PowerFULL Human and Healthy test subjects-Conclusively effective

[<^>]

what was the ages of the males. would someone in their 20s even benefit from powerfull when it boosts natural gh levels since levels dont decline till round 25ish?

 

[djbombsquad]

20 is the starting age actually the day you stop growing is actually perfect I think. After puberty.

 

[dannyboy9]

Besides creatine, I'm not sure of a supplement that has this type of compelling human Data..

PowerFULL
In a study by Lin & Tucci* the average increase of HGH was 12mg/ml…which is like injecting 5 IU’s of synthetic HGH - (which is a **** load of HGH and would cost you thousands of dollars a month!).

In the same study, a good amount of the HEALTHY test subjects (not old, sick hospital patients) had an increase of 40ng/ml…which is like injection a WHOPPING 15IU’s of synthetic HGH – again, off the charts and would cost you thousands each month.

DO NOT BELIEVE ME just look up the reference below as the studies do not lie.

In a completely different study performed by Greenspan**, one ingredient in PowerFULL was shown to increase GH production by an incredible 221%!

This proves without a shadow of a doubt PowerFULL contains all-nautral organic ingredients that rival the effects of synthetic Human Growth Hormone!

In addition, these levels are substantially higher than those seen with GHB, the notoriously famous drug, which had a large following many years ago for its supposed ability to decrease fat mass, amongst other things.

Again, this is THIRD PARTY research using HEALTHY MEN so the results are solid as a freakin’ rock…

Speed

PowerFULL’s ingredients reach the blood stream 100% faster, proved to be 110% higher and lasted 165% longer!#

Safety

In addition, the 100% organic ingredients in PowerFULL have been proven extremely safe an effective, unlike synthetic Growth Hormone or synthetic L-dopa.#


* Lin T, Tucci JR. Provocative tests of growth-hormone release. A comparison of results with seven stimuli. Ann Intern Med. 1974 Apr;80(4):464-9

**Greenspan, S. et al (1991) “Dopaminergic regulation of gonadotropin and thyrotropin hormone secretion is altered with age” Horm Res 36:41-46.

#Tharakan B, Dhanasekaran M, Mize-Berge J, et al. Anti-parkinson botanical Mucuna pruriens prevents levodopa induced plasmid and genomic DNA damage. Phytother Res. 2007 Jul 11; Published Online Ahead of Print.

Does PowerFULL have any clinical trials done on it to back up it's claims? Citing other studies doesn't prove a product works.

 

[freezito]

have u tried the product? If you did, you wouldnt be asking if it worked.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Does PowerFULL have any clinical trials done on it to back up it's claims? Citing other studies doesn't prove a product works.

Do me a favour, go ask 99.9% of the companies on this board and any other this exact same question. Come back here with the result of that query. Fact is, you won't find much. I have posted a very substantial amount of research on MP on this site, there for the searching. We are very confident in our Mucuna extract, and the effects of Mucuna are very, very well documented.

 

[djbombsquad]

I actually would have to agree with dannyboy9. I have used many products with it being placebo. Not saying powerfull is placebo but I will be trying it this log so we will see. I am just waitng for my usp labs products to come in the mail.

 

[datBtrue]

I actually would have to agree with dannyboy9. I have used many products with it being placebo. Not saying powerfull is placebo but I will be trying it this log so we will see. I am just waitng for my usp labs products to come in the mail.

Oh gawd I can't wait for your subjective judgement! I am so giddy with anticipation. :lol:

Should I discontinue taking Powerfull (and say goodbye to awesome sleep) until djbomb says its okay?

 

[dannyboy9]

Do me a favour, go ask 99.9% of the companies on this board and any other this exact same question. Come back here with the result of that query. Fact is, you won't find much.

Thank you for highlighting the underlying fact. It seems companies feel they can get by with making claims because they cite other sources. Companies deliver a significant amount of bogus talk regarding all the science and R&D they're involved in but in actuality, the situation is quite the opposite. Companies can't afford to do their own research, and if they do, "it's confidential information". How is the consumer supposed to make a distinction between Product A when Product B, C & D look the same?

How does a company even gain a reputation? By how elaborate their "write-ups" are? By how aggressive they market their products and how attractive their packaging is? Many (that means you too) are missing out extensively by falling prey to all these products weakly backed by cited sources. If it is a sincere personal belief that there is no such thing as a company that has published studies and abstracts in peer-reviewed journals done on their product(s) there's a lot of misconception and miseducation running rampant that needs to be addressed.

Companies need to stop making claims based on other studies, stop re-investing their profit into advertising and invest in R&D so we can see some real studies being posted on the products these companies hype up 'til the death. Confidence and "strong" belief is only going to get you so far: after that you end up like the rest of the fly-by night companies that don't make it past 10 years, struggling throughout the whole way. Otherwise, they get by thanks to their amazing ability to feed off the ignorant.

 

[slow-mun]

Thank you for highlighting the underlying fact. It seems companies feel they can get by with making claims because they cite other sources. Companies deliver a significant amount of bogus talk regarding all the science and R&D they're involved in but in actuality, the situation is quite the opposite. Companies can't afford to do their own research, and if they do, "it's confidential information". How is the consumer supposed to make a distinction between Product A when Product B, C & D look the same?

How does a company even gain a reputation? By how elaborate their "write-ups" are? By how aggressive they market their products and how attractive their packaging is? Many (that means you too) are missing out extensively by falling prey to all these products weakly backed by cited sources. If it is a sincere personal belief that there is no such thing as a company that has published studies and abstracts in peer-reviewed journals done on their product(s) there's a lot of misconception and miseducation running rampant that needs to be addressed.

Companies need to stop making claims based on other studies, stop re-investing their profit into advertising and invest in R&D so we can see some real studies being posted on the products these companies hype up 'til the death. Confidence and "strong" belief is only going to get you so far: after that you end up like the rest of the fly-by night companies that don't make it past 10 years, struggling throughout the whole way. Otherwise, they get by thanks to their amazing ability to feed off the ignorant.

