MonaVie vs. an Apple

I went back and found links to the sources so you can verify them yourself. Thanks for reminding me.

I love apples and eat them nearly everyday. However, my severe cervical and lumbar spine degenerative disc disease have never improved by eating apples. I have tried MonaVie green label for 1 week and rather than the nightly Darvocet I have had to take in order to sleep (by decreasing my pain level), I am sleeping in comfort with nearly no pain. I am aware of what our minds can do when we sincerely want to believe that something is working. However, I intend to try the product for at least 3 months to determine whether it genuinely is responsible for the significant decrease in back pain. I am a professional in private practice and have no time to become in involved in the MLM component of Momavie and will not become active as a distributor. I will sign up as one in order to purchase the product for the discount I’ll be given when I am enrolled. I burned out on MLM years ago and have no interest in that form of sales.

as usual with all people who say monavie is a scam you have made up information and incorrect math

The antioxidant value of Apples, Red Delicious, raw. with skin described in ORAC units is:
4,275
μ mol TE/100g

The antioxidant value of Acai berry, freeze-dried described in ORAC units is:
102,700 μ mol TE/100g.

upto %30 of Active bottle is the freeze dried acai berry. I’ll let you do the math from there

Red delicious doesn’t even come close!!!!
how many chemicals are that apple btw or is it organic (organic is not $.75)

typical – internet is not always right people – too bad you’ve skewed your vision

Acai berries are NOT cures – they balance out the body so the body can do it’s work on keeping you healthy. All this juice is is a source for westerners to eat a proper amount. If you think you would rather spend $24 dollars a day on apples be my guest!!

continue spewing your “listen to me I have nothing to say” attitude

here’s the website

oracvalues.com/sort/orac-value

it’s people like you who turn good ideas into crap and yell hey look at this crappy product because i say it’s crappy. In person you are a shallow man who dominates people by making them think that you know more than they do. After your 20+ years of college has not made you any smarter, only more ignorant!

Devon, when you compare the total ORAC for a serving size, it’s important to know the serving size. The USDA ORAC Table of Selected Foods sets most of the servings at 100 gms (3.5 oz.). So, you need to adjust your numbers for the product.

The apple (red delicious variety) averages 150 grams for a medium. So, simply multiply 42.75 times 150. This is 6,413 umoles for one apple.

The acai concentrate that you mentioned is one of 19 fruits added to MonaVie. It’s ORAC value is of no use to someone drinking MonaVie. Only the ORAC of MonaVie is important.

As mentioned, AIBMR Life Sciences (Dr. Schauss) found MonaVie’s ORAC to be 22.81 umoles/ml. To figure out the ORAC of 4 oz. (daily serving) simply multiply 22.81 times 4 ounces (91.24) times 29.57 (mls per fluid ounce). This gives you 2,698 umoles per 4 oz. of MonaVie.

Apple (150 gm.): 6,413 umoles
MonaVie (4 oz.): 2,698 umoles

As for your claim that a bottle of MonaVie contains 30% acai: pure nonsense. There are no studies that suggest such a thing. If it were, you wouldn’t even be able to pour it out of the bottle.

MonaVie scam- hahaha it caused you to have severe cervical and lumbar spine degenerative disc disease???? haha sure…. why are you wasting your time? mona vie is worth 3billion bucks! it took them less than 5 years to do it. Microsoft, fedex, yahoo ect. took 7years to reach $1billion.it takes more than one company to fool the world. your a hater and must have failed at the mona vie business part and since you have failed you have to bash on them now. haha. maybe a red apple has more whatever, but does the apple come filled with 18 other fruits? of course mona vie is gonna keep how much acai is in mona vie a secret so the worthless wellness drinks like noni and gojo cant compete(which they cant) do you know coca colas secret? Companys keep secrets from other companys that they cant get a paten on to keep the other companys from doing the same thing, its business, yes mona vie is a great product, and is it a sin to have a business behind it? hell no! before a new model of car comes out the car manufacturing plant goes on shutdown where nobody can go in except a select few, so when the car comes out other companys cant put it on their new cars and compete. I know this from working at Honda for 15 years. Its called business. stop being a hater and do somthing productive with your life, after 15 years at Honda i retired and do mona vie full time and make $2,000/week. youre digging the hole deeper, just stop while you can still jump out of it.
-Bill- not all are like that, youre judging the whole company based on one person, if someone tells me no thanks, i say thank you for your time, here is my card with websites on it, do some homework and if it seems a little interesting then get back with me, again thanks for your time and God bless. not once have i ever asked anyone to join or buy a product and am a Ruby in the business. Dont ASSume, because it only makes an ASS out of yourself, dont judge a book by its cover bill.

Where is the proof that MonaVie is worth 3 billion dollars? Let me know which accounting agency keeps their books. Or give me their stock symbol like Microsoft, FedEx, or Yahoo… oops they don’t have one.

An apple doesn’t come filled with 18 other fruits, but V8 Fusion (as one example) has a pile of them… and it’s about $3 for 46 ounces.

Coca Cola doesn’t try to justify pricing itself 10x above competitors with unsubstantiated health claims like MonaVie distributors do. If it did, you’d rightly want to ask what the basis is for those health claims.

MonaVie distributors love to say that MonaVie has a high ORAC score, so the apple is simply proof that isn’t that high. So if you are a MonaVie and singing the song of high ORAC scores it’s time to learn a new tune.

I dont “sing the tune”. 90% of people in mona vie dont even do the business part, so its not just distributors making claims. go to youtube and look up all the mona vie videos, the doctors, rachel ray, MTV cribs. Magazines like Fortune, vogue, AOL money and finance, People StyleWatch, Reuters, and the biggest INC.500. 27million business in the USA and mona vie is ranked 18th overall out of 27million, being #1 in food and beverage, and number 3 in revenue(MONEY). go to inc.500.com click on the list, scroll to #18 and you will see mona vie with a revenue of 855 million, im sure they are worth a lot more in one year.you really think the proffesional athletes would waste their time with mona vie?
Albert Bentley – NFL

Ryan Lannon – Hockey

Earl Ike – Basketball

Al Harris – Green Bay Packers – NFL

Davy Jones – Auto Racer

Devon Cherry – NFL

Joe Max Moore – Soccer

Lyle Overbay – Toronto Blue Jays

Nick Esasky – MLB

Richard King – Martial Arts

Rodney Harrison – New England Patriots – NFL

Taylor Mehlhaff – Football

Warren Moon – Football

Terrance Pennngtonn – NFL

Cheryl Burke – Dancing with the Stars

Boston Red Sox

Houston Rockets

Regular cheep fruit is not organic, all that fruit at the store has been spraid with every kind of pesticide, herbicide, larvicide, fungicide. The US has decided they are going to genetically modifiy things we know nothing about. The acai berry is flash frozen. i gladly pay 145 a case a month for 100% organic fruit and a berry i can only get from the Amazon.

Monavie scam, i can’t find data relating to the Men’s journal experiment comparing Monavie against other juices. There is just the article. Do you know if Chromadex or Men’s journal released the actual test results? Was it just a one-off test?

