7 ms·

I truly understand the skepticism especially when starting this company. That's why we are putting standards and QA processes to make sure our vitamins are pur

I truly understand the skepticism especially when starting this company. That's why we are putting standards and QA processes to make sure our vitamins are pure and not filled with 99% fillers as most vitamins do. We are targeting people who have taken a step towards reducing their refine sugar, carbs, and proper exercise. Our customers typically work out and eat healthy, but are finding that supplementation is working for them to reach their health goals. So they aren't replacing a meal, but adding on top of their current habits and diets to boost their energy, for example. But if you look are high-quality liquid vitamins on the market now, it's about on average $20 per bottle per vitamin that would last you about month. And you'll probably have to buy a micro-scale to properly weight out the right amount. The body is super complex, and at the moment, the field of nutritional science is still making strides in becoming a more validated science. What we are doing is bridging this gap between research and consumers who are currently hacking and see if we as a community can provide more insights into nutritional science.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
outsidetheparty 9y ago
> That's why we are putting standards and QA processes to make sure our vitamins are pure and not filled with 99% fillers as most vitamins do. That non sequitur of a response doesn't do much to allay the concerns you're responding to.
- vancanwin 9y ago
  I just realize that after responding again (see above).
faitswulff 9y ago
> not filled with 99% fillers Personally, my doubts about the supplement industry aren't about the purity of the vitamin supplements, but the effectiveness of supplements in general.
- vancanwin 9y ago
  I, too, have similar concerns. For people who are taking supplements now have mostly qualitative data to show efficacy of supplements in general. Some people go beyond taking the steps of blood panels, for example. What we are doing is finding ways to quantify how supplements are working for people. And we strive for is finding those metrics to better understand how people can improve in their health.
- blevin 9y ago
  You may enjoy reading Paul and Shou-Ching Jaminet's book _The Perfect Health Diet_. It includes an approachable survey of results for many supplements, as well as a considered take on why multivitamins seem less crucial than advertised. One reason: metabolic interactions mean that proportionality matters, for example between A and D. Multivitamins are sometimes optimized for cost and pill size at the expense of this. Another reason is that people have varying baselines based on their diet, as well as how much micronutrient synthesis is happening in their gut. Because each vitamin (aka crucial micronutrient) has a dose-response curve, both too little or too much is bad; the book tries to chart out what is a good range for each and how you can achieve that through diet, lifestyle, and supplements. It is by no means a perfect book, but it is the best combination of approachable, credible, and well-researched information that I've come across. The complexity of untangling these kinds of interactions is why nutrition research often seems to yield results that contradict earlier results. Biology is complex, but that does not mean progress in understanding it is impossible.
- reese_john 9y ago
  I can vouch for https://examine.com/ https://examine.com/ being a great resource on the effectiveness of supplements
qume 9y ago
Interesting you suggest in this post that reducing carbs is a step towards a healthier diet. A whole food plant based diet is mostly carbs and is generally regarded as the healthiest diet available. The field of nutritional science is as valid as any and saying it ia becoming more validated science suggests to me you havent been exposed to the thousands of high quality studies being published every year. This is a huge red card for someone who is proposing to intervene with peoples health. Im sorry to be skeptical but there are way too many alarm bells associated with this venture, most too small to mention individually but the pattern adds up. For anyone looking for more legitimate bridge between the science and us "consumers" I recommend http://nutrition http://nutrition facts.org/
- vancanwin 9y ago
  I appreciate your skepticism as there should be more of it when addressing these type of health topics. I wish there was more of this type of healthy discussions in the place of healthcare. But back to the topic, my mistake for generalizing the statements above. For some who need to reduce or should I say "monitor" their carb intake, such as myself, I had to drastically reduce my carb intake due to diabetes. And sugars are particularly a huge culprit for this problem, but I have to significantly reduce consuming potatoes, rice, pasta, even healthy fruits. So for many in these categories reducing their carbs is necessary. The space of nutritional science does contain lots of research but some are very limiting and over simplified. An example, I've seen studies of arginine consumption and how that effects the aortic heart stiffness. Some of the studies only lasted for 120 minutes and concluded that there weren't any effects. But many many longitudinal clinical trials have shown improvement in heart health through decrease in heart stiffness. For us, we still have to comb through all the papers of published studies and make sure the conclusions made are just an oversimplification of lack of rigor in those studies. But yes, we want to make the data and information more transparent as well. Thank you for recommending that site. We've definitely checked it out but will check it out again.
  - treis 9y ago
    (1) Your 10x claim is obvious bullshit. Where is your research showing a measurable health improvement that is 10x greater? (2) Where is your peer reviewed research demonstrating that your system leads to measurable health improvements? Your company, like virtually every supplement company, is a scam that plays on the fears and ignorance of its customers. You have an obvious conflict of interest in that you both recommend and sale vitamins. At minimum, to be an ethical health care provider, you should either be a manufacturer of vitamins or a service that recommends them.
whitepoplar 9y ago
This is verbalistic BS.
- grzm 9y ago
  Please don't be nasty. If you disagree with OP's idea, that's great. Just don't call OP or the idea BS. Let the market decide--it's ultimately smarter than you (or me).
  - whitepoplar 9y ago
    Big difference between tinkering with an idea vs. tinkering with someone's bodily health, with no skin in the game.
  - hestajex 9y ago
    You mean the same market the decided Justin Bieber is a good musician? The same market that allowed Hillary and Trump to pass the primaries?
    - whitepoplar 9y ago
      grzm is reposting a comment, taken out of context, from my comment history. But I'll respond anyway: the market didn't necessarily decide that Bieber is a good musician, only that he provides "value," whatever that may be--behavior, personality, music, sex appeal, etc. As for for Hillary and Trump, yep, same market ;).
      - acct1771 9y ago
        Decided? Or were led to "decide"?
    - dang 9y ago
      Please don't post off-topic flamebait to HN threads. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - 9y ago
neilk 9y ago
It sounds like you are admitting that you're filling a gap in the market: specifically, "body hackers" who will put anything in their bodies as long as it sounds edgy and new. And that you don't have any research to back any of this up? You're doing the usual handwavey thing, which is to say that you know that it's not a good product today, but somehow you're going to take the profits from selling the unproven thing today, and do something better later, maybe...? That might be borderline acceptable if you're doing a software startup but sounds horribly cavalier for someone pushing a health product.
- acct1771 9y ago
  Soylent...?
ekelsen 9y ago
The parent said nothing about purity of vitamins. That this is the first sentence of your response only seems to confirm his fears about marketing hype. I'm disappointed to see a legitimate PhD used for pseudo scientific snake oil sales. It's also totally unclear what harm is caused by "fillers" such that their presence is a concern. Or what research backs up the improvement of personalizing vitamin dosages over taking a multi-vitamin - would love to see that study. The first google search about the condition related to folate methylation took me to some pseudo-scientific naturopathic website that amongst other claims, made this one "it turns out that many of us (estimated at 45%) have at least one [mutation in this gene]". That this source / website is the first thing I find when searching for what you mention does not look good. Let's further break down this claim: it's unclear that having a mutation means that there is any actual loss in function. The statement implies it. But I can't find any evidence, anywhere, that this is true. I also can't find any evidence on the NIH website (https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MTHFR#conditions https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MTHFR#conditions) about the condition you mention or what it's prevalence might actually be - everything listed there is a pretty serious disease and you would know it if you had one of those conditions. I'm honestly somewhat disgusted that YC chose to accept such a morally and scientifically terrible product to peddle. Even if selling bogus supplements to uninformed consumers is a good business.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

outsidetheparty 9y ago

> That's why we are putting standards and QA processes to make sure our vitamins are pure and not filled with 99% fillers as most vitamins do. That non sequitur of a response doesn't do much to allay the concerns you're responding to.

vancanwin 9y ago
I just realize that after responding again (see above).

faitswulff 9y ago

> not filled with 99% fillers Personally, my doubts about the supplement industry aren't about the purity of the vitamin supplements, but the effectiveness of supplements in general.

vancanwin 9y ago
I, too, have similar concerns. For people who are taking supplements now have mostly qualitative data to show efficacy of supplements in general. Some people go beyond taking the steps of blood panels, for example. What we are doing is finding ways to quantify how supplements are working for people. And we strive for is finding those metrics to better understand how people can improve in their health.
blevin 9y ago
You may enjoy reading Paul and Shou-Ching Jaminet's book _The Perfect Health Diet_. It includes an approachable survey of results for many supplements, as well as a considered take on why multivitamins seem less crucial than advertised. One reason: metabolic interactions mean that proportionality matters, for example between A and D. Multivitamins are sometimes optimized for cost and pill size at the expense of this. Another reason is that people have varying baselines based on their diet, as well as how much micronutrient synthesis is happening in their gut. Because each vitamin (aka crucial micronutrient) has a dose-response curve, both too little or too much is bad; the book tries to chart out what is a good range for each and how you can achieve that through diet, lifestyle, and supplements. It is by no means a perfect book, but it is the best combination of approachable, credible, and well-researched information that I've come across. The complexity of untangling these kinds of interactions is why nutrition research often seems to yield results that contradict earlier results. Biology is complex, but that does not mean progress in understanding it is impossible.
reese_john 9y ago
I can vouch for https://examine.com/ https://examine.com/ being a great resource on the effectiveness of supplements

