• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

The great debate: What form should this 'multi' take?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
37 replies to this topic

Poll: What form factor should this take? Provide a "why". (53 member(s) have cast votes)

What form factor should this take? Provide a "why".

  1. V-caps, a serving being 3-6 (moderate expense) (17 votes [32.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.08%

  2. A "Pack" type product styled similar to JarrowPak, in that it uses gels for the fat solubles and keeps antagonists seperate (higher expense) (34 votes [64.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 64.15%

  3. Tablets used like the first. (lower expense, but why? Why would you do that?) (2 votes [3.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.77%

Vote

#1 shazam

  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 November 2009 - 10:30 AM


Yes it is 3am, why do you ask? Anyway, you can CLEARLY see from poll options which I favor, and why. The biggest reason it would be more expensive would probably the the packaging. I doubt that Imminst has its own factory line, so the costs of getting equipment for making softgels and capsules in the same product would probably not be terrible, but it may come into play when you rent them or have a 3rd party make it or whatever. Please use a company that isn't going to gouge us. Life extension is sharpening its linoleum knife and licking it's lips looking at this, I bet.

Anyway, if it is split up, I'd propose that the minerals come in their own capsules, perhaps seperating them in the style of jarrowpaks 'ying' and 'yang' minerals to avoid too much competition. Then A and E come in a softgel, or two if you can't fit both in there. Then D3, K2, and anything else that can't fit(the provitamin carotenoids?) come in another. Then the water solubles come in 2 Vcaps. This way you can gobble it all down with a meal if you're in a hurry, or take them all seperately with other synergists if you're not.

Innovative packaging might be a good way to save expenses on this. I'm not sure if individually wrapping all of them would be a big dea/expense or not. I have another idea that might save expense if wrapping "paks" proves too expensive: I saw this on a container of sprinkles once. What it is, is basically a bottle with a seperator in it. So, like this: -|- without the gaps, keeping things apart. I don't know if making a custom bottle like that would prove to be less, or MORE expensive than just wrapping a punch of packs in a cardboard box/can of some kind, but it'll work with a childproof cap bottle. There's always using seperate bottles as well (in the same package), or alternatively, just wrapping them all catagorically in seperate sealed (opaque and airtight, but labeled) plastic bags for the whole lot of them and letting the consumer figure out their packaging, but also cutting expenses significantly enough to be worth any hassle. Perhaps even making them fairly thick, black, well-labeled ZIPLOCKS, so they're reusable AND cheap to produce. Keyword thick, though. None of that sandwich bag crap, I'm talking close to food storage grade. Of course, having been sealed before the first opening in the style of most packaged food, too.

Edited by shazam, 05 November 2009 - 10:50 AM.


#2 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2009 - 06:44 PM

ideally it would be a 1-2 VCAP for the water solubles + 1 vegetarian softgel for the fat solubles.

but that may significantly increase cost and not be realistic... most likely it will just be a 2 vcap serving

#3 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:26 PM

How much more expensive for capsules only compared to capsules for water solubles and softgel for fat solubles?

#4 shazam

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:58 PM

How much more expensive for capsules only compared to capsules for water solubles and softgel for fat solubles?


Seriously. I would be willing to make the oh so great sacrifice of less elaborate packaging if this were done.

#5 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 06 November 2009 - 12:45 AM

How much more expensive for capsules only compared to capsules for water solubles and softgel for fat solubles?


we wont know that until later... a vegetarian softgel would also be fairly expensive i would imagine

#6 shazam

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 06 November 2009 - 06:50 AM

How much more expensive for capsules only compared to capsules for water solubles and softgel for fat solubles?


we wont know that until later... a vegetarian softgel would also be fairly expensive i would imagine


<shrug> maybe, maybe not. They're rarer than vcaps it seems. If nothing else, it could be a regular softgel until the prices come down, which they likely will seeing as the trend will probably shift like vcaps did. The cow is dead by then anyway.

#7 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 06 November 2009 - 06:38 PM

if i cant take the multi i helped create someones gonna die :D

#8 shazam

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 06 November 2009 - 06:47 PM

if i cant take the multi i helped create someones gonna die :D


What, are you allergic? Or is this a case of 'don't step on the hot lava' vegetarianism? I'd have to guess you'll probably have only swallowed about a millionth of an already-dead cow by the time V-gels are in style and cheap. You probably inhale about that much from restaurant fumes.

Besides, I'd hate to see this multivitamin go so far being created on a logical basis, only to see it falter at the last possible step.

How much of an advantage (leaving the seperations of antagonists alone for a moment) would this be in terms of asorption, though, assuming you take it all with a meal containing fat? Still significant?

Edited by shazam, 06 November 2009 - 07:06 PM.


#9 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,418 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 06 November 2009 - 11:00 PM

polling indicates near 100% in favor of veggie caps.

