29 replies to this topic

[Mike M]

I looked at carrying Resveratrol due to the popular threads on this board. I've had multiple samples sent to me from all over. I have yet to have a single sample pass. I started wondering if companies just had some magical source I hadn't found yet. So I sent a very well known product out for testing. Here is the response I got from the lab today:

We’re seeing a lower purity (about 90% or less) than the other lab reported. There is no way the sample we got is 99% pure. The melting point is a real good indicator of that and the sample didn’t even melt, it charred and turned black. The Sigma standard (99%) has a definite melting point range. Most likely they put more filler in there than they are admitting. The other lab also tested a different batch than we did. We’re going to examine the product under the microscope and see if we can pick out any other substance in the sample to support our results.

From here, I'm going to send the same product out to a different lab to see if they get similar results. Makes you wonder what testing methods these other labs are using to get the desired result.

[niner]

I looked at carrying Resveratrol due to the popular threads on this board. I've had multiple samples sent to me from all over. I have yet to have a single sample pass. I started wondering if companies just had some magical source I hadn't found yet. So I sent a very well known product out for testing. Here is the response I got from the lab today:

We’re seeing a lower purity (about 90% or less) than the other lab reported. There is no way the sample we got is 99% pure. The melting point is a real good indicator of that and the sample didn’t even melt, it charred and turned black. The Sigma standard (99%) has a definite melting point range. Most likely they put more filler in there than they are admitting. The other lab also tested a different batch than we did. We’re going to examine the product under the microscope and see if we can pick out any other substance in the sample to support our results.

From here, I'm going to send the same product out to a different lab to see if they get similar results. Makes you wonder what testing methods these other labs are using to get the desired result.

There are a couple problems with this. The first is chain of custody; where did the bottle go between the time it left the vendor and got to the lab? How many people had access to it? How was it stored? The second problem is methodology. Melting point is kind of antiquated; no one uses it for pharmaceutical purity determination. If this lab doesn't have an HPLC, what are they even doing trying to provide pharmaceutical analyses? A capsule could contain the specified mass of resveratrol at the specified purity and still show a horrible melting point due to the inclusion of harmless flow agents and other additives. I'm certainly not saying that whatever sample of resveratrol you tested is pure or any good at all; for all I know it's bunk. The problem is that there is no way to tell from what you've reported, and your post tars the entire resveratrol industry.

[Anthony_Loera]

Next time use AACL:
http://www.aaclabs.com/

They sport an ISO 17025 accreditation based on international standards and accepted world wide:
http://www.aaclabs.c...-accreditation/

Wikipedia Info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_17025

We use them all the time.
However, when we have a material such as cycloastragenol they aren't familiar with, we then switch to Chromadex for purity and AACL for the rest:
http://www.chromadex.com/
(see attached)

Cheers
A

Attached Files

•  CDXA_ARS_4411_00_ORD28724_Cycloastragenol.pdf   95.78KB   8 downloads

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 23 June 2009 - 04:58 PM.

[Mike M]

They are 17025 compliant as well. Also registered in multiple states for controlled drug testing and countless other things. That's my point. I'm sending more out to have it tested by other labs and other methods, but I can't say this shocks me. As far as chain of custody, not my first rodeo. The product goes straight from the company to the lab, I never touch it.

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi,

I am not clear on something, were you testing bulk powder, or capsules?

thanks
A

[niner]

They are 17025 compliant as well. Also registered in multiple states for controlled drug testing and countless other things. That's my point. I'm sending more out to have it tested by other labs and other methods, but I can't say this shocks me. As far as chain of custody, not my first rodeo. The product goes straight from the company to the lab, I never touch it.

Mike, thanks for clarifying that. So where are you going with this? You're investing a lot of your own money in demonstrating that somebody's resveratrol is not quite up to snuff. To what end? Are you going to let us know which product it is?

[tunt01]

i was curious to know whose product it was too, but then i realized it is probably some bulk supplier out of china and not the advertised end product.

[2tender]

They are 17025 compliant as well. Also registered in multiple states for controlled drug testing and countless other things. That's my point. I'm sending more out to have it tested by other labs and other methods, but I can't say this shocks me. As far as chain of custody, not my first rodeo. The product goes straight from the company to the lab, I never touch it.

Mike, thanks for clarifying that. So where are you going with this? You're investing a lot of your own money in demonstrating that somebody's resveratrol is not quite up to snuff. To what end? Are you going to let us know which product it is?

