152 replies to this topic

[Anthony_Loera]

Sounds great, thanks!

A

[ajnast4r]

niner, i would shoot michael an email... im not in the know about that.

justin & anthony, i cant access that file

it returns:

Sorry, but you do not have permission to use this feature. If you are not logged in, you may do so using the form below if available.

[edward]

Looks very good, there are a few things I could quibble about but nothing that would make me not choose this multi when compared to everything else out there.

[edward]

I'm worried about the Sodium Metasilicate reacting with the metals. Is there any evidence or reasoning that says this isn't going to be a problem? I asked about this a while ago and PM'd a couple of you, but haven't heard anything about it.

I do think niner has a point here though. It looks like sodium metasilicate in an aqueous solution combines with at least certain metal compounds, my chemistry is too rusty for me to immediately see if there is a problem with our particular metal compounds and I've got to get off here and go to work but I do think this should be looked at.

http://www.inchem.or...ical/pim500.htm
http://en.wikipedia....Sodium_silicate
http://www.jtbaker.c...hhtml/s4970.htm

[ajnast4r]

i think i cant view the file because im not a member.. can someone email it to me please ajnast4r@gmail.com

[Anthony_Loera]

i think i cant view the file because im not a member.. can someone email it to me please ajnast4r@gmail.com

Try this link:
Http://www.RevGenetics.com/PDF/imminst-formula.pdf

Thanks
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 24 February 2010 - 09:38 PM.

[ajnast4r]

anthony, im a little confused...

1, im unsure how to read the ingredient weights?

2, this formula appears to be the UNrevised version? THIS is the revised version... there should be no coenzyme B vitamins. google docs may be erroring and showing the original, whats your email?

Edited by ajnast4r, 24 February 2010 - 10:15 PM.

[Michael]

All:

First, re the metasilicate: I'm sorry that I didn't reply to your earlier message, niner (and sorry to disappoint what appear to be ajnast4r's expectations), but I just didn't (and don't) have any special insight on this. I can see why one might worry about this being an issue, but I don't IMAGINE that it's likely a big one, since (a) it is dry caps, not a solution, (b) the amount is so very small relative to the total cap weight, © the ratio of it, its potential reactants (Zn, Cu), to total capsule weight is small, meaning little opportunity for contact except during initial mixing, and (d) many of the MSDS sheets don't even mention this problem, and only mention an incompatibility with fluoride. And (yes) it's widely used in supplements containing Zn and Cu, and folks do have to do accelerated stability tests.

Just in case: Anthony, could you fairly readily put dessicant packs in the bottles? And, do you indeed perform accelerated stability on supplements, so that we could get an idea on whether the thing is likely to degrade or blow up ?

Next:

i think i cant view the file because im not a member.

Try this link:
Http://www.RevGenetics.com/PDF/imminst-formula.pdf

This actually is slightly buggered; try this link to the RevGenetics Imminst-formula.

Now, on that: I see that Ajnast4r has already noted that it is based on the first draft (still lists P5P, hydroxycobalamin, methylcobalamin, and tocotrienols, eg) and these are all fixed except the tocotrienols -- which I actually instinctively would prefer to have, but not firmly & did think they'd been been thrown out, too. IAC, if we're dropping the op cit super-expensive Bs, the price should come down significantly -- yes? Bonus ...

Oh, and we ARE doing Li, yes? Even the carbonate would be fine, tho' the orotate would pose fewer questions ...

Edited by Michael, 25 February 2010 - 12:52 AM.

[ajnast4r]

did think they'd been been thrown out, too.

they have not been cut out and are still being included

Oh, and we ARE doing Li, yes? Even the carbonate would be fine, tho' the orotate would pose fewer questions ...

yes... preferably orotate.

[niner]

What's the status of the fat solubles? Are they going to at least be in a beadlet with lipid? Despite being an inveterate cheapskate, I would be willing to pay more for a formulation that put the fat solubles in a softgel. Realistically, what would that cost?

re: metasilicate:

And (yes) it's widely used in supplements containing Zn and Cu, and folks do have to do accelerated stability tests.

ok, phwew. I am really glad to hear that. I'd never seen it in a supplement before, but I know that sodium silicate happily reacts with dications, at least if there's water around. And some forms of metasilicate (nonahydrate?) are hygroscopic. I just didn't want to see the ImmInst Multi turning into Magic Rocks as it sat on a shelf.

