X-Factor contradictions

[nunes]

After reading this study and seeing some contradictions to MN initial claims on x-factor I ask:
So if after all AA is antiinflammatory the restrictions on taking antiinflammatory compounds while on cycle are still maintained by MN?


Published: 28 November 2007

Effects of arachidonic acid supplementation on training adaptations in resistance-trained males

Abstract (provisional)

Background
To determine the impact of AA supplementation during resistance training on body composition, training adaptations, and markers of muscle hypertrophy in resistance-trained males.

Methods

In a randomized and double blind manner, 31 resistance-trained male subjects (22.1 +/- 5.0 yrs, 180.0 +/- 0.1 cm, 86.1 +/- 13.0 kg, 18.1 +/- 6.4% body fat) ingested either a placebo (PLA: 1 g * d-1 corn oil, n = 16) or AA (AA: 1 g * d-1 AA, n = 15) while participating in a standardized 4d * wk-1 resistance training regimen. Fasting blood samples, body composition, bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM), leg press 1RM and Wingate anaerobic capacity sprint tests were completed after 0, 25, and 50 days of supplementation. Percutaneous muscle biopsies were taken from the vastus lateralis on days 0 and 50.

Results


Wingate relative peak power was significantly greater after 50 days of supplementation while the inflammatory cytokine IL-6 was significantly lower after 25 days of supplementation in the AA group. PGE2 levels tended to be greater in the AA group. No significant differences were observed between groups in body composition, strength, anabolic and catabolic hormones, or markers of muscle hypertrophy (i.e., total protein content or MHC type I, IIa, and IIx protein content) and other intramuscular markers (i.e., FP and EP3 receptor activity or MHC type I, IIa, and IIx mRNA expression).

Conclusions

AA supplementation during resistance-training may enhance anaerobic capacity and lessen the inflammatory response to training. However, AA supplementation does not promote greater gains in strength, muscle mass, or influence markers of muscle hypertrophy

 

[cal62887]

Llewellyn's Response to Study

Link to full study:

https://beardocs.baylor.edu/bitstream/2104/4890/1/Mike_Roberts_masters.pdf

Response:

I apologize for jumping in, but I did feel it necessary to respond to this. First, here are my comments with regard to the study.. I will address some of your stronger accusations in my next post.

As you know, the Baylor study was finally published. I have to say on behalf of Molecular Nutrition that we are extremely excited to see this paper finally hit the medical books. This study is the first one of its kind with arachidonic acid, and we had some great findings, and some very promising results to follow up on. For those unfamiliar with exactly what we saw during the study, let me rundown the results.

Raw Data:

First, with regard to the raw data, the arachidonic acid group had higher numbers on all measures relating to body mass, strength, and performance. This includes Total body mass, DEXA lean mass, Leg press 1RM, Bench press 1RM, Wingate average power, Wingate anaerobic endurance, and Wingate relative peak power. The AA group also noticed higher levels of prostaglandins PGE2 and PGF2alpha, lower levels of inflammatory cytokine IL-6, and had no changes in any of the markers of safety.

Significant Findings:

Those key measures that reached the level of "statistical significance", the ultimate threshold for legitimacy in a medical study, were 1) increased peak anaerobic power over the 50-day study, 2) reduced IL-6 (inflammatory marker) at 25 days, and 3) no adverse effect on any of the markers of safety during the 50 day study.

Statistically Strong Findings:

Increases that reached the level of being considered "statistically strong" findings were increases in bench press 1RM, increased average anaerobic power, increased anaerobic endurance, reduced IL-6 levels at 50 days, and increased prostaglandin production.

On Statistical Significance:

If the AA group did better on every measure, why is this not reported? In a non-publishable paper such results often are. But to enter the medical literate, the reviewers must be sure each result was not one of chance. After all, one group will always outperform another in a 2-group study. Statistical significance is required, which tries to assure mathematically that an observed relationship could not have occurred by pure chance. The threshold is usually a "95% confidence interval", which means that there was a 95% probability that the relationship between the variables was valid, and only a 5% or less probability it could have been a chance finding. A statistically strong finding is usually one of 80% CI or better. Statically strong trends are generally not reported in published papers, but, as in our case, are often reported in conferences and early abstracts to inform other scientists that this is an area worthy of more research

The arachidonic acid study was a small study. It was the first of its kind, and funded by Molecular Nutrition at a time when the product was still very young and our resources very limited. With these constraints we opted to fund a study with only 15 participants in each group. We knew going in that it would be difficult to reach statistical significance in small groups like this, as inter-individual variability might easily blur the strength of the data. But we were resigned to study it as best we could. In our case, we had great overall numbers, but it only took a couple of people in the placebo group to make good gains to drop below the threshold of statistical significance on many measures. This is one of the reasons it is much better to fund studies with large groups. As the populations increase, the effect that individual variables may have on the outcome (mathematically) can be reduced.

With the great success we've had with X-Factor and arachidonic acid licensing in recent months, we are in a much different position now than we were 2.5 years ago, and are preparing for another much larger study at the present time. We've also been working on some new strategies for our next phase of testing. In addition to using more participants, we are also looking at ways to better homogenize the groups. We'd like to work perhaps with more experienced athletes/bodybuilders to minimize placebo gains, and are even contemplating an adaptation period to training, as one of the drawback with the present study was that all individuals had to conform to a new weight lifting routine, which in of itself often stimulates growth.

