Is pink magic worth it??

can u say pink magic, plus tna, plus prime and throw in ap or pslin or both and while im at it the whole usplabs kitchen sink
 
USPLabs said:
Not everyone will feel the first dose or first day but day 5 is very apparent.

Pink Magic will be sold out fast. We probably will never need to sample once the feedback hits the air waves.
Click to expand...

So it starts with many will feel it on the first day to not everyone will feel it on the first day interesting well guess ill have to wait for feedback.
 
TheU said:
So it starts with many will feel it on the first day to not everyone will feel it on the first day interesting well guess ill have to wait for feedback.
Click to expand...

exactly, many will and many will not but day 5 is pretty apparent.
 
ill be trying pink magic, a lot of the people who ran logs liked it, and some of the logs I followed close were by people who were experienced not only with bodybuilding, but also with supplements.

I noticed it says take 6 days on and 1 day off, it said that on my bottle of powerfull too, does anyone actually do that?
 
USPLabs said:
Not everyone will feel the first dose or first day but day 5 is very apparent.

Pink Magic will be sold out fast. We probably will never need to sample once the feedback hits the air waves.
Click to expand...

Also I never said Pink Magic was felt on the first dose, I said some felt Glycobol and AP on the first dose... man words get twisted around here... :sad3:
 
Anthony Roberts is on crack. The study he posted uses 3 different standardized EXTRACTS of Massularia acuminata with a total volume of 1 mL each, CORRESPONDING to 250, 500 and 1000 mg/kg body weight of the plant extract.

The study isn't saying you have to eat 250,500, or 1000mg of the plant stem per kg of weight, the study is using an EXTRACT of the standardized active component(s) in the plant to illicit the results seen in the study.
 
If any of you have followed my logs/reviews, I don't overhype supplements. I put an effort into giving as accurate of a review as possible. I am currently logging Pink, and I have hit the "kick in" period.

You might be interested:
Invalid Link Removed
 
suresha said:
Invalid Link Removed


"there's a sucker born every minute, and no shortage of supplement manufacturer's looking to scam them"
Click to expand...

Do you know whom Anthony Robert is? Seriously, if you knew who he was you would not be using that quote in this context unless you are him masquerading.
 
Pink Magic IMO is not worth 89.99, but if you got in on that sick IC release like I did, Well yeah then its worth it, great deal, can't wait to give er a try next month with some prime! :sgrin:
 
BarbellBeast said:
Pink Magic IMO is not worth 89.99, but if you got in on that sick IC release like I did, Well yeah then its worth it, great deal, can't wait to give er a try next month with some prime! :sgrin:
Click to expand...

It is $69.99. Not $89.99. And it just came out price should go down. And I heard u can find it for around $55. Not sure where
 
suresha said:
Invalid Link Removed


"there's a sucker born every minute, and no shortage of supplement manufacturer's looking to scam them"
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that article. Anybody want to comment on what hes saying here rather then try and criticize or bad mouth his character? Regardless of wether he might be good or bad, doesn't change that article...So, anybody care to confirm what hes written there about what that study shows?

Thanks.
 
freezito said:
can u say pink magic, plus tna, plus prime and throw in ap or pslin or both and while im at it the whole usplabs kitchen sink
Click to expand...

I thnk I might run that exact stack after my 8wk natadrol run that is 4wks from being over. I'll use PM ,TNA, Prime, Pslin, and some formadrol. Test ,strength, and recovery should be threw the roof with that stack!!!
 
WilteredFire said:
Thanks for posting that article. Anybody want to comment on what hes saying here rather then try and criticize or bad mouth his character? Regardless of wether he might be good or bad, doesn't change that article...So, anybody care to confirm what hes written there about what that study shows?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I really want to avoid character disputes, and you are correct in saying that they do nothing to change the contentions of the article. That being said, I suppose the most fair and acute manner of doing this is to simply address the primary points of the article that I disagree with. Those being twofold:

But check out the dose required…the lowest dose examined in the study was 250mgs/kg! On a kg/kg (simple comparative bodyweight) basis you’ll need about 25 grams of the stuff per day for a 100kg (220lb) bodybuilder, going off the absolute lowest dose. The highest dose would require 100g/day based on a 220lb (100kg)human bodyweight. However, this is based on human weight versus rodent weight. Now, if we convert the rodent dose to the human dose equivalent using the accepted body surface area formula bsa We find that we need just over 4 grams per day. And that’s at the lowest dose examined – we’d double that dose for the 500mgs/kg (over 8 grams per day) and double it again for the 1,000mgs/kg dose (over 16 grams per day).
Click to expand...

