One of my primary goals with this web site is not only to provide the public with sound and useful information to help them reach their goals quickly, but it is also to debunk a lot of the outlandish claims, myths and down right lies that pop up in the fitness industry. Oddly enough the vast majority of these claims, myths and lies come from the very same companies who the public turn to for help these days, the supplement companies. Supplement companies are a dime a dozen right now and each is fighting for its own claim to fame. Among them all it is common practice to provide some sort of scientific evidence for their claims. It increases their credibility and it make it look like they didn't just copy every other product out there, but rather researched their product and constructed it from the ground up.

Because of a lot of the work I have done, things I have written and so on, I am always asked to review and critique new companies products. One such company goes by the name of Qproducts. I received an email from this company asking me to critique their web site and products. What I'm about to show you, is my critique of some of their products, as well as a critique of recent research that has everything to do with one of their products and its claims. This is something that I would normally have exclusive to the member's area, however, I was so appalled by this company I feel that this information should be known by all. Let's Begin. The following is a copy of an email I sent in response to their request to critique their web site and products.

As for your web presentation, I think that splashing your sponsored athletes all over is distracting. Most people understand how endorsements work and realize that there is a favorable trade off for the athlete to use your products and say positive things. It would be better to make one page that lists athlete bios and if people want to read about it, they will. As for your product line - I like the fact that you attempt to use science into it to make you look more credible. You have a lot of references, however, upon closer review, many of the references have little to no relevance to the product's mode of action, it ingredients, dosages or efficacy. For example:

Buffered Creatine:

There is no research cited that would indicate that magnesium increases the efficacy of creatine at improving performance variables. Secondly, the ad for this product makes it sounds like the magnesium has been chemically bound to the creatine, making it a "New" form of creatine when it would appear that the magnesium is just added in. I do not see any research on a "buffered" creatine. You add also says the this 'buffered' creatine does not need to be loaded. Well in all reality creatine in general does not need to be loaded. The idea behind creatine loading is to create a rapid increase in muscle creatine and water content to trigger muscle protein synthesis and to saturate creatine levels so you can begin to see benefits sooner rather than later. However, this can be accomplished with a number of intake regimens. You also recommend taking it with water when almost all of the appropriate research you cited indicates that taking creatine with a carbohydrate and in some cases CHO and protein is more effective than water at increasing creatine uptake. Why did you recommend water?

Advance Whey protein Isolate

There is nothing in this product that would strike me as 'Advanced'. In fact in terms of available technology, this product is any thing but advanced.  All the add talks about is the advantages of Cross Flow Micro-filtration over Ion-Exchange ( for which you cite no research). In all reality, these are only 2 types of the filtrations that are out there. I know of companies that have their whey put through multiple filtrations -i.e. mirco, ultra and nano-filtration. They are also subject to low temp enzymatic hydrolysis. More over, virtually all of the research you cited utilizes IMMUNOCAL and other concentrates. What research did you used to design this product?

Testosterone Support Formula

Most of the research you have cited focuses on Zinc. But the critical feature of all this research is that testosterone production was increased when zinc was introduced to zinc deficient subjects. Of the research you cited that was actually readily available, you have nothing solid to back your claims on the theory of 'wild oats' All of the things in this product with the exception of the oats, can be found in a multi vitamin. And how did you develop this 7 days on 7 days off cycle? where does this come from? What is its significance? If this product is supposed to maintain normal/healthy levels of testosterone, why would one need yo cycle it?  

Time Released Joint Support

This formula does not include chondroitin which has been shown in research, and even the research you cited to enhance glucosamine. Why would you put such a low amount of it in there? You mask it under the proprietary blend so I have no clue as to how much is in there, but I know that it is less than 740mg. One thing is clear from the research you have and that is that fairly high doses of glucosamine are needed - roughly 1,000mg+.  So why would you make it a time released formula? Because you indicate a serving in the morning and again at night, I would have to assume the release is approx. 12 hours. That would make for less than 100mg per hour. No where in the research did I see a dosing pattern of this kind to be indicated let alone effective. More over I'm curious as to how you are able to regulate how much of each of the supplements in this product ( glucosamine, Vitamin D, Calcium) is released and at what rate are each released? I would have to assume that the calcium and vitamin D are the bone support aspect of it, However, bones are not made of just calcium and vitamin D. They are also comprised of magnesium, zink phosphorus, etc. Most of these minerals have been identified in the research you have cited as minerals that people are deficient in. So there is something missing. Yet again, a multi vitamin would cover this area. with the exception of glucosamine/chondroitin. 

Growth Support Formula 

The main claim here is that this product should help to maintain natural growth hormone levels. However, you do not specify what the benefit of maintain endogenous GH, and neither does the research. Secondly, you limited the product to 2g of glutamine/ serving. I focus on glutamine because this is the one with the most positive research behind it. However doses in the research ranged from 0-.3g/kg. for a 200lb male, this could be 9-27g of glutamine per serving. Why only 2g? And once again what is the significance of the proposed cycle? One major theme that I saw was that serving sizes were large and servings per contain were low. If a person were to follow you recommendations a bottle of a particular product may last 1.5 to 2 weeks. For pills in particular, they had better last a month or I would look else where.   I like the fact that you are providing references about each ingredient, however, it looks almost as if someone did a medline search for a particular ingredient and copied them all down. It really doesn't look like any of the cited studies when into the planning or design of these products or recommendations at all.   As for quality, quality is typically being judged now by quantity ( which is actually purity, but that doesn't seem to stop people) reported by lab analysis vs. label claims. However, You should know as well as I do that amounts don't always dictate quality. Glutamine, for example is one of those supplements where quality can range greatly. I have seen very cheap glutamine that has a yellow tint and smells of sulfur. And I have seen the high grade glutamine that comes in from Japan that has no smell, no taste is finer than dust and whiter than snow. So there is no way I can assess 'quality' just by looking at your site. Please don't take this to be a stab at your company or products. You asked for a critical look at what you have to offer, and that is what I did. If you have and questions/comments, feel free to ask

Eric Satterwhite B.S., NSCA-CPT, ACSM HF-I

I frequent many message boards around the Bodybuilding / Health & fitness world and no more than a day after I sent out this email I came across this thread. This just made things worse in my eyes. And yes, I am EricS13. But it didn't stop there, I shortly thereafter received an email in reply from a representative thinking me for all of my feedback and letting me know that someone would be contacting me shortly. The the next day I got another email from a Dr. Carlon Colker, who is apparently affiliated with Qproducts as a nutrition consultant,asking if they could contact me be phone. I promptly said yes and awaited the call. A few days later I get a call from the Carlon Coker, The Owner of Qproducts. I know that he received the email as he replied to a forward of the original that I sent. When I aniseed the phone, he asked me if I had more questions, I said no I was expecting you to have some answers. This was essentially the end of the conversation. I then replied to his email, which still contained a copy of the original I sent stating that I had no further questions than the ones posed in the e-mail I originally sent. I have yet to receive an answer from Dr. Coker or Qproducts.