MonaVie Adding “Fake” Fiber (Fibersol-2 / Maltodextrin)

72
Comments

For a long time, proponents of this website have made complaints that MonaVie contains very little fiber. They seem right to complain as most any dietitian will claim that fiber is one of the major benefits of eating fruit. With many MonaVie distributors erroneously stating that MonaVie is equal to 13 fruits, it seems like the fiber was a major issue.

“Was” is the keyword there.

MonaVie, in what seems like an admission of guilt, has decided to fortify the juice with Fibersol-2. Their claim: “With Fibersol-2, you can drink to your health with the confidence that the MonaVie juice you love is fortified with soluble fibers.”

Problem solved, right?

Well it doesn’t seem to be true. What is Fibersol-2? The company that makes Fibersol says, “Fibersol-2 digestion resistant maltodextrin is a spray-dried powder produced by a proprietary method of controlled enzymatic hydrolysis of cornstarch.” Cornstarch? A product used as a thickening agent doesn’t seem to be like drinking fruit.

More concerning though is the Maltodextrin. Looking at the Wikipedia page, you find the following information, “It is commonly used for the production of natural sodas and candy.” That’s not necessarily bad, but it hardly a good thing. Later on in the article there is, “While wheat-derived maltodextrin may cause concern for celiacs that it may contain gluten, maltodextrin is such a highly processed ingredient that the protein is removed, rendering it gluten free.” I highlighted the point that it’s highly-processed and hence has the protein removed.

I’m sure a lot of MonaVie distributors are thinking that this is a lot of opinion and surely the people who make Fibersol-2 have far more qualified food scientists than some anonymous guy on the Internet like myself. I’ve heard that before. So I’m going to thwart that defense from the get-go:

It seems that I’m not the only one concerned about these fiber additives, Jacob Gershman for The Slate says Don’t be fooled by polydextrose and other fiber additives. In that article we have the following quote:

“Companies are putting fiber into foods like cookies and ice cream and making people think these are healthy foods, when in fact they should be eating fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. It’s dressing up junk food as health food,” says Bonnie Liebman, director of nutrition at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C. “We have no idea if polydextrose has the same benefits as bran. It’s deceptive.”

I’m not saying that MonaVie is a junk food, but that misses the point. Here is a very, very reputable person specifically saying that companies like MonaVie are adding this to deceive people despite the fact we don’t know the benefits of these additives.

The rest of the Slate article makes a very important point with MonaVie in mind:

Ironically, the rise of these faux-fibers is driven by the greater attention that consumers are paying to nutrition labels. The food companies, in other words, are teaching to the test. Whether it’s reducing fat and calories or adding fiber and vitamins, the industry is getting ever more clever at manipulating ingredients of snacks and other treats so that the stats mimic the nutritional data of fruits and vegetables.

Adding fiber and vitamins? Isn’t that exactly what MonaVie says it is doing here?

But what does Bonnie Liebman (again the very, very reputable Bonnie Liebman) have to say about maltodextrin? She uses polydextrose as the example in the quote. Well fortunately you can read her article here. To save you some time, I’m going to quote page 5 where she gives the bottom line about fiber additives:

  • Isolated inulin, polydextrose, and maltodextrin are soluble fibers but they’re not gummy, so they probably don’t lower blood cholesterol or blood sugar.
  • Isolated oat fiber and soy fiber are insoluble, so they may help keep you regular. Polydextrose may also help, but inulin and maltodextrin don’t seem to.

So Fibersol-2 / Maltodextrin may help the nutritional label look good, but it doesn’t look like it will blood cholesterol, blood sugar, or help keep you regular.

The question is whether MonaVie will address this issue? Or will they do what they’ve always done in the past and pretend it doesn’t exist?

Originally posted 2010-08-15 11:40:01. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The above article is intended to be accurate at the time of its original posting. MonaVie may change its pricing, product, or other policies at any time without notice.

This post involves:

, ,

... and focuses on:

MonaVie Nutrition

Posted by MonaVie Scam on November 28, 2017 in MonaVie Nutrition. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

72 Responses to “MonaVie Adding “Fake” Fiber (Fibersol-2 / Maltodextrin)”
  1. Robert Says:

    http://www.everydayhealth.com/digestive-health/getting-fiber-without-excessive-gas.aspx

    The average adult eats 11g of fiber per day, so a MonaVie serving would be 20% of the average adult’s intake of fiber.

