HIGENAMINE STUDY POSTED ON ERGO-LOG (PERFORMAX/hypermax =0mgs)

emiliozapata

emiliozapata

Active member
Has this been addressed with the reformulation?

Have all products in the line been resourced?

What , if any, QA is around now to ensure this never happens again?
 
can you post the study or the article here please?


edit, found it myself:

Invalid Link Removed



lol

having a little less than advertised, okay, bad but better than nothing but not having anything at all is a joke

curious about the explanation; but we shouldnt be surprised that there are hardly any supplements that contain exactly whats stated on the label.

however i thought performax is more trustworthy. for ME personally this is a no-go. Doesnt matter why this specific can didnt contain higenamine, one scam can is one too much.

But yeah, still curious what the company will tell the customers. Its a punch right the face, thats a fact.

———-
or the lab tested the current version which has no higenamine in it. didnt read the study and checked the dates the study was made.

if this is the case, im taking back what i said. but most likely the lab knows which product they are testing, so they know which ingredients should be in the product
 
it does present lots of questions- I have ran about 4 bttls of mass max- was liking Performaxx as my go to company-really hope there is some expanded info on all this
 
The product tested within the above referenced study was launched on April 14th 2014 and discontinued May 2nd 2015 for several reasons including a clumping issue. This presents some major issues and oversights from this study considering the material was manufactured well over 3 years ago and very likely expired. Moreover, then just being expired, the tested material would have resembled a wet, clumped up paste rather then actual powder. With such a major oversight of testing for ingredient potency in far expired product, it brings into question the results of this study. Obviously, we cannot guarantee product potency on expired product. Per FDA guidelines a reserve sample is held for 1 year past the expiration date, however in this case, it’s already been far past that and any reserve samples of this material is no longer available. We are taking these results seriously however we do believe the above points presents large oversights and major issues with the results of this study. We are a company that strives for quality and innovation and currently work with 2 NSF and cGMP facilities for manufacturing, always aiming to do right by the customer. In this case, there is very little investigation we can implement as the product is so old, however if there are any customers who have this version and would like a replacement or refund we would be happy to offer that.
 
alvin1 said:
What do you felt on theses 4 bottles of Mass max?
Click to expand...

First 2 I ran for 6 weeks- did the first bottle at regular dose and then second bottle at 1.5 x dose- gained weight and strength- overall I was a fan- second 2 I took after a rough stretch medically in which I lost weight and strength/size post operatively- (prostate cancer with radical prostatectomy)- I really couldn't lift heavy but the body weight came right back- all in all, I heartily endorse MASSMax but the findings concern me- I do undertsand the potential problems with the study but the questions about QC and sourcing weigh heavily- Performaxx, as does most of these companies- simply formulate- there is really little oversight of the actual ingredients outside of what a potentially bogus CoA may say
 
lol

even after 10 years there will be some detectable amount of higenamine in it.

sorry, but thats a BS response.

IF there would have ever been higenamine in it, they would have found it. if its clumping or not, doesnt matter and you know that.

beside that we can be pretty sure that a lab will take the powder and grind it and mix it up again, IF it has clumped. im very sure they dont take a random piece out of the can and test that. BUT even if they would have done that - the result wouldnt be ZERO actual higenamine content. 100%. if you really believe that, you lost every single percent of credibility.
 
and boys, it doesnt matter if the products feel good or not; if there are false label claims, missing ingredients, then idc about the feeling. its scam. simple scam, if they write something on the label but dont put it in the product.

if a company is doing that once, who tells me, they wont do that again?

sorry, but this result is a shame


(im curious if i get banned or some sh1t for speaking about the obvious facts; if so - it is worth it, because im really pissed off all these bad results and false label claims of several supplement companies)
 
iamyourfather said:
and boys, it doesnt matter if the products feel good or not; if there are false label claims, missing ingredients, then idc about the feeling. its scam. simple scam, if they write something on the label but dont put it in the product.

if a company is doing that once, who tells me, they wont do that again?

sorry, but this result is a shame


(im curious if i get banned or some sh1t for speaking about the obvious facts; if so - it is worth it, because im really pissed off all these bad results and false label claims of several supplement companies)
Click to expand...

