People ask me lots of questions about their supplements, and it’s no wonder: many supplement labels are deliberately designed to be confusing.  Using scientific names for the chemicals, nutrients and herbal extracts creates the impression that the product’s been scientifically designed - yet this may not be true.

Take this supplement, for example.  The ad copy proclaims it’s “the World’s Most Powerful Formulation of Proven and Effective Muscle Building Components Ever Assembled…”  

Is it?  Here’s what it sez on the label:

  • 2-aminoglutaramic acid
  • 2-amino-5-guanidinovaleric acid
  • L-Proline
  • L-Asparagine
  • L-Glutamic acid
  • L-2-amino-3-mercaptopropanoic acid
  • L-Serine
  • L-Aspartic Acid
  • 3,5,4′-Trihydroxystilbene
  • Polygonum Cuspidatum extract
  • Polyrhachis Ant Extract
  • L-Glycine
  • 2-ammoniopropanoate
  • L-Leucine

That’s a pretty impressive list, eh?  But let’s break it down a bit, and see just how “scientific” it really is…

Now you may recognize some of the ingredients already:  proline, asparagine, glutamic acid, serine, aspartic acid, glycine and leucine are all amino acids.  However, leucine is the only one that’s essential for muscle protein synthesis.  The others are strictly non-essential amino acids.

Ok: what about the 2-aminoglutaramic acid, 2-amino-5-guanidinovaleric acid, L-2-amino-3-mercaptopropanoic acid and 2-ammoniopropanoate? 

Guess what?  They’re amino acids too!  They’re glutamine, arginine, cysteine and alanine, respectively.  Nope - none of ‘em are essential either. 

3,5,4′-Trihydroxystilbene = resveratrol, a polyphenolic antioxidant found in red wine, as well as some other foods like grapes and peanuts.

Polygonum Cuspidatum = Japanese Knotweed, a plant pest and source of resveratrol.

Polyrhachis Ant Extract = an extract from a type of edible ant (Polyrachis vicina) that’s used in traditional Chinese medicine to enhance virility and fertility, as well as boost the immune system and act as an overall restorative/rejuvenator.  Does it really do those things?  No idea – although the dried ant powder is pretty nutritious.  Ant extract was used as an ingredient in one novelty energy drink in the UK, although it apparently didn’t catch on…I wonder why? ;-)  

So what does this “powerful” formulation actually contain?  Looks to me like it’s a random hodge-podge of (mostly non-essential) amino acids, an antioxidant, and…well, bug powder.  Is there anything here at all that’s actually a proven muscle builder?

Hmmmm…amino acids ARE the building blocks of muscle protein, but do we need all the non-essential ones?  Apparently not: research has shown that they don’t help stimulate muscle protein synthesis after exercise.

Reseveratrol is an interesting and potentially useful compound from a basic health/wellness perspective, and may – in large amounts – boost testosterone a bit, but it’s never been shown to build muscle, either.

And – needless to state – no controlled studies on the ability of ant extract to build lean mass or strength have ever been conducted.

Thus, it all comes down to the leucine.  And there are plenty of other ways to get that..like from a scoop of whey protein, or even a glass of milk, for example.  Some protein + additional leucine may be even better for post-workout muscle protein synthesis.  So while leucine = “good,” it’s not necessary to buy an expensive supplement that contains a bunch of ingredients that you DON’T want, just to get the one you do.  Just eat some high quality protein.  If you want additional leucine, just buy it straight or use a branched-chain amino acid powder and save yourself a ton of money in the process.

In addition to the use of scientific jargon, some manufacturers try to overwhelm their customers via the sheer number of ingredients in their formulas.  You’re supposed to be blown away by how much you’re getting.  Nonetheless, a long list of sciency-sounding compounds doesn’t mean more value for your money…many of those ingredients are underdosed and/or redundant.  For example, one creatine supplement, Cell Tech Hardcore, contains 7 different forms of creatine:  creatine monohydrate, creatine anhydrous, creatine malate, creatine alpha-ketoglutarate, creatine-6,8-thioctic acid-ketoisocaproic acid calcium, creatine pyroglutamate and tri-creatine HCA.

Whew!  This looks rilly kewl and cutting edge - but where’s the science that shows 7 forms are better than one?  Or two?  Or five?  And what makes this combo better than plain old creatine monohydrate?  There are a ton of studies that demonstrate the efficacy of creatine monohydrate.  Conversely, you won’t find a single study on – say - creatine pyroglutamate.  But if the latter did turn out to be superior to the former, then what would be the point of using creatine mono in the formula at all?  And do you really think that controlled studies – even “in-house” ones – were performed on all the various combinations of creatines and amounts to determine which one gave the best response? 

If you believe that, then there’s a bridge I’d like to sell you.

Get it? This isn’t science – it’s marketing.  Sure, the combination of 7 creatines probably works…but if it doesn’t work better than a simple – and inexpensive – container of creatine monohydrate, then why bother?

In other words, you shouldn’t buy a supplement just because it “looks” scientific.  It should BE scientific too.  Check it out first: a little critical thought and research can save you a lot of money. 

Share