You used standalone DMAA both then and now, and had it tested? If not, how do you know that the effects you felt were actually DMAA then and something else now?
I don't have any real skin in the DMAA game, I'm just pointing out alternative explanations and that there are some assumptions being made here. Why would people be going though so much time/effort/money fighting the FDA to keep DMAA just to use something weaker instead? Where's the logic in that?
I don't have an answer...only way to put it to rest is have them independently tested.
I'm talking from a purely logical perspective here. With increased FDA attention being focused on the industry, especially companies using DMAA, it seems less likely that companies are spiking their products today compared to several years ago, as putting an undisclosed ingredient in the product (this hypothetical "pseudo-DMAA") is spiking, even if it results in a "weaker" product instead of a "stronger" one. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Interesting, which is consistent with the likelihood that something was spiked back then as opposed to now.
