30 replies to this topic

[shazam]

Curious to see the forms and dosages you guys are considering for everything now. Keep us posted in this thread as it changes, please.

[ajnast4r]

Curious to see the forms and dosages you guys are considering for everything now. Keep us posted in this thread as it changes, please.

no significant discussion has gone on as everyone has been busy this last week

[niner]

Shazam, you might have missed this thread, where the final design is being discussed.

[Zeb]

Shazam, you might have missed this thread, where the final design is being discussed.

It's password protected so we can't see it. :-(

[shazam]

Shazam, you might have missed this thread, where the final design is being discussed.

I'm gonna need the password to see that. Not that I'm particularly expert at anything other than doing research. But if there's going to be no public access (I'd be cool with being able to see it but not being able to post in there if you can do that), then I'd like if you could post the 'beta version' lists in this thread.

As an aside, you think a year is a reasonable time frame to expect this getting done? Like, on the shelves? Not that I have info to base that guess on, just throwing that number out there.

[niner]

I'm not sure what the permissions are on that thread. Members only, maybe? I didn't realize it was protected.
Here is the current design in a spreadsheet. Once the design is finalized, the manufacturer would have to acquire each ingredient, have them tested, schedule a run at the capping plant, and have it done. Other things would include finalizing the labels, with text and art, and having them printed. From the point of design finalization, I would expect the wait for a finished product to be measured in months rather than years, but I've never taken a product to market before. My experience is earlier in the pharmaceutical R&D pipeline.

[shazam]

I'm not sure what the permissions are on that thread. Members only, maybe? I didn't realize it was protected.
Here is the current design in a spreadsheet. Once the design is finalized, the manufacturer would have to acquire each ingredient, have them tested, schedule a run at the capping plant, and have it done. Other things would include finalizing the labels, with text and art, and having them printed. From the point of design finalization, I would expect the wait for a finished product to be measured in months rather than years, but I've never taken a product to market before. My experience is earlier in the pharmaceutical R&D pipeline.

Cool on both counts. Cool on the first because it will revive discussion (my feedback is in the file now, I'd like some responses, either in the file in column E or on this thread if possible.).

Cool on the second count because that means there is no rush in our (vital) design process if we wanna see this by spring. So let's really put the magnifying glass to these amounts and forms. Let's not be cynics ("I don't believe it unless it's completely concretely proven" attitude, and sticking to the potentially overly conservative RDA until it's so obvious that you can't deny it.), but skeptics (challenging the RDA where it needs to be challenged, intelligent conjecture, and intensive research as a community).

[niner]

I'm not sure what the permissions are on that thread. Members only, maybe? I didn't realize it was protected.
Here is the current design in a spreadsheet. Once the design is finalized, the manufacturer would have to acquire each ingredient, have them tested, schedule a run at the capping plant, and have it done. Other things would include finalizing the labels, with text and art, and having them printed. From the point of design finalization, I would expect the wait for a finished product to be measured in months rather than years, but I've never taken a product to market before. My experience is earlier in the pharmaceutical R&D pipeline.

Cool on both counts. Cool on the first because it will revive discussion (my feedback is in the file now, I'd like some responses, either in the file in column E or on this thread if possible.).

Cool on the second count because that means there is no rush in our (vital) design process if we wanna see this by spring. So let's really put the magnifying glass to these amounts and forms. Let's not be cynics ("I don't believe it unless it's completely concretely proven" attitude, and sticking to the potentially overly conservative RDA until it's so obvious that you can't deny it.), but skeptics (challenging the RDA where it needs to be challenged, intelligent conjecture, and intensive research as a community).