    An increase of more than one or two servings per day leads to gas and bloating in most people. Honestly, learn your science before you keep making a fool of yourself.

  2. Robert Says:

    Or going off your source (the statistic you ignored in your own source while making your own statistic which was double this [31.5g])

    Most Americans greatly underconsume dietary fiber, and usual intake averages only 15 g per day.

  3. MonaVie Scam Says:

    You realize that when someone buys a product on Ebay from someone else who doesn’t want it to someone who does want it, it prevents a new sale of that product? It’s about preventing MonaVie from making two sales, one to the distributor who has put his unwanted product on Ebay and another to the visitor of this website who might buy from another source.

    I think it’s more important to look at how much fiber the government guidelines suggest we have than what the average person actually does consume. If we are having a discussion on fiber supplementation we should look towards accomplishing the goal of what we should have, not what we currently have.

    I know that fiber intake should be gradually increased. Why do suggest that I didn’t know this when this has not come up at all. It has no place in the MonaVie-fiber discussion because people can gradually increase their fiber with any number of fiber sources. MonaVie is not unique in providing a path for someone to gradually increase their fiber intake. Robert, you sound foolish for implying that this is relevant.

    In fact, MonaVie becomes a very cost prohibitive way for someone to meet the goal recommendations of fiber. Four grams of fiber from 4 ounces from MonaVie (2 servings a day as recommended) costs $7.20. If the average person is lacking some 15-20g of fiber (going from around 11-15g to around 30g) they will have to spend about $21.60 on MonaVie.

    Alternatively, 15g of fiber from FiberOne will likely cost you under 40 cents.

    It’s up to the consumer to measure and mete out the appropriate amount of product to avoid gas and bloating.

  4. Robert Says:

    [ You realize that when someone buys a product on Ebay from someone else who doesn’t want it to someone who does want it, it prevents a new sale of that product? It’s about preventing MonaVie from making two sales, one to the distributor who has put his unwanted product on Ebay and another to the visitor of this website who might buy from another source. ]

    This is funny.

    Buying on EBay prevents 2 sales!!?

    That’s like saying Heinz doesn’t make money when you buy ketchup at the grocery store. THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE!!! Heinz makes money even if the ketchup is stolen off the shelf because it’s already been paid for by the store!!! The same is true here, no matter where you find MonaVie, the company has already been paid for it.

    If you don’t understand this concept, you’ve proven to everyone that you have no logic.

  5. Robert Says:

    You do realize that distributors buy inventory right?

  6. MonaVie Scam Says:

    No, buying on Ebay prevents one sale.

    If someone has an expiring bottle of Heinz ketchup that they already paid for and don’t want it is best to sell it to someone else who use it. The person who buys it from the seller who doesn’t want makes use the of the product that Heinz already made money off rather than buying a bottle from Heinz.

    I can’t believe I have to explain such an easy concept. Imagine two bottles of MonaVie… we’ll call them bottle 1 and 2. Bottle 1 goes to a distributor. For any number of possible reasons the distributor finds that they don’t want bottle 1 any more. They put it on Ebay and someone who wants it buys it. MonaVie doesn’t sell bottle 2 – it sits in the factory.

    Now imagine Ebay or reselling in general doesn’t exist. In that scenario, bottle 1 stays in the distributors possession until it expires – the distributor takes a loss. The person who wants to buy the product calls up MonaVie (they take phone orders now) and orders bottle 2. MonaVie makes two sales.

    Clearly MonaVie would prefer the 2nd scenario where Ebay doesn’t exist. That’s probably why MonaVie bans distributors from putting the product on Ebay.

    Glad to see you’ve given up making a fool of yourself with the fiber discussions.

  7. Robert Says:

    Well I figured you out by reading your other blog. This site isn’t about the juice. It’s about a source of income to you. You get money based on traffic to the site and you will bait people incessantly knowing you are wrong because each time they come back to your site, you get traffic and ad money.

    You’re smarter than I thought, you know how to get at people and pick fights without ever reaching an end. It happens on each post you make. When someone finally posts definitive information about a topic, you just switch pick something else to fight about to keep them coming back.