I understand the anger and I feel it too-unfortunately like I stated above, many of these guys have no real way of knowing what is in any of their stuff- they buy a tub of bulks from china and take the CoA at face value and then formulate blends and cap, many don't even do that it all gets done off site and they simply market and sell- I take a huge risk as a cancer patient taking anything that could be spiked with some androgenic substances - I started taking FD/Vector not only for training but as a anti-cancer based on the ECGC in FD and the KME in vector- i pray that they have what they say and nothing else!
 
iamyourfather said:
lol

even after 10 years there will be some detectable amount of higenamine in it.

sorry, but thats a BS response.

IF there would have ever been higenamine in it, they would have found it. if its clumping or not, doesnt matter and you know that.

beside that we can be pretty sure that a lab will take the powder and grind it and mix it up again, IF it has clumped. im very sure they dont take a random piece out of the can and test that. BUT even if they would have done that - the result wouldnt be ZERO actual higenamine content. 100%. if you really believe that, you lost every single percent of credibility.
Click to expand...

iamyourfather said:
and boys, it doesnt matter if the products feel good or not; if there are false label claims, missing ingredients, then idc about the feeling. its scam. simple scam, if they write something on the label but dont put it in the product.

if a company is doing that once, who tells me, they wont do that again?

sorry, but this result is a shame


(im curious if i get banned or some sh1t for speaking about the obvious facts; if so - it is worth it, because im really pissed off all these bad results and false label claims of several supplement companies)
Click to expand...

While I don't 100% agree with ADizzle1, I don't agree with your views on this either.

First and foremost - this study is all about the health hazards of higenamine. The concern was not that products contain too little of the ingredient - but TOO MUCH. You are singling out Performax for a "scam" - but what about the other companies who scammed you in the other direction and could cause someone harm because of it?

Second - Adizzle has admitted to why they discontinued the product - clumping issues. Adizzle has to protect his brand, but if you read between the lines a little there you can see that he was aware of the issue of clumping. And, yes, clumping issues during manufacturing would explain this fully. It would also explain why some of the other products tested were way OVER the stated values. If you mix up a large volume of powder and put it into 100 tubs, and there is a clumping issue, it would be easy for 1 tub to get way too much of an ingredient and another to get way too little (or none).

If you've ever tried to compound something, you learn that clumping is a MAJOR obstacle. If you have a large volume of powder and you're trying to mix a smaller volume of an ingredient into that, clumping can be a nightmare. Think about putting 1 gram of powder A into 49 grams of powder B. You want it to come out evenly and have a roughly 2% level of powder A for any volume of total powder. Great. But what if you get a clump? You could have a 100 mg clump that piles up somewhere and now you take a scoop and your 200 mg scoop has 50% powder A - or 100 mg when it should have 4 mg.

And of course now that 100 mg isn't dispursed throughout the rest of the material, so there may be a pocket where you have 0% - or if you've done a decent job of evenly dispersing the rest of the powder at the very least you're 10% light on every other scoop,

Now make that worse and put it in a tub without capping it, where it can reclump and settle, etc. and even non-expired powder can be uneven.

Add a little moisture and you have a clump of goup in your tub. I'm not sure if you've ever had this happen - leave a preworkout or powdered fat burner in a cabinet for a while and go back in a few months and try to use it. It will be goo. Good luck getting that to mix evenly again.

The study is very light on details too - they don't give any real explanation of how they handled the materials TBH. They may have had a bucket of goo and just taken a scoop and tested it. You have no way of knowing if they even attempted to mix it up again or if they did make an attempt, what was their method? Maybe they shook the can to remix it - which isn't highly effective to begin with and won't make much difference with goo.

I'm not saying that it totally lets anyone off the hook, don't get me wrong. There is a ton of shadiness in the industry. But there are also manufacturing difficulties in every industry that lead to problems. It could be an outright scam, carelessness, or just a manufacturing issue. It seems like the product was discontinued for a reason and maybe it's something that Performax realized was becoming an issue and decided to change?

This isn't to single you out...just to provide another side and some more thoughts...
 
