OxyElite Pro tainted-Lets face the facts.
- 07-23-2010, 11:02 PM
OxyElite Pro tainted-Lets face the facts.
Let’s face the facts...no one will test a product because it sucks or is ineffective. Our competition tested (or pretended to) in hopes of finding an illicit substance because the product works as designed. It destroys fat and it does it quickly.
The weight/fat-loss stories continue to pour in 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.
We faced false allegations with Jack3d. We are facing them with Pink Magic. I'm sure we will continue to face false accusations. At the end of the day, it's simply a witch hunt I doubt anyone can truly believe at this point.
Getting back to the "test" in question...
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 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. This 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 supposed 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.
- 07-23-2010, 11:02 PM
Companies usually "taint" supplements with effective doses of illicit compounds, not with an ineffective dose of a legal compound.
Let's face it, OxyElite Pro is completely legit. There's no "spiking" & the tests below prove it.
07-24-2010, 12:27 AM
07-24-2010, 12:34 AM
07-24-2010, 01:03 AM
Really, this need not even be debated.
There is little validity to the lab test. Did the test happen, possibly but the room for error is quite large which is a known fact when any lab tries to break down a product.
I know this first hand being that I have spent a small fortune getting products tested.
Anyone taking the lab results seriously, I must refer to you as Stevie Wonder.
07-24-2010, 01:31 AM
This is not me saying this analysis is real. But seriously. It's quite possible to get an accurate analysis of the contents. Do you think we just take big pharma's word on what's in their pills without them being tested for accuracy?
07-24-2010, 01:32 AM
07-24-2010, 01:55 AM
Anything can be debated if it is credible. I think people need to debate the authenticity of the report first.
You cannot assume it is true and start a debate based on that. I can reproduce it in 5 mins and make it look like it was printed on a 10 year old yellowish color xeroxed paper. Any 10 year old with photoshop can do so.
Is the test legit? who did it? which lab? where did they get the samples to test from? who paid for the test?
Bottom line, you don't defend or debate something that is not proven to be true.
07-24-2010, 05:24 AM
Great post, Jacob!
Product Educator | USPowders
Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders opinion as a whole.
07-24-2010, 02:25 PM
07-24-2010, 02:27 PM
07-24-2010, 02:34 PM
ehhem OEP- does NOT give me the HUGE energy burst other thermos have- this originally made me think it was overhyped BULLSHIIT
However I found out through my own research that those OTHER thermos- well yeah they gave me energy but how well are they burning fat- just cause I feel all jacked up doesnt meen they are burning fat
OEP has given me good results with an increase in body temp/sweating from time to time
It and Alpha t2 are my new thermos of choice
07-24-2010, 02:58 PM
07-24-2010, 03:25 PM
07-24-2010, 03:31 PM
Here is my 2 cents. As much as I can't stand the BS marketing of USP, I will admit some of their products work well while others don't. But this lab result is complete crap. Too many people have gotten great results with OEP, and that speaks volumes in my opinion.
07-24-2010, 04:10 PM
07-24-2010, 08:15 PM
I did not say that it is not impossible to examine contents, I said that without actual reference standards (which was already stated above and on 1,000 other websites for the past 15 years) you cannot accurately know. It is IMPOSSIBLE, yes to know EXACTLY. Is it possible to get close or somewhere in the ball park, yes it is.
You are talking about known herbs and medicines, I am not, this is not.
---The internet is the father of the electronic lynch-mob---
07-24-2010, 08:18 PM
Now, ask me, when was the last time I had a supplement or medicine analyzed? hmmmm, 1 month ago? sounds about correct. I do not know enough about the analysis portion to be able to spill it out such as Jacob, but I have had enough supplements/medicines tested over the past 7 years to know the pure basics and I know that it is not as easy as you are thinking it is.
---The internet is the father of the electronic lynch-mob---
07-24-2010, 11:26 PM
USP - just have the "compound" or particular standard made available for it to be tested in a confidential manner, blur out the active's names and post the results.
Personally, I like to know what I am ingesting.
If available, I pubmed and research potential side effect profiles to make sure I am not subjecting myself to any potential end-organ damage at the expense of weight loss or an increase in strength.
07-24-2010, 11:29 PM
Do consumers have a right to be suspicious about supplement companies - YES!
DO consumers have rights to make false claims? NO
07-25-2010, 01:03 AM
07-25-2010, 01:04 AM
I'm not going to lie, I didn't read this.. but I like how someone totally tried to destroy a whole company. Too bad OEP and Jack3d are probably the most all around popular fat loss, and preworkout (at least from people I've talked to, not just on this forum, this forum loves there ASGT..lol)
07-25-2010, 01:05 AM
07-25-2010, 01:16 AM
07-25-2010, 01:17 AM
Dude you cant really compare pharmaceuticals to supplements. Look how many deaths/recalls/adverse side effects have been due to pharmaceuticals
Serious Nutrition Solutions | Online Representative
Growth Factor XT-GROW! Need Cycle Support? Check out Liver XT.
Follow SNS on Facebook for more promos!
07-25-2010, 12:38 PM
Pharmaceuticals are subject to stringent manufacturing and quality guidelines aside from extensive testing and trials, even post marketing studies are performed. YET - some meds make it on the market that are in fact pure and are tested for purity (look in every Rx insert) that STILL lead to adverse events even death.
Having said that, supplement companies are not subject to 1/100th the regulation and scrutiny pharma companies are subject to.
They are comparable because we are consuming them with the desire for a particular effect. They all go down the same pipe and metabolized by our bodies.
Don't you want to know what your putting in your body, especially if it is not subject to strict regulatory and quality standards of testing and labeling standards?
Almost every company is guilty of proprietary blending the crap out of everything given the competition and availability of raws from someone's backyard factory in China. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it could be better. Products make it to market faster, it promotes innovation and company differentiation.
Like USP said, if you don't trust it, don't buy it. Props go to all the guinea pigs (hopefully unbiased) who have tried all these supps to give us an idea of what the expectations can be when consuming these mystery compounds.
These things may work for some but may not work for others. We are built differently, we do not respond identically to everything, that's the reality of being human. Instead of saying it didn't work, it is great to report that it didn't work. But note that because it did not work for you, does not meanthat others may not have benefits.
07-25-2010, 12:40 PM
07-25-2010, 01:15 PM
07-25-2010, 01:38 PM
i used oep and had great results-i WILL use again!!!!
with that said, proprietary blends have got to go-this is not just aimed at usplabs but all the supp companies-don't you guys get it-not only do your customers not want prop blends, but sooner or later you will be forced to stop this practice-doesn't it make sense to voluntarily be on the side of RIGHT??????
07-25-2010, 01:51 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By ax1 in forum SupplementsReplies: 227Last Post: 08-15-2010, 03:13 AM
- By MEH89 in forum SupplementsReplies: 34Last Post: 01-28-2010, 02:09 PM
- By Guest in forum SupplementsReplies: 32Last Post: 02-23-2009, 12:39 PM