Muscle Addiction MusclePlex

Slims

Well-known member
I've just finished a twelve week run of Muscle Adduction's MusclePlex. Which, in my opinion, is a very under-rated and under discussed natural anabolic.

A little about me...
31 Years Old.
5ft 8".
180/185lbs.
Thirteen Years Training.
Thirteen Years Supplement Experience.
Hypertrophy Based Training.
Ran With A Small Surplus (+300kcals).

MusclePlex is based on RipFactor as it's main focus ingredient, with a slightly lower than usual dose of Epicatechin alongside it.
Ripfactor, on paper and in studies, claims to provide,

"2.6 Times Greater Improvement in Upper Body Strength"

"2.3 Times Improvement in Lower Body Strength"

"67% Times Greater Improvement in Muscle Endurance"

It's overhyped claimes like these listed above which is why I believe many are underwhelmed by the results they achieve with RipFactor.
BUT
If you go into a RipFactor run with more realistic expectations, it's actually quite high up on the list of the many natty anabolics I've taken over the past thirteen years.

Effectiveness
(What I noticed)
Definite over average improvements in both number of reps performed and increases in weights used, compared to running just staples alone.
Overall, felt stronger and that I could go for/get that extra rep and/or go for the heavier dumbbells.

Value
A bottle of MusclePlex here in the UK will set you back about £45 ($58) and last you 30 days. So value is very much dependant on your personal supplement budget.

Would I Recommend
100%
As I mentioned above, if you go into a MusclePlex Run with realistic expectations, it's right up there with the more well known and spoken about natty anabolics such as X-Gels, MassMax XT, Recomp20 and, dare I say it, Follidrone 2.0.
 
I'm really glad to hear that you enjoyed it. I agree, I think its a very overlooked and underrated product.

I also agree that the way RipFactor is marketed confuses some people and leads them to having unrealistic expectations.

For example, their statement about 2.6x greater improvement in strength - I think some people read that to mean that its going to over double their strength - when it really means that over x period of time, the studies showed that people using it gained 2.6x the strength of the placebo group. So if the placebo group gained 5 lb. on their bench, the RipFactor group would have gained 13 lbs. on their bench (5 lbs. x 2.6 = 13 lbs.).
 
I think I am going to run a bottle or 2 of this soon with maybe Reduce XT or something, not sure yet. I want to do a long run of AXT, AE, Pepti-Plex, Prime, and M-Test/Optimize T as well, but with the goings on this summer, I think I am just going to wait. Also, my head just isn't quite into that commitment yet, to be honest. Everything is on deck and ready to go, but I guess I'm not.

I liked your review, thank you. Like you, I will go into this with realistic expectations as well.
 
Last edited:
Jeremy1 said:
I think I am going to run a bottle or 2 of this soon with maybe Reduce XT or something, not sure yet. I want to do a long run of AXT, AE, Pepti-Plex, Prime, and M-Test/Optimize T as well, but with the goings on this summer, I think I am just going to wait. Also, my head just isn't quite into that commitment yet, to be honest. Everything is on deck and ready to go, but I guess I'm not.

I liked your review, thank you. Like you, I will go into this with realistic expectations as well.
Click to expand...

That's going to be a great stack for you when you decide to run it. I know what you mean though about wanting everything to be perfect to start that type of stack.

Muscle Plex is a good product and a very often overlooked one.
 
keemteam said:
I have a bottle i am starting 2 morrow-if i like will do a 12 week run
Click to expand...

I hope that you'll enjoy it.

Muscle Plex is a good product and I like that it delivers nice and consistent results.
 
Resolve10 said:
Invalid Link Removed

More new info.
Click to expand...

I know getting funding for those kind of studies is hard, but it was funded by GNC and

"DS was employed by PLT Health Solutions, Inc., which has a commercial interest in the studied supplement. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. "

Hoping to have more independent studies, not too hopeful though.
 
Madevilz said:
I know getting funding for those kind of studies is hard, but it was funded by GNC and

"DS was employed by PLT Health Solutions, Inc., which has a commercial interest in the studied supplement. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. "

Hoping to have more independent studies, not too hopeful though.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying and thinking, but want to clarify the way that studies and funding for studies works.

Studies like this can cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. You rarely, if ever, are going to see anyone besides a company that holds a commercial interest in an ingredient fund a study on a particular branded ingredient. Because no one else has any reason to or financial incentive to.

It's considered to be an independent study if its done by an independent university, hospital, research group, etc.

A study can still be an independent study but be funded by the company that holds the rights to a patent or by a company that is researching something to try to get a patent on it. It's just supposed to be clearly listed the way it is on that study.