Wutsup with 25 servings for 40+ bucks? Keep your higenamine lol. That was kind of a concern as well buying intramax.
 
doesn't u.s. 21cfr111 require finished product testing by company named on label? simple counter would be to post that batch test i would think.

i think this part most entertaining though :-)

Higenamine is a stimulant, which according to in vitro research interacts with the adrenergic beta-2 receptor - just like terbutaline and salbutamol. In theory, administration of higenamine could lead to a shift in body composition towards less fat and more muscles.

We do not know whether this is the case. It has never been studied. That did not stop the supplement industry from putting higenamine in supplements.
Click to expand...


lol, more pubmed "formulating" :-) this go well with other thread about * and † claims on bottle - can pretty much say anything with those <---
 
Synapsin said:
Do they have any 3rd party CoAs of their current products?
Click to expand...

would be an easy way to diffuse the situation.

Make no mistake Pieter Cohen is not an independent researcher and is supremely biased against the industry. His only objective is to destroy the industry.
 
USPlabsRep said:
would be an easy way to diffuse the situation.

Make no mistake Pieter Cohen is not an independent researcher and is supremely biased against the industry. His only objective is to destroy the industry.
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of his either, but yeah I think that's the best way to diffuse this situation.
 
First off I am a fan of Performax and use some of their products. But, now this is the second product of theirs that was tested to have zero contents of one of the active ingredients. Now we have some evidence that their labels do not meet the claims. In my opinion it’s time for Performax to show us some evidence that we can have full trust in them again.
 
ELROCK said:
First off I am a fan of Performax and use some of their products. But, now this is the second product of theirs that was tested to have zero contents of one of the active ingredients. Now we have some evidence that their labels do not meet the claims. In my opinion it’s time for Performax to show us some evidence that we can have full trust in them again.
Click to expand...

What was the other product?
 
ELROCK said:
MassMax was supposedly tested and supposedly showed zero ecdy.
Click to expand...

By a competitor, so that test is questionable. The current one I wonder how the hell they even got a hold of a tub so old it was expired.??? Both these "tests" are highly questionable for now IMO. That being said if made in a cGMP facility test results should be easy to obtain and post from performax. Being the olympia weekend lets give them sometime to get a hold of someone who can pull such info from manufactured lots.
 
I'd like to understand what data they're using to determine unsafe levels. I understand it being banned in most competitive sports, but what actual data shows Xmg/day is max safe dosing?

I'm not a fan of this ingredient personally, but would love to read more on what the data is showing potential maximal doses for humans (weight based obviously)
 
ELROCK said:
It’s interesting that the Performax reps are in on every thread it seems except this one.
Click to expand...

they're board reps, what authority do you think they actually have in being able to comment on issues that have legal implications?
 
As we originally stated we are taking these results very seriously and investigating this issue. However, to test a product manufactured in 2014-2015, that is now 1-2 years expired and use that to state label claims are not met, is not accurate and a major oversight from this ‘study’
.
Vitamins and Nutraceuticals alike undergo natural degradation over time, and this degradation is exacerbated by oxygen, heat and moisture. The product was discontinued in 2015, over 3 years ago, in part due to major clumping issues from the hygroscopic nature of the product. The material tested was not only expired but very likely a ‘paste’ at the time of testing. As we originally stated, there is no way we can guarantee product potency on expired products which is exactly why we have expiration dates in the first place!

Furthermore, there is no lot # listed and no testing procedures listed. Under ‘Analytical Data’ within this study where there should be a link to the 'Analytical Methods and Validation' of the testing, the link does not exist and just links back to the study itself. With this limited information; no lot number to reference, no testing methods or validation described and testing for ingredient potency on an expired product discontinued over 3 years ago, we are left with very little information to investigate. What we do know is this product could have been manufactured by 3 different manufactures, 2 of which are now out of business and we are still investigating. At this time our final and last statement on this issue is we are offering full refund to anyone who would like to return this product and we are continuing our internal investigation to get to the root cause of this issue.

As for the MassMax that was brought up, concerning a competitor who sells a Ecdysterone product, sending MassMax to a major supplier of Ecdysterone to be tested; We have sent the Lab results testing for Ecdysterone via HPLC to multiple users of the forum including the Admin himself, his response to those lab results below:

Ari Gold said:
Just an update: I have now personally seen a lab test which clearly shows that MassMax contains Ecdysterone. This will be my last response to this nonsense and anyone that stirs this crap up again in the future will be swiftly banned.
Click to expand...
 
