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

Photo

final review


  • Please log in to reply
152 replies to this topic

#31 ajnast4r

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

Posted 17 December 2009 - 10:22 PM

michael,

do you think 647mg of b12 is suitable for the general populace? that seems like overkill to me as most people taking this wont be b12 deficient.




i'm also unsure if the RAE for supplemental BC would work for an alphabead style BC supplement, as its not all trans. my guess is theres not too much difference.

as far as dosing for the multi... im unsure. i was thinking somewhere in the range of 100%dri BC and 100%dri retinol? we will most likely be using a dry powder, but lipid carrier/coating on the bc powder itself should be just as good as the oil no? do you think its a safe bet to use the the RAE for supplemental BC in oil for a coated powder like alphabeads or do you think it better to go higher?


http://www.nap.edu/o...0560c9970146001

Newer research has shown that the absorption of provitamin-A carotenoids is only half as much as previously thought, so in 2001 the US Institute of Medicine recommended a new unit, the retinol activity equivalent (RAE). 1 μg RAE corresponds to 1 μg retinol, 2 μg of β-carotene in oil, 12 μg of "dietary" beta-carotene, or 24 μg of the three other dietary provitamin-A carotenoids


Because the production of retinol from provitamins by the human body is regulated by the amount of retinol available to the body, the conversions apply strictly only for vitamin A deficient humans. The absorption of provitamins also depends greatly on the amount of lipids ingested with the provitamin; lipids increase the uptake of the provitamin.

RAE:

1 RAE = 1 µg retinol

1 RAE = 2 µg all-trans-β-carotene as a supplement

1 RAE = 12 µg of all-trans-β-carotene in a food matrix

1 RAE = 24 µg other provitamin A carotenes in a food matrix

Edited by ajnast4r, 17 December 2009 - 10:40 PM.


#32 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,287 posts
  • 1,785
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 08 January 2010 - 04:15 PM

All:

First, what's going on with this? There's discussion in the membership at large in this subforum, but no move on a decision has been announced. I hope that everyone wasn't waiting with silent, baited breath for my reply on these (I had thought) readily-resolved issues, and apologize if so:

do you think 647mg of b12 is suitable for the general populace? that seems like overkill to me as most people taking this wont be b12 deficient.

Yes, you're right: we're designing a maintenance supplement, not one for acute use during deficiency. This will mean that people will still need to have their B12 markers (MMA and Hcy) tested -- but of course, they should be doing that anyway, and as with everything else, we don't want to megadose everyone for the needs of a few. Plus, frank deficiency is mostly seen in the elderly, and for better or worse, I have the impression that the great majority of life extensionists (& Imminst members in particular) are younger.

i'm also unsure if the RAE for supplemental BC would work for an alphabead style BC supplement, as its not all trans. my guess is theres not too much difference.

I agree, and wouldn't worry about it much anyway.

as far as dosing for the multi... im unsure. i was thinking somewhere in the range of 100%dri BC and 100%dri retinol?

Meaning, *summed* , right? Because it's so easy to overdose on retinol, so near-impossible to do so on b-c, and because the epidemiology is there, I put just 150 µg/500 IU retinol in OrthoCore, and 6 mg = 3000 IU (maybe less because of cis- ) from b-c plus 1.6 mg = 800 IU from alpha-c, which covers the new 5000 IU DRI nicely. I was really micromanaging the mix of carotenoid sources, and the numbers would be somewhat different in ours, but I don't think we need to be as anal as I was at the time to replicate SPECIFIC high-end population intakes, and we could safely (and should perhaps) go a bit higher on carotenoids unless someone wants to actively look into the cis-conversion.

do you think its a safe bet to use the the RAE for supplemental BC in oil for a coated powder like alphabeads or do you think it better to go higher?

As already intimated, the former. The tiny quantity of lipid in a softgel isn't the issue: to the minor extent that fat intake does affect this, it's from the GRAMS of fat in a meal, not the milligrams in a gel cap. The guidance shoiuld certainly advise people ( for this, and more so for several other nutrients, esp lycopene) to take their pills with fat-containg meals.

#33 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,531 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 14 January 2010 - 10:41 PM

Michael, your opinion is very valuable of course, but we weren't waiting for your judgment, just delayed through the holidays and I had a few other things to take care of.