To be fair to Dr Strauss, at least his test results were published in a scientifically peer reviewed journal and are therefore transparent (hopefully). In my opinion, if Chromadex/Men’s Journal haven’t produced the details of their test i don’t think it is fair to use their conclusions.

Richard B,

First, let me thank you for the most intelligent debate I’ve seen on here in some time. I appreciate that you don’t attack me like most MonaVie distributors. It’s as you say, I just want to get an opposing viewpoint out there, so that people can think critically, with an unbiased source of information, and make an informed buying decision.

I don’t believe that testing for chemical analysis is typically published in a medical journal. Why would any medical professional care about the level of antioxidants in a fruit juice? It doesn’t advance the medical profession any. I don’t want my doctors wasting their time reading about a study of chemical analysis of a proprietary juice.

I think chemical analysis is a pretty straight-forward test that Chromadex runs fairly often (at least a number of times in the Men’s Journal article). Should we doubt their process when it’s their specialty and they are unbiased?

Lastly (on that topic), Men’s Journal obviously doesn’t have the space in their magazine to publish the details… nor do they have the interest as their readership is just looking for the conclusions, not pages of analysis.

To be fair to Dr. Schauss, his tests backed up the Men’s Journal one. If you read those reports you find that MonaVie openly lies about it’s ORAC score.

“Actual biological in vitro and in vivo tests using Monavie have demonstrated that cellular and serum antioxidant capacity does increase alongside reduced cellular inflammatory response.”

I hope you are not referring to this study. There were numerous things wrong with the study. I haven’t gotten around to creating an article here about all of them, but you can read a pile of them in comment #974 here. I basically said the same thing as you did, this test didn’t do a comparison against a group that ate fruit. Once they do that, they’d still have to do one that proves that MonaVie helps a group that eats a reasonable amount of fruit (a more typical person rather than an antioxidant deprived one). After all, MonaVie Product Specialist Sarah Brown reminds us that MonaVie doesn’t provide us with vitamins, minerals and other nutrients of fruit… meaning that you still need to eat fruit.

I agree with you on ORAC. However, MonaVie touts it’s ORAC and it’s importance. If they want to give that argument in the debate, then it’s fair to compare MonaVie ORAC scores to an apple.

I am surprised that a scientist like yourself would buy into MonaVie’s “independent research” when it all seems to come from Dr. Alex Schauss who is on MonaVie’s advisory board.

Why doesn’t MonaVie spend a few hundred dollars to have Chromadex test the juice and publish the results. MonaVie can’t like the Men’s Journal conclusions, and it would be a small investment to them to publish a conflicting study. The only thing that could go wrong is that Chromadex was right and MonaVie would be paying to support their conclusion. Perhaps MonaVie already did this and found that they didn’t like the results, so they didn’t publish it.

If Dr. Strauss’ new book on the acai berry says that it’s good, that means the wise consumer should drink something like Sambazon that (I think) comes with organic certification, tells you how much acai you are getting, and is a lot cheaper. I suggest reading this comment, which dissects how much acai is actually in MonaVie.

So much here… let me dig in…

You make a point that if it’s a good product you can theoretically build a good business out of it. I would say that a Yugo was a fine enough product, but at $50,000 per car it would have been tough to build a good business. The product not only has to be good, but it has to provide value to the consumer.

Also building a business on one product (a juice) is dangerous. When you are deciding to build a business, you need to evaluate the points of failure outside of your control. When Larsen’s Dynamic Essentials was ended because of problems of claims of their Royal Tongan Limu juice all those people who built businesses had it die. MonaVie is clearly headed that same path (we’ve all seen the illegal claims that distributors are making).

You say that you mitigate the high cost of the juice by taking half of the recommended amount (2 ounces a day instead of 4). Since you say that the in vivo results of that test are important to you, it seems odd that you wouldn’t take the same amount as that study.

It is interesting that you are drinking the juice despite admitting that you don’t have any money. Even at the 2 ounces you are drinking you are drinking about $600 worth of juice a year. If you chose another juice (say cranberry) at least you get 8oz of thirst-quenching beverage for a cheaper price.

As much as you respect the J. Agric. Food Chem., basic commonsense shows that this study isn’t very useful. Rather than address the issues I brought up you just deferred to their expertise of the journal. I don’t know the journal’s publication process and can’t speak to that. I think it’s fair to actually discuss the study.

I don’t know much about the TBARS test. As you mention, I’m not an expert. However, comment #1462 here is an expert having an issue with the TBARS. That person, Vogel, has previously said that he’s a scientist and shows a great amount of scientific knowledge there.

I’d like to see the J. Agric. Food Chem on the antioxidant capacity of apples that you mention. One of my biggest complaints with this is that there was no comparison to basic fruit. For all we know, it might have a bigger effect.

There are simply too many questions with this study to give it any value. We don’t know if MonaVie has any in vivo effect on people with a normal diet (as opposed to the restricted diet in this study). And again, these in vivo results are reported by someone (Dr. Schauss) on the MonaVie advisory board so his reputation is of critical importance in evaluating the study. It’s a little too convenient that all these studies on MonaVie and acai are tied to one person who (I would think) earns a paycheck from MonaVie.

Thanks David,

I haven’t asked MonaVie about the ORAC discrepancy that you mention specifically. I have had a couple off-the-record conversations with them where a person admitted they could have handled some things better in the past. I want to stress that I’m convinced that person wasn’t referencing this.

I don’t think MonaVie is very keen on going on record with me giving on the questions posed here. I know that people in MonaVie know this site exists and if they want to respond I welcome it. I would rather have an open forum that everyone can follow than me and MonaVie on a private phone call or e-mail.

Since you are a new distributor and you find it concerning, perhaps you have an inside track on getting your concern answered?

By the way, I think you are right that ORAC is probably not the only factor at play, but MonaVie and their distributors seem to use that as a major selling point. I think MonaVie either has to decide if it’s a factor in play and defend it’s ORAC score vs. an apple, or come up with some other factor worth caring about.

There must be some results you are getting that you aren’t telling us.

Remember that MonaVie (even MonaVie M(Mun)), can not claim to have had any effect on the number of colds you get. You can’t legally say that and “this is not all MonaVie is doing for me” without making an illegal health claim.

I can’t speak to all the technical points here, but I will speak to some.

1) MonaVie has used it’s ORAC score as a major selling point. MonaVie distributors confuse people by talking about the ORAC score of freeze-dried acai. If MonaVie’s ORAC score is anything near low or medium, MonaVie and it’s distributors should stop all marketing with ORAC score, publicly apologize for all previous marketing of ORAC score, and make sure that no MonaVie distributor ever mentioned the ORAC score of freeze-dried acai.

Distributors have admitted to me in the past that they use this ORAC score of freeze-dried acai in a misleading manor to make sales.

2) So this is further evidence that ORAC is useless. Sounds like all parties agree on that.

3) This is irrelevant because the subjects weren’t allowed to have normal or even healthy diets. Again, at the very best this someone completely void of any antioxidants and someone with some antioxidants. Who isn’t to say that just a vitamin C pill equivalent to what’s in MonaVie doesn’t explain this result. The whole experiment could tell us nothing that we already didn’t know – vitamin C could be good for you.