Adizzle1 said:
As we originally stated we are taking these results very seriously and investigating this issue. However, to test a product manufactured in 2014-2015, that is now 1-2 years expired and use that to state label claims are not met, is not accurate and a major oversight from this ‘study’
.
Vitamins and Nutraceuticals alike undergo natural degradation over time, and this degradation is exacerbated by oxygen, heat and moisture. The product was discontinued in 2015, over 3 years ago, in part due to major clumping issues from the hygroscopic nature of the product. The material tested was not only expired but very likely a ‘paste’ at the time of testing. As we originally stated, there is no way we can guarantee product potency on expired products which is exactly why we have expiration dates in the first place!

Furthermore, there is no lot # listed and no testing procedures listed. Under ‘Analytical Data’ within this study where there should be a link to the 'Analytical Methods and Validation' of the testing, the link does not exist and just links back to the study itself. With this limited information; no lot number to reference, no testing methods or validation described and testing for ingredient potency on an expired product discontinued over 3 years ago, we are left with very little information to investigate. What we do know is this product could have been manufactured by 3 different manufactures, 2 of which are now out of business and we are still investigating. At this time our final and last statement on this issue is we are offering full refund to anyone who would like to return this product and we are continuing our internal investigation to get to the root cause of this issue.

As for the MassMax that was brought up, concerning a competitor who sells a Ecdysterone product, sending MassMax to a major supplier of Ecdysterone to be tested; We have sent the Lab results testing for Ecdysterone via HPLC to multiple users of the forum including the Admin himself, his response to those lab results below:
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but I still have concerns as to why it came back at ZERO! I fully understand natural degradation of ingredients, but even with the product being 1-2 years expired there should be some of it still present in the product. The presence of the ingredient should still be present. I have used plenty of natural products (mainly preworkouts) past their expiration date and they remain effective.
 
ELROCK said:
I fully understand natural degradation of ingredients, but even with the product being 1-2 years expired there should be some of it still present in the product. .
Click to expand...
Do you? What percentage should be present after 3 years vs. what was the orginal starting point? What's the degradation rate of Higenamine over time? Whats the difference in presence of 20mg, 10mg, 5mg, 2mg over a 1,2 and 3 year time span etc? What was the lower limit that would yield a positive in their testing? How many parts per million? Did you get a chance to view their 'Analytical Methods and Validation' or did the link not work like it didn't for us? What would you assume the degradation rates are between Vitamin B12(wont last a few months at doses originally put in the product) vs Higenamine vs. something like S-nitrosoglutathione (that requires a huge overage when manufacturing to meet label claims 6+ months down the line [+30%]). These are the questions we are trying to figure out to get to the bottom of why this is even an issue. I understand you know the exact degradation rates of higenamine in various conditions including a highly hygroscopic formula but we are still doing our research to find out the exact issue to this problem. Its also worth noting that not 1 company tested properly to label claims, which leads one to believe there might be an larger issue at play. As stated we will continue our internal investigation to find the root cause of this issue.
 
Adizzle1 said:
Do you? What percentage should be present after 3 years vs. what was the orginal starting point? What's the degradation rate of Higenamine over time? Whats the difference in presence of 20mg, 10mg, 5mg, 2mg over a 1,2 and 3 year time span etc? What was the lower limit that would yield a positive in their testing? How many parts per million? Did you get a chance to view their 'Analytical Methods and Validation' or did the link not work like it didn't for us? What would you assume the degradation rates are between Vitamin B12(wont last a few months at doses originally put in the product) vs Higenamine vs. something like S-nitrosoglutathione (that requires a huge overage when manufacturing to meet label claims 6+ months down the line [+30%]). These are the questions we are trying to figure out to get to the bottom of why this is even an issue. I understand you know the exact degradation rates of higenamine in various conditions including a highly hygroscopic formula but we are still doing our research to find out the exact issue to this problem. Its also worth noting that not 1 company tested properly to label claims, which leads one to believe there might be an larger issue at play. As stated we will continue our internal investigation to find the root cause of this issue.
Click to expand...

Lol... you are joking with that right? It should not be zero mg detected after 3 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top