    I just found out you use fiber supplements on a regular basis from your other blog so that entire conversation about their validity was just you blowing steam to generate traffic. Why don’t you tell Vogel and Amanda that you take Metamucil Clear? Metamucil clear is SOLUBLE INULIN FIBER!!!!!! The same exact style of fiber you’re saying is fake and doesn’t provide health benefits. The same exact type of fiber mentioned as fake in Liebmann’s article!!!

    I will literally never be back.

  8. MonaVie Scam Says:

    Robert, the income I make from this site barely buys pizza. It is less than 0.1% of my income.

    Your argument is like suggesting that CNN.com makes up its news because it has advertising on its website.

    I have no problems with people taking fiber or vitamin supplements. People know what they are getting. MonaVie’s marketing makes a huge difference. The addition of fiber makes the juice seem even more like a replacement for eating fruits and vegetables… which is how it is being marketed. Put MonaVie on a store shelf and I have no problems with it.

    You are dumber than I thought having been proven wrong again and again. Thank you for not coming back, everyone is better off.

  9. Mackwiz Says:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Leaving_and_Never_Coming_Back

    I love it when they start trying to find “the truth” of why this site exists.

  10. Grover Lembeck Says:

    Noooooo!
    Don’t go, Robert! With only a few more repetitions, your arguments might have become valid!

    I am sure that if you say it enough, monavie will become as healthy as eating a single apple. Or almost as healthy, at least. Maybe as healthy as a small apple. And cookies with this fiber, those will be all healthy n’ stuff, also. Hey, I have an idea- high fiber beer! People could knock back a six pack, and it will be the equivalent of a whole bushel of fruit!

    Then all the labels on the snack foods and lager will say “this cookie is the equivalent to one of your recommended daily servings of fruits and vegetables.” I wouldn’t want to be an orchard owner in 2012, what with this magic fiber turning everything into a fruit.

  11. Sifter Says:

    MonavieScam, I commend you on your convictions. I wish more people were diligent in keeping themselves informed. After reading through pages and pages of responses on your website, the one item that I would like to point out is ALL RESEARCH IS BIASED. EVERYONE HAS AN AGENDA(my personal rule #1)! For example, The pharmaceuticals fund the studies that are conducted on their own drugs. Hence they can manipulate their results to accommodate their needs to get FDA approval. An Independent Lab has an Agenda. It costs money to conduct tests and the results can be slanted based on who is paying for the tests and what they are hoping to find. Then you get into my whole theory that people are “whores” when it comes to money. Everyone has a price, at what price do the lab technicians sell themselves out for favorable results. So when I read all of you throwing out sources of MDs, PHDs, and Corporate Studies. I laugh as the result of my Rule #1, Everyone has an Agenda.

    Another example… Below is your quote:
    “Your argument is like suggesting that CNN.com makes up its news because it has advertising on its website.”

    Yes, CNN has an Agenda. They all do!

  12. MonaVie Scam Says:

    Sifter,

    I think your agenda thing is a little off-base. An independent lab by definition does not have an agenda to slant the results… hence the word independent. The agenda of the independent lab is to perform a service and get paid for said service. The agenda of CNN is report the news and get paid for reporting the news. Neither organization has to slant results or make up fake news (there’s more than enough news for CNN to report on) to meet its agenda of earning and honest wage.

    Pharmaceuticals may fund some studies, but they are carried out independently and approved by a reputable third-party the FDA before they are released. A lot of people laugh at the process, but if it were so easy to just push anything through the FDA and sell it for billions, then be my guest. Go ahead and do it and make your billions.

    To clarify my agenda, I aim to help inform people about MonaVie. It is MonaVie’s agenda to sell as much product as possible even through dishonest means. I just want to make sure that those dishonest cases are publicly known so that people can make an informed decision about MonaVie. In the case of MonaVie, they’ve shown it is a grossly overpriced product, with little nutritional value, wrapped in a poor business opportunity that is may be an illegal pyramid scheme, which is itself wrapped in illegal medical claims, supported by nonsensical “scientific” studies, and tied to a fraudulent charity.