#10 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 06 November 2009 - 11:48 PM

if i cant take the multi i helped create someones gonna die :D


What, are you allergic? Or is this a case of 'don't step on the hot lava' vegetarianism? I'd have to guess you'll probably have only swallowed about a millionth of an already-dead cow by the time V-gels are in style and cheap. You probably inhale about that much from restaurant fumes.

Besides, I'd hate to see this multivitamin go so far being created on a logical basis, only to see it falter at the last possible step.

How much of an advantage (leaving the seperations of antagonists alone for a moment) would this be in terms of asorption, though, assuming you take it all with a meal containing fat? Still significant?


im a vegetarian for ethical reasons, not allergies.

if taken with a good amount of fat, 15-20g...dry fat soluble vitamins will be absorbed just fine.

#11 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 07 November 2009 - 12:53 AM

im a vegetarian for ethical reasons, not allergies.

if taken with a good amount of fat, 15-20g...dry fat soluble vitamins will be absorbed just fine.

I suspect that most people will not take them with enough fat to get the job done. I'd hate to see a well-crafted multi be wasted because of this. How much would a vegetarian gelcap cost, anyway? That's a very important number, since I think a lot of people voted for vegi capsules because they thought they wouldn't cost much more, and it would make a bigger market. If there's a big price jump for vegi gelcaps, that might contract the market instead. What if the fat soluble vitamins were sold separately in both vegi and non-vegi versions, and vegi gelcaps were priced differently? They'll need to be in a separate container anyway...

#12 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 07 November 2009 - 01:15 AM

im a vegetarian for ethical reasons, not allergies.

if taken with a good amount of fat, 15-20g...dry fat soluble vitamins will be absorbed just fine.

I suspect that most people will not take them with enough fat to get the job done. I'd hate to see a well-crafted multi be wasted because of this. How much would a vegetarian gelcap cost, anyway? That's a very important number, since I think a lot of people voted for vegi capsules because they thought they wouldn't cost much more, and it would make a bigger market. If there's a big price jump for vegi gelcaps, that might contract the market instead. What if the fat soluble vitamins were sold separately in both vegi and non-vegi versions, and vegi gelcaps were priced differently? They'll need to be in a separate container anyway...


i cant imagine that anyone in the LE crowd is never going to have a meal with more than 15-20g fat? i would imagine most of our meals average that much...

fat soluble vitamins can be made water dispersive using lipid carriers... this is the case with most commercial supplements.

softgel would be nice if it doesnt hike the price too much... but its not absolutely necessary.

Edited by ajnast4r, 07 November 2009 - 01:16 AM.


#13 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 07 November 2009 - 01:57 AM

i cant imagine that anyone in the LE crowd is never going to have a meal with more than 15-20g fat? i would imagine most of our meals average that much...

fat soluble vitamins can be made water dispersive using lipid carriers... this is the case with most commercial supplements.

softgel would be nice if it doesnt hike the price too much... but its not absolutely necessary.

If you had a dry formulation and took it along with other vitamins half an hour before a meal with enough fat, would that be "too early"? I have Bill Davis' experience with his patients in mind here; the ones that were using dry forms of D3 weren't getting their levels up. That's a good point though that fat soluble vitamins can be formulated with "dry" lipids that are "cappable". Doesn't AOR do this with their D?

#14 shazam

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 November 2009 - 02:12 AM

im a vegetarian for ethical reasons, not allergies.

if taken with a good amount of fat, 15-20g...dry fat soluble vitamins will be absorbed just fine.

I suspect that most people will not take them with enough fat to get the job done. I'd hate to see a well-crafted multi be wasted because of this. How much would a vegetarian gelcap cost, anyway? That's a very important number, since I think a lot of people voted for vegi capsules because they thought they wouldn't cost much more, and it would make a bigger market. If there's a big price jump for vegi gelcaps, that might contract the market instead. What if the fat soluble vitamins were sold separately in both vegi and non-vegi versions, and vegi gelcaps were priced differently? They'll need to be in a separate container anyway...


i cant imagine that anyone in the LE crowd is never going to have a meal with more than 15-20g fat? i would imagine most of our meals average that much...

fat soluble vitamins can be made water dispersive using lipid carriers... this is the case with most commercial supplements.

softgel would be nice if it doesnt hike the price too much... but its not absolutely necessary.


Is it AS good or very close to as good with the appropriate fat levels? Say, if you take 20 grams of fat that isn't MCTs at the same time as your multi? I can see this being less of an issue, if it's a difference of 5 percent or it works just as well.

Anybody have any insights on what nutrients would have an antagonistic effect on other nutrients if taken together, assuming all minerals are amino acid chelates of some kind (except chromium, it seems). I think Acu Cell is a pretty good source on antagonists, but how bad is it? Any proof it's mild enough not to warrant seperation?