I am not a supplement guru so I should not be the one making the final judgment on any ingredients. What I want to see is everyone on this expert panel declaring:

1. "despite some minor disagreements I might have, this is sufficient, and I would buy it", or

2. "there is no way I can support or buy this multi if it has ingredient X! I would rather dive into a swimming pool filled with double-edged razor blades!"

If everyone is in the 1 category then we can wrap this up in the next week. The Board has suggested sending the final formulation to Anthony by January 22nd. He will price it and let us know if there are any other considerations (packaging maybe) that we need to discuss.

I looked at the spreadsheet but I am unsure when the last time it was updated. I will contact each member of the panel and make sure everyone is on the same page now. Please place any final comments or make any final tweaks before January 22nd.

#34 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 15 January 2010 - 05:51 AM

It's good to see this moving again. One of the things that I've always hoped we would achieve with this supplement is a sufficiently low cost that we wouldn't price too many people out of the market for it. Price hasn't really entered into our thought process in a major way so far, and it might be interesting to have Anthony do an initial (perhaps approximate) pass through the formula to see if we have any ingredients that are really busting the budget. If there are things we really want and they are expensive, then so be it, but I'd hate to blow a lot of money on an ingredient if there was a good alternative that was a lot less expensive.

#35 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,287 posts
  • 1,785
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 15 January 2010 - 03:52 PM

I looked at the spreadsheet but I am unsure when the last time it was updated. ... What I want to see is everyone on this expert panel declaring:

1. "despite some minor disagreements I might have, this is sufficient, and I would buy it", or

2. "there is no way I can support or buy this multi if it has ingredient X! I would rather dive into a swimming pool filled with double-edged razor blades!"

I actually don't think the spreadsheet has been updated at all, so it's not perfectly clear what I or anyone else would be endorsing. Presuming that my input and discussions with ajnast4r are accepted ad silentio, I'm pretty sure I'm in Category 1 (and while I wouldn't buy this or any multi, I would recommend what I think has emerged to close friends, relatives, and my sweet love). Could someone (ajnast4r?) please revise to reflect the formula to which we're agreeing?

(BTW, I hate to tell you this, Justin, but you really don't have enough hair or snout to pass for Weird Al :) ).

it might be interesting to have Anthony do an initial (perhaps approximate) pass through the formula to see if we have any ingredients that are really busting the budget. If there are things we really want and they are expensive, then so be it, but I'd hate to blow a lot of money on an ingredient if there was a good alternative that was a lot less expensive.

We also should be very, very careful to insist that we have the real ingredients. Most of the "calcium citrate" on the market, eg, is actually the cheaper and higher-elemental-content, pill-count-lowering "blends," "complexes," or whatever of citrate with carbonate, and many mineral "chelates" are just mixtures of the common salt with the relevant amino acid. We need to specify this in general, look at spec sheets to be sure, and should request third-party testing of specific batches of specific materials.

-Michael

#36 kismet

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

Posted 15 January 2010 - 07:08 PM

As an "expert" on basically two vitamins, vitamin K and D, I can say that I'm satisifed. Although, as mentioned I'd recommend increasing the vit D by 100 IU up to a couple hundred IU, because:
A. there's clearly an overwhelming market demand for higher doses of vit D in our community (due to the vit D hype)
B. more importantly, IMHO, it's the right thing to do if we recommend, as we should, that people only take 50-80% of the dose depending on their actual needs.  

FWIW I don't take issue with most other stuff, but I haven't looked at it in much detail.

I am not planning to take the multi, either, but I hope to purchase it for some people I know.

#37 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,531 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 15 January 2010 - 07:17 PM

I plan on purchasing and recommending the multi.

Anthony is aware of the spreadsheet and I asked him to take a look and think about price. I have also asked ajnast4r to make sure the spreadsheet is up to date.

wrt Wierd Al, I used to have same the hair. I should post a pic sometime.

