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


Two versions of a multi

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 1kgcoffee

  • Guest
  • 737 posts
  • 253

Posted 07 November 2009 - 06:47 PM

The community wants to design a multi that is superior to any other currently available. This product should cover all the basics, and some beneficial non-basics.
The problem:
We don't want to over-design it, ending up with an expensive, ugly, bulky product that appeals to no one:
Posted Image

Therefore, I'm proposing we create two versions
1) An 'everybody' supplement, that's not too expensive, doesn't contain too many pills and covers the basics and only the most beneficial non-basics, while being the highest quality.
2) A 'booster-super-turbo-hardcore' pack with all the trimmings. More pills and more expensive, while keeping it just as elegant as the basic version.

What do you guys think?

Edited by 1kgcoffee, 07 November 2009 - 06:50 PM.

#2 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 07 November 2009 - 06:56 PM

Sounds like an interesting idea. We could start out with the basic thingy and if it's successful we can optimise the product and put out a complete, orthocore-esque formula (just better) the next time. Maybe...

Edited by kismet, 07 November 2009 - 06:56 PM.

#3 shazam

  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 November 2009 - 04:10 AM

Like orthocore and multibasics. Cool. But I'm in this for the multi basics, possibly just a standalone mineral formula.

#4 shazam

  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 November 2009 - 08:08 AM

Wait wait wait, though. I would still like to see a carotenoid complex in the basic one. Lutien/Zeaxanthin, all that stuff. Lutien IS a little supressed by beta carotene, though so be sure to keep the other provitamin carotenoids in decent vitamin activity [iu] ratios, maybe 30 alpha 40 beta 20 gamma. Also, I'd like to see lycopene included as well as astaxanthin, at least 1mg of it. Basically, something similar to carotenall if possible while keeping the price reasonable, but in lower dosages if it gets too expensive.

That's pretty much the only 'extra' I'd like to see, though. Pureway C (if we end up using it) already has alot of C synergists and the rest are just fine as well-balanced/formed with no synergists. Beyond this though, I'm not even sure I'd BUY the deluxe version. Polyphenols and minerals REALLY aren't freinds. That would be one step too many in the antagonists direction.

#5 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 17 November 2009 - 08:32 PM

I put a reply in the pinned area of the supplement design that, if you design with flexible dosing you can avoid multiple versions. As a supplement formulator, this has been a winner with all of my clients. One product, one SKU on the shelf or online is always better. Flexible dosing allows it to meet both groups you describe.


#6 August59

  • Guest
  • 66 posts
  • 2

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:01 AM

It has been 3 years since most of this has been discussed. Some things have changed in that period. The one thing that has drastically changed is the folate market. I think at least 90% (I'm one of them) of people looking at supplements now are looking very hard at the source of folate. Methylfolate is by far the most sought after folate source in multi-vitamins. Three years ago Merck still had a significant hold on the market with their patent on methylfolate, but of it was distributed though another company and I can't think of the name.

Over the last 3 years, either Merck has lost the patent or there is another company making "Methyfolate. The only difference between the Merck version and this new company is that Merck binds their product with calcium salts as the delivery agent and the new company binds theirs with glucosamine salts as the delivery agent. The existance of 2 suppliers in the market has pushed the price down very significantly Also, there have been an insignificant amount of people putting for any complaints and most have been found not even be plausable.

This is the company that has released the new version of 5-methyl tetrahydrofolate: http://www.quatrefol...nismAction.html

I hope that the commitee would take a short pause and look at this and maybe discuss with Rev Genics.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users