I’d think the Pre extreme due to the cluster dextrin, unless you want to stay fasted, in which case the regular Pre
2 Likes
Thank you!
There are fewer consumers that are bigger fans of magnesium creatine than me. My question is why only half a gram of it in such a clinical dose driven profile that’s consistent with the brand. I personally prefer at least 1g… But that’s just me.
To my understanding the(unique to CMP) improvements are seen at low doses(400 mg) and they have 3 grams of creatine from other sources to provide actual creatine.
I would say a fatburner without all of the aminos would be better if you are going for the benefits of fasted cardio.
Between the two PRE since it doesn’t have the carbs, which would break the fast.
Pre extreme has the Yohimbine but the fat burning benefits are somewhat blocked by insulin which cluster dextrin and the various amino acids would spike.
I really like half a scoop of PRE for cardio, I haven’t tried Pre-extreme but that would likely also be good.
1 Like
Why would the sample of Pre Extreme only have 40 grams in the serving when the bottle states 44 grams? Is it missing an ingredient?
Two different versions it seems, guessing the sample is the previous version, the main one is the new one.
Amoung the changes are NALT being changed to L-Tyrosine and reduced taurine.
Technically speaking, if you want to be a nut about things, PRE would also break the fast because of all the aminos inside.
Depends on OPs goals and how crazy about fasting we are being here.
1 Like
True, I guess I would rephrase what I said earlier to say fasted from Whole Foods.
Yep, that’s why I had the fat burner comment
1 Like
Hey BonesM80, the full size bottles are a new formula just updated. little difference in the doses and choices of ingredients
Yes, correct – there were a lot of changes made in the newest version of PRE and PRE Extreme. The taurine was increased, not decreased. Here are the major changes: Increased Beta Alanine from 2.5g to 3.2g, Replaced NALT with L-Tyrosine and increased from 1.2g to 1.5g, Increased Choline Bitartrate 300mg to 500mg and changed to U.S. made VitaCholine, Increased Taurine from 1.5g to 2g, Creatine Matrix changed: increased CM from 2g to 3g and replaced C-Hcl with Magnapower. The flavor profile changed as well.
Actually, Mike, you and I agree on this as well… I was explaining the legalities of the labeling regulations, but on the next response agreed that we should put the magnesium on the label. Either way is allowable by the regs, our guys chose to leave it off, which we are changing…
1 Like
Thanks for the responses Mark!
Now this interests me. I’d be curious to talk and write about other US-made ingredients. All I know of is OptiMSM from Bergstrom.
Looking forward to updating everything on the site once this makes its way out there. Will never complain about more choline and a bit more magnesium (as long as it’s not too much!)
There are many US manufacturers. Kyowa Hakko is an important one because they currently manufacture a number of fermented aminos here in the U.S. and the quality is unsurpassed. We currently use all of Kyowa’s Dietary Supplement grade/oral grade aminos exclusively such as citrulline, arginine, glutamine, histidine and ornithine - except BCAAs. They have other aminos as well, however they are only made in Pharmaceutical-Biotech-grade which are financially prohibitive and would be a waste since we don’t require intravenous-grade aminos.
2 Likes
As far as Bergstrom’s OptMSM, we use it but recently have taken issue with them. Bergstrom is working with the NPA (Natural Products Association) to convince the FDA to reduce the Identity Testing of there products from testing of every single lot, to using Skip Lot method. In other words, skipping lots, so testing every 3rd lot for example. The skip lot method relies on putting greater trust with the raw material manufacturer. I believe in the concept of " TRUST - BUT VERIFY. Currently, the FDA requires through CFR 111 that Identity testing be completed on every batch of raw ingredient; why the NPA would push decrease this, which is essentially a quality control loss for consumers, is beyond me. In the current hostile media environment, I don’t understand why the industry would push to reduce quality control testing. If the FDA allows Bergstrom to do it, others will soon follow. I’m still looking into the exact details of this and will let you know as they unfold.
3 Likes
That’s just trying to cut corners on their part. It’s not right in any sense of the word
1 Like
Definitely looking forward to hearing more about this and how we will combat/strive for our own higher standard.
Reading through Nutrabio reviews today, I came across this rememberable quote…
“In a shady industry, Nutrabio is the Beacon.”
1 Like
CFR 111.75 allows for reliance on COA for ‘qualified’ suppliers, as long as you occasionally re-verify them, and establish a verification process for qualifying your suppliers
You are correct. CFR 111 allows a manufacturer to prove out a COA 3 times and then accept that material based on future COA with matching specifications, and re-qualification of the COA (usually annually is accepted and considered best industry standard). However, there are 4 components to testing raw ingredients under CFR 111: purity, potency, composition and identity. For identity purposes, CFR 111 requires every individual batch be tested to prove identity. You can not use any type of skip lot testing or pre-qualification for the purpose of identity, every lot must be tested.
At NutraBio, I DO NOT rely on a manufacturers pre-qualified COA to release my raw ingredients like CFR 111 allows. I test every single batch of every raw ingredient in our in-house lab and if it passes, it is then sent out to a 3rd-party lab for testing. It must pass both in-house and 3rd-party lab testing before our lab manager can release it from our quarantine warehouse.
What are your thoughts on the best ways for companies that are doing it right to get out from under the shadow of the near industry-wide push to label government regulations as being the product of big pharma and overbearing government wanting to take away our freedoms?
Especially in the ‘internet marketed’ brand space, full compliance is relatively scarce, and compliance costs time and money.
The money we spend on compliance, others spend on marketing, or just having higher cash margins to profit-take or roll out products on faster timelines.
This is a topic I’ve off and on wanted to write a lengthy article about in the past, but without naming names or shaming suppliers/contract manufacturers with anecdotes too hard I’m not sure how to go about it.