152 replies to this topic

[ajnast4r]

ok so other than nitty gritty on ingredients, are we in agreement here? no V, no Sr, no trace mineral, use h-b12 instead of m-b12?

also I think we should use plain ascorbic acid instead of the branded C... now that im thinking about it, waste of money.

Anthony: is it possible to find out if the fat solubles are micronized or if micronized versions are available? lycopene, lutien, BC, D etc?

[Mind]

As far as the trace minerals go. Sure there is a rationale for including them, but are not most of our diets sufficient in that regard? If we are targeting our community originally, then we can save a little cost, knowing that this is less necessary as an ingredient (mineral mix).

[edward]

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?

This is excellent, and why this is a good idea for imminst. I understand Anthony's point from a business perspective and yes from a business perspective he is right. The problem is that the imminst community has a great deal more knowledge of the specifics such a delivery system that make a supplement work or be worthless.

To me the bottom line is why create this product unless as niner said each of us can endorse it 100% replace handfuls of supps we take simply because the current products available are full of holes (perhaps because of the business model of things, combined with the ignorance of the market). Upon that base the other goals mentioned can be built, but without that base the whole structure falls and we have created another "shortcutted" supp designed simply to sell at a profit.

I argue that if we create a supp we believe in then with a little marketing and education it will be a big seller simply because it is the best. Everytime someone mentions their supp regimine or recommendations to new people it will be the imminst multi, not the typical AOR ortho core/multi basics. The whole forum becomes a marketing tool BUT for the right reason IT IS THE BEST and we as educated people with degrees/ work experience in related fields choose to put this supplement in our bodies and not others.

[Mind]

Anthony: - 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.

This is the way I would hope things progress. The first production run brings in enough money to fund further production in the future. Imminst will of course help as much as possible in the promotion.

ajnast4r: ok so other than nitty gritty on ingredients, are we in agreement here? no V, no Sr, no trace mineral, use h-b12 instead of m-b12?

Here is the poll that contained the vote on Vanadium (only slightly in favor). Strontium was slightly against.

There is also the question of Lithium. It appears on anjast4r's list but not on Anthony's PDF. Resolve please. Is the extra cost worth it? Is lithium essential? Are the stuides in favor of lithium?

I say no to to the trace mineral mix and it seems anjast4r is leaning in that direction as well.

Let us get the ingredients wrapped up quickly. I don't want to keep Anthony hanging. He has a business to run.

[ajnast4r]

There is also the question of Lithium. It appears on anjast4r's list but not on Anthony's PDF. Resolve please. Is the extra cost worth it? Is lithium essential? Are the stuides in favor of lithium?

I say no to to the trace mineral mix and it seems anjast4r is leaning in that direction as well.

Let us get the ingredients wrapped up quickly. I don't want to keep Anthony hanging. He has a business to run.

im still against V, no proof its essential as far as i know.

im also nay on the trace minerals

lithium is def essential. it has no RDA but one has been suggested at 1mg/day... 1mg/day lithium orotate is a must imo. i will post some studies later on.

Edited by ajnast4r, 04 March 2010 - 05:03 AM.

[niner]

Anthony's story of the knucklehead customer who doesn't appreciate the importance of formulation is a depressing snapshot of a segment of the market, one that likely drives most supplements toward the lowest common denominator. I can only hope that there is a large enough number of people who do appreciate formulation to constitute a big enough market to support a quality product. AOR is an existence proof that such a market exists. If we can't get the fat solubles formulated in some minimal way, like beadlets or micronization, then I don't think that we have much of a promotion edge. "Same price as Ortho Core but fewer ingredients and worse formulation" isn't much to hang your marketing hat on. I am very much in favor of 1mg lithium. Iherb now carries a 5 mg product from Drs Best; 200 for $12. Using that retail price, that would give us 30 days worth for 36 cents. Using a bulk price that I found, 30 days would cost 4 cents, but that's for a 25kg minimum. I would hope that some vendor sells by the kilogram.