Also, does anyone know if the claims of reduced competition between AAC minerals (for absorption, at least) is scientifically backed, or bullshit? I see claims, I don't see studies.

Edited by shazam, 07 November 2009 - 02:20 AM.


#15 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 07 November 2009 - 03:10 AM

Is it AS good or very close to as good with the appropriate fat levels? Say, if you take 20 grams of fat that isn't MCTs at the same time as your multi? I can see this being less of an issue, if it's a difference of 5 percent or it works just as well.


dont know


Anybody have any insights on what nutrients would have an antagonistic effect on other nutrients if taken together, assuming all minerals are amino acid chelates of some kind (except chromium, it seems). I think Acu Cell is a pretty good source on antagonists, but how bad is it? Any proof it's mild enough not to warrant seperation?


i think its unlikely nutrients, especially vitamins, in reasonable amounts with antagonize one another...most foods contain small amounts of nearly all nutrients and we seem to be able to absorb them ok. mineral antagonized other than calcium & iron, imo, are generally overstated when consumed from food sources in reasonable doses. large doses of inorganic mineral salts will compete for absorbtion and there is some evidence that chelated minerals do not have the same antagonisms as inorganic salts... antagonisms may be us lacking the ability to chelate all of the mineral in a large dose rather than saturation of transporters.

http://lpi.oregonsta.../minerals/zinc/

One study showed that increasing the calcium intake of postmenopausal women by 890 mg/day in the form of milk or calcium phosphate (total calcium intake, 1,360 mg/day) reduced zinc absorption and zinc balance in postmenopausal women (11), but increasing the calcium intake of adolescent girls by 1,000 mg/day in the form of calcium citrate malate (total calcium intake, 1,667 mg/day) did not affect zinc absorption or balance (12).


Edited by ajnast4r, 07 November 2009 - 03:13 AM.


#16 shazam

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 November 2009 - 05:01 AM

Is it AS good or very close to as good with the appropriate fat levels? Say, if you take 20 grams of fat that isn't MCTs at the same time as your multi? I can see this being less of an issue, if it's a difference of 5 percent or it works just as well.


dont know


Anybody have any insights on what nutrients would have an antagonistic effect on other nutrients if taken together, assuming all minerals are amino acid chelates of some kind (except chromium, it seems). I think Acu Cell is a pretty good source on antagonists, but how bad is it? Any proof it's mild enough not to warrant seperation?


i think its unlikely nutrients, especially vitamins, in reasonable amounts with antagonize one another...most foods contain small amounts of nearly all nutrients and we seem to be able to absorb them ok. mineral antagonized other than calcium & iron, imo, are generally overstated when consumed from food sources in reasonable doses. large doses of inorganic mineral salts will compete for absorbtion and there is some evidence that chelated minerals do not have the same antagonisms as inorganic salts... antagonisms may be us lacking the ability to chelate all of the mineral in a large dose rather than saturation of transporters.

http://lpi.oregonsta.../minerals/zinc/

One study showed that increasing the calcium intake of postmenopausal women by 890 mg/day in the form of milk or calcium phosphate (total calcium intake, 1,360 mg/day) reduced zinc absorption and zinc balance in postmenopausal women (11), but increasing the calcium intake of adolescent girls by 1,000 mg/day in the form of calcium citrate malate (total calcium intake, 1,667 mg/day) did not affect zinc absorption or balance (12).


Okay, I'm a little more comfortable about the antagonists factor (though vitamin C and alot of minerals tend to fight alot apparantly), but still curious about softgels vs capsules with fat. Anyone else care to shed any light on that?

#17 1kgcoffee

  • Guest
  • 737 posts
  • 253

Posted 07 November 2009 - 05:14 AM

If imminst is going to make a multi, it should be of the highest quality with no compromises. I vote for the pack.

#18 shazam

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 November 2009 - 05:17 AM

If imminst is going to make a multi, it should be of the highest quality with no compromises. I vote for the pack.


What I am trying to figure out, is if it actually IS going to be a comprimise or not. If not, then saving expense is a no-brainer. If we're going to smash orthocore, I saw we smash it DEAD. We beat its price AND its formulation. And if it turns out softgels ARE significantly better, you can bet I'll stand behind my vote for the pack more, too, but right now I'm on the fence.

#19 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 08 November 2009 - 07:44 AM

And if it turns out softgels ARE significantly better, you can bet I'll stand behind my vote for the pack more, too, but right now I'm on the fence.

I'm pretty sure that the pharmacokinetics of the various ways to package lipid soluble drugs are well understood. Michael might have the data, though it's possible he's under nondisclosure. We need to know the relative absorption of the "dry lipid" method versus the gelcap in oil method, and the relative costs of each, then a decision should be easy.