Have you ever tried Powerfull or even considered trying it? At 20 y/o, its not even really marketed towards you, but I can see you are concerned. I patiently waiting more lessons on supplement company business ethics by someone who has lived such a rich and illustrious life. I'd suggest maybe some graphs and couple of pie charts to further illustrate your points a bit.

 

[poison]

Jesus.

datBetrue, 'we will see' is a figure of speech. Unwad thy panties.

slow-mun, you're a bit defensive there; no one was pointing at you. dannyboy has a legitimate comment, whether you agree with it or not. It was well worded and non-threatening/non-aggressive; he was simply stating his opinion without pointing specifically at anyone (outside the implication toward USPLabs as that is the title of the thread), certainly not you. So why make personal snide comments?

As for myself, I expect some rhetoric, and I'm not against providing studies using the same ingredient (instead of branded product) to prove efficiacy, nor providing evidence that something may work in theory. I just think that some honesty is in order when doing so. Saying 'The research on Powerfull is as compelling as the research on creatine' (which USPLabs originally said in the first post of this thread) is misleading and asinine, not to mention untrue.

 

[slow-mun]

Jesus.

datBetrue, 'we will see' is a figure of speech. Unwad thy panties.

slow-mun, you're a bit defensive there; no one was pointing at you. dannyboy has a legitimate comment, whether you agree with it or not. It was well worded and non-threatening/non-aggressive; he was simply stating his opinion without pointing specifically at anyone (outside the implication toward USPLabs as that is the title of the thread), certainly not you. So why make personal snide comments?

I took a look at his post history to find a long history of inflammatory questioning throughout the better part of the last year. I find it disrespectful to all supplement companies attempting to provide information about their products(with limited resources) to have their products picked apart by someone who is obviously unqualified to do so. Dannyboy obviously wants stronger government control over the production and testing of supplements. That's fine and dandy, but I don't see how that applies to USPLabs or Powerfull within the context of this thread. There are only a handful of companies that conduct the type of testing and research that dannyboy is suggesting and they are favorites at the "children's forum." His post reaks of the classic flame fanning that occurs on that site and I don't have to pretend that it doesn't upset me.
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/nutrition-health/73954-any-companies-have-2.html#post985531
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplements/69403-top-10-protein-2.html#post880786
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplements/60597-attn-axis-labs-2.html

^^^^^Here's some classic examples of this A+ poster in action.

 

[djbombsquad]

I agree with poison. He was speaking in general and believe me I feel the same way. I have bought so many products based on citations i.e myostatin, Nitric Oxide products, Methoxy, Ecdysterone even muscle tech sites references to studies and every one talks so negative about them yet they are just as bad as any other company that sites references. I have spent thousands of dollars in supplements and have done several blood work time to time finding useless products out there. BTW I think the gov is going to regulate supps in 2010 I herd. I don't think danny was directly saying usplabs is a bad company but wanted some proof there product worked. datBetrue why the anger directed at me. I stated a opinion and not towards you any how and not towards any one working at usp labs. I saw dannys post slow-mun posted and are very legitimate. Danny stated some facts people could not back up with answers. I will be frank. I go to the health shows every year for the past 4 years now and I have seen how janked the supplement industry is. There I said it. Now to move on to bigger and better things.

 

[djbombsquad]

Oh the other thing I remember danny said in a pm once danny used to work for mass nutrition so I am sure I will trust his judgement when it comes to what is hot and what is not.

 

[slow-mun]

I agree with poison. He was speaking in general and believe me I feel the same way. I have bought so many products based on citations i.e myostatin, Nitric Oxide products, Methoxy, Ecdysterone even muscle tech sites references to studies and every one talks so negative about them yet they are just as bad as any other company that sites references. I have spent thousands of dollars in supplements and have done several blood work time to time finding useless products out there. BTW I think the gov is going to regulate supps in 2010 I herd. I don't think danny was directly saying usplabs is a bad company but wanted some proof there product worked. datBetrue why the anger directed at me. I stated a opinion and not towards you any how and not towards any one working at usp labs. I saw dannys post slow-mun posted and are very legitimate. Danny stated some facts people could not back up with answers. I will be frank. I go to the health shows every year for the past 4 years now and I have seen how janked the supplement industry is. There I said it. Now to move on to bigger and better things.

He was speaking in general within this thread-
Open me
Within this current thread we are posting in, he was directly and indirectly speaking about USPLabs.

 

[slow-mun]

Oh the other thing I remember danny said in a pm once danny used to work for mass nutrition so I am sure I will trust his judgement when it comes to what is hot and what is not.

:think:Uh, I have no response to that one.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Thank you for highlighting the underlying fact. It seems companies feel they can get by with making claims because they cite other sources. Companies deliver a significant amount of bogus talk regarding all the science and R&D they're involved in but in actuality, the situation is quite the opposite. Companies can't afford to do their own research, and if they do, "it's confidential information". How is the consumer supposed to make a distinction between Product A when Product B, C & D look the same?

With due diligence. It is not entirely difficult to ascertain which companies pose a legitimate threat, and which are brining quality ingredients to the market. There are obviously regulatory gaps in our industry. However, that is a catch-22; this situation could easily sway in the opposite direction, in which case Creatine would be regulated as strictly as Tesosterone.

How does a company even gain a reputation? By how elaborate their "write-ups" are? By how aggressive they market their products and how attractive their packaging is? Many (that means you too) are missing out extensively by falling prey to all these products weakly backed by cited sources. If it is a sincere personal belief that there is no such thing as a company that has published studies and abstracts in peer-reviewed journals done on their product(s) there's a lot of misconception and miseducation running rampant that needs to be addressed.

And you feel you are elucidating a massive, subversive disservice to the customer? See below.