The design philosophy behind this multi might be called "First, do no harm." The reason we are doing this is because we can't find a single multi on the market that we can recommend without hesitation. The usual problem is not underdoses, but overdoses. I'm all for exceeding the RDA on vitamin D, but in general, there is a lot of science behind the RDA, and it is pretty reasonable. Anyone who wants more of something can always add it, but if you want less, you are stuck; you can't subtract one component. A multi is not meant to provide a therapeutic quantity of anything, only to prevent deficiency. We may have left this philosophy behind on choline, but otherwise, that's what we are trying to do. We are actually being very skeptical here, because we are going against the design of perhaps every multi on the market. I am now of the opinion that most of them, with rare exceptions, are designed more with marketing in mind than health. The number one marketing claim? "We have way more of everything than the competition!" Our claim is the opposite. "We have way less of most things than all the supplements designed by marketers. We use only the best available forms and are scrupulous about purity." Another design theme that I think is behind this project is that it's meant to be a multi for people who really care about their health, and are already eating a halfway decent diet. It's not meant to be a rescue pill for people living on Red Bull and Big Macs. (Although it would probably work better for that than some multis...) It's also not meant to be the only supplement you'll ever need. People's needs are too different for that to work well.

I don't think the group can carry on a conversation in the spreadsheet, (I didn't even know it was write-enabled.) so we should discuss on the forum.

[shazam]

I'm not sure what the permissions are on that thread. Members only, maybe? I didn't realize it was protected.
Here is the current design in a spreadsheet. Once the design is finalized, the manufacturer would have to acquire each ingredient, have them tested, schedule a run at the capping plant, and have it done. Other things would include finalizing the labels, with text and art, and having them printed. From the point of design finalization, I would expect the wait for a finished product to be measured in months rather than years, but I've never taken a product to market before. My experience is earlier in the pharmaceutical R&D pipeline.

Cool on both counts. Cool on the first because it will revive discussion (my feedback is in the file now, I'd like some responses, either in the file in column E or on this thread if possible.).

Cool on the second count because that means there is no rush in our (vital) design process if we wanna see this by spring. So let's really put the magnifying glass to these amounts and forms. Let's not be cynics ("I don't believe it unless it's completely concretely proven" attitude, and sticking to the potentially overly conservative RDA until it's so obvious that you can't deny it.), but skeptics (challenging the RDA where it needs to be challenged, intelligent conjecture, and intensive research as a community).

The design philosophy behind this multi might be called "First, do no harm." The reason we are doing this is because we can't find a single multi on the market that we can recommend without hesitation. The usual problem is not underdoses, but overdoses. I'm all for exceeding the RDA on vitamin D, but in general, there is a lot of science behind the RDA, and it is pretty reasonable. Anyone who wants more of something can always add it, but if you want less, you are stuck; you can't subtract one component. A multi is not meant to provide a therapeutic quantity of anything, only to prevent deficiency. We may have left this philosophy behind on choline, but otherwise, that's what we are trying to do. We are actually being very skeptical here, because we are going against the design of perhaps every multi on the market. I am now of the opinion that most of them, with rare exceptions, are designed more with marketing in mind than health. The number one marketing claim? "We have way more of everything than the competition!" Our claim is the opposite. "We have way less of most things than all the supplements designed by marketers. We use only the best available forms and are scrupulous about purity." Another design theme that I think is behind this project is that it's meant to be a multi for people who really care about their health, and are already eating a halfway decent diet. It's not meant to be a rescue pill for people living on Red Bull and Big Macs. (Although it would probably work better for that than some multis...) It's also not meant to be the only supplement you'll ever need. People's needs are too different for that to work well.

I don't think the group can carry on a conversation in the spreadsheet, (I didn't even know it was write-enabled.) so we should discuss on the forum.

Fair enough, but if you're going to delete my feedback, please quote it here.