I think it would be more than proper to expound on this rather than cause a ruckus. How do we know if you are truthful and mean this is earnest? It would be good manners to divulge this, especially after making such a statement to begin with. So, what do you have to say?

[niner]

They are 17025 compliant as well. Also registered in multiple states for controlled drug testing and countless other things. That's my point. I'm sending more out to have it tested by other labs and other methods, but I can't say this shocks me. As far as chain of custody, not my first rodeo. The product goes straight from the company to the lab, I never touch it.

Mike, thanks for clarifying that. So where are you going with this? You're investing a lot of your own money in demonstrating that somebody's resveratrol is not quite up to snuff. To what end? Are you going to let us know which product it is?

I think it would be more than proper to expound on this rather than cause a ruckus. How do we know if you are truthful and mean this is earnest? It would be good manners to divulge this, especially after making such a statement to begin with. So, what do you have to say?

That question is directed at Mike / SmartPowders, right?

[2tender]

Yes, Niner, thats correct! I want to hear whose supplements are erstatz. Right now Im using a supplement thats pretty expensive, if it has tested as anything less than what its supposed to be I want to know about it NOW! Their is no time like the present. This person obviously doesnt have the data to back up their claim. If he did, he would have posted it. So I guess that ends this discussion. This guy pops up out of nowhere and starts casting dispersions on product, without anything to back it up, besides hearsay. Zero minus zero equals zero.

[maxwatt]

Yes, Niner, thats correct! I want to hear whose supplements are erstatz. Right now Im using a supplement thats pretty expensive, if it has tested as anything less than what its supposed to be I want to know about it NOW! Their is no time like the present. This person obviously doesnt have the data to back up their claim. If he did, he would have posted it. So I guess that ends this discussion. This guy pops up out of nowhere and starts casting dispersions on product, without anything to back it up, besides hearsay. Zero minus zero equals zero.

Going back to the original post that starrted the thread, it seems the capsule tested had more filler than expected. Such filler can be flow agents or excipients to make encapsulation easier. Perhaps, I infer, there was variation in content between capsules in the sample. As long as one is getting a certain amount of 98 or 99% pure resveratrol in the capsule plus such fillers, it should not be a problem.

If you want to mention particular brand names and test results, I can and will move this topic into the vendors forum.

[Actarus]

Yes, Niner, thats correct! I want to hear whose supplements are erstatz. Right now Im using a supplement thats pretty expensive, if it has tested as anything less than what its supposed to be I want to know about it NOW! Their is no time like the present. This person obviously doesnt have the data to back up their claim. If he did, he would have posted it. So I guess that ends this discussion. This guy pops up out of nowhere and starts casting dispersions on product, without anything to back it up, besides hearsay. Zero minus zero equals zero.

Going back to the original post that starrted the thread, it seems the capsule tested had more filler than expected. Such filler can be flow agents or excipients to make encapsulation easier. Perhaps, I infer, there was variation in content between capsules in the sample. As long as one is getting a certain amount of 98 or 99% pure resveratrol in the capsule plus such fillers, it should not be a problem.

If you want to mention particular brand names and test results, I can and will move this topic into the vendors forum.

And the oscar goes to...? We are still waiting max, yes we want you to mention the brand, as others told before.

[FortFun]

I started a thread in the vendor's forum regarding this OP ( smartpowders / Mike M )and his company(s) business practices a couple weeks ago, looking for feedback. (Yes, it was my first post!)

I just made another post referencing this thread. Would be interested in any productive thoughts\comments over there, especially from long time members. I don't think I have been out of line, but say so if you think so.

I think I see a pattern with this guy. Anyone else? How can we better protect ourselves and the community at large from the unverified claims of vendors? Here is the thread...

http://www.imminst.o...ady-t30641.html

thx.

[2tender]

I started a thread in the vendor's forum regarding this OP ( smartpowders / Mike M )and his company(s) business practices a couple weeks ago, looking for feedback. (Yes, it was my first post!)

I just made another post referencing this thread. Would be interested in any productive thoughts\comments over there, especially from long time members. I don't think I have been out of line, but say so if you think so.

I think I see a pattern with this guy. Anyone else? How can we better protect ourselves and the community at large from the unverified claims of vendors? Here is the thread...

http://www.imminst.o...ady-t30641.html

thx.

OK, I think I know who this guy is, he ran a supp company that I had ordered from before, a good company. He means well, but usually doesnt follow through with proof about his negative assertions. I emailed my supplier and he says its not his products, so Im not worried.