BTW, why does BioSil exist if metasilicate is a good source of bioavailable silicon?

[edward]

What's the status of the fat solubles? Are they going to at least be in a beadlet with lipid? Despite being an inveterate cheapskate, I would be willing to pay more for a formulation that put the fat solubles in a softgel. Realistically, what would that cost?

re: metasilicate:

And (yes) it's widely used in supplements containing Zn and Cu, and folks do have to do accelerated stability tests.

ok, phwew. I am really glad to hear that. I'd never seen it in a supplement before, but I know that sodium silicate happily reacts with dications, at least if there's water around. And some forms of metasilicate (nonahydrate?) are hygroscopic. I just didn't want to see the ImmInst Multi turning into Magic Rocks as it sat on a shelf.

BTW, why does BioSil exist if metasilicate is a good source of bioavailable silicon?

metasilicate:

Marketing? and $... from this http://www.usana.com...ce/crb/4CRB.pdf
it looks like the best form of the three mentioned (actually they mentioned 4 forms and tested 3) is calcium
silicate (specifically, calcium salt of silicic acid)

Though our supplement is in dry form... one pops them in the mouth and washes it down with water at which point it will become an aqueous solution in the stomach I doubt there will be an issue on the shelf but in the stomach? Magic Rocks

P5P:
I'm glad its still there, personally I would rather have this than pyridoxine granted at full dosage we are not near "toxic" levels I personally don't want anymore pyridoxine than I already get with the occasional protein bar and "fortified" foods I sometimes indulge in. They put pyridoxine in everything and my diet is pretty strict, I imagine the average consumer even imminst consumer who eats such things a breakfast cereal and what not already has enough pyridoxine floating around with P5P we dont have to worry about adding to peoples toxicity

B-12:
We really don't need both hydroxy and methyl, honestly at the tiny doses we are talking about (I am still going to take my 3 mg of methylcobalmin a day regardless of the formula with b12 doses this small), I had hoped for larger doses in the multi but I understand why not... So for doing the most good for the most people and cost savings we should go with all hydroxy, which is easily converted to methyl and dibencozide (the two active coenzymes) supplying the majority of people with what they need nutritionally from a multi.

tocotrienols:
I vote to keep them, anti-cancer, proven to be beneficial, found in nature, the eater of an "optimal diet" would end up consuming them, essential, probably not but oh do I want to keep them.

Lithium:
Yes we need lithium 1 mg elemental (the provisional suggested RDA)
the evidence says it is essential http://www.jacn.org/...nt/full/21/1/14

[edward]

ok since I started to nit-pick I will finish nit-picking:

I don't think we need to bother with riboflavin 5 phospate, especially not riboflavin AND riboflavin 5 phospate (but I don't have a strong opinion on this one so whatever)

vanadium, strontium, inositol and how much iodine are we getting from our potassium iodide...maganese yes most people get enough but it is essential and its not in our formula

From ortho-core:

Strontium (Citrate) 1.5 mg
Vanadium (Picolinate) 18 mcg
Inositol (from Inositol, Inositol Hexanicotinate) 100 mg
Iodine (Potassium Iodide) 150 mcg
Manganese (Glycinate) 2.3 mg

[edward]

last nit pick.....

trace minerals, as in 72 element trace mineral complex
http://www.iherb.com...28-ml/1062?at=0

there is a lot of interesting research on obscure trace minerals needed in tiny amounts.... not to long ago vanadium, chromium, lithium etc. were not considered essential and the benefits of strontium well who would have thought it?

I would hate to miss out on a tiny amount of some obscure element due to our soil being depleted and our foodstuffs being more uniformly grown in sand enriched with fertilizer. Our ancestors probably had a lot of "dirt" in there diet.

edit: many multi's contain a trace mineral complex, a few mg or so of such a thing could probably be had very cheaply

Edited by edward, 25 February 2010 - 09:24 AM.

[Anthony_Loera]

anthony, im a little confused...

1, im unsure how to read the ingredient weights?

2, this formula appears to be the UNrevised version? THIS is the revised version... there should be no coenzyme B vitamins. google docs may be erroring and showing the original, whats your email?

oh boy, back to the drawing board... please email me the new formulation after it is corrected for the latest post comments.

regarding other questions:
1- No beadlets, not this run. If you must have these or if you want to create separate capsules for each item, then your are increasing costs dramatically and and increasing time to market. We can't do beadlets here, and will need to contract it out. We are aiming for a small run, and this can't be done for a small run.

