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

SNS Cissus vs USPlabs Cissus

I would opt for the one that lists the standardization
 
I love USP's cissus extract. I have tried a few others and always go back to USP's, but I haven't tried SNS's so can't answer your question here. I can vouch for Super Cissus's effectiveness, though. Two every morning with a bunch of fish oil keeps my joints feeling really good. If you don't mega dose fish oil (3000mg of EPA/DHA, however many pills that takes), I recommend trying that in combination with the cissus. They go together really well.
 
mw1 said:
SNS uses the standardized for 5% ketosterones which it the preferred for joint,tendons. USP doesn't list theirs. In the past I think that had 10% and 20% stated on different batches
Click to expand...

I've always looked at their later absence of stating the standardization and just calling it a prop as a way for them to have the ability to use whatever they could get their hands on at the time :P Their batches definitely varies and most of the time the stuff works well but then sometimes it doesn't work as well.
 
1. We discovered the Joint Benefits and the reason there is a Cissus Joint Category
2. Our Extract is Patented
3. Our extract has a published clinical study

Not bad?
 
mw1 said:
SNS uses the standardized for 5% ketosterones which it the preferred for joint,tendons. USP doesn't list theirs. In the past I think that had 10% and 20% stated on different batches
Click to expand...

Why is 5% preferred?

How does SNS test for Ketosterones?
 
kissdadookie said:
I've always looked at their later absence of stating the standardization and just calling it a prop as a way for them to have the ability to use whatever they could get their hands on at the time :P Their batches definitely varies and most of the time the stuff works well but then sometimes it doesn't work as well.
Click to expand...
USPRep surely this must not be true
 
Touey said:
USPRep surely this must not be true
Click to expand...

Touey read post 11 much more relevant...

We patented the extract, which costs well over 100,000 dollars of filing and legal fees to vary our raw material.

And then we funded a University study, again, which costs well over 100,000 that is published to vary our raw material...
 
USPlabsRep said:
Touey read post 11 much more relevant...

We patented the extract, which costs well over 100,000 dollars of filing and legal fees to vary our raw material.

And then we funded a University study, again, which costs well over 100,000 that is published to vary our raw material...
Click to expand...

A study with no control subjects??? I would get a refund:)
 
mw1 said:
A study with no control subjects??? I would get a refund:)
Click to expand...

There is new emerging science and reasons not to have a control group but I get your point. The study went through the peer review process and was published.

What are you basing your 5% is better claim? A study probably since you are attacking a study??

presumably it could be that we said the 5% is better in the past.
 
USPlabsRep said:
There is new emerging science and reasons not to have a control group but I get your point. The study went through the peer review process and was published.

What are you basing your 5% is better claim? A study probably since you are attacking a study??

presumably it could be that we said the 5% is better in the past.
Click to expand...

Not doubting the results of your study(cissus works no doubt about it) but I thought it was a "mistake" by the manufacturer that the placebo was not sent


Anecdotally, the lower % seems to have more effects on joints health than the higher~ possible due to the higher extracts have more effect on cortisol...a lot of the assumptions about the higher % are really unknown still to date
 
USPlabsRep said:
1. We discovered the Joint Benefits and the reason there is a Cissus Joint Category
2. Our Extract is Patented
3. Our extract has a published clinical study

Not bad?
Click to expand...

I recall you had the patent even before you stopped disclosing the standardization %. So what does the patent have to do with the matter at hand, that Super Cissus no long discloses standardization % and it has had a history of using different standardization %'s (which in and of itself is odd seeing how much of the importance was placed on the patent so one would assume that there wouldn't be the need to change the use of standardization %'s, unless the patent isn't for the standardization % and instead for the extraction/standardization method).

I'm not knocking the product as it's one of the few USPLabs products I use regularly, but from personal experience, not all bottles I've used worked the same. Some have been "weaker" than other bottles I've used.
 
kissdadookie said:
I recall you had the patent even before you stopped disclosing the standardization %. So what does the patent have to do with the matter at hand, that Super Cissus no long discloses standardization % and it has had a history of using different standardization %'s (which in and of itself is odd seeing how much of the importance was placed on the patent so one would assume that there wouldn't be the need to change the use of standardization %'s, unless the patent isn't for the standardization % and instead for the extraction/standardization method).

I'm not knocking the product as it's one of the few USPLabs products I use regularly, but from personal experience, not all bottles I've used worked the same. Some have been "weaker" than other bottles I've used.
Click to expand...

What is the history of using different standardizations?

the higher percent extract was used in symmetry X...
 
mw1 said:
Not doubting the results of your study(cissus works no doubt about it) but I thought it was a "mistake" by the manufacturer that the placebo was not sent


Anecdotally, the lower % seems to have more effects on joints health than the higher~ possible due to the higher extracts have more effect on cortisol...a lot of the assumptions about the higher % are really unknown still to date
Click to expand...

its all assumptions...
 
USPlabsRep said:
What is the history of using different standardizations?

the higher percent extract was used in symmetry X...
Click to expand...

I do recall Super Cissus having had used 10% and then later 20% and now you guys just don't disclose this at all anymore. So touting it being patented doesn't make much sense or appear to even play a role if it goes from 10% one day to 20% later down then line and now the label just states it's an extract from the stem of the plant.

At minimum, what would be the reasoning of changing the labeling to now just state that it's an extract from the stem of the plant when initially (this is from memory here) the original RX stated 10% (10% of what is unknown). Then there's the fact that not only myself but other users have experienced a variance in potency from using different bottles over time, this would indicate to me that something in the product changed. So we have the label change (which made little to no sense), personal experience of a change in product potency (along with many other users anecdotally experiencing the same thing of a fall off in potency), two very curious things.
 
kissdadookie said:
I do recall Super Cissus having had used 10% and then later 20% and now you guys just don't disclose this at all anymore. So touting it being patented doesn't make much sense or appear to even play a role if it goes from 10% one day to 20% later down then line and now the label just states it's an extract from the stem of the plant.