Companies need to stop making claims based on other studies, stop re-investing their profit into advertising and invest in R&D so we can see some real studies being posted on the products these companies hype up 'til the death. Confidence and "strong" belief is only going to get you so far: after that you end up like the rest of the fly-by night companies that don't make it past 10 years, struggling throughout the whole way. Otherwise, they get by thanks to their amazing ability to feed off the ignorant.

I say this with the most amount of respect, and the least amount of antagonism possible, but, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever how much the studies you are proposing cost. The types of studies you are talking about are funded by either a) large private Universities b) large pharmaceuticals or c) a conjunction of both. These types of studies would contribute to a company's overhead, which would then contribute to the necessary retail price of the product. We could have our Mucuna extract peer-review studied (though pointless, as I have a few eBooks on the legitimate research behind Mucuna), and then each person in this thread would pay $90 for the bottle.

The fact is, almost every supplement company needs to rely on legitimate, peer-reviewed research on the constituents of their products. What you do not realize, is that beyond the abstracts you are criticizing posted on forums, companies such as ourselves use full-text articles which have the phyto-breakdowns of the herbs we use. As in % content of 'X,Y,Z' in herb 'A'. At that point, companies conduct their own small scale research and sourcing, to find source inputs which match the chemical breakdown which produced the most favourable results. This process is called the COA (certificate of analysis) process, and ensures that the herb 'A' we are using, matches the standard provided for herb 'A' in the study. Not to insult you, but I think Jacob will invest his money based off the opinion of multiple p.H.D organic chemists and botanists than a self-righteous forum poster.

A favour, though, as you seem quite diligent and studious. Research some of the evidence I have provided on Mucuna (the chief ingredient in PowerFULL) and explain to me why or why not (this is chemically speaking) the results would not pertain to our product. If you cannot, than I am at a loss of words to explain why you are championing yourself in this context?

It would seem your motive is in the right place, though somewhat misguided. You need to realize how things work, and how they do not. You assume that companies do research on herb 'A' then provide herb 'C'. I don't mean to rain on your parade, but, herb 'A' remains herb 'A'. Unless you know something about companies rearranging the molecular structure of ingredients that I don't.

 

[djbombsquad]

I have seen companys cite A and don't put A but put B in there product. Look at the hole debackle with vpx and bsn. They are getting in trouble or brought on this board noted that there creatine was not the creatine on the label. You know how many companys do that? I am sure many do.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I have seen companys cite A and don't put A but put B in there product. Look at the hole debackle with vpx and bsn. They are getting in trouble or brought on this board noted that there creatine was not the creatine on the label. You know how many companys do that? I am sure many do.

We don't put Tri-Creatine-Malate-Ethyl Ester-a-bol or any other far gone conjugations of Creatine or Arginine in our products. You are missing the point. These companies tried to 'pioneer' ridiculous ingredients with different alcohol and salt groups bonded to make the name sound 'cooler'.

Our ingredients have been part of Aryuvdedic medicine for hundreds of years. These aren't fly-by-night ethyl-ester-a-bols. We choose ingredients (one of the constituents of P-Slin and AP, or the MP in PowerFULL, for example) which are being considered as legitimate, alternative treatments to serious medical conditions such as IDDM, NIDDM and PD.

 

[dannyboy9]

(I'd like to thank a business associate of mine for teaching me how to feed off ignorance and love it)

So, I believe the question is not: "Have I ever tried it?" but rather "Would I ever try it?", considering it was the right time and the opportunity arose. I don't work with or consume anything that has artificial ingredients and that has not been extensively tested for quality and efficacy. It's an interestingly beneficial habit I picked up with working with health care professionals and I cannot recommend something that is based on research others have done hence, citing other sources like 99.9% of the industry's companies do. The educated health care professionals will simply not work with a supply that does not have clinical trials done on it (at least). Not to mention they will definitely lend their ear and invest their time (not to mention money) if they hear the clinical studies are published in prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals. The ignorant professionals are the ones that aren't even aware that any nutrition company did clinical studies using their own products.

poison,

I appreciate your support but don't worry yourself for me. I'm accustomed to this: company reps backing up reps and being easily being offended when it comes to inquiries concerning their products. An "inflammatory question" is anyone that might potentially debunk the whole foundation of their product(s) and their company, for that matter.*

You see poison, I'm a "Prove it" type of person. Evidently, that causes some havoc amongst boards that are consistent with company marketing reps and such. So, when I have a product with many claims circulating it, I basically say ""Prove it" hence, requesting for research done on the actual product and that's something that is lacking on their ends so as opposed to saying, "I think it's time to elevate our game and start putting some more time and money into R&D to put our products to the test and find out if our products actually do work", they take it as a subliminal shot. That's what science is there for: to "prove it" and perfect. The fact of the matter is that they're uncertain of the what the end result of a clinical trial done on their product might prove. Possibly that their product isn't all it's claimed to be? For all they know, their expectations might be surpassed, resulting in great results proving the true efficacy of the product but they're so doubtful of their product that they don't want to take that risk. Even if they did, they can't afford to cover the costs of all the testing.

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/nutrition-health/73954-any-companies-have-2.html#post985531
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplements/69403-top-10-protein-2.html#post880786
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplements/60597-attn-axis-labs-2.html
*Here's some classic examples of just this happening

What is the real root of the anger? My style of writing or my style of exposing? And another thing, why are we providing any information whatsoever about products if you're working with limited resources? What's the point about making a product or establishing a company if you're limited?? What resources exactly are you're being limited to. Seems to me that the companies are giving their reps poor training and a weak resource center. Maybe it's an entirely weak system that's being handed to them and the reps become so frustrated (like the links above and this thread have proved). I don't blame the reps, they're defending what they have been taught to believe. By the way, what would "qualify" me to ask questions and put things in black and white? Would you prefer an internist or maybe a nutritional therapist to do that for you? Would that be "qualified enough for you? You probably think I'm posing when I say I work with health care professionals. Let me know if that's what you're looking for and I will be more than willing to set that up for you. We can even have a conference call and have everyone on here listen in if more are interested.