4) Yes, “unidentified compounds”… We can split an atom into subatomic particles and particles that even smaller than that, but we are supposed to believe there are some “unidentified compounds” in MonaVie. Even if true, there are still much cheaper 100% acai juices out there, so there’s no reason to buy MonaVie’s expensive version.

5) “Possibly” not an issue because [X] “might” be due to [Y]. By reading that, I don’t know if it is an issue, but the fact that it might is a cause for concern and doesn’t support this study.

6) I’m not really concerned about it having some antioxidant effect. I would expect that to be the case for juice. I am concerned about how much of an antioxidant effect it has and how much (if any) more value that I’m getting for my dollar vs. all other sources of antioxidants.

The last point is why I always compare MonaVie to a Yugo. It could get you from point A to point B. I don’t argue that point. I would argue that people shouldn’t price Yugo’s at $50,000 and claim that it’s much better than any other car.

Obviously the average person can look at a Yugo and realize that’s a poor value at $50,000. However, as we see here, it’s very, very difficult to look inside MonaVie.

This is why MonaVie has to make it easier for us and prove it’s value vs. other juices. MonaVie has chosen not to walk this path. Instead, they go with marketing and an MLM distributor program that try to get people to focus on dreams of getting rich like an a pyramid scheme.

Richard B,

My concern with the in vivo tests by Dr. Schauss is quite simple. When a study is conducted on a food or beverage, it’s important that the amounts of the product used in the testing are the same that the consumer would be using.

MonaVie, quite clearly, says to use 1 to 2 ounces twice a day. Most people, therefore, would drink 2 ounces in the morning and 2 ounces in the evening.

In the AIBMR study each participant is given a single 4 ounce dose of MonaVie. So, they are starting off with, what is in fact, a double-dose. I have yet to hear of any MonaVie user drinking 4 oz. once a day.

If you want to find out how many calories are in a Big Mac, you don’t use two Big Macs as your sample.

So, in my opinion, the study is invalid.

As for the ORAC and polyphenol (phenolics) discussion, I can say this. MonaVie uses these as selling points for it’s product. If they wish to back-peddle, fine.

Remember, Dr. Schauss lists the TOTAL phenolics (all of the plant-based polyphenols combined) as 1.48 mg/ml. This equals 175 mg. for 4 ounces of MonaVie. One apple (150 gm.) has 520 mg. of polyphenols.

Another selling point is the acai. Dr. Schauss makes a big production about the high ORAC of his processed, freeze-dried acai concentrate. He says it is at 1,027 umoles/gm. (even though his patent lists it at 536 umoles/gm.)

However, MonaVie’s ORAC is only 22.81 umoles/ml. So, how much acai do you figure is in the product?

To corroborate this, we look at the anthocyanin content of MonaVie. Anthocyanins are the predominant polyphenol in acai. We would expect it to be high. It is not.

Anthocyanins would be expected to be high in most of the various other fruits found in MonaVie. Yet, Chromadex records it as 0.095 mg/ml. Compare this to red grape juice, which one analysis showed an anthocyanin level of 0.77 mg/ml (Dietsche, et al).

I paid for a simple analysis of MonaVie Active last year. The polyphenols were actually higher than the AIBMR study. The anthocyanins were lower. What would raise the polyphenols yet decrease the anthocyanins? White grape juice.

White grapes do not contain significant levels of anthocyanins, but they do have polyphenols. White grape juice is also very inexpensive, and along with apple juice and nashi pear juice (other MonaVie ingredients) are very common fillers in the juice industry.

If you would like a copy of the Chromadex analysis (anthocyanins and polyphenols) please email me at Foodtech101@Yahoo.com.

Richard B,

Per your question regarding studies performed on apples and other fruits, please review this one, presented in the Nutrition Journal (2004):

http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/5

I believe MonaVie has a lot of catching up to do before they can consider charging $30+ a bottle, compared to the $0.75 per apple.

I am trying to evaluate Monavie to satisfy my own opinion as to its quality. It can be very difficult to tell fact from fiction on some issues with Monavie on one side and websites like this on the other, so i am trying to sort through it all to come to a conclusion as to whether i should continue being a distributor.

let me clarify a couple of things:

1. i have only just joined Monavie so i am not high up in the company;
2. I admit i am not an expert in food nutrition but i do have a general background in science.

In my last post i probably came across as being authoritative – which i am not – but i was trying to play Devil’s advocate if you like.

Now, it sounds like Vogel is some sort of expert which is great. Could he confirm what scientific capacity he speaks in?

Maybe he could shed light on the following as well:

1. Are there alternatives to the TBARS test for measuring lipid peroxidation? Looking on the net (which isn’t exhaustive i know) i got the impression that its flaws are known but there is isn’t much of an alternative. i would be interested in seeing some critical reviews.

2. CAP-e test. I would also like to be directed to more critical reviews of this. Isn’t this test quite new and won an NPI award? Again, are there any alternatives?

2. Strauss’s background. This is all quite confusing. That newspaper article about Strauss doctoring his certificates is from 1989. Is there any newer stuff on him? What about all the high-profile stuff like being a fellow of the American College of Nutrition, an Emeritus Member of the New York Academy of Sciences or winner of the Linus Pauling award in 2005? Is that all BS as well?

3. Whats all this about posting my name and Monavie ID? I can’t see anything in the contractual terns and conditions about doing that.

Richard B,

I believe Vogel provided excellent answers already, to your questions.

However, in regards to your question on alternative methods besides TBARS, you may find this study useful: http://honors.uno.edu/docs/KaydianOralDefensePresentation.pdf

As for the CAP-e assay, it is still too new to make a final judgement. To say “look, this test found that the antioxidants were able to penetrate the cell walls and survive”, could be significant if they were to compare it to some well-designed controls. For example, common fruits and juices already in the market.

Since, we have no history on the CAP-e, the significance is questionable. Also, it appears that this test would be more valuable as a qualitative, rather than quantitative test.

As for Dr. Schauss, his doctorate came from California Coast University, which is a non-classroom, non-laboratory, correspondence “school” in Santa Ana, CA.

Make what you want out of that. Anyone that uses his entire powerpoint presentation bragging about a substance (freeze-dried acai concentrate) that is surely found in minimal levels in MonaVie, has a problem with ethics.

You’ll have to talk to the FTC about freedom of speech. I think people’s welfare comes first. For instance, you’ll find your freedom of speech does not allow for yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater.

According to the FTC and MonaVie’s guidelines, here, the results of what you are saying must be typical. There is nothing in MonaVie (that I know of) that would lead it to be any better with helping high blood pressure.

People may think they may not have made changes, but external conditions happen all the time. Different weather pattern could lead to less stress which could lead to lower blood pressure as one example. We have scientific processes in place which is why one person’s anonymous testimony on the Internet fails to carry any weight.

5 Tips Every MonaVie Distributor Needs to Know About the New FTC Guidelines

Like I said Im a prefered Customer The tips do not apply to me.

Lynn, the FTC guidelines apply to anyone making any kind of health claims that are not typically applicable. I realize that you aren’t a distributor, but I believe that testimonies of any kind are still subject to the FTC’s guidelines.

