Attention Everybody:congress is threatening to give new powers to the FDA

southpaw23 said:
Driven Sports was formerly known as Designer Supplements or am I off here?

I'm not stating that I trust a "brand", that's a stretch. Let me be clear, I trust the individuals, and with respect to people who chemistry backgrounds like Cahill and Patrick Arnold, I know that they know what they are talking about. I'd be less inclined to listen to someone who has no background in chemistry and/or science. Again if a company makes a claim that states your test levels will jump up 200%, then validate those claims, in turn you'll earn consumer trust and offers a healthier long term outlook for your business.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was designer, but they too started small, just like many of the companies you are somewhat lambasting right now.

But to each their own. Most of the companies, at least around here, back up their product. And medical journals and studies ARE validating.

The consumer voice is the most validating there is. For example, i have blood work from Erase for our own beta testing, but if you ask most people, they don't care about what the company provides, we have a dog in the battle. Now when BigT or some of the other consumers post their own blood work on their own accord, it actually holds water.

Being part of such a shady industry, some people just assume we would doctor the blood scans, so let the product do the talking.
 
DAdams91982 said:
Yes, it was designer, but they too started small, just like many of the companies you are somewhat lambasting right now.

But to each their own. Most of the companies, at least around here, back up their product. And medical journals and studies ARE validating.

The consumer voice is the most validating there is. For example, i have blood work from Erase for our own beta testing, but if you ask most people, they don't care about what the company provides, we have a dog in the battle. Now when BigT or some of the other consumers post their own blood work on their own accord, it actually holds water.

Being part of such a shady industry, some people just assume we would doctor the blood scans, so let the product do the talking.
Click to expand...

Do you purposefully misconstrue comments?

I'm not lambasting small companies, in fact I've purchased supplements from some of the smaller companies. I'm not targeting the little guy. ALL supplement companies should have to meet the same threshold, from Gaspari all the way down to the smoking baby in Indonesia, with respect to validating marketing claims, you seem to think one abstract study is good enough. As a consumer I don't.
 
southpaw23 said:
Do you purposefully misconstrue comments?

I'm not lambasting small companies, in fact I've purchased supplements from some of the smaller companies. I'm not targeting the little guy. ALL supplement companies should have to meet the same threshold, from Gaspari all the way down to the smoking baby in Indonesia, with respect to validating marketing claims, you seem to think one abstract study is good enough. As a consumer I don't.
Click to expand...

You are intentionally trying to sidestep the conversations.

Small companies cannot fund the third party studies you have so willfully binded yourself to, well then went on to in house studies, then moved to aligning with certain names.

You forget that abstracts are just portions of full studies.
 
DAdams91982 said:
Yes, it was designer, but they too started small, just like many of the companies you are somewhat lambasting right now.

But to each their own. Most of the companies, at least around here, back up their product. And medical journals and studies ARE validating.

The consumer voice is the most validating there is. For example, i have blood work from Erase for our own beta testing, but if you ask most people, they don't care about what the company provides, we have a dog in the battle. Now when BigT or some of the other consumers post their own blood work on their own accord, it actually holds water.

Being part of such a shady industry, some people just assume we would doctor the blood scans, so let the product do the talking.
Click to expand...
So the initial studies purporting that CEE was more effective in terms of rate of absorption, as opposed to the Monohydrate form, was later disproved in controlled third party studies, where there was no financial interest in the outcome(s), as a consumer which one would you be more inclined to believe?

Again, I'm not against smaller companies. I'm against misleading the consumer, certain protections need to be put in place to keep those things from happening. I'm sure you can agree in this industry, skepticism is more than fair on the consumer's part? All we're asking for, is to invest in companies that work towards helping us achieve fitness goals, in return you get our business. And on a side note I've heard only positive things about Erase.
 
southpaw23 said:
So the initial studies purporting that CEE was more effective in terms of rate of absorption, as opposed to the Monohydrate form, was later disproved in controlled third party studies, where there was no financial interest in the outcome(s), as a consumer which one would you be more inclined to believe?

Again, I'm not against smaller companies. I'm against misleading the consumer, certain protections need to be put in place to keep those things from happening. I'm sure you can agree in this industry, skepticism is more than fair on the consumer's part? All we're asking for, is to invest in companies that work towards helping us achieve fitness goals, in return you get our business. And on a side note I've heard only positive things about Erase.
Click to expand...

No protections shouldn't be provided for marketing. There are already false advertising protections, beyond that, it is on the consumer.

And I do agree that alot of money should go into researching something you do put out, so that isn't something we disagree on. My point is that it shouldn't be required. If a company does their foot work and provided studies and supporting data, then that should be enough in my eyes, the consumer has enough information to make and informed decision on to support a company and their endeavors. The good ol speak with your wallet.

As for CEE... there is something that the industry phased out, just like it should have. There is even a recent study showing it increase concentration levels pretty significantly, but it isn't working out real world. No matter how much studying a company did, they couldn't predict real world results. Many people claim they did get good results, many people did not. Me, I never touched it because mono had the most research, I kept myself informed.
 
DAdams91982 said:
Nope. If there is a study to backup their claims, they have every right to market it that way.

The problem is now playing as a victim. Here is the kicker now, the consumer has every right to do their own research to make informed decisions. Playing the victim only leads to more nanny state.

With label claims, yes, if it is on the label it needs to be in there, if it isnt on the label, it better not be in there.
Click to expand...

Going to cherry pick here but the victim mentality seems to be a strong factor in more government regulation.
From obesity to finances, there are people who choose to make uniformed or informed bad decisions and then want to lay the responsibility on someone else.

Not saying that there are not plenty of situations where the provider was actually at fault, but all the blame cannot be laid on them.

I know people getting treated for health conditions who still have the same habits which contribute.
 