2- Perform accelerated stability on supplements and dessicant. Dessicant is done pretty quickly after the bottle is filled. Accelerated studies for this run can be done, and I will add the cost of this to the final product for both imminst members and the public. Remember we are only considering about 1400 bottles at this time as we have no data to see if this will sell within 2-3 months or not. Without the market supporting this, it would appear we may limit this product to a single run.

Having said that, if you know how much these studies typically run, you now can calculate what the increase per bottle will be. Not a problem for us, however it maybe an issue for you on this first run.

ajnast4r
my email is anthony @ revgenetics.com

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 25 February 2010 - 02:11 PM.

[ajnast4r]

edward & niner... THIS is the final revision. review that and then address additional changes

45$ is about as much as anyone is going to pay for a 1 month supply of MV... if accelerated stability testing is going to increase the cost significantly i think we should put it off until we see how well the product does commercially.

betatene is fine, i dont think any other beadlet ingredients are necessary.

Edited by ajnast4r, 25 February 2010 - 07:52 PM.

[edward]

reviewed the final version.

see above posts for rationale



I am firm on my recommendation for p5p see above (note also aor chose to put it in orthocore even though most of their other b's were not coenzymated forms)

b-12 hydroxocobalamin is the logical choice

lithium orate or carbonate preferably oratate but whatever doesnt break the bank

vanadium is essential and should be in there as dietary sources are hard to come by, just put 18-20 mcg as is in orthocore

trace minerals 72 soil/sea complex again should be cheap 3 mg

strontium 1-2 mg as citrate

molybdenum again copy orthocore at 45 mcg

everything else inositol, maganese etc I can live without

edit: I say no accelerated studies on this run as this will drive costs up, defer to niner on the chemistry issues, hopefully Michael will chime in on the above as he is the true expert.

if we need space we can cut a little choline or magnesium (as most will supplement additional choline and magnesium anyways)

Edited by edward, 25 February 2010 - 11:36 PM.

[edward]

I added the changes I would make to sheet 2 in the above link ajnastr posted " THIS " , spreadsheet 1 is the original ajnastr linked to, I simply copied spreadsheet 1 to spreadsheet 2 then made my changes there. So do with it what you will or delete if ya want

[niner]

1- No beadlets, not this run. If you must have these or if you want to create separate capsules for each item, then your are increasing costs dramatically and and increasing time to market. We can't do beadlets here, and will need to contract it out. We are aiming for a small run, and this can't be done for a small run.

How much is dramatically? We are paying some amount extra for more bioavailable (and bulkier, thus leading to more caps) minerals when we could use smaller cheaper forms and just include a little more. To be honest, I would rather see us cheap out on magnesium than to cripple all the expensive fat solubles. So what would it cost for a second bottle of softgels with the fat solubles? Second question: Is there any one ingredient that is particularly driving cost here? PM me if any of this is sensitive info.

[ajnast4r]

edward,

using p5p in such small amounts is pointless... it's dephosphorylated in the gut before absorption. read michaels comments in this thread. the reason for using such high amounts as in orthocore is the hope that some gets across through passive diffusion.

molybdenum should have been there, thats my fault

disagree on vanadium, no evidence that it is essential

agree in hydroxob12

disagree on strontium... virtually absent in the diet

agree on the trace minerals, but would like to hear michaels comments on them

niner,

if we suggest the product be taken with 15-20g of fat it really wont matter what mechanism is used to deliver the fat solubles.

Edited by ajnast4r, 26 February 2010 - 03:35 AM.

[maxwatt]

niner,

if we suggest the product be taken with 15-20g of fat it really wont matter what mechanism is used to deliver the fat solubles.

I was under the impression from one of niner's posts that non-polar supplements predisolved in oil or another vehicle were etter absorbed than the powder forms taken with a few grams of fat. Nu? Niner?

Edited by Michael, 26 February 2010 - 03:09 PM.
Trim quotes

[niner]

edward,
if we suggest the product be taken with 15-20g of fat it really wont matter what mechanism is used to deliver the fat solubles.

I was under the impression from one of niner's posts that non-polar supplements predisolved in oil or another vehicle were etter absorbed than the powder forms taken with a few grams of fat. Nu? Niner?