#38 ajnast4r

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

Posted 16 January 2010 - 12:31 AM

i'll be updating thee spreadsheat tonight or tomorrow

#39 ajnast4r

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

Posted 18 January 2010 - 03:38 AM

The tiny quantity of lipid in a softgel isn't the issue: to the minor extent that fat intake does affect this, it's from the GRAMS of fat in a meal, not the milligrams in a gel cap. The guidance shoiuld certainly advise people ( for this, and more so for several other nutrients, esp lycopene) to take their pills with fat-containg meals.



agreed. i think it would be wise from a cost perspective not to use softgels but to use dry vegetarian capsules.

also keeping the mv vegetarian will require not using gelatin based lipid carriers for vitamins... ie: vitamin D beadlets. i would like to list ALL ingredients including carriers like AOR does.

i think its important the manufacturer provide a COA for every lot. people will wanna see that... i will wanna see that. i think they will also wanna know where its being manufactured.

here is the compiled document... someone please double check the spreadsheet vs this thread.
http://spreadsheets....o...ZoRUE&hl=en

#40 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 January 2010 - 04:16 AM

The tiny quantity of lipid in a softgel isn't the issue: to the minor extent that fat intake does affect this, it's from the GRAMS of fat in a meal, not the milligrams in a gel cap. The guidance shoiuld certainly advise people ( for this, and more so for several other nutrients, esp lycopene) to take their pills with fat-containg meals.

agreed. i think it would be wise from a cost perspective not to use softgels but to use dry vegetarian capsules.

also keeping the mv vegetarian will require not using gelatin based lipid carriers for vitamins... ie: vitamin D beadlets. i would like to list ALL ingredients including carriers like AOR does.

Cardiologist William Davis has a different view of the importance of a lipid formulation of vitamin D, and he is quite convinced after having a large number of patients on D, and getting levels on them, for a long time. He reports that the people who used dry formulations just didn't get their levels up. The difference between the grams of fat in a meal and milligrams in the capsule is that the compounds are already dissolved in the lipids in the capsule. In the stomach and gut, the compounds would need to find the lipid droplets while they are still around and become solubilized, a process that is thermodynamically preferred, but is rather difficult kinetically. Unless there is A LOT of fat in the meal, I don't think it's going to work well. I would much rather see all the fat soluble compounds in a lightproof gelcap/licap, with the other compounds in a capsule. This was the choice of the vast majority of membership, iirc. If we can't do this, then I think that beadlets are essential. Otherwise, I'd rather not even have the fat soluble compounds; if they may or may not get absorbed, depending on your diet and physiology, then they really muddy the water. You don't know from day to day if you should "supplement the supplement" or not. I would certainly be supplementing more vitamin D on top of the multi as it stands, but given the vagaries of absorption, I wouldn't know how much I was really getting.

#41 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 18 January 2010 - 02:49 PM

The tiny quantity of lipid in a softgel isn't the issue [re: the absorption of fat-soluble nutrients]: to the minor extent that fat intake does affect this, it's from the GRAMS of fat in a meal, not the milligrams in a gel cap.

agreed. i think it would be wise from a cost perspective not to use softgels but to use dry vegetarian capsules

Cardiologist William Davis has a different view of the importance of a lipid formulation of vitamin D, and he is quite convinced after having a large number of patients on D, and getting levels on them, for a long time. ... I would much rather see all the fat soluble compounds in a lightproof gelcap/licap ...

I agree totally.

Edited by Michael, 18 January 2010 - 04:22 PM.
Trim quotes


#42 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,287 posts
  • 1,785
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 18 January 2010 - 04:19 PM

to the minor extent that fat intake does affect [the absorption of fat-soluble nutrients], it's from the GRAMS of fat in a meal, not the milligrams in a gel cap. The guidance shoiuld certainly advise people ... to take their pills with fat-containg meals.

agreed. i think it would be wise from a cost perspective not to use softgels but to use dry vegetarian capsules

Cardiologist William Davis has a different view of the importance of a lipid formulation of vitamin D, and he is quite convinced after having a large number of patients on D, and getting levels on them, for a long time. He reports that the people who used dry formulations just didn't get their levels up.

