Guest viewing is limited

Companies to look out for in 2017??

First, any company that comes out with a Prop Blend in 2017, is the direct opposite of innovation (save your breath, the "protecting the formula" BS argument is a bleeding corpse on the floor at this point).

Second, some of you guys seem to think that there are millions of unfound compounds that add massive amounts of muscle and siphon off fat like a Lipo Wand... and that these companies have teams of Botanists in the Amazon, running leaves and stems through portable HPLC analyzers looking for the next big "innovative" product :D I've got sad news for you....

"Copying" is used like it's a bad thing in this thread. LOL, you want to trade me your vehicle for a Ford Model A? I'll take an improved copy over an original failure, any day of the week - anyone want to buy some BAIBA?

Until something happens to make me change, I agree with Danes that OL offers variety and value. I got some gripes on some stuff, but overall, at the end of the day, their stuff is regularly re-purchased with my money.
 
Innovation is great, but bringing superior products is enough to evolve my supp stash, and that's what I want. Since OL, my stash has improved quite a lot.
 
About laxo, the great mystery to me is why there are some products with it, while you barely can find any with Ecdy, which has a much more solid data.
Ecdy >>> laxo, in my opinion
 
The_Old_Guy said:
First, any company that comes out with a Prop Blend in 2017, is the direct opposite of innovation (save your breath, the "protecting the formula" BS argument is a bleeding corpse on the floor at this point).

Second, some of you guys seem to think that there are millions of unfound compounds that add massive amounts of muscle and siphon off fat like a Lipo Wand... and that these companies have teams of Botanists in the Amazon, running leaves and stems through portable HPLC analyzers looking for the next big "innovative" product :D I've got sad news for you....

"Copying" is used like it's a bad thing in this thread. LOL, you want to trade me your vehicle for a Ford Model A? I'll take an improved copy over an original failure, any day of the week - anyone want to buy some BAIBA?

Until something happens to make me change, I agree with Danes that OL offers variety and value. I got some gripes on some stuff, but overall, at the end of the day, their stuff is regularly re-purchased with my money.
Click to expand...
Good points, and things do take time. You don't want companies putting out a new product the second a new ingredient/extract/etc has a promising animal study or two on it. Attempting too much "innovation," or innovation purely for the sake of innovation, will just lead to a ton of products being released that don't end up panning out or working at all, which will make consumers very wary of new supplements in general if the majority of the new "innovative" products don't do anything.
 
The_Old_Guy said:
First, any company that comes out with a Prop Blend in 2017, is the direct opposite of innovation (save your breath, the "protecting the formula" BS argument is a bleeding corpse on the floor at this point).

Second, some of you guys seem to think that there are millions of unfound compounds that add massive amounts of muscle and siphon off fat like a Lipo Wand... and that these companies have teams of Botanists in the Amazon, running leaves and stems through portable HPLC analyzers looking for the next big "innovative" product :D I've got sad news for you....

"Copying" is used like it's a bad thing in this thread. LOL, you want to trade me your vehicle for a Ford Model A? I'll take an improved copy over an original failure, any day of the week - anyone want to buy some BAIBA?

Until something happens to make me change, I agree with Danes that OL offers variety and value. I got some gripes on some stuff, but overall, at the end of the day, their stuff is regularly re-purchased with my money.
Click to expand...
I look at more like peakO2 all those fungi have been around for a very long time they aren't new. Yet peakO2 is innovative. Dont need this random mystery plant for innovation.
 
Also there are definitely new things being found daily, plants, herbs, fungi, amino acids, hell in vitimans(pqq anyone. I know pqq isn't necessarily new or even the spectacular).
 
rtmilburn said:
I look at more like peakO2 all those fungi have been around for a very long time they aren't new. Yet peakO2 is innovative. Dont need this random mystery plant for innovation.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah cordyceps has been around forever. I bought a cordyceps supplement back in 2007 and it was crap. But make sure you're using militaris and combine it with other fungi in a way that hasn't been seen before, and it's a different story. I absolutely agree that's innovative. But what I don't understand is where you draw the line, saying "this improvement upon an existing supplement, specifically PeakO2 on cordyceps supps, is innovative, but that improvement upon an existing compound is not."