So how much of a boost in serum testosterone did the herb provide? Well, we don’t know, because the study doesn’t tell us. Wait…what? Yeah, you read that correctly, the study doesn’t actually look at serum testosterone levels. So what about free testosterone levels? Well, the study doesn’t look at that either.
Click to expand...

a) Because the study features such exorbitant amounts of Massularia acuminata, any androgenic potential is lost in human cross-over.

b) Because the study does not feature the results of serum or free testosterone, it cannot be considered a reliable source of information.

Now, on face value, these seem to be relatively sound critiques which give USPlabs little in the way of a defensible position. However, they are critiques borne from overlooking minor points of analysis that I feel are easily correctable. And so, on to the first point.

For reference sake, let's examine the dosages again, but with a bit of a keener eye:

Male rats weighing between 220 and 260 gwere completely randomized into four groups: A, B, C and D. Group A, the control received orally 1 ml of distilled water (the vehicle) while groups B, C and D were orally administered with 1ml each corresponding to 250, 500 and 1000 mg/kg body weight of the plant extract, respectively for 21 days.
Click to expand...

Take note of the bold portion, and in particular, that special little phrase "corresponding to." What does this mean? Well, it means that, despite what was emphasize in the article, the rats were administered only 1 ml of fluid constituted by a distilled extract of the plant which corresponds to - or in other words, is equal to - the respective amounts of powdered plant listed. Now, this fact becomes exponentially more important when we examine the materials and methods portion of the full text:

2.5. Animal grouping and extract administration

A total of 60 male rats were used and were completely randomized
into four: A, B, C and D of 15 animals each after being allowed
to acclimatize for 2weeks. The distilledwater and the extractswere
orally administered as follows:

Group A: Control (1 ml of distilled water).

Group B: 1ml of the extract corresponding to 250 mg/kg body
weight.

Group C: 1ml of the extract corresponding to 500mg/kg body
weight.

Group D: 1ml of the extract corresponding to 1000 mg/kg body
weight.
Click to expand...

As we can see, while the corresponding dose is multiplied, the actual amount of fluid ingested remains at 1 ml. Why? Because we are dealing with an aqueous plant extract, and not a simple powdered preparation - and these types of aqueous and methanolic extracts are precisely the type of extracts that are referred to by various companies, USPlabs included, when the phrase "standardized extract" is used. (More on that to come.)

That term means, in other words, "X amount of powder processed to contain a certain amount of an active constituent." In this case, the researchers prepared a 1 ml aqueous solution which is standardized to correspond to doses of 250, 500 and 1000 mg/kg of raw plant, respectively.

Now, using the body-surface-area equation to normalize the rat dosage, what amount of fluid would a human hypothetically need to achieve the same purported effects. For that, we simply use a standard formula of multiplying the rodent dose by 0.162 to arrive at 0.162 ml. All this considered, statement such as:

And that’s at the lowest dose examined – we’d double that dose for the 500mgs/kg (over 8 grams per day) and double it again for the 1,000mgs/kg dose (over 16 grams per day).
Click to expand...

seem somewhat less potent, particularly considering that the abstract itself alludes to the fact that all the rat subjects, even at the highest dosage, took precisely the same amount of fluid. This is how extracts work and how the supplement industry operates from a practical standpoint - or we would all be eating lbs upon lbs of beef for creatine, half pounds of Epimedium for our Icariin, and oz of Mucuna for our L-DOPA. Keep in mind that, at this point, saying "it would only require 0.162 ml" of fluid only means to suggest that, in opposition to the article, noticeable effects could be achieved in a practical way.