I really don't think we can say that it won't matter. Certainly the hydrophobes will be better absorbed if predissolved than if taken with a few grams of fat. Twenty grams would probably help, but we don't really know without relevant data. We've seen some data on matrix effects where the compounds were predissolved. But this situation is different. I would like to spread out the dose of the water soluble compounds throughout the day, but I don't want to take 20 grams of fat each time I take a couple of these pills. The best thing to do would probably be to empty six caps into some olive oil or warm coconut oil, mix it up, and chug it as a horrid tasting slurry. Not too attractive.

[Michael]

edward,
if we suggest the product be taken with 15-20g of fat it really wont matter what mechanism is used to deliver the fat solubles.

I was under the impression from one of niner's posts that non-polar supplements predisolved in oil or another vehicle were etter absorbed than the powder forms taken with a few grams of fat. Nu? Niner?

I really don't think we can say that it won't matter. Certainly the hydrophobes will be better absorbed if predissolved than if taken with a few grams of fat. Twenty grams would probably help, but we don't really know without relevant data.

You mean, like the data I painstakingly dug up and posted earlier to address your concern on bioavailability of lycopene in different dosage forms and on the effect of fat on lycopene absorption ? The former post shows that the major boost in absorption comes from the initial boost of going from a nearly fat-free meal to one with any reasonable amount of fat; at the extremes, 12 g (~1T) of fat from avocados or avocado oil (just vs. a nearly fat-free meal) significantly increases carotenoid absorption, with no further benefit from doubling the fat dose. The latter post documents that for lycopene (the extreme case of differential bioavailability),

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).

See also this post on vitamin D.

On this: Anthony, I was surprised to hear you say that you couldn't do beadlets. Surely you can just buy 2-piece gelcap-ready beadlets for individual fat-solubles? This is actually the standard form for many carotenoid raw materials, eg.

Sr: the 1.5 mg in the original OrthoCore was based on high-end intake from total diet from a survey of the literature. Since Ca inhibits Sr absorption, and since dietary Sr tends to be linked to dietary Ca, my main concern was and is that taking supplemental Ca with no balancing Sr would inhibit absorption of dietary Sr, which might prove deleterious.

Trace minerals: first, y'all should know that despite widespread misuse in the supplement industry, the term actually refers to things present in the diet in millgram amounts, like Cu, Zn, & Fe; the things present in the diet in much lower concentration are properly ultratrace minerals, with cases like Mo, I, and Se arbitrarily segregated one way or the other. Anyway, while I don't have references to hand and don't really want to dig them up, my general understanding accords with this aabstraact,

Although ultra trace elements can be essential, as a rule, as was shown with the help of semisynthetic rations, their importance is in the toxic field.

To the extent that they may indeed serve biological functions, they're sufficiently abundant in food because of passive uptake that we really don't have to worry about any that haven't had a pretty good case made in their favor. (I'm on the fence about Va, and haven't reviewed the evidence in ~5 y).

Edited by Michael, 26 February 2010 - 03:57 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi Michael,

1- we would send the material out to be microencapsulated (beadlets), and shipped back, but we don't do this ourselves. beadlets can be used in the same capsule, or apart in other capsules such as soft gelcaps.

2- soft gelcaps typically have a minimum order of 300,000 to 500,000 capsules, not really workable for a small run.

Cheers
A

[Mind]

Yes, please remember that this will be a small run. Thanks for keeping us informed about the some of the things that will restrict our capabilities Anthony. We will need to know all the small things wrt to this formulation.

[niner]

I really don't think we can say that it won't matter. Certainly the hydrophobes will be better absorbed if predissolved than if taken with a few grams of fat. Twenty grams would probably help, but we don't really know without relevant data.

You mean, like the data I painstakingly dug up and posted earlier to address your concern on bioavailability of lycopene in different dosage forms and on the effect of fat on lycopene absorption ? [...] See also this post on vitamin D.

Yikes! I have incurred the wrath of Michael. Sorry Michael, I had forgotten one part of that information. In the first link, the relevant comparison was between dry lycopene in a hardgel and a softgel, but importantly, the dry lycopene was micronized (<2um). In this comparison, the dry lycopene had half the bioavailability of the softgel formulation. This suggests that just doubling up on the dose is a good way to go, but is our lycopene micronized?

