Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

The New Product Release Thread

Enough good bday cake bars (for me, at least) already, but that new Meso flavor sounds tasty!
 
Titan1.jpg


Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

Chaos and Pain new Fat Burners
 

Attachments

  • Titan1.jpg
    Titan1.jpg
    49.5 KB · Views: 541
Blueberry Cobbler Finally announced (even though we knew)

Invalid Link Removed

No word on release or when they will be available for sale.
Going to be hard to top Maple Glazed Doughnut IMO
 
Ready to see that Muscle Marinade profile! LOVED that!
 
Invalid Link Removed

According to Stack3d:

It is a non-toxic, non-hormonal formula for both men and women, designed to increase protein metabolism as well as increase nitrogen retention.
 
The Solution said:
Blueberry Cobbler Finally announced (even though we knew)

Invalid Link Removed

No word on release or when they will be available for sale.
Going to be hard to top Maple Glazed Doughnut IMO
Click to expand...

Blueberry Cobbler is one of my favorite desserts, let me know when CPBob has these !!
 
Danes said:
Sorry, but those two looks underdosed. I really dont understand why supplement companies still bring underdosed products to the marked
Click to expand...

Which product and ingredients specifically ? Not saying your wrong or right just wanna hear your full opinion . Don't be sorry , feedback is feedback, and it is necessary more the bad then the good IMO. I think Titan has a decent profile I actually think it'll make a nice "fat burning" preworkout . I'm not big on fat burners so that could be why , it's also why I'm not sure what doses would fit Jupiter better. Obviously me saying something won't have a V2 come out tomorrow with higher doses but I will gladly pass ur thoughts along man
 
JulzRulz said:
Invalid Link Removed

According to Stack3d:

It is a non-toxic, non-hormonal formula for both men and women, designed to increase protein metabolism as well as increase nitrogen retention.
Click to expand...

It's always good to lead with "non-toxic" when promoting a new supplement! NOTE: I understand what they are getting at - many supplements can be hepatotoxic, nephrotoxic, etc. Haha, it just makes me wonder what the general public thinks when they see that
 
BRUstrong said:
It's always good to lead with "non-toxic" when promoting a new supplement! NOTE: I understand what they are getting at - many supplements can be hepatotoxic, nephrotoxic, etc. Haha, it just makes me wonder what the general public thinks when they see that
Click to expand...
Haha, if anything, it seems that if someone who didn't know these things looked at a bottle of Halo next to their 1 or 4 products, they'd assume that Halo is the safer option, and perhaps the others aren't quite non-toxic. It sort of reminds me of when you see a label that says "now with real cheese!" That really makes you wonder what was in it before.
 
Danes said:
Sorry, but those two looks underdosed. I really dont understand why supplement companies still bring underdosed products to the marked
Click to expand...

Because the other 99% of people aren't on forums and have no clue what a studied effective dose is haha.

Shiny labels, bro ;)
 
BRUstrong said:
It's always good to lead with "non-toxic" when promoting a new supplement! NOTE: I understand what they are getting at - many supplements can be hepatotoxic, nephrotoxic, etc. Haha, it just makes me wonder what the general public thinks when they see that
Click to expand...

Think their main reason is cuz when I read "halo" I think halodrol or halotestin... hate misleading names like this
 
Alpha1agreda said:
Which product and ingredients specifically ? Not saying your wrong or right just wanna hear your full opinion . Don't be sorry , feedback is feedback, and it is necessary more the bad then the good IMO. I think Titan has a decent profile I actually think it'll make a nice "fat burning" preworkout . I'm not big on fat burners so that could be why , it's also why I'm not sure what doses would fit Jupiter better. Obviously me saying something won't have a V2 come out tomorrow with higher doses but I will gladly pass ur thoughts along man
Click to expand...

I can definitely send you PM if you really want to hear my honest opinion on Titan
 
Hmmm...new Centurion Labz powdered fat burner, along the lines of Radiate. Hmmm...which one to try?

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
Alpha1agreda said:
Atleast our shiny labels ship when you buy them ;) lol
Click to expand...

That's cute coming from the same company that just had their product delayed multiple times too and had to keep issuing apologies and having sales... seems like we're eskimo companies, both getting screwed by the same culprit
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

LOL...I don't know how to convert HTM to .JPEG...I'll type it out, can't find a pic or anything other than 1 site that has it.

60 servings:

Vitamin B6 2mg
Vitamin B12 6mcg
Green Tea extract 500mg
Naringin 500mg
Caffeine Anhydrous 300mg
Choline Bi-Tartrate 100mg
White Willow Bark 100mg
Cape Aloe extract 100mg
2-amino-6-methylheptane 100mg
Theobromine 100mg
Hordenine 50mg
Synephrine 33mg
Ghost Pepper extract 11mg
Niacin 10mg
 
booneman77 said:
That's cute coming from the same company that just had their product delayed multiple times too and had to keep issuing apologies and having sales... seems like we're eskimo companies, both getting screwed by the same culprit
Click to expand...

Lol I'm just messing with you bro.
Honestly the whole low dosed thing, I don't see it as something bad from any company, keeps products cheaper, gets a bigger audience as in beginners who might not have high doses in their best interest , also when t comes to stims keeping doses lower avoids stacking issues . Just my opinions no one has to agree , and no need to further derail the thread. As I said already , I'm more then glad to hear feedback in my PMs and forward it along its what reps are here for isn't it ?
 
Alpha1agreda said:
Lol I'm just messing with you bro.
Honestly the whole low dosed thing, I don't see it as something bad from any company, keeps products cheaper, gets a bigger audience as in beginners who might not have high doses in their best interest , also when t comes to stims keeping doses lower avoids stacking issues . Just my opinions no one has to agree , and no need to further derail the thread. As I said already , I'm more then glad to hear feedback in my PMs and forward it along its what reps are here for isn't it ?
Click to expand...

I think you're missing what the point is, we're not saying put in 300mg of caffeine or GTFO.

Its more like, whats the point of putting a full dose of BA in something then a inferior dose of creatine and a piss poor dose of cit mal, i mean it wasn't even designed smart enough to be a double dose otherwise you're getting smacked with 6g+ of BA. If it was specifically designed so it HAS to be used with another product (which i hate) then it should be advertised as so.

The product cost is low because its an inferior product. Curious how beneficial 10mg of theobromine is too. Wouldn't call 275mg caffeine low stim too.
 
I'm really interested in the supps like controlled burn and Radiate, because I'm trying to make a great day burning stack without making every ingredient separate, like Assass1nate, Forslean with Ign1te, but how could we got these two into the mix?
 
justhere4comm said:
Why? at 5mg?
What concerns were you thinking of?
Click to expand...
I've talked about this a good bit before, so I'll mostly just be putting up links and quoting myself:
I recall one of the more discussed study giving 1mg/day to 6-week-old male winstar rats (I didn't see their weight listed, but it's typically about 100g). Converted based on BSA for a 60kg human, that's about 96mg. Granted, 43% of these rats ended up developing tumors, compared to only 5% in the untreated group. A safety factor of 10 is common (higher amounts are often employed when severe toxicity is noted), so there's no way I'd personally touch even 10mg. Now, I'm not saying 10mg is going to have deleterious effects on humans, just that the potential risk outweighs the reward for me. Again, I'm not saying that arecoline is bad for you, just explaining why some people are concerned (with actual numbers).
Click to expand...
Also, "Oh, and adding to my previous comment, saying that other stimulants (caffeine, yohimbine HCL, etc) are dangerous at 10x the recommended dose would be a faulty argument; while technically true, we have evidence that the doses used in supplements are safe, while I am aware of no such information on arecoline. Perhaps research in the future will show little to no dangers with ~3mg, but until then, it seem unnecessary to risk it given that there are many other alternative stimulants out there."
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
On dose conversions and safety factors:
Invalid Link Removed
 
booneman77 said:
Because it's carcinogenic...
Click to expand...

muscleupcrohn said:
I've talked about this a good bit before, so I'll mostly just be putting up links and quoting myself:
Click to expand...


Invalid Link Removed

"...new findings now published online in the journal Molecular Cell suggests the component may not be all bad, and has some anticancer properties. The team of researchers found that arecoline can help limit something known as the Warburg effect, a term used to describe a technique cancer cells use to grow more quickly. In a lab setting, arecoline inhibited the growth of human lung cancer and leukemia cells both in culture and grafted into mice. What’s more, it did this while not affecting the growth of normal blood cells."

also referenced in the article:
Invalid Link Removed



cb2.png
 
booneman77 said:
Because it's carcinogenic...
Click to expand...

muscleupcrohn said:
I've talked about this a good bit before, so I'll mostly just be putting up links and quoting myself:



Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
On dose conversions and safety factors:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Thank you for your feedback and concerns, we're always open to that! If I may, let me please share some insight into why we decided to acreoline in our product versus not, primarily I will go over the arguments against the negatives because the positives are the stimulant effects of energy, euphoria, and well-being, etc.

Let me first start off by saying that, there's no doubt that Betel Nut / Areca Nut is indeed a carcinogenic product. But what's important to note is that you can't backwards extrapolate i.e. saying that if Aceca Nut is carcinogenic and if acreoline is in aceca nut then it also must be carcinogenic. For this type of thing, you can forward extrapolate, for example saying nicotine is a carcinogen, nicotine is in cigarettes, therefore cigarettes are a carcinogen. But you cannot backwards extrapolate, using the cigarette example again, you can't say cigarettes are a carcinogen, cotton is in cigarettes (the filter part), therefore cotton is a carcinogen.

So essentially the first point I'm making is establishing that Betel Nut / Areca Nut is a carcinogen does not conclude that acreoline is a carcinogen. The 3rd link you provided Invalid Link Removed, goes solely over the Betel Nut / Areca Nut and not acreoline. I agree that Betel Nut / Areca Nut is a carcinogen, but your concerns are not about Betel Nut / Areca Nut, it's about the acreoline in our product, so we cannot consider the 3rd linked article as evidence of acreoline being dangerous.

Next, let's address the 1st and 2nd article you linked. The 2nd article is mostly discussing the Betel Nut / Areca Nut and it's extract, again this is not our subject of conversation we need to focus on acreoline specifically. However, on page 105/240, it mentions the exact same study as the 1st article you linked. So for the 1st and 2nd link, it's mainly focusing on the first link study you posted titled "Arecoline tumorigenicity in Swiss strain mice on normal and vitamin B deficient diet.". This study is more valid to our current discussion because they used "arecoline hydrochloride" specifically, not a areca nut extract or parts of an areca nut but specifically arecoline, which is what we're interested in. Now below I have quoted the abstract and bolded the important parts:

"Arecoline, a major alkaloid present in betel nut, was administered daily by gavage feeding to Swiss male and female mice at a dose of 1 mg/day/mouse five times a week, either alone or in combination with KNO3 or KNO3 + lime. Swiss mice of both sexes kept on a vitamin B complex-deficient diet were tested in a similar manner and compared with those receiving a normal diet. In the mice receiving a normal diet it was observed that arecoline induced tumors in 40% of males but failed to produce tumors in any of the females. Arecoline tumorigenicity in females was evident only when they received a vitamin B-deficient diet. Arecoline tumorigenicity was not evident in males when they were treated simultaneously with KNO3 + lime and kept on a normal diet. However, the same treatment administered to male mice kept on a vitamin B complex-deficient diet induced tumors in 39%."

Ok now let's break this down into the pieces that are relevant.

1. 1mg/day for 5 days. The average weight of a 6 week Swiss mouse (what was used in the study) is about 25 grams according to this: Invalid Link Removed , just look at the graph on the left hand side, look at 6 weeks of age and the average is about 25 grams for a male swiss mouse. At 1mg/day for a 25 gram mouse, the equivalent dose for an average 90kg male (198 lbs) is 291mg based on human equivalent dosing, which is 58x the dosage of one serving of our product. This touches on your second quote talking about dosing, 58x is way more than 10x. I'd imagine taking 58x the dosage of our any of our DMAA products would be fatal. So my first counter-argument is that the study is looking at a dosage that is 58x the dosage of our product.

2. In the mice receiving a normal diet it was observed that arecoline induced tumors in 40% of males but failed to produce tumors in any of the females. Why is that? Why was there 40% tumors in males but none in the females? Then continue reading the abstract and you'll see tumors in females when they had a vitamin B-deficient diet. Arecoline tumorigenicity seen in males when they were" treated simultaneously with KNO3 + lime and kept on a normal diet. However, the same treatment administered to male mice kept on a vitamin B complex-deficient diet induced tumors in 39%." This indicates there must be another factory at play. It's not just the arecoline because you range from 0-40% just based on their diet changing while still taking the acrecoline. You should especially be worried about why there was such a discrepancy? Why did were tumors not induced in females at all? This takes us to point 3:

3. The full article of the 1st link you posted is under a paywall, so the majority of this community doesn't have access to (not because they can't but because they don't want to pay the subscription fee haha). But the second link you gave that talked about that same study has this very important note: " The Working Group noted the lack of information on the time of appearance of specific neoplasms and the inadequate reporting of the pathological findings. The lack of tumours in females was not explained." Now they don't specific who exactly the working group is (whether it's the researchers themselves or a 3rd party), but the in the scientific community generally a Working Group is "a scientific subject-matter experts who collaborate to determine best practices and to develop consensus standards" (Invalid Link Removed). Going on that, this shows that there were some fundamental issues with reporting and data collection of the first study you linked. The Working Group also acknowledges the lack of explanation for lack of tumors in females, which is what is the first thing I noticed in that study. This commentary you won't find on the abstract, it's actually on the bottom of page 105 + to of page 106 of your second link. The inconsistencies of the study and inadequate data monitoring and collecting really puts the whole study in question.



Now, I've tried my best to elaborate and counter the arguments you have made, now it's my turn to show my evidence for my side.

1. Study A: "Evaluation of Arecoline Hydrobromide Toxicity after a 14-Day Repeated Oral Administration in Wistar Rats"
Full Study available here: Invalid Link Removed

Quick Background: 14 day study, 80 rats divided into four groups: a high-dose group (1000 mg/kg), medium-dose group (200 mg/kg), low-dose group (100mg/kg) and blank control group. Conclusion: " The level of Ah (Arecoline Hydrobromide ) at which no adverse effects were observed was 100 mg/kg/day under the present study conditions.

Now what's really interesting here is that at 100mg/kg translates to 1460mg for a 90kg average male. But the article 1 you linked said that 1g/25g mice = 291mg/90kg humans caused tumors. But here we see a more recent study (April 2015) that has almost 5x the dosage is reported no adverse affects. This along with the Working Group note, really makes you question the results and data obtained from that first 1984 study.

Another interesting note, this 2015 study says in the conclusions: "Decreased body weight and food consumption were identified in all treated rats after 14 days of Ah administration. " This supports our inclusion in our fat burner.

This study is significant to our case because it is a shorter study, our Controlled Burn specifically says on the label to take the product on 2 week cycles. This corresponds exactly with the 14 day length of this 2015 study. The study does note "Based on the results of our analysis and the earlier acute toxicity test, long-term administration of high doses of Ah is likely to be toxic." But what's important to note is that our Controlled Burn product isn't intended to be used long term at high doses. You're not suppose to be taking this everyday, year round, taking 6-8+ capsules at a time. Even then, our product is dosed even a fraction of what these studies are doing. So we've build everything in that reflects the safety shown in this study.


2. Here's a really interesting study, just came out 4 months ago in Nov 2016: Invalid Link Removed

It's kind of a hard read, but this Sci News article actually helps break it down a bit: Invalid Link Removed

This totally flips things upside down, because now we have a very recent study showing that acreoline may actually have anti-cancer properties! But I think the statement at the end really sums up the acreoline debate: “While we did not see obvious toxicity when treating mice with arecoline, more extensive pharmacokinetic and toxicology studies with arecoline and similar compounds are needed.”


In my personal opinion, and I share this with all my reps and athletes so they know, is that most of the ingredients in the supplement industry are grossly understudied. There's just not enough funding, money and motivation to do these extensive studies on thousands and thousands of dietary supplements. And even when done, usually it's for medicinal purposes and not workout/fitness purposes. We can try to extrapolate where we can, but we have to be careful about the claims we're making and the conclusions we're extrapolating. I could go on about how we approach choosing what ingredients to use, but I go into detail about this in our upcoming SuppTalk podcast to be released this Friday 17th (Invalid Link Removed) double s

But end of the day, we are a customer sanctification and customer demand driven company. If the majority of people interested in our product are against acrecoline, we'll take it out of the next production run, no problem. However, I've given my personal counter-points as well as supporting points as to why we have it in there now. I'm very open to feedback and maybe I missed something! I'm a supporter of our products, and I wouldn't push anything I don't believe in (this is why we do not and will not carry pro-hormones). I acknowledge there's lots of studies out there for the Areca nut as well as acreoline, but at this point in time I have not seen the conclusive evidence to show that our dosing amount and regiment will cause any long term negative affects.

Thank you to everyone who has read this entire post. I'm passionate about our brand and will do everything thoroughly to show you why I think we products with great features and benefits.
 
Without fact checking you; are you using HED dosing for those figures you're running?

You state that 100mg/kg in rats translates to 9000mg for a 90kg human, and also 1g in a 25g rat translates to 3600mg in a 90kg human; both of which are incorrect as you haven't taken into account human equivalent dosing.
 
Jiigzz said:
Without fact checking you; are you using HED dosing for those figures you're running?

You stated that 100mg/kg in rats translates to 9000mg for a 90kg human, which is incorrect as you haven't taken into account human equivalent dosing.
Click to expand...

Yes that's true but I do not believe there are any studies right now involving acreoline on humans, the scaled dosing is just to simplify the argument. I just did a simply ratio as the closest thing there is. I absolutely agree that you cannot do a 1:1 extrapolation like that from animals to humans, just like how you can't necessary extrapolate from in vitro to in vivo. But with the information we have, this is the closest we can get.

Edit: I see, are you referring to the HED dosing using: Invalid Link Removed ?
 
Your best bet is to divide a rat dose by 12.3 to get the HED.

So 100mg/12.3 =8.something. so the dose in a human is actually remarkably low (much lower than 9000mg in any case)

FWIW I don't really mind either way, but just thought id point that out :D
 
Jiigzz said:
Your best bet is to divide a rat dose by 12.3 to get the HED.

So 100mg/12.3 =8.something. so the dose in a human is actually remarkably low (much lower than 9000mg in any case)
Click to expand...

Ah I see, that's a good catch.Thank you for that. The human adult is a 37 ratio, rat is 6 , so multiplied by 6/37. Let me go back and edit that!

Edit: Values have been corrected for human dosing. For 100mg/kg rats, it ends up being 16.22mg/kg for humans. So for a 90kg adult that's 1460mg of acreoline.
 
Jiigzz said:
Your best bet is to divide a rat dose by 12.3 to get the HED.

So 100mg/12.3 =8.something. so the dose in a human is actually remarkably low (much lower than 9000mg in any case)

FWIW I don't really mind either way, but just thought id point that out :D
Click to expand...

We'd love your insight/opinion on acreoline! We're very open to feedback and change and if there's a compelling argument or a few conclusive studies, we'd be happy to reformulate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top