  13. Sifter Says:

    Monavie Scam,

    Thanks for the response, I appreciate your view. However, I think you put too much faith in the human race. Honesty and Integrity in individuals is more rare than precious metals in today’s society. Common Sense and Common Courtesy is not so common anymore. Everyone has a price, the question is, at what price are you willing to sell out for? I apologize that I am a little off the subject from the main topic of your website but my whole point is for both sides to be very cautious when citing sources pro or con Monavie and their juice. I do reiterate that the news agencies have an agenda. Sadly, doom and gloom sells. It is far more profitable to report these stories than the heart felt stories. Very rarely will these news agencies report negatively about a major advertiser due to a potential source of revenue.
    Pharmaceuticals fund all of their studies. If they don’t please tell me who does? Not the gov’t. The pharmaceuticals may get independent testing done on the product, but again, its paid for by the pharmaceutical company. The independent lab will skew their results to please the pharmaceutical, even if it is slightly. Remember, this is big money business, who wants to lose a major client and source of revenue? Please don’t get me started about the FDA, reputable they are not. I will save this argument for another website. Like you, I like to open peoples’ minds and then let them make their own decisions. That is why, though I disagree with you, I can appreciate your efforts with this site.

    I don’t want to get into a full blown out debate with you in regards to Monavie and their products. I agree with you, the product is expensive. We all make decisions everyday as to what products we purchase and the decision to get involved with Monavie is no different. As far as little nutritional value, what does have nutritional value today? It has been shown that even fresh fruit and vegetables today have less nutritional value than they did 20 years ago due to soil depletion. Seldom do farmers rotate fields and allow the nutrients to be replace naturally. Bioengineering, is another topic and is a huge business, just ask Monsanto. So for me with most products, its not just about the nutritional value in the product but it is also about what “crap” is not in it. Poor business opportunity? What is a good business opportunity? There is no guarantee with any business opportunity, that is why it is called “opportunity,” not guarantee. Like all careers and endeavors you have to put forth the effort to reap rewards. If you don’t perform at any job, what happens? You either lose your job or stay at the bottom. The problem is with today’s society is that we all feel we are entitled, we should get paid the most amount of money, doing the least amount of work. This mentality is destroying our country. I can go on and on. I am firm believer that if Monavie was an illegal pyramid scheme, the SEC and FTC would have shut it down by now, though I think you have argued that it takes time to build a case (thought I read this in a previous post). All businesses and organizations are pyramid in shape. As far is illegal medical claims, this is where most businesses in the health industry get into trouble due to the FDA mandating that only a doctor or pharmaceutical drug can cure a disease. Problem is, most distributors of Mona Vie don’t realize this and disseminate false information. They hear testimonials of people reporting that it cured their illness or disease and draw the conclusion that it does. They don’t realize my previous statement above. This is why, you will never see claims of disease curing on any Homeopathic products, even though it might have cured a disease in a person. I know nothing about the Charity and will not make any claims for or against it. Despite your arguments against, I have read and heard many wonderful testimonies about people and the product. Placebo effect? Who knows… that is a question for the subconscious mind (which is extremely powerful). An expensive Placebo, sure, but for those that believed, I am sure the cost is justified. I have seen on another part of your website, someone stating that an apple has more nutritional value. Maybe so, but unfortunately, the person eating it may not place say the same positive emotional “thoughts” into as they do in their “magical elixir,” Monavie. Again, the power of the subconscious mind. For many, it sure sounds better than subjecting their body to the chemicals encapsulated in a pill. I laugh at the pharma commercials as the condition you have is often better than the side effects from the pills they are peddeling.

    Again, thanks for the platform available for all to either agree or disagree.

  14. MonaVie Scam Says:

    The topic of honesty and integrity really did get off the point. You ask what price people are willing to sell out for. I believe that everyone has a price for almost anything.

    The sources that I cite that are pro or con MonaVie are factual in nature. Math, for example, has no agenda. If you think that there’s a source mentioned on this site that has an agenda, please point out what the agenda is, but also be prepared to have proof of that agenda. If you don’t, then move on from saying that everything and everyone has an agenda, because that leads into no one being able to believe or trust anything, anywhere.

    The only agenda that we can 100% agree on is that MonaVie and its distributors have an agenda to justify a $40 juice and business where it is proven that well over 99% of people lose money.

    The FDA is reputable. If you don’t believe that, please start up your own website and make your case with a bunch of articles like this proving that every part of it is corrupt like this site does with MonaVie. In any organization large enough there’s going to be a couple of outlier cases and mistakes, but it is a stretch to claim that the FDA is not reputable. It’s not like there’s a huge scam where insiders are trying to mislead consumers so that they can line their pockets with money.