Also, in terms of the philosophical explanation, I'm not expecting this to be a 'rescue pill' for people living unhealthy lifestyles. There is NO SUCH PILL. But what I am expecting is we not water it down in areas (such as vitamin C and biotin) where one could benefit from a higher dose than the RDA. If you want sources, just do actual research instead of exhaling rhetoric. The linus pauling association has enough information on vitamin C for one to extropolate that 500mg is a reasonable dose. There's less evidence for megadosing, but it's clear enough that 90mg is a little low... it's the bare minimum, the shield against acute symptoms, as has been evidenced with vitamin D. If you're worried about pro oxidant effects, leave it at 500mg or below, but 90mg... ^^^^^^.

The problem might not be the same with other vitamins (such as most of the Bs, and retinol/BC... those should be fine with the RDA), but I'm looking at the RDA as the bare minimum, with few exceptions. Some may be higher, for good reasons, some may be lower, for good reasons. Reasonable conjecture or hard evidence. Keeping the copper low is reasonable conjecture backed by some evidence. Keeping the vitamin C low is the polar opposite of that. If somebody wanted to discredit the risk of putting copper in a multi in the same way that people here try to discredit putting moderate dose (500mg+, below 1g) vitamin C in, (through claiming the evidence is not sufficient to make a decision yet despite the evidence being there), then they could.

Applying that same mindset to finding benefits as well as avoiding risks would likely make this multi a better multi. Weigh the risk/reward. Actually look into the sources yourself instead of quoting others... plenty of people who try to discredit the linus pauling studies (of which some have holes) throw the baby out with the bathwater. So see for yourself to the extent that you can... solid research.

Edited by shazam, 06 December 2009 - 05:49 AM.

[niner]

I'm not sure what the permissions are on that thread. Members only, maybe? I didn't realize it was protected.
Here is the current design in a spreadsheet. Once the design is finalized, the manufacturer would have to acquire each ingredient, have them tested, schedule a run at the capping plant, and have it done. Other things would include finalizing the labels, with text and art, and having them printed. From the point of design finalization, I would expect the wait for a finished product to be measured in months rather than years, but I've never taken a product to market before. My experience is earlier in the pharmaceutical R&D pipeline.

Cool on both counts. Cool on the first because it will revive discussion (my feedback is in the file now, I'd like some responses, either in the file in column E or on this thread if possible.).

Cool on the second count because that means there is no rush in our (vital) design process if we wanna see this by spring. So let's really put the magnifying glass to these amounts and forms. Let's not be cynics ("I don't believe it unless it's completely concretely proven" attitude, and sticking to the potentially overly conservative RDA until it's so obvious that you can't deny it.), but skeptics (challenging the RDA where it needs to be challenged, intelligent conjecture, and intensive research as a community).

The design philosophy behind this multi might be called "First, do no harm." The reason we are doing this is because we can't find a single multi on the market that we can recommend without hesitation. The usual problem is not underdoses, but overdoses. I'm all for exceeding the RDA on vitamin D, but in general, there is a lot of science behind the RDA, and it is pretty reasonable. Anyone who wants more of something can always add it, but if you want less, you are stuck; you can't subtract one component. A multi is not meant to provide a therapeutic quantity of anything, only to prevent deficiency. We may have left this philosophy behind on choline, but otherwise, that's what we are trying to do. We are actually being very skeptical here, because we are going against the design of perhaps every multi on the market. I am now of the opinion that most of them, with rare exceptions, are designed more with marketing in mind than health. The number one marketing claim? "We have way more of everything than the competition!" Our claim is the opposite. "We have way less of most things than all the supplements designed by marketers. We use only the best available forms and are scrupulous about purity." Another design theme that I think is behind this project is that it's meant to be a multi for people who really care about their health, and are already eating a halfway decent diet. It's not meant to be a rescue pill for people living on Red Bull and Big Macs. (Although it would probably work better for that than some multis...) It's also not meant to be the only supplement you'll ever need. People's needs are too different for that to work well.

I don't think the group can carry on a conversation in the spreadsheet, (I didn't even know it was write-enabled.) so we should discuss on the forum.

Fair enough, but if you're going to delete my feedback, please quote it here.