In a sense, I do want a certain regulation over the production and testing of nutritional supplements but then again, that would cause such an economic downfall because 98% (that's being conservative) of the companies would be discarded and shut down.

If anyone is interested in taking a nutritional supplement and actually have the guarantee that it does what it's supposed to do (as plenty of studies have shown), I'm always within reach.

Note: For anti-inflammatory solutions, Omega 3's are a good start.

 

[dannyboy9]

(double post, I apologize. I was in a rush)

 

[dannyboy9]

I wish I had the time to address the rest of your post Mulletsoldier and I really do appreciate your educated way of coming across. That's a rare feat evidently but, I'm going to highlight the part that stood out the most to me.

I say this with the most amount of respect, and the least amount of antagonism possible, but, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever how much the studies you are proposing cost.

My point exactly. In Layman's terms: Companies can't afford it. Well, at least the ones aggressively marketed can't because they blow all their money on advertising. Enough said.

By the way, CoA is the bare minimum a company can do.

 

[djbombsquad]

Note: For anti-inflammatory solutions, Omega 3's are a good start.

That is so true. Omega 3 is awesome for that.

 

[slow-mun]

(I'd like to thank a business associate of mine for teaching me how to feed off ignorance and love it)

So, I believe the question is not: "Have I ever tried it?" but rather "Would I ever try it?", considering it was the right time and the opportunity arose. I don't work with or consume anything that has artificial ingredients and that has not been extensively tested for quality and efficacy. It's an interestingly beneficial habit I picked up with working with health care professionals and I cannot recommend something that is based on research others have done hence, citing other sources like %99.9 of the industry's companies do. The educated health care professionals will simply not work with a supply that does not have clinical trials done on it (at least). Not to mention they will definitely lend their ear and invest their time (not to mention money) if they hear the clinical studies are published in prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals. The ignorant professionals are the ones that aren't even aware that any nutrition company did clinical studies using their own products.

poison,

I appreciate your support but don't worry yourself for me. I'm accustomed to this: company reps backing up reps and being easily being offended when it comes to inquiries concerning their products. An "inflammatory question" is anyone that might potentially debunk the whole foundation of their product(s) and their company, for that matter.*

You see poison, I'm a "Prove it" type of person. Evidently, that causes some havoc amongst boards that are consistent with company marketing reps and such. So, when I have a product with many claims circulating it, I basically say ""Prove it" hence, requesting for research done on the actual product and that's something that is lacking on their ends so as opposed to saying, "I think it's time to elevate our game and start putting some more time and money into R&D to put our products to the test and find out if our products actually do work", they take it as a subliminal shot. That's what science is there for: to "prove it" and perfect. The fact of the matter is that they're uncertain of the what the end result of a clinical trial done on their product might prove. Possibly that their product isn't all it's claimed to be? For all they know, their expectations might be surpassed, resulting in great results proving the true efficacy of the product but they're so doubtful of their product that they don't want to take that risk. Even if they did, they can't afford to cover the costs of all the testing.

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/nutrition-health/73954-any-companies-have-2.html#post985531
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplements/69403-top-10-protein-2.html#post880786
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplements/60597-attn-axis-labs-2.html
*Here's some classic examples of just this happening

What is the real root of the anger? My style of writing or my style of exposing? And another thing, why are we providing any information whatsoever about products if you're working with limited resources? What's the point about making a product or establishing a company if you're limited?? What resources exactly are you're being limited to. Seems to me that the companies are giving their reps poor training and a weak resource center. Maybe it's an entirely weak system that's being handed to them and the reps become so frustrated (like the links above and this thread have proved). I don't blame the reps, they're defending what they have been taught to believe. By the way, what would "qualify" me to ask questions and put things in black and white? Would you prefer an internist or maybe a nutritional therapist to do that for you? Would that be "qualified enough for you? You probably think I'm posing when I say I work with health care professionals. Let me know if that's what you're looking for and I will be more than willing to set that up for you. We can even have a conference call and have everyone on here listen in if more are interested.

In a sense, I do want a certain regulation over the production and testing of nutritional supplements but then again, that would cause such an economic downfall because 98% (that's being conservative) of the companies would be discarded and shut down.

If anyone is interested in taking a nutritional supplement and actually have the guarantee that it does what it's supposed to do (as plenty of studies have shown), I'm always within reach.

Note: For anti-inflammatory solutions, Omega 3's are a good start.

First off.....

I have never had any personal or internet dealing with USPLabs, except for receiving a sample of P-Slin through Dexterium. I have bought and used Powerfull on three separate occasions and had excellent results each time. I am not frustrated with anything but the tone of your posts and misguided attempts to expose something that simply is not an issue, except with a handful of companies. You also talk down to members of this forum, some of which who have been members when you still had to make curfew.

 

[slow-mun]

By the way, what would "qualify" me to ask questions and put things in black and white? Would you prefer an internist or maybe a nutritional therapist to do that for you? Would that be "qualified enough for you? You probably think I'm posing when I say I work with health care professionals. Let me know if that's what you're looking for and I will be more than willing to set that up for you. We can even have a conference call and have everyone on here listen in if more are interested.

I've actually worked in the health care system for 7+ years before leaving the military. IMO, most health care professionals do not have a firm grasp on fitness enthusiasts or their lifestyle. That besides the point, I can't believe you actually typed that nonsense above.

 

[djbombsquad]

IMO, most health care professionals do not have a firm grasp on fitness enthusiasts or their lifestyle.

Well the Doctor I work with and few other premed students I am working with knows nutrition and supplements very well. Times have changed my friend.. 7 years is a long time and boy o boy does the Doctor I work with knows his nutrition and supplements fairly well.