[Mike M]

Sorry guys, busy the past few days. I had to change my name on the forum. So instead of SP, I'll be Mike M from here on out. For obvious lawsuit reasons I can mention the exact name of the company who's product I've tested. The point of this thread is that you guys go nuts asking for testing results for 100 different things, yet you'll openly trust vendors for plant products that are much harder to manufacture than the racetam's and other nootropics. I had brought in some 98% a few weeks ago. I sent it out and got back 93%. That is what started me on checking others to see what was going on. There are some good suppliers of materials out there, but there are also some bad ones. The likelyhood of a bad supplier on a % extract product is 100x higher than on a synthetic.

I've seen companies post testing results of powders that they use in caps. That's great, but what does that tell you about the cap itself? Does it matter what the purity of the product is if the proper amount isn't being put into a capsule? If you're only selling a powder, then yes, testing the powder makes sense. However, if you manufacture caps, wouldn't it make sense to test the final product you manufacture and post that result? I was just pointing out something I came across, nothing more.

If you don't believe anything I'm posting, then don't worry about it.

[niner]

If you don't believe anything I'm posting, then don't worry about it.

Mike, it's not that we don't believe it, it's that we do believe it- But we don't know who failed the test, so we end up trusting no one. My first inclination is to advise people to deal with the vendors who test every batch. I still think that's a good idea. The great thing about the supplements world is that there's no FDA preventing us from getting the latest drug, and making things more costly by demanding such things as tests for purity and evidence of efficacy. The bad thing about the supplements world is the same thing as the good thing. What we need is something like ConsumerLab.com, the site that tests supplements. What is needed, though, is such a site that would test all major brands, and not extort the brands for a "seal of approval".

[Anthony_Loera]

Sorry guys, busy the past few days. I had to change my name on the forum. So instead of SP, I'll be Mike M from here on out. For obvious lawsuit reasons I can mention the exact name of the company who's product I've tested. The point of this thread is that you guys go nuts asking for testing results for 100 different things, yet you'll openly trust vendors for plant products that are much harder to manufacture than the racetam's and other nootropics. I had brought in some 98% a few weeks ago. I sent it out and got back 93%. That is what started me on checking others to see what was going on. There are some good suppliers of materials out there, but there are also some bad ones. The likelyhood of a bad supplier on a % extract product is 100x higher than on a synthetic.

I've seen companies post testing results of powders that they use in caps. That's great, but what does that tell you about the cap itself? Does it matter what the purity of the product is if the proper amount isn't being put into a capsule? If you're only selling a powder, then yes, testing the powder makes sense. However, if you manufacture caps, wouldn't it make sense to test the final product you manufacture and post that result? I was just pointing out something I came across, nothing more.

If you don't believe anything I'm posting, then don't worry about it.

Hi Mike,

In this quote:

However, if you manufacture caps, wouldn't it make sense to test the final product you manufacture and post that result?

You are talking about testing such as the COA of our Nitro250, made by Capsugel/Pfizer folks, correct?
http://www.revgeneti...df/nitro250.pdf

Now, I still have questions that should be easy to answer without being sued by anyone:

Did you test bulk powder or capsules?

Mike, the powder is the issue, as the USP allows for a 10-15% over-filled or under-filled capsule for manufacturing (this includes medicines folks). Typically folks that independently test or are concerned about how much their customers take, ask the manufacturing plant to error on the side of overfilling the capsule.

The main issue for many is purity, as many have issues thinking about the 2-10% that is not resveratrol. If you eventually sell synthetic resveratrol, it becomes quite a big deal, as more than just alcohol and water are used to refine this type of resveratrol.

I just checked out your website, and you use the same backend system we use. So I know it is easy to link your COA's for all of your products on the website. You currently do not have resveratrol, but you have other powders that many here would likely want to see the COA's for, specially since you sell pure powder which doesn't all come from an herbal source.

Now the reality is that, I don't really expect you to provide COA's since then questions asked will then be something like... "If this powder isn't natural, and it's only 80% pure... what are the chemicals in the other 20%?". People get really concerned about this stuff, that is why (as you probably already know) the big companies do not provide the COA's easily... many simply cannot offer pure ingredients regardless of what the capsule tests.

The main issue with the COA I have just linked to above... is that once the capsule is made, you cannot determine the purity of powder that went into it. I prefer to test the raw materials first, and have a manufacturing plant that errors on the side of over-filling.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 26 June 2009 - 12:53 PM.

