Guest viewing is limited

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

I think product experiences will always be dependent on the person taking them, having said that my experience with OEP wasn't a negative one, nor was it overwhelmingly positive. I didn't experience any appetite suppression, in fact I felt hungrier as some users have reported and I had another friend experience the same issue. It didn't lean me out as much as I thought it would and my diet was clean. That of course doesn't negate all the other positive experiences other users have had with OEP. VPX Clenbutrx hardcore worked for me and some others hated it, different strokes I guess. But Jack3d is the best preworkout product I've ever used. On a side note I realize this isn't the topic of this thread, but anyone considering taking VPX's new preworkout Anarchy, reconsider...it's beyond horrible for many reasons, which I can explain if anyone is interested.Either way USP is a great company and they've been successful doing it the right way.
 
I think product experiences will always be dependent on the person taking them, having said that my experience with OEP wasn't a negative one, nor was it overwhelmingly positive. I didn't experience any appetite suppression, in fact I felt hungrier as some users have reported and I had another friend experience the same issue.

nice post, OEP made me feel like i was starving, how bad was it for you?
 
nice post, OEP made me feel like i was starving, how bad was it for you?
Thank you and it made very hungry, however, I don't consider myself typical. I experience a bit of insulin resistance, my body cannot seem to process sugar efficiently, so perhaps this lends itself to my experiences with OEP. Clenbutrx literally killed my appetite for close to 4 hours with each dose. I gave the remainder of my OEP bottle to a friend, who isn't really a person I would consider knowledgeable as it relates to supplementation, saw him this morning in the gym and he asked me "Is this supposed to make you feel hungry?". But again I'm aware of the many positive experiences some other users have had while taking the product.
 
Let me ask you this questions.

If you spent thousands upon thousands to research, extract and test a compound and then mass manufacture and advertise, you would list it on your label so every company in the world has the blue print to your innovation?


If it only cost 500.00 for a lab result to come pretty close to what is in the pill i mean what are you protecting 500.00. If a company wants to know what is in that pill they are going to find out. Its the general public that is not going to invest in lab results
 
If it only cost 500.00 for a lab result to come pretty close to what is in the pill i mean what are you protecting 500.00. If a company wants to know what is in that pill they are going to find out. Its the general public that is not going to invest in lab results

Many of unknown ingredients have been down that path. Labs try to reverse engineer them and come out with a product that is substantially less effective. The reason is that they usually do not figure out the EXACT ingredient or the EXACT amount. Few do, many do not.
 
If it only cost 500.00 for a lab result to come pretty close to what is in the pill

But that is the issue, here, and what was elaborated upon in Jacob's lengthy response: this assay came nowhere close to revealing what was in Oxy Elite Pro.

If a company wants to know what is in that pill they are going to find out.

No, they would not - at least not with any measure of analytical accuracy. The issue here, again, being the lack of a reference standard.

As I said previously, the results of an HPLC assay could be described as the "chemical silhouette" of any given compound. But what is a silhouette, in general?

Well, a silhouette is nothing other than what remains visible when an object is lit from behind: a black outline that possesses the general shape of the object in question, but which lacks all other features which would normally constitute the thing as that thing in the first place. Despite this dearth of distinguishing elements, we are nevertheless able to identify a silhouette as belonging to its corresponding object precisely because we have seen the object as it exists normally on a prior occasion - the object is, in other words, the reference standard upon which we judge the silhouette as belonging to it.

However, if one had never seen the object as it exists normally, and therefore did not possess the reference standard necessary to recognize the object and silhouette as corresponding to one another, this recognition would not occur. So, if one had never seen a cat, for example, and he was shown a silhouette of a cat, he would be unable to identify what was plainly in front of him.

And this is precisely what occurs when a lab attempts to analyze compounds for which they do not possess the reference standard! Whether it be a $500 or $5000 analysis, a lab is unable to identify a given compound unless they possess the reference to do so.
 
Due respect to both Ergopharm and IBE, but I believe the point the individual is making is this: while these companies utilized 1,3-dimethylamylamine prior to USPlabs, JACK3D was precisely the product that popularized the use of 1,3-dimethylamylamine in powder-based, pre-workout supplementation.

It is simply validating the notion that competitors - not just for USPlabs, but more generally - follow suit conceptually, and this is with the implementation of proprietary blends. Without being able to protect one's intellectual property, how should one's success remain one's own?