I had a thought regarding a way to have a better product. Suppose we polled the membership to see how many people would be willing to commit to a year's supply of a top notch product at a given price. If membership were willing to front the money, it would make a larger run much easier to do.

[Mind]

niner:
I had a thought regarding a way to have a better product. Suppose we polled the membership to see how many people would be willing to commit to a year's supply of a top notch product at a given price. If membership were willing to front the money, it would make a larger run much easier to do.

Nice thought, but I think we would only get somewhere in the 30 to 50 range of votes in any one poll (a small sample). It is not that people would not buy, just that they don't all see or vote in polls.

[ajnast4r]

here is the paper on lithium, suggesting an RDA of 1mg/day http://www.jacn.org/...nt/full/21/1/14

i agree with justin, theres really no way to get a large sample from the forum in a short amount of time.

anthony, any word on whether the fat solubles are micronized or using some sort of lipid carrier/beadlet technology?

unless anyone has any objections im going to put the spreadsheet together today with specs as discussed so far?

[niner]

Looking at this from Anthony's perspective, it's a kind of scary prospect. How much money does he want to sink into a project that might not sell? Here's a thought about the likelihood of success: If we adopt the model that the first batch will be a less than ideal design, but if it sells well, maybe we will make it better, there's a built-in problem. If the first design isn't that great, a lot of people will look at it and decide against it. It makes it less likely to be successful. If it still sells, then if the formulation is eventually improved, a lot of people will already "know" that they don't want it, a decision they will have made based on the first version. They won't go back and look again.

Unless the ingredients have mostly been purchased and paid for already, there is really very little cost to waiting a few more weeks. Even if they have been paid for, say they cost 15 grand; in this interest rate environment, what's the carrying cost? Fifteen bucks a week? Let's not drag our heels, but let's not rush into production before we have it right. We need, at minimum, beadlets or micronization of the hydrophobics. Even with that, considering the less than optimal absorption, we ought to increase the amounts of some of them. Knowing which ingredients are major price drivers would really help here; without that knowledge, the design group can't really make good decisions.

[Anthony_Loera]

ajnast4r:

Current materials we got a quote from use:

Betatene - beadlet
Tocotrienol - microencapsulated
lutein - beadlet

Others do not use beadlet or microencapsulation at this time. If micronization is required, let me know for which and I can see about adjusting it. You can add another column to the google spreadsheet and let me know if it needs to be micronized or other (microencapsulation), then I will check with suppliers, or get see if a particular premade product or process may be available. I am starting to check on my end as well, however I would prefere the spreadsheet to note which ingredient would be microencapsulated so that we are all on the same page. Also...


Niner:

We have not purchased the ingredients yet, as it appears things can change, and we wanted to make sure the formulation was agreed upon before proceeding. Will micronencapsulating the ingredients, yet still placing them in the same capsule be acceptable? Or are you still considering a seperate capsule for the fat soluble ingredients? That second capsule maybe an issue, but wanted to be sure where you stood on this.

Thanks
A

[niner]

Current materials we got a quote from use:

Betatene - beadlet
Tocotrienol - microencapsulated
lutein - beadlet

Others do not use beadlet or microencapsulation at this time. If micronization is required, let me know for which and I can see about adjusting it. You can add another column to the google spreadsheet and let me know if it needs to be micronized or other (microencapsulation), then I will check with suppliers, or get see if a particular premade product or process may be available. I am starting to check on my end as well, however I would prefere the spreadsheet to note which ingredient would be microencapsulated so that we are all on the same page. Also...

I've seen D3 beadlets; I'll see if I can find a manufacturer.

We have not purchased the ingredients yet, as it appears things can change, and we wanted to make sure the formulation was agreed upon before proceeding. Will micronencapsulating the ingredients, yet still placing them in the same capsule be acceptable? Or are you still considering a seperate capsule for the fat soluble ingredients? That second capsule maybe an issue, but wanted to be sure where you stood on this.