[Mike M]

Did you test bulk powder or capsules?

Caps

Mike, the powder is the issue, as the USP allows for a 10-15% over-filled or under-filled capsule for manufacturing (this includes medicines folks). Typically folks that independently test or are concerned about how much their customers take, ask the manufacturing plant to error on the side of overfilling the capsule.

I understand that. I also know of manufactures, that were very well known, that got shut down back in 03 for underfilling capsules and selling the extra raws out the back door. My only point was that

I just checked out your website, and you use the same backend system we use. So I know it is easy to link your COA's for all of your products on the website. You currently do not have resveratrol, but you have other powders that many here would likely want to see the COA's for, specially since you sell pure powder which doesn't all come from an herbal source.

I have independent tests on everything I sell. I've been lazy and haven't gotten then posted, but have sent them to numerous people on this board. I've also posted the results here on this site. I do SP for fun. Right now I'm in the middle of a 45 day talk with a company who is trying to purchase one of operations. Once I clear that hurdle, I'll put more time and effort into SP. It's a free world and consumers can purchase from whoever they want. So while I appreciate you looking out for my best intereset (when in reality you were probably hoping to catch me without any tests), I'll be just fine.

Now the reality is that, I don't really expect you to provide COA's since then questions asked will then be something like... "If this powder isn't natural, and it's only 80% pure... what are the chemicals in the other 20%?". People get really concerned about this stuff, that is why (as you probably already know) the big companies do not provide the COA's easily... many simply cannot offer pure ingredients regardless of what the capsule tests.

Every powder I have is 99.9% pure. As you know, you can't have 100% pure. If you're going to comment about what you think I will/won't do, you should at least go back and read my posts to see where I stand on most of this. It would have saved you from typing.

The main issue with the COA I have just linked to above... is that once the capsule is made, you cannot determine the purity of powder that went into it. I prefer to test the raw materials first, and have a manufacturing plant that errors on the side of over-filling.

Cheers
A

Um, I'm just going to let this one go. It's not that hard to prove the purity of the powder in the cap. You seem to have everything worked out. You're oddly defensive about this whole situation. You have your testing, so what are you worried about?

[Anthony_Loera]

Mike,

thanks for the replies. I have been on this board for a while now, and don't think I am defensive. To be blunt, I think I am doing a roundabout promotion for our company by answering and producing documentation for folks new to the board.

Folks don't like doing the search thing much, so much of the information is lost through time... posts like this give me the opportunity to pull out facts and figures again, and maybe add new items of interest. It's a win for folks, and I believe a win for me as well.

Thanks for the answer on testing capsules... I think niner's very first post on this thread sounds reasonable, as he points out flow agents... which most automated encapsulation machinery requires. I was simply trying to figure out if niner had it wrong or not with that one part of his post.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 26 June 2009 - 04:14 PM.

[Mike M]

The irony that my posts "tars" the resveratrol industry is funny. Any company that is worried, should be able to show testing on their resveratrol after encapsulation to show that it contains 200mg or whatever amount per cap. I don't think that's a lot to ask and should be part of any standard QC protocol. I'm not taring the industry, I'm just pointing out flaws.

Anthony, nothing wrong with PR'ing your own company, just don't bring mine into it. You have enough things to talk about on your own without calling me into question. I have no issues with you and didn't say anything in regards to your company. Then you want to come on and talk about my system, my coa's, etc etc. Just stick to talking about yourself. If I attack your company, then feel free to come after me.

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi Mike,

Like you said:

Any company that is worried, should be able to show testing ... I don't think that's a lot to ask and should be part of any standard QC protocol. I'm not taring the industry, I'm just pointing out flaws.

I am in agreement with you Mike.
I don't want to attack you at all, I don't feel like I have. I am sorry if the COA thing came out as an attack, it wasn't.

I'll take a step back now as I am preparing for a good weekend ahead.

Cheers
A

[niner]

Just stick to talking about yourself. If I attack your company, then feel free to come after me.

Mike, the problem is, you did attack Anthony's company. You essentially attacked all resveratrol companies in a way that makes it hard to defend themselves. I guess you see it as a public service, but I can understand how Anthony feels. Considering the circumstances, I wouldn't say he was being particularly defensive.

[Mike M]

Makes it hard to defend themselves? Why would it be hard to show a test after a product is encapsulated?

[niner]

Makes it hard to defend themselves? Why would it be hard to show a test after a product is encapsulated?

