The Demise of Prohormones Part IV

4) Misuse or abuse?

I have zero evidence to back the following statistic up, but I’m willing to bet the house that I’m within 5% points of the actual figure. 98% of prohormone users have no business using prohormones. I know that maybe hard to swallow for you, but it’s true. And that includes me.

I had no business using 1-AD. My diet was pathetic. I had not a clue as to how many calories I was consuming a day. My training, if you could call it training, consisted of unlimited sets of the bench press and barbell curls. I was clueless.. But I wanted results NOW. Gyno be damned, I wanted to bench 275 pounds, and 1-AD was my ticket. Idiot!

And every day, I see myself 10 years ago over, and over, and over again.

I’m by no means an expert in fitness. I’m not certified by any personal training or strength training association. Everything I know, I’ve learned from Siff, Zatsiorsky, Thibadeau, Poliquin, Boyle, and Defranco. And of course, 10 years of experimentation on my own body. But I’d be willing to say 99.9% of the trainers and coaches in the fitness industry would agree with the following two statements regarding fitness:

1) Progressive overload is the key to mass and strength gains.

2) There are no shortcuts when it comes to the iron.

I have a simple 3 question survey to determine if you’re ready for prohormones. If you can answer the following 3 questions with certainty, you’re ready to dive into the dark side

1) Can you tell me exactly how many calories you’ve consumed every day during the last 2 months, including the macronutrient breakdown? By the way, you’ll also need to know your RMR.

2) Can you show me every workout you’ve done in the last year?

3) Are you already taking protein, creatine, beta alanine, and fish oil?

If you know the answers to those questions, you’re definitely on the right track. In fact, you know more than 98% of the rest of the weightliftng community.

Remember, prohormones are a band-aid, and a poor one at that. They never definitively answer the true problem. They’re a short-term fix for a long-term problem. And in the end, they’ll do more harm than good….

The Demise of Prohormones Part III

What does two guys, $2000, a phone number, and a website equal? A supplement company

Before the FDA’s ban bonanza, what companies were leading the way in prohormones? Not the big ones like BSN, Cytosport, or Dymatize. Too much risk for them. It was the “garage chemists”, small, unheard of companies that seemed to be springing up everywhere. Why? Because anyone can create a supplement company. In fact, it’s probably one of the cheapest businesses to start. I should know. I along with another pharmacist created one two years ago for $5000.

 

All you’ll need is a couple thousand dollars, a website, and a phone number. It’d probably be smart to pay $500 for a LLC for liability purposes, and get a cheap insurance plan. You won’t need any equipment. You won’t need a warehouse. In fact , you don’t even need a degree in chemistry. A high school diploma would do just fine. The contract manufacturer will do the large majority of the work. All you need to to is sell (in fact marketing is far more important than an educational background in chemistry, biology, etc.). Who cares about safety and effectiveness. That’s the FDA’s responsibility. As long as it’s new, people will buy it. And when the FDA pulls it off the market, or heaven forbid it kills someone, we pull our money out and file chapter 8 on our LLC.

 

Now that’s a small exaggeration. But essentially, that’s all that’s needed to start a supplement company. Some of these companies just can’t be trusted. All they see is dollar signs. I cringe every time I see a new company spring up, and all they make are prohormones. I cringe even more when these guys on the message board, who by the way have no business using prohormones, volunteer to provide feedback for the company on the latest, greatest prohormone. Unbeknownst to them, they actually are human guinea pigs. Why risk your health for a 15 pound increase on the bench press?

 

General rule of thumb: If you don’t know what the president of the supplement company looks like, and the ads use a clinical study you cannot find on pubmed.org, avoid the company at all costs because they’re probably operating our of their basement.

The Demise of Prohormones Part II

The price factor

$80… Really? or 2 vial of Test

Prohormones are expensive. On top of that, they change so often and have so many chemical variations, who really knows what works and what doesn’t. For me, Androsol was a complete bust, while 1-AD gave me almost zero mass gain but a decent strength gain (15 lbs on the bench). So to get a 15 lb increase on your bench, you’ll probably have to go through 3 or 4 different prohormones, which comes out to around $150.

 

When it comes to prohormones, there just doesn’t seem to be a reliable measuring stick. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. It’s a crap shoot. A single change on a chemical structure can completely change a chemical’s functionality.

You and I have both seen it before. A new prohormone is released, and the first question on every supplement message board on the internet “How does it compare to prohormone x in terms of size and strength?” And then the argument of “my prohormone is better than your prohormone” ensues. All the while, no one, not the user, not the manufacturer, and not even the FDA, knows exactly how this prohormone is going to impact the body. The only thing that’s for sure is your wallet will be a little lighter.

Weekly Supplement BS Report - The Demise of Prohormones

1st of a 4 Part Series

I’m against prohormones. There, I said it. In fact, I think they are the single worst thing that has happened to the dietary supplement industry. They are the epitome of what the the industry has become: dangerous, greedy, and uneducated.