Major universities, hospitals, and research groups that qualify as doing independent studies aren't going to let you pay for the results that you want. They can't take that chance bc it could risk all future study considerations coming to them.

If you wanted to do a study on something and get the result that you want, I'm sure there are places that would do it for a certain price, but it wouldn't be an accredited institution.

To further clarify this for anyone interested - there are lots of independent studies on herbal ingredients, specific extractions, etc. but 99% of the time they are done on 1 ingredient things. These are done for research or medicinal purposes or sometimes just to simply spend research funds to get more. But you will rarely see a non-funded study done on any branded ingredient or a combination of ingredients, and RipFactor is a combination of 2 ingredients.

I see what you're saying - but I wanted to explain that they did everything correct in this case - they funded a study, they declared that they were funding it properly, etc. Sure it would be better if someone did an unfunded one, but honestly I'd be more leery of that one if someone did bc I'd have a harder time trusting that there wasn't some undeclared funding.
 
Last edited:
It's one of the great things about this forum, it's unbiased, unfunded and real reviews and results from real people who have purchased products such as these. I'm all for the science and researched backed ingredients/products, but real world anecdotal experiences are just as valuable...If not more so.
 
Slims said:
It's one of the great things about this forum, it's unbiased, unfunded and real reviews and results from real people who have purchased products such as these. I'm all for the science and researched backed ingredients/products, but real world anecdotal experiences are just as valuable...If not more so.
Click to expand...

I'm the same way. I love the science and I love research and learning about ingredients, but there are plenty of things that have been shown to work great in studies that don't work in the real world and plenty of things that work great in the real world that don't have studies on them.

I use studies as a good starting point of interest, but real world results are what really counts - especially if can be replicated in the majority of people that use something.

That's not a knock at studies - they're extremely important.
 
Madevilz said:
I know getting funding for those kind of studies is hard, but it was funded by GNC and

"DS was employed by PLT Health Solutions, Inc., which has a commercial interest in the studied supplement. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. "

Hoping to have more independent studies, not too hopeful though.
Click to expand...

Steve already probably went into this way better than I could before I got back to this and I’m not saying to ignore these kinds of things, but when people bring this up I always wonder what else do you expect?

Who else is going to fund a study on something like this?

Funding doesn’t appear magically and I understand it comes with the territory forum people tend to be conspiratorial, but these kind of studies aren’t of high interest anyways and I often see complaints about other ways studies are funded regardless.

It does mean one should stay vigilant, there is always inherent bias in all things so when something is funded in this way it just makes me pay more attention to how the study is conducted, how the statistics are gathered and interpreted, and the broad tone of how the results are construed.

Slims said:
It's one of the great things about this forum, it's unbiased, unfunded and real reviews and results from real people who have purchased products such as these. I'm all for the science and researched backed ingredients/products, but real world anecdotal experiences are just as valuable...If not more so.
Click to expand...

Individuals are also inherently biased, just in potentially different ways. Countless things have had feedback online that don’t actually work just as studies for some things don’t pan out.

There are definitely positives and negatives in both that’s why using both should be important and to try and remain objective.

We have mechanistic studies that show “how” ingredients may work, which is a good check when we have studies showing something provides a certain “benefit” or individual feedback shows a certain “benefit”. We should hopefully be able to look at mechanistic studies line up with explaining these “benefits” we see, if they do that’s awesome, if not more research may be needed. Unfortunately what most people on forums want studied doesn’t line up with what gets funding so we may be left trying to use our best efforts to find things beneficial.

This isn’t me saying you are wrong to prefer that kind of feedback, just to keep somethings in mind because forum feedback isn’t always very well controlled, but still has a place.
 
I can understand people being skeptical of studies because they are generally funded by places that have a financial interest in something. But I also understand that rarely is anywhere that doesn't have a financial interest in something going to pay for the study expenses of branded ingredients. Which is why we often see theoretical research studies done on just ingredients themselves rather than branded ingredients.

I always look at where did the research - like are they an accredited facility, well-known university or hospital, etc. (Basically are they a place that is going to be legit and not just give the result that someone wants to hear). It's also important to me for the funding to be declared - like it was in the case of the study here being discussed.


I think that studies are great - and real world feedback (if its legit) is great as well.

I think that RipFactor is a good ingredient. I think that 2 things that hurt it some are the word Rip being in the name and people associating it with fat loss when its not, and that some companies really overhyped it and created unrealistic expectations. Like they presented the study numbers to mean something they didn't.

