DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Pure bull****. Your friend didnt fail for Methyl-Syn. Just open your eyes, your friend failed for real dope, he didnt fail from OEP.
Lets take a look at what USP labs Oxyelite Pro REALLY is....
- Thread starter ax1
- Start date
Pure bull****. Your friend didnt fail for Methyl-Syn. Just open your eyes, your friend failed for real dope, he didnt fail from OEP.
oufinny
Well-known member
I read all of this and it disgusts me that people stoop to these levels. OEP is the most effective product I have used besides Pink Magic from USP and I will continue to use both. Jacob and all of the USP team, you run a truly innovative company that is on the cutting edge. With that will always come criticism and jealousy of your success; rise above it and continue to astonish us. I may not use USP products every day or on every stack I run, but there will always be one of two a year that are based around your products because I know they work. The Pink Magic I have under my counter is waiting for next year but I am anxious as all get out to run it and can't wait to log it and prove that it works!
ax1
Legend
we dont know if that lab report is true, the poster who posted that totally disappeared on top of everything.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
I see this is probably ending with a similar result as most of these "controversies". The company in question is selling more of the product.
:lol:
:lol:
Eyayo
Member
Im not here to start **** or hate on usplabs. Im sayin my good friend got knocked for weed. He stopped smoking do to his strict rehab. He used no other drug besides marijuana b4 his rehab ****. He then wanted to get in shape, i recommended oep and he failed for amphetamines. Then someone posts a lab report claiming theirs script amphetamines in it.
ax1
Legend
if you can afford it, send some to a lab and have them check it for amphetamines. does he have any left from the same bottle?
Guest
Guest
People believe anything these days...
Guest
Guest
Let’s face the facts...no one will test a product because it sucks or is ineffective. Our competition tested (or pretended to) in hopes of finding an illicit substance because the product works as designed. It destroys fat and it does it quickly.
The weight/fat-loss stories continue to pour in and it climbed up the bodybuilding.com best seller list at record time (number 4 and number 1 weightloss product) and is on the Nutraplanet top 10 list since release. OxyElite Prop is the talk of the industry from distribution to retail.
We faced false allegations with Jack3d. We are facing them with Pink Magic. I'm sure we will continue to face false accusations. At the end of the day, it's simply a witch hunt I doubt anyone can truly believe at this point.
Getting back to the "test" in question...
Who says the active constituent is the flavonoid portion of Bauhinia purpurea?
The compound of interest certainly isn't a flavonoid, so it's no surprise that they would find very little of it. That was the wrong choice for a reference standard which is the lab's fault, not ours.
What was the reference standard for the Cirsium oligophyllum?
Nothing is even stated. Or was this a magic spectrophotometer? Yet again, using the incorrect compound(s) for reference standards will tend to cause these results...you know, if that is not the principle or active compound in the product then of course you're not going to find it in substantial quantities.
For those that gleaned their analytical chemistry skills from watching CSI, an explanation is probably in order.
Unlike Hollywood would have you believe, learning the identity and quantity of a compound or compounds isn't a matter of sticking a piece of whatever you find into a hole and then, voila, you get a list of everything and anything that was in whatever you put in.
Now, using HPLC alone for such purposes is questionable enough (GC-MS or LC-MS would be much more ideal for qualitative purposes) but that is digressing.
How does this stuff work? Well, here is an example. Let's say you want to know how much caffeine is in your morning cup of coffee. In this case, you at least know what you're looking for so this makes matters a little easier.
But, before you do any actual testing, you must develop a method (though in the case of caffeine in coffee, this has already been taken care of/been beaten to death and can be located on file in the software program for the machine) and you must also validate that method.
You must confirm the column you're using, the solvents (mobile phase and sample) and their amounts (ratio), flow rate, method of detection (e.g., uv-vis), etc., and also confirm that whatever you've done prior to injection (cleanup) of the sample, hasn't affected the levels of the compound and is giving an accurate picture of things. In the case of getting caffeine from coffee, it's generally just a matter of running it through filter paper once or twice, but with other more complex media, it can require solid phase extraction (SPE) which is quite another thing all together as that requires the correct selection of a particular column/cartridge that suits your needs and having a method already established which will yield good results.
You must also of course have a pure and well characterized reference standard, which in the case of caffeine, isn't hard to come by.
But, when you're talking about novel compounds, this can be much more difficult as it can require one to create their own reference standard which can be difficult and time consuming.