That may be what he thinks he sees in his practice, but vitamin D researcher and enthusiast Michael Holick actually ran clinical trials on this, and found that fat actually has little effect at all on D absorption or bioactivity:

Peak serum vitamin D(2) concentrations did not differ significantly after the ingestion of vitamin D(2) in whole milk, skim milk, or corn oil on toast. After subjects consumed orange juice [also fat-free] fortified with 1000 IU vitamin D(3) daily for 12 wk, serum 25(OH)D(3) concentrations increased by 150%, and serum parathyroid hormone concentrations decreased by 25% compared with baseline; control subjects had a seasonal increase of 45% in 25(OH)D and no significant change in serum parathyroid hormone. CONCLUSIONS: The fat content of milk does not affect vitamin D bioavailability. (1)

There is a bit of a problem here, inasmuch as there were 2 separate arms to the study, looking at different things (serum levels vs bioactive D3) with different supplements (D2 vs D3) at different doses; D2 is itself probabyl inferior as a supplement (2-3) and its effect might be maxed out by the huge dose despite a hidden, less efficient absorption. If they had used the design of the OJ study with several arms, including the delivery systems in the FIRST study, I'd feel a lot more confident about the results. But it certainly doesn't look like there's a major effect here, unlike eg. for lycopene. And:

You don't know from day to day if you should "supplement the supplement" or not. I would certainly be supplementing more vitamin D on top of the multi as it stands, but given the vagaries of absorption, I wouldn't know how much I was really getting.

In the end, you don't know that anyway without testing: absorption, metabolism, sun exposure, etc all vary too much. People need to be tested, and it's irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

Also, I'd again IAC advocate that teh full dose be designed to reflect full average requirement of these nutrients from all sources but that people trim down their dose to simply balance out their diet, so almost everyone is going to need an additional D supplement even if we get the dose and delivery system 'right' for them in when considered in isolation from such factors.

And, we can't put the whole formula into softgels, for formulation and stability reasons, so unless we're going to split off into separate softgel and hard gelatin caps (as indeed you (niner) seem to advocate here, but as STM a needless complication and cost-multiplier), we'll be using dry caps IAC.

-Michael

1. Tangpricha V, Koutkia P, Rieke SM, Chen TC, Perez AA, Holick MF.
Fortification of orange juice with vitamin D: a novel approach for enhancing vitamin D nutritional health.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jun;77(6):1478-83.
PMID: 12791627 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2. Houghton LA, Vieth R.
The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Oct;84(4):694-7.
PMID: 17023693 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3. Romagnoli E, Mascia ML, Cipriani C, Fassino V, Mazzei F, D'Erasmo E, Carnevale
V, Scillitani A, Minisola S. Short and long-term variations in serum calciotropic hormones after a single very large dose of ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) or cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) in the elderly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008
Aug;93(8):3015-20. Epub 2008 May 20. PubMed PMID: 18492750.

#43 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 18 January 2010 - 05:25 PM

it certainly doesn't look like there's a major effect here, unlike eg. for lycopene.


So what about the lycopene (and lutein and other carotenes) what is the bioavailability of the forms of those that will be in a dry cap? And how much more would it cost to do it right and put the fat sol supps in a seperate cap?

Edited by scottl, 18 January 2010 - 05:36 PM.


#44 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,287 posts
  • 1,785
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 18 January 2010 - 06:50 PM

it certainly doesn't look like there's a major effect here, unlike eg. for lycopene.

So what about the lycopene (and lutein and other carotenes) what is the bioavailability of the forms of those that will be in a dry cap?

First, for most carotenoids, there actually isn't much of a difference (eg (1,2)). There are studies finding significant effects, but they tend to either look at only a narrow range of carriers (chylomicrons), for single time-points (reflecting kinetics rather than overall absorption), or to involve rather unrepresentative extremes of fat intake (eg,

300 g [fat-free] salsa (Old El Paso-Thick and Chunky Salsa, General Mills) and 3 slices (75 g) of fat-free bread for Study 1 and salad (220 g) containing prepackaged ingredients of 100 g carrots ..., 40 g lettuce..., 80 g baby spinach..., 2 slices (50 g) of fat-free bread, and 40 g fat-free Italian salad dressing for Study 2 ... The salsa meal provided 1.2 MJ energy and was fat-free in the absence of avocado (Mission Produce, Hass California Avocados). When consumed with 150 g avocado, the total energy was 2.44 MJ, with 37% of the energy coming from fat. The energy content of the salad meal was 0.91 MJ with 2.3% from fat. When consumed with 75 and 150 g avocado, the percentage of energy from fat was 31 and 42%, respectively. The fat equivalent of 150 g avocado fruit was 24 g [= 2 tablespoons!] of avocado oil. ... The addition of avocado to [the meals] enhanced lycopene and ß-carotene absorption ... [But] Neither the avocado dose nor the lipid source affected carotenoid absorption. In conclusion, adding avocado fruit can significantly enhance carotenoid absorption from salad and salsa, which is attributed primarily to the lipids present in avocado. (3)

