Proprietary Blend

[Jiigzz]

Fair enough. I will definitely concede to the notion that the majority of supplement users are ignorant or flat out dumb and hence don't care about prop blends. Nevertheless, I still stand by the original question of where the actual value of a prop blend is. I admit that I don't know about the supplement industry. Have companies ever bought out other companies products for their prop blends? Do companies that use more prop blends usually fetch a higher market valuation? I'm just curious where the monetary value comes in. The only thing that comes to mind is that it is easier to under dose more expensive ingredients, which equals higher margins.

This can definitely be the case, absolutely. But still some highly reputable companies choose non disclosure: Evomuse is just one that many people will agree put out quality products.
Sure they have non proped products but also prop blended ones.

 

[smith_69]

If this were the case, all the top selling products would be open label, but they're not. The vast majority of consumers don't care, forums make up the very small minority of people who even know what a good dosage of some ingredients should be and even what most ingredients are meant to do.

Disagree.

Vast majority of consumers were led to believe the FDA was going to ban supplements

Lobbyists doing what they do best.
the American Congress was evaluating several bills which would have increased the powers of the FDA. One of these acts, the Nutrition Advertising Coordination Act of 1991[3] would have tightened the regulations regarding supplement labeling. In response to the bill, many health food companies began lobbying the government to vote down the laws and told the public that the FDA would ban dietary supplements.[4] A notable ad featured Mel Gibson being raided and arrested by FDA agents because he was taking vitamin C supplements.[5] Gerald Kessler, chief executive of Nature Plus, a dietary supplement manufacturer and one of the leaders of the lobbying effort, accused the FDA of having "a bias against the supplement industry for 50 years.

 

[smith_69]

So scaring the people into believing the mean old FDA would have absolute power like some Sith Lord worked. Lol

 

[210LBS]

My guess is that if the FDA really cracked the whip it would be followed by a ton of M&A within the industry. The threshold to enter the dietary supplement industry is so low which is why there are so many small players. Hard to believe the large packaged foods companies wouldn't be pushing to consolidate the industry.

 

[johnnyp]

Just because a supplement has an open label doesn't make it a good supplement, like when they include useless ingredients such as arginine...

 

[Nac]

My own conclusion of this perpetual debate:

I hate prop blends, but will tolerate them as something of a "necessary evil", cos I know dudes like dsade have been copied and essentially ripped-off. He's a minority, for sure, and allowing prop blends (for R&Ders like him who think out the box and introduce new ingredients) does create a loophole for other companies who will produce underdosed products. Meh, so be it.

 

[Jiigzz]

Disagree.

Vast majority of consumers were led to believe the FDA was going to ban supplements

Lobbyists doing what they do best.
the American Congress was evaluating several bills which would have increased the powers of the FDA. One of these acts, the Nutrition Advertising Coordination Act of 1991[3] would have tightened the regulations regarding supplement labeling. In response to the bill, many health food companies began lobbying the government to vote down the laws and told the public that the FDA would ban dietary supplements.[4] A notable ad featured Mel Gibson being raided and arrested by FDA agents because he was taking vitamin C supplements.[5] Gerald Kessler, chief executive of Nature Plus, a dietary supplement manufacturer and one of the leaders of the lobbying effort, accused the FDA of having "a bias against the supplement industry for 50 years.

Where did you pull "vast majority of consumers" from? Or did you make that up? I just asked 5 people, and zero had heard of that

 

[Jiigzz]

My own conclusion of this perpetual debate:

I hate prop blends, but will tolerate them as something of a "necessary evil", cos I know dudes like dsade have been copied and essentially ripped-off. He's a minority, for sure, and allowing prop blends (for R&Ders like him who think out the box and introduce new ingredients) does create a loophole for other companies who will produce underdosed products. Meh, so be it.

That's my view as well

 

[Nac]

That's my view as well

I wanna be stubborn and just be like "no, no! No prop blends eva!" but i cant justify it as black and white like that. I empathise with theoldguys arguments against...but empathise more with certain R&Ders. A prop blend may well be weak "protection", but its all they have. And its cheap.

