So why isn’t this alleged medical professional (with allegedly no financial stake in MonaVie) looking out for consumers interests? It simply doesn’t add up.

Amen. The dangerous illegal claims outweigh any benefits MonaVie could possibly give. The “I don’t agree with the illegal claims but I still like MonaVie” excuse doesn’t add up, and instead of coming on here and called us neurotics, Beatrice should be banging down MonaVie’s doors to get them to stop distributors from making illegal claims by any means necessary. Any self-respecting medical professional would take that route.

That’s almost incomprehensible and the underlying logic is nonexistent. This only seems to be a “problem” for you – EVERYONE ELSE GETS IT! The comparisons are straightforward. Acai powder has an atypically high ORAC score because it is dehydrated and therefore undiluted by water. Non-dried acai does not have an extraordinary ORAC score compared to blueberries; the calculation to compensate for water content is so simple that a child could follow it. Fruits contain about 90% water. The ORAC of dehydrated fruit powder can be compared with non-dehydrated fruit by simply compensating for the water content (i.e. dividing the ORAC of dry powder by 10 to get the corresponding ORAC for non-dehydrated fruit).

It’s funny how these basic concepts and arithmetic that everyone else understands is somehow “incorrect” in your eyes alone. What you really mean is not that the comparison is “incorrect” but merely that the results are not to your liking because you are a Monavie shill and you’ll do anything to obscure the facts that are killing your product.

Beatrice said: “The fact that Monavie is a combination of freeze-dried acai (highest ORAC value listed by the USDA) and a blend of juices from 18 other fruits that are known to have high ORAC values, would lead me to believe that MonaVie’s ORAC score is closer to the value stated by the company in their 2008 FAQ file, which is 4,000 to 5,000 units per 4 ounces of juice (… I don’t know because this ORAC value is no longer on their current website FAQ section). Like it or not, Dr. Schauss is an expert in his field (especially with regard to acai), and even if the ORAC of 4 ounces of MonaVie really is 2690 units, then his comment still holds true: this “is higher than the range of ORAC values for most common juices.”

So let me see if I follow you here. Even though (a) Schauss’ own data confirms that the ORAC score of Monavie is low (and he is the guy who holds the acai patent that you were trumpeting about), and (b) even though Men’s Journal and an independent testing lab also showed that Monavie’s ORAC is low — you would rather ignore both sources and instead believe in an ORAC value mentioned once in an outdated 2008 FAQ file, which the company no longer stands behind? OK then; don’t mind if I call you obtuse.

Beatrice said: “MV Scam, you have made several comments within the above blog post and this blog post (http://www.juicescam.com/dr-joe-schwarcz-warns-against-acai-health-claims/) that allude to the idea that ORAC values are somehow analogous with, or an indicator of, a food’s nutrition value. They are distinctly different. The below definitions should avoid any further confusion to your readers…”

No one of any consequence here has ever alluded to such a thing. It was Monavie that confused the importance of ORAC/antioxidant capacity versus nutritional value – purposely — in their marketing materials. They hinged the product’s value on its ORAC score; this was because the product had very little demonstrable nutritional value (as indicated by the label). When people argued that Monavie was low in nutrition, the company argued back “maybe so but it is high in antioxidants, anthocyanins, and polypheneols”. Of course the label does not quantify or even mention any of these things, and a simple comparison between the data from Schauss’ study on Monavie and published reference data shows that the claims are untrue. This too, is confirmed by Men’s Journal and the independent testing lab.

So it doesn’t matter what parameter one chooses to compare: ORAC, vitamins/minerals/fiber, polyphenols, anthocyanins, or proanthocyanadins, or which sources one chooses to consider for comparisons; Monavie loses out badly to more conventional cost-effective options like real fruit or other juices. I don’t see why anyone in their right mind would even attempt to argue otherwise. At $45 a bottle, Monavie should provide about 10 times more of something (anything) important that no other $5 juice or inexpensive piece of fresh fruit can provide.