On the one hand, individuals argue that consumers have the absolute right to know the precise combination of ingredients in any given formulation, but on the other, that also implies any competitor ought to have the right to wholesale imitate the success of others.

i think extracts should be told period, but only if asked. otherwise no reason to tell.

copyrights and patents are so expensive, and even those dont protect enough, take away 1 ingredient add two others and bam, new product. which is why i Favor the Prop blends.

Certain ingredients like Caffeine and stimulants should be told how much are in it, but others certainly not.

just my opinion. i like usp labs. they are good people i dont see them doing anything stupid to harm their great reputation.
 
There's a reason why Harland Sanders went down in history as one of the most popular b@stards to ever sell chicken...
 
If it only cost 500.00 for a lab result to come pretty close to what is in the pill i mean what are you protecting 500.00. If a company wants to know what is in that pill they are going to find out. Its the general public that is not going to invest in lab results

You have no idea what you are talking about...
 
LOL. I like your candor :)

Silly to state a company can afford $500 but a consumer cannot and beyond that silly thought, he should read what I or Mullet wrote on testing...

It could cost 10s of thousands of dollars to reverse engineer a product (depending on the product. i'm pretty confident to identify some of our extracts it would be upwards of that range) and they still may get it wrong....
 
so whats the deal with this? this guy is wasting his time right since according to USPlabs there you cant test OEP without the lab knowing the details mentioned in his essay?

if the lab cant test for some of the ingredients, id at least be interested to see if methyl-synephrine comes up again.

My name is Anthony Roberts, and I'm the person who has offered to send the USPLabs product in question off for testing, as per my blog: ******************* and I think the protocol I've outlined (video taping the entire event, not handling the product personally, and signing an affidavit) ought to be more than acceptable.

I've got no dog in this fight, and no competing nutritional products on the current market, although in the past I have worked as a supplement formulator, and I currently write for two industry magazines, Muscle Evolution (South Africa) and Muscle Insider (N. America).

If you guys are interested in putting together a fund, I'll begin work on Monday. I'll get us a price quote for the testing, and post it here as well as in my blog. I'll open up my PayPal account, give you guys the details, and I'll pay for the shipping on the product myself. If we only raise enough money for the testing, I'll purchase the product myself, and pay for the shipping as well. Results will be posted both here and in my blog.

My email is in my sig, and I'll probably post again on Monday with an update, and put details in my blog as well. If we don't raise enough money, I'll refund everyone, and I'll also post anything else you guys think to be relevant, in the interest of transparency.

Thanks for reading.

~Anthony Roberts
 
so whats the deal with this? this guy is wasting his time right since according to USPlabs there you cant test OEP without the lab knowing the details mentioned in his essay?

if the lab cant test for some of the ingredients, id at least be interested to see if methyl-synephrine comes up again.

My name is Anthony Roberts, and I'm the person who has offered to send the USPLabs product in question off for testing, as per my blog: ******************* and I think the protocol I've outlined (video taping the entire event, not handling the product personally, and signing an affidavit) ought to be more than acceptable.

I've got no dog in this fight, and no competing nutritional products on the current market, although in the past I have worked as a supplement formulator, and I currently write for two industry magazines, Muscle Evolution (South Africa) and Muscle Insider (N. America).

If you guys are interested in putting together a fund, I'll begin work on Monday. I'll get us a price quote for the testing, and post it here as well as in my blog. I'll open up my PayPal account, give you guys the details, and I'll pay for the shipping on the product myself. If we only raise enough money for the testing, I'll purchase the product myself, and pay for the shipping as well. Results will be posted both here and in my blog.

My email is in my sig, and I'll probably post again on Monday with an update, and put details in my blog as well. If we don't raise enough money, I'll refund everyone, and I'll also post anything else you guys think to be relevant, in the interest of transparency.

Thanks for reading.

~Anthony Roberts

Coincidentally, Anthony Roberts is also the same individual who "determined" Pink Magic's main ingredient (Massularia Acuminata) was "worthless." I mean, if he has no "dog in this fight," why volunteer? Is Anthony Roberts simply doing his civic duty as a former supplement formulator, or is he frothing at the bit to further exasperate this situation?
 