Person after person are also potentially monetary biased in numerous ways… which might be why they that. They are also probably influenced by the placebo effect. Did you factor that into things? After all, a MonaVie employee called me “an annoying douche” (and MonaVie admits that), but she didn’t said she had never tried MonaVie and never mentioned an affiliation with MonaVie. So please excuse me when I don’t accept anonymous medical testimony on this product.

If MonaVie was actually good, it would be in every grocery store in the nation so that they can maximize sales. They wouldn’t rely on anonymous medical testimony to sell juice at $45 a bottle (even at the preferred customer rate, it’s more than any other juice at my grocery store).

It’s basic common sense.

I am a Consumer the Ftc does not apply to me.
The Ftc is in place to protect Consumers.

If people aren’t paying $45 than MonaVie and it’s distributors likely fail the significant retail sales test of whether a product is part of an illegal pyramid. Read this piece where it says:

“There are two tell-tale signs that a product is simply being used to disguise a pyramid scheme: inventory loading and a lack of retail sales. Inventory loading occurs when a company’s incentive program forces recruits to buy more products than they could ever sell, often at inflated prices. If this occurs throughout the company’s distribution system, the people at the top of the pyramid reap substantial profits, even though little or no product moves to market. The people at the bottom make excessive payments for inventory that simply accumulates in their basements. A lack of retail sales is also a red flag that a pyramid exists. Many pyramid schemes will claim that their product is selling like hot cakes. However, on closer examination, the sales occur only between people inside the pyramid structure or to new recruits joining the structure, not to consumers out in the general public.”

If few people (or any in your words) aren’t paying the $45 retail price for MonaVie Active it looks to be a problem with the FTC.

I realize that MonaVie won’t sell to grocery stores. My theory on why MonaVie chooses to do business that way is that they love the fact that people are in person convincing their family and friends and whispering behind closed doors a medical benefit that they should not mention. If you have a better theory as to why MonaVie is not selling to grocery stores, where they could make millions more, I’m all ears. I think it’s because they couldn’t sell their juice at $20 or $45 next to a bottle of V8 Fusion, Tropicana mixture (forget what it’s called) or other option that is around $4.

I also have no reason to get on here and lie. I just want to save consumers money. If MonaVie wants to charge $4 like other juice, I would not be questioning it. At $20 or $45 I need scientific justification for, or else, like any other smart consumer, I’m saving money.

Can you prove that the other things didn’t work… or are we just taking your anonymous word for it? If I say that I drank MonaVie and it raised my blood pressure, then how do we reconcile the difference? Can you prove that MonaVie did that and that nothing else could have possibly been a factor? No. The one thing that we can prove is that MonaVie lacks nutritional value. We back up that study with Dr. Schauss’ own information.

Did the other things cost as much as MonaVie? Maybe you could look into the Price-Placebo Effect as well.

Belief in God? What does anyone theological beliefs have to do with any potential the benefit of MonaVie? Is there some religion out there that mentions MonaVie by name in their ancient scripture?

I realize that the FTC is in place to protect consumers. Part of that protection is about making sure that people don’t make medical claims that aren’t shown to be true.

If MonaVie’s products have medical benefit there are paths they can take to get that kind of certification. If MonaVie chooses to not take those paths (as they have thus far), then let’s just stop all talk of medical benefits except for the one’s they’ve been approved to make (which are related only to MonaVie Pulse to the best of my knowledge).

You might want to watch this
http://www.realhealthanswers.com/acai-TV/Dr-Clayton-part1.htm

MonaVie Scam,

Great points! Here’s the MonaVie Pulse Guidelines from MonaVie’s Black Diamond University website:

Important Guidelines
• MonaVie products (including Pulse) are not intended to replace or mimic the activity, effects, or benefits of drugs or medications. Do not substitute or replace your medication(s) with MonaVie Pulse.

• The plant sterol activity, effects, and benefits in MonaVie Pulse as it relates to heart health and cholesterol are significantly less than that found in drugs.

• If you have a concern of any kind related to MonaVie Pulse or its contraindications with medications, consult with your physician before consuming MonaVie Pulse.

• Do not use MonaVie Pulse as an alternative to physician consultation or advice.
• MonaVie Pulse does not cure heart disease.
• MonaVie Pulse does not cure, treat, mitigate, or prevent serious cholesterol problems.
• MonaVie Pulse is intended for healthy people, not for people with heart or cholesterol diseases.

Why do you delete post that challenge your views? My friend lynn put post on here that you deleted. Whats up with that? You are just Anti Monavie and thats all there is to it.
Im glad people can see through you.

I think Lynn made the mistake of sending two comments in a row that were basically a URL with little commentary.

When you post something like: “You really want to watch this” and a link, the spam filter thinks it’s just promotional. If you do it twice, it thinks some Internet robot is trying to spam the site.

Here ya go

http://www.pilatesacademy.com.au/Dr.%20Ralph%20Carson%20interview%20on%20CBS%20radio%20on%20MonaVie.pdf

Brazilians know what a rip off the MV product is.

I spoke to my friend who is a fighter recently about this topic.

Brazilians can buy pure Acai Berries by the bag, for a few dollars….fresh as can be.

He knows, not thinks, that MV is way overpriced.

What if most alias “discussing” in here were only a couple of people, few as two, with joint interests in the company, not the product discussed?
This debate would represent the value of a blind hide and seek on a playground. Among grown ups; vaist of time!

Keep up your good work, MonaVie Scam! You are doing fine.
What I am suggesting is that there might be many alias representing the same people in here.
Go on being critical of overvalued products and companies. I am.

[Editor's note: Rather than repeat the whole article again, I'm editing this comment for brevity. It still retains all the information he intended.]

In response to this [post], I just went straight to MonaVie’s Product Support Department. Who better to respond to the question than MonaVie directly? The rest of this post is the direct response from MonaVie to the statement made above:

“The variety of the fruits in MonaVie has been chosen for their distinct nutritional assets. Açai, our star ingredient, is one of the world’s most powerful antioxidants (Schauss, et al. Antioxidant Capacity and Other Bioactivities of the Freeze-Dried Amazonian Palm Berry, Euterpe oleraceae Mart. (Açai) J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 8604-10) but is hard to come by outside the Amazon. In addition to acai, there are 18 additional body-beneficial fruits. Many of these exotic fruits cannot simply be picked up at your local supermarket. The cost of individually purchasing all of the fruits would be far greater than the cost of a bottle of MonaVie juice.

Phytonutrients are concentrated in the skins of many fruits and vegetables, and are responsible for their color, hue, scent, and flavor. It is the variety and content of phytonutrients—sometimes called phytochemicals—from the 19 fruits in MonaVie which make our juices so valuable. An added bonus of consuming a variety of fruits is a rich supply of Phytonutrients. Many of these phytonutrients provide significant health benefits. Phytonutrients are very powerful antitoxins. These substances will neutralize free radicals which can be detrimental to the body. When free radicals build up, they can give rise to premature aging. Considerable research has been focused on phytochemicals and their role in maintaining good health and well being those who consume them regularly.