Also, in terms of the philosophical rant, I'm not expecting this to be a 'rescue pill' for people living unhealthy lifestyles. There is NO SUCH PILL. But what I am expecting is we not water it down in areas (such as vitamin C and biotin) where one could benefit from a higher dose than the RDA. If you want sources, just do actual research instead of spewing rhetoric. The linus pauling association has enough information on vitamin C for one to extropolate that 500mg is a reasonable dose. There's less evidence for megadosing, but it's clear enough that 90mg is a little low... it's the bare minimum, the shield against acute symptoms, as has been evidenced with vitamin D. If you're worried about pro oxidant effects, leave it at 500mg or below, but 90mg... ^^^^^^.

The problem might not be the same with other vitamins (such as most of the Bs, and retinol/BC... those should be fine with the RDA), but I'm looking at the RDA as the bare minimum, with few exceptions. Some may be higher, for good reasons, some may be lower, for good reasons. Reasonable conjecture or hard evidence. Keeping the copper low is reasonable conjecture backed by some evidence. Keeping the vitamin C low is the polar opposite of that. If somebody wanted to discredit the risk of putting copper in a multi in the same way that people here try to discredit putting moderate dose (500mg+, below 1g) vitamin C in, (through claiming the evidence is not sufficient to make a decision yet despite the evidence being there), then they could.

Applying that same mindset to finding benefits as well as avoiding risks would likely make this multi a better multi. Weigh the risk/reward. Actually look into the sources yourself instead of quoting others... plenty of people who try to discredit the linus pauling studies (of which some have holes) throw the baby out with the bathwater. So see for yourself to the extent that you can... solid research.

Vitamin C is a good example of something that some people will want to supplement in order to get what they consider to be therapeutic amounts of it. I don't want a lot in a multi because I don't want exogenous antioxidants interfering with my workouts. Half a gram of anything is a lot of volume, which is a packaging consideration. These issues really should have been raised in the form and quantity threads. Where am I quoting others?

[shazam]

I'm not sure what the permissions are on that thread. Members only, maybe? I didn't realize it was protected.
Here is the current design in a spreadsheet. Once the design is finalized, the manufacturer would have to acquire each ingredient, have them tested, schedule a run at the capping plant, and have it done. Other things would include finalizing the labels, with text and art, and having them printed. From the point of design finalization, I would expect the wait for a finished product to be measured in months rather than years, but I've never taken a product to market before. My experience is earlier in the pharmaceutical R&D pipeline.

Cool on both counts. Cool on the first because it will revive discussion (my feedback is in the file now, I'd like some responses, either in the file in column E or on this thread if possible.).

Cool on the second count because that means there is no rush in our (vital) design process if we wanna see this by spring. So let's really put the magnifying glass to these amounts and forms. Let's not be cynics ("I don't believe it unless it's completely concretely proven" attitude, and sticking to the potentially overly conservative RDA until it's so obvious that you can't deny it.), but skeptics (challenging the RDA where it needs to be challenged, intelligent conjecture, and intensive research as a community).

The design philosophy behind this multi might be called "First, do no harm." The reason we are doing this is because we can't find a single multi on the market that we can recommend without hesitation. The usual problem is not underdoses, but overdoses. I'm all for exceeding the RDA on vitamin D, but in general, there is a lot of science behind the RDA, and it is pretty reasonable. Anyone who wants more of something can always add it, but if you want less, you are stuck; you can't subtract one component. A multi is not meant to provide a therapeutic quantity of anything, only to prevent deficiency. We may have left this philosophy behind on choline, but otherwise, that's what we are trying to do. We are actually being very skeptical here, because we are going against the design of perhaps every multi on the market. I am now of the opinion that most of them, with rare exceptions, are designed more with marketing in mind than health. The number one marketing claim? "We have way more of everything than the competition!" Our claim is the opposite. "We have way less of most things than all the supplements designed by marketers. We use only the best available forms and are scrupulous about purity." Another design theme that I think is behind this project is that it's meant to be a multi for people who really care about their health, and are already eating a halfway decent diet. It's not meant to be a rescue pill for people living on Red Bull and Big Macs. (Although it would probably work better for that than some multis...) It's also not meant to be the only supplement you'll ever need. People's needs are too different for that to work well.

