Is DMAA actually found in nature?

[OT2000]

Oh, so DMAA is not going to get banned.

It will still get banned. This won't make companies jump aboard either especially after the BL raid.

[kissdadookie]

It will still get banned. This won't make companies jump aboard either especially after the BL raid.

Probably still not going to get banned. Deemed not a dietary ingredient, yes, actual ban, no (or not any time soon).

[Bigdumogre]

Inb4 a certain CEO takes down his video(s)

Ruff? Ruff?

[Big_Spaz]

I use DMAA occasionally but would gladly see it go away if it means Jared Wheat gets locked up for good and that his name never gets mentioned again.

Personally, I couldn't sleep at night if I knew I worked for a crook like Jared Wheat. Thankfully, that will never happen. Still can't believe there are people who are actually glad and proud to work for that guy.

That's a shame. Thanks for letting us know though.


*Spaz pulls the napkin out of his pocket that reads "Posble Gaspari Reps in da futre" and crosses off Rushie's name*





-Spaz

[2Burnt]

ITT


1)VT still the man.
2)BB.com coming back to life for at least this thread
3)Stuff even my outdated non supplement knowing self still knows about bout dat dere DMAA.
4)VT still the man.
5)Big Spaz supplants VT as the man for at least one post with possible forthcoming posts.


Conclusion
I likes it

[Big_Spaz]

ITT


1)VT still the man.
2)BB.com coming back to life for at least this thread
3)Stuff even my outdated non supplement knowing self still knows about bout dat dere DMAA.
4)VT still the man.
5)Big Spaz supplants VT as the man for at least one post with possible forthcoming posts.


Conclusion
I likes it

LOL! Vaughn is the man, he honestly is. I never question that guy .... ever






-Spaz

[ISurfNudeBrah]

Very curious to see how the court case ends and how the FDA proceeds from there.

Either way, I won't be using DMAA. More for you guys.

[Rushie]

That's a shame. Thanks for letting us know though.


*Spaz pulls the napkin out of his pocket that reads "Posble Gaspari Reps in da futre" and crosses off Rushie's name*


-Spaz

How can you cross my name off if it is not written on the napkin? You Jared Wheat guys crack me up sometimes...

[VaughnTrue]

How can you cross my name off if it is not written on the napkin? You Jared Wheat guys crack me up sometimes...

Pretty sure him "crossing it off" IMPLIES it being written on the napkin...



BUY HUMANOTROPIN NOW! SSE PRODUCTS ARE STRONGER THAN AAS!

[kissdadookie]

You know, just because a certain someone refuses to acknowledge and address point 3 in that conclusions section of that unpublished study that the company he works for/is affiliated with is using as evidence in SUPPORT of their case, it doesn't make that text vanish into thin air. Let me check... yup, still there.

[Rushie]

Pretty sure him "crossing it off" IMPLIES it being written on the napkin...

Oh, it's implied? Well, isn't that ironic...

[VaughnTrue]

Oh, it's implied? Well, isn't that ironic...

It's like 10,000 spoons, when all you need is a knife...


Amirite or amirite?!?

[NEBinAK]

Pretty classy behavior itt from people who should know better smh

[ISurfNudeBrah]

It's like 10,000 spoons, when all you need is a knife...


Amirite or amirite?!?

[carguy123]

You know, just because a certain someone refuses to acknowledge and address point 3 in that conclusions section of that unpublished study that the company he works for/is affiliated with is using as evidence in SUPPORT of their case, it doesn't make that text vanish into thin air. Let me check... yup, still there.

My morning at work has gone to complete chit so I'll go ahead and jump on this landmine so you quit stating the exact same things 15x in the same thread.

Why does it sound like point 1 and point 3 and stating almost the exact same things in different verbiage? The way I read this is:
DMAA found in supplements closely matches that of synthetic DMAA. Then in point 3 they state that the DMAA found in geranium oils is different than the synthetic version found in supplements.

So point being here is that the symethic version is modified compared to what is found in nature? I'm no chemist as my discipline lines with engineering so this stuff is not my speciality (1 college level chemistry course ~10 years ago lol)

[kissdadookie]

My morning at work has gone to complete chit so I'll go ahead and jump on this landmine so you quit stating the exact same things 15x in the same thread.

Why does it sound like point 1 and point 3 and stating almost the exact same things in different verbiage? The way I read this is:
DMAA found in supplements closely matches that of synthetic DMAA. Then in point 3 they state that the DMAA found in geranium oils is different than the synthetic version found in supplements.

So point being here is that the symethic version is modified compared to what is found in nature? I'm no chemist as my discipline lines with engineering so this stuff is not my speciality (1 college level chemistry course ~10 years ago lol)

No, if you read the study it states that the synthetic version does not exist in nature and as far as we currently understand, can only be synthesized. Period.

Much like the synthetic only form of vitamin C (which is not in supplements btw, only the identical form to that found in nature is used in supplements).

[carguy123]

My morning at work has gone to complete chit so I'll go ahead and jump on this landmine so you quit stating the exact same things 15x in the same thread.

Why does it sound like point 1 and point 3 and stating almost the exact same things in different verbiage? The way I read this is:
DMAA found in supplements closely matches that of synthetic DMAA. Then in point 3 they state that the DMAA found in geranium oils is different than the synthetic version found in supplements.