Each fruit in MonaVie provides its own unique profile of phytonutrients not found in any other fruit. For example, grapes have resveratrol, which studies indicate may reduce the risk of certain chronic conditions, but they lack the unique phytonutrients found in acai, such as plant sterols, which have been shown to support heart health. A raw apple does have a small amount of essential fatty acids, but it has significantly less when compared to the acai berry. An apple is also void of plant sterols. In other words, simply eating an apple a day will only give you the nutrients specific to an apple. The complementary and synergistic blend of phytonutrients found in MonaVie would be impossible to find in a single fruit, vegetable, or other blended beverage.

Information on phytonutrient content cannot be added to a nutrition fact sheet or label since the RDA (or Recommended Dietary Allowance) for phytonutrients has yet to be determined. It will likely take many years for scientists to unravel the important effect of the myriad of phytochemicals found in foods. At this time, experts are suggesting that the most reliable way to obtain the phytonutrients necessary to promote good health, is by supplementing your diet with phytonutrient rich foods, such as MonaVie.

Common fruit juice found in grocery stores may have some nutritional value, however they also typically have a considerable amount of added sugar compared to MonaVie, which has no added sugar. Additionally, most supermarket juices are clarified. Clarification involves the removal of fats, fibers and other beneficial nutrients, which are the basis of MonaVie’s advantage over the competition. Through clarification the end product is stripped of a good portion of beneficial fats and other nutrients. With clarification, artificial colors and flavors are sometimes added to maintain product consistency. There may be some benefits to doing this for the manufacturing company, but the end product is nutritionally compromised. Maintaining the açai berry’s nutritional content is what makes MonaVie a superior product.

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.

ORAC is an excellent indicator of a substance’s ability to fight free radicals; however, it is just an indicator. The strength of an antioxidant in terms of how it can benefit your body cannot be measured by ORAC alone. If something tests high in an ORAC test, which is an in-vitro laboratory test, it does not necessarily mean it will have the same effect to fight free radicals inside the human body or in-vivo. For example, plant extracts which are commonly used in other juice blends, are not used in MonaVie—only whole fruits and juices are used. Plant extracts can cause a high ORAC reading in a test tube but there is very little scientific evidence that extracts derived from fruits will work equally as well in the body as whole fruits and juices.

To determine a product’s true antioxidant ability, it is necessary to conduct both in-vivo and clinical (human) studies. According to a study recently published (Jensen et al. In Vitro and in Vivo Antioxidant and Anti-inflammatory Capacities of an Antioxidant-Rich Fruit and Berry Juice Blend. Results of a Pilot and Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (18), pp 8326–8333), individuals who drank MonaVie had an increase in the amount antioxidants and a decrease in the effects of free radicals. This study also identifies a variety of phytonutrients in the MonaVie blend. The studies can be viewed by visiting http://www.monavie.com/science.

This level of validation cannot be expressed in terms of an ORAC value. Additionally, the benefits of phytonutrients cannot be measured by ORAC alone since many of them provide benefits in addition to antioxidant protection.

Pearman 7 copied MonaVie’s response to comments I made at monavietrainingguide.com. He “accidently” forgot to include the reponse I left.

Here is the copy:

“As I suspected, MonaVie totally avoided my question: Why a single red delicious apple has a far higher ORAC and total phenolics level than MonaVie. They said everything but an answer.

The points that they make about MonaVie and phytonutrients are moot, because they don’t have any studies testing the phytonutrients in MonaVie. And it must be tested using a 4 oz. daily serving size. You can add 100’s of different plants, but remember each ingredient added dilutes the remaining ingredients.

I’m glad they mention the in vitrol/in vivol study sponsored by MonaVie and conducted by AIBMR (Dr. Schauss). The study starts out flawed. They give each of the test subjects 4 oz. of MonaVie as a single dose. The label clearly states 2 oz. twice per day. So, the blood levels of the test subjects were inflated to start.

Next, they test the antioxidant bioavailability levels every 30 minutes for 2 hours then terminate the test???? So, all that they’ve proven is a double dose of MonaVie’s antioxidants stays in your blood for two hours.
What about the other 22 hours in the day? The free radicals are still active for 24 hours.

I’m sorry you were duped by this company, but the facts remain as I previously posted. A single red delicious apple gives you a higher ORAC of 6,413 to MonaVie’s 2,698 umoles and total phenolics of 520 mg. to MonaVie’s 175 mg.

No amount of pseudoscientific double-talk can change that. They did not, and could not dispute that fact. Plus, I can list name after name of foods and produce that easily scores higher in ORAC (MonaVies selling point). Check out the USDA ORAC Table of Selected Foods – 2007

and no, there is no juice or supplement that I recommend instead of MonaVie. Eat your fruits and veggies. You’ll get far mor antioxidants that’ll stay iin your system much longer, and save a ton of money.

FOOD TECH IN CA”

Some guy named Terry wrote: “The science is there fellas just because some guy named Food Tech comes on a Internet blog and states his opinion doesn’t make him right.”

**MonaVie is using ORAC as a selling point. Dr. Schauss practically faints describing the 1,027 umoles/gm. in the processed acai powder.

So now they say not to pay attention to the ORAC value because we’ve demonstrated that apples, plums, cherries, etc…have a far higher antioxidant capacity.

He writes: “This level of validation cannot be expressed in terms of an ORAC value. Additionally, the benefits of phytonutrients cannot be measured by ORAC alone since many of them provide benefits in addition to antioxidant protection.”

**Before claiming any benefit from phytonutrients, they must first demonstrate that the product 1) contains a particular phytonutrient and 2) what levels are documented for that phytonutrient.

The claim that if one is good, then nineteen must be great has no scientific validity whatsoever.

It’s still only 4 ounces of juice, not 19 whole fruits. This equals 2/3 of one USDA fruit serving. No more.

He writes (from MonaVie’s response): “A raw apple does have a small amount of essential fatty acids, but it has significantly less when compared to the acai berry.”

**Document the numbers please. Also, we need to document that MonaVie has any significant amounts of acai in the product at all. Otherwise, it’s an invalid comparison.

We do know that the ORAC of the acai powder started out at 1,027 umoles, but the finished product (MonaVie) ended up with an ORAC of only 22.81 umoles/ml. This, along with the low-level of anthocyanins (0.095 mg/ml) in the product clearly demonstrates an extremely low level of acai, thus, invalidating your acai comparison.

Also, I never said to only eat an apple. An apple can be one of your FIVE to NINE servings of fruits and vegetables, which if the TOTAL milligrams of all phytonutrients consumed were weighed, would certainly be much, much greater than FOUR ounces of juice. You always need to know what, and how much is the total.

He writes: “Your getting nutrients that scientists have yet to even fully discover from these exotic fruits.”

**Pure speculation. I can also say that you’re getting toxins that scientists have yet to fully discover from these exotic fruits.

Do you feel comfortable playing a guessing game with people’s health?

If you want to discuss science, then express scientific values.

If MonaVie no longer wishes to use ORAC as a selling point, then they should do so.

Having said that, please tell us exactly why we should pay $30-$40 for a bottle of fruit punch? Use only scientifically validated data, please.

Toxins from Fruits? Get real Monavie tests all their fruits for all that crap before hand and it has been stated on this site.

Drugs are toxic fruit is not……….Maybe people should be more concerned with certain drugs that they are taking that are costing them a ton then simple fruit.