IAC, as I said,

The guidance shoiuld certainly advise people (for this, and more so for several other nutrients, esp lycopene ) to take their pills with fat-containg meals.


And how much more would it cost to do it right and put the fat sol supps in a seperate cap?

I can't quote you a number, but it will be significant: plenty of suppliers can do hard caps but not softgels, combo softgels usually require significant development work to make come out right, and we'd then have to either sell 2 separate bottles or make little combo-packs to be packaged up and put into a single bottle. The additional logistics of 2 separate pill streams also inherently add to cost.

-Michael

1: Ribaya-Mercado JD, Maramag CC, Tengco LW, Dolnikowski GG, Blumberg JB, Solon
FS. Carotene-rich plant foods ingested with minimal dietary fat enhance the
total-body vitamin A pool size in Filipino schoolchildren as assessed by
stable-isotope-dilution methodology. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Apr;85(4):1041-9.
PubMed PMID: 17413103.

2: Roodenburg AJ, Leenen R, van het Hof KH, Weststrate JA, Tijburg LB. Amount of
fat in the diet affects bioavailability of lutein esters but not of
alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, and vitamin E in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000
May;71(5):1187-93. PubMed PMID: 10799382.

3. Unlu NZ, Bohn T, Clinton SK, Schwartz SJ. Carotenoid absorption from salad and
salsa by humans is enhanced by the addition of avocado or avocado oil. J Nutr.
2005 Mar;135(3):431-6. PubMed PMID: 15735074

#45 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 18 January 2010 - 07:25 PM

IAC, as I said,

The guidance shoiuld certainly advise people (for this, and more so for several other nutrients, esp lycopene ) to take their pills with fat-containg meals.



The reality is that for most people the multi is taken with b'fast and for many people, b'fast is not a high fat meal (not sure we are aiming at the eggs and sausage market). Suggesting that people alter their diet for more optimal absorption of a supplement ain't realistic. I'm conservative in some ways. I believe the supplement needs to be designed to be self sufficient i.e. contain whatever it needs to ensure proper absorption. Whether it means a 2nd cap, or those beadsbeadlets, etc. I believe that would best serve the majority or people.

I suppose you can advise people take the multi with lunch or dinner (whichever meal is fatty), though B vitamins can stimulate some and this is a problem with many multis taken later than bfast. Perhaps this will not be a problem with the doses of B vitamin you are using. I don't know.

Good luck with the supp.

#46 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 18 January 2010 - 07:33 PM

FYI: one of the companies, perhaps Tyler (now Integrated therapeutics) had some interesting way of making co Q-10 i.e. a nutrient which needs fat to be absorbed in a dry gel cap so that it would be absorbed equivalently as if their were fat in the cap. I do not remember the details, btu it may be relevant (though of course perhaps not cheap).

#47 ajnast4r

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

Posted 18 January 2010 - 11:00 PM

The reality is that for most people the multi is taken with b'fast and for many people, b'fast is not a high fat meal (not sure we are aiming at the eggs and sausage market). Suggesting that people alter their diet for more optimal absorption of a supplement ain't realistic. I'm conservative in some ways. I believe the supplement needs to be designed to be self sufficient i.e. contain whatever it needs to ensure proper absorption. Whether it means a 2nd cap, or those beadsbeadlets, etc. I believe that would best serve the majority or people.



again i agree with michael... softgels are a waste for this project. a lipid based softgel taken with low-no dietary fat isnt going to fare too much better than a dry capsule taken with low-no dietary fat.

advising people to take their multi with a higher fat meal would be key imo.