Now, to expand on the concept of extracts, allow us to peer further into the full study for a more robust explanation of the researchers' extraction technique:

2.4. Preparation of aqueous extract of Massularia acuminata stem

The plant stem was cut with a sterile knife into pieces and then oven-dried at 40 ◦C until a constant weight was obtained. The pieces were then pulverized with an electric blender (Blender/Miller III, model MS-223, China). The powdered material was stocked in a plastic container from which 200 g each was separately extracted in 500ml of distilled water for 48 h at room temperature with constant shaking. The extract was then filtered with filter paper (Whatman No. 1) and the resulting filtrate was concentrated on a
steam bath to give between 5.48 and 5.60 g of the brownish black slurry (residue) which is equivalent to a % yield of 2.74±0.05 g. The residue was reconstituted in distilled water to give the required dose of 250 mg/kg body weight while higher doses of 500 and 1000 mg/kg body weight were also used. The reconstituted aqueous extract was administered orally to all animals in the various groups using metal oropharyngeal cannula.
Click to expand...

So, as we can see from this incredibly basic description, the aqueous extract was little more than pulverized plant distilled and concentrated at corresponding doses. This is important for two reasons. The first, it displays that, as I said previously, the rodents were indeed not ingesting 1000mg/kg of powder a day, but instead a simple 1 ml fluid corresponding to that dose.

The second, that the researchers did not attempt to identify nor extract for any particular constituents viz., HPLC, GC/MS or any other such technology, which means the results achieved in the study were the result of a crude, whole plant extract. Suddenly, the dose we must ingest starts to become considerably more practical, and those "meager" results that much more impressive.

Taking this into consideration, let us assume for a moment that supplement producers put the words "standardized extract" on our products for a reason other than to look pretty. Then let's assume the reason is that either ourselves, or independent researchers, have identified one or several principally pharmacologically active compounds that we extract for to ensure a standard dose of active constituent. Assuming this does occur - which it indeed dose - it would occur to avoid precisely the situation that the article describes: that is, consumers ingesting ungodly amounts of raw powders to mimic the effects seen in independent studies. Now, on to more assumptions.

If we take the above as valid, what then is a reasonable amount of "principally pharmacologically active compound" for a whole plant to contain, on average? Well, while each plant is vastly different, a conservative amount to state is the range of 1-10%. An example would be Mucuna pruriens which, depending on topography, soil conditions, cultivation techniques and so on, contains anywhere from 1-6% native L-DOPA content.

And so, if we assume a similar range for this compound, it means that the rats were receiving a mere 25mg/kg of principally active compound in each 1 ml dosage at maximum, and 2.5mg/kg at minimum. Obviously, had the researchers identified a compound or compounds of interest and extracted it/them at a standardization of 20-50%, the dose becomes even more practical by several degrees of magnitude. As I said before, the "meager" results become that much more impressive when we consider the likely minute amount of active constituent that the rat subjects were actually receiving, and the fact that we can (as supplement producers) and do extract for active compounds.

So, taking all this into consideration, and as we have done with several other of our herbs, USPlabs identified and extracted particular components of Massularia which we feel to be principally active within the plant itself. And while I will obviously not reveal the structures of these compounds, nor the amounts in which they are contained in the whole plant, I will simply say that identifying and extracting these components is a significant contributor to both the delayed time of release since Jacob first commented on them, as well as the "high" cost of the product. Given that we have also received a patent for extracting principally-active components from Cissus quadrangularis, we feel confident that our facilities have indeed identified the correct compounds, have extracted them in adequate amounts, and have given us a product that is both a) a practical dose and b) able to reproduce or exceed the results of the study.

Which brings us to the second portion, the results! I am sick of writing, however, so I will most likely continue this tomorrow if there is still a desire for me to do so.
 
TheU said:
So far the only ones selling it is GNC and we all know the rip off that place is id never buy from there!!!

Is it really worth the $89 i dont mind spending it but wanted to ask you guys what you thought??
Click to expand...