    If you don’t want to get in a debate about MonaVie and their products, this is really the wrong site for you to visit.

    There’s expensive and there’s pricing a product at 20x its competitors in stores. That’s like saying that a $140,000 Honda Civic is expensive. Expensive is an understatement to such a degree that it isn’t even an appropriate word.

    Lots of things have nutritional value today. The story about fruit and vegetables having less nutrition today than they did 20 years ago has been debunked on this site in the past. However, even if you did believe that fruit and vegetables have less nutrition, it would only serve to prove that MonaVie has little nutrition as it is made with the juices of the fruit. It’s not like MonaVie has a time machine where it can go back 20 years and get vegetables from there. Plus, Brazil is one of the top countries at using pesticides, so it’s even worse to get fruit from there.

    If you are concerned about Monsanto and all that, just buy organic. MonaVie isn’t organic, so you are likely to be getting bioengineering with that. If you are okay then fine, but the way to avoid it is to go organic and avoid MonaVie.

    What is a good business opportunity? Well when being a dishwasher at McDonalds pays better than being in MonaVie that’s a good start. I wouldn’t call being a dishwasher a business, but you get the idea that almost anything is more profitable. Let’s review the MonaVie business “opportunity.” Around 99.54% of distributors lose money. They have no control in the business. To quote a book I recently reviewed in MLM distributors never “dictate product decisions, research and marketing, marketing restrictions, rules, cost analysis, or any other activity fundamental to owning a business.” Not only do distributor have no control of their business, but they have no way to differentiate their business from its competitors, other distributors. They are stuck selling a product at $40 that is already overpriced and have no flexibility to charge a competitive rate. What could possibly be a worse business opportunity?!?!

    I don’t know why you go into the whole thing about having to put forth effort to be successful. No one has argued against that. It sounds like you are trying to make a true statement to sound smart, but the statement is relevant. With the MonaVie compensation plan, it has been conclusively proven that It’s Not a Matter of Effort, it’s a Mathematical Certainty that distributors lose money.

    As for the SEC and FTC shutting down MonaVie, read, Then Why Hasn’t [My MLM] Been Shut Down by the Authorities? You’ll also want to the read report here. For good measure, here’s a NY Times article about how political it has become.

    Please don’t give us the crap about “all business and organizations are pyramid in shape. Pyramid schemes have to do with their recruiting nature: http://business.ftc.gov/documents/inv08-bottom-line-about-multi-level-marketing-plans. The fact that you didn’t know this or tried to mislead people with that pyramid shape stuff shows either ignorance or dishonesty on your part.

    Sifter said,

    “As far is illegal medical claims, this is where most businesses in the health industry get into trouble due to the FDA mandating that only a doctor or pharmaceutical drug can cure a disease. Problem is, most distributors of Mona Vie don’t realize this and disseminate false information. They hear testimonials of people reporting that it cured their illness or disease and draw the conclusion that it does. They don’t realize my previous statement above.”

    This is true and this is what leads Dallin Larsen to say that he can’t control distributors and it is like herding cats in Newsweek. The problem is with the distributors/distribution. The answer to the problem is extremely simple – distribute the product traditionally and cut off all the illegal claims. You don’t see Ocean Spray having these problems. These problems appear in every health-based MLM that I’ve looked at, and I’ve seen dozens. Let’s work together and get this solution implemented so that consumers aren’t given false information and distributors aren’t knowingly or unknowingly acting illegally.

    Of course you are going to hear wonderful testimonies about the product, that’s how people make the money. That’s their agenda ;-). You look up every health-based MLM and you’ll see glowing testimonies about every one and how they each cured this or that or helped me with my pain. Just a couple of minutes a distributor’s husband left a comment about how protandim helped with his arthritis. This was a product that had zero testimonies when it was sold in GNC, but now has thousands and thousands since it is sold by MLM. It is the same product.

    As for the placebo and its value, the placebo effect could mask a serious condition and prevent someone from getting real treatment. This makes it very dangerous.

    Finally, don’t try to justify the selling of snake oil to people as if it is a legitimate business.