 

[datBtrue]

datBetrue why the anger directed at me. I stated a opinion and not towards you any how and not towards any one working at usp labs. I saw dannys post slow-mun posted and are very legitimate. Danny stated some facts people could not back up with answers. I will be frank. I go to the health shows every year for the past 4 years now and I have seen how janked the supplement industry is. There I said it. Now to move on to bigger and better things.

No I'm not angry. I just found it laughable that a product like Powerfull, which has been out for a couple of years, which has been logged by users many, many times, which has been talked about by users in a very positive light for a long time would require your subjective log/opinion as the definitive statement on its effectiveness.

That's all broheim.

 

[slow-mun]

Well the Doctor I work with and few other premed students I am working with knows nutrition and supplements very well. Times have changed my friend.. 7 years is a long time and boy o boy does the Doctor I work with knows his nutrition and supplements fairly well.

It hasn't been over seven years, since I have had that experience. In fact, its been maybe less than three. Seven and a half years was the amount of time that I worked in that area. I would have thought that was understood, since I'm 28.............................

 

[dannyboy9]

Are logs supposed to serve as strong support for a company? How many individuals log a product and liked it? I wish I didn't have to say it like this but: that's a disgrace to science.

What we should be laughing at is how financially unstable companies are & how they have to rely on the common man's opinion (aka logs) on their supply. If they had the money to put their products to the test and prove their efficacy, (again, going back to how financially unstable companies are) we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I don't understand what everyone is so bent out of shape over: if your company can't afford to put it's products to the test* then don't stress it. You're being made out to look like fools fighting a lost battle & you're collaborating with the wrong organization, it's that simple.

*meaning afford the investment, afford taking the risk of achieving negative results, etc.

P.S. A few weak attempts have been made to use my age as a battleground... Interestingly enough, the ones who are supposed to be the "older, more mature ones" are those that lost their tempers the quickest. They are also the ones that seem to have the most cynically sarcastic styles of writing. Age has nothing to do with education, awareness and/or knowledge so let's try and keep this discussion focused and avoid taking cheap, [ineffective] shots to prove our points. Seems to me our brother(s) have a personality complex (of course they're going to deny the preceding to the fullest but, it's clearly evident I struck a chord or else this thread wouldn't have expanded as it did in the matter of a day).

 

[slow-mun]

Are logs supposed to serve as strong support for a company? How many individuals log a product and liked it? I wish I didn't have to say it like this but: that's a disgrace to science.

What we should be laughing at is how financially unstable companies are & how they have to rely on the common man's opinion (aka logs) on their supply. If they had the money to put their products to the test and prove their efficacy, (again, going back to how financially unstable companies are) we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I don't understand what everyone is so bent out of shape over: if your company can't afford to put it's products to the test* then don't stress it. You're being made out to look like fools fighting a lost battle & you're collaborating with the wrong organization, it's that simple.

*meaning afford the investment, afford taking the risk of achieving negative results, etc.

I'm trying to keep this as clean as possible....., but when a 20 year old has a naive understanding of running a business, limited understanding of supplements and their methods of action(as thesinner proved in another thread), and a pompous attitude, then yes you are open to receiving the business end of my attitude. I would suggest after insulting almost every supplement sponsor within this forum that you find a new stomping ground to share your wealth of experience and knowledge.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I wish I had the time to address the rest of your post Mulletsoldier and I really do appreciate your educated way of coming across. That's a rare feat evidently but, I'm going to highlight the part that stood out the most to me.

My point exactly. In Layman's terms: Companies can't afford it. Well, at least the ones aggressively marketed can't because they blow all their money on advertising. Enough said.

By the way, CoA is the bare minimum a company can do.

I think the issue here is a misunderstanding of capital in the supplement industry. The costs of the research being implied here far exceeds the revenue spent on marketing by most supplement companies.

It is not as if they/we incautiously 'blow' our money on advertising, purposively ignoring research. Like it or not, these supplements are commodities, produced first and foremost for a profit. Now, that doesn't negate quality being infused into a product, and it also doesn't diminish the passion many people in this industry have; however, it does necessitate being able to develop and market the products in question.

It is not a conscious either/or question as it pertains to research or advertising, made with the ability to do both. In fact, it is not even a question, it is simply proper business to privilege developing and exposing your product first. Even if, and that's a big if, most companies spent 50k on advertising a year (very few actually spend that much) they could not divert that money into research for two paramount reasons; a) how would anybody know of the products? Great, we have legitimate research behind our product that nobody knows of; b) if a company did conduct research, they would then also have to purchase the necessary advertising, essentially skyrocketing supplement prices.

This entire industry is built-upon third party research; you complain that no company conducts research on 'their' product, extraction, etc., Do you think anybody conducts research on their creatine product? Yet, I imagine you ingest Creatine because it has unbelievable amounts of research on it. See what I am getting at here? Now, this is where the COA process comes in, to ensure that 'A' stated in the study stays 'A' when it becomes a product. Very, very, very few companies have the necessary capital to conduct large scale, peer-reviewed studies on their particular product; and, even if they did, most wouldn't because that is what the COA process is for.

This is not an issue of immorality, deception, or business ethics, it is about proper business and dollars and cents.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Well the Doctor I work with and few other premed students I am working with knows nutrition and supplements very well. Times have changed my friend.. 7 years is a long time and boy o boy does the Doctor I work with knows his nutrition and supplements fairly well.

This is atypical, no question. The vast majority of 'health professionals' are both untrained and uninterested in our lifestyle, because we are atypical of the population. With obesity rates soaring above 50% we are in a a small minority of a minority.

 

[dannyboy9]

For the record, I'm not going anywhere. I'm not violating anything & I have a perfect understanding of why I'm the center of your despise --all I'm doing is stating the facts.

Recap:

The bottom-line truth is that none of the companies on this board can afford to put their products to the test because:

a) The results might not match up to their products

b) They cannot afford the investment*

*if the funds are available to support such research, it's safe to assume they feel providing the consumer scientific proof of their product's efficacy is unnecessary. This would reflect a major flaw in the company's ethics and standards.