At minimum, what would be the reasoning of changing the labeling to now just state that it's an extract from the stem of the plant when initially (this is from memory here) the original RX stated 10% (10% of what is unknown). Then there's the fact that not only myself but other users have experienced a variance in potency from using different bottles over time, this would indicate to me that something in the product changed. So we have the label change (which made little to no sense), personal experience of a change in product potency (along with many other users anecdotally experiencing the same thing of a fall off in potency), and then with your point of the product being patented, two very curious things.
Click to expand...

your first statement is false. As I said the higher percentage was used in Symmetry X.

the double standards, if a company uses "anecdotal" they get crushed, but turn the tables and its ok...
 
USPlabsRep said:
your first statement is false. As I said the higher percentage was used in Symmetry X.

the double standards, if a company uses "anecdotal" they get crushed, but turn the tables and its ok...
Click to expand...

Where in my statement is false? My personal experience with the product over the years or the fact that you guys changed the labeling? Both points are 110% true statements as 1) my personal experience and the anecdotal experience of others can not really be argued to be false as these are what our experiences have been with the product and 2) the label in fact DID change.

I didn't even slam the product or USPLabs, really the only question I posed here thus far has been what the reasoning was to change the labeling.

Ok, maybe a second question is in there somewhere as well but I honestly don't believe that it will be answered. The second question would be exactly what the patent was in regards to, the extraction method, standardization method, the actual finished product itself, the actual raw itself? Don't have to answer that but it is at the end of the day a question.
 
kissdadookie said:
Where in my statement is false? My personal experience with the product over the years or the fact that you guys changed the labeling? Both points are 110% true statements as 1) my personal experience and the anecdotal experience of others can not really be argued to be false as these are what our experiences have been with the product and 2) the label in fact DID change.

I didn't even slam the product or USPLabs, really the only question I posed here thus far has been what the reasoning was to change the labeling.
Click to expand...

1st statement as the first paragraph about standardization is false. a 20% was never used.

The labeling changed 3 years ago, possibly even 4.
 
USPlabsRep said:
1st statement as the first paragraph about standardization is false. a 20% was never used.

The labeling changed 3 years ago, possibly even 4.
Click to expand...

Not really worth spatting about but I could have sworn it was much more recent that that..maybe 1.5 years ago?
 
It was 5, then 10. Why can't the % be disclosed. Heck, the marketing literature still on some sites talks about how much more awesome the 10% is.

I use it and thought something was different. I guess I know why now. I'd really like to know what I'm taking.
 
I've always been pleased with SNS cissus. I can't speak to USP.
 
I haven't noticed any change in quality at any time over the past 5 years, personally. I have also noticed that the bulk Super Cissus powder is also very different in appearance and taste to other bulk cissus powders, so I would assume that they are extracting with a unique method (not saying it's better or worse than other extraction methods, but from my experience it's the best cissus product).
 
Either is good. Supercissus does have a study on it. At the same time, many cissus studies use 2.5% (for reasons other than joint support). For this reason, unstandardized or 5% are the best options since a lower ketosterone count seems to reflect increased benefits...making these two products the best 2 choices for your cissus needs. I'd opt against primaforce in this case
 
USPlabsRep said:
1st statement as the first paragraph about standardization is false. a 20% was never used.

The labeling changed 3 years ago, possibly even 4.
Click to expand...

Thus I qualified my statement by stating that I recalled the 10% and 20%, though I've seen multiple people suggest that there was a change from 10% to 20%. However, regardless of that, the labeling change was never explained and there seems to be no good reason for the label to change if the contents of the product is the same from day one.

So at minimum, please explain why there was a label change and the reasoning behind it. It honestly doesn't matter if the labeling changed 3 years ago, 4 years ago, or even yesterday, labeling of the contents of a product does not change for no reason and changing it from the original 10% extract to the now simply extract from stem wording is still a complete mystery for consumers of the product as they both does not explain anything. Let me break it down:

The 10% label, this is pretty useless as it's not stated what the extraction/standardization was for, but at least it suggests that the raw is being standardized for something. The current label that states the extract is simply from the stem with no percentages is even more abstract since it doesn't even suggest there's a standardization for the extract on top of not knowing what is being extracted and standardized. At minimum, the original 10% label holds more meaning than the current abstract label. You can claim that it's an industry secret and it's an attempt to hide the secret better but it's not much of a secret when the original 10% label was on a product that was on the market for quite some time. This leads to the next mystery.

I see the idea of "it's patented thus it must be good and valuable!" thrown around a lot. A patent is pretty meaningless especially when you are using it to market a product without disclosing what the patent is covering/protecting. If it's a patent on the actual product itself (application of product as well as the specific extraction and percentages of what is being extracted, etc.) then there is no need to keep a product that contains a single patented ingredient "proprietary" since you've already protected it with a patent. This leads me to believe that the patent may in fact not even be for the actual product itself and goodness know what the patent is for (for all we know, it could be a patent on the way you encapsulate the raw for the product or a patent on the way you've printed Super Cissus on the caps, or a patent on the packaging, etc.). However, this is just a side note as the main question is still the following:

What was the purpose of the labeling change?

I mean, I still use the stuff and I do recommend the stuff, but personally, I feel like the product changed a bit through the years and the label change leads me to suspect that my notions of the product changing may hold merit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top