 

[Jiigzz]

I see no point really in prop blended typical ingredients of well known dosages, but moreso unique ingredients or ones with novel pathways. That way you can dominate the market longer while others try figure it out - case and point follidrone

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Just because a supplement has an open label doesn't make it a good supplement, like when they include useless ingredients such as arginine...

But at least you can make an educated decision not to buy. No one is saying open label always = good supplement. What do you do when you see a prop blend of all "good ingredients" but it's 1,980mg Of LCLT and micrograms each of LJ/TA, Ashwa, I3C, etc... ? "Doh, but the ad says it's the most awesomest T Booster in the galaxy!?"

 

[The_Old_Guy]

...cos I know dudes like dsade have been copied and essentially ripped-off.

Prop blends protect nothing. He's hiding something from the consumer only - what that is, and why is the question. There is only one even remotely tolerable reason for non-disclosure (and I'm being generous): When you have a more effective way to deliver an ingredient, so can use less, but on the shelf, the uneducated consumer would just compare amounts to a straight raw ingredient. Ie. Complexed -(-)Epi vs Straight -(-)Epi.

And even then, If I ask on a web forum how much it really is, you should tell me - I'm not sitting in a store comparing labels. If you don't.....hmmmmm, we're back to probably swallowing 'pixie dust for profit' again.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

If a company sells a supplement in a foreign country that requires full disclosure, but they they prop blend here.... why do you think that is? LOL. Wasn't BSN busted for this exact thing last year, using the Canadian label from Popeye's?

Also, I keep seeing the excuse "Most customers don't care..." WRONG - most customers don't know. Even the dullest pencil in the drawer will get pissed off if you tell them you stole their money and gave them nothing for it.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

A prop blend may well be weak "protection", but its all they have. And its cheap.

It's no protection at all - explain to me how I can't copy any product out there and put an identical label on the back? I look at their label and put the same stuff in there by ascending/descending weight. It's f'n simple - I can do it with my DA-20 Milligram scale that I measure Yohimbine HCL with - $17.

Oh, and I didn't start this thread... but I LOVE when people do. Who remembers those air powered BB Machine Guns at Carnivals and Fairs back in the 70s/80s?

 

[Nac]

If 99% of customers dont know their creatine from their teacrine, but dsade is wanting to hide something from his customers with Supernova...why would he give a fuk about hiding something from the educated 1%? Are we really going to believe there is something dodge going on with it that, were we to know the exact dosing, we'd say "oh hell no, I aint bothering with that product".

I personally couldnt care less what the dosing of the ingredients in Supernova are, I dont know what half of them are and what their proper dosing would even look like for a topical, but I can easily appreciate why some competing company might. The latter seems infinitely more plausible to me, simply cos as an ignorant 99percenter I have next to know idea (or cares) what a pixie dusted ingredient in Supernova would look like.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

If 99% of customers dont know their creatine from their teacrine, but dsade is wanting to hide something from his customers with Supernova...why would he give a fuk about hiding something from the educated 1%? Are we really going to believe there is something dodge going on with it that, were we to know the exact dosing, we'd say "oh hell no, I aint bothering with that product".

I personally couldnt care less what the dosing of the ingredients in Supernova are, I dont know what half of them are, but I can easily appreciate why some competing company might.

SuperNova is a bad example - it's basically a cosmetic (don't want to get into the weeds about transdermal delivery of an active ingredient vs eyeshadow etc... you don't swallow it, so there are some different rules). There is no cosmetic (like DHT Blocking Shampoos) I've ever seen that lists amounts - so there is nothing to compare to. There is also super-f'n-scant data on topical fat loss anyway (as well as total products available in general), so again, very little to compare to even if amounts were listed.

But if I wanted to, I could look up each ingredient and find whatever data was used to justify inclusion, and come up with an amount that it *should* be. And if I had to hazard a guess, I bet at least some of them are extrapolated from oral data, and as long as they are under 500 Dalton's - put'em in the lotion.

And please tell me how I couldn't make a clone? Here's what's in it:

 

[Nac]

I purposefully chose Supernova as my example precisely because most of us here would have no clue what a pixie dusted ingredient would look like in a topical, for most ingredients at least.