Go Check out Wellmune the ingredient that’s in M-Mun plenty of science behind that ingredient 7 human Clinical Trials and $250 millions dollars of research…..That ingredient combined with the Superfruit Maqui and Acai and the additional 17 other fruits sounds pretty damn serious to me.

Fact is unless people have a reason to they won’t get their daily fruits another reason to drink Monavie. It’s quick and convenient.

Some people are just lazy they don’t want to go to the grocery store to buy fruit or just avoid it and eat crap. Or they but it and they don’t peel the apples or peel the oranges. Or they do but they eat like 1 or 2 fruits a week. They are doing it every day like they should be and with Monavie you it’s easier to because it’s just a quick couple shots and your on your way.

Monavie is simple 2-4 shots a day whatever your preference is and you can get it every day and it’s delivered right to your door ever month. Top that off they give you the opportunity to drink your juice for free and potentially use it as a income earning opportunity it sounds pretty good to me.

Hey different strokes for different folks but I like the idea you may not it’s all good but you should ease up on your bashing

There are plenty of people who keep buying MV and are paying its price. Do you think these people are nuts? What about people who eat at fast food joints, drink daily lots of coke, eat GMOs – why don’t you calculate a year how much do these people spend on their unhealthy habits. I’d rather spend my money on MV, GMO-free foods, also eat fruits and vegetables, than eat unhealthy like most of people do. There is only about 10% of Americans that eat their 5 servings of fruits and vegetables a day.

[Editor's Note: I think I've made it quite clear that those who are buying MonaVie are nuts. The thing about fast food, and soda is that at least it's priced in line with competitors. McDonalds doesn't charge 15 times the price of Burger King on the false claim that it has a better product. Coke doesn't charge 15 times the price of Pepsi on the false claim that it has a better product. Every test in the world is showing that MonaVie has less nutrition than other fruit and still charges 15 times as much. Since MonaVie is not certified organic, it may contain GMOs. It is just as likely to be a GMO food as any other non-organically-certified food.

Every person here that is against MonaVie is all for eating fruit and vegetables. Remember that 4 ounces of MonaVie, costing a retail price of $7.60 is only 2/3s a serving of fruits (ZERO vegetables). Don't try to make MonaVie isn't a wise addition to a healthy diet. It's like a single pushup. Adding it to a full 2-hour boot-camp workout isn't going to help you much... and if you are doing, it still doesn't amount to much.]

I was not paying much attention to eating healthy until I was introduced to MV. So MV gets all the credits for converting one unbeliever to the MV follower. And there are plenty of people like me everywhere in the world.

[Editor's Note: Or you could just spread the world of being healthy. Why not choose some of the other juices that were shown to be just as healthy? Why not sell people apples and other fruits and vegetables? You have the power to spread a healthy lifestyle without costing families of four $5000 a year. That's a lot of gym memberships, personal trainers, organic food, etc.]

On ORAC issue, it is more important to know the free radical scavenging activity of a food in vivo rather than its potential antioxidant activity in vitro. [Editor's Note: I would agree, but MonaVie corporate has been pushing ORAC for years. They've literally made a living pushing that as the answer. They still use it when they talk about MonaVie's antioxidant capacity. You still see it in Dr. Alex Schauss' "studies." So you either have to say it's valid or it's not valid. If you are telling me that ORAC is not valid, then you are saying that MonaVie has been deceptive with a large amount of their marketing material over the years.]

When you compare apples vs. MV Active you should compare studies done for apples that shows antioxidant activity in vivo.

At least in the study of Schauss you quoted for MV Active’s ORAC values, the scientists tested blood samples at baseline, 1 h, and 2 h following consumption of the MV Active or placebo for antioxidant capacity using several antioxidant assays and the TBARS assay, a measure of lipid peroxidation. A within subject comparison showed an increase in serum antioxidants at 1 h (p < 0.03) and 2 h (p < 0.015), as well as inhibition of lipid peroxidation at 2 h (p < 0.01) post consumption. This was published in a respected peer-reviewed periodical. Find some data on in-vivo anti-oxidant activity of Golden Delicious apples and then you can do the right comparison to MV Active.

[Editor's Note: What tests do you use to show the in vivo activity? Please be very careful if you are to refer to the sham of a study in Journal of Food Chemistry 2008 vol. 56 pages 8326-8333. It's been discussed many times here, and it fails some very basic scientific procedure. Also, it is up to MonaVie to show that it is better than the apple. The apple has been around for around for all of history, MonaVie is the new kid claiming it's better and charging a 1500% price premium (in ORAC comparison). The burden is on MonaVie to run tests showing its product is more effective than a whole wide range of fruit (apples, blueberries, etc.). Each of these studies should include at least 250 subjects. However, I would expect more because the clinical trials that Tom is so upset with the pharmaceutical companies probably do a lot more.]

MV Active also has something that apples do not have: plant-derived glucosamine.

[Editor's Note: Please explain where MonaVie claims their glucosamine is plant-derived. They could easily take the powder of crushed up pills (like http://www.amazon.com/Kirkland-Strength-Glucosamine-Chondroitin-Sulfate-190/dp/B001BBN2QQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=hpc&qid=1276942677&sr=8-1) and add that to the juice. It would be a very cheap way to add glucosamine. I don't see anything on the label claiming it is plant-derived... or even a printed amount of glucosamine per serving. I'd rather stick with measurable sources of glucosamine that costs about 31 cents a day (see link above)... and that's without shopping around. Add that to an apple and it comes in at about a dollar a day - for much more nutrition than $7.60 of retail-priced MonaVie. Next distributors will claim that the Wellmune in MonaVie is different (and better) than the Wellmune you get cheaply elsewhere.]

Tom said: “ In Europe there are no materials showing ORAC value in MV – it is because it can be easily manipulated by MV competitors who add Vitamin C and other antioxidants to inflate their ORAC values. As other companies learned how to manipulate ORAC scores this explains why MV is not pushing this anymore.”

That’s 100% BS. First, we’re not in Europe; we’re in North America, and here (where the product originated, where most of the sales and marketing takes place, and where the kingpins reside), the company has lauded the ORAC score of the freeze-dried acai used in Monavie ever since the product first hit the market in 2005. Second, Schauss’ published study showed that Monavie itself (not the freeze-dried powder it allegedly contains), has a very low ORAC score (22.8 units/mL). Third, ORAC scores are indeed pretty useless, and they can in fact be manipulated by spiking with vitamin C – but there’s no direct evidence that Monavie is spiked with vitamin C to any lesser or greater extent than any other product on the market. In fact, given that Monavie’s daily 4-ounce serving provides exactly 100% of the RDA for vitamin C, it would appear that it is indeed spiked with vitamin C (nature seldom produces such conveniently wound numbers). If Monavie wants to completely negate the discussion of ORAC in reference to their product and say so publically, that would be fine by me; but they haven’t backed away from their misleading ORAC claims yet. If they did, it would also completely negate the argument that Schauss’ acai powder is superior to any other form of acai, since the basis for it alleged superiority was its ORAC score.

Tom said: “In 4 oz. (120 ml) of MV Active there is 1500 mg of glucosamine.”