Scenario:

If the [educated] consumer had the choice between consuming Company A's supply, which provides scientific evidence that their product lives up to it's claims, guaranteeing bio-availability vs. Company B producing an identical product, the obvious choice would be the company that has invested the time, effort and money (which seems to be the real issue) to guarantee the consumer is getting what they're paying for.

Would you agree with the preceding?

The average supplement consumers is not especially concerned with clinical testing--that's what makes them average (not to mention uneducated). On a moral standpoint, supplements shouldn't require testing. On a more realistic standpoint, we've seen what's happened with VPX, BSN, and similar companies which exemplifies that what you see may not always be what you get (regarding the label).

On a typical supplement company website, you will find little substance in terms of scientific data with regard to the efficacy and safety of their products. No doubt, they're long on claims but non-existent on scientific clinical data to demonstrate that their products are safe and do work.

All the above (in this particular post) will remain a fact until proven otherwise.

Bottom line.

 

[dannyboy9]

With obesity rates soaring above 50% we are in a a small minority of a minority.

Correct me if I'm wrong but recently, I believe increased to a solid 67%. Unfortunately, I doubt it will only increase anytime soon. I honestly hope I'm proven wrong but the media doesn't advertise anything but fast-food and junk food. The masses aren't informed or educated enough to make decisions as simple as what to eat (or not to eat).

Ever seen Supersize Me?

Case closed. ::gavel pound::

 

[djbombsquad]

Interesting but facts are facts. I was trained on the doctors office with out studies on the actually supply its a no go. Why? The doctor was trained by the drug companys to think like that with drugs. So we both came to the conclusion if a drug has to be peer reviewd why can't supplements. What is going to happen when the FDA starts to regulate again. Are companys going to start then? You know how many times people come in my office after blood work stating how great there product is i.e fish oil from GNC, base or costco or vitain shop but yet there triglycerides still have not gone done. We get it all the time with fish oil, b vitamins, multiples, even aminos weather it be complete in protein form or just aminos. Which means what? Every company claims they are up to par and have COA etc.
I never worked in a supplement store like danny has but maybe he will agree with me. Why do companys keep changing there product line? Was there 1st product not good enough? Did it not sell?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

For the record, I'm not going anywhere. I'm not violating anything & I have a perfect understanding of why I'm the center of your despise --all I'm doing is stating the facts.

Recap:

The bottom-line truth is that none of the companies on this board can afford to put their products to the test because:

a) The results might not match up to their products

b) They cannot afford the investment*

*if the funds are available to support such research, it's safe to assume they feel providing the consumer scientific proof of their product's efficacy is unnecessary. This would reflect a major flaw in the company's ethics and standards.

First off, not the bottom line. I have posted a substantial amount of research on the constituents of our products which I have invited you to search for, and negate. There are many threads, a few of them recent, in which I both explain and reinforce the safety, efficacy, and MOAs of our products. Before making this 'bottom line' claim, you should do a quick search and refute me fact-for-fact, if objectivity is your concern.

Many companies provide the legitimate research on the ingredients of their products, something you do not understand or consciously ignore. Ingredients, sourced properly, are ingredients and that is that. A company does not need to conduct research on the source they use as long as a) the supplier provides COAs and b) the company receives third-party COAs; as long as the COAs match the chemical breakdown of the ingredient listed in the study, then it is pure.

This is something I want to hit home with you, to hopefully ease some tension in your mind. In full-text articles which we, as well as other companies use, to research new ingredients, the entire chemical breakdown is given. This provides very detailed information of the phyto content in most herbs, which leads us, as well as others, to search for sources with the same purity. Ergo, research on 'the' product is not necessary, as it has already been done.

This effectively negates both points a) and b) as they are somewhat off-point. I understand your moral standpoint, but you need to get the facts straight. You are making bold claims on subjective morality without a firm-grasp on the necessary business ethics and practices which underpin these decisions.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Correct me if I'm wrong but recently, I believe increased to a solid 67%. Unfortunately, I doubt it will only increase anytime soon. I honestly hope I'm proven wrong but the media doesn't advertise anything but fast-food and junk food. The masses aren't informed or educated enough to make decisions as simple as what to eat (or not to eat).

Ever seen Supersize Me?

Case closed. ::gavel pound::

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but I was elucidating the obesity rates, not denying them.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Interesting but facts are facts. I was trained on the doctors office with out studies on the actually supply its a no go. Why? The doctor was trained by the drug companys to think like that with drugs. So we both came to the conclusion if a drug has to be peer reviewd why can't supplements. What is going to happen when the FDA starts to regulate again. Are companys going to start then? You know how many times people come in my office after blood work stating how great there product is i.e fish oil from GNC, base or costco or vitain shop but yet there triglycerides still have not gone done. We get it all the time with fish oil, b vitamins, multiples, even aminos weather it be complete in protein form or just aminos. Which means what? Every company claims they are up to par and have COA etc.
I never worked in a supplement store like danny has but maybe he will agree with me. Why do companys keep changing there product line? Was there 1st product not good enough? Did it not sell?

Kay, what?

I did not understand 95% of that, but I will address the last sentence which I understood.

Companies reevaluate their products for many reasons, including but not limited to:

a) finding higher standardizations at cheaper prices
b) new breakthroughs in the synergy of another ingredient
c) stagnant sales
d) consumer feedback
e) new research on an existing ingredient.

What I do not understand, is that if you both deplore supplements and the companies which produce them, why are you here? Why are you on a board which focuses on supplements?

 

[slow-mun]

I never worked in a supplement store like danny has but maybe he will agree with me. Why do companys keep changing there product line? Was there 1st product not good enough? Did it not sell?

I have, and having done so does denote having any actual knowledge of the products being sold(case in point, your neighborhood GNC). I suppose you could ask the auto and electronics industry and see what their response would be........Improvement and innovation is what helps companies to remain competitive.