Coincidentally, Anthony Roberts is also the same individual who "determined" Pink Magic's main ingredient (Massularia Acuminata) was "worthless." I mean, if he has no "dog in this fight," why volunteer? Is Anthony Roberts simply doing his civic duty as a former supplement formulator, or is he frothing at the bit to further exasperate this situation?

who did he work for? i just heard some bad stuff about him....whats the deal??? never heard of him until very recently. update me please....
 
so whats the deal with this? this guy is wasting his time right since according to USPlabs there you cant test OEP without the lab knowing the details mentioned in his essay?

if the lab cant test for some of the ingredients, id at least be interested to see if methyl-synephrine comes up again.

My name is Anthony Roberts, and I'm the person who has offered to send the USPLabs product in question off for testing, as per my blog: ******************* and I think the protocol I've outlined (video taping the entire event, not handling the product personally, and signing an affidavit) ought to be more than acceptable.

I've got no dog in this fight, and no competing nutritional products on the current market, although in the past I have worked as a supplement formulator, and I currently write for two industry magazines, Muscle Evolution (South Africa) and Muscle Insider (N. America).

If you guys are interested in putting together a fund, I'll begin work on Monday. I'll get us a price quote for the testing, and post it here as well as in my blog. I'll open up my PayPal account, give you guys the details, and I'll pay for the shipping on the product myself. If we only raise enough money for the testing, I'll purchase the product myself, and pay for the shipping as well. Results will be posted both here and in my blog.

My email is in my sig, and I'll probably post again on Monday with an update, and put details in my blog as well. If we don't raise enough money, I'll refund everyone, and I'll also post anything else you guys think to be relevant, in the interest of transparency.

Thanks for reading.

~Anthony Roberts

1) Why should there be Methylsynephrine in OxyELITE Pro? Besides, if any Company wanted to spike a fat-burner with methylsynephrine, why bother with 1.6gr? Why even bother with methysynephrine?
2) This Anthony Roberts chap should finally spell out his agenda relative to USPLabs.
 
IF OEP is for sale in the UK, I can save you guys a lot of time and hassle finding out how much of what ingredient is in the product as for products to be on sale here in the UK it must show the ingredients, and the amount of ingredients per 100g. I think showing the quantity per serving is optional, but per 100g is something manufacturers must adhere to. I would check my bottle of OEP but theres no point as it will be the same as the one you guys have, I bought it from NutraPlanet.com

anyone know if OEP is for sale in the UK ???
 
IF OEP is for sale in the UK, I can save you guys a lot of time and hassle finding out how much of what ingredient is in the product as for products to be on sale here in the UK it must show the ingredients, and the amount of ingredients per 100g. I think showing the quantity per serving is optional, but per 100g is something manufacturers must adhere to. I would check my bottle of OEP but theres no point as it will be the same as the one you guys have, I bought it from NutraPlanet.com

anyone know if OEP is for sale in the UK ???

Hey mate,

That's for products manufactured here in the UK. The MHRA is pretty strict in that regard and this is why most UK Branded Supplements are CRAP (Reflex, PhD, Maxi-Muscle, Atlas etc.)

You can buy OEP here in the UK it's just been imported from the US. Predator Nutrition is a noted supplier.
 
1) Why should there be Methylsynephrine in OxyELITE Pro? Besides, if any Company wanted to spike a fat-burner with methylsynephrine, why bother with 1.6gr? Why even bother with methysynephrine?
Exactly. This is laughable.


2) This Anthony Roberts chap should finally spell out his agenda relative to USPLabs.
I think that it is rather obvious that he is in "bed" with someone. First it was PM, now OEP. I am sure he will be adamant on checking PRIME next and tell us all that it is encumbered with C4. I have no respect for (Mr.) POS Roberts personally.
 
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

my bodys a temple-i would chuck that s**t down me full stop.

What the hell is it .I only recognise 2 items caffeine and Bacopa Monniera.

If people are gullible to take that s**t then my names gunga din .They are so ill change my name!
 
Exactly. This is laughable.



I think that it is rather obvious that he is in "bed" with someone. First it was PM, now OEP. I am sure he will be adamant on checking PRIME next and tell us all that it is encumbered with C4. I have no respect for (Mr.) POS Roberts personally.