Worth it? Hell no.


Just get any other test booster on the market. God damn some of you guys and needing the latest and "greatest". It's like some people have the attention span of house flies and can't remember the quality products of yesterday that work just as good today. I heard all this **** before when Prime first came out. Good, but not nearly worth all the hubbub and especially not worth the $65 intro price it had.


I take Recreate and love it. But fat jesus christ, these tactics are just rediculous.
 
Dizmal said:
Worth it? Hell no.


Just get any other test booster on the market. God damn some of you guys and needing the latest and "greatest". It's like some people have the attention span of house flies and can't remember the quality products of yesterday that work just as good today. I heard all this **** before when Prime first came out. Good, but not nearly worth all the hubbub and especially not worth the $65 intro price it had.


I take Recreate and love it. But fat jesus christ, these tactics are just rediculous.
Click to expand...

Worth is relative, but your commentary is always welcome. And Jesus Christ was quite slender. Get your facts straight! :lol:
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Worth is relative, but your commentary is always welcome. And Jesus Christ was quite slender. Get your facts straight! :lol:
Click to expand...

Indeed it is relative. But the point still stands.



The fat jesus christ comment is something carried over from another forum

Invalid Link Removed

:fing02:
 
Dizmal said:
Indeed it is relative. But the point still stands.
Click to expand...

Which one: the worth, or the ridiculousness of the tactics? In any case, I would say they are both relative, but of course concede that you are always welcome to your opinion.

The fat jesus christ comment is something carried over from another forum

Invalid Link Removed

:fing02:
Click to expand...

Well, emaciated Mohammed the Prophet, Dizmal, I am not up on these things. I am internet-retarded.
 
Dizmal said:
Worth it? Hell no.


Just get any other test booster on the market. God damn some of you guys and needing the latest and "greatest". It's like some people have the attention span of house flies and can't remember the quality products of yesterday that work just as good today. I heard all this **** before when Prime first came out. Good, but not nearly worth all the hubbub and especially not worth the $65 intro price it had.


I take Recreate and love it. But fat jesus christ, these tactics are just rediculous.
Click to expand...

What tactics may I ask?

The Gifting over 70 logs for feedback or innovating something new. We have yet to advertise it.

Maybe I'm marketing subliminally and subconsciously and if indeed fact, I've achieved a miracle or for the sake of the topic, magic.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Which one: the worth, or the ridiculousness of the tactics? In any case, I would say they are both relative, but of course concede that you are always welcome to your opinion.
Click to expand...

The worth, mainly. Other proven products out there for cheaper. But again, a lot of people need the latest and greatest or it just won't cut it...

I really don't see how hyping products is relative. Relative to what? Some people like being worked into a frenzy over hype and others don't buy into it?



Mulletsoldier said:
Well, emaciated Mohammed the Prophet, Dizmal, I am not up on these things. I am internet-retarded.
Click to expand...

:lol: no worries. I wouldn't expect you to know the reference.
 
Dizmal said:
The worth, mainly. Other proven products out there for cheaper. But again, a lot of people need the latest and greatest or it just won't cut it.
Click to expand...

Proven in the context of anecdotes, or science? If PM is proven to work better than these products by the same measure, does the worth therefore become justified? Not being overly coy, just pointing out that worth is always relative to several factors.

For example, creatine monohydrate is one of the most anecdotally and scientifically proven products we take, but does absolutely nothing for me as an individual. In that sense, it is completely worthless on my rubric. I understand, however, that others have a polar opposite opinion, and therefore reserve my judgments on its worth.

Obviously, Pink Magic's ingredients may never have such a track record, but my general point still stands. You determining that an emphatic "hell no" is the appropriate answer to the question, "Is the product worth it?" is devoid of meaning until you, yourself, try the product and attempt to normalize your results to the results of others.

That being said, I take all your points and certainly understand what you are driving at.

I really don't see how hyping products is relative. Relative to what? Some people like being worked into a frenzy over hype and others don't buy into it?
Click to expand...