But before you shut me out.. Let me explain because just like you, I’ve used my fair share of prohormones over the years. And it took me awhile to come to the above conclusion.

I was there when Mark McGwire first made 4-AD a household name. I saw the -diols take over the diones. I was a guinea pig when Biotest created Androsol, then a year or so later Mag-10. I also witnessed Patrick Arnold revive prohormones with 1-AD. And as ashamed as I am to admit it, I’ve used more than a handful over the years. So to argue I’ve never been down that road could not be farther from the truth.

So here’s my reasoning…

1) The 25/75 rule

Unfortunately, prohormones reluctantly give you 25% of the benefits of steroids, while graciously giving you 100% of the side effects.
Gyno, hairloss, acne, elevated liver enzymes, postcycle crash, etc. I’ve seen them all with prohormones. And yet, I never see the big strength gains or mass gains that you get with 500mg of test. And for those that would argue, I highly doubt you’ve ever seen someone or personally been on 500mg of test. Just last year, I had a member of my gym, who hadn’t lifted a weight in almost 4 years, do a cycle of 500mg of test cyp to “jumpstart” his return to the iron. The first day he could barely get up 175 lbs on the bench. By the end of the 8 weeks, he was well over 300 lbs. And this is a guy with a PR of 230 lbs on the bench previously. Not one side effect. And post cycle went relatively smoothly. I think he ended up keeping almost 90% of his gains. And this is a pretty typical response to a low-moderate dose of test.

In the prohormone world, you’ll never seen those type of gains. But I guarantee you’ll see some gyno, some hairloss, an acne flair up, and with the newer ones, a pretty depressive postcycle crash. So why risk it? Personally, I’d rather take the risk of getting my vial of test confiscated and a slap on the wrist from the police than risk a 15 lb increase in my bench press and a case of gyno from superdrol.

I like to make the following comparison to help illustrate my point. If you were looking for an exercise to add the most mass and strength to your upper body, would you pick the bench press or a dumbbell flye? I think 99.9% of you would choose the bench press. In fact, you could probably do 4 sets of 10 reps of dumbbell flyes every day for 5 years, and still not achieve the mass and strength you’d get from the bench press in only 3 months time. However, you’d probably still get the soreness, the fatigue, and even the overtraining.

I know most would disagree with me, but if you take an unbiased look at the clinical evidence, a cycle of just test would actually be safer than the large majority of the prohormones on the market. If the FDA would consider a restricted steroid access protocol (like I’ll describe in my next article), the prohormone market would be extinct in a day. Why? Because if you give a gymrat a choice between test or superdrol, they’d be an idiot to even consider superdrol. Test beats it in every category: results, safety, and price.

And tomorrow…. The Price Factor

Weekly Supplement BS Report

 

Just last week I ran into an old buddy at my gym. He’d just finished his workout, and was guzzling down a protein drink in a can I’d never seen before. I asked him the usual questions: where he got it, how much did it cost, and how much protein was in it. Even though it was a cheap knock-off brand, it had 35 grams of protein per can. And to my surprise, that was the second can he had drank in the last 20 minutes. For those that lack math skills, that’s 70g of protein in 20 minutes. And even more surprising, he was grinning ear to ear because he thought it was all going straight to his muscles. Apparently, he also lived by the mantra “more is better.”

 

Now if you read my article a couple weeks ago about protein pulsing, you probably have an idea where I’m going with this. Anything in excess is unhealthy for you, even water. So guess where almost 50g of that 70g of protein went? Fat and oxidation. No one needs 70g of protein at one sitting. In fact, according to the majority of clinical studies out there, no one really needs more than 20-25g of protein at one sitting. 70g of protein at one sitting is no more anabolic than 25g of protein at one sitting. The only benefit the extra protein provides is extra calories. And for many of us, that’s not really a benefit.

 

20-30g of protein is more than enough protein to switch your body from a catabolic state to an anabolic state. Rarely will a clinical study use more than 25g of protein. Why? Because that’s all that’s needed to turn on muscle protein synthesis. Anything more than that, and it’s not being used for its intended purpose: muscle protein synthesis. A study I had in the protein pulsing article looked at the correlation between the amount of protein consumed and muscle protein synthesis. The result: 40g was no more effective than 20g. And anything excess was oxidized.

 

Why do people consume more than 30g in one sitting? Why do manufacturers put 40g of protein in one serving? I have no idea. Stupidity maybe? Ignorance?

 

It makes entirely more sense to split up the 40g shake. Take 20g now, and then 20g 2 hours later. You’ll get a much longer anabolic response. And I’d be willing to bet, you’ll also lose a little fat.

 

Stop wasting your money. Train smart. Eat smart. Supplement smart.

 

 

 

Weekly Supplement BS Report #5

Glutamine: Keep it or Crap It

“Glutamine is a key factor in muscle growth, and controlling the skeletal muscle/whole body glutamine gradient is critical in maintaining and building muscle tissue.* The higher the muscle glutamine levels you can maintain, the less chance you have of falling into catabolism and the faster muscle will grow.*”
- AST GL3 description

“Following an intense workout your body needs to replenish glutamine stores to aid in recovery.* L-Glutamine can help increase muscle cell hydration and aid in protein synthesis.”
- EAS L-Glutamine description

“70% of it never reaches muscle tissue and 90% of it is gone in 1 hour, leaving you with a low dosed short supply of Glutamine. The end result is very little anabolic activity and can actually lead to catabolic muscle wasting because you’re relying on your glutamine supplement to supply and replenish the glutamine needed and it just isn’t delivering.”
-MHP Glutamine-SR description

Why so many people have fallen in love with this amino acid, I’ll never know. Maybe because it’s the most abundant amino acid within the muscle? Or maybe it’s because the supplement manufacturers have led us to believe that it not only helps prevent muscle breakdown, but it also improve muscle synthesis, aka the double whammy of muscle hypertrophy? Or just maybe it’s because one study found oral glutamine to increase growth hormone 4 fold? Who knows. And honestly, how could you not want this supplement in your arsenal after reading the above claims. Even yours truly went through 4000g before finally retiring it to the BS files.

Anabolic Potential

Over the last few years, it’s become blatantly obvious its anabolic benefits were grossly exaggerated. (some may even call the claims a bold-faced lie) The current research just doesn’t support any anabolic/anti-catabolic benefits. So now the question becomes, does it have any potential benefits for athletes/weightlifters?
And the quick answer for those that suffer from ADHD: absolutely not. Unless of course, you’re an 80lb marathon runner with less muscle mass than a 5 year-old girl.

Glutamine and the Immune system

Let me explain.
Glutamine’s proposed immune-enhancing ability is probably its most sought after benefit (after the anabolic/anti-catabolic claim of course). And coincidentally, that claim also has the most research supporting it. That’s until you actually look closer at the studies. It seems as though the supplement manufacturers extrapolated data from a few positive studies that were done on rats, critically-ill patients, and patients with various muscle-wasting diseases, and marketed those results toward healthy, muscular trainees, all while ignoring the studies that actually related to this group that showed little if any benefit. Apples and oranges my friends. Apples and oranges!
Yes, it’s true that leukocytes (a key component of the immune system) need glutamine to function properly. It’s also true that leukocytes can’t synthesize glutamine like the muscle can. And it’s also very likely true that a severely low plasma glutamine level probably results in a depressed immune system (you’re more likely to get sick).
However, that doesn’t mean glutamine will benefit us. Why? Because it’s false that an intense weightlifting session lasting less than an hour will decrease plasma glutamine levels low enough to depress the immune system. In fact, the large majority of research suggests that it’s long, intense aerobic exercise lasting over 2 hours that leads to low levels of plasma glutamine. It’s also false that an overtrained athlete with low plasma glutamine levels will be more susceptible to infection. And on the very same note, it’s false that an intake of oral glutamine will prevent exercise-induced immune depression even though it will raise plasma glutamine levels.

The Result

So would you or I benefit from a $30 container of glutamine powder? Not a chance. The only athlete that could possibly benefit from oral glutamine supplementation would be a marathon/cyclist/ironman-type athlete. Then, just maybe, it may improve an overworked immune system.
By the way, if you’re interested in its ability to improve glycogen synthesis, just consume more carbs. It was one study, and they only used 61g of carbs. You’ll save a lot more money and get identical results.

And the congregation said…… B_LLSH_T

Weekly Supplement BS report #4

Weekly Supplement BS Report #4

October 6th, 2009 Volume I Issue 5

This last week has been kind of crazy at Muscle Geeks so I’m a little behind schedule. Our facebook app has moved from the planning stage to the development stage, we’ve decided to give our website a complete makeover, and we’re adding product descriptions to every product in our store. Plus, we’re also preparing for an advertising launch at 10 major colleges over the next 3 months. On top of all of that, my deadline for an article in Fitness and Physique Magazine was due this past weekend.

Now that all is back to normal, I can get back to the real BS.
This week’s article is going to be a little shorter than the rest. It’s not because of time constraints though. It’s actually because I’m not really for sure what I believe just yet… I don’t know if I really can call it BS. But if I can, my diet will be forever changed.

I first came across this topic around 6-8 months ago on a bodybuilding message board. The members were debating the topic of “protein pulsing.” Apparently over the last couple of years, there’s been a growing amount of research supporting its benefits for bodybuilders. According to its supporters, muscle protein synthesis slows almost to a halt if the muscle is constantly supplied with amino acids, similar to how Type II Diabetes develops. They theorize that’s it’s better to let your body reach a catabolic state (almost zero amino acids in the bloodstream), and then quickly flood your bloodstream with amino acids via a fast-digesting protein. This way, your muscles do not become “desensitized” to amino acids and muscle protein synthesis is improved above and beyond that of a normal protein intake. If this theory holds true, the old way of thinking about protein intake (1-2g per pound of body weight) may vary well be sent to the the BS box along with creatine ethyl ester, serum creatine, etc.

 

After I had read the entire discussion and reviewed some of the studies, I thought I’d try it out. So I developed my own protein pulsing protocol, and have been using it for the last 3 months. I’ve been consuming between 150-180g daily instead of my usual 250g daily. Thus far, I must say I have been impressed. It appears as though I’ve lost a little flab, while subsequently adding a little size (via the mirror, no objective tests). I’m also hovering around 205 lbs, 5-7 lbs over my average weight. I’m most happy with my weights though. On almost every major lift, I’ve either hit my all-time max even though I’m 15-20 pounds lighter than when I hit them prior to, or I’ve surpassed my all-time maxes. That’s pretty impressive, especially when you consider my diet really hasn’t changed (other than the decrease in calories from less protein) and I haven’t added any other supplements than what I normally take. And even my weight routine is relatively the same.

 

However, even with my own personal results, I still wasn’t convinced protein pulsing was superior. There’s just too many factors involved in strength training and bodybuilding. I could easily be overlooking something that I’m doing now that I wasn’t doing before. Sometimes the most trivial things can make the biggest difference. Then two things crossed my desk. I was perusing Function Ingredients magazine, and there was a small article about a doctor out of Texas who wholeheartedly believes that the body cannot digest more than 20g of protein per sitting. According to him, anything more the 20 grams, and you’re wasting it. However, there was no supportive material with it, just the doctor’s opinion. Then a fellow Geek brought the following study to my attention:

Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men.

Moore DR, Robinson MJ, Fry JL, Tang JE, Glover EI, Wilkinson SB, Prior T, Tarnopolsky MA, Phillips SM.

Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):161-8. Epub 2008 Dec 3

BACKGROUND: The anabolic effect of resistance exercise is enhanced by the provision of dietary protein. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the ingested protein dose response of muscle (MPS) and albumin protein synthesis (APS) after resistance exercise. In addition, we measured the phosphorylation of candidate signaling proteins thought to regulate acute changes in MPS. DESIGN: Six healthy young men reported to the laboratory on 5 separate occasions to perform an intense bout of leg-based resistance exercise. After exercise, participants consumed, in a randomized order, drinks containing 0, 5, 10, 20, or 40 g whole egg protein. Protein synthesis and whole-body leucine oxidation were measured over 4 h after exercise by a primed constant infusion of [1-(13)C]leucine. RESULTS: MPS displayed a dose response to dietary protein ingestion and was maximally stimulated at 20 g. The phosphorylation of ribosomal protein S6 kinase (Thr(389)), ribosomal protein S6 (Ser(240/244)), and the epsilon-subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2B (Ser(539)) were unaffected by protein ingestion. APS increased in a dose-dependent manner and also reached a plateau at 20 g ingested protein. Leucine oxidation was significantly increased after 20 and 40 g protein were ingested. CONCLUSIONS: Ingestion of 20 g intact protein is sufficient to maximally stimulate MPS and APS after resistance exercise. Phosphorylation of candidate signaling proteins was not enhanced with any dose of protein ingested, which suggested that the stimulation of MPS after resistance exercise may be related to amino acid availability. Finally, dietary protein consumed after exercise in excess of the rate at which it can be incorporated into tissue protein stimulates irreversible oxidation.

Hmmm… Do we really need all that protein? Is timing more important than quantity? Has the bodybuilding community been wrong all these years? Does the average (non-enhanced) gym rat really need to be consuming 1-2 grams per body weight?

Honestly, I don’t know. I think this is a no-win argument. I can probably argue both sides relatively easily from a scientific standpoint and from a real-world standpoint. In fact, both methods have been successful for me. I’ve ballooned up to 225-230 lbs while consuming 300-350g of protein daily, and I’ve quietly grown to 205 lbs with just 0.73g per pound of body weight. During both of those stages, I’ve achieved my all-time maxes in all three of my major lifts.

I’ll take the easy way out though. I won’t call BS on it just yet. I think they both have their places in a transformation. It’s just something to think about, and possibly experiment with especially if you’re in a rut.

Just be warned, you’ve probably already been beat down with the various carb cycling diets out there. Protein cycling is next…

Weekly Supplement BS Report #4

Weekly BS Report

September 27^th, 2009 Volume I Issue 4

 

 

 

 

“2 Independent Clinical Trials Later -There’s No Doubt Question Which Pre-Workout Product is the Best. When we first revealed the groundbreaking single dose clinical trial, SuperPump 250™ was shown to correlate with an astronomical increase in lean mass after only a single workout and a single dose of SP250 while body fat percentage simultaneously dropped.* This unbiased evidence shook the bodybuilding world and began the meteoric rise of this remarkable product. As incredible as the data was, we knew it was only the tip of the iceberg and that the results from 1 dose were no mere coincidence. You see, unlike other pre-workout products, everyone who tries it knows that SuperPump’s effects become noticeably MORE potent over time with regular use, and so it became necessary to test SuperPump’s more long term effects (30 days) at an accredited, independent research facility. Let’s just say, the results are nothing short of earth shattering. We are proud to present what our users and colleagues have been saying all along, only now it’s forever a part of TRUE scientific history; if you want gains in lean mass, strength, and performance, SuperPump 250™ is the real deal and an intelligent choice in the pre-workout category.*

In the second SuperPump 250™ study, performed recently at the prestigious Center for Applied Health Science Research, the goal was to determine the effects of supplementation with SuperPump 250™ on muscular strength, muscular endurance, muscle size, and body composition during one month of intense resistance training3. Thirty healthy men were randomized to receive SuperPump 250™ or a flavor-matched placebo and then resistance train for 4-weeks. Measurements of muscular performance, body composition via DEXA, and general markers of health were taken before and after 28 days of supplementation and training. This time, gains in muscle size were even more impressive, and were coupled with improvements in muscle performance (bench press reps to failure) and whole-body skeletal muscle mass:

·         947% times greater increase in whole-body lean mass.*

·         234% times greater increase in muscle performance.*

·         25.5 times greater increase in the lean mass of the arms.* “

-Superpump 250 product description

 

After reading the above, who couldn’t resist a bottle of Superpump 250? 947% times greater increase in whole-body lean mass. 234% times greater increase in muscle performance.  Are you kidding me? Forget the juice. Give me the Superpump!  My only question is: Screw buying it. How do I invest?

I couldn’t resist. I had to read this groundbreaking study. Finally there’s a supplement company backing their products with real-world scientific research. No marketing hype, just plain old science.  Interesting…

 

You can find the study at: http://www.jissn.com/content/5/S1/P17 .

Needless to say, I wasn’t expecting much. I’ve read thousands of studies over the years, 95% of them relating to prescription medications (which usually have 100 times greater budget than dietary supplements).  So I knew four things before even reading the study:

1)      The study group would be small.

2)      The details would be lacking.

3)      There’d be so many confounding variables it’d be hard to interpret any results with certainty.

4)      The supplement would be compared to a placebo, not creatine.

Booyah! All four assumptions were right on the money.

Small study

The study was small. It consisted of only 30 subjects (15 in the placebo and 15 in the Superpump group). Thus, chance alone could play a potentially big role in the results.  Lady luck could easily sway the conclusion, not science.  Plus with such a small group number, there’s a much bigger chance that a confounding variable could easily influence the result.  Knowing those two things right from the beginning, I don’t think I could definitively conclude anything from this study.

What details?

What resistance training program did the participants do?  Are the results based on average or median? With such a small study, it would have probably been best to describe the results in terms of medians. Why? If they were averages (which I’m assuming), one abnormal result (say a 25 lb increase in muscle mass by 1 participant in the Superpump 250 group) would completely skew the results in favor of the Superpump 250 group. If the results were medians, it wouldn’t make that big of a difference. Any outliers (abnormal results) wouldn’t affect the end result as much because you take the result that’s directly in the middle from the entire group, not the average.  So a 25 pound increase in muscle mass would have the same effect as a 12 pound increase in muscle mass if the median was 8 pounds.  The beauty of marketing with math!

Weekly meat consumption

The authors matched the participants for age, resistance training history, daily caffeine intake, weekly meat consumption, bench press strength, bench press endurance, and % body fat. How about daily protein intake? Supplements?  Prior creatine history?  Previous training regimen they just completed?  I can’t say they did a bad job matching the two groups. However, I also can’t say they did a good job either. There are too many unknowns that could easily influence the results (aka confounding variables).

Placebo

I understand that first a supplement has to be shown superior to placebo prior to comparing it to another supplement that already has sufficient evidence supporting it. However, this supplement already contains an ingredient that’s been shown to be effective in numerous clinical trials: creatine monohydrate.  Thus, if Gaspari really had some balls, they would have taken on regular creatine monohydrate instead so that they can “prove” their product is superior to the industry standard which costs 80% less than Superpump 250. But they didn’t. They chose to compare it to……. nothing!

So were the results really from Gaspari’s proprietary blend or was it from the creatine monohydrate within the proprietary blend? Tough to tell. We already know creatine works. There are numerous studies supporting its benefits.  Do the other ingredients work?  That’s still yet to be answered.  

I’m not even going to discuss the outrageous claims of 900% this, 200% that, etc. Let me just say that with the right mathematical model, a 1 pound increase can be 1000% increase.

So would I say this study (with supposedly the top scientists in the world) definitively showed Suerpump 250’s superiority?  Ha.

All together now: b_llsh_t!

Weekly Supplement BS Report #2

Weekly Supplement BS Report #2

September 20th, 2009 Volume I Issue 3

This BS newsletter is going to be a little different than the previous one. Instead of picking on an ingredient, I’m going to shift my focus to a product. And it’s probably the most successful product an “underground” supplement company has released to date.

It is…… USPLabs Jack3d!

I hate to start with this product because in all honesty, this is one of the better combination products on the market. I love three of the ingredients in it: creatine monohydrate, beta alanine, and 1,3-dimethylamylamine. However, even with 3 great ingredients, it’s still damn near ineffective. Why?

Side note: 1,3-dimethylamylamine gained popularity during the Patrick Arnold/Ergopharm/Amp debacle around 2 or 3 years ago. Some argue (I’m not for sure if Patrick Arnold ever admitted it), that 1,3-dimethylamylamine was the ingredient that made Amp so effective. Either way, in my opinion, it’s one of the most underrated supplements in the game today. Even though there’s hardly any research supporting it, it’s the only stimulant I use anymore. The best way I could describe it is a calm, focused energy. 50mg not only keeps me focused and energized for 5 or 6 hours, but it also does a number on my appetite.

It’s not the ingredients…. It’s the dosage.

A good analogy for Jack3d is a Ferrari without an engine. Let’s ignore the fact that it contains AAKG (leucine or carbs would have been a much better choice). Take a look at the ATP-Carnosine-Vaso Complex, which consists of AAKG, creatine monohydrate, and beta alanine. 3500mg of that complex is in each scoop. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say each ingredient is represented evenly in that 3500mg total. Thus, each scoop would roughly contain 1.2 grams of creatine, 1.2 grams of beta alanine, and 1.2 grams of AAKG. Even at the highest dosage (3 scoops), you’re only consuming 3.6 grams of creatine monohydrate and 3.6 grams of beta alanine. And that’s just on workout days, not every day.

I’ve spent the last week perusing pubmed.org for research articles on beta alanine and performance. I’ve probably read through 10-15 studies detailing beta alanine’s effects on exercise performance. In only one of the studies that I came across was the beta alanine dosage ever lower than 4 grams daily. And in that study, the dosage was anywhere from 2-4 grams daily. Even the study that found beta alanine to be ineffective, the dosage was still great than 3.6 grams. And the large majority of the studies had the participants taking beta alanine daily for several weeks (4-8 weeks).

Van Thienen, et al. Beta-alanine improves sprint performance in endurance cycling. 2-4 grams daily for 8 weeks

Kendrick, et al.The effect of 4 weeks beta-alanine supplementation and isokinetic training on carnosineconcentrations in type I and II human skeletal muscle fibres.:6.4 grams daily for 4 weeks

Smith, et al. Effects of beta-alanine supplementation and high-intensity intervaltraining on endurance performance and body composition in men; a double-blind trial.:1.5 grams 4 times daily for 21 days, followed by 1.5 grams twice daily for 21 days.

Hoffman, et al. Short-duration beta-alanine supplementation increases training volume and reduces subjective feelings of fatigue in college football players.: 4.5 grams daily for 30 days.

Stout, et al. Effects of twenty-eight days of beta-alanine and creatine monohydrate supplementation on the physical working capacity at neuromuscular fatigue threshold.: 1.6g four times daily for 6 days then 1.5 grams twice daily for 22 days

Derave, et al. beta-Alanine supplementation augments muscle carnosine content and attenuates fatigue during repeated isokinetic contraction bouts in trained sprinters.: 4.8g daily for 4 weeks

Hoffman, et al. Beta-alanine and the hormonal response to exercise.: 4.8g daily for 30 days

Kendrick, et al. The effects of 10 weeks of resistance training combined with beta-alanine supplementation on whole body strength, force production, muscular endurance and body composition.: 6.4g daily for 10 weeks

 Creatine supplementation is similar. The large majority of studies supporting creatine’s beneficial effects had participants taking creatine daily. And the majority of evidence supports the fact that around 5 grams daily is a good maintenance dose. If you understand how creatine works, it’s apparent that “as needed” dosing is ineffective. Daily dosing allows you to build up your creatine reservoirs, and allows for the replacement of muscle creatine that you lose throughout the day. An “as needed” regimen cannot adequately build up your reservoirs. At best, it may have some positive benefits after several months of use. But that’s extremely inefficient and expensive.

I see this almost weekly in the pharmacy. A patient will complain that his blood pressure is still not controlled even though he’s on several blood pressure medications. I’ll glance at his medication profile, and see that he’s entirely noncompliant with his meds. He’ll go 5 or 6 days at a time without taking his meds. Blood pressure medications were not designed to be effective on an “as needed” basis. They’re daily medications. The same goes with creatine and beta alanine. They both build up stores of critical ingredients for muscular growth/performance. Taking them “as needed” is pretty much useless.

For those that have had success with Jack3d, I propose to you the following: Buy 1000 grams of creatine monohydrate (~$20), 500 grams of beta alanine (~$26), and a bottle of of 1,3-dimethylamylamine capsules (~$25). Not only will that stack give you better results, but you’ll save around $50-100 over a 3 month period. That’s no BS!

And everyone together…. B_LLSH_T

Weekly Supplement BS Report

Weekly Supplement BS Report

September 13th, 2009 Volume I Issue 2

CEE…BSN™s newest proprietary blend, designed to increase water and lipid solubility of creatine.
-product description of BSN Cellmass

Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE) uses the ethyl ester to deliver the creatine into the bloodstream (and it does this very well)…
-product description of SizeOn

Creatine Ethyl Ester: Creatine ethyl ester is one of the newest forms of creatine. The ethyl ester prevents breakdown in the gut and prolongs the life of creatine in the blood. Combined with creatine monohydrate this results in a one-two punch of fast acting immediate action coupled with the longer duration of creatine ethyl ester. - CEE gives you a longer acting creatine, the right amount works, too much and it tastes like battery acid.
-product description of LG Science’s Cold Fusion EX

CEE…..This means, simply, that not only will dosage requirements be lower, but the absorption of esterified creatine will be increased and the infamous “creatine bloat” will be eliminated!
-product description of Higher Power Creatine Ethyl Ester

Creatine Ethyl Ester HCL is an exceptionally soluble creatine resulting in advanced absorption, increased bioavailability, and stability. Instead of saturating your system in creatine and hoping for absorption, creatine ethyl ester directly penetrates the muscle cell resulting in 30 to 40 times more functional creatine. This means no more loading, bloating, cramping or dehydration. Most users notice a difference in their first dose.
-product description Axis Labs’ Creatine Ethyl Ester

Myth: Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE) is superior to creatine monohydrate. Not only does it cause less bloating, but because of its improved bioavailability you don’t need to take as much.
Fact: Not only does it taste like urine, but you’ll probably get the exact same results no matter which one you drink (CEE or urine).

The evidence:
It’s pretty easy to prove that a new creatine is superior to creatine monohydrate. All we would have to do is track the new creatine through our system. We’d first take a blood sample to ensure its absorption through the GI tract. Then we’d look at the creatine content within the muscle and make sure it actually does get more creatine inside the muscle. And if we’re really good, we’d set up a study that actually showed (with hard numbers) the superior results one would get with the new creatine product compared to the old one.
So that’s basically what I was looking for when I searched pubmed.org. And I found…
*Most pertinent statements are bolded.

The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels.
Mike Spillane, Ryan Schoch, Matt Cooke, Travis Harvey, Mike Greenwood, Richard Kreider and Darryn S Willoughby
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2009 Feb 19;6:6

ABSTRACT: Numerous creatine formulations have been developed primarily to maximize creatine absorption. Creatine ethyl ester is alleged to increase creatine bio-availability. This study examined how a seven-week supplementation regimen combined with resistance training affected body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength and power, serum and muscle creatine levels, and serum creatinine levels in 30 non-resistance-trained males. In a double-blind manner, participants were randomly assigned to a maltodextrose placebo (PLA), creatine monohydrate (CRT), or creatine ethyl ester (CEE) group. The supplements were orally ingested at a dose of 0.30 g/kg fat-free body mass (approximately 20 g/day) for five days followed by ingestion at 0.075 g/kg fat free mass (approximately 5 g/day) for 42 days. Results showed significantly higher serum creatine concentrations in PLA (p = 0.007) and CRT (p = 0.005) compared to CEE. Serum creatinine was greater in CEE compared to the PLA (p = 0.001) and CRT (p = 0.001) and increased at days 6, 27, and 48. Total muscle creatine content was significantly higher in CRT (p = 0.026) and CEE (p = 0.041) compared to PLA, with no differences between CRT and CEE. Significant changes over time were observed for body composition, body water, muscle strength and power variables, but no significant differences were observed between groups. In conclusion, when compared to creatine monohydrate, creatine ethyl ester was not as effective at increasing serum and muscle creatine levels or in improving body composition, muscle mass, strength, and power. Therefore, the improvements in these variables can most likely be attributed to the training protocol itself, rather than the supplementation regimen.

So this study suggested the following:
1) With CEE, you’ll get less creatine in the bloodstream than regular creatine monohydrate.
2) With CEE, you’ll get more creatinINe (a useless byproduct) in the bloodstream than regular creatine monohydrate. Remember this.
3) With CEE, it takes almost 27 days to increase the creatine content within the muscle, compared to just 6 days with creatine monohydrate.

So now we have we have to ask: What in the hell is happening to CEE once it enters the body because it’s not improving creatine’s bioavailability?

Non-enzymatic cyclization of creatine ethyl ester to creatinine.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009 Oct 16;388(2):252-5. Epub 2009 Aug 4
Giese MW, Lecher CS

Creatine ethyl ester was incubated at 37 degrees C in both water and phosphate-buffered saline and the diagnostic methylene resonances in the (1)H NMR spectrum were used to identify the resultant products. It was found that mild aqueous conditions result in the cyclization of creatine ethyl ester to provide inactive creatinine as the exclusive product, and this transformation becomes nearly instantaneous as the pH approaches 7.4. This study demonstrates that mild non-enzymatic conditions are sufficient for the cyclization of creatine ethyl ester into creatinine, and together with previous results obtained under enzymatic conditions suggests that there are no physiological conditions that would result in the production of creatine. It is concluded that creatine ethyl ester is a pronutrient for creatinine rather than creatine under all physiological conditions encountered during transit through the various tissues, thus no ergogenic effect is to be expected from supplementation.

Non-enzymatic hydrolysis of creatine ethyl ester.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009 Aug 21;386(2):363-7. Epub 2009 Jun 12
Katseres NS, Reading DW, Shayya L, Dicesare JC, Purser GH

The rate of the non-enzymatic hydrolysis of creatine ethyl ester (CEE) was studied at 37 degrees C over the pH range of 1.6-7.0 using (1)H NMR. The ester can be present in solution in three forms: the unprotonated form (CEE), the monoprotonated form (HCEE(+)), and the diprotonated form (H(2)CEE(2+)). The values of pK(a1) and pK(a2) of H(2)CEE(2+) were found to be 2.30 and 5.25, respectively. The rate law is found to be Rate=-dCCEE/dt=k++[H2CEE2+][OH-]+k+[HCEE+][OH-]+k0[CEE][OH-] where the rate constants k(++), k(+), and k(0) are (3.9+/-0.2)x10(6)L mol(-1)s(-1), (3.3+/-0.5)x10(4)L mol(-1)s(-1), and (4.9+/-0.3)x10(4)L mol(-1)s(-1), respectively. Calculations performed at the density functional theory level support the hypothesis that the similarity in the values of k(+) and k(0) results from intramolecular hydrogen bonding that plays a crucial role. This study indicates that the half-life of CEE in blood is on the order of one minute, suggesting that CEE may hydrolyze too quickly to reach muscle cells in its ester form.

Qualitative In vitro NMR Analysis of Creatine Ethyl Ester Pronutrient in Human Plasma.
Int J Sports Med. 2009 Jul 7.
Giese MW, Lecher CS.

There are a number of forms of creatine available that attempt to improve the solubility and permeability, with the anticipation this will result in an improved pharmacokinetic profile and ultimately an enhanced ergogenic response. Previous research has shown that the different salt forms can improve solubility resulting in slightly altered pharmacokinetic profiles, however specific data exploring the conversion of esterified derivatives to creatine is lacking. The purpose of this study was to examine the assertion that creatine ethyl ester undergoes enzymatic conversion to creatine in human tissues. The IN VITRO response of creatine ethyl ester to incubation in human plasma was examined by H-NMR analysis. Lyophilized human plasma was reconstituted in D (2)O and phosphate-buffered saline and 1.5 mg of the analyte was added. Following incubation at 37 degrees C for 4 h and subsequent protein precipitation, the supernatant was analyzed by NMR, utilizing the diagnostic chemical shift of the methylene signal to determine the species present in solution, I.E. creatine ethyl ester, creatine, or creatinine. Both creatine and creatinine were run in parallel as control experiments and each assay was run in triplicate. As expected both creatine and creatinine remained unchanged. However, conversion of creatine ethyl ester to creatine by the esterases in human plasma was not observed to any detectable extent and the only species detected after the incubation period was creatinine. While not a definitive characterization of the IN VIVO behavior, these results strongly warrant a complete IN VIVO pharmacokinetic analysis of creatine ethyl ester since it appears these “pronutrients” may actually provide large exogenous sources of pharmacologically inactive creatinine rather than ergogenic creatine.

Surprise. Surprise. It’s being converted to the useless byproduct creatiNINE, not creatine. So that’s why more creatinine is showing up in the blood, less creatine is showing up in the blood, and it’s taking longer to fill the muscle with creatine. Ah, the legitamacy of the dietary supplement industry. I can’t believe the efficacy studies prior to its release didn’t catch that. Oh wait, those aren’t required. Neither are safety studies.

Everyone together now…… B_LLSH_T

-Doc

Next Page »