#20 shazam

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 November 2009 - 10:38 PM

And if it turns out softgels ARE significantly better, you can bet I'll stand behind my vote for the pack more, too, but right now I'm on the fence.

I'm pretty sure that the pharmacokinetics of the various ways to package lipid soluble drugs are well understood. Michael might have the data, though it's possible he's under nondisclosure. We need to know the relative absorption of the "dry lipid" method versus the gelcap in oil method, and the relative costs of each, then a decision should be easy.


Right, and also the same data when one takes it with 20 grams of fat, if possible.

#21 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,948 posts
  • 1,624
  • Location:New York

Posted 09 November 2009 - 01:50 AM

In quantity, packs may not be that expensive; we see a high price at retail because manufacturers can charge more for a perceived superiority, which may be way out of line with the actual cost to manufacture. There are numerous GMP certified facilities who can put this together, and answer technical questions.

But if putting our suplement in two bottles -- take one from bottle A,one from Bottle B -- is cheaper, then I am for it.

#22 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 09 November 2009 - 11:57 PM

I like the idea of having multiple pills to allow one to take partial doses.

#23 shazam

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 November 2009 - 07:49 AM

Is it AS good or very close to as good with the appropriate fat levels? Say, if you take 20 grams of fat that isn't MCTs at the same time as your multi? I can see this being less of an issue, if it's a difference of 5 percent or it works just as well.


dont know


Anybody have any insights on what nutrients would have an antagonistic effect on other nutrients if taken together, assuming all minerals are amino acid chelates of some kind (except chromium, it seems). I think Acu Cell is a pretty good source on antagonists, but how bad is it? Any proof it's mild enough not to warrant seperation?


i think its unlikely nutrients, especially vitamins, in reasonable amounts with antagonize one another...most foods contain small amounts of nearly all nutrients and we seem to be able to absorb them ok. mineral antagonized other than calcium & iron, imo, are generally overstated when consumed from food sources in reasonable doses. large doses of inorganic mineral salts will compete for absorbtion and there is some evidence that chelated minerals do not have the same antagonisms as inorganic salts... antagonisms may be us lacking the ability to chelate all of the mineral in a large dose rather than saturation of transporters.

http://lpi.oregonsta.../minerals/zinc/

One study showed that increasing the calcium intake of postmenopausal women by 890 mg/day in the form of milk or calcium phosphate (total calcium intake, 1,360 mg/day) reduced zinc absorption and zinc balance in postmenopausal women (11), but increasing the calcium intake of adolescent girls by 1,000 mg/day in the form of calcium citrate malate (total calcium intake, 1,667 mg/day) did not affect zinc absorption or balance (12).


Wait a minute, they should have looked at magnesium balance.

#24 charst46

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 November 2009 - 10:57 AM

It seems as if everyone (or most) are in line for some form of caplet, pill or capsule. What about liquid?

#25 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:45 AM

It seems as if everyone (or most) are in line for some form of caplet, pill or capsule. What about liquid?



a lot of nutrients wont stay stable in solution and will interact with one another... liquid is useless

#26 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 15 November 2009 - 05:32 PM

I don't suppose this could be made into a chewable multivitamin?

#27 Pike

  • Guest
  • 517 posts
  • 6

Posted 16 November 2009 - 02:06 AM

i think the general consensus is in favor of the pak formation as long as it's not cost-restrictive. i'd bite my teeth, but would still buy it if it were in capsules because it would still be better formulated than anything else i've seen.

#28 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 16 November 2009 - 02:41 AM

I don't suppose this could be made into a chewable multivitamin?

Like Flintstones? I've seen adult Gummy Vitamins. It would increase cost, and might compromise the formulation.

#29 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 16 November 2009 - 03:54 PM

The polled folks prefers the higher cost of 'packs'?

That is surprising to me, as I thought cost was a big factor.
I suppose I am correct to say that folks will pay a higher price for this multivitamin.

Although in my gut, I don't think this will be the case in the real world... Just my personal opinion.

A

#30 shazam

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 November 2009 - 11:17 PM

The polled folks prefers the higher cost of 'packs'?

That is surprising to me, as I thought cost was a big factor.
I suppose I am correct to say that folks will pay a higher price for this multivitamin.

Although in my gut, I don't think this will be the case in the real world... Just my personal opinion.

A


I'd like to see price quotes before we make a decision. I was originally swaying towards packs, but if they function pretty similar when in capsules, and capsules are significantly cheaper... well it's kind of a no brainer. But I've yet to see enough evidence to get me off the fence in either direction. Still hoping this multi is reasonably priced. I don't wanna hear that tired old "for what you get' argument, either. A similar or hopefully lower price than multibasics is what I'm looking for here.

Edited by shazam, 17 November 2009 - 11:18 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users