  15. Mackwiz Says:

    Sifter,

    “Big Pharma being crap does not mean magic beans cure cancer” (Ben Goldacre). Think about it. FDA, Pharma, nothing is perfect. I agree there are problems with them; however, this does not make homeopathy or health nostrums such as Monavie viable.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Big_pharma

    In the 1800’s homeopathy was more effective than traditional medicine. This was not because homeopathy was a true medical science, it was because giving people a placebo effect was better than blood letting or dismemberment. In other words, “1800’s mainstream medical science being crap does not mean homeopathy really works”.

    Prescription medicine saves more lives than it destroys. There is this idea that they cause people to be sicker, but think about the amount of people alive today compared to people alive before modern medical chemistry and vaccination was available. If we roll back the clock and get rid of pharma and other medical advances, imagine what would happen. Would everyone get healthier all of sudden? Think.

    To quote XKCD, “Science. It works, ******”.

  16. Jim Says:

    Sifter said “The pharmaceuticals may get independent testing done on the product, but again, its paid for by the pharmaceutical company. The independent lab will skew their results to please the pharmaceutical, even if it is slightly.” Are you insinuating that the results of double blind tests are gathered by the independent labs and then altered to appease the pharma company? I don’t know if it ever has happened, but do you honestly believe this is common? If there were a conspiracy don’t you think they might work on reducing the amount of time and money it takes to receive approval. Do you have any proof that these labs skew their results?

    Between the accusation above, to the FDA is not reputable, to honesty and integrity are rare, to every person has a price, to soil depletion, to bioengineering fears it sure seems like there are plenty of fears and conspiracy theories that run rampant within MLMs. For an industry that is suppossed to promote “the power of positive” there appears to be an extrodinary amount of irrational fear and loathing.

    Sifter said “Poor business opportunity? What is a good business opportunity? There is no guarantee with any business opportunity, that is why it is called “opportunity,” not guarantee.” I beg to differ. There is absolutely a guarantee with Mona vie and the other self consumption, endless recruiting, product based pyramid MLM companies like it. The guarantee is that 97% of all participants must lose money in Mona vie, regardless of which program they are plugged into or how hard they work. This is very clearly a bad opportunity. Please read the links provided above by MV Scam.

    Sifter said “All businesses and organizations are pyramid in shape.” Ahhh, the old “everything is a pyramid” defense. As MV Scam pointed out, even the lowest employee makes more than 97% of Mona vie reps. But the important differentiation is that the honest McDonalds employee is not required to buy a certain amount of Big Macs in order to get paid. Requiring purchase of the product in order to be paid is unheard of outside MLM and should be a bright warning sign that you are part of a product based pyramid scheme. It’s a pyramid because the money is flowing up from the bottom to the top via the forced autoship requirement. In legitimate business money is flowing down from the top to all employees and everyone is paid based upon the agreement they made when they accepted the job. Simply because lower qualified individuals are paid less than more qualified ones does not mean it is a pyramid scheme.

    Sifter, you are involved in a horrible horrible product based pyramid scheme that will drain the pockets of virtually everyone you introduce to this scam. You started your article talking about integrity, honesty and common sense. If you are a man (or woman) who aspires to utilize these qualities then use some common sense, research the links JS provided you, be honest with yourself as you evaluate the evidence and have the integrity to stop your participation, letting everyone in your upline and downline know what you have learned. What is your price to decieve your friends and family? What is your price to be part of a company that spreads false medical claims that may cause someone to stop needed meds and cause harm? Even on the almost non-existant chance that you did make it to super grand dragon black diamond, is it worth it to inflict so much damage (both financial and social) to so many? Most likely the price you will be paid to bring in your friends and family, lie and decieve them will be both a reduced wallet and self respect.

  17. Vogel Says:

    MVS, Jim, and Mackwiz already did a great job of critiquing Sifter’s claims; however, there one of Sifter’s fallacious claims warrants further comment.

    Sifter said: “Pharmaceuticals fund all of their studies. If they don’t please tell me who does? Not the gov’t. The pharmaceuticals may get independent testing done on the product, but again, its paid for by the pharmaceutical company. The independent lab will skew their results to please the pharmaceutical, even if it is slightly. Remember, this is big money business, who wants to lose a major client and source of revenue?”

