Lets take a look at what USP labs Oxyelite Pro REALLY is....

[ax1]

i found this above on another site, i am NOT making any claim.

so you guys still love prop blends?

 

[jrw]

So what you are saying is its caffeine top heavy?

 

[RepThat21]

it says on the bottle theres 100mg of caffeine in each capsule.so what did you expect?

 

[crazyfool405]

Amount Per Serving % Daily Value
Proprietary Blend 119.5 mg **
Bauhinia Purpurea L. (Leaf and Pod) (Standardized for Bauhniastatins 1-4), Bacopa Monniera (Leaf), 1,3-Dimethylamylamine (Geranium [Stem]), Cirsium Oligophyllum (Whole Plant Extract), Rauwolscine (Rauvolfia Canescens L. [Leaf and Root])
Caffeine 100 mg

 

[GregW]

If there's ~100mg Caffeine and ~30mg of the other listed compounds, why is the fill weight 300mg/capsule. The math doesn't add up.

edit: Why the math doesn't add up: the lab tests reveals only the "active" constituent of Bauhinia, Bacopa and the other compounds, not the whole amount from the plant. There may be other compounds other than Bauhinia flavonoids, Bacosides, etc in the plants that have some effect? Maybe, maybe not...

 

[ax1]

im not here to prove a point, im just trying to see what people think.

but my own opinion, they put less than 0.1mg of Cirsium and less than 0.1mg of Bauhinia Purpurea L. .

also there is synephrine in the lab results, as far as i know its not on the label.

so are we saying is that all we need is less than 0.1mg of the first 2 ingrediants stated for effectiveness???

 

[Sldge]

Im not defending the product at all but the cap weighs 300 because of fillers and plant material that USP isnt considering to make up the active amount (thats my guess on it).

Also its not synepherine its methylsynephrine which is not found naturally in any of the plants listed on the label.

I believe the big "issue" is that the product, (based on a lab test that doesnt show the name of the lab or who did the testing), is completely mislabeled as well as being spiked.

 

[T-AD]

Hi Matt! Long time no see!!

Regarding the weight issue.... rice flour. Yup. Rice flour. Are there any "fillers" listed on the label? If so, that makes up for it. If you're going to use a very small amount of ingredients and only cap that, then the caps are going to be very very tiny. (Think like this - hard for big meaty weightlifter hands to hold...) But, use a more standard sized cap and fill it with the fillers to fill it out, then you're in better hands. Why not put a little bit into a bigger cap and let there just be dead space in there? That wouldn't look good, now would it?

:trout:

 

[MAxximal]

Methylsynephrine in OEP???????????????

 

[HereToStudy]

Methylsynephrine in OEP???????????????

I am not taking a stance on this thread, but that was answered accurately already:

Also its not synepherine its methylsynephrine which is not found naturally in any of the plants listed on the label.

 

[Sldge]

Hi Matt! Long time no see!!

Regarding the weight issue.... rice flour. Yup. Rice flour. Are there any "fillers" listed on the label? If so, that makes up for it. If you're going to use a very small amount of ingredients and only cap that, then the caps are going to be very very tiny. (Think like this - hard for big meaty weightlifter hands to hold...) But, use a more standard sized cap and fill it with the fillers to fill it out, then you're in better hands. Why not put a little bit into a bigger cap and let there just be dead space in there? That wouldn't look good, now would it?

:trout:

Hey Tim whats going on?

There are 2 things and I want to be clear Im not bashing or trying to help out USP in anyway. Just commenting because of experience.

There will be fillers and flow agents that add to the weight of the cap but are not accounted for in the weight of the formula.

Also lets say you have a 50% Green Tea extract for EGCG and you have 500mgs of GT or 250mgs of EGCG. As long as you are consistent with the entire label you can list the compounds in order of largest to smallest ACTIVE ingredient and not overall weight of the whole plant.

So using the above compound lets also say its going in a product that has guarana at 5% extract for caffeine and you want the dose of caffeine to be 200mgs. If you label by active EGCG would need to be before Caffeine but if you label by total plant weight Guarana would be before Green Tea.