The second link, 'effect of fat on lycopene absorption', is not really relevant, because the lycopene and beta carotene were in food, not in a dry crystalline form. A reference in that post, Roodenberg et al., was used as evidence that fat didn't make much difference for most carotenoids. That paper is not relevant, however, because in both the "low fat" and "high fat" dosage forms, the compounds were delivered in oil suspension.

The supplementary dosage of vitamin E was 50 mg {alpha}-D-tocopherol/d (67% purity; Sigma Chemical Co, St Louis), equivalent to 5 times the recommended daily allowance of 10 mg/d for men aged 22–50 y (26, 27). The carotenoid-enriched spreads provided either 15 µmol (8 mg) {alpha}- and ß-carotene/d (30% suspension in oil; Vegex Carotene; Quest International Ireland Ltd, Cork, Ireland) or 15 µmol (8 mg) lutein/d, primarily as lutein diesters (3.2% suspension in oil; Vegex Lutein OS30; Quest International Ireland Ltd). The daily amount of carotenoids added to the spread was {approx}1–1.3 times the daily carotenoid intake in the United States (6 mg) (10) and the Netherlands (7 mg) (28). The control spread contained no added carotenoids or vitamin E.

The subjects were required to eat 50 g of the experimental spread daily; the low-fat spread contained {approx}3% fat (by wt) and the high-fat spread contained {approx}80% fat (by wt). In this way, a maximum contrast between the low- and high-fat intervention, together with an acceptable meal, could be achieved. The spread was freshly prepared in our laboratory for each experimental period. The fat contents and fatty acid compositions were kept similar in the high- and low-fat control and supplemented spreads. The fatty acid compositions of the low- and high-fat spreads reflected those of commercially available spreads.

You also cited a vitamin D study somewhere far upthread that looked at absorption of D from different matrices, but they were all liquids in which the D was dissolved or suspended, and not a dry crystalline form. So in all, we see that a dry, micronized lycopene has half the availability of a gelcap, and we have William Davis' report that dry vitamin D tablets don't move his patients' 25-OH-D levels. Micronization can make a huge difference in the absorption of a hydrophobe, so I'm not so sure that we can even take the lycopene experiment as relevant to our project unless we can micronize our fat solubles.

On this: Anthony, I was surprised to hear you say that you couldn't do beadlets. Surely you can just buy 2-piece gelcap-ready beadlets for individual fat-solubles? This is actually the standard form for many carotenoid raw materials, eg.

Yes, I thought this was the case. Can't we buy beadlets?

Edited by Michael, 27 February 2010 - 04:05 PM.

[niner]

2- soft gelcaps typically have a minimum order of 300,000 to 500,000 capsules, not really workable for a small run.

But 1400 bottles * 180 caps is 252,000 capsules. We aren't that far off. 267 bottles more to hit 300,000. I can understand if you don't want to commit to a larger run of a product that you don't know the demand of, but assuming a 1667 bottle run were possible, what would the price differential be? (Humor me...)
Oh, oops. It would be 30 or 60 softgels per bottle, not all of the caps. If 60/bottle, we would need 5000 bottles; if 30, 10K. I can see that is not going to work at this stage. If we are wildly successful* with this project, perhaps it could work in a subsequent run. I would still be interested in knowing what this might cost, as well as which compounds and processes are the most significant cost drivers.

*What does "successful" mean here? See below.

Edited by niner, 27 February 2010 - 12:50 AM.

[Michael]

1- we would send the material out to be microencapsulated (beadlets), and shipped back, but we don't do this ourselves. beadlets can be used in the same capsule, or apart in other capsules such as soft gelcaps.

Right: sorry, we're miscommunicating, and I may also have been mistaken to some degree. I'm not talking about having the final formulation microed together before encapsulation -- I know well that'd be bloody expensive, and I am really just humoring Niner and Edward on this anyway -- what I'm saying is, we can buy many of the original raw materials either as undiluted powders, as diluted/triturated powders, or (in most cases, especially for fat-solubles, for both this reason and 'cause it works better for tabletting most stuff) as beadlets -- eg, Cognis Betatene is available as Cold water-dispersible powder, Water dispersible powder, predissolved in different oils, Tablet grade beadlet, and powder, with several concentrations for some. I had expected there to be a specific microencapsulated beadlet option. I haven't looked, but I'm guessing the same may be true for the others. Would folks be OK with Cold water-dispersible powder or Tablet grade beadlets? Please do have a look again at my links on lycopene, the most extreme case: I really think the evidence is that this is that big a deal.

