I see where you’re coming from, but let’s be clear—I didn’t start a thread just to bash an ingredient. The point was to have a discussion about the science behind it, and I gave my opinion based on what I believe is most effective. If you’re so focused on defending a single ingredient or brand, it’s easy to dismiss anything critical as ‘bashing.’
As for the source, opinions and biases are a part of every website, but I’m not saying that everything with clinical studies is a scam. I just think that sometimes those studies are misinterpreted or used to market something that’s not as revolutionary as it’s made out to be. Each of those examples you gave seems to ignore that the issue isn’t about whether studies exist, but whether the actual benefit for the consumer outweighs the marketing.
Bioperine’s absorption effects are widely recognized, sure, but that doesn’t make every product using it the best solution. Velositol’s studies are valid in their context, but claiming it’s a one-size-fits-all solution for protein absorption is where I think the disconnect happens. And with KSM-66, sure, standardized Ashwagandha might be more reliable, but the idea of promoting the ‘generic’ version or dismissing an ingredient as a scam because it doesn’t meet every possible condition isn’t a clear-cut issue.
I think a healthy dose of skepticism about ingredients—especially when it comes to how they’re marketed—is always warranted. It’s not about throwing shade on specific brands or ingredients, but about trying to look at the bigger picture of whether they truly benefit us as consumers.
Let's break this down. What you said is in bold and italics.
I see where you’re coming from, but let’s be clear—I didn’t start a thread just to bash an ingredient. The point was to have a discussion about the science behind it
You didn't post a thread asking for discussion.
Your very first post was accusing DL-185 of being a scam and your source was a link to an opinion site that acknowledges on their own site that its an opinion site and has a section devoted to saying negative things about Muscletech and in the DL-185 piece, they identified DL-185 as being from Muscletech - even though they were just the first to offer the ingredient.
Then you rolled with that as saying it was Muscletech's ingredient, so you either didn't do any research on your own to realize that it wasn't or you did, and you were intentionally trying to mislead people here bc many have a negative perception of Muscletech bc they are a big marketing brand.
The point was to have a discussion about the science behind it
Really? Then why did you post an opinion piece bashing it?
Why didn't you post the scientific studies on them?
If you didn't feel like going through them and summarizing them, Price Plow did a nice breakdown on it:
Link 1 -
https://blog.priceplow.com/supplement-news/muscletech-peptide-185
Link 2 -
https://blog.priceplow.com/supplement-research/dl185-dileucine-anti-aging
I gave my opinion based on what I believe is most effective.
You said that you wanted to discuss the science, correct?
Because everything that you posted was opinion - an article from an opinion site and your opinion.
See, nothing wrong with giving your opinion - but you don't have bash other companies products or ingredients to do it.
If you’re so focused on defending a single ingredient or brand, it’s easy to dismiss anything critical as ‘bashing.’
Anyone with eyes can see that the way you went about this was bashing and a lead in to you promoting the Protein Factory product.
Muscletech doesn't care about your opinion and certainly doesn't need me to defend them.
Shawn Wells and Kylin are very successful and don't need me defending them.
I just think that sometimes those studies are misinterpreted or used to market something that’s not as revolutionary as it’s made out to be.
Absolutely, sometimes things are misinterpreted and sometimes marketing companies do what? - market ingredients and products.
Let's say that Ingenious did the first round of human clinical studies and it didn't show the results that they expected - do you think they would do more? Of course not. Because one HUMAN clinical study is more than a lot of ingredients have to begin with. So they would have stopped there. You don't keep sinking money into studies if the studies aren't showing results.
The fact is, the study results were impressive and that's why they did more.
It's not their fault how Muscletech or anyone else chooses to market something. You didn't make a thread about Muscletech's marketing practices did you? You made the thread calling an ingredient with multiple human clinical studies a scam.
Each of those examples you gave seems to ignore that the issue isn’t about whether studies exist, but whether the actual benefit for the consumer outweighs the marketing.
WTF are you talking about?
In my examples, I explained exactly why the context matters to the consumer.
The consumer demographic that Velositol is primarily marketed to is food and protein bars - so the studies showing that it increases protein absorption is very relevant to that - and it being shown in the studies to work at 6 grams is very relevant to those consumers bc that's a more typical amount in a snack bar or protein bar.
The example I gave on Bioperine was perfectly relevant - Bioperine is high % Piperine and therefore the studies on Piperine would also apply to Bioperine. The studies that were done on certain ingredients were meant to show that it could help increase the absorption of certain ones AND to also scientifically validate the way that it works to increase absorption. Therefore, other ingredients that have issues with poor absorption because of the same factors, there would be validity that it would help those as well.
Bioperine’s absorption effects are widely recognized, sure, but that doesn’t make every product using it the best solution.
Did I say that it was? No, I didn't. I explained it crystal clear.
Velositol’s studies are valid in their context, but claiming it’s a one-size-fits-all solution for protein absorption is where I think the disconnect happens.
Did I say it was? No.
Did the owners of the patents say it was? No.
I pointed out how that site called it a scam because the studies were done on 6 grams - and I explained very clearly that they were done on a lower dose because that is the dose that is most relevant to their target demographic. If they had done the study on 50 grams, that wouldn't have anything to do with 6 grams and no one would know if it would work on 6 grams or not.
And with KSM-66, sure, standardized Ashwagandha might be more reliable, but the idea of promoting the ‘generic’ version or dismissing an ingredient as a scam because it doesn’t meet every possible condition isn’t a clear-cut issue.
Here you go again with trying to make it out like I said something that I didn't.
There is no question as to if KSM-66 works better than regular Ashwagandha; there are over 2 dozen clinical studies on it. Those studies do not translate to generic Ashwagandha because the standardization isn't the same. With generics, you don't know how its extracted, to what standardization, and if there is any consistency to the standardizations. That's not opinion, that's science, and that's not debatable.
Did I say anything about -
dismissing an ingredient as a scam because it doesn’t meet every possible condition isn’t a clear-cut issue.
Did I say that generic was a scam? No, I didn't.
Did I say that KSM-66 was better? Yes, because 24+ clinical studies say so.
And I also mentioned how the Indian government, who profits from Ashwagandha exports, was even so concerned with the parts of the plant being used in generics that they issued a warning against generic Ashwagandha.
It’s not about throwing shade on specific brands or ingredients, but about trying to look at the bigger picture of whether they truly benefit us as consumers.
It's not about throwing shade?
Says the guy who posted a link to an opinion site that tries to get people not to buy from certain brands, some of which are very well liked and trusted, and used that as his source for this while thread.
About trying to look at the bigger picture of whether they truly benefit us as consumers?
Says the guy bashing an ingredient that the patent holders have already funded multiple HUMAN clinical studies in.
I've wasted way too much time out of my work day dealing with you and this nonsense. I was always nice to you and tried to help you in any way that I could, and I overlooked a lot of the misinformation you'd post until last week when you came into a thread about SNS supplements in the supplement section and tried to promote sarm's and research chemicals and then quoted a post of mine and edited it to make it look like I said something that I didn't say. All the while being a rep for another company that is supposed to have it clearly listed in his sig but doesn't.
nutritionscam.com
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
www.nnbnutrition.com
