Deleted Massularia Acuminata thread from Bodybuilding.com
Several days ago, an article I posted here in my blog sparked some serious discussion over on Bodybuilding.com. The article concerned Massularia Acuminata, the primary ingredient being used in Pink Magic, a product being sold by USP Labs. At the dose it’s being used, it will provide just over a 10% increase in testicular testosterone, according to the one study performed on it (although the advertisements reference this study, they cite the highest dose, which provides over 60%). This same study makes no note of total or free testosterone…
As previously stated, I’ve got no dog in this fight. I don’t sell a testosterone booster, haven’t sold one in years, and have not collected a check from a nutritional company since 2008. I stumbled onto this information while doing research for At Large Nutrition, for a testosterone boosting product that never materialized, and simply decided to write an article on one of the (many) compounds that didn’t make the cut. And Massularia Acuminata just didn’t make the cut. I’ve got a case to make here, in support of my original article, which I stand by, and I’ve included more than enough evidence in the form of unaltered screenshots, for you to judge whether or not to believe me. As always, this decision is left to you, not me.
Although I have an active account on Bodybuilding.com, I chose not to participate in the thread surrounding my article; it contained my full thoughts on the debate. My own blog, likewise, is not a place I chose to discuss or debate my posts (the comments section is disabled). I have reserved the comments portion of my Facebook account for that function – where each and every single blog post I make gets published in my feed so everyone on my friend list can discuss them. Feel free to add me as a friend if you’ve got comments about anything I’ve ever written.
A day after the article was published, on AnabolicMinds.com, USP Labs could be seen lamenting the fact that one article has disproven his product. But my article is probably only half the reason for the most recent criticism directed at USP Labs – a company who was kind enough to give me my first writing gig under the Anthony Roberts name (and for which I am grateful). As you can imagine, I’ve got nothing against USP Labs – if anything, I’d lean in FAVOR of USP Labs, who I’ve written for previously; I’ve known USP Labs before they even started selling nutritional supplements. No bias here, and no hidden agenda…
I even sent a PM to USP Labs on Bodybuilding.com to discuss whether I’d erred in my article – because if I did, I’d print an immediate retraction.This was during the time while USP Labs was active on the forums and replying openly to the thread about my article. I’m forced to think that if there was a reasonable explanation, he’d have replied to me personally so I could have retracted my piece.
In truth, the product was disproven because USP Labs failed to respond with timely answers to my article, and because of the actual response USP Labs had to the article itself. If there were any sound reason that my article wasn’t accurate, it would have been immediately posted by USP Labs when the subject was broached on Bodybuilding.com.
Immediately!
Not an hour after his first post, not a day later, not two days later. And as you can see by the thread below, it didn’t happen. AGAIN, if the evidence to disprove my article was on hand, then it would have been posted immediately.
This is common sense, guys. If you were accused of killing someone on the night of 6-10-2010, and you had an alibi for that night, wouldn’t you tell the police immediately?!?! Of course you would.
Is there a reasonable explanation that my article could be incorrect, and the herb in Pink Magic be accurately dosed to provide a 60% (or higher) test boost, as shown with the highest dose in the study referenced? What If the USP Labs product contained a super-duper highly concentrated version of the herb, or if they had managed to isolate the active fractions and extract/concentrate? Surely that would account for the low dose?
My response is that if this were the case, then we’d have seen it referenced on the label. I know that USP Labs has claimed their extract to be more potent, but once again, where is that noted on the actual label? And, it’s interesting to note that the amount of the herb contained in the product, if we assume no super-potent concentration, would appear to correspond exactly to the lowest dose used in the study, the one that gave a 12%-ish rise in testicular testosterone.
But there is no such notation of this process or concentration level on the label or in the ad copy. You’ll see that in the case of their Cissus Quadrangularis product (Super Cissus Rx) they note the higher concentration of the herb in the product on the sales page:
While they do no such thing in the advertising copy or label information for their Pink Magic product, and in fact, fail to disclose what kind of extraction process they use (if any) as well as what concentration the herb has been standardized to (as required):
Are we all on the same page here? Let’s go over this one more time: If there was, in fact, an explanation for the incredibly low dose of Massularia Acuminata found in Pink Magic, that would have been the immediate response by the company owner, not a response given several days later. We’d see it reflected on the label also; which we don’t. If there’s an explanation, it would have been given on front street, not on the river card. Think about it.
You don’t fold when you have the winning hand, and you certainly don’t need to bluff.
When approached with the data contained in my blog, via a thread on Bodybuilding.com, things got heated, and USP Labs got banned from posting, while the thread was ultimately deleted. Instead of sensibly answering questions about the herb, and defending the product in a sound manner, USP Labs instead chose to repeatedly post the ad-copy, thereby irritating members: Naturally, this was unanimously seen as insulting and disrespectful. A good deal of damage was likely done by my blog, but as can be seen by members’ postings on Bodybuilding.com, a great deal of damage was also done by the owner of USP Labs himself, by refusing to engage the data in a constructive way, or provide any sort of immediate and reasonable explanation, which could easily be confirmed by checking the label (in the case of a more potent extract or concentration): As a result, numerous members reported USP Labs for spamming the forum, a clear violation of Bodybuilding.com rules. This led to the banning of USP Labs from posting on the forums, at least for the remainder of the day.
It should be noted that at no point was any viable explanation given for the low dose of Massularia Acuminata found in Pink Magic, either that day or the next. An explanation, if one existed, would have been the first thing posted by the company and/or its reps. The word “immediately” springs to mind here. And once again, we’d see any claims of a more potent extract or concentration reflected on the label itself.
The thread grew to 10 pages pretty quickly, with no such explanation being given, and although I see no need to repost the entire thread here (it gets repetitive), I am going to repost the first two pages, as it may be of interest to my readers to know exactly what kind of dialogue Bodybuilding.com is censoring. At this point, it seems unlikely that the dose of Massularia Acuminata found in Pink Magic will do anything more than give the user a 12% boost in testosterone (if that).
But please, judge for yourself, and check out USP Labs’ responses to my article. The screenshots below will also let you judge whether you believe any future claims made about my previous article, and decide for yourself why any mitigating data to disprove my claims was not presented:
