Comment · Fri, May 24, 2024 · ND Owner
ConsumerLab's Ashwagandha report: KSM and Shoden
Original post in this thread
totallyjaded · 47 points
Since CL content is paid, I won't copypasta the full text (here, if you're a member) but I thought these key points were disappointing:
It is interesting to note that the producer of the branded ashwagandha extract KSM-66, Ixoreal, claims that this extract is at least 5% withanolides. However, every product listing KSM-66 was found by ConsumerLab to contain a much lower concentration..
It goes on to say that the producer claims that they use a non-USP testing method, and the suggestion is that the claim itself may be obfuscation.
The other really surprising thing was Shoden:
Nootropics Depot Shoden provided a substantial amount of withanolides (23.5 mg per capsule), but this was only 56% of its claimed 42 mg, so it could not be approved. Shoden is another branded form of ashwagandha... the label claimed that the 120mg of extract per capsule was 35% withanolides, which we did not find to be true.
So, I'm curious about ND's testing on this one. ND routinely details how they're doing way more than heavy metals testing - but it seems like CL is saying these two products routinely test below their claims…
What they were answering
totallyjaded · 7 points
Makes sense, and I appreciate the response.
For what it's worth, my ask about the testing wasn't to take a shot at ND. I've happily bought... way more stuff than I probably should have, and plan to continue doing so. And in asking about the testing, it really was genuine curiosity. I wouldn't think it to be unreasonable to say "Shoden is a finished product, and the company that made it is on the hook for ensuring that it has what they say it does."
To be very clear: I appreciate that you don't, and thought it was so strange that there would be the disconnect that CL suggested.
I also notice that Shoden states "Measured by HPLC" on the withanolides claim, where KSM-66 makes no specific claim on withanolides. So on one hand, it's like "Well, they told you how they got to the claim". On the other, I think USP us probably the best understood (to the extent that consumers understand that USP has some sort of meaning).
As for CL, I do trust that they're testing what they say they do. I can't say I've ever bought into their rankings, so much as "This product says it contains X and we found Y." But your point about how they test is a very good one. I think they're great for "Don't buy this toxic bottle of lies from Amazon" but probably less-so for people who are looking for more esoteric information.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · ND Owner
We absolutely test every single product we sell. This includes patented ones. We refused to sell Shoden until the team from Nutriscience opened up their data to us, and collaborated with us to develop and validate the methods. We are a pain in the ass to ingredient suppliers. We have a very known reputation of that. When we walk around Supply Side West, suppliers actually tell us (somewhat jokingly) that we are a headache, because we always ask for way more scientific shit than anyone else. There are countless ingredients that companies try to get us to carry, but we don't because they won't prove their claims or share their data. As you can probably tell by my writing style on Reddit, I am very forward with everyone. If a claim seems like bullshit to me, I tell that to their faces when they come meet us at our facility, or if we see them a Supply Side. I don't have time to beat around the bush. LOL
I also notice that Shoden states "Measured by HPLC" on the withanolides claim, where KSM-66 makes no specific claim on withanolides. So on one hand, it's like "Well, they told you how they got to the claim". On the other, I think USP us probably the best understood (to the extent that consumers understand that USP has some sort of meaning).
We transferred our methods to UPLC from HPLC, as it is quicker, uses less solvents, and has more precision. However, HPLC and UPLC fundamentally work the same way. Almost everything we do these days is on UPLC. We have four of them now, with mass specs on two of them. We still have an HPLC for very specific runs that need specialized columns that won't fit in our UPLC, but 99% of our methods have been moved over. It's better for the environment as well, because we have a lot less solvent waste using UPLC.
As for CL, I do trust that they're testing what they say they do. I can't say I've ever bought into their rankings, so much as "This product says it contains X and we found Y." But your point about how they test is a very good one. I think they're great for "Don't buy this toxic bottle of lies from Amazon" but probably less-so for people who are looking for more esoteric information.
For heavy metals they seem fine, as you can't fuck that methodology up. ICP-MS is about as simple as it gets. Still, how can you rank products without even confirming they are real? Consumers don't know science. They don't look into the details. They see a ranking and a big green APPROVED on a product, and they think Consumer Lab actually tested to make sure that product was real and met their claims. However, they are not doing that. That's more harmful than anything. If they were called heavy metals lab, and only told people the heavy metals in a product, it would be one thing. They are positioning themselves as an authority on product testing and ranking, but doing none of the work to actually give consumers meaningful results. Moreover, they are a for-profit company doing this. They make consumer pay them to get these faulty results. That's unacceptable, in my opinion. If your business is testing and ranking products, you need to ensure you are doing that properly.