You'd have to consider who the victims are, a lot of them young kids. They aren't going to take the time to analyze abstract studies, in order to make an informed decision. They are going to walk into a store and look at a label and say "wow 4000% more anabolic. I'm gonna look like Jay Cutler in 48 hours!", then next thing you know they are a couple hundred dollars in the hole. I remember being young and taking nitro-tech thinking I was going to look like Ronnie Coleman, when it was all said and done, I was a couple hundred dollars out of pocket and looked more like Gary Coleman.
 
southpaw23 said:
You'd have to consider who the victims are, a lot of them young kids. They aren't going to take the time to analyze abstract studies, in order to make an informed decision. They are going to walk into a store and look at a label and say "wow 4000% more anabolic. I'm gonna look like Jay Cutler in 48 hours!", then next thing you know they are a couple hundred dollars in the hole. I remember being young and taking nitro-tech thinking I was going to look like Ronnie Coleman, when it was all said and done, I was a couple hundred dollars out of pocket and looked more like Gary Coleman.
Click to expand...

And? You learned your lesson didn't you?

Your whole idea is the idea of fixing stupid. It is just not possible.
 
I am sorry, but to believe that nitro tech makes you 4000% more anabolic is like believing that red bull really does give you wings.

If someone cannot see through that marketing, then they deserve to have their money taken.
 
DAdams91982 said:
And? You learned your lesson didn't you?

Your whole idea is the idea of fixing stupid. It is just not possible.
Click to expand...
I learned by losing money, in this economy and especially with respect to kids that isn't a viable option. I don't mind losing money on a lap dance, but not a protein powder.
 
DAdams91982 said:
I am sorry, but to believe that nitro tech makes you 4000% more anabolic is like believing that red bull really does give you wings.

If someone cannot see through that marketing, then they deserve to have their money taken.
Click to expand...
Wait a second...Redbull doesn't give you wings? I was kidding about the 4000% more anabolic comment.
 
DAdams91982 said:
I am sorry, but to believe that nitro tech makes you 4000% more anabolic is like believing that red bull really does give you wings.

If someone cannot see through that marketing, then they deserve to have their money taken.
Click to expand...
Who really believes that stuff. Even I, who use some of those companies products with great success know it is BS.

But when a company says it contains XX and it contains YY and YY can cause ZZ to my health I have concerns. I don't mind taking the consumers risk when consuming a known but when the risk I take as a consumer is that it is not even what I am assuming I am consuming I have a big problem.

It horrifies me to know what all these kids taking these "SuperDrol" clones are taking. There was ONE SuperDrol and after that beware. I don't care about your isomer a or b nonsense...it may not be real a or b either but just something else all together.

Think of M1T...I could give you poison to provide you the same 'sides' and people would believe it was the "real deal" because so.
 
Everything should be done in order to minimize risk(s) on the consumer side, it's practical and benefits both parties.
 
David Dunn said:
Who really believes that stuff. Even I, who use some of those companies products with great success know it is BS.

But when a company says it contains XX and it contains YY and YY can cause ZZ to my health I have concerns. I don't mind taking the consumers risk when consuming a known but when the risk I take as a consumer is that it is not even what I am assuming I am consuming I have a big problem.

It horrifies me to know what all these kids taking these "SuperDrol" clones are taking. There was ONE SuperDrol and after that beware. I don't care about your isomer a or b nonsense...it may not be real a or b either but just something else all together.

Think of M1T...I could give you poison to provide you the same 'sides' and people would believe it was the "real deal" because so.
Click to expand...

Mislabeling is already illegal, and I do agree with you on that.
 
DAdams91982 said:
Mislabeling is already illegal, and I do agree with you on that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but is the secondary manufaturer who distributes this to retailers mislabeling?

He receives a compound and assumes he is receiving what he is told he is receiving. He is not going to foot the bill to get a C of C on his materials. He then caps, bottles, labels, boxes and diatributes. He is not intentionally mislabeling but he is also not displaying the integrity or assuming the expense of quality assurance.

This unregulated process is unacceptable.
 
David Dunn said:
Yeah, but is the secondary manufaturer who distributes this to retailers mislabeling?

He receives a compound and assumes he is receiving what he is told he is receiving. He is not going to foot the bill to get a C of C on his materials. He then caps, bottles, labels, boxes and diatributes. He is not intentionally mislabeling but he is also not displaying the integrity or assuming the expense of quality assurance.

This unregulated process is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

A bottling company would not be at fault... the company that bought the raws and has them capped are at fault as is. If a company does not test their raws, then they have a big liability on their hands.

This legislation does nothing to fix that, it sets up no product testing, it uses vague phrasing, and just hands God like power to the FDA.
 
DAdams91982 said:
A bottling company would not be at fault... the company that bought the raws and has them capped are at fault as is. If a company does not test their raws, then they have a big liability on their hands.

This legislation does nothing to fix that, it sets up no product testing, it uses vague phrasing, and just hands God like power to the FDA.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Again, that emphasizes my point - the industry needs to regulate/control itself otherwise, as is the case now, the FDA will attempt impose punishment.

Punishment can be a deterrent.

You buy raws, you get them capped, your sell them, you better have had them tested otherwise YOU will be penalized.
 
David Dunn said:
Exactly. Again, that emphasizes my point - the industry needs to regulate/control itself otherwise, as is the case now, the FDA will attempt impose punishment.

Punishment can be a deterrent.

You buy raws, you get them capped, your sell them, you better have had them tested otherwise YOU will be penalized.
Click to expand...

its sad to have to say I saw this coming for years.companies hell bent on making money by any means and retarted customers who don't research what they put in their bodies yet when it comes time to buy a car they research for months behand to get the best deal,safety etc. this is sicking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top