So point being here is that the synthetic version is modified compared to what is found in nature? I'm no chemist as my discipline lines with engineering so this stuff is not my speciality (1 college level chemistry course ~10 years ago lol)

No, if you read the study it states that the synthetic version does not exist in nature and as far as we currently understand, can only be synthesized. Period.

Much like the synthetic only form of vitamin C (which is not in supplements btw, only the identical form to that found in nature is used in supplements).

Isnt that essential what I posted in the bolded statement?

Also isnt caffeine derived from different sources slightly different or no? (srs question I am not sure)

[kissdadookie]

Isnt that essential what I posted in the bolded statement?

Also isnt caffeine derived from different sources slightly different or no?

No man, what you posted would imply that a natural form of it can somehow be modified into the synthetic form. The synthetic form, as per that study (the unpublished version and the published version iirc) states that it can only be produced entirely synthetically. Synthetic caffeine and natural caffeine are actually identical, unlike L and D forms of vitamin C (L form can be synthesized as well as found in nature whilst the D form is entirely synthetic and our bodies have no use for the D form).

[TMac26]

What about other forms of caff.


like citrate and anhydrous.

[kissdadookie]

What about other forms of caff.


like citrate and anhydrous.

Caffeine anhydrous is simply caffeine with the water taken out. Di-caffeine malate is simply combining caffeine with malic acid. None of these are ending up with a molecule that can only exist if synthesized from scratch.

Citrate is just citric acid.

[TMac26]

Ah. I thought they were synthesized



Cause just like some of the nitrates, if they are not found in nature, they aren't bueno. You can't attach a nitrate to something else and call it "ok" without and NDI.

[kissdadookie]

Ah. I thought they were synthesized



Cause just like some of the nitrates, if they are not found in nature, they aren't bueno. You can't attach a nitrate to something else and call it "ok" without and NDI.

I think TL put themselves into that mess by pushing hard on the issue, if they didn't, I doubt the FDA would have gotten involved because most likely it would never have made it on to their radar.

[TMac26]

I think TL put themselves into that mess by pushing hard on the issue, if they didn't, I doubt the FDA would have gotten involved because most likely it would never have made it on to their radar.

Probably not.


But Ron is a moron who likes to hold grudges against people for various reasons, and brought the whole thing down on himself.

[carguy123]

No man, what you posted would imply that a natural form of it can somehow be modified into the synthetic form. The synthetic form, as per that study (the unpublished version and the published version iirc) states that it can only be produced entirely synthetically. Synthetic caffeine and natural caffeine are actually identical, unlike L and D forms of vitamin C (L form can be synthesized as well as found in nature whilst the D form is entirely synthetic and our bodies have no use for the D form).

Understood and agreed, in my head I was thinking exactly what you were saying but the context I typed was slightly skewed. Its been along week and my doggo was up most of the night due to massive thunderstorms so running on fumes

[WSMuscle]

Hi-Tech's lawyers seem to have made a pretty amateurish mistake here.

The published study used a detection limit of 10 parts per billion

The unpublished study used a detection limit of 10 parts per million

The email from Khan is saying that you can't detect something in a quantity that is below your detection limit and that they need to do MORE ACCURATE testing.

The email from ElSohly is saying that the test results would indicate that it might be present at parts per billion, but that they need to do the MORE ACCURATE test to know for sure.

I might be mistaken, but last time I looked, billion is a bigger number than million.

[WSMuscle]

Ah. I thought they were synthesized



Cause just like some of the nitrates, if they are not found in nature, they aren't bueno. You can't attach a nitrate to something else and call it "ok" without and NDI.

Actually, you can explicitly do exactly that per DSHEA.

[kissdadookie]

Actually, you can explicitly do exactly that per DSHEA.

I think what got the patent nicked was that claims were being made and if claims are being made then a NDI would most certainly be required.

Hi-Tech's lawyers seem to have made a pretty amateurish mistake here.

The published study used a detection limit of 10 parts per billion

The unpublished study used a detection limit of 10 parts per million

The email from Khan is saying that you can't detect something in a quantity that is below your detection limit and that they need to do MORE ACCURATE testing.

The email from ElSohly is saying that the test results would indicate that it might be present at parts per billion, but that they need to do the MORE ACCURATE test to know for sure.

I might be mistaken, but last time I looked, billion is a bigger number than million.

LoL, I didn't even notice that.

[WSMuscle]

I think what got the patent nicked was that claims were being made and if claims are being made then a NDI would most certainly be required.

Patent claims have nothing to do with an NDI?

And which patent got nicked? Thermolife still has full enforcement capability for all of their nitrate claims.

[kissdadookie]

Patent claims have nothing to do with an NDI?

And which patent got nicked? Thermolife still has full enforcement capability for all of their nitrate claims.

Creatine nitrate. Not sure if they resubmitted a new one. They were told explicitly that creatine nitrate needed a NDI due to the claims being made. Perhaps they needed/wanted to update the patent and resubmit after the NDI thing for creatine nitrate?

[Mike McCandless]

I'm curious how the judgment falls, but have no dog in the fight. The aftermath will be interesting, no matter how it goes.