This photo basically says it doesn’t contain ecdysterone ?
Reason for wanting to take it?
Add max mass ?Reason for wanting to take it?
Haha I see what you did there.Add max mass ?
(Heard good things tho and it’s the last natural supp I haven’t tried)
Wasn't this brought up a long time ago? First, it's on their company's forum/site (the one claiming theirs is the only good one). Second, their method for how they tested it is beyond dubious really, and also posted by the admin of their site. They claim the testing was performed by the Institute of the Chemistry of Plant Substances, who just so happens to be who they source their ecdysterone from. Also, it's located in Uzbekistan, so they ordered a bottle and sent it to Uzbekistan instead of having it tested at a non-biased lab (someone that doesn't also sell ecdysterone, or at least isn't the company that this ******** buys their ecdysterone from) in the same country that the product was shipped from. This is insanely suspect really.
This post doesn't really make sense. Why would the PH ban impact the effectiveness of natural products? PHs aren't natural products.Haha I see what you did there.
I would save your money. Anything natural will not get you the results you want, especially after the PH Ban a couple years back.
Everything these days is a re-hashed failed supplement with a new name and new promises.
Show me a consumer looking for "natural" supps that didn't somehow take a currently banned substance. Or "hear good things" about a product that is actually natural......This post doesn't really make sense. Why would the PH ban impact the effectiveness of natural products? PHs aren't natural products.
What are you suggesting? That every effective natural product is adulterated with banned substances? If that is the case, why would a company illegally adulterating their natural products with prohormones care if the ingredients they're using to spike their products are legal or not, if spiking is illegal in the first place? Prohormones are not natural products, and they weren't two years ago. Or three years ago, or ten years ago.Show me a consumer looking for "natural" supps that didn't somehow take a currently banned substance. Or "hear good things" about a product that is actually natural......
I'm just saying that nowadays you're not gonna find much.
Not what I said at all. You may just be looking for an argument, but don't you remember "Mass Tabs" or Methyl V "test boosting agent (marketed as a natural muscle building agent that had SD and Max LMG) while the people marketing it suggested a simple booster for PCT.What are you suggesting? That every effective natural product is adulterated with banned substances? If that is the case, why would a company illegally adulterating their natural products with prohormones care if the ingredients they're using to spike their products are legal or not, if spiking is illegal in the first place? Prohormones are not natural products, and they weren't two years ago. Or three years ago, or ten years ago.
If it had SD it was never natural. It doesn't matter what the company called it, it was never natural, so it was never a natural product. Therefore, the PH ban that took these products off the market didn't effect the natural supplement market, as these were never natural supplements.Not what I said at all. You may just be looking for an argument, but don't you remember "Mass Tabs" or Methyl V "test boosting agent (marketed as a natural muscle building agent that had SD and Max LMG) while the people marketing it suggested a simple booster for PCT.
There have been plenty of companies that didn't care about tarnishing their names to make some sales. Remember the amino spiking scare?
I agree with that part of it, but what about all of the consumers that thought they were taking something natural because they didn't research the supp since their local shop guy told em it would get them jacked.If it had SD it was never natural. It doesn't matter what the company called it, it was never natural, so it was never a natural product. Therefore, the PH ban that took these products off the market didn't effect the natural supplement market, as these were never natural supplements.
I'm not "looking for an argument," I'm explaining that a PH ban, by definition, doesn't have any effect on natural products.
I can call caffeine and DMAA capsules stimulant free, but that doesn't mean they are.
So then what of the natural products that have gotten good results/feedback since the PH ban? How do you explain those? Also, of course natural products aren't going to work as well as prohormones, but that doesn't mean they don't work. There are several/many natural ingredients that have studies showing they can improve performance, strength, body composition, etc. To the magnitude of PHs? No, but that doesn't mean they don't work and/or can't be useful.I agree with that part of it, but what about all of the consumers that thought they were taking something natural because they didn't research the supp since their local shop guy told em it would get them jacked.
That's my point - research the nomenclature and compounds before taking something that you heard worked well.
Ecdysterones being one?So then what of the natural products that have gotten good results/feedback since the PH ban? How do you explain those? Also, of course natural products aren't going to work as well as prohormones, but that doesn't mean they don't work. There are several/many natural ingredients that have studies showing they can improve performance, strength, body composition, etc. To the magnitude of PHs? No, but that doesn't mean they don't work and/or can't be useful.