Because people will think they put up a good cap just for the test. You're asking them to prove they didn't ever sell bad caps, and there is no way they can prove that. You can't prove a negative.

[Mike M]

That's why you have chain of custody. That's why you have the lab order the bottle from a third party. I'm sure you could always ask some random question, but I wasn't doing that. I simply pointed out an issue I can across in testing, that's it.

[maxwatt]

That's why you have chain of custody. That's why you have the lab order the bottle from a third party. I'm sure you could always ask some random question, but I wasn't doing that. I simply pointed out an issue I can across in testing, that's it.

you still have to account for excipients, flow agents, fillers et al.

[FortFun]

Mike M,

You sell capsules on your smartpowders site, right?

Idebenone 500mg
Serving Size: 1 capsule

Yohimbine 2.5mg
Serving Size: 1 capsule

1,3 Dimethylamyline 25mg
Serving Size: 1 capsule

And you state, "Any company that is worried, should be able to show testing on their resveratrol after encapsulation to show that it contains 200mg or whatever amount per cap. I don't think that's a lot to ask and should be part of any standard QC protocol."

Please show us the "That's why you have chain of custody. That's why you have the lab order the bottle from a third party" testing that proves your Idebenone, Yohimbine, and 1,3 Dimethylamyline capsules contain the mg amounts listed above. Its part of your standard QC protocol and not a lot to ask, right?

I know you started this whole thread questioning market purity issues. But you have made some fine points on encapsulation. I'm sure we would all love to see how smartpowders.com tackles the whole purity/mg difficulty that capsules present. Do you set your machines to overfill your capsules to get the stated mg amount and not worry about purity issues, or do you just not worry?

Maybe I had you all pegged wrong? It seems like we got off on the wrong foot and keep getting diverted from the questions at hand. So I will simply restate, the only two answers I am interested in hearing from you in this thread...

1) Please show us the "That's why you have chain of custody. That's why you have the lab order the bottle from a third party" testing that proves your smartpowders' Idebenone, Yohimbine, and 1,3 Dimethylamyline capsules contain the mg amounts listed (Idebenone 500mg, Yohimbine 2.5mg, 1,3 Dimethylamyline 25mg)

2) If you can't produce the independent lab tests (that you say state should be part of any standard QC program), do you try to overfill your capsules to get the stated mg amount you list on smartpowders.com and not worry about purity issues with your product, or do you assume it will be close enough and fill capsules to a total mg amount that includes the filler, flow agents, and whatever else?

Much appreciated!

PS: Anythony Loera - do you have a link to the USP 10-15% overfill/underfill guidelines you mentioned? Would love to do some more research on this rather than past posts by 1fast400. thx.

[Anthony_Loera]

It's not generally an issue for manufacturers to get the info, however... its not free:
http://www.usp.org/p...entsCompendium/

My information comes from talking to our main guy in charge of manufacturing who lives and breathes this info, and who knows more about this than I do. The conversation actually started out with a horror story about a company making 'generic' capsules that were underfilled, and I ask how can the FDA accept that... and he explained that there are underfill and overfill percentages that the USP allows so the FDA (or anyone else) can't do anything, and that these folks where right at the edge of the lower underfill levels allowed for that 'generic'...

Maybe you can find the book (or an older version) in the library, and check it out.

Just a quick search on google reveals a few reports regarding what the USP allows for other items, one is below:
http://www.eurand.co...eECFSPoster.pdf

Cheers
A

[Mike M]

Anythony, no need to respond to that wacko. He's just competition hiding under a different user name.

[FortFun]

Cool, thanks for the links Anthony! Interesting.

lol Mike M, now you care about Anthony's company, that's touching.

You must have missed the part about answering these two questions related to encapsulation practices at smartpowders.com :

1) Please show us the "That's why you have chain of custody. That's why you have the lab order the bottle from a third party" testing that proves your smartpowders' Idebenone, Yohimbine, and 1,3 Dimethylamyline capsules contain the mg amounts listed (Idebenone 500mg, Yohimbine 2.5mg, 1,3 Dimethylamyline 25mg)

2) If you can't produce the independent lab tests (that you say state should be part of any standard QC program), do you try to overfill your capsules to get the stated mg amount you list on smartpowders.com and not worry about purity issues with your product, or do you assume it will be close enough and fill capsules to a total mg amount that includes the filler, flow agents, and whatever else?

Regards,
Fortfun