By DSHEA you can do either but you have to do the same for the entire formula. Meaning you cant choose active on one compound cause it will look better and then choose total weight on another cause you are being cheap.

 

[rms80]

Hey Tim whats going on?

There are 2 things and I want to be clear Im not bashing or trying to help out USP in anyway. Just commenting because of experience.

There will be fillers and flow agents that add to the weight of the cap but are not accounted for in the weight of the formula.

Also lets say you have a 50% Green Tea extract for EGCG and you have 500mgs of GT or 250mgs of EGCG. As long as you are consistent with the entire label you can list the compounds in order of largest to smallest ACTIVE ingredient and not overall weight of the whole plant.

So using the above compound lets also say its going in a product that has guarana at 5% extract for caffeine and you want the dose of caffeine to be 200mgs. If you label by active EGCG would need to be before Caffeine but if you label by total plant weight Guarana would be before Green Tea.

By DSHEA you can do either but you have to do the same for the entire formula. Meaning you cant choose active on one compound cause it will look better and then choose total weight on another cause you are being cheap.

Correct, and I am not bashing or defending USP either- depending on the consistency of the powder, flow characteristics, hydroscopicity of the ingredients, type of machinery to be used (based on run size), and several other factors, flow agents, glidants, lubricants, and/or fillers may or may not have to be used, and can take up a fairly sizeable amount of capsule space (or tablet, just depends on what you are using). You can run just about anything through a semi-automatic (Type 8) without them, but certain things will simply not run on an automatic capsule machine or tablet press without them, so they a necessity in mfg., especially when you get into product runs of over about 150,000.


As far as the labeling, Sledge is dead-on, there are certain things you can do based on the amount of active ingredient in relation to extraction %. We go by total weight of the plant in the formulation and not by active due to extraction in the order of listing, but other companies choose to do it differently. Under DSHEA, they are both acceptable......

 

[OnTheRoadTo]

Maybe we should stop focusing on the filler and start focusing on the fact that this looks absurdly underdosed.

 

[ax1]

Maybe we should stop focusing on the filler and start focusing on the fact that this looks absurdly underdosed.

thats what im talking about, these rare exotic raws that are in the caps, but only at less than 0.1mg each.

now im trying to figure out what was in OEP that made me feel so hungry when i took it.

 

[DreamWeaver]

Maybe we should stop focusing on the filler and start focusing on the fact that this looks absurdly underdosed.

thats what im talking about, these rare exotic raws that are in the caps, but only at less than 0.1mg each.

now im trying to figure out what was in OEP that made me feel so hungry when i took it.

:blink:

Wow! if you'd used this product the last thing you could say about it, is it's underdosed.. the product is extremely strong and tears fat off your body..

The remarkable thing is, is how can a small pill be so powerfull. You Do not, I repeat you do not want to make it stronger!! Underdosed that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

Oh and it does a very good job at suppressing appetite as well. Dieting was much easier, I should know I have done a lot of dieting in my time dropping as much as 70 lbs...

 

[Sldge]

Correct, and I am not bashing or defending USP either- depending on the consistency of the powder, flow characteristics, hydroscopicity of the ingredients, type of machinery to be used (based on run size), and several other factors, flow agents, glidants, lubricants, and/or fillers may or may not have to be used, and can take up a fairly sizeable amount of capsule space (or tablet, just depends on what you are using). You can run just about anything through a semi-automatic (Type 8) without them, but certain things will simply not run on an automatic capsule machine or tablet press without them, so they a necessity in mfg., especially when you get into product runs of over about 150,000.


As far as the labeling, Sledge is dead-on, there are certain things you can do based on the amount of active ingredient in relation to extraction %. We go by total weight of the plant in the formulation and not by active due to extraction in the order of listing, but other companies choose to do it differently. Under DSHEA, they are both acceptable......

Like I said as long as you are consistent with each label.

 

[hexstatic]

Ive been taking OEP for around a week now, and it has shocked me at how stong it is! I take 2x in the morning and I couldnt imagine taking more, its more than enough for me, and im weighing in at 193 lbs so im not a small bloke...

 

[ax1]

guys, the point here isnt weather it works or not, and sorry i went off track....

the point is how under-dosed the exotic ingredients are, and that there is methyl-synephrine here and its not stated on the label.

 

[1ArmMan]

Ive been taking OEP for around a week now, and it has shocked me at how stong it is! I take 2x in the morning and I couldnt imagine taking more, its more than enough for me, and im weighing in at 193 lbs so im not a small bloke...

Are we overlooking the fact it has 100mg caffeine per capsule?

 

[ax1]

Are we overlooking the fact it has 100mg caffeine per capsule?

that, and the fact that your getting 40mg of geranium in the 2 caps "hexstatic" was taking. thats pretty strong.

 

[noot]

100mg of caffeine is not a lot.

 

[hexstatic]

100mg of caffeine is not a lot.

correct me if im wrong but doesnt an average cup of coffee contain ~200mg of caffeine?? if so, then 100mg doesnt seem like much at all to have in a product like this....

 

[DAdams91982]

Anyone have a shot of the full image with header info? So the lab can be called and verify they did an actual test?

 

[ax1]

Anyone have a shot of the full image with header info? So the lab can be called and verify they did an actual test?

thats all that was posted that i know of. the poster stated this.....

oxypress:
"Reverse analyzed three times by a major laboratory. Results of each analysis being identical. If you think this is fake put together a few hundred dollars and have the test ran at the laboratory of your choice."


i will have a few very well respected folk come in and vouch for me. this is real. major lab. i am also well known. i prefer to be anonymous on this.

if forum members doubt the result. i would say to pool together five hundred dollars and pay to have it tested.



so what needs to be done is to verify if this is a hoax or not. i hope it is in fact a hoax, but this isnt being talked about much.

 

[Dizmal]

Was this backtraced?

Someone dun goofed! Consequences will never be the same!!

 

[Guest]

Anyone have a shot of the full image with header info? So the lab can be called and verify they did an actual test?

That was conveniently left out......

Doesn’t take much to get thrown under the bus.......

Who in the hell will spike a product with a "semi" legal ingredient at a dose similar to placebo.

borderline idiotic of the company and the consumer to believe...

I'm going to hit the gym and will post our full rebuttal tonight or early morning. Even though the fake lab test posted is shady as one can get.

 

[WilteredFire]

I think as the op says ... The question of why there is an ingredient in there that is NOT stated on the label needs to be addressed...The fillers, underdosed ingredients or anything else should be discussed or debated later guys.

And its not about "its safe, it still works" or the "who cares" attitude, its a matter of principal when any company steps over the line and starts to spike a product or put something in even in small doses that the consumer is not aware of, brings the companys integrity, and honesty into serious question imho...Jus sayin.

Anyway hope we can get clarification on this.

 

[Guest]

Hey Tim whats going on?

There are 2 things and I want to be clear Im not bashing or trying to help out USP in anyway. Just commenting because of experience.

There will be fillers and flow agents that add to the weight of the cap but are not accounted for in the weight of the formula.

Also lets say you have a 50% Green Tea extract for EGCG and you have 500mgs of GT or 250mgs of EGCG. As long as you are consistent with the entire label you can list the compounds in order of largest to smallest ACTIVE ingredient and not overall weight of the whole plant.

So using the above compound lets also say its going in a product that has guarana at 5% extract for caffeine and you want the dose of caffeine to be 200mgs. If you label by active EGCG would need to be before Caffeine but if you label by total plant weight Guarana would be before Green Tea.

By DSHEA you can do either but you have to do the same for the entire formula. Meaning you cant choose active on one compound cause it will look better and then choose total weight on another cause you are being cheap.

wrong. The rule is very simple: listed in order of predominance by weight. Period.

Listing percentage of extracts is optional.

Love how these company owners cameo in USPlabs threads.

I love it.

 

[Guest]

I think as the op says ... The question of why there is an ingredient in there that is NOT stated on the label needs to be addressed...The fillers, underdosed ingredients or anything else should be discussed or debated later guys.

