[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
I feel like the same applies a fortiori to something like I3G. I’ve read the biological explanation they give as to why it does what it does, and it seems sensible enough. But for you, as someone who uses the stuff, is there anything else to go on besides their word that they haven’t put something else in it that’s generating the benefit?
I’m not trying to be a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or anything, but it’s just sort of disturbing to me that companies (including Biotest) are able to market and sell these products without any meaningful testing structure along the lines of, say, pharmaceuticals (begin with animal testing, etc).[/quote]
Do a little reading into the time and money necessary for new drug development.
Ask yourself if you are willing to wait that much longer and pay that much more for your supplements.
I DO like the idea of better transparency as far as the ingredient list goes (I typically avoid “proprietary” blends for this reason), but I suppose that doesn’t matter if they are using “off label” ingredients.
The supplement industry can be pretty shady at times, and that highlights the importance of putting in the time and energy to find a company with a good reputation. But I am very much all set with any more regulations regarding what I can or can not put into my body.
Asking the FDA to step in and keep the dietary supplement industry in line might help with, say, people trying to be like Bob by using Enzyte or who indiscriminately throw multiple kitchen sink supplements into their body… but ultimately I think it would screw over those of us who are able to research and make informed, intelligent decisions.[/quote]
I fully understand how much time and capital goes into drug research and testing. That doesn’t mean that the time and capital isn’t necessary to protect consumers (granted, not all at this point–but at least some. That’s a question of degree). All your argument to that point suggests is that if there were less oversight of drugs, they would be cheaper and hit the market sooner. It doesn’t speak to safety or transparency at all.
To your point regarding FDA regulation, see my issue is that while typical whey protein might be more like a “food” (which should itself be subject to some sort of oversight along those lines), I3G and similar supplements are quite similar to Bob using Enzyte.
And as to those able to make informed, intelligent decisions, I suppose my point is that it’s unclear as to how informed a purchaser could possibly be about what he or she is buying. Because the company is subjected to so little oversight, what exactly do you mean by informed, intelligent decision? That one reads the ingredients label and makes a decision based on that, or the nutritional content? That one bases a decision off reputation? I guess my point is that none of this speaks to either a) the truth of the product’s claims or b) the long-term effects of the product.
Now, some products have been much more extensively tested. Creatine comes to mind. But in general, I suppose that what’s surprised me about the reaction to I3G (and really any other “super-supplement” in general) is that folks are reading and willing to give it a shot without really knowing a whole lot about it.
That’s why I was interested in getting people like Stu’s opinions about this issue, as they’ve been at the iron game for a long time and have likely given such issues a good deal of thought.
I would be particularly interested in MODOK’s opinion on this if he sees this thread, as he’s a pharmacist. I know he’s still coming back to lifting now, but it is sort of interesting to me that he’s not one of the long-time posters who is pumping I3G.