You can’t even prove that to be true. The label doesn’t say how much glucosamine is in the juice, nor does the product website. Even if it did contain 1500 mg, glucosamine is about as cheap as table salt. It would do nothing to justify Monavie’s asinine pyramid-scheme pricing of $45 per nutrient-bereft bottle.

Tom said: “How can someone argue with you if you call peer-reviewed study in a well-regarded scientific journal a ‘sham’ while you hang all your argument-weights on unscientific commissioned report in Men’s Health Journal.”

Arguing with you is like talking to the wall. Either you have a head injury or you’re purposely trying to waste space and test out a few new lies to see what sticks – something you can you use on the next person you try dupe perhaps.

Our data and information about Monavie comes from so many different reputable sources; you’re bringing nothing to the table. We’ve cited USDA data, Monavie’s own published data, Forbes, Newsweek, Men’s Journal, Andrew Weil, the FDA, the FTC, the BBB, various police blotters (eg, Lou Niles and Phil Driscoll) and court dockets, etc.

What exactly is your problem with the collective picture this all paints? Are you OK with citing scientific sources only? If we do, then we have to believe Schauss’ data showing that the ORAC score was of Monavie was exceedingly low. So are the polyphenol levels. It’s simple math. Can’t argue with those numbers. The big question for a new potential consumer of Monavie is simply whether the product merits the stupidly high sucker price of $45. All data shows that it doesn’t. That’s why you have to lie about the juice curing diseases…dick!

Tom said: “The same ‘sham’ report Food Tech and your other peers quote to show how little ORAC value there is in MV Active, but when I point to the same report for in-vivo activity of MV Active then it becomes a ‘sham’. This is really a hypocracy and convenience on your part. For sure this is not a scientific analysis.”

OK, dishonest-idiot-juice hustler. What framework would you propose for discerning which sources are reliable and which are “shams, aside from your previous tactic of simply rejecting anything that in any way argues against Monavie’s value, while warmly embracing the most inconsequential and tangential fluff that even remotely says anything positive about Monavie.

Schauss’ has a BS mail-order diploma. His study was poorly designed and executed, and it had obvious flaws on many levels (atypical dosing, improper control group, negative and/or weak results, conflict of interest, etc.); he has a financial stake in Monavie, which he has never disclosed in any of his Monavie research (even though such transparency is ethically required); he’s Monavie’s partner-in-crime. Given these facts, how much merit should we give Schauss’ studies? Very little obviously. But the low ORAC score he reported in his study is consistent with other reports, such as the one by Men’s Journal/Chromadex, and with common sense.

If you’re still arguing about Monavie being a potent antioxidant, then you’re just being obtuse, because it’s obvious that it isn’t. Is it really so hard for you to admit the facts? Low ORAC, low antioxidants, low phenolics – low in everything that matters except price!

Tom said: “It is too bad you, Food Tech, and your other food experts are not considered peers for scientists publishing in Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, you could have provided a real critique there and not exhibition your knowledge on self-controled web site where you say what you want and censor statements that people that do not agree with your line of thinking make.”

Who is the “you” you are referring to? It sure as hell better not be me. I’ve published and edited more articles for more journals than everyone at Monavie HQ will collectively in their entire lives. The Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry is a puissant journal that doesn’t even register on the radar. It’s not even in the top 200 of medical journals, and that’s a FACT, based on its ISI Impact Factor score.

But what does your argument even have to do with anything? Even if Schauss’ study were published in the New England Journal, the ORAC score of Monavie was still a piddly 22.8; and he’s still a fake ‘doctor’ and Monavie’s bought-and-paid-for bitch.

And don’t try to discount our information simply because it’s written on a blog. That’s no substitute for a legitimate counterargument. A fact is a fact regardless of where it is written. You bring no facts to the table and you try to misleadingly discount the ones that are already on the table – without ever backing anything up with tangible evidence. Quit blowing smoke already. You’re pathetic!

Tom said: “As far as pricing is concerned – if I am right, MV was way before other competitors jumped on acai band wagon with the exception of Sambazon. It was MV’s competitors choice to use inferior processing methods, filter all the nutrients and price it accordingly. As far as I know MV is still the only company in the world that has US patent issued for its processing of acai of any company in the world. Of course, you cay that patents mean nothing but…”

I don’t recognize any logic behind your chronological summary – was there a point? Is first to market always better? If so then Sambazon immediately wins because it beat Monavie to market by years. But that’s irrelevant; what is relevant is that all other acai beverage manufacturers sell their products at a fraction of Monavie’s price, regardless of whether they reached the market before or after Monavie. For that matter, the same holds true for every other antioxidant-rich fruit juice, including grape, pomegranate, prune, cherry, etc.

You don’t even have a grain of evidence to even hint at the possibility that Monavie uses better quality acai than ANY of its competitors (not that Monavie really has ‘competitors’, since they choose to avoid competing in the retail space where it would be laughed off the store shelves). In fact, we saw the waybills shipping waybills proving that Monavie imported massive shipments of low-grade non-organic acai puree from conventional non-exclusive bulk suppliers in Brazil. Sambazon and several other acai beverage makers use organic acai, and in at least one case we looked at, it was higher grade than the crap Monavie uses. So if anything, the available regarding acai quality evidence tips in favor of Monavie’s competitors.

Tom said: “On GMOs,…”

WTF do GMOs have to do with a discussion of Monavie. Do you have some tangible evidence that compares GMO ingredients in Monavie with other products? Of course not! You NEVER bring any tangible evidence along with any of your pinhead arguments. Make a cogent, logical point or give it up already.

Tom – are you able to bring to the table some evidence to dispute the fact that Monavie has less than half the nutritional content of that contained within an ordinary apple?

If not, anyone would’ve thought that’d be the end of the discussion.

I fail to see the relevance of asking for Vogel’s articles on the topic – particularly given it’s Monavie who are asking consumers to pay an extraordinary amount of money for nothing more than juice fruit which happens to be lacking in the nutritional content one would expect when paying such a high price…

This website is for some kind of gee-I-wish-I-was-a-scientist types? I told you I had economic background and you jumped all over it.
I am a marketing and sales type of the person – and I do not like when idiots are messing with my business.

What about this idiotic Aussie – what kind of background does this prick have? He does not understand that he proved nothing regarding nutritional value of an apple – still you gave no evidence of in cell anti-oxidant activity of an apple.

I will stick to mine if you leave my business alone – I am selling and sharing MV – and you are pissing me and hundreds of people like myself off with your irresponsible words – you are not a real scientist – you are a scientist-wannabe and someone who worked all your life for someone else – food and juice companies – and not even in a expert role for them – and you know that you made wrong choices and you don’t have much time to make sure you will be financially independent. So as a disappointed guy who screwed up his life and really achieved nothing significant – you enjoy your probably most important function you ever had in your career – a questionable expert for juice-scam guys. Wow! What a life – full of achievements! Why don’t you do something useful and stop spreading all your stupidy – you will find no info on apples coming even close to in cell activity of MV and its anti-oxidant activity. So shut up and stop sharing your BS – come up with the real science – I worked as a marketing director for a pharma company and ate guys like you for breakfast.