#48 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 19 January 2010 - 06:28 AM

The reality is that for most people the multi is taken with b'fast and for many people, b'fast is not a high fat meal (not sure we are aiming at the eggs and sausage market). Suggesting that people alter their diet for more optimal absorption of a supplement ain't realistic. I'm conservative in some ways. I believe the supplement needs to be designed to be self sufficient i.e. contain whatever it needs to ensure proper absorption. Whether it means a 2nd cap, or those beadsbeadlets, etc. I believe that would best serve the majority or people.

again i agree with michael... softgels are a waste for this project. a lipid based softgel taken with low-no dietary fat isnt going to fare too much better than a dry capsule taken with low-no dietary fat.

advising people to take their multi with a higher fat meal would be key imo.

Let's look at the chemistry involved after swallowing the pill: If the fat-soluble compounds are already dissolved in oil, they aren't going to come out of solution; they will follow the oil that they are already dissolved in, even as it breaks up into very small droplets. If the fat-soluble compounds are consumed in a dry form, they will tend to aggregate in an aqueous environment and remain undissolved. Whatever fat was in the nearest meal will also subdivide into small droplets, which may then be too small to dissolve any aggregated fat-soluble crystals that encounter them. In Holick's vitamin D study, the D was already dissolved in large volumes of various matrices. I don't think that's comparable to taking the dry compound in a small volume crystalline form. It would be best if someone had run a clinical trial of different supplement formulations, which in essence is what Bill Davis has done, albeit informally. In view of that, I'm still in the camp of compounding the fat-soluble compounds in oil, or using beadlet technology if it is available. Prior to reading Davis' reports on this issue, I was of the same mind as you and Michael. I thought that the fat in the meal would get the job done, and a lipid formulation was just a gimmick. I've changed my mind about that.

#49 ajnast4r

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

Posted 20 January 2010 - 02:23 AM

using beadlet technology if it is available


as far as i know most of the good quality companies using dry at solubles are using some sort of beadlet/lipid carrier technology... if we do end up going totally dry i think its important to make sure.

#50 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,531 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 21 January 2010 - 07:23 PM

I am most concerned that the formulation (amounts and forms) is settled before Saturday, and it seems there is no longer any MAJOR disagreement on this aspect of the endeavor. If there is, experts should make their final arguments now.

As far as the dry/beadlet/oil/softgel/hard cap, discussion goes we can continue that while the product is being priced. Once we have a general idea of the price, then we can decide if we want to add some additional cost by putting the fat soluble vitamins in a lipid carrier.

#51 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,287 posts
  • 1,785
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 22 January 2010 - 04:31 PM

I am most concerned that the formulation (amounts and forms) is settled before Saturday, and it seems there is no longer any MAJOR disagreement on this aspect of the endeavor. If there is, experts should make their final arguments now.


No major arguments. Looking at the formula, I'd like to see citrates instead of glycinates, Cr picolinate instead of polynicotinate, and would really prefer to see a full dose of choline -- and then there's what has turned into the most active ongoing discussion:

As far as the dry/beadlet/oil/softgel/hard cap, discussion goes we can continue that while the product is being priced. Once we have a general idea of the price, then we can decide if we want to add some additional cost by putting the fat soluble vitamins in a lipid carrier.

I think it's sensible to have a quote from prospective manufacturers. In evaluating how much we're willing to bump up the cost and complexity of the delivery system, I think it's important to weigh intention-to-treat reasoning: as I said early on in my relationship to the Holy April, "The best calcium supplement is the one you actually take." I suggest that a significant uptick in the price may well drive people to buy a cheaper, inferior product elsewhere (including but not limited to both "dangerously" inferior ones and ones that may actually look a lot like our formula, but in the cheaper delivery of a gelcap-only formula), and to what extent having to take and keep track of 2 sets of pills (ie, "take 5 of these and 2 of these a day") will drive even people who buy it to not follow thru' with taking the whole regimen on a regular basis, leading to what is clearly an inferior outcome.