How is hyping a product objective? And if it is, where is the universal hype rubric? All companies "hype" products, or they would not exist - and I use hype as a euphemism for promotion, which it rightfully is.

I was alluding to how "ridiculous" the "hype" is as being entirely relative, and it is relative to both the subjective opinion of the observer, as well as the interpretation of the observer. For example, while I'm not entirely sure what you are alluding to in saying "these tactics are ridiculous," I assume you mean the ad copies, the headlines, and so on. But I can point out five different companies I have seen in the past week who are now emulating this approach, because it works.

The difference being, in my opinion, that the substance of the write-up, for example, is not ridiculous at all. It presents a measured opinion on how the product works, and this is apparently obfuscated to you because of the "hype" of the headings and sub-headings. To others, it may not be - as a result, the "hype" is again entirely relative.

With this type of industry in which heavy promotion is involved, going about instituting objective measures is usually never very successful.



:lol: no worries. I wouldn't expect you to know the reference.
Click to expand...

I am so out of touch when it comes to memes. It is brutal!
 
Dizmal said:
Worth it? Hell no.


Just get any other test booster on the market. God damn some of you guys and needing the latest and "greatest". It's like some people have the attention span of house flies and can't remember the quality products of yesterday that work just as good today. I heard all this **** before when Prime first came out. Good, but not nearly worth all the hubbub and especially not worth the $65 intro price it had.


I take Recreate and love it. But fat jesus christ, these tactics are just rediculous.
Click to expand...

Just stuck with my M-stack for now and tcf-1
 
TheU said:
So far the only ones selling it is GNC and we all know the rip off that place is id never buy from there!!!

Is it really worth the $89 i dont mind spending it but wanted to ask you guys what you thought??
Click to expand...

In my opinion,USPLabs is the equivalent of CellTech.Overhyped,overpriced products.The fact that GNC is the only store selling it should tell you something.
Also,PinkMagic is one of the cheesiest names for a supplement I have ever seen.
 
Conagher said:
In my opinion,USPLabs is the equivalent of CellTech.Overhyped,overpriced products.The fact that GNC is the only store selling it should tell you something.
Also,PinkMagic is one of the cheesiest names for a supplement I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

wow man thats a low blow, now i agree i wouldnt buy pink magic but comparing it to celltech, thats a low blow man, atleast pink magic would give results. plus all the stores that i know sell usplabs. usplabs makes good products. comparing it to MT products is just a low blow man.
 
Conagher said:
In my opinion,USPLabs is the equivalent of CellTech.Overhyped,overpriced products.The fact that GNC is the only store selling it should tell you something.
Also,PinkMagic is one of the cheesiest names for a supplement I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

So you are saying you cannot afford it?
-----------------------------------

But to the other poster about the issue with Roberts and character. I said that because I have read nearly everything the guy has written and I have been around many, MANY moons and have witnessed his despicable acts in person. I have also read many of the articles he finds and these "peer reviewed journals" that he told me about once, which were never actually peer reviewed. On top of that, I have read many of the articles and studies which he has stumbled upon.

Every single time that he finds an article or something he, himself, has put together with attention toward another company it is going to read that the other company has done something to undermine the public or that their product is garbage. There is a reason why lawsuits run out of his a$$, twice as deep.

I do not care if the article says something positive, he will dig only for the negatives. He is a wizard with words and plays with them as a cat with a snake...he is not to be trusted by any means period...

Well, I will rephrase that last portion, 98% of what he says cannot be trusted, 98% of the articles he uses must be read in their entirety because he uses bush league tactics and before you know it, he has the wool over your eyes.

He has earned the right for me to discredit anything he spits out before i read it. It is not my fault but his own, cry wolf. As I said also, even if it is an actual article or study that he is linking to, I probably will not give it the time of day. Unless it is for his own products then it is aiming at discrediting some other company or product or soon to be product....no class
 
Conagher said:
In my opinion,USPLabs is the equivalent of CellTech.Overhyped,overpriced products.The fact that GNC is the only store selling it should tell you something.
Also,PinkMagic is one of the cheesiest names for a supplement I have ever seen.
Click to expand...
Which products have you used that were trash so far?
 