But really, it matters far less how you want to label our supplements and far more about how they work. If you really don't want to consider our supplements innovative, fine. While I don't quite understand where your point of view on that one, I'm not going to be able to change your mind, and it's your prerogative to feel that way. But I would hope that those who don't think we're innovative still recognize that we're putting effective, research-backed, and well-dosed products on the market, that are, at the very least, different from other stuff that it out there (and I'd argue superior, but that'd be opening a new can of worms lol).
 
Eh, OL takes stuff that is available and effective and makes it more effective, whether it be actual effectiveness, or cost effectiveness. I rock out to OL all day every day, except the Ep1c Unleashed TD carrier is ATROCIOUS, it served me well for the 4 weeks I used it.
 
We have a few things in the pipeline! No idea on ETAs at this stage, but stay tuned for more information :)
 
The_Old_Guy said:
First, any company that comes out with a Prop Blend in 2017, is the direct opposite of innovation (save your breath, the "protecting the formula" BS argument is a bleeding corpse on the floor at this point).

Second, some of you guys seem to think that there are millions of unfound compounds that add massive amounts of muscle and siphon off fat like a Lipo Wand... and that these companies have teams of Botanists in the Amazon, running leaves and stems through portable HPLC analyzers looking for the next big "innovative" product :D I've got sad news for you....

"Copying" is used like it's a bad thing in this thread. LOL, you want to trade me your vehicle for a Ford Model A? I'll take an improved copy over an original failure, any day of the week - anyone want to buy some BAIBA?

Until something happens to make me change, I agree with Danes that OL offers variety and value. I got some gripes on some stuff, but overall, at the end of the day, their stuff is regularly re-purchased with my money.
Click to expand...

an exception might be made for the cars of the 70's....the music was better also, lol!!!
 
thebigt said:
an exception might be made for the cars of the 70's....the music was better also, lol!!!
Click to expand...
Depending on how look at it. I would definitely rather have a 72 chevy camaro or a 52 Corvette stingray, than anything we have now. But is the result they produce better? Answer is no. We have cars like the koenigsegg one, which has a 1300+ HP with a 1:1 horse power to weight ratio. Now would I take that over the 52 string ray convertible with the classic blue and white paint job? Fuk no the I'll take that sting ray every damn day. However supps is a different story I want the better results and the products will only improve with time as are knowledgeable increases
 
rtmilburn said:
Depending on how look at it. I would definitely rather have a 72 chevy camaro or a 52 Corvette stingray, than anything we have now. But is the result they produce better? Answer is no. We have cars like the koenigsegg one, which has a 1300+ HP with a 1:1 horse power to weight ratio. Now would I take that over the 52 string ray convertible with the classic blue and white paint job? Fuk no the I'll take that sting ray every damn day. However supps is a different story I want the better results and the products will only improve with time as are knowledgeable increases
Click to expand...

my post was for entertainment....of course I will take satellite television over rabbit ears--nostalgia only goes so far, lol.
 
rtmilburn said:
I look at more like peakO2 all those fungi have been around for a very long time they aren't new. Yet peakO2 is innovative. Dont need this random mystery plant for innovation.
Click to expand...

Maybe :D

Invalid Link Removed

But I agree, I get this stuff (Cayenne Pepper) at Sam's Club for about $8/Month :D

Invalid Link Removed
 
thebigt said:
my post was for entertainment....of course I will take satellite television over rabbit ears--nostalgia only goes so far, lol.
Click to expand...
There is nostalgia with classic cars, but it goes beyond that too. I wasn't around for those cars prime. Yet I freaking want one! They simply magnificent machines! It was you and the car; nothing else no power steering, no computers, no traction control, and most of all the direct throttle linkage! Not to mention the beauty of these cars. We have some good looking cars again now, but nothing like the 50s-ealry70s muscle cars! Those are art they aren't cars it is more than that!
 
rtmilburn said:
There is nostalgia with classic cars, but it goes beyond that too. I wasn't around for those cars prime. Yet I freaking want one! They simple magnificent machines! It was you and the car; nothing else no power steering, no computers, no traction control, and most of all the direct throttle linkage! Not to mention the beauty of these cars. We have some good looking cars again now, but nothing like the 50s-ealry70s muscle cars! Those are art they aren't cars it is more than that!
Click to expand...