I don't think the group can carry on a conversation in the spreadsheet, (I didn't even know it was write-enabled.) so we should discuss on the forum.

Fair enough, but if you're going to delete my feedback, please quote it here.

Also, in terms of the philosophical rant, I'm not expecting this to be a 'rescue pill' for people living unhealthy lifestyles. There is NO SUCH PILL. But what I am expecting is we not water it down in areas (such as vitamin C and biotin) where one could benefit from a higher dose than the RDA. If you want sources, just do actual research instead of spewing rhetoric. The linus pauling association has enough information on vitamin C for one to extropolate that 500mg is a reasonable dose. There's less evidence for megadosing, but it's clear enough that 90mg is a little low... it's the bare minimum, the shield against acute symptoms, as has been evidenced with vitamin D. If you're worried about pro oxidant effects, leave it at 500mg or below, but 90mg... ^^^^^^.

The problem might not be the same with other vitamins (such as most of the Bs, and retinol/BC... those should be fine with the RDA), but I'm looking at the RDA as the bare minimum, with few exceptions. Some may be higher, for good reasons, some may be lower, for good reasons. Reasonable conjecture or hard evidence. Keeping the copper low is reasonable conjecture backed by some evidence. Keeping the vitamin C low is the polar opposite of that. If somebody wanted to discredit the risk of putting copper in a multi in the same way that people here try to discredit putting moderate dose (500mg+, below 1g) vitamin C in, (through claiming the evidence is not sufficient to make a decision yet despite the evidence being there), then they could.

Applying that same mindset to finding benefits as well as avoiding risks would likely make this multi a better multi. Weigh the risk/reward. Actually look into the sources yourself instead of quoting others... plenty of people who try to discredit the linus pauling studies (of which some have holes) throw the baby out with the bathwater. So see for yourself to the extent that you can... solid research.

Vitamin C is a good example of something that some people will want to supplement in order to get what they consider to be therapeutic amounts of it. I don't want a lot in a multi because I don't want exogenous antioxidants interfering with my workouts. Half a gram of anything is a lot of volume, which is a packaging consideration. These issues really should have been raised in the form and quantity threads. Where am I quoting others?

Edit: I'm aware one of those posts came across a bit harsh, my bad on that, but my point is the important part. Anyway, on the the response.

Perhaps not directly, but I'm not a fan of rhetoric and rationalization of rhetoric getting in the way of logic, and this 'risk avoidance, benefit denial' mindset that is prevalent here does not seem like the way to make an effective supplement. I'm all for the risk avoidance, but I'm also for benefit searching. Reasonable conjecture on both ends. Who cares what others do, there's no need to go polar (equally counterproductive/ineffective) opposite just because bodybuilder jim thinks it's a good idea to supp 15 grams of vitamin C, just find what works best.
I've yet to see ANY evidence that 90mg works best, and I've seen some evidence that supplementing from 500mg to 1g may have a positive impact on your overall health, including in your eyes, in terms of C. Regarding that study about insulin sensitivity reduction when taking C and E POSTWORKOUT (not just in general)... just don't take it around workout times, who says a lower dose is going to do jack to prevent decreased insulin sensitivity? Plus, I'm pretty sure they used DL-alpha tocopherol in that study, which in all likelyhood is the bigger factor.

As for the other topic, the form/amount forums are dead. There's 5 or six people who look over it and post. This however, is fresh. And more relevant, because it seems the design process is going to the "experts" soon, so this serves as a collaboration between you guys and us 'mere mortals'.

Edited by shazam, 06 December 2009 - 06:22 AM.

[PWAIN]

The design philosophy behind this multi might be called "First, do no harm." The reason we are doing this is because we can't find a single multi on the market that we can recommend without hesitation. The usual problem is not underdoses, but overdoses.

Hi Niner,

Given the "First do not harm" philosophy, I think taking a few leafs from Michaels book would be in order. Michael wrote a very intresting article about his supplement design philosophy that included these very words:

http://www.aor.ca/as...05_article1.pdf

This article really changed my view of multis' forever. It is the reason I fork out to get Multi Basics 3.

The article discusses the ratio of Zinc to copper and suggests that 10 to 1 is the correct ratio. You spreadsheet seems to indicate a 30 to 1 ratio which according to Michaels article is way off:

"Both animal and human evidence suggests that, for optimal utilization of both minerals, the balance between zinc and copper should be about ten-to-one.

In a series of human studies, using a ratio between zinc and copper of 23.5-to-one (and sometimes lower) – common zinc-to-copper ratios, found in many multivitamins resulted in wide-ranging metabolic disturbances, including reduced levels of the copper-based antioxidants enzymes cytosolic superoxide dismutase and ceruloplasmin, high total and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol, reductions in the body’s levels of enkephalins (natural painkilling molecules), and abnormal cardiac function (including rhythm disturbances and even heart attacks)

And these are just the metabolic derangements observed over the course of a few weeks or months. Over years of functional copper deficiency created by excessive zinc intake, it seems inescapable that other problems known to result from ‘simple’ copper deficiency – such as impaired bone metabolism, poor glucose control, and increased levels of Advanced Glycation Endproducts (AGE) – would also manifest themselves."

Can we look into fixing this please.

Also, what is the reasoning behind the amounts of tocopherols? Looks like numbers pulled from nowhere? Michael indicated that he used a healthy diet to guide his levels, what are the team here using?

Another question, why so much choline?? Why not leave it to people to add their own in a seperate supp?

Anyway, I suggest that all members in the panel reread Michaels article. I realise that some of the information may have dated, however it seem like an excellent starting point. Extra attention needs to be given to those vitamins (like A and E) that are known to cause harm in various trials so as to live up to the overiding philosophy.

Edited by resvhead, 07 December 2009 - 12:36 AM.

[niner]

Resvhead, thanks for the comments. You should probably take a look at the copper thread to see what people's thinking is on this. In a nutshell, it's really easy to get copper in a decent diet, and high copper levels are associated with a lot of problems epidemiologically. We don't want to push people into a zinc deficiency, but don't want to go too far in the other direction either. At any rate, the copper thread and threads linked within it will probably help a lot.

Edited by niner, 07 December 2009 - 01:50 AM.

[nameless]

Thanks for posting the spreadsheet, so others can see what is being proposed.

Interesting that Biosil at 1mg is being considered. If price isn't a big issue, probably better to go to 4-5mg though. However, doesn't Biosil require a license? And that's why Jarrow lost the rights to sell it? Not sure it'd be an easy ingredient to put in a multi (as to actually buying biosil), even at low doses.

As for C, I wouldn't want the multi to take up valuable real estate with large doses. Besides, I seem to recall someone (Krillin maybe?) mentioning something about an interaction with copper/C/B12, where B12 could be negatively affected by copper and C in the same product. Or my memory is bad and I am just thinking it was something like that...

Edited by nameless, 07 December 2009 - 05:01 AM.

[shazam]

If you could update the spreadsheet as changes are made to the draft that would also be cool. Would love to have my feedback considered/answered when you run it through the experts, as well.

[RighteousReason]

So do we have a rough draft or what? What components seem to be decided on and which ones need more attention?

[FNC]

Will we not be including trace herbs?