Conagher said:
In my opinion,USPLabs is the equivalent of CellTech.Overhyped,overpriced products.The fact that GNC is the only store selling it should tell you something.
Also,PinkMagic is one of the cheesiest names for a supplement I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

Sure does evoke emotion and I love it and aside from that it works o so well.

Job well done USPlabs, Job well done.

Pink Magic is and will be distributed nationally and internationally. GNC will have it. Who turns down over 5,000 retail locations.

in full circulation Pink Magic will be in over 15,000 retail outlets in the United States of America and many thousands of stores overseas plus that thing we all the internet. :fing02:

Still trying to get heaven to buy it.
 
USPLabs said:
Sure does evoke emotion and I love it and aside from that it works o so well.

Job well done USPlabs, Job well done.

Pink Magic is and will be distributed nationally and internationally. GNC will have it. Who turns down over 5,000 retail locations.

in full circulation Pink Magic will be in over 15,000 retail outlets in the United States of America and many thousands of stores overseas plus that thing we all the internet. :fing02:

Still trying to get heaven to buy it.
Click to expand...

And that is going to = some pretty impressive "gains", no pun....all because of some "worthless sticks and leaves" as some have put it so eloquently...
 
hardknock said:
Every single time that he finds an article or something he, himself, has put together with attention toward another company it is going to read that the other company has done something to undermine the public or that their product is garbage. There is a reason why lawsuits run out of his a$$, twice as deep.
Click to expand...

I follow his blog too and the info he gives out in Super Human Radio is interesting.

That said, I noticed a few days after this post about Massularia acuminata, he came out with another post about how he's testing another herb extract for, get this, his own test boosting product. So he puts out a negative post about Massularia acuminata, coincidentally near the launch of Pink Magic(at least he didn't actually rag on the product), and then a couple of days later says how he's working on his own product with a "better" herb.

So... maybe he has an ulterior motive?
 
eatingisfun said:
I follow his blog too and the info he gives out in Super Human Radio is interesting.

That said, I noticed a few days after this post about Massularia acuminata, he came out with another post about how he's testing another herb extract for, get this, his own test boosting product. So he puts out a negative post about Massularia acuminata, coincidentally near the launch of Pink Magic(at least he didn't actually rag on the product), and then a couple of days later says how he's working on his own product with a "better" herb.

So... maybe he has an ulterior motive?
Click to expand...
That is his MO. To his credit, no matter how worthless I find it to be, he is a master at doing just what you have explained.

Does he release some interesting info, sure but, it is always aimed at tearing someone else down only to build himself up. Is he the only one that does this? Well, of course not but he is very blatant in his actions.
 
I think I will take a stab at explaining why the results….


First off I think mullet did an excellent job in pointing out that the corresponding doses given to various rats was in fact different extraction purities per mL. If the amount of fluid stays the same then what is changing is the amount of extract per mL. Which means the first group to receive the 250mg/kg in the 1 mL probably had a solution of 80% aqueous solution and 20% extract(this is not accurate just making an example). Once you put this into a powdering extract…the mount required DRAMATICALLY reduces b/c essentially you have JUST the product. SO a powdered extract would be even MORE potent then the dissolved amount of the compound in 1mL at the 1000mg/Kg dose.

Any individual here who has done extractions in lab can attest that you take a 5 grams of a raw material just to extract .01 grams of the crude compound. This .01 grams is usually isolated from a 4-10mL solution that needs to be boiled off. So That being the case…..this study is a horrible example of crossing over dosages needed from a highly isolated, purified, standardized, powdered extract.

Now for the results….IT ACTUALLY STATES THE EXTRACT WORKS!!! His argument is that companies aren’t using enough of the extract BUT the simple fact is a standardized, purified, powdered extract means that companies LIKE USP labs is doing exactly just that. In essence they are taking the raw active material and putting it in a pill GREATLY reducing the amount you need to ingest. In essence with 6-8 pills a day you are taking the same if not more of the active ingredient needed to produce the 60% increase in testicular test levels. Also where is the MAJORITY of testosterone produced which then circulates the entire body? The testis…therefore the more the testis are making the more which is available to circulate. Does he think testosterone is produced in the testis and then stays there? No, this is not the case.