All of these things noted above are so that you can quite simply, be sure that A) you truly are detecting the compound you're seeking and not including something else (e.g., degradation products, closely related compounds, etc.) and B) that you're correctly identifying the amount of that compound present in the sample.
There really are a large number of areas for error with this and other chromatographic equipment. Doing naive things like overloading a given compound can create the feared shark fins and if one isn't careful, issues of contamination can arise and you'll start seeing a compound in every sample you assay thereafter. At the end of the day, if your sample which has a known amount of let's say 100 mg, and you're only detecting 25 mg, then you method isn't very good and you have to go back to the drawing board.
But, going back to the two plants, Bauhinia purpurea and Cirsium oligophyllum, if you're going to "look" for them via HPLC, you need to define a standard compound present in them and then after, obtain a reference standard for it.
Well, if you’re looking for the wrong compound in Bauhinia purpurea, then of course it won’t be there in significant quantities!
The same goes for C. oligophyllum.
Which, interestingly enough, the lab provides no compound which was used as a reference standard. This is just very odd unless they have magic on their side.
What makes this even more interesting in the case of Cirsium oligophyllum is that the plant hasn’t been well characterized in terms of specific compounds present in it (at least not publically in the literature) so that also makes this result quite interesting.
Not only were they able to determine a principle constituent that isn’t reported in the literature, but they’ve also developed a reference standard for it and validated their method all in a rather short period of time? Surely, we must know the name of a such a powerhouse organization that can accomplish such feats in a small amount of time.
Accuracy is also questioned in this lab tested for quantification. Generally the chance of variability increases as the % concentration decreases. This is why its difficult for competitors to test a product after it has been manufactured; when the percent of the compound drops below 5%, it becomes very difficult for the lab to be able to determine an accurate result.
In the pharmaceutical industry, when the percent of ingredient is that low, generally scale up test are performed – meaning they will blend it with just one other ingredient to make a 50% blend, test that, validate it, then scale it up higher and validate that test and so forth.
This is the correct measure that is supposed to be taken when validating a blend for active ingredients.
Unfortunately because this is an attempt to reverse engineer a product.. these test are not that accurate, and even the lab itself would not stand behind these results if they were presented in court.
The person posting it won't tell anyone who the supposed lab is that did the testing. Why?
If it's a fact that this testing did occur and they have the samples, what's the problem?
I don't know of any lab that won't stand behind their work and saying anything about libel (in the US anyhow) is nonsense as well, as this would be a purely factual and an objective report.
Papers are published all the time in the literature on such things, even in the lay media like Consumer Reports.
If your methods have been validated and you can replicate your work, I don’t know of anyone who wouldn’t stand behind their results.
Could it be that this is a fake lab report done by anyone with access to a computer and printer (we know how hard those are to come by)?
Or, is this a real lab assay report but the “lab” that reported these values isn’t very confident in their methods?
Or perhaps it is because the lab itself isn’t going to say what this anonymous poster is implying, i.e., the product is under-dosed with these plants when in fact, they’re not saying any such thing, merely that they aren’t able to detect the compounds in the capsules, which are being used as a reference standard.
Companies usually "taint" supplements with effective doses of illicit compounds, not with an ineffective dose of a legal compound.
Let's face it, OxyElite Pro is completely legit. There's no "spiking" & the tests below prove it.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
The weight/fat-loss stories continue to pour in and it climbed up the bodybuilding.com best seller list at record time (number 4 and number 1 weightloss product) and is on the Nutraplanet top 10 list since release. OxyElite Prop is the talk of the industry from distribution to retail.
We faced false allegations with Jack3d. We are facing them with Pink Magic. I'm sure we will continue to face false accusations. At the end of the day, it's simply a witch hunt I doubt anyone can truly believe at this point.
Getting back to the "test" in question...
Who says the active constituent is the flavonoid portion of Bauhinia purpurea?
The compound of interest certainly isn't a flavonoid, so it's no surprise that they would find very little of it. That was the wrong choice for a reference standard which is the lab's fault, not ours.
What was the reference standard for the Cirsium oligophyllum?
Nothing is even stated. Or was this a magic spectrophotometer? Yet again, using the incorrect compound(s) for reference standards will tend to cause these results...you know, if that is not the principle or active compound in the product then of course you're not going to find it in substantial quantities.
For those that gleaned their analytical chemistry skills from watching CSI, an explanation is probably in order.
