or Travis Ortmayer or Priscilla Ribic or Stephanie Strong or Marlon Hopesdale or ANYONE, they have all come to us based on their results and said they wanted to help tell people about CC...and we have not and do not have them on payroll or compensation other than giving them some free product to try/use every now and then (not for resale or anything)...this goes for PM, too. In fact, we were very pleased with Mr. Johnson's (The Rock) unsolicited comments about CC and we asked if we could leverage that and he very politely said "no"...that he loves our stuff but he is tapped out right now and his PR people don't want him being further used. So, his comments were simply candid and not involved in ANY endorsement.
I appreciate that Ms. DJbombsquad and Mr. DJM and Mr. Chachi seem to like the product and report the kind of results that we hear nearly everyone experiencing. The Rock does love it and yes, to Mr. Kingdong, he is lighter since not taking steroids but has reported that he has tried nearly everything and that nothing gives him as close to steroid strength and recovery as CC -- and he's certainly healthier for making that switch (I am personally aware of WAY too many former football players and bodybuilders and wrestlers that have died prematurely from the biochem ravages of steroids on their bodies). And anyway, the goal in professional sports these days has moved from bulk and strength, to strength and quickness, so lighter and leaner while maintaining the strength and endurance is what elite athletes have expressed they want and need to compete.
I think Mr. Hatefulone is on the right track with focusing on the purity of creatine (creapure being 99.5% pure) and it's why we avoid adding the long lists of ingredients that others do to their creatines (CC is nothing but C-HCl) because I do not believe most of the ingredients do anything that warrant their inclusion and in fact, many ingredients pose real health threats when it comes to blood pressure, blood glucose modulation, and other medical concerns with the cardiovascular system and the delicate insulin and hormonal balances the body tries to maintain. Messing with those is a ticking timebomb. But, I just respectfully encourage Mr. Hatefulone to consider that the CM being excreted is also very pure (coming in and going out...just wasted because the actual plasma uptake of even pure CM is so low...that's why you have to take so many grams...to get "some" of it into your body...the rest is wasted). So the real cost of CM based on what is utilized is probably at least 6 or 7 times more expensive per dose (that's totally off the top of my head, though!).
Messers Fidget, Tnubs, and Poison also mentioned 3 other types of creatines that I'll briefly comment on...Kre-Alkalyn -- in reading their patent, it's simply CM mixed (not conjugated, not that it would imporve things if it were) with a buffering agent like magnesium phosphate or such and while that will buffer a liquid into which CM is introduced, it doesn't change the solubility of the CM molecule and once ingested, the stomach acid immediately overwhelms the buffering and you're simply left with CM in the gut, doing what it does (limited absorption). Then there's creO2 -- this enteric coated product strikes me as VERY counter-intuitive. If you take a poorly soluble molecule and coat it so that it doesn't break down in the gut as fast, you would generally be further limiting the uptake into the bloodstream. CreO2 was not included in the CC plasma uptake study as one of the popular creatines tested but I'd bet anyone (truly) that it would NOT demonstrate improved uptake. And finally, CEE or creatine ethyl ester -- I agree with Mr. Tnubs's girlfriend that there is legitimacy to this compound and disagree with those who say is is a joke or bull****. CEE is a more soluble and bio-available molecule when compared to CM but less so than CC. We have studied and worked with CEE a lot and I am impressed with some of it's qualities. It's only real knock is that it is a "fragile" molecule and that in some circumstances it breaks down easily...but if dosed properly (taken with low pH liquids or in capsule or pill form) is is very stable and works well. Some of the negative research reported on it was done so for competitive purposes and their science was quite flawed (to the point that they interpreted their own data incorrectly or in a clear bias that actually showed CEE outperforming CM even while they "concluded" that CEE shows no benefits -- email me if you would like a document exchanged between reviewing scientists in the university world that discusses that research and shakes it's head at the lack of study legitimacy).
I apologize for the length this has gotten to but hope it clarifies a few things...and again, I am very happy to receive calls or emails about the science of CC. We regularly (although quietly) have other companies come to us to ask them to develop products for them. And I know there are products from other companies that some of you are probably currently taking that are made by VSI...you would readily recognize the names. I am very proud that VSI, although small and low-profile, is quietly one of the most respected companies in this industry.
Warm regards,
Mark Faulkner
.