Ecdysterone falls more along the lines of something that has admittedly limited human data but enough promising rodent data (and preliminary/Russian human data) to justify trying it for some people. Getting a proper extract can be difficult, which may be one reason why it hasn't always panned out, but there admittedly isn't enough human data either way to conclusively say if ecdysterone is effective or not, as there are different sources, doses, uses, etc. There have been a few well-received ecdysterone containing products though. Feedback on MassMax has been solid. I suppose you can argue that it may be because of the other ingredients and not the ecdysterone, but the feedback on it has been solid.Ecdysterones being one?
Appreciate the response, me I’m actually natural....Highly considering a sarm run...Was genuinely curious about this ecdysterone...Show me a consumer looking for "natural" supps that didn't somehow take a currently banned substance. Or "hear good things" about a product that is actually natural......
I'm just saying that nowadays you're not gonna find much.
I wouldn't let this one single lab test sway your decision too much - the feedback from users on Massmax should be proof enough that it is indeed effective. The "controlled" lab test that was performed in this study was not valid IMO. As a natural lifter, I would definitely suggest giving Massmax a try before jumping into SARMs.Appreciate the response, me I’m actually natural....Highly considering a sarm run...Was genuinely curious about this ecdysterone...
Yeah because another companies advertisement is proof smh
It might be the older stock. Nothing has changed formula wise. Just a different label and it is just called MassMax now.Found massmax xt for 30 with free shipping, why has the price come down so much. And xgels price has exploded, now 49, was like 41 when I last bought. Wow
I appreciate the time and research you put into this before jumping on the bandwagon. Much appreciated.I have never tried MassMax XT, but I see from the ingredient profile that it contains multiple active ingredients--- Rhaponticum Carthamoides Extract, Epicatechin, Methyl Palmitate, Methyl Oleate and Atractylodes Lancea Rhizome. I have been taking a fairly high dose of Exubol (1.6 grams) for the past 3 months. Exubol contains Turkesterone which according to examine.com appears to be the most anabolic.From researching ecdysteroids, I know the results have been a mixed bag. But I have personally had excellent results.
100% agree. I also think that blind will lead the blind on them as well. Guys who don't factor in their diet and workout routine and might be a near beginner blowing up because of those factors and not so much the supps, but will then tell everyone that it was directly the supp that gave them the results.I appreciate the time and research you put into this before jumping on the bandwagon. Much appreciated.
Massmax contains a nice list of active ingredients that have been studied and proven to be effective. I think the big problem with natural anabolics is that users compare these products to SARMs and prohormones. There can't be an expectation of PH-like results with a natural product. For what it offers, I think Massmax is a very complete and well-rounded natural anabolic.
I was literally typing a post very similar to yours until I read it. Thank you lolWasn't this brought up a long time ago? First, it's on their company's forum/site (the one claiming theirs is the only good one). Second, their method for how they tested it is beyond dubious really, and also posted by the admin of their site. They claim the testing was performed by the Institute of the Chemistry of Plant Substances, who just so happens to be who they source their ecdysterone from. Also, it's located in Uzbekistan, so they ordered a bottle and sent it to Uzbekistan instead of having it tested at a non-biased lab (someone that doesn't also sell ecdysterone, or at least isn't the company that this ******** buys their ecdysterone from) in the same country that the product was shipped from. This is insanely suspect really.
Reason for wanting to take it?
I try not to trust numbers on an info sheet unless it has a paper trail, chain of custody etc. I enjoyed Mass max when I ran it 2-3 times when it first launched and would be happy to pick it up again.This all came up some time ago as well. I'll just leave it at this as we have to remain neutral - there have been previous postings (as well as one in this thread that was already deleted) that stink of being posted by people associated with ******** (IP addresses, etc.). Take that information into consideration when considering the information you read.
It's been a year or so since the lab performed the tests. The companies/products, mentioned in these tests, had lots of time to respond.Wasn't this brought up a long time ago? First, it's on their company's forum/site (the one claiming theirs is the only good one). Second, their method for how they tested it is beyond dubious really, and also posted by the admin of their site. They claim the testing was performed by the Institute of the Chemistry of Plant Substances, who just so happens to be who they source their ecdysterone from. Also, it's located in Uzbekistan, so they ordered a bottle and sent it to Uzbekistan instead of having it tested at a non-biased lab (someone that doesn't also sell ecdysterone, or at least isn't the company that this ******** buys their ecdysterone from) in the same country that the product was shipped from. This is insanely suspect really.