qume 9y ago

Interesting you suggest in this post that reducing carbs is a step towards a healthier diet. A whole food plant based diet is mostly carbs and is generally regarded as the healthiest diet available. The field of nutritional science is as valid as any and saying it ia becoming more validated science suggests to me you havent been exposed to the thousands of high quality studies being published every year. This is a huge red card for someone who is proposing to intervene with peoples health. Im sorry to be skeptical but there are way too many alarm bells associated with this venture, most too small to mention individually but the pattern adds up. For anyone looking for more legitimate bridge between the science and us "consumers" I recommend http://nutrition http://nutrition facts.org/

vancanwin 9y ago
I appreciate your skepticism as there should be more of it when addressing these type of health topics. I wish there was more of this type of healthy discussions in the place of healthcare. But back to the topic, my mistake for generalizing the statements above. For some who need to reduce or should I say "monitor" their carb intake, such as myself, I had to drastically reduce my carb intake due to diabetes. And sugars are particularly a huge culprit for this problem, but I have to significantly reduce consuming potatoes, rice, pasta, even healthy fruits. So for many in these categories reducing their carbs is necessary. The space of nutritional science does contain lots of research but some are very limiting and over simplified. An example, I've seen studies of arginine consumption and how that effects the aortic heart stiffness. Some of the studies only lasted for 120 minutes and concluded that there weren't any effects. But many many longitudinal clinical trials have shown improvement in heart health through decrease in heart stiffness. For us, we still have to comb through all the papers of published studies and make sure the conclusions made are just an oversimplification of lack of rigor in those studies. But yes, we want to make the data and information more transparent as well. Thank you for recommending that site. We've definitely checked it out but will check it out again.
- treis 9y ago
  (1) Your 10x claim is obvious bullshit. Where is your research showing a measurable health improvement that is 10x greater? (2) Where is your peer reviewed research demonstrating that your system leads to measurable health improvements? Your company, like virtually every supplement company, is a scam that plays on the fears and ignorance of its customers. You have an obvious conflict of interest in that you both recommend and sale vitamins. At minimum, to be an ethical health care provider, you should either be a manufacturer of vitamins or a service that recommends them.

whitepoplar 9y ago

This is verbalistic BS.

grzm 9y ago
Please don't be nasty. If you disagree with OP's idea, that's great. Just don't call OP or the idea BS. Let the market decide--it's ultimately smarter than you (or me).
- whitepoplar 9y ago
  Big difference between tinkering with an idea vs. tinkering with someone's bodily health, with no skin in the game.
- hestajex 9y ago
  You mean the same market the decided Justin Bieber is a good musician? The same market that allowed Hillary and Trump to pass the primaries?
  - whitepoplar 9y ago
    grzm is reposting a comment, taken out of context, from my comment history. But I'll respond anyway: the market didn't necessarily decide that Bieber is a good musician, only that he provides "value," whatever that may be--behavior, personality, music, sex appeal, etc. As for for Hillary and Trump, yep, same market ;).
    - acct1771 9y ago
      Decided? Or were led to "decide"?
  - dang 9y ago
    Please don't post off-topic flamebait to HN threads. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- 9y ago

neilk 9y ago

It sounds like you are admitting that you're filling a gap in the market: specifically, "body hackers" who will put anything in their bodies as long as it sounds edgy and new. And that you don't have any research to back any of this up? You're doing the usual handwavey thing, which is to say that you know that it's not a good product today, but somehow you're going to take the profits from selling the unproven thing today, and do something better later, maybe...? That might be borderline acceptable if you're doing a software startup but sounds horribly cavalier for someone pushing a health product.

acct1771 9y ago
Soylent...?

ekelsen 9y ago

The parent said nothing about purity of vitamins. That this is the first sentence of your response only seems to confirm his fears about marketing hype. I'm disappointed to see a legitimate PhD used for pseudo scientific snake oil sales. It's also totally unclear what harm is caused by "fillers" such that their presence is a concern. Or what research backs up the improvement of personalizing vitamin dosages over taking a multi-vitamin - would love to see that study. The first google search about the condition related to folate methylation took me to some pseudo-scientific naturopathic website that amongst other claims, made this one "it turns out that many of us (estimated at 45%) have at least one [mutation in this gene]". That this source / website is the first thing I find when searching for what you mention does not look good. Let's further break down this claim: it's unclear that having a mutation means that there is any actual loss in function. The statement implies it. But I can't find any evidence, anywhere, that this is true. I also can't find any evidence on the NIH website (https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MTHFR#conditions https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MTHFR#conditions) about the condition you mention or what it's prevalence might actually be - everything listed there is a pretty serious disease and you would know it if you had one of those conditions. I'm honestly somewhat disgusted that YC chose to accept such a morally and scientifically terrible product to peddle. Even if selling bogus supplements to uninformed consumers is a good business.