Now, since lycopene is the key nutrient driving the impulse to split the thing up, I'm happy to report that I actually have some data to insert into the discussion: (1) compared the bioavailability of 4 formulations in 24 subjects. "All persons were advised to minimize their carotenoid intake from food for a 2-wk initial [washout] period and the following 4-wk of supplementation by avoiding food rich in lycopene such as tomatoes and tomato products, watermelons, yellow and red pepper, pink grapefruit, papayas, apricots. After the depletion period, they ingested 5 mg lycopene daily after breakfast for 4-wk". I give the absolute (subject mean ± s.d) and percentage change (in brackets) in plasma lycopene levels at the end of the study for each; change values with a given superscript letters are not significantly (p < 0.05) different from others with the same superscript letter:

Capsule nr 1 Soft gel capsules containing tomato oleoresin [Lyc-O-Mato], ground to lycopene crystals size below 10 µm: 0.35±0.15 (0.28±0.14a)

Capsule nr 2 Soft gel capsules containing tomato oleoresin, ground to lycopene crystals size below 10 µm, plus surface active agents: 0.32±0.08 (0.19±0.13b,c )

Capsule nr 3 Soft gel capsules containing tomato oleoresin from which certain fraction of lipids was removed. Lycopene crystals in this sample were not physically treated (10 - 30 µm): 0.38±0.12 (0.23±0.11a,c)

Capsule nr 4 Hard shell capsules containing tablets grade of synthetic lycopene (< 2 µm): 0.29±0.10 (0.14±0.09b,d)

Capsule nr 5 Hard shell capsules containing spray-dried 1 - 2 µm size lycopene crystals crystallized from tomato oleoresin on modified starch as a carrier: 0.25±0.18 ( 0.08±0.14d)

So, if we go with an unified, dry-powder-hard-capsule formula with either crystalized oleoresin (probably the most expensive raw material , tho' final cost would be cheaper than either separate-softgel option) or (somewhat surprisingly) synthetic lycopene (certainly the cheapest), we'd be losing somewhere between 1/4 and half of the bioavailability of one of the gelcap options, if taken with a meal (tho' this possibly exaggerates the difference, as breakfasts were whatever subjects ate at home, and this could be cereal and nonfat milk, eg).

I suggest we just double the lycopene dose, which would certainly not be an overdose (we have 10 mg on the spreadsheet, and I'd originally put 18 mg in OrthoCore as being the highest high-end intake in the prospective epidemiology I could find) and (while we can get a quote) I am sure will be cheaper than a split formula, even with crystalized Lyc-O-Mato (and it appears we'd be absolutely fine, and probably better, with the cheaper synthetic).

-Michael

1. V. Böhm. Intestinal Absorption of Lycopene from Different Types of Oleoresin Capsules. Journal of Food Science. 2002 Jun; 67(5): 1910 - 1913.

Edited by Michael, 22 January 2010 - 04:32 PM.


#52 ajnast4r

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

Posted 22 January 2010 - 11:38 PM

im ok with citrates other than zinc... zinc glycinate has superior distribution vs citrate. as far as i know chromium niacinates have shown better bioavailability/distribution & to better for glucose management? i dont think that it would make a huge difference either way so if michael insists i can go with that.

also agree on doubling up on the lycopene.

#53 Anthony_Loera

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

Posted 05 February 2010 - 12:04 AM

I am looking at the formulation... and need to ask the following:

Are all ingredient values, Elemental values?
I see some are, but it's not specific for many of these. Pricing say... for Lycopene is x for about 5% purity, while 100% purity would be x + $3 per bottle. Most ingredients are not pure, and many have a low purity. If these are elemental values we will need to educate folks regarding this difference, when folks ask about how it compares to XYZ brand.

Let me know, thanks.

A

#54 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 05 February 2010 - 03:37 AM

Are all ingredient values, Elemental values?
I see some are, but it's not specific for many of these. Pricing say... for Lycopene is x for about 5% purity, while 100% purity would be x + $3 per bottle. Most ingredients are not pure, and many have a low purity. If these are elemental values we will need to educate folks regarding this difference, when folks ask about how it compares to XYZ brand.

The values for metals, iodine, silicon, etc are elemental. For the organic compounds, if it is a salt form, like pyridoxine hydrochloride, I think the standard is to consider it as the free base. For something like lutein esters, I'm really not sure how it's conventionally treated. Since lutein is the active ingredient that is liberated from the ester via hydrolysis, my choice would be to treat it as the weight of free lutein without the ester functionality. Anyone have firm knowledge on this? Anthony, if you'd like a hand with the calculations, just let me know.