But pixie dusting a topical is still possible. And the idea seems strange cos...99% of us have no idea what pixie dusted ingredients in a topical would look like for the most part.

So whats dsades motivation for trying to pull the wool over the eyes of those, who are "blind" to begin with?

 

[smith_69]

Just because a supplement has an open label doesn't make it a good supplement, like when they include useless ingredients such as arginine...

Not questioning if it's good or bad. It's the fact of it being fully open.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

I purposefully chose Supernova as my example precisely because most of us here would have no clue what a pixie dusted ingredient would look like in a topical, for most ingredients at least.

But pixie dusting a topical is still possible. And the idea seems strange cos...99% of us have no idea what pixie dusted ingredients in a topical would look like for the most part.

So whats dsades motivation for trying to pull the wool over the eyes of those, who are "blind" to begin with?

First, please tell me how a prop blended product can't be copied - that was in your original post, and mainly what I was replying to.

Second - I have no idea why there aren't amounts on topical fat burners. Maybe it's because they aren't required and a bigger label would cost more? You'd have to ask him.

But Rule 1 and 2 are written in stone: Prop Blends are about hiding something from the customer and they protect nothing from competitors.

And I want to correct myself a little - I was focused in on Fat Burners, but Dermacrine, Super-DHEA, TD Andros (Drugs/Hormones et. al) list amounts.

 

[smith_69]

Where did you pull "vast majority of consumers" from? Or did you make that up? I just asked 5 people, and zero had heard of that

Wikipedia and there were more sites as well. Wasn't hard to find at all
Invalid Link Removed

There are other sites that get into more of this and that ,
But this passed due to bs tactics and money. Billion dollar industry pulls together, well you get the point.

 

[smith_69]

Where did you pull "vast majority of consumers" from? Or did you make that up? I just asked 5 people, and zero had heard of that

I asked several people and all eluded to this point in time when this was passed.

 

[Nac]

First, please tell me how a prop blended product can't be copied - that was in your original post, and mainly what I was replying to.

Well hey, why bother locking my doors when I go out? If a burglar really wants to get in, he will.

I never said a prop blended product cant be copied. I said a prop blend can be a deterrant, feeble as it might be. But its the only deterrant available that is free.

Second - I have no idea why there aren't amounts on topical fat burners. Maybe it's because they aren't required and a bigger label would cost more? You'd have to ask him.

The point is, the ingredient amounts in Supernova are not listed. How do you know they are dosed "properly"? Well, you dont. How is dsade decieving you?

Cos your argument seems to be: if ingredient amounts not listed, necessarily deception occuring.

 

[Woody]

But Rule 1 and 2 are written in stone: Prop Blends are about hiding something from the customer and they protect nothing from competitors.

What is Matt hiding? Surely you must know? It's written in stone!

Oh... you don't know what he's hiding? You don't even know if he is hiding anything? You mean.. you're just assuming he's hiding something because you dislike prop blends?

And, prop blends do give companies legal protection. You know, trade secrets. But, that clearly doesn't fit your narrative so let's ignore it.

Your move.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

What is Matt hiding? Surely you must know? It's written in stone!

Oh... you don't know what he's hiding? You don't even know if he is hiding anything? You mean.. you're just assuming he's hiding something because you dislike prop blends?

And, prop blends do give companies legal protection. You know, trade secrets. But, that clearly doesn't fit your narrative so let's ignore it.

Your move.

Oooooh, my move huh? LOL. Tell me how I can't duplicate a prop blended product? You also do recall 1fast400 saying prop blends don't protect formulas, right? How is any prop blended product protected from Jared Wheat copying it? - much less anybody with bags of bulk supplements, a scale, and your label - I just add stuff by weight until mine looks identical to yours - actual amounts don't matter. I mean, at least open labeling something makes the other guy at least spend the money on the same amounts of ingredients