Unlike Hollywood would have you believe, learning the identity and quantity of a compound or compounds isn't a matter of sticking a piece of whatever you find into a hole and then, voila, you get a list of everything and anything that was in whatever you put in.
Now, using HPLC alone for such purposes is questionable enough (GC-MS or LC-MS would be much more ideal for qualitative purposes) but that is digressing.
How does this stuff work? Well, here is an example. Let's say you want to know how much caffeine is in your morning cup of coffee. In this case, you at least know what you're looking for so this makes matters a little easier.
But, before you do any actual testing, you must develop a method (though in the case of caffeine in coffee, this has already been taken care of/been beaten to death and can be located on file in the software program for the machine) and you must also validate that method.
You must confirm the column you're using, the solvents (mobile phase and sample) and their amounts (ratio), flow rate, method of detection (e.g., uv-vis), etc., and also confirm that whatever you've done prior to injection (cleanup) of the sample, hasn't affected the levels of the compound and is giving an accurate picture of things. In the case of getting caffeine from coffee, it's generally just a matter of running it through filter paper once or twice, but with other more complex media, it can require solid phase extraction (SPE) which is quite another thing all together as that requires the correct selection of a particular column/cartridge that suits your needs and having a method already established which will yield good results.
You must also of course have a pure and well characterized reference standard, which in the case of caffeine, isn't hard to come by.
But, when you're talking about novel compounds, this can be much more difficult as it can require one to create their own reference standard which can be difficult and time consuming.
All of these things noted above are so that you can quite simply, be sure that A) you truly are detecting the compound you're seeking and not including something else (e.g., degradation products, closely related compounds, etc.) and B) that you're correctly identifying the amount of that compound present in the sample.
There really are a large number of areas for error with this and other chromatographic equipment. Doing naive things like overloading a given compound can create the feared shark fins and if one isn't careful, issues of contamination can arise and you'll start seeing a compound in every sample you assay thereafter. At the end of the day, if your sample which has a known amount of let's say 100 mg, and you're only detecting 25 mg, then you method isn't very good and you have to go back to the drawing board.
But, going back to the two plants, Bauhinia purpurea and Cirsium oligophyllum, if you're going to "look" for them via HPLC, you need to define a standard compound present in them and then after, obtain a reference standard for it.
Well, if you’re looking for the wrong compound in Bauhinia purpurea, then of course it won’t be there in significant quantities!
The same goes for C. oligophyllum.
Which, interestingly enough, the lab provides no compound which was used as a reference standard. This is just very odd unless they have magic on their side.
What makes this even more interesting in the case of Cirsium oligophyllum is that the plant hasn’t been well characterized in terms of specific compounds present in it (at least not publically in the literature) so that also makes this result quite interesting.
Not only were they able to determine a principle constituent that isn’t reported in the literature, but they’ve also developed a reference standard for it and validated their method all in a rather short period of time? Surely, we must know the name of a such a powerhouse organization that can accomplish such feats in a small amount of time.
Accuracy is also questioned in this lab tested for quantification. Generally the chance of variability increases as the % concentration decreases. This is why its difficult for competitors to test a product after it has been manufactured; when the percent of the compound drops below 5%, it becomes very difficult for the lab to be able to determine an accurate result.
In the pharmaceutical industry, when the percent of ingredient is that low, generally scale up test are performed – meaning they will blend it with just one other ingredient to make a 50% blend, test that, validate it, then scale it up higher and validate that test and so forth.
This is the correct measure that is supposed to be taken when validating a blend for active ingredients.
Unfortunately because this is an attempt to reverse engineer a product.. these test are not that accurate, and even the lab itself would not stand behind these results if they were presented in court.
The person posting it won't tell anyone who the supposed lab is that did the testing. Why?
If it's a fact that this testing did occur and they have the samples, what's the problem?
I don't know of any lab that won't stand behind their work and saying anything about libel (in the US anyhow) is nonsense as well, as this would be a purely factual and an objective report.
Papers are published all the time in the literature on such things, even in the lay media like Consumer Reports.
If your methods have been validated and you can replicate your work, I don’t know of anyone who wouldn’t stand behind their results.
Could it be that this is a fake lab report done by anyone with access to a computer and printer (we know how hard those are to come by)?
Or, is this a real lab assay report but the “lab” that reported these values isn’t very confident in their methods?