While a separate softgel would be optimal, I can understand the concern about the investment that would have to be shelled out to meet the minimum pill requirement. (Is it possible that there's a capping facility with a lower minimum?) At any rate, I think that beadlets/microencapsulation would be ok if a gelcap is impossible. There are myriad possible ways to formulate the beadlets, some of which are probably better than others. For example, some formulations of beadlets have MCT, while others don't. It would be ideal if the bioavailability of the nutrient had been tested using the beadlet in question, though that data seems hard to come by. The wrong beadlet might be worse than nothing, but the vendors might be able to help us out with the choice; they usually seem to have multiple beadlet formulations for the same compound.

[niner]

I've seen D3 beadlets; I'll see if I can find a manufacturer.

DSM has a great beadlet formulation. The D3 is dissolved in oil, dispersed in gelatin, and coated with starch. It's 100,000 IU/gm. The only negative is a 25kg package size. That's significantly more than we need, but D3 is so cheap maybe the price wouldn't be that bad.

[Anthony_Loera]

Hmm... DSM is good, but typically priced higher than most others. I will see what we can do about the DSM stuff.

Anything else on the list that needs to be micronized or micronecapsulated/beadlet?
Thanks

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 06 March 2010 - 03:56 PM.

[ajnast4r]

anything that is using gelatin as a lipid carrier is going to be a no go, it will make the multi non-vegetarian...which was a goal that was discussed initially.


perhaps it would be cheaper to have the lipid solubles capped in a v-licap as opposed to paying to have individual ingredients micronized or encapsulated.


i'll be uploading the list tonight, sorry for the delay it was a busy week for me

Edited by ajnast4r, 06 March 2010 - 09:44 PM.

[niner]

I've seen claims of poor stability for the K vitamins if they aren't protected in some way such as microencapsulation. They ought to be in an oil-based formulation like the DSM D3 beadlet if possible, but I've not located a supplier as of yet. Lycopene is another one that ought to be in a beadlet, or micronized. I support going vegetarian where feasible, for example, v-caps vs. gelatin caps represent a large quantity of gelatin eliminated for a relatively small increase in price. The vitamin D beadlets from DSM would represent a few milligrams of gelatin for a full dose. If that stands in the way of a good formulation, I would say let's just point out that we are using V-caps and not try to claim that the multi is pure vegetarian down to the absolute last molecule. I am really beginning to wonder if it wouldn't in fact be cheaper to use inexpensive unformulated ingredients for the hydrophobics, which also seem to be available in smaller quantities that are a better match to the run size we're considering, and just blend them in oil and put them up in a softgel. The economics of course would hinge on the cost of capping, which might be reduced if we find a manufacturer with a smaller softgel minimum.

[ajnast4r]

I've seen claims of poor stability for the K vitamins if they aren't protected in some way such as microencapsulation. They ought to be in an oil-based formulation like the DSM D3 beadlet if possible, but I've not located a supplier as of yet. Lycopene is another one that ought to be in a beadlet, or micronized. I support going vegetarian where feasible, for example, v-caps vs. gelatin caps represent a large quantity of gelatin eliminated for a relatively small increase in price. The vitamin D beadlets from DSM would represent a few milligrams of gelatin for a full dose. If that stands in the way of a good formulation, I would say let's just point out that we are using V-caps and not try to claim that the multi is pure vegetarian down to the absolute last molecule. I am really beginning to wonder if it wouldn't in fact be cheaper to use inexpensive unformulated ingredients for the hydrophobics, which also seem to be available in smaller quantities that are a better match to the run size we're considering, and just blend them in oil and put them up in a softgel. The economics of course would hinge on the cost of capping, which might be reduced if we find a manufacturer with a smaller softgel minimum.

menaQ7 is an option for dry k2...

if we're not going to make it 100% vegetarian theres no point in making it vegetarian at all imo. there are a fair amount of vegetarians in the LE community and i think it would be relevant to keep every ingredient vegetarian. i dont think it will be any more expensive or very difficult to find ingredients that are completely gelatin free... multibasics for ex is completely gelatin free. unnecessarily segregating a a portion of the population isnt smart, especially considering the gelatin free ingredient most likely wont be any more expensive.