great post!!!
 
rtmilburn said:
Cars in late 80s, 90s and early 2000s were so dull, ugly, and uncreative. I'm glad we are finally starting to get some good looking cars again, definitely still some VERY ugly cars still but it's MUCH better.
Click to expand...

lol...same could be said for music, 80's were 'ok' but things have definitely gone down hill since----- unfortunately things don't seem to be getting any better!!!
 
thebigt said:
lol...same could be said for music, 80's were 'ok' but things have definitely gone down hill since----- unfortunately things don't seem to be getting any better!!!
Click to expand...
True. I do hate this area of music now I was a fan of 04-11ish r&b.
 
The_Old_Guy said:
First, any company that comes out with a Prop Blend in 2017, is the direct opposite of innovation (save your breath, the "protecting the formula" BS argument is a bleeding corpse on the floor at this point).

Second, some of you guys seem to think that there are millions of unfound compounds that add massive amounts of muscle and siphon off fat like a Lipo Wand... and that these companies have teams of Botanists in the Amazon, running leaves and stems through portable HPLC analyzers looking for the next big "innovative" product :D I've got sad news for you....

"Copying" is used like it's a bad thing in this thread. LOL, you want to trade me your vehicle for a Ford Model A? I'll take an improved copy over an original failure, any day of the week - anyone want to buy some BAIBA?

Until something happens to make me change, I agree with Danes that OL offers variety and value. I got some gripes on some stuff, but overall, at the end of the day, their stuff is regularly re-purchased with my money.
Click to expand...
Prop blends aren't the direct opposite of Innovation - it is the direct opposite of full disclosure.

Apple is innovative, yet they go through every means possible to hide the way their phones work so that they cannot be repaired by the average joe techno whizz. That's like prop blending for tech companies.

What about Google that constantly hides its algorithms to stay ahead if the curve of those trying to "optimise SEO". Another techno "prop blend".

Not sure how you got the idea that prop blends was opposing innovation. It is literally what most companies do in every field
 
Jiigzz said:
Prop blends aren't the direct opposite of Innovation - it is the direct opposite of full disclosure.

Apple is innovative, yet they go through every means possible to hide the way their phones work so that they cannot be repaired by the average joe techno whizz. That's like prop blending for tech companies.

What about Google that constantly hides its algorithms to stay ahead if the curve of those trying to "optimise SEO". Another techno "prop blend".

Not sure how you got the idea that prop blends was opposing innovation. It is literally what most companies do in every field
Click to expand...

I agree with this!!! I've been on here a long time and seen a lot of stuff, if a product works and does what it says and does it well it will not influence my buying it, rather or not it is prop blend....two companies come to mind that have been copied way too many times-pes and usplabs, to their credit they remain full disclosure but I would not blame them if they were to go prop blend!!!
 
Nac said:
80s was GOAT era for metal. Lotta inovative stuff.

Inb4 Metallica ripped off Sabbath
Click to expand...
If Metallica is considered a "ripoff," I'm suddenly more okay with people calling our supps a ripoff of other companies. ;) Although I think I prefer to think of us as Slayer. Raining Bloodshr3d, anyone?

80s was a good era for punk too. Actually so were the 90s.
 
VO2Maxima said:
If Metallica is considered a "ripoff," I'm suddenly more okay with people calling our supps a ripoff of other companies. ;) Although I think I prefer to think of us as Slayer. Raining Bloodshr3d, anyone?

80s was a good era for punk too. Actually so were the 90s.
Click to expand...

how about the ramones, sex pistols and the clash in the 70's?

the 60's and 70's was where the innovation in music happened...the influence of drugs had a lot to do with the experimenting and innovating of that era, up until that time drugs influence on music was basically limited to blues music-that is why many of the superstars of the 60's and 70's credit old time blues musicians as being their main influence.....
 
Jiigzz said:
Prop blends aren't the direct opposite of Innovation - it is the direct opposite of full disclosure.

Apple is innovative, yet they go through every means possible to hide the way their phones work so that they cannot be repaired by the average joe techno whizz. That's like prop blending for tech companies.

What about Google that constantly hides its algorithms to stay ahead if the curve of those trying to "optimise SEO". Another techno "prop blend".