[Zeb]

Thank you for posting the spreadsheet, it's very interesting to see how things are coming along. Might I ask what happened to Vitamin K MK4 though? 77.27% of the votes wants it in there according to the poll. http://www.imminst.o...-K-t34629.html=

[RighteousReason]

So do we have a rough draft or what? What components seem to be decided on and which ones need more attention?

Here is the spreadsheet link. It's hidden in a post up above:

http://spreadsheets....o...phWGc&hl=en

[ajnast4r]

So do we have a rough draft or what? What components seem to be decided on and which ones need more attention?

Here is the spreadsheet link. It's hidden in a post up above:

http://spreadsheets....o...phWGc&hl=en

thats not the current spreadsheet. the current formula will most likely remain private until the process is finished.

i cant figure out why that document still works? it says im the owner but its not in my document list and i cant delete it?

Edited by ajnast4r, 17 December 2009 - 11:02 PM.

[RighteousReason]

So do we have a rough draft or what? What components seem to be decided on and which ones need more attention?

Here is the spreadsheet link. It's hidden in a post up above:

http://spreadsheets....o...phWGc&hl=en

thats not the current spreadsheet. the current formula will most likely remain private until the process is finished.

i cant figure out why that document still works? it says im the owner but its not in my document list and i cant delete it?

So when is the process finished? What are the items we are waiting on?

I want to see the next draft

[FNC]

When will progress on this project resume?

[Mind]

When will progress on this project resume?

Now.

The reason for having public votes and discussions first and then a private panel to finish it off is to get this done in a reasonable time frame. Supplement discussions can go on forever and there are usually some very vocal critics of very minute issues. This supplement will not please everyone and the more we try to please every critic, the longer it will take, or it might never get done. The final formulation will be VERY close to what was voted on and what you saw in the original spreadsheet.

The formulation will be produced and sold AND the discussions will continue because there is always new research coming out regarding the use of supplements. Production runs in the future will likely be tweaked due to the latest information/research.

So, if you are arguing that there needs to be 200% RDA of supplement X and the Community Multi only has 100%, don't reject it out-of-hand. It will still be better than anything else on the market. Future research might bolster your proposal and future formulations might have 200%.

[shazam]

Bump. Checking in again to see how you've progressed.

Edited by shazam, 08 March 2010 - 11:26 PM.

[shazam]

Man I wish I could see what's going on in there.

Well, I heard speculations of spring. Spring is getting close to an end.

How are we doing on progress? Any new info? Price quotes, potential form factors, a nutrition info label for the final draft of this iteration of the multi?

[Yono]

Man I wish I could see what's going on in there.

Well, I heard speculations of spring. Spring is getting close to an end.

How are we doing on progress? Any new info? Price quotes, potential form factors, a nutrition info label for the final draft of this iteration of the multi?

Seconded, I would be very interested in seeing what progress has been made.

[beatsme]

Thirded.
There hasn't been any chatter in the locked areas in more than two weeks now. Is that a sign that progress has halted, or a milestone has been reached, or both?

[niner]

Anthony, any word?

My understanding is that we are somewhere in the manufacturing phase. That would include sourcing and testing of ingredients, the delivery of those ingredients to the capping plant, the actual capping, bottling, and labeling (not to mention the creation of the label), and shipping back to RevGenetics.

I suspect the most time consuming portion of this is the sourcing and testing of ingredients.

Edited by niner, 08 May 2010 - 07:20 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

I apologize guys,

our ingredient girl is on vacation in Mazatlan, and she will be back next week. I told her to pull the trigger on this project, and get the ingredients asap since 2 of them will take about 4 weeks for delivery.
I suspect the multi to be out soon after all materials have been acquired.

I believed the labeling would be doen by someone here, but I think we will be createing some mock ups for you in the next week or so, to get some feedback.

If Mind wants I can make the mock-up public, and get you guys to consider the design.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 08 May 2010 - 10:22 PM.

[nameless]

Good to hear that it's so close to completion.

Are you able to mention pricing for the finished product at this stage? Or approximate price?