• 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

#31 MoodyBlue

  • Guest
  • 144 posts
  • 13
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 19 December 2009 - 10:22 PM

Another thing to consider is whether or not stearic acid or stearates are used in the encapsulation process. I've ordered Thorne Research's curcumin product Meriva-SR, and they included some literature in which they claimed that the reason most manufacturers include stearic acid and/or stearates in their pills is because, since stearic acid is a highly saturated fatty acid, it helps keep the encapsultion machines lubricated. Thus, it helps prevent capsules from getting stuck in the moving parts of the machinery. The problem with that, they say, is that the stearic acid and stearates block a significant portion of the contents within the pills from being absorbed. So, it would be a good idea to find someone who can fill the capsules without those things.

#32 niner

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

Posted 19 December 2009 - 10:28 PM

So, it would be a good idea to find someone who can fill the capsules without those things.

Either that or figure out if what Thorne is saying is true, or if it's just marketing FUD.

#33 ajnast4r

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

Posted 20 December 2009 - 01:08 AM

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


i agree with this completely. packs is a waste of money, separating the fat solubles is also a waste of money.

#34 niner

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

Posted 20 December 2009 - 03:18 AM

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

i agree with this completely. packs is a waste of money, separating the fat solubles is also a waste of money.

Does "packs" mean that each day's dose would be individually packaged? If so, that's a waste of money. But separating the fat solubles seems like an awfully good idea. We've seen some evidence (William Davis' results) that dry forms of vitamin D, as one example, are poorly absorbed. Or are you thinking of using beadlets or something similar for all of the fat solubles so that they can be capped with the dry components, yet are individually formulated for good absorption?

#35 RighteousReason

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

Posted 20 December 2009 - 09:46 PM

I think it should be a normal bottle with pills like every other multivitamin. The directions will say to take 1-6 per day with food and water, with 6 being the full 100% dosage (or however many it divides up into).

Edited by RighteousReason, 20 December 2009 - 09:49 PM.


#36 MrSpud

  • Guest
  • 268 posts
  • 65
  • Location:eternity

Posted 07 February 2010 - 05:45 PM

Be careful and try to keep the Vit. C away from the B vitamins, metals like copper and anything hygroscopic like choline or herbal extracts if possible. C eats some of the B vitamins if sufficient moisture is present and C hydrolyzes into furfural and related compounds if sufficient moisture is present and the reaction is sped up if metals are present. Tablets are cheap and convenient, but rough on microencapsulated oils during compression and make incompatable ingredients come into more intimate contact with each other during compression than hardshell capsules.

Softgels are great for the oils but not as good for any water solubles, especially C and Pantothenic acid. Also, if you make a packet it is better to keep softgels from touching tablets or sometimes even hardshell capsules (but especially for tablets) because the water present in the softgel shell can easily cause localized hydrolysis reactions to start wherever they touch. Better to have separate packets for softgels and the other dosage forms or use hardshells and get your fat solubles in microencapsulated beadlets.

Veggie softgels are available using hydroxypropylated starch either with or without carrageenan, but have issues because they have a very narrow range between being soft and sticky and being hard and brittle relating to their moisture content. Soft and sticky fuse together sometimes permanently and hard and brittle crack and leak.

Edited by MrSpud, 07 February 2010 - 06:16 PM.


#37 MrSpud

  • Guest
  • 268 posts
  • 65
  • Location:eternity

Posted 07 February 2010 - 05:58 PM

Another thing to consider is whether or not stearic acid or stearates are used in the encapsulation process. I've ordered Thorne Research's curcumin product Meriva-SR, and they included some literature in which they claimed that the reason most manufacturers include stearic acid and/or stearates in their pills is because, since stearic acid is a highly saturated fatty acid, it helps keep the encapsultion machines lubricated. Thus, it helps prevent capsules from getting stuck in the moving parts of the machinery. The problem with that, they say, is that the stearic acid and stearates block a significant portion of the contents within the pills from being absorbed. So, it would be a good idea to find someone who can fill the capsules without those things.


This is only true if too much is used. Dosage forms made with the proper amounts of these lubricants usually pass disintegration and/or dissolution testing with flying colors. But if too much is used they can waterproof the actives. The problem with not using lubricants is that you can only run short runs before the machinery starts seizing up and you can even end up with things like metal shavings getting into the product. There really is no real reason not to use lubricants as long as you do the standard disintegration or dissolution testing.

Edited by MrSpud, 07 February 2010 - 05:58 PM.


#38 shazam

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 May 2010 - 06:11 PM

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

i agree with this completely. packs is a waste of money, separating the fat solubles is also a waste of money.

Does "packs" mean that each day's dose would be individually packaged? If so, that's a waste of money. But separating the fat solubles seems like an awfully good idea. We've seen some evidence (William Davis' results) that dry forms of vitamin D, as one example, are poorly absorbed. Or are you thinking of using beadlets or something similar for all of the fat solubles so that they can be capped with the dry components, yet are individually formulated for good absorption?


Yes, this is probably true. I think I addressed this near the start of the thread with a potentially lower cost alternative solution, but I haven't changed the polls to reflect more than one type of option yet (I'll see if I can do that after this).

Anyway, the idea I had that could make this potentially cheaper was either using a bottle/package with a 'divider' of some kind in it, offering each vitamin type in a seperate, robust and very well sealed plastic bag, maybe even making it resealable (so the fats are all in one bag, and the capsules are all in another instead of 'daily dose' baggings), or perhaps even giving them their own containers or some other unique container idea, though I see this last option possibly being the most expensive.

So far the idea I like the best is the plastic bag containing the types of vitamins. Could potentially save alot on packaging. And honestly, I don't buy supplements for the plastic bottle. If this packaging idea enabled me to save, I would be more than willing to buy my own airtight containers, or just plain reuse old ones instead of throwing them away (or recycling them... but honestly, the only thing worth recycling is metal. The rest is just more expensive/detrimental to the environment than just throwing it away.).

I can see one counter concern about this being that perhaps plastic bags would not preserve the vitamins from production to end user so well, but this could be resolved cost effectively by using plastic that is colored in some way UV can't get in there and muddle it up alot, and perhaps dropping a desiccant/oxygen absorber thing in each bag, along with effective sealing methods.

Flashy labels and colorful adverts are for ignorant consumers, not people who know what they're buying. These bags, if they were to be put in store shelves, could potentially be put into cardboard boxes with some bold claim (that would be true) like, "best formulated multivitamin currently on the MARKET!" bla bla bla, and from a website one could potentially order them OEM (if that would be cheaper), or even in bulk, just the bags.

Still waiting for evidence supporting either option, but to start I had seen some evidence that softgels containing fats was a good idea. Whether or not capsules are the same with a fat containing meal or the antagonistic actions are significant without some degree of seperation I've yet to hear alot about.

I've also yet to hear price quotes of some kind. I'm certain the addition of softgels may cost a little more, but how much more (even percentage wise) I've yet to hear.

Edited by shazam, 04 May 2010 - 06:33 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users