For example - some companies presented the studies to make it out like people were going to be doubling their strength and ridiculous things like that, when it really meant that study participants on average showed x type of strength gains versus placebo. For example, 4x greater muscle size doesn't mean a person is going to be 4x as muscular, it means that if the placebo group gained .5 lb. of muscle, then the RipFactor group gained 2 lbs. of muscle. Still a significant results, but it would be a letdown to someone believing marketing hype thinking they're going to gain an unrealistic amount. That's why I hate it when companies go ridiculous with the way they present their marketing.

Like notice the way we present ours - we use truthful factual context:

RipFACTOR® is a scientifically researched ingredient that when compared to a placebo has shown tremendous results:
  • 2x Greater Improvement in Muscle Endurance when compared to placebo.
  • 4x Greater Improvement in Muscle Size when compared to placebo
  • 6x Greater Improvement in Upper Body Strength when compared to placebo
  • 5x Greater Improvement in Lower Body Strength when compared to placebo
^^^ all of those numbers are true. The study participants gained those x amounts versus placebo - which are significant when taken into context.
 
I just want to say that I have been using this for about 3 months. It absolutely makes me stronger in the gym, consistently. I haven't yet tried X-Gels, Phosphatic Acid XT, or Prime yet, so I can't compare, but I really like this product. These are nice slow and steady consistent strength gains. I have also put on a few pounds, about 5. Some fat, for sure as I haven't been consistent with the cardio, but not much. I can't find my calipers so I have know idea what I was before or now, but I pretty much look the same, just a little bigger all over. (ordering new calipers today and will probably be shocked to see my BF%. Shocked as in whoa, I thought it was lower than that haha) I have a 12 month supply of this, so everything else that I use will be stacked on this. I have been taking creatine for almost a year straight, so this stuff has absolutely boosted me. I recommend giving this product a try if you haven't. It isn't sexy like the other products Steve has, but it is a good product and is working nicely for me.
 
Thanks for the feedback Jeremy.Steve had once stated there will be a new updated version of this product once it will run out of stock.Are we anywhere near , is there any update ?
 
ride1979 said:
Thanks for the feedback Jeremy.Steve had once stated there will be a new updated version of this product once it will run out of stock.Are we anywhere near , is there any update ?
Click to expand...

Not at this time. The current version sells well and people like it. VASO6 is no longer made so once raws are out for good, then a change will be made. The amount of RipFactor will stay the same.

I may make a couple of other minor changes to it.
 
Oh and by the way, I take 2 capsules 30 minutes before working out. On non workout days I take one in the morning and one about 10 - 12 hours apart with or without food.
 
sns8778 said:
I can understand people being skeptical of studies because they are generally funded by places that have a financial interest in something. But I also understand that rarely is anywhere that doesn't have a financial interest in something going to pay for the study expenses of branded ingredients. Which is why we often see theoretical research studies done on just ingredients themselves rather than branded ingredients.

I always look at where did the research - like are they an accredited facility, well-known university or hospital, etc. (Basically are they a place that is going to be legit and not just give the result that someone wants to hear). It's also important to me for the funding to be declared - like it was in the case of the study here being discussed.


I think that studies are great - and real world feedback (if its legit) is great as well.

I think that RipFactor is a good ingredient. I think that 2 things that hurt it some are the word Rip being in the name and people associating it with fat loss when its not, and that some companies really overhyped it and created unrealistic expectations. Like they presented the study numbers to mean something they didn't.

For example - some companies presented the studies to make it out like people were going to be doubling their strength and ridiculous things like that, when it really meant that study participants on average showed x type of strength gains versus placebo. For example, 4x greater muscle size doesn't mean a person is going to be 4x as muscular, it means that if the placebo group gained .5 lb. of muscle, then the RipFactor group gained 2 lbs. of muscle. Still a significant results, but it would be a letdown to someone believing marketing hype thinking they're going to gain an unrealistic amount. That's why I hate it when companies go ridiculous with the way they present their marketing.

Like notice the way we present ours - we use truthful factual context:

RipFACTOR® is a scientifically researched ingredient that when compared to a placebo has shown tremendous results:
  • 2x Greater Improvement in Muscle Endurance when compared to placebo.
  • 4x Greater Improvement in Muscle Size when compared to placebo
  • 6x Greater Improvement in Upper Body Strength when compared to placebo
  • 5x Greater Improvement in Lower Body Strength when compared to placebo
^^^ all of those numbers are true. The study participants gained those x amounts versus placebo - which are significant when taken into context.
Click to expand...
I ran ripfactor a long time ago when it wasn't nearly as popular of an ingredient as it is now, I want to give it another run and do a proper log this time, ill be giving muscleplex a try soon after I'm done with treatment for my autoimmune disease and can work out seriously again, the ingredient and studies seem very cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top