BTW, a while back when I was temporarily unable to post, I PM'd ajnast4r and Michael regarding the reactivity of sodium metasilicate. I'm worried that it will react with the heavy metals (and maybe acids) in the mix. Any thoughts on this? Sodium metasilicate seems like a perfect choice; it's cheap, it hydrolyzes to silicic acid in the stomach- what's not to like? So why then does BioSil and JarrowSil exist? From a little bit of looking around, I didn't see anyone else using the metasilicate, so I think we might have a problem here.

On purity, x + $3 per bottle might be a problem. Is there a 90% product that's x + $0.25 per bottle? We should look at the price vs purity for the various compounds and then decide. If we are using anything that is not high purity, would we know what else was in it? We don't want to load up with whatever the Emodin analog is for these substances...

#55 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,531 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 07 February 2010 - 09:05 PM

Here is another post by a member who seems to have an idea what goes on in packaging a supplement. Maybe worth a look by our expert panel.

#56 ajnast4r

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

Posted 07 February 2010 - 10:25 PM

anthony,

all minerals, vitamins and extras should be in elemental/free weight...

ex:

11mg zinc as 300mg zinc glycinate
1.6 mg b6 as 2 mg p hcl
12mg lutein as 30mg lutein esters

etc


all vitamins and mineralys should be 99%+, purity no exceptions

the extras, lutein etc, doent really matter...

Edited by ajnast4r, 07 February 2010 - 10:29 PM.


#57 ajnast4r

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

Posted 08 February 2010 - 07:28 AM

i was on my phone before and couldnt comment in detail.. i think synthetics should be 99% and any of the food based ingredients, ie: lycopene, lutein, beta-carotene etc should be whatever is the best balance of cost vs quality. if a 5% beta carotene concentrate makes a bottle -3$ vs a 20% beta carotene concentrate then i would say use the 5%.

#58 edward

  • Guest
  • 1,404 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeast USA

Posted 08 February 2010 - 08:41 AM

When I was started my LLC company to pursue manufacturing a longevity/health supp (received an offer to finance the operation, began setting up logistics an online store registered the LLC etc. though economy tanked and I never "pulled the trigger" on placing my first order from the manufacturer I had chosen)

Long story short, to make my supp, which would have been a best of the best (7-10 components with the max amount positive research backing their use and , I chose these people:

Nutricap Labs

http://www.nutricapl...CFQxlswod-g_DGw




I comparison shopped the cost to make various versions of my formulas and these people were among the cheapest but definitely the easies to deal with. Basically you create the formula, discuss with them the weights volume and settling properties of the various components they will work with you on size and amount of caps, tablets, soft gels or whatever. They source the ingredients and price is negotiated. They have buying power pooled with other clients so prices are much lower than I expected. They even have a label printing service . Check them out. Very easy to work with, if I pick up where I left off with my LLC this is the company I would go with.


Edward

edit: spellung n' gramer

Edited by edward, 08 February 2010 - 08:51 AM.


#59 edward

  • Guest
  • 1,404 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeast USA

Posted 08 February 2010 - 03:42 PM

PS: I didn't mean to step on any "toes" with my previous post. Just sharing information.

If Anthony is able to get the formula made, viable and the business/financial/parameters seem like something he could be a part of and us a community could benefit from, then it would be wonderful for Anthony to take the reins. Given the fact that he has a history of "straight shooting" with the community and it would be immensely beneficial to have someone we have trust in and can easily communicate with close to actual manufacturing of the product. Something as crucial as a core "multivitamin" is something I would much rather get from someone/company I trust. Furthermore with someone in the industry taking care of some of the logistics it would probably save us a lot of headaches.

Edited by edward, 08 February 2010 - 03:43 PM.


#60 Anthony_Loera

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

Posted 09 February 2010 - 11:37 PM

Thanks for the calrification guys.

Just an FYI:
From the Formulation

Folate 100mcg folinic acid:
This is no longer legal to use this in a supplement, FDA classified it as a drug in December. We can only use folic acid, l 5 methyl folate is licenced and patented by Merck.

Is Folic acid ok for you guys?

A




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users