Or perhaps it is because the lab itself isn’t going to say what this anonymous poster is implying, i.e., the product is under-dosed with these plants when in fact, they’re not saying any such thing, merely that they aren’t able to detect the compounds in the capsules, which are being used as a reference standard.
Companies usually "taint" supplements with effective doses of illicit compounds, not with an ineffective dose of a legal compound.
Let's face it, OxyElite Pro is completely legit. There's no "spiking" & the tests below prove it.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
luelinks
Well-known member
Some one give me a gun so I can kill this fukking thread. Why is there 8 pages of argument over this? This is USP LABS not fukking Muscle Tech or BSN! Nobody has ever forced anybody to buy there products and there is all these review online about how good there products are. I personally think that OEP needs to be stacked with either Alpha T2 or TT-33 but again that's my opinion! Its like if someone started saying that ASGT sucks. Well it works for me and a bunch of other people and if it didn't work for you then it sucks for you. Everybody needs to get off this mans d!ck! This man worked his ass off and hell he started the company from Texas A&M and he wanted to make supplements just from natural herbal compounds. He started the company with good intention and he has been doing an amazing job at it. Maybe some of there stuff is a little expensive but again nobody has forced you to buy there products. GET OFF HIS D!CK!!!
Eyayo
Member
meaning?... OOO and btw, theres a **** storm brewing on b b. c o m about heavy metals in pink magic i think u should address.
and once again... not here to to hate on ur company cause i loved prime, recreate, and jack3d.
luelinks
Well-known member
meaning if you tell people that eating sh!t will make them grow and give them better pumps then the next day there is going to be a lot of people eating sh!t.
Edit: Yes bb.com. A form with no trolls and bunch of fake rumors!
Eyayo
Member
yea because PA has a vendetta against methyl synephrine. However, I agree theres lots of ignorant/naive people on that forum but read the thread. Im concerned about my health.
pink magic heavy metal thread
Invalid Link Removed
luelinks
Well-known member
how old are you and how long have you been lifting?
Eyayo
Member
what does that matter?
luelinks
Well-known member
from your picture and what you said it was the first thing that popped into my mind.
Eyayo
Member
If your tryin to compliment me on my physique, thank you. This is not the issue at hand tho.
luelinks
Well-known member
if you that worried about your health then need to stick with Whey protein, Glutamine, creatine, multi-v, and mix protein for before bed. That's what I've been on for like 14 months straight with a lot food. You'll get amazing results and you don't have to worry about your health anymore! Also its all about the legs for me and not the upper body.
THE END!!!!!
Eyayo
Member
Listen, im not a 15 year old that needs advice on staples. Focus on the subject.
luelinks
Well-known member
The subject is stupid and has lasted long enough. Don't like the company don't buy there sh!t. Let me put it this way for all the haters out there. Every time you bought a USP LABS product you have kissed the owners ass! Again get of his d!ck! Also PM could had lead in it for all I care if you get freaked out about evey little thing you read then you should of let the product be out for a while before you purchased it.
soontobbeast
Well-known member
if you buy their product once, you are kissing their ass?
so i guess repeat customers are sucking their ****?
Outside Backer
Well-known member
dance puppets lol
mav6
New member
Hahaha, I just went out and bought 2 bottles of OEP. Hopefully it'll help keep me awake when I'm driving late at night.
As for heavy metals in Pink Magic, just thought I'd point out, if you read the consumer reports last month about whey protein, whey has lots of heavy metals in it. Lead, cadmium, arsenic, etc. It's the nature of the beast. You see, all things have small traces of heavy metals from the soil. Cows eat the heavy metals, and a certain amount is transferred into the milk. Heavy metals bond to the proteins, then we take the milk, and concentrate the proteins which is simply just concentrating the heavy metals as well. It's pretty much unavoidable unless you want to drop the cash for APS supplements, but it's also probably the most expensive protein I've seen.
Good luck finding something with no traces in it. You'd have to stop eating meat, vegetables, fruit, grains, nuts, seeds, actually come to think of it, I'm not sure what doesn't have some kind of trace elements in it. But in any case, we can consume small amounts of these trace metals with no discernible harm.
Eyayo
Member
I guess u missed the fact that i said im not a usplabs hater, as i like several of their products. One being prime, which many have ****ted on. As for PM, i didnt purchase it. Jus read a thread with the subject of of heavy metal toxicity. PAY ATTENTION.
stxnas
Well-known member
:dance: