Pycnogenol vs Pine Bark Extract
bigtourist 01 Apr 2009
I suppose the real question is whether OPC is the whole story of what youre getting or not. I have done lots of searching both here and on google about this and cant find a definitive answer.
The brand name Pycnogenol® that NSI sells is standardized to 65-75% OPC and sells for approx 30 cents/pill (This percentage is not listed on the Vitacost website, but it is on the bottle). NSI also has a generic Pine Bark Extract that comes from "certain pine trees", that is standardized to 95% OPC which sells for 10 cents/pill.
I am trying to determine if the trademark is causing the price to raise that substantially that you would get an inferior product for a higher cost, or whether the higher OPC% is really an indication that there are other properties missing from the product that are necessary for the full benefits.
Any clarification on this would be greatly appreciated!
.bigtourist
nameless 01 Apr 2009
Healthy Origins makes a Pycnogenol supplement at approx. the same price as NSI. As does Swanson's. Although I wouldn't say either are exactly high-end brands, I'd consider both more reputable than NSI.
Grapeseed instead of Pycnogenol is another option. It's certainly a lot cheaper.
pkands 02 Apr 2009
aim1 02 Apr 2009
NSI Pine bark extract is from a different species of tree than Pycnogenol. As the studies have been done using pycnogenol, it is not clear about the benefits of NSI pine bark extract.
I am looking at my bottle of Pycnogenol purchased from NSI. It is labeled Pycnogenol with a registered trademark and it mentions the Hophag company which has the patents on Pycnogenol. I don't think they would be able to sell it for very long without a law suit. I don't understand all this NSI bashing on this web site.
And as far as results go, I wouldn't be without it.
bigtourist 02 Apr 2009
aim1, i currently have the trademarked Pycnogenol from NSI, but the question is about their other generic product that is just named Pine Bark Extract 95% OPC
As for the NSI bashing, I understand people have been told by Vitacost that the products are not cGMP certified. Im not sure why the FDA has a regulation for supplements thats optional, it sounds more like a suggestion than a regulation then. NSI claims they follow the practices, but just dont have the stamp, though that does sound really sketchy. NSI lists the sources of their ingredients (http://www.gonsi.com...information.cfm)
Then there is this comment in a Vitacost newsletter from 10/24/2008. I wonder if there is anyway to find out which products are being manufactured in the NC facility they are referring to at the end of this: http://www.vitacost....ighty-Vitamin-C
I am also proud to report the majority of NSI products are now being manufactured in our new $13 million dollar state of the art North Carolina facility using the most technologically advanced pharmaceutical grade equipment. NSI also invested about $1 million dollars in a new scientifically advanced lab to test for potency and purity. This facility was designed from the ground up to meet the new FDA GMP (good manufacturing practices) and regulations.
jessicantique 03 Apr 2009
i know there'r some complaints previously regarding NSI 's customer services and some kind of scams, but not related to product quality. i sometimes buy from NSI , both NSI and other brands at vitacost. can someone provide me the links, if any, regarding other people's bad review on them? thanks.I understand people have been told by Vitacost that the products are not cGMP certified. [...] NSI claims they follow the practices, but just dont have the stamp, though that does sound really sketchy. NSI lists the sources of their ingredients (http://www.gonsi.com...information.cfm)
Then there is this comment in a Vitacost newsletter from 10/24/2008. http://www.vitacost....ighty-Vitamin-CI am also proud to report the majority of NSI products are now being manufactured in our new $13 million dollar state of the art North Carolina facility using the most technologically advanced pharmaceutical grade equipment. NSI also invested about $1 million dollars in a new scientifically advanced lab to test for potency and purity. This facility was designed from the ground up to meet the new FDA GMP (good manufacturing practices) and regulations.
i am a international customers, i found they provide the best prices on many brands, also a large number of supplements, that sometimes i can't find at iherb...
Edited by Michael, 24 July 2009 - 06:23 PM.
Trim quote
pycnogenol 03 Apr 2009
I personally don't trust NSI branded supplements and certainly don't trust them for non-patented ingredients. I'd worry about solvents used in generic pine bark, where it came from, or if there was even pine bark in the capsules to begin with.
Healthy Origins makes a Pycnogenol supplement at approx. the same price as NSI. As does Swanson's. Although I wouldn't say either are exactly high-end brands, I'd consider both more reputable than NSI.
Thank you, nameless. That pretty much sums it up for me as well. NSI are really good at marketing their questionable products though.
This is the Pycnogenol brand I'm currently taking:
http://www.iherb.com...x?pid=1729&at=0
I buy the Now Foods brand too. Might try the Natural Factors brand one of these days.
Edited by pycnogenol, 03 April 2009 - 11:15 PM.
nameless 03 Apr 2009
Healthy Origins, Pycnogenol, 100 mg, 60 Veggie Caps - 29.95 (Iherb)
or Swansons, 100mg 30 caps: 14.95 -- better deal when they have it on sale
Or try an alternative, like Now Enzogenol or again, grapeseed extract. I expect most of the benefits pycnogenol has can be found in grapeseed anyway -- very similar OPCs. I'd go with Enzogenol or grapeseed over generic pine bark, if price is a big issue.
As for what's wrong with NSI -- they aren't cGMP certified, a number of people here have commented on odd things in their capsules, or other problems (like shipping opened supplements). NSI marketing alone is enough to put me off.
Edited by nameless, 03 April 2009 - 11:38 PM.
pkands 04 Apr 2009
pkands, where did you determine it was made from a different species pine tree? was that information from NSI? im wondering if they just arent allowed to name the tree in their description b/c of trademark infringement, or whether it really is a different tree.
It was "white pine" and I must have seen it on the vitacost website but it is no longer there. It has been several months.
krillin 04 Apr 2009
Grapeseed is better.I expect most of the benefits pycnogenol has can be found in grapeseed anyway -- very similar OPCs.
http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=222295
jessicantique 04 Apr 2009
yes, in the scale they provide the supplement, i do cannot find any information on the manufacturing quality control of their sources.... even though i guess they are mostly from china.
i am currently staying in hongkong, it's really stupid that i am buying from the US supplier while actually they are sourcing from china. those raw materials are shipped from china to the US and then shipped to my home in Hongkong.,...
pycnogenol 26 Sep 2009
tunt01 26 Sep 2009
rwac 26 Sep 2009
i wrote one author of a study on pycnogonel and asked him if i could have his paper and wanted his input on the best vendor (he tested multiple ones). he said they all come from the same source and exhibit the same characteristics. just buy any brand. have you noticed a difference?
It would have been great, if you could have found out if there's a difference between pycnogenol and pine bark extract.
nameless 26 Sep 2009
A couple of corrections to my old post above: NSI is now GMP certified, although I probably still wouldn't recommend them. And I'm not sure if a non-branded pine bark or grape seed would have the same benefits as pycnogenol would. I guess it depends as to what benefits a person is looking for.
wiserd 27 Nov 2009
ensun 27 Nov 2009
As for what's wrong with NSI -- they aren't cGMP certified
Yes, actually, they are now.
ParrotSlave 10 Mar 2010
The only way I can envision Vitacost selling products at prices as low as they do--and I compare with Puritan's Pride (limited selection, but always high marks from consumerlab.com), Swanson, iHerb and others--is that they must be using Chinese sources. They have not answered my email queries about the source of their herbs. The fact that their "manufacturing" facility is in North Carolina is meaningless; the question is, where do the materials that they encapsulate originate? The first hit on Google just now for "pine bark extract bulk" gave me a company that sells Chinese bulk material for between $53 and $85 a kilo, depending on the quantity you want. It's reasonable to assume that Vitacost buys on the open market from sources like that. They are in business to make money; if source #1 is selling at $53 a kilo, and source #2 is selling at $100 a kilo, which one do you think they're going to buy--especially when they don't reveal source information to consumers.
I don't want to bash China, but I have actual lot analyses of several Chinese bee products from a few years ago that show unbelievably high levels of lead and mercury, and its other contaminated exports, such as ethylene glycol toothpaste and melamine pet products, as well as lead and cadmium contaminated toys and jewelery, makes one highly suspicious of anything originating there.
See also "Toxic heavy metals and undeclared drugs in Asian herbal medicines," abstract at sciencedirect.com.
If you ever get a chance, watch CNN's special "Planet In Peril" from a couple of years ago; if you had seen that, you would probably never buy anything Chinese again. Separate from the heavy metal question is the question of pesticide contamination, neither of which seem to be of concern to the PROC's rulers. If you want to buy without paranoia, but deplete your wallet more rapidly, the Life Extension Foundation is very proud not to use Chinese sources. Supplement labels should be required to list country of origin and, if different, country of processing (if, say, an herb originates in China but the extract is made in Mexico, both countries need to be listed) of the ingredients.
I have no reason to believe that Vitacost's products that contain trademarked materials, like pycnogenol, are anything other than what they purport to be, and I feel confident buying them (I think.) That heavy metal issue I mentioned was 2 years ago, and logic would dictate that Vitacost must be paranoid about the issue recurring, and if anyone with a mind had any power at that company, surely they would have instituted some kind of safeguard, although intelligence doesn't always make it to corporate boardrooms.
Regarding the pycnogenol/pine bark question, lacking any experimental evidence, i.e., scientific studies, the most cost-effective way to go that would also give you some security regarding the possibility that the generic pine bark extract is nowhere near as good--and in point of fact, we don't know, it might actually be better--would be to take some of the generic pine bark extract every morning, and take the "real" pycnogenol in the evenings. To be even safer, with the generic, buy it and hold on to it for a year or so before you use it to give time for any recall or contamination event to hit the news.
Edited by ParrotSlave, 10 March 2010 - 04:26 AM.
MrSpud 10 Mar 2010
Dorho 10 Mar 2010
According to Wikipedia, Pinus massoniana is native to a wide area of central and southern China, including Hong Kong and Taiwan, and northern Vietnam.
Edited by Dorho, 10 March 2010 - 07:05 AM.
gregandbeaker 15 Mar 2010
Pycnogenol is made from Pinus maritima bark. Source Natural's pine bark extract is derived from Pinus massoniana, and I assume that applies to the pine bark extracts of most of the companies that don't mention their source. I would be concerned of the safety of a Pinus massoniana product, especially if the pine is grown in China, where regulation of the safety of food products is very poor.
According to Wikipedia, Pinus massoniana is native to a wide area of central and southern China, including Hong Kong and Taiwan, and northern Vietnam.
To be clear though, Source Natural's pycnogenol product does list Pinus Maritima as its origin:
http://www.sourcenat...roducts/GP1264/
wydell 16 Mar 2010
niner 16 Mar 2010
Wouldn't it be better if every single lot of raw material, regardless of country of origin or processing, was analyzed for heavy metals, pesticides, and other likely contaminants? Not everything from a developed country will be clean, and not everything from the developing world will be bad. I hope that some of the high cost of pycnogenol is being used to make sure it is clean.If you ever get a chance, watch CNN's special "Planet In Peril" from a couple of years ago; if you had seen that, you would probably never buy anything Chinese again. Separate from the heavy metal question is the question of pesticide contamination, neither of which seem to be of concern to the PROC's rulers. If you want to buy without paranoia, but deplete your wallet more rapidly, the Life Extension Foundation is very proud not to use Chinese sources. Supplement labels should be required to list country of origin and, if different, country of processing (if, say, an herb originates in China but the extract is made in Mexico, both countries need to be listed) of the ingredients.
J. Galt 11 Nov 2010
Regarding Pinus massoniana, used in many generics (like at purebulk.com, for example), I found an interesting study that might be relevant here:
http://docs.google.c...slnGfJs09RcEpXA
Edited by J. Galt, 11 November 2010 - 02:59 PM.
J. Galt 11 Nov 2010
Pycnogenol is a trademarked name for pine bark extract, and there is little to no difference between the two in terms of composition or effects.
Read more: http://www.livestron.../#ixzz14zCxaAKv
Edited by J. Galt, 11 November 2010 - 03:01 PM.
FunkOdyssey 11 Nov 2010
Also, for what it's worth, LiveStrong.com says:
Pycnogenol is a trademarked name for pine bark extract, and there is little to no difference between the two in terms of composition or effects.
Read more: http://www.livestron.../#ixzz14zCxaAKv
I highly doubt this is true. In addition to differences in composition that result from differing species of pine tree, there are different extraction methods used, including both mechanical and chemical methods. The sum of these differences could easily produce "pine bark extracts" varying widely in strength and composition.
Pinus massoniana bark extract has antioxidant properties in an in vitro study, that's good. Pycnogenol has 223 published studies, including many successful clinical trials. Not remotely comparable.
shadowhawk 12 Nov 2010
Also, for what it's worth, LiveStrong.com says:
Pycnogenol is a trademarked name for pine bark extract, and there is little to no difference between the two in terms of composition or effects.
Read more: http://www.livestron.../#ixzz14zCxaAKv
I highly doubt this is true. In addition to differences in composition that result from differing species of pine tree, there are different extraction methods used, including both mechanical and chemical methods. The sum of these differences could easily produce "pine bark extracts" varying widely in strength and composition.
Pinus massoniana bark extract has antioxidant properties in an in vitro study, that's good. Pycnogenol has 223 published studies, including many successful clinical trials. Not remotely comparable.
I agree. Having tried both products there seem to be a real difference. Pycnogenol seems best to me, though it costs more.
MaximumLife 13 Nov 2010
I agree. Having tried both products there seem to be a real difference. Pycnogenol seems best to me, though it costs more.
Umm for what reason does it seem best to you ? what placebo effect are you talking about ? or do you have some hard facts on how this effects you ?
Thanks
shadowhawk 13 Nov 2010
I agree. Having tried both products there seem to be a real difference. Pycnogenol seems best to me, though it costs more.
Umm for what reason does it seem best to you ? what placebo effect are you talking about ? or do you have some hard facts on how this effects you ?
Thanks
I have tried both extensively thinking they are both pine extracts. I thought it may be all about branding and that was the reason for the higher costs. Could there be a placebo effect to the brand? These are all questions I asked myself.
I think there is a difference between the effect of the two. I am most interested in the effect on blood sugar though there are many other benefits and issues involved. Do a test on yourself. Try different ones for yourself for a couple months each. Then choose the best one for you.
Ames 23 Sep 2011
Anyway, upon reading about heavy metals in pine bark of chinese trees due to nearby manufacturing, I'm now worried about the purity of what I have. However, China is a large country and this may be a clean extract. The CofA on purebulks website lists "heavy metals" at 8.0 ppm. Lead and cadmium are less than 1.0 and.1 respectively. I have no idea what safe is, or what would be normal for pine bark extracts from other locations/species. I am wondering if I can trust purebulk to sell a relatively clean product, to have a trustworthy CofA on file, and if 8.0ppm is acceptable.
Any insight would be appreciated.