And its not about "its safe, it still works" or the "who cares" attitude, its a matter of principal when any company steps over the line and starts to spike a product or put something in even in small doses that the consumer is not aware of, brings the companys integrity, and honesty into serious question imho...Jus sayin.

Anyway hope we can get clarification on this.

Wouldn't you want the name of the lab (at the simpliest) to verify the test before commenting on the validity of the test before preaching it as gospel?

I would think so. Am i off base here to ask the consumer to be rational and logical?

I'm very intriqued by this reaction.

 

[Guest]

Im not defending the product at all but the cap weighs 300 because of fillers and plant material that USP isnt considering to make up the active amount (thats my guess on it).

Also its not synepherine its methylsynephrine which is not found naturally in any of the plants listed on the label.

I believe the big "issue" is that the product, (based on a lab test that doesnt show the name of the lab or who did the testing), is completely mislabeled as well as being spiked.

Bad guess, you have to have reference standards for the extracts and you know this, but you are just rocking the boat.

 

[ax1]

Bad guess, you have to have reference standards for the extracts and you know this, but you are just rocking the boat.

hi, thanks for posting in this thread.

are you a USP rep? or are you directly involved with the company?

im sure more will come out soon, and if i find anything i will post here.

but i hope the truth will be settled in the end, whatever that may be.

 

[WilteredFire]

Wouldn't you want the name of the lab (at the simpliest) to verify the test before commenting on the validity of the test before preaching it as gospel?

I would think so. Am i off base here to ask the consumer to be rational and logical?

I'm very intriqued by this reaction.

I haven't said that a verdict has been reached on this, I read your post just after I wrote mines, glad that you'll write up on this as theres some contraversary stirring up on this.

Again, not tryna preach nuthin as gospel, Im reserving judgement on this and will be interested in clarification. Didn't want to write a long post as Ive had a rough day of work from 8am to 11pm, But yeh I understand the importance that the name of the lab would be nice

I should have worded up that post with more clarification Thanks. look forward to reading the write-up..

 

[freezito]

Is he a USP lab rep? i believe he is the owner and I stand by this product because ive used it and its far from underdosed. Its very strong. Anymore and it would be overkill

 

[ax1]

from anthony roberts:
A spirited discussion on B***.com has been been taking place over alleged lab tests suggesting USPLabs OxyELITE Pro doesn’t meet label claims. USPLabs has been alerted to the existence of the supposed lab tests, and have thus far failed to issue an official statement on Bodybuilding.com. Currently OxyELITE Pro is the best selling fatburner on Bodybuilding.com, and appears to be doing reasonably well in G*** also.

As you can see, the lab test seems to reveal that each capsule actually contains a quarter of the claimed dose for the proprietary blend of ingredients. I’m unaware of USPLabs issuing an official response, but I would offer them a very easy solution:

Just foot the bill for me to purchase the product in question (right off the shelf at my local G**), and get the tests done, and I’ll post the results on Bodybuilding.com (and here). I guess, alternately, if there’s enough interest on Bodybuilding.com, we can take up a collection and get the stuff tested. I know that sometimes companies want to see their competitor’s products tested, but want to avoid getting it done under their own name, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest…I’m also willing to do this as well, and put my name on it. I couldn’t care less if I get threatened with lawsuits or whatever.

Here’s how this could work: I happen to live right next to a G** that carries the USPLabs product line (as well as all major brands). This G** is situated right next to a United Postal Service Store. To preserve the chain of custody, I’d simply purchase the item, but have an employee from the United Postal Service pick it up and mail it (they’d just need to walk next door)…so at no point would the product actually be in my hands, or out of the hands of a G** employee…it would be placed directly in the mailing box, sealed by the employee of the shipping company, and mailed out to the lab directly. I wouldn’t touch anything, I’d just be giving the money to the G** owner and the owner of the mailing service…ergo, the chain of custody would be protected, and I’d even pay for the shipping myself – and video the entire thing, so everyone can see that the product went directly from the G** to the mail, with no other hands being involved. I think this is a pretty easy way for USPLabs (or any company) to exonerate themselves and prove that their product contains what it is supposed to.

I’d also like to extend this offer to any company who wants to see their product(s) pulled off shelves and independently tested…or, if the members of Bodybuilding.com (or any message board) want to get some $$ together for testing, and want a verifiable chain of custody, I’m more than willing to be the guy who gets everything done. I’ll even agree to pay for the shipping charges for as many tests as people want me to run. I’ll do this for any product people (or a company, or whatever) want to pay for, and we’ll get it pulled right off the G** shelves and put right into the mail by unaffiliated persons.

And, since the United Postal Service store even has a notary public on premises, I’ll sign an affidavit as to the chain of custody, and have then notarize it for us.

And you know me….I’m always willing to help – and like I said, I’ll foot the shipping bill personally.

 

[ax1]

Is he a USP lab rep? i believe he is the owner and I stand by this product because ive used it and its far from underdosed. Its very strong. Anymore and it would be overkill

this isnt about it being strong or not, its about whats advertised on the label and whats in the ingredients, and how much of the ingredients are in the product.

im happy the owner is aware of this, this will give him a chance to work on this since its spreading all over the net should he care to do so.

 

[noot]

Wouldn't actually being open and honest with your ingredients be better than labeling everything under "Proprietary Blend". That way you wouldn't have to worry about these partial lab analysis and speculations spread false information.

 

[ax1]

there is a group at bb, they are looking at rounding up $500 or so in donations to get another independent lab test done, and the # of potential donators is building.

if anyone wants to contribute, please go there and do so. do not pm me for the link, thanks.

 

[nattydisaster]

Is he a USP lab rep? i believe he is the owner and I stand by this product because ive used it and its far from underdosed. Its very strong. Anymore and it would be overkill

Agreed.

I could make that "lab analysis" on Microsoft word lol

And the super major big lab doesnt want their name released. Isnt that their job?

Funny what people will do.

I have taken OEP and there is no placebo and its not just caffeine. I wouldnt push the stack as much as I do if I didnt believe in it

 

[funkd0c]

Bump... I just bought some for my gf and would like to know the answers to the aforementioned questions...

 

[Sldge]

wrong. The rule is very simple: listed in order of predominance by weight. Period.

Listing percentage of extracts is optional.

Love how these company owners cameo in USPlabs threads.

I love it.

Actually Im not, you should reread it. Listed in order of weight can be done by either as long as its the same. No one said anything about %.

Im in here because most people dont know anything about testing, product labeling or DSHEA and I know more then most. So to keep people from jumping to conclusions about things they dont know, like thinking synephrine and methylsynephrine are the same.

Bad guess, you have to have reference standards for the extracts and you know this, but you are just rocking the boat.

This response has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what I posted. Im not rocking any boat and as a matter of fact Ive posted that I think without knowing the lab this is useless.

 

[CTDeuce]

That was conveniently left out......

Doesn’t take much to get thrown under the bus.......

Who in the hell will spike a product with a "semi" legal ingredient at a dose similar to placebo.

borderline idiotic of the company and the consumer to believe...

I'm going to hit the gym and will post our full rebuttal tonight or early morning. Even though the fake lab test posted is shady as one can get.

I dont know why you'd even bother posting a rebuttal to this.

The fact that this study has no lab reporting on it, and no official OP for it since they "wished to remain annonymous" (ooh dont worry...they are well known onder, anyone being fooled by this is slightly less than intelligent.

Coming from someone who works for a completely seperate company and has no ties to USP whatsoever, Oep works. I have used it, I liked it, I'd use it again. I am EXTREMELY hard to please when it comes to supplements and I probably have more logs run where I put down a companies product rather than ones where I promote it. I will say again....Oep works.

Debate all you want people...if you use it and don't feel it does anything for you....stop using it.

 

[rochabp]

i hate it when companies under dose something it straight up pisses me off, seriously...
idk i guess i expected more from USP
it still puzzles me how it get so many good reviews
doesnt add up

 

[ax1]

I have used it, I liked it, I'd use it again. I am EXTREMELY hard to please when it comes to supplements and I probably have more logs run where I put down a companies product rather than ones where I promote it. I will say again....Oep works.

Debate all you want people...if you use it and don't feel it does anything for you....stop using it.

this isnt an issue of weather OEP works or not, that isnt the point of this thread.

 

[ax1]

it still puzzles me how it get so many good reviews
doesnt add up

caffeine, geranium and methy-synephrine would be a nice stack, so yes it does add up. just that if this lab result is true the user was deceived on why it works.

 

[CTDeuce]

this isnt an issue of weather OEP works or not, that isnt the point of this thread.

right, I can read what you posted.

and if you read what I posted, what I said was you'd have to be less than intelligent to put your stock into an image that does not have any real information about where it came from and who made these findings. I mean seriously....the original poster was even worried about using their own name to post it. If this doesn't send you a red flag, you're special in a way I can't even begin to explain.

 

[hardknock]

thats what im talking about, these rare exotic raws that are in the caps, but only at less than 0.1mg each.

now im trying to figure out what was in OEP that made me feel so hungry when i took it.

I've had not one person who took this and talk about being hungry, out of 13 people that I know of.

 

[hardknock]

Are we overlooking the fact it has 100mg caffeine per capsule?

100mg per capsule, you are stating this as if it is a humongous amount or are you just stating facts because this is nowhere near a large amount.

 

[ax1]

I've had not one person who took this and talk about being hungry, out of 13 people that I know of.

actually i ran into 4 others on the boards without looking for them, but this is going off topic.

anyways here is an official response from usp labs

USPLabs:
Let’s face the facts.....no one tests a product because it sucks or is ineffective. The product is tested in hopes the competition finds an illicit substance because the product works as designed. It destroys fat and it does it quickly.

The weight-loss stories are just to remarkable and it climbed up the bodybuilding.com best seller list at record time (number 4 and number 1 weightloss product) and it is the talk of the industry from distribution to retail. The top Selling fat loss product in the world at the moment.

No way a company can formulate such a great product, we faced it with Jack3d. We are facing it with Pink Magic and as the top selling sports nutrition in the industry, we will continue to face false accusations.

Who says the active constituent is the flavonoid portion of Bauhinia purpurea? The compound of interest certainly isn't a flavonoid, so it's no surprise that they would find very little of it. That was the wrong choice for a reference standard which is the lab's fault, not ours.

What was the reference standard for the Cirsium oligophyllum? Nothing is even stated. Or was this a magic spectrophotometer? Yet again, using the incorrect compound(s) for reference standards will tend to cause these results...you know, if that is not the principle or active compound in the product then of course you're not going to find it in substantial quantities.

For those that gleaned their analytical chemistry skills from watching CSI, an explanation is probably in order. Unlike Hollywood would have you believe, learning the identity and quantity of a compound or compounds isn't a matter of sticking a piece of whatever you find into a hole and then, voila, you get a list of everything and anything that was in whatever you put in. Now, using HPLC alone for such purposes is questionable enough (GC-MS or LC-MS would be much more ideal for qualitative purposes) but that is digressing.

How does this stuff work? Well, here is an example. Let's say you want to know how much caffeine is in your morning cup of coffee. In this case, you at least know what you're looking for so this makes matters a little easier. But, before you do any actual testing, you must develop a method (though in the case of caffeine in coffee, this has already been taken care of/been beaten to death and can be located on file in the software program for the machine) and you must also validate that method. You must confirm the column you're using, the solvents (mobile phase and sample) and their amounts (ratio), flow rate, method of detection (e.g., uv-vis), etc., and also confirm that whatever you've done prior to injection (cleanup) of the sample, hasn't affected the levels of the compound and is giving an accurate picture of things. In the case of getting caffeine from coffee, it's generally just a matter of running it through filter paper once or twice, but with other more complex media, it can require solid phase extraction (SPE) which is quite another thing all together as that requires the correct selection of a particular column/cartridge that suits your needs and having a method already established which will yield good results. You must also of course have a pure and well characterized reference standard, which in the case of caffeine, isn't hard to come by. But, when you're talking about novel compounds, this can be much more difficult as it can require one to create their own reference standard which can be difficult and time consuming.