im now in agreement with niner that some sort of ME'ing or micronization would also be worth the cost... it would also be considerably cheaper than softgels considering the amount needed for a single run. considering the public cost of this MV we need to be able to say with confidence that our ingredients will be absorbed and utilized better than other companies products. SOMEONE out there has to have these ingredients already made or have the capacity to do the processing in-house, i think with a bit of searching we could avoid having to send single kilos of ingredient out to be processed.


here is the final ingredient list, please review this thoroughly before i send it over to anthony. to avoid confusion the last line should say FINAL in red letters.

Edited by ajnast4r, 07 March 2010 - 05:16 PM.

[Mind]

Does anyone have any further comments on the lithium recommendation? I am not an expert on lithium or supplementation in general so I shouldn't be making the decision. The paper seems legit enough, but it only lists one author, so that is a drawback for me. I know consensus does not equal correctness, but it is always nice to see broad support.

Otherwise, I think we are at the final formulation and can work more on sourcing the stuff.

[Michael]

Does anyone have any further comments on the lithium recommendation? I am not an expert on lithium or supplementation in general so I shouldn't be making the decision. The paper seems legit enough, but it only lists one author, so that is a drawback for me.

It's a review; read his citations .

I absolutely firmly believe it should be there.

Also (and I'm sorry I'm not engaging with the various threads of this at the moment) on the fat-soluble delivery thing: lycopene is available in micro-beadlets: eg, while not likely the cheapest reliable source (Anthony, I assume you would do more snooping than I have), LycoRed (the most readily available) offers eg LycoBeads 20% VBAF, "a microencapsulated tablet grade free flowing powder of natural Lycopene extracted from tomatoes ... 150-425 microns" . Yes, that's larger than 2µm, but it's still tiny, and IAC in isolated supplement form (which, to anticipate something I would be documenting extensively if I had the time, is MORE bioavailable IAC than food forms ceteris paribus, making much of the hand-wringing about this moot IAC).

-Michael

[niner]

Also (and I'm sorry I'm not engaging with the various threads of this at the moment) on the fat-soluble delivery thing: lycopene is available in micro-beadlets: eg, while not likely the cheapest reliable source (Anthony, I assume you would do more snooping than I have), LycoRed (the most readily available) offers eg LycoBeads 20% VBAF, "a microencapsulated tablet grade free flowing powder of natural Lycopene extracted from tomatoes ... 150-425 microns" . Yes, that's larger than 2µm, but it's still tiny, and IAC in isolated supplement form (which, to anticipate something I would be documenting extensively if I had the time, is MORE bioavailable IAC than food forms ceteris paribus, making much of the hand-wringing about this moot IAC).

Size is not an issue in beadlets, since the active ingredient is dispersed in or on the beadlet, depending on its formulation, and may even be solubilized, such that its "particle size" is essentially molecular. If we were talking about pure crystalline substances, then size would matter, and 150-425 microns would be HUGE. The bioavailability of micronutrients in food varies according to the micronutrient, the food, and the preparation method, but relative to the volume of a multivitamin, we eat a lot of food. The point is for us to get a certain total quantity of each micronutrient per day. I presume that Cron-o-meter would take bioavailability of the nutrients in food into account, otherwise it would be kind of pointless, no? Likewise, we should either deliver most of the dose we promise on the label in a bioavailable form, or provide a larger quantity of the nutrient, along with a "bioavailability conversion factor" so people could know what they're really getting. In the study of the bioavailability of lycopene that you presented here, a micronized form of dry lycopene had half of the bioavailability of the best softgel formulation, while the beadlet form they tested in a hardgel capsule had somewhat more than a quarter of the bioavailability. The beadlet tested in the paper was not identical to the LycoBeads product, but it does demonstrate that merely being in a beadlet is not a guarantee of bioavailability. I would hope that the large manufacturers of various beadlet formulations could speak to their bioavailability. That would be truly useful information.