I expect to be hearing about a new fat burner to compete with OEP any day now. This seems like an obvious effort to knock it down off of the top seller list by putting doubt into people's minds.
 
my bodys a temple-i would chuck that s**t down me full stop.

What the hell is it .I only recognise 2 items caffeine and Bacopa Monniera.

If people are gullible to take that s**t then my names gunga din .They are so ill change my name!

i just want to clarify the above by saying i scrutinise any supplement which contains ingredients i dont recognise , before i buy it, or not .So my comments could apply to any number of supplements out there. In this particular case , the post caught my eye and as a result i decided to comment.
Iknow a lot of you out there are big fans of USP and stand by their products , however i personally have no loyalty to a brand- its what suits me at the time.
 
1) Why should there be Methylsynephrine in OxyELITE Pro? Besides, if any Company wanted to spike a fat-burner with methylsynephrine, why bother with 1.6gr? Why even bother with methysynephrine?
2) This Anthony Roberts chap should finally spell out his agenda relative to USPLabs.

one reason i can quickly think of is that some (or many) companies only rely on CoA (Certificate of Analysis) from the raw manufacturer and dont take the responsibility themselves to check the Raws themselves.

the raws wouldnt be what the CoA claims, and thats how this may happen. its a shady practice but it does happen. why would anybody trust the manufacturer??? they are trying to make money, and recent history shows that they will manufacture not only the Raws, but the CoA also.

i believe every company should re-analyze their raws with their own independent lab testing to not only protect the consumer, but also to protect the companies rep. not taking this step is ignorant and irresponsible imo.

look what happened to all the bunk divinal that was exposed recently with many divinal products such as Activate Xtreme (not making official claim here lawyers) and many others having only 5% divinal instead of 95% divinal. this is just 1 recent example.

----------------------------

now another reason a company may substitute with a legal effective ingredient is to save money.

you market rare exotic, new and expensive ingredients but really use cheaper ingredients instead that are known to work and keep the consumer happy. in the end the company can inflate the price and the consumer likes the results and doesnt realize that they were deceived.

im not saying this is the case here with usp labs (besides the fact that this lab analysis has no validity to it, at this point) but im just stating another example.
 
You have no idea what you are talking about...


Ok so you are telling me that if a lab has a bottle of opro from the list of ing. on the label they cannot verify the amount and if the ing. are actually in the pill? I dont understand why i dont know what im talking about.
 
one reason i can quickly think of is that some (or many) companies only rely on CoA (Certificate of Analysis) from the raw manufacturer and dont take the responsibility themselves to check the Raws themselves.

the raws wouldnt be what the CoA claims, and thats how this may happen. its a shady practice but it does happen. why would anybody trust the manufacturer??? they are trying to make money, and recent history shows that they will manufacture not only the Raws, but the CoA also.

i believe every company should re-analyze their raws with their own independent lab testing to not only protect the consumer, but also to protect the companies rep. not taking this step is ignorant and irresponsible imo.

look what happened to all the bunk divinal that was exposed recently with many divinal products such as Activate Xtreme (not making official claim here lawyers) and many others having only 5% divinal instead of 95% divinal. this is just 1 recent example.

----------------------------

now another reason a company may substitute with a legal effective ingredient is to save money.

you market rare exotic, new and expensive ingredients but really use cheaper ingredients instead that are known to work and keep the consumer happy. in the end the company can inflate the price and the consumer likes the results and doesnt realize that they were deceived.

im not saying this is the case here with usp labs (besides the fact that this lab analysis has no validity to it, at this point) but im just stating another example.
1) If you understood USPLab's stringent ingredient sourcing (includes growing, harvesting, and extracting) policies, you would realize that supply-side risks relating to spiking of raws are practically negligible.
2) "Substituting" with a "legal effective ingredient" at ineffective doses does not make sense. Standard fillers are cheaper.
 
1) If you understood USPLab's stringent ingredient sourcing (includes growing, harvesting, and extracting) policies, you would realize that supply-side risks relating to spiking of raws are practically negligible.
2) "Substituting" with a "legal effective ingredient" at ineffective doses does not make sense. Standard fillers are cheaper.

thanks for your response, nice to hear USP labs has a high standard in quality.

i was just speaking in general, just so you know not exactly referring to USPlabs or this latest lab test.

ill continue buying my "Recreate" bottles (and other USP supplements, you still have a customer here.)
 
thanks for your response, nice to hear USP labs has a high standard in quality.

i was just speaking in general, just so you know not exactly referring to USPlabs or this latest lab test.

ill continue buying my "Recreate" bottles (and other USP supplements, you still have a customer here.)

