Jump to content

spitzky

[07] HONORED II
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    561

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by spitzky

    Supplements - to Take or Not to Take?

    in Health and Fitness

    Posted

    Many believe that you need to load creatine in order to maximize its benefits. However, many forget that we already have creatine in our bodies, so no need to load them. 2nd, you can get the same benefits of cratine you purchased from the shelf just by eating more red meat.

     

    actually, if u take 5 grams a day, it will take about 2 weeks for u load creatine completely (saturate ur muscles) coz the body can only store a certain amount... but a diet of red meat is unlikely to ever give u the same benefits without u getting a bad case of gout first....coz 1 kilo of red meat has only about 2 grams of creatine......

    studies show that the classical 20grams a day loading phase only accelerates the results for about 2 weeks, then the 5grams a day group caught up...

    after the muscles are saturated, 3 grams after training should be plenty

     

    hi kwol, newbie here.  i believe you're bulking right? if you are... don't bother about eating clean... just eat eat eat!  :D worry about it later when you're be cutting.  i used to eat in KFC 3x a day  :D

     

     

    i didnt just read that... did i? am i seeing things? may tama pa yata ako... hangover lang cguro ito... :wacko:

    Supplements - to Take or Not to Take?

    in Health and Fitness

    Posted

    PACKAGING DIGEST

    May 2005

    Page 22

     

    Ephedrine saga: News reports can be of little help

     

    This month's practical advice is: Don't believe everything you hear on TV or radio or read in the papers about legal and regulatory issues. Ask an informed lawyer to sort it out for you.

     

    It was with great interest that on Thurs., April 14, I read a whole series of online headlines. They noted that a judge "Strikes down FDA ban on Ephedra [ABC News, Fox News]," and "Utah judge strikes down ephedra ban [Associated Press]" and "Ephedra gets a reprieve, may be sold again [Washington Times]."

     

    The federal judge in Utah did no such thing. That is, her ruling only applied to a limited range of products containing ephedrine. So, a few words here explain what really happened, and then we add a bit of media criticism.

     

    Judge Tena Campbell, in the case of Nutraceutical Corporation v. Crawford, only ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ban was invalid on those ephedra products with 10 mg or less of ephedra alkaloids per daily dose (which is what the plaintiff in the Utah case sold). Many ephedra products sold before the ban last year had much higher doses than that. The ruling doesn't affect the ban on those other products a whit. It's misleading at best to headline a story by saying the ban was overturned.

     

    The agency's dramatic action against ephedrine-containing products, which FDA had associated with serious heart and other health problems in some people, took effect just about one year ago, after many years in which FDA examined the evidence (see PD, Feb. '04, p. 22).

     

    FDA had previously proposed to restrict the product at one point, only to withdraw the proposal under pressure from other federal officials. It then went back, collected more evidence and then proposed the ban that went into effect last year. But according to Campbell, FDA's evidence of the product's danger at doses of 10 mg or below was still inadequate to justify outlawing the product.

     

    That's in part because Congress, correctly surmising that dietary supplements were—generally speaking—usually safe, created a regulatory scheme that allowed products to go onto the market without prior vetting by FDA, and required the agency to prove that the products were unsafe if it wanted to pull them off of the market.

     

    According to Judge Campbell, FDA's evidence of the product's danger at doses of 10 mg or less was inadequate to justify outlawing the product.

     

    "The statute requires an affirmative demonstration of 'significant or unreasonable' risk at a particular dose level to support a finding of adulteration," wrote Campbell. The judge added, "There is not sufficient evidence in the administrative record to establish that the risks identified by the FDA are associated with the intake of low-dose [ephedrine-containing dietary supplements]."

     

    Said the judge, for evidence of the dangers of low doses of ephedrine-containing products, FDA had relied primarily on a study in which a doctor compared the safety of ephedrine to the safety of intravenous injections of epinephrine, and had relied on a model of the expected effects based on the known effects of epinephrine.

     

    The judge read the law and said that its plain language "requires a dose-specific analysis" by FDA, quoting a Senate report about the law back when it was proposed that said, "a safety finding cannot be entered against a supplement based upon a dosage not recommended to consumers in the labeling."

     

    The judge continued, saying that with this product, "there is no specific data involving the oral ingestion of 10 milligrams per day of [ephedrine dietary supplements]."

     

    Campbell sent the case back to FDA, ordering it to take further action "consistent with this order," which might mean that FDA looks at the evidence again and decides that 10 mg or less is not clearly unsafe, therefore can be sold. It also might mean FDA scrounges around for more evidence that those low doses are dangerous and uses that evidence to again ban them. Or it might appeal the case to the federal appeals court, arguing that Campbell's decision was not well reasoned on the facts or law.

     

    In the meantime, Campbell ordered FDA not to take any enforcement action against Nutraceutical Corporation should they sell ephedrine products with doses of 10 mg or less, which they might again do.

     

    So the decision clearly has no relevance at all to products with more than a 10-mg-per-day recommended dose. Therefore, a key question is: Why couldn't news reporters and editors report the facts?

     

    Nowadays, when science and technology are ever more central to our lives, so that we need to understand them to judge how best to deal with them, and when a battle over "out-of-control judges" is brewing, so that we need to understand the legal system and what judges do in order to choose sides in that battle, the public needs sufficient information more than ever. And yet, too often when it comes to legal and regulatory issues, the TV and radio media in particular not only are short on details, but they also lack facts.

     

    How many times has a TV reporter told you someone sued someone else, but didn't tell you what they sued for (I sometimes wonder if reporters even know there is always a written complaint filed by the plaintiff that they could read and analyze before trying to explain a lawsuit.)? If they tell you what they sued for, how often do they give you some idea of whether it's a typical case or a theory from Mars?

     

    And on matters regulatory, how many times have news stories left you baffled about what the rules are, for example, about the environment or FDA regulations of drugs or foods?

     

    My theory is that too few reporters who cover these issues understand the most fundamental facts about the law and the legal system, and end up misleading you when they report on it. In this instance, the explanation might be as simple as that the writers of the initial stories and headlines about this court decision never even read the judge's decision.

     

    Meanwhile, some lawmakers want to strengthen FDA's powers in this area to avoid rulings like this, perhaps placing the burden of proving safety onto manufacturers. We haven't nearly heard the end of this ephedrine saga.

     

    Eric F. Greenberg is principal attorney with Eric F. Greenberg, PC, with a practice concentrated in food and drug law, packaging law and commercial litigation. Visit his firm's website at www.ericfgreenbergpc.com. Contact him by e-mail at efgreenberg@uhlaw.com, or by phone at 312/977-4647.

    Supplements - to Take or Not to Take?

    in Health and Fitness

    Posted

    that's weird, i see three-band white traces in the inside of my dark shirts as well. and i thought i was a freak :boo:

     

    hypertension runs in my family tho, so i just make do with what salt my food comes with.

     

    but then these past few weeks i've been eating gyudon beef/sushi + wasabi/soy sauce EVERY SINGLE FRICKIN DAY- hafta check my BP sooner or later....

     

    it seems ur getting plenty then... and then some

    Supplements - to Take or Not to Take?

    in Health and Fitness

    Posted

    1. Good suggestion for those who want to bulk up.

    2. There is no best time but after working out helps replenish your depleted glycogen stores.

    3. Dilute milk with something.

    4. Definitely true.

    5. Tempo is relative. Lifting in a fast manner also has its place. WHat is more important is you lift in proper form.

    6. 5x/wk? are you kidding? 3x/wk is already more than enough if done right.

    7. As long as you can control it

    8. These websites are crap. They focus more on selling their supplements and the endorsers use roids.

    9. You aren't destroying your internal organs with these but they are useless if you don't trai and eat right.

     

    enervon HP??? :blink:

     

    they do sell lactose-free milk........

     

    and yes, most sites are crap...

    Supplements - to Take or Not to Take?

    in Health and Fitness

    Posted

    Creatine Timing

     

    Despite a relatively long and prosperous existence, there's still considerable debate about when to take creatine. In fact, as time goes by, the subject of timing seems to get even more complicated. Some people take it only after workouts, some before workouts, while others say it doesn't matter. Let's have a quick look at the reasoning behind these ideas and hopefully put this baby to bed.

     

    Taking creatine before a workout initially makes sense, because that way we'll have the creatine readily available during training. Of course, this novice thinking doesn't hold water because it takes a while for creatine to enter the muscle cell where it can enhance performance. In fact, it's been shown that pre-workout creatine consumption has no effect over placebo (19). What's more, we know that the anticatabolic effects of creatine are more long lived and don't suddenly take effect during a workout.

     

    More recently, the pre-workout creatine theory got a big boost from the scientific literature. Tipton and buddies (27) showed that consuming a pre-workout meal enhanced muscle protein synthesis twice as much as the same meal consumed after a workout. This enhanced nutrient delivery and subsequent uptake could, some believe, apply to pre-workout creatine as well.

     

    Unfortunately, we're comparing apples and oranges here. Carbohydrates stimulate blood flow and amino acids stimulate protein synthesis, but creatine does neither. We've also established that the effects of creatine occur long after the workout has occurred, while those of protein and sugars are far more acute. Sadly, the theory of a pre-workout creatine advantage doesn't seem to hold water any way you look at it.

     

    As much as we love complicated scientific theories behind our practices, the post-workout creatine logic is quite simple: workouts deplete creatine, so post-workout we fill it back up. We can also take advantage of our post-workout insulin spike to drive the creatine into our muscles.

     

    Perhaps the most important determinant of when to take creatine is the overwhelming mass of data available from the scientific literature. We have numerous studies showing that post-workout creatine consumption is effective, while the only study for pre-workout intake showed no acute effect.

     

    Bottom Line: We have no scientific data to support pre-workout creatine use, but also none to suggest it's harmful. I'd stick with the tried and true method until evidence to the contrary arrives.

     

     

    About The Author

     

    David Barr is a strength coach and scientist with research specialty in supplements and muscle growth. In addition to his work for NASA at the Johnson Space Center, David's research career has involved everything from the cellular basis of muscle breakdown to work on critically ill catabolic patients. He holds certifications with the NSCA as well as USA Track and Field, and can be contacted through his website: www.RaiseTheBarr.net.

    Supplements - to Take or Not to Take?

    in Health and Fitness

    Posted

    J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2002 Sep;42(3):320-9. Related Articles, Links

     

    Pre-exercise oral creatine ingestion does not improve prolonged intermittent sprint exercise in humans.

     

    Preen D, Dawson B, Goodman C, Lawrence S, Beilby J, Ching S.

     

    Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia. dpreen@mbox.com.au

     

    BACKGROUND: This investigation determined whether pre-exercise oral Cr ingestion could enhance prolonged intermittent sprint exercise performance. METHODS: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: a randomised, double-blind crossover design was employed. SETTING: testing was performed at the Western Australian Institute of Sport and participants were monitored and treated by both scientific and medical personnel. PARTICIPANTS: eight active, but not well-trained males with a background in multiple-sprint based sports acted as subjects for this investigation. INTERVENTIONS: subjects ingested either 15 g Cr.H2O or placebo 120 min and 60 min prior to the start of an 80-min maximal sprint cycling task (10 sets of multiple 6-sec sprints with varying active recoveries). Subjects were retested 14 days later, being required to ingest the alternate supplement and repeat the exercise test. MEASURES: performance variables (work done and peak power) were obtained throughout the exercise challenge. Muscle biopsies (vastus lateralis) were raised to a peak of 2348+/-223 micromol x l(-1) prior to the commencement of exercise after Cr ingestion. There were no significant changes in any cycling performance parameters following Cr ingestion, although blood La- was significantly lower (p<0.05) than placebo at all time points during were taken preexercise as well as immediately and 3 min post-exercise in order to determine concentrations of ATP, PCr, Cr, La- and glycogen. Venous blood was drawn prior to and on four occasions during the exercise test, and analysed for Cr, NH3+, La- and pH. RESULTS: Serum Cr concentrations exercise, and plasma NH3+ accumulation was also significantly reduced (p<0.05) in the Cr condition, but only in the second half of the 80-min exercise test. Muscle ATP and TCr levels as well as postexercise PCr replenishment were unaffected following Cr administration. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that although the pre-exercise ingestion of a large Cr dose was shown to have some impact on blood borne metabolites, it does not improve maximal prolonged intermittent sprint exercise performance, possibly due to an insufficient time allowed for uptake of serum Cr by skeletal muscle to occur. Therefore, this form of loading does not provide an alternative method of Cr supplementation to the traditional five-day supplementation regimes established by previous research.

    Supplements - to Take or Not to Take?

    in Health and Fitness

    Posted

    Bro,

    i also strongly suggest that you should take some creatine at least one serving before your workout...also avoid supplements that will negate one another such as hydroxycut or xenadrine and protein or creatine...you should have ONLY ONE goal, either to gain mass or to get cut...u cant do both...just my 2 cents...God Bless...noah

     

    creatine shud be taked after workouts coz most of the creatine ull take before workouts will just end up in ur pee

×
×
  • Create New...