The article at hand truly has no grasp of the chemistry at hand. 1 mL containing the equivalent of 1000mg/kg….when you evaporate the aqueous solution you are left with a certain amount of powder or precipitate or etc….this powder is not going to weigh 7 grams….its going to be a very small amount because it needs to DISSOLVE into the 1mL of an aqueous fluid. And according to the law of solubility(when I saw laws I mean properties which govern solubility) that for every amount of a solvent you have a MAXIMUM solubility that when superceded by increasing its temperature…you will instantly form a precipitate when cooled. Therefore the minute you just use the pure isolated compound….in essence 1 gram of the isolated compound is FAR more effective the what would be dissolved in 1 mL of an aqueous solution.
 
Thank you Mullet for taking the time to write a mature and lengthy reply, was helpful to get some clarification on that article. Again, much appreciated mate. Cheers
 
WilteredFire said:
Thank you Mullet for taking the time to write a mature and lengthy reply, was helpful to get some clarification on that article. Again, much appreciated mate. Cheers
Click to expand...

Glad I could be of assistance! Respectful, thought-provoking questions receive respectful, thought-provoking answers in turn.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
I really want to avoid character disputes, and you are correct in saying that they do nothing to change the contentions of the article. That being said, I suppose the most fair and acute manner of doing this is to simply address the primary points of the article that I disagree with. Those being twofold:





a) Because the study features such exorbitant amounts of Massularia acuminata, any androgenic potential is lost in human cross-over.

b) Because the study does not feature the results of serum or free testosterone, it cannot be considered a reliable source of information.

Now, on face value, these seem to be relatively sound critiques which give USPlabs little in the way of a defensible position. However, they are critiques borne from overlooking minor points of analysis that I feel are easily correctable. And so, on to the first point.

For reference sake, let's examine the dosages again, but with a bit of a keener eye:



Take note of the bold portion, and in particular, that special little phrase "corresponding to." What does this mean? Well, it means that, despite what was emphasize in the article, the rats were administered only 1 ml of fluid constituted by a distilled extract of the plant which corresponds to - or in other words, is equal to - the respective amounts of powdered plant listed. Now, this fact becomes exponentially more important when we examine the materials and methods portion of the full text:



As we can see, while the corresponding dose is multiplied, the actual amount of fluid ingested remains at 1 ml. Why? Because we are dealing with an aqueous plant extract, and not a simple powdered preparation - and these types of aqueous and methanolic extracts are precisely the type of extracts that are referred to by various companies, USPlabs included, when the phrase "standardized extract" is used. (More on that to come.)

That term means, in other words, "X amount of powder processed to contain a certain amount of an active constituent." In this case, the researchers prepared a 1 ml aqueous solution which is standardized to correspond to doses of 250, 500 and 1000 mg/kg of raw plant, respectively.

Now, using the body-surface-area equation to normalize the rat dosage, what amount of fluid would a human hypothetically need to achieve the same purported effects. For that, we simply use a standard formula of multiplying the rodent dose by 0.162 to arrive at 0.162 ml. All this considered, statement such as:



seem somewhat less potent, particularly considering that the abstract itself alludes to the fact that all the rat subjects, even at the highest dosage, took precisely the same amount of fluid. This is how extracts work and how the supplement industry operates from a practical standpoint - or we would all be eating lbs upon lbs of beef for creatine, half pounds of Epimedium for our Icariin, and oz of Mucuna for our L-DOPA. Keep in mind that, at this point, saying "it would only require 0.162 ml" of fluid only means to suggest that, in opposition to the article, noticeable effects could be achieved in a practical way.