Not sure how you got the idea that prop blends was opposing innovation. It is literally what most companies do in every field
Click to expand...

If my iPhone doesn't do what it's supposed to do - I'll know it. If my prop blend doesn't have the clinically effective dose in it - I won't know. Pretty bad comparo IMO. Plus - it protects nothing, so the only reason is to hide something - or do you think prop blends protect formulas? Cuz I can get into that one again, I love doing it every single time.
 
thebigt said:
I agree with this!!! I've been on here a long time and seen a lot of stuff, if a product works and does what it says and does it well it will not influence my buying it, rather or not it is prop blend....two companies come to mind that have been copied way too many times-pes and usplabs, to their credit they remain full disclosure but I would not blame them if they were to go prop blend!!!
Click to expand...

Prop Blends protect nothing - tell me why you think they do?
 
Nac said:
Yeah, well if Elvis and the Beatles were prop blends modern musik would be fukt.
Click to expand...

lol...elvis and the 'british invasion' were all influenced by blues and gospel-but were able to innovate to such a great degree that they created a whole new genre-rock and roll.
 
The_Old_Guy said:
Prop Blends protect nothing - tell me why you think they do?
Click to expand...

I really don't care if it's prop or not...my concern is effectiveness AND cost!!! if a prop blend product works just as well as a full disclosure product but costs less, guess what?

I think some companies might be overcharging just because they can claim to be full disclosure....it's like generics versus name brands, sometimes the generics are crap and don't work while other times they work just fine at a much, much lower price, you gotta shop around.
 
thebigt said:
I really don't care if it's prop or not...my concern is effectiveness AND cost!!! if a prop blend product works just as well as a full disclosure product but costs less, guess what?

I think some companies might be overcharging just because they can claim to be full disclosure....it's like generics versus name brands, sometimes the generics are crap and don't work while other times they work just fine at a much, much lower price, you gotta shop around.
Click to expand...

How do you know it works without an n=many RCT on that exact supplement? You going off of anecdote? Placebo and a human psychological aversion to admitting money was spent on something that did nothing - makes anecdote a poor metric to use. But that's me - people can spend their money on what they want.
 
The_Old_Guy said:
How do you know it works without an n=many RCT on that exact supplement? You going off of anecdote? Placebo and a human psychological aversion to admitting money was spent on something that did nothing - makes anecdote a poor metric to use. But that's me - people can spend their money on what they want.
Click to expand...

I spend a lot of time on this forum, I read logs and talk to people thru pm, I can get a good idea of what works....I have learned to be patient, if you wait until the day after a holiday you can get the same stuff for half off, in other words wait until enough people have tried before jumping in- unless it's a promo, of course....

I just get the feeling there are company's who are using full disclosure as a means to justify higher prices.
 
The_Old_Guy said:
If my iPhone doesn't do what it's supposed to do - I'll know it. If my prop blend doesn't have the clinically effective dose in it - I won't know. Pretty bad comparo IMO. Plus - it protects nothing, so the only reason is to hide something - or do you think prop blends protect formulas? Cuz I can get into that one again, I love doing it every single time.
Click to expand...

This is a skewed comparison. You won't know WHY your phone won't do what it's supposed to do. Just that it won't. Similarly, if a prop blend doesn't work, you'll know it but you won't know why.
 
Woody said:
This is a skewed comparison. You won't know WHY your phone won't do what it's supposed to do. Just that it won't. Similarly, if a prop blend doesn't work, you'll know it but you won't know why.
Click to expand...

You'll know if a prop blend doesn't work? LOL, what with all the DXA scans people are doing? ?

Let's get back to the original question - tell me how prop blends are good for the consumer and "protect" the mfg? The more places I post the rebuttal, the better.
 
The_Old_Guy said:
If my iPhone doesn't do what it's supposed to do - I'll know it. If my prop blend doesn't have the clinically effective dose in it - I won't know. Pretty bad comparo IMO. Plus - it protects nothing, so the only reason is to hide something - or do you think prop blends protect formulas? Cuz I can get into that one again, I love doing it every single time.
Click to expand...
You stated that prop blend is the opposite of innovation - both Google and Apple hide vast amounts of their "secret sauce" but they are seemingly excluded.

