|Long Term Results|
|Clinically Proven Ingredients|
|Less Side effects|
EnhanceRx boasts of being consistently rated the best male enhancement pill for more than 8 years, as well as being listed as the leading brand on more than 50 different review websites since 2006. Is there credibility behind these claims, or is it a case of another bloated sense of quality and reputation? For starters, the pill says it is the only brand on the market to contain of the top-quality all-natural ingredients that can help promote real sexual enhancement, along with the addition of Bioperine for safely increasing ingredient absorption rates.
In addition, EnhanceRx’s manufacturer also banners a 180-day money-back guarantee, a full 6 months of product trial from the time one places his order.
Uses and Benefits:
Every pill is touted to offer a potent blend of herbal extracts designed for optimizing blood flow to the penis’ spongy reserves: the corpora cavernosa, or what’s called the tissue chambers of the penis. One’s erection size is reminded to be anchored on how much blood the body pumps into the said chambers. Over time, increasing blood flow as well as its force will expand these chambers and assist in size enhancement. More blood entering means a larger erect penis.
Its makers send out the reminder, however, that by increasing blood flow in the body one may also invariably lower blood pressure. Therefore it asks clients with hypertension to consult their doctors before supplementing.
Unfortunately, EnhanceRx lists only partial ingredients despite its claims that users won’t find “a more potent” solution elsewhere on the market. These listed components are L-arginine HCI, catuaba, maca root, Korean red ginseng, cayenne pepper extract, saw palmetto, Schizandra, and Bioperine.
EnhanceRx looks good on the outset, with its GMP (good manufacturing practices) certificate, 180-day money-back guarantee, and arsenal of customer testimonials being presented on different channels. Its emphasis on optimal blood flow also addresses a basic issue in erectile dysfunction that should be part of any comprehensive therapy.
This is why we were surprised when it did not fare favorably in our weeks-long product trial, where the most significant improvements (in erectile size and longevity) manifested longer than our standard time frame/expectations. It performed poorly, for one, in markers of ejaculatory control as well as self-evaluated sexual desire/libido. From here we are recommending its manufacturer to explore the possibility of a reformulation, the presentation of more compelling clinical findings to balance with ours, and the disclosure of its full ingredient list.