But claiming there is no ecdysterone in the product at all is inaccurate my friend. The entire methodology behind this “testing” is beyond laughable. Let’s send competitor’s products to a lab halfway across to the world, and let’s have the lab we send it to happen to be a company who sells ecdysterone themselves AND who just so happens to be the the supplier that the company who ordered the testing uses for their product. Not openly disclosing this information when discussing the tests, these blatant conflicts of interest, is beyond disingenuous.It's been a year or so since the lab performed the tests. The companies/products, mentioned in these tests, had lots of time to respond.
MassMax doesn't claim a certain ecdy % in the supp, they use RC extract (non-standardized). Their label claim is accurate.
The problem is the tests were not done by Chromadex or another US based lab? I believe, anyone had a chance to prove this tests wrong if a bottle of the supp of the same batch was sent to Chromadex or any US based lab.But claiming there is no ecdysterone in the product at all is inaccurate my friend. The entire methodology behind this “testing” is beyond laughable. Let’s send competitor’s products to a lab halfway across to the world, and let’s have the lab we send it to happen to be a company who sells ecdysterone themselves AND who just so happens to be the the supplier that the company who ordered the testing uses for their product. Not openly disclosing this information when discussing the tests, these blatant conflicts of interest, is beyond disingenuous.
Nope, I sure can't. We don't provide personally identifiable information about any users on AM to anyone. Believe me or don't believe me, it really makes no difference to me. It's just funny that when this stink all gets regurgitated again you miraculously appear in here again.Could you be more specific and support the following msg with some sort of proof:
Can this be posted?Just an update: I have now personally seen a lab test which clearly shows that MassMax contains Ecdysterone. This will be my last response to this nonsense and anyone that stirs this crap up again in the future will be swiftly banned.
I am unable to post it as I do not own it and have not been authorized to do so by the manufacturer.Can this be posted?
Fair enough, maybe they will post themselves. It seems like that would be something they would want the public to see!I am unable to post it as I do not own it and have not been authorized to do so by the manufacturer.
totally agree!As an huge ecdysterone fan (been that since 1999) I have always been skeptical to ecdysterone products out there and I always wanted to see lab test/COA of the products
Thermolife introduced Ecdysteroids from ICPS early 2000 and I saw a lab test. Then I personally sent a sample of the product to a Norwegian Lab and the results was almost identical. (I didnt trust Thernolife in the beginning).
I would love to see COA/Lab test mr. Ari Gold saw of MassMax. Since he saw it, it means the proof is out there and Perfomax Labs should proudly show it and not to mention to prove wrong the company who tested MassMax.
The info came from the AM moderator. The lab results prove there is ecdy in MassMax. There is nothing to worry about.Any info yet? I was to pull the trigger on 3 bottle, if there is no proof of the ecdy in it , wich is the 1 ingredient I will not pull the trigger on it
Honest question, doesn’t the presence of ANY ecdysterone at all completely invalidate the original claims (of nothing detected) made by a competing company who had the products “tested” by the company, located halfway across the world, that happens to also sell their own ecdysterone and happens to sell it to said company? I couldn’t think of more conflicts of interest unless the lab was also owned by the company’s owner’s father.Well how come I can t see it then? It contains some, but not enough? Anyway I Don t want to start drama, but been Canadian with the exchange rate, when I buy I am really picky. I will have to past on that one. In my views the natty builder is stack with many product and by not providing what the consumer want perfomaxlabs is doing itself I disfavor.
Since this thread doesn’t want to die, and I can’t believe you lack the critical thinking ability to understand this, or you’re just playing dumb:The problem is the tests were not done by Chromadex or another US based lab? I believe, anyone had a chance to prove this tests wrong if a bottle of the supp of the same batch was sent to Chromadex or any US based lab.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Considering TRT | 35 and Older | 14 | ||
Just cannot make any progress - Considering stopping | Training Forum | 35 | ||
Considering this stack | Natural Bodybuilding | 4 | ||
Considering stopping Epistane after 2 weeks | Anabolics | 1 | ||
Finally considering TRT, Need some help. | Anabolics | 6 |