[Mind]

OK, Lithium is in. And that is it. Anthony and Ajnast4r please review the final formulation and make sure it is correct as has been discussed here. No more additions or modifications.

The only thing left is the technical details of beadlets and packaging (oh, and the labeling, sorry to drag my feet on that Anthony).

[ajnast4r]

OK, Lithium is in. And that is it. Anthony and Ajnast4r please review the final formulation and make sure it is correct as has been discussed here. No more additions or modifications.

The only thing left is the technical details of beadlets and packaging (oh, and the labeling, sorry to drag my feet on that Anthony).

emailing final formulation to anthony right now... also i can do the label if you want.

anthony, for each fat soluble compound we will need a technical specifications sheet: the specifics of the delivery mechanisms, ie: what is the bead-let made of, what lipid carrier is being used, etc... and the average particle size. please ask for all possible choices, eg:maybe they have 4 or 5 different lycopene formulations available.

[Michael]

on the fat-soluble delivery thing: lycopene is available in micro-beadlets: eg, ... LycoRed ... offers eg LycoBeads 20% VBAF, "a microencapsulated tablet grade free flowing powder of natural Lycopene extracted from tomatoes ... 150-425 microns" . Yes, that's larger than 2µm, but it's still tiny

Size is not an issue in beadlets, since the active ingredient is dispersed in or on the beadlet, depending on its formulation, and may even be solubilized, such that its "particle size" is essentially molecular. If we were talking about pure crystalline substances, then size would matter, and 150-425 microns would be HUGE.

On the former, at least some beadlets are composed of agglomerates, but you're certainly right that in general it'd be very well-dispersed & may well be solubilized, esp for a fat-soluble; but I can only say "duh" on the crystal size point .

and IAC [lycopene] in isolated supplement form ... is MORE bioavailable IAC than food forms ceteris paribus .

The bioavailability of micronutrients in food varies according to the micronutrient, the food, and the preparation method, but relative to the volume of a multivitamin, we eat a lot of food. The point is for us to get a certain total quantity of each micronutrient per day. I presume that Cron-o-meter would take bioavailability of the nutrients in food into account, otherwise it would be kind of pointless, no?

It couldn't possibly: the whole subject doesn't have enough data to give hard and wide-ranging numbers, and there are too many extraneous variables, including notably other foods in a mixed meal (there aren't pre-entered data for a raw tomato slice in a meal that does or does not include varying levels of added oil, avocado, or hazelnuts or pecans, etc, eg). It's hard enough to get a handle on the physiological Caloric absorption, which is much better-studied.

Likewise, we should either deliver most of the dose we promise on the label in a bioavailable form, or provide a larger quantity of the nutrient, along with a "bioavailability conversion factor" so people could know what they're really getting.

To be slightly pendantic: since we're attempting to replicate a "best diet in a pill" (barring a primary prevention trial in normal, healthy humans), dosing based on dietary epidemiology, what we really want to do is not the MOST bioavailable form, but either (a) an equal dose that can be expected to be roughly equally bioavailable as food, or (b) a dose that is higher or lower than that dietary target in inverse proportion to the difference in bioavailabilities. Ie, we want to wind up with equal systemic exposure -- neither less, nor more.

In the study of the bioavailability of lycopene that you presented here, a micronized form of dry lycopene had half of the bioavailability of the best softgel formulation, while the beadlet form they tested in a hardgel capsule had somewhat more than a quarter of the bioavailability. The beadlet tested in the paper was not identical to the LycoBeads product, but it does demonstrate that merely being in a beadlet is not a guarantee of bioavailability. I would hope that the large manufacturers of various beadlet formulations could speak to their bioavailability. That would be truly useful information.