    Painful! Sifter begins by making the blanket claim “Pharmaceuticals fund all of their studies” and then in the next sentence he equivocates by saying “If they don’t please tell me who does?”. The fact is that Pharma companies fund some of the trials, particularly in the earlier stages of development, and other trials are independently funded, particularly in the post-marketing phase of a drug product’s life cycle. It is exceedingly rare for to Pharma companies to hire contract research organizations to conduct trials. The trials are usually conducted in house or they are conducted in collaboration with reputable clinicans and academic researchers.

    Among clinicians and researchers, data generated by Pharma companies is often viewed with some degree of skepticism until it has been confirmed by independent investigators. You would be hard pressed to find a drug on the market that does not have at least some independent research behind it.

    In addition, it is not uncommon for research on a drug to be funded by a competitor of the drug’s manufacturer. This has the effect of keeping the Pharma companies honest, because if they were to release fraudulent data, it would be exposed as such by independent researchers and competitors, and the net effect for the company that released fraudulent data would be disastrous (ie, they would lose credibility).

    There are exceptions of course; sometimes bad data goes undetected, but this occurs in only a minute number of cases.

    I’m continually amazed that people who are woefully ignorant of subjects like pharmaceutical R&D nonetheless pontificate as though they are experts. Have they never heard of words like “humility” and “caution”?

  18. Mackwiz Says:

    To me people who use the pharma conspiracy argument is like saying that because cars crash a lot the true objective of auto manufacturers is to keep you crashing so you have to buy more cars.

    It’s like common sense goes out the window and they expect far more from pharma than what it can actually provide.

    “Don’t you get it? Architects build houses out of wood that CATCH ON FIRE so you have to buy a new house! That’s why living in a cave is a much better option!”

  19. MonaVie Scam Says:

    Nice thought. I’ve also written about how it is a poor comparison. Even if you think that the FDA is the most evil entity in the world, that doesn’t impact your natural product. I wrote something like cars do get in accidents, but a vast majority of the time they are helpful in transporting people. Couches don’t get in accidents, but they are completely useless as a mode of transportation.

    http://www.healthmlmscam.com/health-mlm-mind-game-the-fda-approves-drugs-with-side-effects-that-kill-people/

  20. nobody Says:

    After reading this article & the comments that follow, it seems you’ve confused Maltodextrin in general with “resistant maltodextrin” (fibersol2)

    Maltodextrin is unrelated to fiber, it’s quickly broken down into glucose, labeled & digested as a carbohydrate and provides calories. It’s quite a common food ingredient, often used in powdered products as it dissolves easily. It’s the typical ‘filler’ used alongside low-cal sweeteners in products like Splenda.

    “resistant maltodextrin” (Fibersol 2) has been chemically altered to avoid digestion as a carb, and is now classified as a “resistant starch”, which like dietary fiber also passes through the stomach/small intestine undigested.

    here’s the relevant wiki article for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistant_starch

    As for evidence, it’s right there in comment #2 by NerdRage

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19126874

    This meta-analysis of 37 studies involving “Resistant Maltodextrin” certainly appears to show benefits in glycemic response to carbs. The summary mentions greater effects when RMD is included in liquids.
    (oh, and fibersol is mentioned by name in the fulltext)

  21. Vogel Says:

    The glycemic effects of low-viscosity fiber, like resistant maltodextrin, remain questionable. However, the cholesterol-lowering benefits of high-viscosity fiber are well established.

    Also, unless the exact amount of RMD is indicated on the Monavie label, then there is no way to know whether it provides a meaningful amount. It seems unlikely to me that Monavie would provide a significant amount of RMD in a 2-4 oz serving.

  22. Mike G Says:

    I will not be drinking Naked Juice anymore after seeing they add Fibersol2 to their ingredients.

    I looked long ago and swear I didn’t see it there before. maybe I missed it, was fooled by the “all natural” wording, or they recently added it.

    Done with them. That stuff is bad news.

 
Comment Rules: Before commenting for the first time, please read this website's About page as well as the MonaVie Scam home page. Chances are, your comment has already been addressed elsewhere. Also, if your comment is not on the topic of the article, I may choose to not publish it. Please find an appropriate article in the MonaVie archives. If you can not find one, please to contact me and I'll work with you to get an article written.

At times comments might be disabled or moderated to a time more suiting with my schedule.

Previous: Jim Janssen: MonaVie Distributor / Scammer
Next: The Problem with the “Try MonaVie” Argument