Thank you!
 
Ok so you are telling me that if a lab has a bottle of opro from the list of ing. on the label they cannot verify the amount and if the ing. are actually in the pill? I dont understand why i dont know what im talking about.

Let me use an analogy to hopefully bring some clarity to the situation.

When a compound is run through a chemical analysis via HPLC, the produced result, as I said previously, could be deemed the "chemical silhouette" of said compound. Now, a silhouette, as we know, is merely the general shape of its corresponding object which lacks all other definitive features that allow one to identify that object as that object. Given this lack of features, what allows us to identify the silhouette as belonging to the object is the fact we had seen the object, in a fully-fledged form, previously. The object is, in other words, the reference standard upon which the silhouette is judged.

Without this reference standard - the fully fledged object - the silhouette is entirely irrelevant, which is precisely why the scenario you suggest is both intellectually and cost prohibitive. Oxy Elite Pro could be run through HPLC hundreds of times, but without the reference standard to verify a given result, the resulting "chemical silhouettes" are entirely irrelevant for the purpose of validating what is contained in the product.

To create these reference standards would take vastly, vastly longer than one month, and would be exponentially more than $500. And even then, it would be a so-called, 'best estimate scenario."
 
This is why some being skeptical about Pink Magic now are being crucified!

USPlabs is a Kick Azz Company!

p.s this is my personal opinion about USPlabs Products
 
I understand and appreciate your explanation. I do understand what HPLC ing. on the current label are avail. and what other ing. are not.
 
I understand and appreciate your explanation. I do understand what HPLC ing. on the current label are avail. and what other ing. are not.

Of course!

The whole scenario is akin to showing a man who has never seen a cat, a silhouette of a cat, and asking him to identify it: no matter how many times the silhouette is viewed, it will remain ambiguous to the perceiver as he lacks the reference standard necessary for identification.
 
so whats the deal with this? this guy is wasting his time right since according to USPlabs there you cant test OEP without the lab knowing the details mentioned in his essay?

if the lab cant test for some of the ingredients, id at least be interested to see if methyl-synephrine comes up again.

My name is Anthony Roberts, and I'm the person who has offered to send the USPLabs product in question off for testing, as per my blog: ******************* and I think the protocol I've outlined (video taping the entire event, not handling the product personally, and signing an affidavit) ought to be more than acceptable.

I've got no dog in this fight, and no competing nutritional products on the current market, although in the past I have worked as a supplement formulator, and I currently write for two industry magazines, Muscle Evolution (South Africa) and Muscle Insider (N. America).

If you guys are interested in putting together a fund, I'll begin work on Monday. I'll get us a price quote for the testing, and post it here as well as in my blog. I'll open up my PayPal account, give you guys the details, and I'll pay for the shipping on the product myself. If we only raise enough money for the testing, I'll purchase the product myself, and pay for the shipping as well. Results will be posted both here and in my blog.

My email is in my sig, and I'll probably post again on Monday with an update, and put details in my blog as well. If we don't raise enough money, I'll refund everyone, and I'll also post anything else you guys think to be relevant, in the interest of transparency.

Thanks for reading.

~Anthony Roberts
No disrespect meant here at all, but how long have you been scouring the internet in concern with supplements? You do know who Anthony Roberts is, correct?

""I've got no dog in this fight, and no competing nutritional products on the current market"""
If I had a dime for every time I read where he said this over the past SEVERAL years, well, i would have a hell of a time trying to walk with all of that change jingling in my pockets.

You question the product and the best you could dig up was a thread started by Anthony Roberts?

I know you are trying to cook up a solid meal but you need steaks on the grill, not rat meat.
 
Coincidentally, Anthony Roberts is also the same individual who "determined" Pink Magic's main ingredient (Massularia Acuminata) was "worthless." I mean, if he has no "dog in this fight," why volunteer? Is Anthony Roberts simply doing his civic duty as a former supplement formulator, or is he frothing at the bit to further exasperate this situation?

AR has been on the I-net talking down about other competitors for years now. PM wasn't his first attempt at bashing. Just google the name. Go back and talk to some of the old heads from EFitness and they can tell you a THING OR TWO about Mr Roberts.
 
my bodys a temple-i would chuck that s**t down me full stop.

What the hell is it .I only recognise 2 items caffeine and Bacopa Monniera.

If people are gullible to take that s**t then my names gunga din .They are so ill change my name!

Hmmm, not sure what you said there. You must have tripped some serious acid.
 
one reason i can quickly think of is that some (or many) companies only rely on CoA (Certificate of Analysis) from the raw manufacturer and dont take the responsibility themselves to check the Raws themselves.

the raws wouldnt be what the CoA claims, and thats how this may happen. its a shady practice but it does happen. why would anybody trust the manufacturer??? they are trying to make money, and recent history shows that they will manufacture not only the Raws, but the CoA also.

i believe every company should re-analyze their raws with their own independent lab testing to not only protect the consumer, but also to protect the companies rep. not taking this step is ignorant and irresponsible imo.

look what happened to all the bunk divinal that was exposed recently with many divinal products such as Activate Xtreme (not making official claim here lawyers) and many others having only 5% divinal instead of 95% divinal. this is just 1 recent example.

----------------------------

now another reason a company may substitute with a legal effective ingredient is to save money.

you market rare exotic, new and expensive ingredients but really use cheaper ingredients instead that are known to work and keep the consumer happy. in the end the company can inflate the price and the consumer likes the results and doesnt realize that they were deceived.

im not saying this is the case here with usp labs (besides the fact that this lab analysis has no validity to it, at this point) but im just stating another example.
The first part, I can agree with you one. I have been preaching that myself.

The portion about deceit and tossing the wool over someone's eyes, ehhhh, it has happened but I don't think this applies to the case at hand, period.
 
This has to be true. MY friend failed a drug test for amphetamines and the only thing he was talking as oep. THIS IS NO BS.
 
OK, IMO this might sound "village" but, im buying something that cuts fat, i do not care WTF is in it as long as it dose not cut of my testosterone production, i dont care. OXY does what it says it does so REP REP! SLIM XTREME did what it said it dose so REP REP! most of u guys complaining used EPHEDRA so stop bitching! as long as it dose nto shut down my testosterone and dose what it is suppose to REP REP. when i got of 200mcg of clen to oxy for 3weeks i dropped another 9lbs.
 
This has to be true. MY friend failed a drug test for amphetamines and the only thing he was talking as oep. THIS IS NO BS.

For the purposes of clarity, allow me to explain why this is chemically impossible. And for the organic chemistry aficionados reading this post, I apologize for anything I may muddle.

In terms of OEP and causing a false positive for amphetamines, the charge most seem to make is in reference to 1,3-dimethylamylamine, which is entirely impossible. Some basic chemistry may significantly clarify this issue. Methamphetamine is simply the N-methyl derivative of alpha-methylphenethylamine (amphetamine). In both of these compounds, we can notice several functional groups, owing to the parent homologue of phenethylamine. These are the phenyl group, the ethyl group, and the amine group.

The first functional group, the phenyl, constitutes the base ring of all amphetamine derivatives, and is a six carbon benzene ring where each carbon serves as a point for an additional functional group to bond to. In this case, the carbon at position one is bonded to the second functional group, the ethyl, and the other five are saturated with hydrogen atoms. Therefore, we read the chemical structure of the phenyl group in phenethylamine as (C6 [six carbons] H5 [five hydrogen atoms])

The second functional group, the ethyl, is a structural unit where two carbons atoms are fused together by a single bond, and each carbon atom then shares a single bond with three hydrogen atoms. In the case of phenethylamine, the ethyl group is bound to the phenyl group at the first carbon, in the position where the third hydrogen atom would normally be. Ethyl groups will always share this bond with another functional group, which is why we read ethyl as (C2 [two carbons] H5 [five hydrogen atoms – as the functional bond takes the place of the sixth hydrogen atom]).

The final functional group, the amine, is a simple nitrogen atom which shares two single bonds to hydrogen atoms. We thus read it is (NH2). We describe amphetamine and phenethylamine as homologues, as the only structural difference between the two is that, with phenethylamine, the amine is bound to ethyl group where the third hydrogen would normally be.