All of these things noted above are so that you can quite simply, be sure that A) you truly are detecting the compound you're seeking and not including something else (e.g., degradation products, closely related compounds, etc.) and B) that you're correctly identifying the amount of that compound present in the sample. There really are a large number of areas for error with this and other chromatographic equipment. Doing naive things like overloading a given compound can create the feared shark fins and if one isn't careful, issues of contamination can arise and you'll start seeing a compound in every sample you assay thereafter. At the end of the day, if your spiked sample which has a known amount of let's say 100 mg, and you're only detecting 25 mg, then you method isn't very good and you have to go back to the drawing board.

But, going back to the two plants, Bauhinia purpurea and Cirsium oligophyllum, if you're going to "look" for them via HPLC, you need to define a standard compound present in them and then after, obtain a reference standard for it. Well, if you’re looking for the wrong compound in Bauhinia purpurea, then of course it won’t be there in significant quantities! The same goes for C. oligophyllum. Which, interestingly enough, the lab provides no compound which was used as a reference standard. Which, is just very odd unless they have magic on their side. What makes this even more interesting in the case of Cirsium oligophyllum is that the plant hasn’t been well characterized in terms of specific compounds present in it (at least not publically in the literature) so that also makes this result quite interesting. Not only were they able to determine a principle constituent that isn’t reported in the literature, but they’ve also developed a reference standard for it and validated their method all in a rather short period of time? Surely, we must know the name of a such a powerhouse organization that can accomplish such feats in a small amount of time.

Accuracy is also questioned in this lab tested for quantification. Generally the chance of variability increases as the % concentration decreases. This is why its difficult for competitors to test a product after it has been manufactured; when the percent of the compound drops below 5%, it becomes very difficult for the lab to be able to determine an accurate result. In the pharmaceutical industry, when the percent of ingredient is that low, generally scale up test are performed – meaning they will blend it with just one other ingredient to make a 50% blend, test that, validate it, then scale it up higher and validate that test and so forth. This is the correct measure that is suppose to be taken when validating a blend for active ingredients. Unfortunately because this is an attempt to reverse engineer a product.. these test are not that accurate, and even the lab itself would not stand behind these results if they were presented in court.
The person posting it won't tell anyone who the supposed lab is that did the testing. Why? If it's a fact that this testing did occur and they have the samples, what's the problem? I don't know of any lab that won't stand behind their work and saying anything about libel (in the US anyhow) is nonsense as well, as this would be a purely factual and an objective report. Papers are published all the time in the literature on such things, even in the lay media like Consumer Reports. If your methods have been validated and you can replicate your work, I don’t know of anyone who wouldn’t stand behind their results.

Could it be that this is a fake lab report done by anyone with access to a computer and printer (we know how hard those are to come by)?

Or, is this a real lab assay report but the “lab” that reported these values isn’t very confident in their methods? Or perhaps it is because the lab itself isn’t going to say what this anonymous poster is implying, i.e., the product is under-dosed with these plants when in fact, they’re not saying any such thing, merely that they aren’t able to detect the compounds in the capsules, which are being used as a reference standard.

Companies usually "taint" supplements with effective doses of illicit compounds not with an ineffective dose of a legal compound..

 

[freezito]

Usplabs haters everywhere, the products work, thats all that matters too me

 

[ax1]

right, I can read what you posted.

and if you read what I posted, what I said was you'd have to be less than intelligent to put your stock into an image that does not have any real information about where it came from and who made these findings. I mean seriously....the original poster was even worried about using their own name to post it. If this doesn't send you a red flag, you're special in a way I can't even begin to explain.

the reason i posted this wasnt to bash on usp, i just wanted to get feedback on something thats going on on another board over here, the board i love the most.

i never meant this as anything factual and concrete proof.