Penny M. Kris-Etherton PhD RD – Distinguished Professor Penn State – 248th minute – on MV Pulse

Hmmm. Sounds like old Tom is getting a bit frustrated.

I really have little concern about your business, Tom, and I am not interested in your opinion of me.

For all of your crowing, you haven’t answered the question posed to you:

Why should we buy your product? ONE apple has the antioxidant capacity of over two days worth of MonaVie. MonaVie is equal to only 2/3rds of a USDA fruit serving. MonaVie contains two chemical preservatives.

So, all of your yipping and yapping about acai, means nothing if you can’t prove MonaVie contains any significant amounts of the ingredient.

It sounds like you’re about to cry, so I’d suggest you try to peddle your fruit juice on a site more receptive to false advertising.

Why people should drink MonaVie – because it cotains AcaVie – patented version of acai that only MonaVie has. It delivers 10 times more polyphenols than regular acai. Because it has 3 new superfruits: jaboticaba, jucara (brother of acai)and maqui.

MV does not stay in one place like you morons – it is continuously improving its products. So your “state-of-the-art scientific” study in Men’s Journal is no longer valid.

[Editor's Note: That validates our opinions about MonaVie's previous product and negates any other research out there. MonaVie goes back to square 1 and now has to convince people that it's worth $45 with no research... That's an impossible sell when there's $4 juice out there that is just as proven.]

Dr. Paul Clayton, PhD – Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine – 287th minute on MV (M)mun through 311th minute – the latest addition to MV Scientific advisory board [Editor's Note: A confirmed liar and scammer. See: MonaVie M(Mun), Dr . Paul Clayton , and Wellmune. He is not an M.D., just a Ph.D. in pharmacy, no different than my wife or some of the people working at your corner drug store.]

[Editor's Note: I'm editing the inflammatory language from Tom that doesn't add to the discussion.]

Food Tech –

IGo back and listen again – Dr Talcott talked also about Flavonoids beside Phenolic acids, and Carotenoids – you know how to count phenolics, carotenoids but you have no idea how to measure Flavonoids – you know why – because wherever you worked you never had such a great product – you worked with inferior products all your life – and for some people in medical profession and I guess in yours too you would see changes funeral after funeral – some people have to die off for changes and new ideas to emerge.

How many times I have to teach such an expert as yourself – that studies you refer to, including your famous Men’s Journal study underestimate the nutritional power of the flavonoids, specifically acai – because the current methods do not measure correctly in cell anti-oxidant activity of acai – you keep ignoring with your stubborn apple mentality that to measure nutritional power of the fruit you need to look at its in cell anti-oxidant activity.

Is this your tactic to trash the credentials of the real scientists to talk on the same level? They are still real scientists with trashed credentials.

Well, in debate, you know when your opposition is beaten. He’ll start slinging insults instead of presenting facts.

In regards to flavonoids: A flavonoid is one of the polyphenols (total phenolics), so a low amount of polyphenols, such as found in MonaVie, automatically equates to low flavonoids.

Again, Tom, you’re way out of your league here. Your understanding of food composition is very low-level.

My brother has an MBA, and I’ve never heard him act in such a childish way as you. Therefore, I seriously doubt that you even have a college degree, let alone a MBA. A college-educated indiviual would have far better research skills than what you’ve demonstrated thus far.

Please, stop referring to MonaVie as if it were acai. One is not the other.

This stuff is not complex at all. It doesn’t take a scientist to compare one number against another. If you’d like to look at a real study from real scientists, that tested various store-shelf fruit juices, I suggest you find the one by UCLA, In the Journal of Food and Agricultural Chemistry, Vol. 56, 2008.

You’ll find several inexpensive fruit juices with a far higher antioxidant bioavailability than MonaVie.

Stop being so sneaky, and simply print out the AIBMR study from Dr. Schauss, and take it to any registered dietician. Have them compare it to fruits and vegetables from the USDA ORAC Table. Or call the UC Davis Food Science Extension service, Or Cornell University’s food extension service, or the University of Georgia’s food extension service.

The resources are there. Use them and stop whining.

Vogel has presented more relevant, accurate research on this website than everyone else combined.

While I would agree background and education are important when presenting an opinion, they are not so important when reporting factual numbers. A person with absolutely no education putting forth that 2+2=4 is still correct regardless of training and an individual with a math phd from MIT declaring 2+2=5 is still incorrect.

The facts are the juice is inferior to an apple and my well supported opinion is Mona vie is just another product based pyramid scheme. Any prospective or new distributors please research product based pyramid schemes before you harm others. All the answers are there. The juice is irrelevant.

MonaVie scam – I drink MV because I love the taste and what the juice does for me. I do not care how you explain these effects. With all the provisions I received I never paid more than $5 per bottle – so stop this crap about paying $45 dollars because nobody pays this amount. If someone wants to pay $37 or $32 it is his or her choice.

I am grateful that MV is sold through network marketing scheme. With this kind of distribution I am able to save some money off its nominal price and I am able to buy this juice which I believe is the best food product I have ever purchased for me and my family.

And with the amount I pad for it – I call it a great buy too.

Not everybody is able to share this juice with others, but it should not be the reason that someone calls it a scam just because not everybody is capable of getting involved in MLM opportunity like this in a proper way.

From the business perspective – it is not easy but it is definitely possible to do. So have some respect for people who got involved in MV because knowing what I know already about MLMs people who do have results in this business are one of the most amazing people I have ever met.

Most of the people do not make money in MLMs – it is true – but a lot of them are happy to buy products that have value for them and pay reasonable price for them – nominal or lower considering the commissions they receive.

With all the respect – nothing that you said in the last two months adds to discussion on the topics raised here too. You just repeat the same old story – I wonder if you have these ready-made replies that you use – you probably just change adjectives and epithets you use to offend people.

MonaVie Scam is doing the same – bringing older topics to front so that he can clean up the posts – the ones you guys screwed up and did not appear so overwhelmingly convincing – before bringing them back to front in near future.

I have a message for you Vogel – retail price for you is $300 per bottle – this way I can say someone else who is buying from me for $30 that he saves 90% off the retail price. Anybody would be happy to know this. Retail price of $45 you refer to is just that – a reference point – this does not mean that MV does not sell products to its customers – it only means you have no marketing and sales knowledge you should have writing about the topics you chose to write about.

Most people do not make money in MV because they chose not to. They are busy with their lives and are just happy to purchase MV products. For people who want to get involved it is pretty straightforward business if they follow the system that explains in easy steps how to get started in this opportunity.

Posts are on an automatic random rotation. The point is prevent old posts from going stale. I don’t bring any older ones or clean up anything.

Most people do not make money in MonaVie because they can’t. If they want to purchase MonaVie products, they can simply do it very cheaply on Ebay or Craigslist. As of this moment MonaVie is available on Craigslist (near me in Silicon Valley) for $15 from multiple sources (http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/hab/1813969389.html and http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/hab/1813969389.html and http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/for/1812861912.html). Of course listings on Craigslist expire quickly, so if you are reading this comment too long after I post, those links won’t mean anything.

There is no need to be a “wholesale customer” or anything like that. Tom’s logic doesn’t hold.