Small run: yes, of course. Gelcaps, my position is, are unnecessary, expensive, likely to lead to noncompliance (you can't absorb fat-solubles if you're constantly forgetting to take them ...), and generally a bad idea.

[niner]

1- we would send the material out to be microencapsulated (beadlets), and shipped back, but we don't do this ourselves. beadlets can be used in the same capsule, or apart in other capsules such as soft gelcaps.

Right: sorry, we're miscommunicating, and I may also have been mistaken to some degree. I'm not talking about having the final formulation microed together before encapsulation -- I know well that'd be bloody expensive, and I am really just humoring Niner and Edward on this anyway -- what I'm saying is, we can buy many of the original raw materials either as undiluted powders, as diluted/triturated powders, or (in most cases, especially for fat-solubles, for both this reason and 'cause it works better for tabletting most stuff) as beadlets -- eg, Cognis Betatene is available as Cold water-dispersible powder, Water dispersible powder, predissolved in different oils, Tablet grade beadlet, and powder, with several concentrations for some. I had expected there to be a specific microencapsulated beadlet option. I haven't looked, but I'm guessing the same may be true for the others. Would folks be OK with Cold water-dispersible powder or Tablet grade beadlets? Please do have a look again at my links on lycopene, the most extreme case: I really think the evidence is that this is that big a deal.

Small run: yes, of course. Gelcaps, my position is, are unnecessary, expensive, likely to lead to noncompliance (you can't absorb fat-solubles if you're constantly forgetting to take them ...), and generally a bad idea.

I think tablet grade beadlets would be ok for a small run. The water dispersible powders are very bulky, and the bioavailabilty of them is (at least to me) an unknown. I don't see the compliance problem with gelcaps. It would be one pill a day; if someone is motivated enough to buy a multi like this, I don't think they would have a problem remembering to take some of the most important components. On the lycopene evidence, the lycopene is micronized, which may dramatically increase the absorption of a hydrophobe, and still it was only half as good as the better softgel.

I don't understand why we're willing to pay top dollar for optimal salt forms on the minerals, then go with a formulation of unknown-at-best bioavailability for the critical fat soluble compounds.

[niner]

I think it might be helpful for us to consider what "success" would look like in this project. I think that we will be successful if we create a multi that we would use ourselves and unequivocally recommend to friends and family. I would want to be able to drop about a half dozen supplements that I am currently using in the form of individual well-formulated compounds.

Other measures of success:

The ImmInst multi must be enough of a commercial success that it is worth producing.

It enhances the stature of ImmInst.

It shames other companies into improving their multivitamin offerings, particularly good if they do it because Anthony is making so damn much money.

Our target demographic is the motivated life extension community. Another measure of success would be either expanding that community, or moving this MV into the wider health-conscious community.

Additions/comments?

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi Micheal,

I understand what you mean now, so I will check options with our suppliers.

As for success, hmmm...for me it would also be:

- Enough profit so that they can be re-invested into larger productions without the need to bring outside investors. Self sustained growth of a product says more to me than most things, when it comes to it's success. Don't get me wrong, we can certainly invest a lot of money into one product and make it the best one on the market (anyone can...really) however the expense may not seem reasonable to some folks, even educated folks.

Quick story: I had a customer email me regarding our MCT BioCurcumin product vs LEF BioCurcumin product, and asked why we had a higher price than LEF's member price (although we have a lower price than LEF non-member price). They have the same active ingredient. Even after I explained that our delivery system consisted of more than just powder in a capsule, that we used MCT, lowered the particle size, and tocopherols to assure a good delivery... he still didn't agree because I didn't do a clinical trial with the new formulation. Well, this experience now has me considering copying LEF's capsules, to increase our profit margin (and capturing more customers) with a slightly lower price than LEF (and dropping the expense of the delivery system).

Some people just want to see the main active on the label, and pay the cheapest price.

Anyway, like I was saying before.
We can invest quite a bit of money, but to do that we would need a campaign that educates people on the difference between the best formulation when it is compared to others. Otherwise, your product will not survive in the market.. even if it is the best available product of it's kind in the world.

I suspect a lot of products are made this way, and simply use different types of marketing to set them apart. It is unfortunate in my opinion.

Just my 2 cents.
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 28 February 2010 - 04:45 PM.