Rant – Straight Talk
I’m currently tapping out a review of IDS BetaNOX – it’s another NO-booster, and a pretty effective one, too. I received a couple of sample packets in my last supp order and used one for yesterday’s workout…it’s been a while since I’ve used an NO supp, so the effects were quite noticeable. I rather liked it.
But my attitude did a 180 when I looked at the label. The very first ingredient was a gnarly looking thing indeed: 2,5-Bis(Hydroxymethyl)oxolane-2,3,4-Triol.
So what the hell is it? Some sort of super-chemical, designed to give skin-splitting pumps? Add rock-hard slabs of new muscle? Give the strength to break Olympic bars in two?
This is something I’ve written about before, but I swear this is easily the worst case I’ve seen to date.
In the past, I’ve been amused by this sort of gimmick, but this one’s really crossed the line. IUPAC nomenclature is tough sledding. Common chemical names like “dehydroepiandosterone” (DHEA) are complicated enough for non-specialists to understand: no need to resort to systematic terminology like 3-hydroxy-10,13-dimethyl-1,2,3,4,7,8,9,11,12,14,15,16-dodecahydrocyclopenta[a]phenanthren-17-one.
FYI, for all the complex-sounding esoterica spouted by scientists, they nearly always follow Einstein’s dictum: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler.” NO genuine researcher would ever stoop to using IUPAC nomenclature to describe a basic, common compound like fructose – in the absence of a legitimate reason to do so. They have bigger issues to articulate in research reports: experimental design, methods, etc. There’s no point to adding unnecessary complexity when the goal is to communicate.
Of course, “communication” isn’t what the folks at IDS have in mind. That’s their choice, I suppose, but then again, I have a choice too: to buy my pre-workout supps from some other company.