Dimethylamylamine, then, is clearly different from amphetamine, and this is easily recognized as it does not share our key functional groups. It lacks the benzene ring, first and foremost, which is present in all phenethylamine substitutions, possesses a pentyl as opposed to an ethyl as the second alkyl group, and in reality shares only the amine functional group. (Being a sympathomimetic amine, however, is not sufficient enough to call these compounds “structurally similar” by any means.)

Most importantly, though, is that phenyl groups cannot be developed in metabolism, essentially meaning that all substances that have phenyl ring-containing compounds already had the phenyl ring in their structure prior to ingestion. As 1,3-dimethylamylamine clearly does not, and is not produced from any compounds which possess such a ring, it is quite literally chemically impossible for the 1,3-dimethylamylamine in OEP to result as a false positive for methamphetamine.

Hopefully that was informative.
 
For the purposes of clarity, allow me to explain why this is chemically impossible. And for the organic chemistry aficionados reading this post, I apologize for anything I may muddle.

In terms of OEP and causing a false positive for amphetamines, the charge most seem to make is in reference to 1,3-dimethylamylamine, which is entirely impossible. Some basic chemistry may significantly clarify this issue. Methamphetamine is simply the N-methyl derivative of alpha-methylphenethylamine (amphetamine). In both of these compounds, we can notice several functional groups, owing to the parent homologue of phenethylamine. These are the phenyl group, the ethyl group, and the amine group.

The first functional group, the phenyl, constitutes the base ring of all amphetamine derivatives, and is a six carbon benzene ring where each carbon serves as a point for an additional functional group to bond to. In this case, the carbon at position one is bonded to the second functional group, the ethyl, and the other five are saturated with hydrogen atoms. Therefore, we read the chemical structure of the phenyl group in phenethylamine as (C6 [six carbons] H5 [five hydrogen atoms])

The second functional group, the ethyl, is a structural unit where two carbons atoms are fused together by a single bond, and each carbon atom then shares a single bond with three hydrogen atoms. In the case of phenethylamine, the ethyl group is bound to the phenyl group at the first carbon, in the position where the third hydrogen atom would normally be. Ethyl groups will always share this bond with another functional group, which is why we read ethyl as (C2 [two carbons] H5 [five hydrogen atoms – as the functional bond takes the place of the sixth hydrogen atom]).

The final functional group, the amine, is a simple nitrogen atom which shares two single bonds to hydrogen atoms. We thus read it is (NH2). We describe amphetamine and phenethylamine as homologues, as the only structural difference between the two is that, with phenethylamine, the amine is bound to ethyl group where the third hydrogen would normally be.

Dimethylamylamine, then, is clearly different from amphetamine, and this is easily recognized as it does not share our key functional groups. It lacks the benzene ring, first and foremost, which is present in all phenethylamine substitutions, possesses a pentyl as opposed to an ethyl as the second alkyl group, and in reality shares only the amine functional group. (Being a sympathomimetic amine, however, is not sufficient enough to call these compounds “structurally similar” by any means.)

Most importantly, though, is that phenyl groups cannot be developed in metabolism, essentially meaning that all substances that have phenyl ring-containing compounds already had the phenyl ring in their structure prior to ingestion. As 1,3-dimethylamylamine clearly does not, and is not produced from any compounds which possess such a ring, it is quite literally chemically impossible for the 1,3-dimethylamylamine in OEP to result as a false positive for methamphetamine.

Hopefully that was informative.

Why would you explain that.... when he forgot to mention the dude was smoking crystal?
 
lmfao!
 
No disrespect meant here at all, but how long have you been scouring the internet in concern with supplements? You do know who Anthony Roberts is, correct?

""I've got no dog in this fight, and no competing nutritional products on the current market"""
If I had a dime for every time I read where he said this over the past SEVERAL years, well, i would have a hell of a time trying to walk with all of that change jingling in my pockets.

You question the product and the best you could dig up was a thread started by Anthony Roberts?

I know you are trying to cook up a solid meal but you need steaks on the grill, not rat meat.

i dont know anthony roberts, and i dont like what i have heard about him.

ive posted here about him to get feedback here at AM, the same way i posted my original post.

im not trying to win here, just be informed. i personally dont know much and AM is very informative for me.
 
Back
Top