Now, to expand on the concept of extracts, allow us to peer further into the full study for a more robust explanation of the researchers' extraction technique:



So, as we can see from this incredibly basic description, the aqueous extract was little more than pulverized plant distilled and concentrated at corresponding doses. This is important for two reasons. The first, it displays that, as I said previously, the rodents were indeed not ingesting 1000mg/kg of powder a day, but instead a simple 1 ml fluid corresponding to that dose.

The second, that the researchers did not attempt to identify nor extract for any particular constituents viz., HPLC, GC/MS or any other such technology, which means the results achieved in the study were the result of a crude, whole plant extract. Suddenly, the dose we must ingest starts to become considerably more practical, and those "meager" results that much more impressive.

Taking this into consideration, let us assume for a moment that supplement producers put the words "standardized extract" on our products for a reason other than to look pretty. Then let's assume the reason is that either ourselves, or independent researchers, have identified one or several principally pharmacologically active compounds that we extract for to ensure a standard dose of active constituent. Assuming this does occur - which it indeed dose - it would occur to avoid precisely the situation that the article describes: that is, consumers ingesting ungodly amounts of raw powders to mimic the effects seen in independent studies. Now, on to more assumptions.

If we take the above as valid, what then is a reasonable amount of "principally pharmacologically active compound" for a whole plant to contain, on average? Well, while each plant is vastly different, a conservative amount to state is the range of 1-10%. An example would be Mucuna pruriens which, depending on topography, soil conditions, cultivation techniques and so on, contains anywhere from 1-6% native L-DOPA content.

And so, if we assume a similar range for this compound, it means that the rats were receiving a mere 25mg/kg of principally active compound in each 1 ml dosage at maximum, and 2.5mg/kg at minimum. Obviously, had the researchers identified a compound or compounds of interest and extracted it/them at a standardization of 20-50%, the dose becomes even more practical by several degrees of magnitude. As I said before, the "meager" results become that much more impressive when we consider the likely minute amount of active constituent that the rat subjects were actually receiving, and the fact that we can (as supplement producers) and do extract for active compounds.

So, taking all this into consideration, and as we have done with several other of our herbs, USPlabs identified and extracted particular components of Massularia which we feel to be principally active within the plant itself. And while I will obviously not reveal the structures of these compounds, nor the amounts in which they are contained in the whole plant, I will simply say that identifying and extracting these components is a significant contributor to both the delayed time of release since Jacob first commented on them, as well as the "high" cost of the product. Given that we have also received a patent for extracting principally-active components from Cissus quadrangularis, we feel confident that our facilities have indeed identified the correct compounds, have extracted them in adequate amounts, and have given us a product that is both a) a practical dose and b) able to reproduce or exceed the results of the study.

Which brings us to the second portion, the results! I am sick of writing, however, so I will most likely continue this tomorrow if there is still a desire for me to do so.
Click to expand...

uhmmmmmmm

mullet for president!
 
ya tht place is a rip off i went 2 gnc 2 get sum novadex and it was like 60 $ so checked out nutrion zone and it was 30$ its ridicules
 
Truly a great post. I learned much about the compounds, and the nature of production.
Thank You Mullet!
 
No problem, guys. I would really much rather keep these threads away from, "OMGzz11! d@ pInK m@giCZ is like zooomg overpriced11!! lolerzcopter!" and into more productive conversations.

Yes, we all understand there is a contingency who feels the product to be "overpriced," and another who disagrees. Maybe we should begin taking that as a given, and have discussions about the ingredient profile, the pharmacology therein, and so on.

In a perfect world, maybe?
 
Any user feedback on:

1. Gains retained after cycling off Pink Magic? I believe the recommendation of 8 weeks on, 4 weeks off stands?
2. Gains on second and/or third cycle?
 
fadi said:
Any user feedback on:

1. Gains retained after cycling off Pink Magic? I believe the recommendation of 8 weeks on, 4 weeks off stands?
2. Gains on second and/or third cycle?
Click to expand...


to early to ask that question. It just came out i doubt anyone has been on it for 8 weeks...I hear u can stay on it for longer but as all supplements 8 weeks on 4 weeks off is best. I only been on my pm for a week. So far so good still to early to tell..hope i helped
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top