Jump to content

bsn sued


Recommended Posts


was just referred to this by a buddy

in short, BSN products Cellmass and NO xplode do not contain the ingredients they have on the product labels

ive always said i thought NO xplode was the biggest ripoff product in the industry, and that was assuming that it was actually comprised of the ingredients it said it was, yet SO many ppl on this site and in the gym have sworn by the stuff

this lawsuit clearly shows how "off" most ppls perceptions are of how much a product is working and the true power of the placebo effect

hopefully we can now all admit that NO xplode is even more a waste of money than any of us had previously thought and those that swear by it can now admit they were mistaken!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im sick of these companies paying big dollers to have their products endorsed by bbers that pple look upto when they are utter crap..

imo i really am beginning to draw to the conclusion that the only things/supplements required for your goals are:

Protein powder ( good reputable brand)


L glutemine (for some)

some thermos for that last togo stubbon fat

and lastly a diet tweaked to perfection with allowances to let your hair down.

not overhyped crap like bsn and muscletech peddle.

gakic pfft http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/mt/gak.html what a sales pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the original test was done in April 2006 by a sports supplement store (SupplementDirect.com) in the USA - seems a long time to hold onto information. The test showed:

Label claim states sample contains 3000. mg creatine ethyl ester malate per single serving.

** None Detected. Detection Limit = 0.2 mg/g.

Sample was found to contain 1,390 mg/serving of creatine monohydrate.

The test doesn't elaborate any further though as to how much of the rest of the ingredients that make up Creatine ethyl ester Malate (CEM3) were found.

CEM3 is essentially Creatine Ethyl ester or Creatine Monohydrate attached to an ester, in this case ethyl alcohol which helps with the transport of creatine through the cell wall, and Creatine Malate - which is creatine monohydrate bound with malic acid which is involved in the Krebs cycle.

I don't know enough about the test conducted to say whether o not this is as bad it has been made out to be and whether any further tests have been conducted since. Obviously if you test something that contains 3000mg of CEM3, a proportion of it is then going to be Creatine monohydrate (in this case 1390mg), ethyl alcohol, and malic acid. They don't state whether or not these other ingredients were present, and it only seems to have been tested for creatine ethyl ester so I'm guessing no ethyl alcohol was found.

The lawsuit is being filed by two guys, one being Dan Abell who happens to work for Tech Xpress the company that holds the registration to the domain SupplementDirect.com, and from what I can only surmise he must be associated with the sports nutrition store SupplementDirect.com who are the major sponsors of SupplementPolice.com (the guys who did the test).

Strangely, and you'd think they were doing this for the consumers, SupplementDirect.com continue to sell CellMass on their website. So they're suing BSN for a supposedly shonky product, yet continuing to sell it. Hmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Popular Contributors

    Nobody has received reputation this week.

  • Create New...