 

[djbombsquad]

I remember back in 98 when ginseng was the number selling herb on the market at the time. I remember my friend was buying from a company and they halted production. They keeped going to every raw supplier to try to get a clean source of ginseng. Apparently there was fungus at the time and so my friend could not get it from this particular company. In the mean time every other company is still selling it like hot cakes. Ether A) they did not know there was contamination to the herb or B) they did know and still sold it.
So companies still can be shady even with COA etc. I remember buying some protein bars from a company last year and for 4 months could not get it because the raw materials were not up to par and had some contamination from the raw material but other companies were still selling the raw materials.

 

[dannyboy9]

It is not as if they/we incautiously 'blow' our money on advertising, purposively ignoring research.

This might be true, but research is definitely not a priority.

In fact, it is not even a question, it is simply proper business to privilege developing and exposing your product first. Even if, and that's a big if, most companies spent 50k on advertising a year (very few actually spend that much) they could not divert that money into research for two paramount reasons; a) how would anybody know of the products? Great, we have legitimate research behind our product that nobody knows of;.

It's called Research & Development for a reason - not Development & Research. It's a very simple concept to grasp, figuring out how the public would be informed of a product: instead of investing in advertisement (T.V., radio, internet, etc.), you can re-direct that spending towards individuals to do that for you.

This entire industry is built-upon third party research; you complain that no company conducts research on 'their' product, extraction, etc., Do you think anybody conducts research on their creatine product? Yet, I imagine you ingest Creatine because it has unbelievable amounts of research on it. See what I am getting at here?

That's an example of what the average consumer does, not me. I don't need to ingest creatine because more than one of the products in my nutritional support program naturally increase creatine levels. So, we can scratch that idea out.

Now, this is where the COA process comes in, to ensure that 'A' stated in the study stays 'A' when it becomes a product. Very, very, very few companies have the necessary capital to conduct large scale, peer-reviewed studies on their particular product; and, even if they did, most wouldn't because that is what the COA process is for.

This is not an issue of immorality, deception, or business ethics, it is about proper business and dollars and cents.

It's about the interest of the shot callers in the industry, not yours. You don't have to tell me that twice - that's a given.

COA is a halfway job. Any company can take the word of the supplier with a COA. I'm talking about extensive third-party testing to ensure purity and testing for the common 358 potential contaminants found in the majority of supplies. Many companies don’t go the extra step – they’ll check the raw material, and if it passes, they assume it’s OK all the way through to the final product.

How about third-party verification of plant species to ensure potency and sending all botanical raw materials to confirm the presence of the active ingredients?

The chances of a company working with HPLC technology are slim. In any case, you can quantify the amount of active ingredient with this type of technology - that's if you actually work with.

How about some internal and external safety evaluations for chemical contaminants and microbiological safety?
Do you conduct quality control tests?
Are you exceeding GMP standards?

I don't need to wait for a response, I already know the answer. You're wasting your time representing and defending insignificant, weak companies compared to the far greater organizations established and everything that I'm mentioning is being done by others out in the actual world.

Are any companies on here Fortune 500 companies?
Are they #1 in their arena? (Can they prove it?)
Are their studies published in peer reviewed medical journals?

Nobody on this board is doing all these things I mentioned. They might be doing some - but not all.

I'm unsubscribing because this thread is a waste of time. This like fighting with someone about the color of the sky. I wish you all the very best in health and wealth and when you're done rolling in your own dirt and become interested in creating a serious business and working with a serious company, then we'll talk some more.

 

[djbombsquad]

What I do not understand, is that if you both deplore supplements and the companies which produce them, why are you here? Why are you on a board which focuses on supplements?

I support supplements just not ones with out peer review. Ask me this 3 years ago and I would have said any product will do. My thought processes has changed to think like this. I have been programed by drug reps that come on our office day in day out. Peer review or else no go and yes there are companies that have products with peer reviews on there supply. People have mentioned names on the board before of companies with published studies. That can be for another post/thread another time. Maybe danny and even smeton_yea can support me on this.

 

[dannyboy9]

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but I was elucidating the obesity rates, not denying them.

There's no underlying statement in that point brother. I was supporting your previous statements regarding obesity. I was giving an exact figure, that's all. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

[slow-mun]

For the record, I'm not going anywhere. I'm not violating anything & I have a perfect understanding of why I'm the center of your despise --all I'm doing is stating the facts.

Recap:

The bottom-line truth is that none of the companies on this board can afford to put their products to the test because:

a) The results might not match up to their products

b) They cannot afford the investment*

*if the funds are available to support such research, it's safe to assume they feel providing the consumer scientific proof of their product's efficacy is unnecessary. This would reflect a major flaw in the company's ethics and standards.

Scenario:


Would you agree with the preceding?

The average supplement consumers is not especially concerned with clinical testing--that's what makes them average (not to mention uneducated). On a moral standpoint, supplements shouldn't require testing. On a more realistic standpoint, we've seen what's happened with VPX, BSN, and similar companies which exemplifies that what you see may not always be what you get (regarding the label).

On a typical supplement company website, you will find little substance in terms of scientific data with regard to the efficacy and safety of their products. No doubt, they're long on claims but non-existent on scientific clinical data to demonstrate that their products are safe and do work.

All the above (in this particular post) will remain a fact until proven otherwise.

Bottom line.

BSN's drama is from a web site owned by supplement direct who is in fact, a manufacturer of bulk supplements. I have not seen one piece of scientific proof to substantiate or negate their claims. What I have seen were some legal documents and a slew of board drama involving those documents. Many manufacturers do post supporting medical studies to support the efficacy of their products. I'm sorry if they don't fund enough university studies to directly support the safety and efficay, but if you'd like to contribute to making this happen, then buy a supplement from a board sponsor. You don't like what the board sponsors sell, then don't post within threads concerning their products. You are getting sharp retorts from me, b/c you are making claims and accusations based on your personal opinions. You the only thing that you've exposed is a weak understanding of a free market system. If you want supplements to be strictly controlled by the likes of the FDA, then fine. I'm sure the vast majority of the members here would disagree your views.