As far as Evomuse: Topical Fat Burners are the rarest of the rare in the supplement world - and they are a lotion. I mean other than that 'SweetSweat' stuff on IG and YouTube, is there even *anyone else* that makes them? I only know of the old Avant Labs one (defunct, right?) and probably some whacko stuff on Amazon. You can find exactly a handful of research studies on topical fat loss, and of those, most are Yohimbine or Licorice Extract. It basically doesn't matter, because even I can't find (or rather, don't want to take the days it would require to find topical Bitter Melon Seed Oil dosing x the other 17 ingredients) anything to compare it to. If there is another product with the same ingredients that lists dosages that I can buy instead - please do let me know. And it may very well be that for a lotion with a crap ton of ingredients, and no competition to compare to, he just didn't want to type a bigger label, having to spend money on a bigger bottle. A rare lotion is a horrible example to use in a prop blend debate.

Better to use oral supplements.. 1. Open Label, Clinical Dosages (just like you can see on Examine, Suppversity, and PubMed) are a selling feature. 2. Prop Blends don't protect intellectual property.

So why use a prop blend? A. To hide *something* from the customer. Who in their right mind would clinically dose a product and then turn around and prop blend it? - you just handcuffed your marketing department.

I guess there actually might be people that do that because they do think they are protected somehow - I don't know the braintrust that could believe that, but anything's possible.

How is a Prop Blend beneficial to the consumer? Your move

 

[210LBS]

Wow The_Old_Guy really opened this one back up... and at 4:30am EST. Anyway, I still stick by my original statement. The only way I can see a company monetizing on a prop blend is through under dosing the products most expensive ingredients. That is not to say that everyone who creates a prop blend product does that, but I don't see any other value in it.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Wow The_Old_Guy really opened this one back up... and at 4:30am EST. Anyway, I still stick by my original statement. The only way I can see a company monetizing on a prop blend is through under dosing the products most expensive ingredients. That is not to say that everyone who creates a prop blend product does that, but I don't see any other value in it.

But I didn't *start* it I'm allowed to play too, aren't I?

 

[210LBS]

But I didn't *start* it I'm allowed to play too, aren't I?

Haha yes. This is clearly a topic you have given some serious thought about. It's a good thing we're on the same side.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Well hey, why bother locking my doors when I go out? If a burglar really wants to get in, he will.

I never said a prop blended product cant be copied. I said a prop blend can be a deterrant, feeble as it might be. But its the only deterrant available that is free.



The point is, the ingredient amounts in Supernova are not listed. How do you know they are dosed "properly"? Well, you dont. How is dsade decieving you?

Cos your argument seems to be: if ingredient amounts not listed, necessarily deception occuring.

1. You keep saying words the revolve around some sort of "protection". Now it is a feeble "Deterrent" - how would I be deterred from copying? Are you considering 'reading' a deterrent?

2. I say barring some out of this world, whackadoodle, actual belief by a 'prop blender' that prop blends protect something - yes, it is prop blended to hide dosing. But get off the fat burning lotion - there's nothing to compare too/look up (see above). Use an Oral, OTC Supplement instead - stuff with competition and articles written about the ingredients (hopefully when swallowed, by humans) on Examine and Suppversity, etc...

 

[210LBS]

And also back to The_Old_Guy point. Prop blends are listed in order of weight so what they can cover is so miniscule it wouldn't matter. If you wanted to replicate a prop blend you can certainly get within the margin of error.

 

[smith_69]

And also back to The_Old_Guy point. Prop blends are listed in order of weight so what they can cover is so miniscule it wouldn't matter. If you wanted to replicate a prop blend you can certainly get within the margin of error.

interesting, if it didn't matter as much as you think, why not show the amount?

 

[210LBS]

interesting, if it didn't matter as much as you think, why not show the amount?

Because you can throw a ton of fillers in to offset a lack of the active ingredient, hence lowering cost. Other than that, I don't see how a company can make money on a prop blend. It just doesn't seem like a good business move from the company or customer perspective.

 

[smith_69]

Because you can throw a ton of fillers in to offset a lack of the active ingredient, hence lowering cost. Other than that, I don't see how a company can make money on a prop blend. It just doesn't seem like a good business move from the company or customer perspective.

I was agreeing with your statement! lol

understanding your point, just reiterating your point

 

[Nac]

1. You keep saying words the revolve around some sort of "protection". Now it is a feeble "Deterrent" - how would I be deterred from copying? Are you considering 'reading' a deterrent?

Not everyone is equally cynical or paranoid (did you not grasp my analogy?) If it doesnt list amounts then yes, that would be a deterrant for me. Id want to copy amounts, not just a list. If I feel that way, Im sure others would too. And thats all I need lol. All your protesting on this is moot to me.

2. I say barring some out of this world, whackadoodle, actual belief by a 'prop blender' that prop blends protect something - yes, it is prop blended to hide dosing. But get off the fat burning lotion - there's nothing to compare too/look up (see above). Use an Oral, OTC Supplement instead - stuff with competition and articles written about the ingredients (hopefully when swallowed, by humans) on Examine and Suppversity, etc...

Lol Im not getting off the fat burner cos this is the slippery slope youve put yourself on. Anything that doesnt list ingredient amounts is decieving you. Your attempts to draw some arbitrary line at "oral OTC supplements" are just that.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Not everyone is equally cynical or paranoid. If it doesnt list amounts then yes, that would be a deterrant for me. Id want to copy amounts, not just a list. If I feel that way, Im sure others would too. And thats all I need lol. All your protesting on this is moot to me.



Lol Im not getting off the fat burner cos this is the slippery slope youve put yourself on. Anything that doesnt list ingredient amounts is decieving you. Your attempts to draw some arbitrary line at "oral OTC supplements" are just that.

Response to number 1: Amounts don't deter, a label is by weight you just need to be able to read and do simple math on a calculator to copy it. If that would deter you....OK. Amounts are all in the research if you choose to properly dose it... In which case you would want to emphasize that fact.

Response to number 2. Slippery slope, in your opinion, right? I say what I said twice already about lotions with little data or competition to purchase that is open label. I mean, 1/something can be under dosed, right? Or are you privy to the mfg process? Prove every ingredient related to cortisol/ fat in there, is properly dosed. Vasoburn, Shampoos, Conditioner, Skin Cream, Dish Soap etc... - none of that stuff ever lists amounts. I mean, I'm only being honest here - do you think I'm afraid to say SN is under dosed in one or more places? What do I care, I'll only be proven wrong with an amount disclosure that will never come. I A. Don't think it is for the stuff that actually has topical application research. B. Anything that is extrapolated from oral data without research ( you know, like 100mg TD 1-Andro = 330mg Oral 1-Andro) has no data to compare to... So what'ya gonna do? If you see that as a win for you, fine by me. You Won! Woooohoooo!

 

[Nac]

So what'ya gonna do? If you see that as a win for you, fine by me. You Won! Woooohoooo!

Im under no illusion anyone will win here. We both knew going into this discussion that we would find each others points unconvincing as far as being a mind-changer.

I thought my first post was relatively clear though (maybe not): I dont believe I live in a black and white world, and as such choose not to live by an exhaustive mantra such as "ALL prop blends are deceitful". I choose to put my trust in products on a case by case basis; if there is a degree of irrationality to this ("hmm, funny that the only prop blends you believe to be not deceitful are the ones you trust") so be it.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

BTW, and for the record - there appears to be an attempt by some in here (at least that's my perception) to put words in my mouth in reference to prop blends. If I didn't state this in this thread, than that's my bad, but I've been consistent for over 2 years that prop blends don't always mean nefarious - see:

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

from 2015, 2016, and 2017.

 

[Nac]

EDIT: scratch that. I see from the links the only exception youll make for prop blends is OLs EP1C UNLEASHED.

 

[210LBS]

Ok, do you agree with this:

Prop blends are intended to hide something (well duh, of course). BUT, this has two implications:

1) hiding something cos there is an underdosing going on you dont want others to know about

2) hiding legit dosing to prevent ANYONE from just going out and mixing their own version using bulk powders

...that about cover it?

If you look at the active ingredients you can probably get within the margin of error so that consumers probably wouldn't realize. FD2 for example had 2 active ingredients I believe; EC and Epi. If the serving dose is 1500mgs and I created a product with 700mgs of EC and 600mgs of Epi and then the rest with whatever fillers there are most users wouldn't notice a difference between the 2 products. The downside is I may have slightly overdosed the supplement costing me more $$.. but at the end of the day the label would be identical and in a blind study I don't think users would know a difference. Not knocking FD2 at all, just using it as an example.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Ok, do you agree with this:

Prop blends are intended to hide something (well duh, of course). BUT, this has two implications:

1) hiding something cos there is an underdosing going on you dont want others to know about

2) hiding legit dosing to prevent ANYONE from just going out and mixing their own version using bulk powders

...that about cover it?

No - all effective amounts are on Examine, Suppversity, PubMed and anywhere else research data resides. But how about this:

1. To hide amounts because they are less than the effective dose.
2. Owner/Company properly doses but actually believes prop blends protect from copying (totally friggen crazy talk and they lose sales because full disclosure adds sales from the knowledgeable buyers).
3. Using special complexing/ delivery methods that deliver equal or better results as straight product - but look worse to the average consumer when comparing labels - so sales may be lost.
4. (This was brought up by 1fast400, but I have a hard time believing it) To protect against lawsuits based on label claims.

I have a problem with all of them for reasons I've stated in other posts, but 2 & 3 I can live with (#2 though man, I might be afraid to swallow anything they're selling )

#4 I don't buy, and I'd have to get disinterested 3rd party lawyer input. If the food industry has a margin for error, the supp industry has to have an equal or greater one as far as label weight vs actual. And the supp would have to be assayed in the first place - and you can just as easily assay a prop blend and sue them for using ineffective doses - it's America after all. And why aren't all the 'Open Label' guys worried? And random batch testing/QC should catch discrepancies. I don't know - and I don't want to get into it - I guess it's a reason.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

EDIT: scratch that. I see from the links the only exception youll make for prop blends is OLs EP1C UNLEASHED.

Or anything like that, they happened to be the only ones doing it that I know of. And I still didn't like it, and list the reasons and alternative options (like how Indena labels Meriva).

 

[Nac]

Well (#2) is obviously our main bone of contention, and I dont see any concessions being made on that.

Again, I dont think locking my front door when I go out is "totally friggen crazy" cos whilst it may not deter all professional burglars, it will deter most oppurtunists at least.

Surely you can acknowledge the difference between making something at least a little bit difficult, and handing it to them on a plate.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Well (#2) is obviously our main bone of contention, and I dont see any concessions being made on that.

Again, I dont think locking my front door when I go out is "totally friggen crazy" cos whilst it may not deter all professional burglars, it will deter most oppurtunists at least.

Surely you can acknowledge the difference between making something at least a little bit difficult, and handing it to them on a plate.

No, there is nothing remotely difficult about reading a label and pouring things in a capsule by weight to create an identical label. It's easier than kicking in a door (though I'd go around back and break a window). You just have to swallow that prop blends don't protect anything - and don't use you as the example, use a guy or company that is investing at least a few thousand dollars into selling supplements - Places like Compound Solutions et. al. can do it for you at the press of a button.

 

[Nac]

Lol I dont have to swallow anything thanx.

Whats an identical label gonna do, make it work identically, in all cases? Im guessing your rebut will be "who cares, irrelevant"...and around we'll go.

If I were a company owner, and I wanted to protect my R&D efforts, Id consider prop blending. And no "but I could do this or that and have the same label!1!" from you would ease my mind and convince me otherwise. Guess that makes us both paranoid.

If that meant I lost sales from 0.1% of my potential customer base, meh.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Lol I dont have to swallow anything thanx.

Whats an identical label gonna do, make it work identically, in all cases? Im guessing your rebut will be "who cares, irrelevant"...and around we'll go.

If I were a company owner, and I wanted to protect my R&D efforts, Id consider prop blending. And no "but I could do this or that and have the same label!1!" from you would ease my mind and convince me otherwise. Guess that makes us both paranoid.

If that meant I lost sales from 0.1% of my potential customer base, meh.

An identical label for $X.xx cheaper means I sell more than you, and bank on volume making up the difference. If I'm a superior Social Media Monster even better. You really think 99.9% could tell a difference in the minuscule weight differences... on a maybe under-dosed product to begin with? And that's assuming the stuff isn't part of the 9x% of supplements that do jack shjte in the first place Ever look through a 90's BB Mag and see if anything advertised as "the next big thing!" is still around

"This fat burner totally works bro! I like started eating 1,500 calories less, and tripled my cardio - and I'm losing fat! This supplement kicks azzzz!"

But yeah, I'm with you on the 'round and 'round part, so it was a good debate, thanks :thumbsup:

 

[Nac]

An identical label for $X.xx cheaper means I sell more than you, and bank on volume making up the difference. If I'm a superior Social Media Monster even better. You really think 99.9% could tell a difference in the minuscule weight differences... on a maybe under-dosed product to begin with? And that's assuming the stuff isn't part of the 9x% of supplements that do jack shjte in the first place Ever look through a 90's BB Mag and see if anything advertised as "the next big thing!" is still around

"This fat burner totally works bro! I like started eating 1,500 calories less, and tripled my cardio - and I'm losing fat! This supplement kicks azzzz!"

But yeah, I'm with you on the 'round and 'round part, so it was a good debate, thanks :thumbsup:

Aye, wont argue with most of that.

....but Im still gonna prop blend my properly dosed product, even if it is ultimately an illusory comfort, cos it helps me sleep better at nite. And sorry to say, that comfort > 0.1% who will boycott my properly dosed product out of principle.

 

[Jiigzz]

Prop blends protect nothing. He's hiding something from the consumer only - what that is, and why is the question. There is only one even remotely tolerable reason for non-disclosure (and I'm being generous): When you have a more effective way to deliver an ingredient, so can use less, but on the shelf, the uneducated consumer would just compare amounts to a straight raw ingredient. Ie. Complexed -(-)Epi vs Straight -(-)Epi.

And even then, If I ask on a web forum how much it really is, you should tell me - I'm not sitting in a store comparing labels. If you don't.....hmmmmm, we're back to probably swallowing 'pixie dust for profit' again.

Not to pick on evomuse, but I do know you enjoy them even though they're prop blended?

it might seem like I am, but I only use Evomuse as an example because it is a favourite amongst all the anti prop blenders and I'm not sure why

 

[Jiigzz]

It's no protection at all - explain to me how I can't copy any product out there and put an identical label on the back? I look at their label and put the same stuff in there by ascending/descending weight. It's f'n simple - I can do it with my DA-20 Milligram scale that I measure Yohimbine HCL with - $17.

Oh, and I didn't start this thread... but I LOVE when people do. Who remembers those air powered BB Machine Guns at Carnivals and Fairs back in the 70s/80s?

That's not copying the product, only the label. Surely you understand the difference.

Imagine a recipe for a cookie that lists the ingredients but not the amount of each - do you think you could replicate it just by adding the ingredients in the same order they appear? Good luck

 

[Jiigzz]

Wikipedia and there were more sites as well. Wasn't hard to find at all
Invalid Link Removed

There are other sites that get into more of this and that ,
But this passed due to bs tactics and money. Billion dollar industry pulls together, well you get the point.

Where on that wiki page does it say "vast majority of consumers want open labels"

 

[Ape McGrapes]

Not to pick on evomuse, but I do know you enjoy them even though they're prop blended?

it might seem like I am, but I only use Evomuse as an example because it is a favourite amongst all the anti prop blenders and I'm not sure why

What evomuse products are propblended besides the topicals? Is Bright? Im just curious. I know most are open. IE: Testruction, Clear Edge, Adrenosurge etc...

 

[Jiigzz]

What evomuse products are propblended besides the topicals? Is Bright? Im just curious. I know most are open. IE: Testruction, Clear Edge, Adrenosurge etc...

Most are, but the topicals are huge hits and used among some users ITT despite not knowing the ingredient amounts. Sure, they may fall under cosmetic, but you still use the product without knowing the exact dosages.

I don't like continually referring to them but they're the one company I know plenty of anti prop blenders love to use and it makes no sense.