Beatrice said: “My final point to MV Scam is that you have also misrepresented my single comment that I am UNDERWHELMED with the scientific articles in support of MonaVie at this time. I never said that the science/articles/data were not credible or “dubious” as you have misquoted me on this blog (http://www.juicescam.com/dr-joe-schwarcz-warns-against-acai-health-claims/). I am underwhelmed because as a medical professional, I would like to see more studies using large groups of human subjects. The in-vitro and animal studies have been peer reviewed (and therefore credible) and are very promising. The limited number of human studies include small groups of healthy subjects, which is fine for obtaining baseline data and gauging effectiveness of study methods. However, if the product proves to be as effective for combating oxidative damage in cells, or facilitating the body’s cellular immune response, both of which have been shown lab studies…or, if the product can in fact provide protection against cardiovascular disease or joint/cartilage degeneration, both of which have been shown in many studies of plant sterols and glucosamine…or, even if it turns out to be true that antioxidants can help fight off cancerous cells, or preserve brain/memory function, which has been demonstrated in rodents…then, I will no longer be UNDERWHELMED with to scientific HUMAN data. The science is good/promising, but more is needed…and if MonaVie continues to invest their money to scientifically validate their product, then kudos to them.”

You are so incredibly (and dangerously) full of $hit. You point to these BS, very poorly-designed and executed in vitro studies — conducted by hacks and indelibly tainted by conflict of interest — and claim that they are “good/promising” to you as a “medical professional”??? They are barely even worthy of any serious scientific discussion, let alone extension by way of clinical trials in humans. In the absence of reliable human clinical data (which will never be generated), in vitro studies that vaguely imply medical benefits of Monavie shouldn’t even be disclosed to distributors, let alone used universally (and in many cases, illegally) as the basis for marketing of the products. You can’t really be that delusional as to think that these studies are “good”, or even that we believe that you really do think they are good (at least I can’t believe that you would be so ignorant as to think so). Please Beatrash, when you’re shilling for the company, try to come up with more compelling lines of deception than this idiocy.

People are marketing this $hit as a cure for cancer and autism and brain injuries. As an alleged “medical professional”, that should be the single one and ONLY thing that concerns you. That alone has the potential to cause greater harm than any minute bit of perceived good that Monavie could do (i.e., partially wetting the throats of consumers at $45 a bottle and providing as much nutrition as a few bites of fruit).

“MonaVie does in fact have a patent on the freeze-drying process they use for acai.”

Monavie DOES NOT in fact have a patent. Alexander Schauss and Kenneth Murdock (K2A) have a patent; Monavie’s name is mentioned nowhere on the patent application.

Earlier this year I attended the EMv launch here in Australia where Dr Schauss himself did a presentation. His presentation wasn’t on Monavie, of course (because the information and research concerning Monavie is as Beatrice put it, “underwhelming” – to say the least) but on the acai itself.

All the documentation that was provided to my friend as part of his training as a distributor addressed the ORAC of the acai berry itself, it is as you pointed out the cornerstone of Monavie’s marketing of the product.

IF there were any benefits associated with being “on the juice”, Monavie would have invested in the trials and wouldn’t leave it up to the distributors to make the illegal and unfounded claims – they’re a billion dollar company after all, yeah. It is now 5 years since the company started and still nothing. Judging by the findings of Dr Schauss, it’s in Monavie’s best interests to ensure that this remains the case.

“MonaVie does in fact have a patent on the freeze-drying process they use for acai.”

So what? I don’t care if they figured out some way to teleport the berry directly from the tree into my mouth, it makes no difference.

This is a misleading argument, while it is better to get fresher fruits and vegetables, it doesn’t make the fruit vastly superior. When I was a child my father managed a garden and we all ate many fresh fruits and veggies right off the vine. Guess what? Nothing special happened, that’s what. Yeah I know, there were no “superfruits” in what we ate so that doesn’t count, right?

I don’t care how high freeze-dried acai ORAC score is, because that has nothing to do with MonaVie and as others have pointed out debating ORAC of freeze-dried acai is not necessary because the higher ORAC is due to the water being removed.

This has all been discussed over and over again on this site. Instead of flooding the comments with data the debaters already know (what ORAC is) and the same old arguments, why not bring the beef?

[Editor's note: That's probably because acai is not blueberry. Hence different values.]

In addition, it is incorrect to compare the values of freeze-dried acai, raw fruits, acai juice blends, and MonaVie.

[Editor's note: By the same token, it is incorrect for MonaVie and its distributors to discuss the ORAC values of freeze-dried acai as we know the ORAC of MonaVie. (It is also incorrect for MonaVie to lie about the ORAC score.

MonaVie does in fact have a patent on the freeze-drying process they use for acai, which helps to retain much of the nutrient/antioxidant dense pulp and skin (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7563465.html). This is a major advantage that MonaVie has over its acai juice/juice-blend competitors.

[Editor's note: Is it really? I can buy freeze-dried acai from Google Shopping. I'm sure that other juice makers can do the same. It seems like MonaVie's patent is on a particular process for freeze-drying, not for product itself. For instance, Bose may have patents on noise-canceling headphones, but a number of companies make the products and they work quite well. I like Audio Technica's personally.]

The fact that Monavie is a combination of freeze-dried acai (highest ORAC value listed by the USDA)

[Editor's note: Allow me to interrupt and point out that this is a lie. Ground cloves have a score of 290283]

and a blend of juices from 18 other fruits that are known to have high ORAC values, would lead me to believe that MonaVie’s ORAC score is closer to the value stated by the company in their 2008 FAQ file, which is 4,000 to 5,000 units per 4 ounces of juice (… I don’t know because this ORAC value is no longer on their current website FAQ section). Like it or not, Dr. Schauss is an expert in his field (especially with regard to acai), and even if the ORAC of 4 ounces of MonaVie really is 2690 units, then his comment still holds true: this “is higher than the range of ORAC values for most common juices.”

MV Scam, you have made several comments within the above blog post and this blog post (http://www.juicescam.com/dr-joe-schwarcz-warns-against-acai-health-claims/) that allude to the idea that ORAC values are somehow analogous with, or an indicator of, a food’s nutrition value. They are distinctly different. The below definitions should avoid any further confusion to your readers:

[Editor's note: MonaVie is the one using the ORAC score as an indicator of a food's nutritional value. I'm only following their example. Please get them to change their marketing strategy before trying to educate the people here. Readers of this website already are familiar with Dr. Jonny Bowden's comments about MonaVie and ORAC score. That's why wrote the article.]

- “ORAC is an acronym for oxygen radical absorption capacity. ORAC is a way to measure the antioxidant capacity of a food. Foods with high ORAC values are desirable for their ability to inhibit free radical activity. The ORAC measurement was developed by a scientist at the National Institute of Aging in 1992 and has proven to be a valuable tool in quantifying health benefits associated with consuming fruits, vegetables, and other antioxidant-containing foods and supplements.” (http://www.monavie.com/Web/US/en/faq.dhtml)
- ANTIOXIDANTS are “molecules capable of inhibiting the oxidation of other molecules.” They are not considered to be a nutrient. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxidants)
- “There are six major classes of NUTRIENTS: carbohydrates, fats, minerals, protein, vitamins, and water.” Of these, carbohydrates, fats, and proteins are generally accepted as being the major energy contributors to support cellular processes within the body. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition)

My final point to MV Scam is that you have also misrepresented my single comment that I am UNDERWHELMED with the scientific articles in support of MonaVie at this time. I never said that the science/articles/data were not credible or “dubious” as you have misquoted me on this blog (http://www.juicescam.com/dr-joe-schwarcz-warns-against-acai-health-claims/). I am underwhelmed because as a medical professional, I would like to see more studies using large groups of human subjects. The in-vitro and animal studies have been peer reviewed (and therefore credible) and are very promising.

[Editor's note: Peer reviewed doesn't necessarily equal credible. Please address the number of concerns I brought up about Schauss' “Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Study” on MonaVie.]

The limited number of human studies include small groups of healthy subjects, which is fine for obtaining baseline data and gauging effectiveness of study methods. However, if the product proves to be as effective for combating oxidative damage in cells, or facilitating the body’s cellular immune response, both of which have been shown lab studies…or, if the product can in fact provide protection against cardiovascular disease or joint/cartilage degeneration, both of which have been shown in many studies of plant sterols and glucosamine…or, even if it turns out to be true that antioxidants can help fight off cancerous cells, or preserve brain/memory function, which has been demonstrated in rodents…then, I will no longer be UNDERWHELMED with to scientific HUMAN data. The science is good/promising, but more is needed…and if MonaVie continues to invest their money to scientifically validate their product, then kudos to them.

[Editor's note: These studies need to be comparative in nature. For a consumer to make a wise purchasing decision and not get scammed into paying high prices, we need to know that MonaVie is better than apple, orange, or a half cup of blueberries. We don't simply need to know that juice is good, no one is debating that question. We need to quantify exactly how good and have a comparison point. Consumers have a choice of many juices. To justify it's grossly high pricing, MonaVie needs to prove that its juice is the best. They seem to be trying with their marketing about ORAC scores, but as mentioned above, they fail.]

Lastly, I don’t particular care about studies on plant sterols or glucosamine since they are cheap additives to the juice. You can get them in a number of places. For 1/88th the price you can get more plant sterols than MonaVie Pulse (see: MonaVie Pulse vs. CholestOff in Lowering Cholesterol). So take a pill and crumble it into a cheaper juice of your choice. You can do the same with glucosamine.]

If MV had a good thing going, and ACAI was all it was cut out to be… all the major juice companies would be jumping on the bandwagon.

Welch’s would drop grapes like rotton raisins. there would millions and millions of dollars at stake.

MV doesn’t hold a patent on freeze dried anything (they claim they do but don’t) Acai is just another fruit, its popularity is growing, thanks in part to MV, and the major fruit companies are rolling out companion products… but they are not walking away from apples and oranges. period. Seriously ponder this, IF Acai were 10 times better the major juice companies would be scrambling to corner this market.

MV is a MLM pyramid scam, the product is shoddy and overpriced and the people that push it are in it for the money, or in it because they have no clue.

If the Acai berry is so awesome, why do they put Glucosamine in it?

I am a distributer myself and take free MV samples whenever my upline obliges me…. and I use it for mixer, might I suggest that you do the same.

Collusionz

“Well I think its relevant because a comment i read said Dr. Schauss was with monavie and he wasn’t at the time.”

Well please quote the relevant comment. Don’t just state what you think…

bryant wells said,

“As far as taking water out b;ah blah blah.. whatever.. “

Ummm you can’t “blah, blah, blah” the most significant scientific point. It is like making an argument against the world being round by saying, “blah, blah, blah… whatever…”

bryant wells said,

“Acai is EVERYWHERE and EVEYONE is taking it.. “

Actually no one “takes” a fruit. No one “takes” cherries, apples, or any juice. So no one, nowhere takes it… good job.

bryant wells said,

“Monavie is not a scam because they dont give entrepreneur of the year awards, logo on Ernst & Young building etc is it is a “scam” what makes it a “scam” the product IS a product”

Read Dallin Larsen, Ernst and Young, and Entrepreneur Of The Year and focus on the comments… they do give Entrepreneur Of The Year awards to scams…

bryant wells said,

“It’s fruit man..lo.. do you go to the grocery store and say ‘this banana didn’t work!! You guys are a scam!!’..lol.. ridiculous.. “

No one expects a banana to do anything… much like MonaVie. You seem to saying that MonaVie is a good fruit option… However, if you read the post about the nutrition on the home page here: you’d know that 9 ounces of MonaVie ($16+) is less nutritous than a 75 cent apple.

bryant wells said,

“I know several people making good money that were NOT making good money with it 2 years ago.. people were telling them it was a scam too… now THOSE people are making good money.. “

Way to congratulate those who scam others… Good job…

bryant wells said,

“Monavie works for ME.. I am not a distributor… “

How does it “work” for you.. what does it do specifically…

bryant wells said,

“i would like to use it regularly but it is pricy.. “

You don’t “use” fruit juice…

bryant wells said,

“I am probably going to do XB Fit which also has Acai and is half the price as Monavie. I have a another friend trying me to get to do that and probably will. “

This is another example of distributors not caring much about their product… they are looking for the business plan…