Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

GPLC in Supplements

kissdadookie

Well-known member
Just saw the posting for the breakdown of Animal's newly reformulated Stak product. Noticed GPLC included in the formula but at really low doses. I honestly don't understand why company's throw GPLC into their formulas when the studies have shown that one needs to supplement with around 4+ grams PER DAY EVERY DAY for it to have a positive effect on NOS levels, AND this takes some time to reach as well. I understand that GPLC is not a cheap raw but wow, when there's like only 1/8 or so of the studied amount in a product, what the heck is it really good for?

Less ingredients in products and have the ingredients at efficacious doses people, come on now :P

Rant over.
 
kissdadookie said:
Just saw the posting for the breakdown of Animal's newly reformulated Stak product. Noticed GPLC included in the formula but at really low doses. I honestly don't understand why company's throw GPLC into their formulas when the studies have shown that one needs to supplement with around 4+ grams PER DAY EVERY DAY for it to have a positive effect on NOS levels, AND this takes some time to reach as well. I understand that GPLC is not a cheap raw but wow, when there's like only 1/8 or so of the studied amount in a product, what the heck is it really good for?

Less ingredients in products and have the ingredients at efficacious doses people, come on now :P

Rant over.
Click to expand...

Because 90% of supplements are selling you an image. Adding an ingredient to a label enhances that image.

In other words, you might be pissing into the wind and being asked to pay for it.
 
HereToStudy said:
Because 90% of supplements are selling you an image. Adding an ingredient to a label enhances that image.

In other words, you might be pissing into the wind and being asked to pay for it.
Click to expand...

That's obvious, and I did kind of imply this with my post. :P However, I have found that some of these products are effective, but it's just the GPLC included in the formula which does next to nothing. So in my feeble mind, they should just keep the formulas more simple and to the point, instead of fluffing it with 1/8 of the studied dose of GPLC or something similar (I mean, 1) it's a waste of money FOR THE COMPANY to include the ingredient 2) I would think in this internet age people would have noticed the uselessness of including such ingredients at such low doses).
 
kissdadookie said:
That's obvious, and I did kind of imply this with my post. :P However, I have found that some of these products are effective, but it's just the GPLC included in the formula which does next to nothing. So in my feeble mind, they should just keep the formulas more simple and to the point, instead of fluffing it with 1/8 of the studied dose of GPLC or something similar (I mean, 1) it's a waste of money FOR THE COMPANY to include the ingredient 2) I would think in this internet age people would have noticed the uselessness of including such ingredients at such low doses).
Click to expand...

Oh I know you expressed a similar opinion, and we seem to agree very much on the topic. I also am for simplication of nearly everything related to this sport.

As for your last sentence though, to a company like Animal, the internet crowd makes up such an insignificant amount of their buys. I have friends that are heavy supplement users (before I corrected them, some I still can't) that can not name a single ingredient in any of the products besides the obvious ones like caffeine or protein.
 
What a shame. I respect Animal as well because they have some solid products. I'm a big fan of the Pak and Flex. Universal also has some solid basic products at good values. But man, seeing that new Animal Stak formula, I was like, wow. A bunch of hype ingredients tossed together. Smh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top