How can the opposite of innovation be prop blends when so many innovative companies hide things? They do so to hide the outcome of countless hours worth of development and to protect their investment.

Anywho
 
The_Old_Guy said:
You'll know if a prop blend doesn't work? LOL, what with all the DXA scans people are doing? ?

Let's get back to the original question - tell me how prop blends are good for the consumer and "protect" the mfg? The more places I post the rebuttal, the better.
Click to expand...

Nvm. Misunderstood
 
Jiigzz said:
You stated that prop blend is the opposite of innovation - both Google and Apple hide vast amounts of their "secret sauce" but they are seemingly excluded.

How can the opposite of innovation be prop blends when so many innovative companies hide things? They do so to hide the outcome of countless hours worth of development and to protect their investment.

Anywho
Click to expand...

I wasn't being literal, maybe I should have made that more clear. I do think "food" is different, but we can move on...
 
Jiigzz said:
You stated that prop blend is the opposite of innovation - both Google and Apple hide vast amounts of their "secret sauce" but they are seemingly excluded.

How can the opposite of innovation be prop blends when so many innovative companies hide things? They do so to hide the outcome of countless hours worth of development and to protect their investment.

Anywho
Click to expand...
Doesn't protect anything!!! Remember like 4or 5 years ago when Samsung was sued like 400million because the stole alot of apples touch screen tech. Want to know how they got they bought an iPhone and reversed engineered it. Did Samsung care? Nope the 400million was quickly made up by now developing a better phone.
 
rtmilburn said:
Doesn't protect anything!!! Remember like 4or 5 years ago when Samsung was sued like 400million because the stole alot of apples touch screen tech. Want to know how they got they bought an iPhone and reversed engineered it. Did Samsung care? Nope the 400million was quickly made up by now developing a better phone.
Click to expand...
This is true when the company can afford to do that. But it slows down the process and allows you to capture a greater market share before the technology is widely distributed.

Touch screens were true innovation but supplements rarely fall under that category, despite the word being thrown around a lot and so are rarely worth the cost to reverse engineer.

Old guy: didn't necessarily disagree with your stance on prop blends in the industry, but rather just that innovation usually coincides with hiding things
 
Screw Lars he wrecked Napster for all of us, and to think how Metallica gained popularity was through music sharing... Which brings us to prop blends, and sharing. I prefer open labels. I like to see exactly the amount of each ingredient is in. Some of us use other supplements and allowing for potential crossover might be helpful in calculating the proper dose.

Black Sabbath all the way. :D

A better comparison would be a system set up to preclude anyone from properly enjoying their supplement / music to it's full potential. Open label versus proprietary, and non-protected music to music locked down with DRM (Digital Rights Management).

Aside from that, I know quite a bit about mobile devices, and open versus prop systems and the iPhone is not proprietary. You can go online and buy whatever you need to fix your phone with instructions and the tools. Just don't puncture the liquid gel battery and cause a thermal reaction.

That said,
70's - 80's punk was good. 90's not so much, but Alternative brought us a new twist.
The 60's was where it was at.
 
You guys see how fast that New Supplement Thread is growing. For a small startup like us, we aren't willing to disclose an incredible formula right off the bat with such a small target audience reach. Sure people who prefer full disclosure will not be enticed to buy right away, but we are confident when people try our prop-blend there won't be any questions asked. Eventually when we have a larger reach and following we will go full disclosure. After all it is the trend a lot of bigger companies are following and probably will be a requirement at some point. It just doesn't seem worth the risk to make it so easy for someone to put out a similar formula bc we went full label disclosure as a small fish in a bigger sea.
 
MonteCedillo said:
You guys see how fast that New Supplement Thread is growing. For a small startup like us, we aren't willing to disclose an incredible formula right off the bat with such a small target audience reach. Sure people who prefer full disclosure will not be enticed to buy right away, but we are confident when people try our prop-blend there won't be any questions asked. Eventually when we have a larger reach and following we will go full disclosure. After all it is the trend a lot of bigger companies are following and probably will be a requirement at some point. It just doesn't seem worth the risk to make it so easy for someone to put out a similar formula bc we went full label disclosure as a small fish in a bigger sea.
Click to expand...

personally I have no problem with prop blends, send me some samples and I will put up a review!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top