I certainly agree, tho' there are often shenanigans in methodologies (as there have been with CoQ10 formulations).
IAC, at double the original proposal, I really think that we have left generous wiggle room.

ajnast4r: on the vegetarian point: ISTM that we're pretty much stuck with at least some animal-derived products; notably, as of when I left the industry, there was absolutely no commercial source for vegan vitamin D3 (it's derived from cholesterol that comes from lanolin, from wool). I know that there are some vegans especially who are absolutely Manichean on this point, but most veg(etari)ans are willing to consider a continuum of harm (eg, even some pretty hard-core vegans are willing to accept some animal byproducts, such as leather; most will draw the line at honey; and many ovolactos don't worry too much about gelatin, tho' they have a preference for vegi-caps). I think we should have transparency on animal products, but I doubt we will have many people adamantly rejecting the formula based on the tiny am't of gelatin in a lipid carrier in a microbeadlet, esp if it's in a veggi-cap: we'd already be going beyond many multis, and (I hope not to piss you off too badly!) veg(etari)ans are only about 3-5% of the European and North American population, and this includes some self-misclassification of pescatarians, etc.

Edited by Michael, 15 March 2010 - 09:44 PM.

[ajnast4r]

ajnast4r: on the vegetarian point: ISTM that we're pretty much stuck with at least some animal-derived products; notably, as of when I left the industry, there was absolutely no commercial source for vegan vitamin D3 (it's derived from cholesterol that comes from lanolin, from wool).

technically lanolin is vegetarian, being that nothing died to get it.

many ovolactos don't worry too much about gelatin,

i dont know a single [strict] ovolacto who is ok with gelatin



i still stand by keeping it vegetarian. ESPECIALLY if doing so simply means choosing a veg product vs a non-veg product, assuming no significant cost difference. interesting link btw...

Edited by ajnast4r, 15 March 2010 - 10:58 PM.

[ajnast4r]

any word anthony?

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi guys,

Sorry my main computer was not letting me in the forum, for a bit.
With last minute help from ajnast4r we will be wrapping up our todo's and working on the label.

If all the logistics look good by end of week, I estimate the first batch to be done in 4-6 weeks or so.

Cheers
A

[Anthony_Loera]

ok, just to keep folks in the loop:

I just got an email that the K1 and maybe the B-6 are special orders, so it may delay this to about 6-8 weeks. Calculating the new quotes for ingredients... ouch, I see an increase of 17.5% and a new minimum of close to 1500 bottles so as to not discard material.

Hmm... this is getting to be an interesting exercise. However, just as a side note. I have just calculated the new pricing, and it will simply be impossible to distribute this product through a channel like GNC. The margins they require are above 60%, and currently it would cut into the manufacturing costs if the product is priced at $40 per bottle for retail customers. So this type of product will be limited to online sales, as wholesale at even a 50% margin may be impossible unless the production is ramped up do to it's success, and can get the ingredients priced lower due to bulk purchases.

I am not the happiest guy because it limits the product, but we will continue to produce it hoping for success.

Cheers
A

[Mind]

So what are we talking as a price per bottle, after acounting for 5% Imminst take and after factoring in your take-home for some profit?

[Anthony_Loera]

A second supplier appears to be able to provide the folate on the list, I have asked for the COA to confirm.

The product will have:
180 Capsules per bottle for a 30 day supply, since 6 capsules would be taken as the daily dose.

Pricing for members will be in the Mid $30's, Folks who are not members will likely get a price around $45-$55. After an we finish up with the license discussions, and it is signed with Imminst.org. I believe he will be able to confirm the costs and pricing with folks internally, since we will be providing a royalty, and he will then have access to our cost info to calculate the royalty appropriately.

Thanks
A

Hi Mind,

I don't mind providing you the numbers, however you need to let me know who in the expert panel does not fall under the signed confidentiality agreement, or if simply do this offline.

Cheers
A

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi guys,

The final formula was submitted for production, we are only waiting on a couple ingredients that appear to be on back order.
I still see this available in about 1 month 3 weeks because of a delay in the ingredients, however if they magically appear before this estimate, I will be happy to let you guys know.


A

[Anthony_Loera]

Just an FYI, we will be using Folinic Acid in the Multi, the other is not available and I don't want tot delay the Multi too much.