 

[dannyboy9]

People have mentioned names on the board before of companies with published studies. That can be for another post/thread another time. Maybe danny and even smeton_yea can support me on this.

That was an ignorant move on my part at the time then because I don't give out free information to a single body - I'm not concerned with who it is. I had a Personal Trainer find it ridiculous because I charged him a 20 dollar processing fee to establish his account so we could work with him and address his inquiries and provide him with information about the supply that HE contacted US about to work with US, mind you.

Twenty mere dollars was all we were charging (which is what we always charge our clients who would like to inquire further with our supply) but evidently, he didn't feel we should be compensated for our time. He threw out all these evidently weak lines regarding how he trains celebrities, he's competed in the past and is competing again, going to be published in Muscle Fitness Mag, etc. etc.

Let's say everything he said was true, the guy wasn't a business man - bottom line. My time is money and if I'm going to take my time to inform someone, they're either going to be compensating me for my time or for the information I'm giving out.:cheers:

 

[slow-mun]

I remember back in 98 when ginseng was the number selling herb on the market at the time. I remember my friend was buying from a company and they halted production. They keeped going to every raw supplier to try to get a clean source of ginseng. Apparently there was fungus at the time and so my friend could not get it from this particular company. In the mean time every other company is still selling it like hot cakes. Ether A) they did not know there was contamination to the herb or B) they did know and still sold it.
So companies still can be shady even with COA etc. I remember buying some protein bars from a company last year and for 4 months could not get it because the raw materials were not up to par and had some contamination from the raw material but other companies were still selling the raw materials.

I believe the number one selling herb in '98 was Ma Huang. Not all herbs come from the same supplier and despite what you may think, it was a fungus that limited the amount of ginseng to be successfully harvested at that time. There were still crops that were unaffected and made it to market, although the price for those healthy crops were expensive.

 

[slow-mun]

That was an ignorant move on my part at the time then because I don't give out free information to a single body - I'm not concerned with who it is. I had a Personal Trainer find it ridiculous because I charged him a 20 dollar processing fee to establish his account so we could work with him and address his inquiries and provide him with information about the supply that HE contacted US about to work with US, mind you.

Twenty mere dollars was all we were charging (which is what we always charge our clients who would like to inquire further with our supply) but evidently, he didn't feel we should be compensated for our time. He threw out all these evidently weak lines regarding how he trains celebrities, he's competed in the past and is competing again, going to be published in Muscle Fitness Mag, etc. etc.

Let's say everything he said was true, the guy wasn't a business man - bottom line. My time is money and if I'm going to take my time to inform someone, they're either going to be compensating me for my time or for the information I'm giving out.:cheers:

Do you have a vested interest with a supplement company?

 

[dannyboy9]

Many manufacturers do post supporting medical studies to support the efficacy of their products.

They cite other studies. Do you suffer from amnesia? We covered this already...

I'm sorry if they don't fund enough university studies to directly support the safety and efficay, but if you'd like to contribute to making this happen, then buy a supplement from a board sponsor.

It's the companies problem if they're broke and can't afford research. It's not my obligation to support a financially deprived organization.

You don't like what the board sponsors sell, then don't post within threads concerning their products. You are getting sharp retorts from me, b/c you are making claims and accusations based on your personal opinions. You the only thing that you've exposed is a weak understanding of a free market system.

And who are you? You're 1 out of billions of human beings. I'm making claims and accusations based on fact. Everything I mentioned about the financial situation of companies and their lack of research on their products is pure fact. I'll post where I please, as long as I speak truth. If you don't like it, then get with the program and join me because any other option is futile. You're not stripping me of my freedom to voice the facts. If companies want to keep on posing like their products are so great, using others' to substantiate their supply, I'll call their bluffs when I feel necessary.

If you want supplements to be strictly controlled by the likes of the FDA, then fine. I'm sure the vast majority of the members here would disagree your views.

As well as every company docked on this forum because they would be going out of business if the FDA became involved.

 

[dannyboy9]

Do you have a vested interest with a supplement company?

I don't work for anyone or any company. I don't represent anyone's products, I represent my own business and I collaborate with health care professionals and individuals who choose to collaborate with me and enhance their practice. Stop trying to derail the fact that your company is weakly based.

Why am I still arguing with this wall?

 

[slow-mun]

I don't work for anyone or any company. I don't represent anyone's products, I represent my own business and I collaborate with health care professionals and individuals who choose to collaborate with me and enhance their practice. Stop trying to derail the fact that your company is weakly based.

Why am I still arguing with this wall?

I don't know? Is there a large market to receive supplement and training advice from someone who is 6' and 160lbs? I know Axis Labs has a large consumer base. You might benefit from using some our products. They might help
you out of your training rut.

They cite other studies. Do you suffer from amnesia? We covered this already...

Apparently you do, b/c you've stated that they/we offer no supporting evidence.

It's the companies problem if they're broke and can't afford research. It's not my obligation to support a financially deprived organization.

No, but like other areas of the world, if you are going to complain about things without attempting to change them, then you're simply being an oxygen thief with an overinflated ego.

And who are you? You're 1 out of billions of human beings. I'm making claims and accusations based on fact. Everything I mentioned about the financial situation of companies and their lack of research on their products is pure fact. I'll post where I please, as long as I speak truth. If you don't like it, then get with the program and join me because any other option is futile. You're not stripping me of my freedom to voice the facts. If companies want to keep on posing like their products are so great, using others' to substantiate their supply, I'll call their bluffs when I feel necessary.

My name is Solomon and I work for Axis Labs. There, now you know who I am. I'm sure if you attempt this nonsense again, you'll get to know me even better. Nobody likes to have opinions force fed to them.

 

[djbombsquad]

Not sure. I wish I had more time to write but I write in between patients while I wait for the next one to come in my room.