The raw ingredients that go into USANA products come from a variety of sources. Some are derived from plants (our vitamin E, for example, is derived from soy) while others are produced synthetically. Some are derived from natural sources but have been further modified by synthetic steps. Others are derived from fermentation processes.

Natural versus synthetic is just one of the criteria that USANA uses to select the raw ingredients that go into its products. Other factors taken into account are potency, purity, safety, stability, and reliability of supply.

All factors being equal, we will select naturally derived materials over synthetically derived ones. But often times, all factors are not equal. We use vitamin and mineral compounds in the chemical form – be it “natural” or “synthetic” – proven to be effectively absorbed and utilized by the body, and that are safe, pure, and free of any contaminants.

There is a common misconception that “natural” vitamins and minerals are extracted from plants in their pure form, making them superior to “synthetic” vitamins and minerals which are made in a laboratory. This is often a misleading distinction.

First, it is not possible to extract pure vitamins from plants without considerable and significant processing that may include harsh chemical extraction solvents. Next, the biological activity of a compound has nothing to do with its source and is more determined by its chemical structure. In other words, it typically makes little difference whether the chemical originates from a leafy plant or is synthesized – it is the same compound, regardless.

Some vitamin and antioxidant compounds can be efficiently synthesized in laboratories to produce products that are identical in chemical form to those found in nature and are extremely pure and equally safe (and often much less expensive than their “natural” counterparts). In addition, some synthetic vitamins are preferentially absorbed over compounds provided by food sources.

One good example is folic acid, which is more easily absorbed than folate from food sources. Folates in food are typically large protein-bound molecules and must be hydrolyzed or deconjugated before absorption and transport into the cell.

The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) does not conduct pre-market authorization of dietary supplements. And no dietary supplements in the United States are “FDA approved.”

The Food and Drug Administration regulates dietary supplements under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). Under DSHEA, dietary supplements are in a special category listed under the general umbrella of “foods.”

The FDA requires that dietary supplement manufacturers follow Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) for dietary supplements (21 CFR, part 111). USANA meets and exceeds these standards.

Otherwise, the FDA is primarily responsible for taking action against any unsafe dietary supplement product after it has entered the market. The FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) is responsible for the oversight of dietary supplements after they reach the market. Their mandate is to monitor the marketplace for products that may be considered unsafe or make false or misleading claims.

The USANA products that currently use Nutritional Hybrid Technology include:

  • Proflavanol C100
  • Proflavanol C200
  • Hepasil DTX

USANA’s innovative Nutritional Hybrid Technology (NHT) is a state-of-the-art approach to formula design and manufacturing. NHT features bilayer tableting: the separation of various formula ingredients into two distinct tablet layers. This allows previously distinct products to be joined into a single formula. Incompatible ingredients can be combined in a single tablet and key nutritional ingredients can be visually highlighted in distinct tablet layers.

The Comparative Guide is written by Lyle MacWilliam and is not a USANA publication. Any questions regarding its content should be directed to Mr. MacWilliam. His website should provide contact information: https://www.nutrisearch.ca

USANA and Sanoviv are separate and distinct entities. (Although Dr. Wentz founded Sanoviv, it is not part of USANA Health Sciences.)

You will need to contact Sanoviv directly for information regarding their programs and recommendations. Their contact information is available here: http://www.sanoviv.com

µg = mcg = microgram = 1/1,000 of a milligram = 1/1,000,000 of a gram

“µ” is the Greek letter ‘mu’ which is the scientific symbol used to abbreviate the word micro. A microgram is 1/1,000 of a milligram or 1/1,000,000 of a gram. Sometimes the letters mcg will also be used as an abbreviation for microgram.

The glycemic index (GI) is a way of measuring the rate at which carbohydrates are broken down and appear in the blood as simple sugars. In general, the more refined and processed the food, the faster the food is broken down and the higher the GI.

High GI foods act rapidly to influence blood sugar, providing quick energy. However, this energy is usually short lived and hunger soon returns, potentially leading to overeating and weight gain. Low GI foods affect blood sugar more slowly and steadily. These foods provide greater satiety and longer lasting, more consistent energy, making eating less (and maintaining weight) easier.

Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC) is a laboratory analysis that provides an overall measure of a food’s antioxidant activity. The test works by challenging a food product with an oxidizing agent, and then measuring the overall capacity of that food to resist oxidation. The higher the ORAC score, the greater is the food’s antioxidant capacity. Several such measures of “total” antioxidant activity have been developed. None are definitive, but ORAC has gained the widest acceptance in commercial circles.

ORAC tests are often used to compare the antioxidant activities of different foods (fruits, vegetables, juices, wines, etc.). Such comparisons can be valuable, but they do carry limitations. First, ORAC analyses are not extremely precise. When a given food product is tested multiple times in a given laboratory, variation in ORAC score from one sample to the next is often on the order of 10-15%. Second, different laboratories conduct ORAC testing in different ways, and often produce markedly different results. Third, different orange juices, for example, that were manufactured and diluted in different ways and stored under different conditions, can actually have very different antioxidant activities such that it is difficult to assign a meaningful ORAC score to orange juice in general.

Nevertheless, comparisons based on ORAC testing can be meaningful when similar products are compared, when all ORAC analyses are conducted in a single, qualified laboratory using the same analytical methods, and importantly when the ORAC values reported pertain to equal amounts of product (for example, all the ORAC values are presented on a per ounce or per 100 gram basis). Under these circumstances, large differences in ORAC score (particularly differences on the order of 3-10 fold) can indicate meaningful differences in true antioxidant activity.