Overall this first study, even thou small, still gave us some incredibly great findings. We had some strong statistical trends on some very key measures, and even some statistically significant gains worthy of publication in the medical literature! For a first crack at a study of this sort, I have to say that it sure ain't bad. Of course an out-of-the park homerun would have been better, but we can expect only so much on our first small study. If we gained anything from this it was that 1) we did see AA increase performance strongly enough to reach statistical significance, even in a small study 2) AA supplementation produced statistically strong trends on many other measures of performance, supporting the need for another, more thorough study, 3) we reinforced that AA supplementation was perfectly safe, and 4) we noticed a statistically significant reduction in IL-6 levels, a central regulator of inflammation.

If you ask me, the IL-6 data was the single most important finding of the study, and worth every penny we spent on it. Beforehand, it was a very commonly held belief that AA supplementation would increase inflammation. We now have proof to the contrary, and even that it reduces inflammation. With the safety data on AA supplementation now overwhelming, and the performance data very strong, we really believe we are on the doorstep of a recognized "huge" breakthrough in the science of muscle growth and supplementation. As nearly all people who use it can attest, arachidonic acid can be an amazing anabolic supplement. We know that we've developed something extremely big here with AA, and look forward to funding more research studies into this nutrient.

I'd also like to commend Baylor for their hard work and dedication to the project!

 

[nunes]

Link to full study:

https://beardocs.baylor.edu/bitstream/2104/4890/1/Mike_Roberts_masters.pdf

Response:

thanks bro, I think this prove that its not needed to make restrictions on diet and antiflamatory compounds while on a AA cycle.
I`m a little bit disappointed with the results from the study, first because AA is clearly not a supplement for muscle hypertrophy, second because once more he see that a company launch a product without knowing very well what it does, I`m not saying that AA is snake oil because clearly it is not but the initial statements for MN were very far from true.

 

[cal62887]

thanks bro, I think this prove that its not needed to make restrictions on diet on and antiflamatory compounds while on a AA cycle.

Correct. And some more info. for ya

This is the first paper of its kind, as most previous investigations of arachidonic acid supplementation safety involved Westerners with low daily intakes of Omega-3 fatty acids. Habitual daily intakes of DHA and EPA in this study ranged from 42 to 691mg and 98 to 991mg, respectively. The average intakes were about 310mg and 550 mg per day. Among the findings were the following.

2-Week Buildup Window:

It took 2 weeks for maximum arachidonic acid levels to be achieved in serum phospholipids. This was the first study to closely examine the time it took to reach peak levels with AA supplementations, and reinforces anecdotal observations of a 2-3 week ?loading? window before significant results are noted with supplementation in bodybuilders/athletes.

4-Week Washout:

Arachidonic acid levels remained elevated for a few weeks after supplementation was discontinued. They reached their pretreated levels after 4 weeks. This may also explain why some continue to notice progress in the immediate weeks following AA discontinuation.

Omega-3?s Had No Effect:

Peak arachidonic acid levels were similar in this study to other studies where AA was given to subjects with low dietary levels of Omega-3 fatty acids. At these levels there did not appear to be any significant Omega-3 antagonism of arachidonic acid. This study reinforces the anecdotal observations that low doses of fish oil or regular fish consumption do not appear to appreciably diminish the results of arachidonic acid supplementation.

I`m a little bit disappointed with the results from the study, first because AA is clearly not a supplement for muscle hypertrophy, second because once more he see that a company launch a product without knowing very well what it does, I`m not saying that AA is snake oil because clearly it is not but the initial statements for MN were very far from true.

Yes, and No.... There are a lot of variables and unanswered questions and you can't rule AA use out completely. My response to your question wouldn't touch the complexity and detail that others may have so here is yet another quote which points out mainly how the next study may be changed or 'tailored" in the future.

The Baylor study failed to produce statistical significance on the gains in body mass, lean body mass, and some other measures even though all weight and performance measures were higher in the AA group. We used small groups and there was too much personal variability. To produce a 95% confidence interval is difficult in supplement studies, especially small ones, as it only takes a few in the placebo group to make gains to skew significance.

To give you a little background Hackskii, you will find that there is a P Value next to most outcomes in a study. First you look at the total outcome, in this case which group gained more weight and strength. For the Baylor study it was indeed the AA group, on every measure. Then you must measure all the individual differences in groups to determine the odds that the groups reflected a change caused by the intervention and not random chance; what confidence you can have in the result. This is the P value. A P value of .05 says there was a 95% chance the intervention caused X result. A P value of .15 says there was an 85% chance. Only a P Value of 95% or greater is considered "proof" in a clinical study. In our case, due to small groups and differences between individuals, we only reached statistical significance on a couple of measures. You can see from the standard deviations that the numbers were quite broad. This does not mean the study proved AA doesn't build muscle, only that we could not prove it with 95% confidence or greater based on the variability of the numbers.

Even so, we did have some statistically strong and statistically significant measures, which demonstrates that AA does indeed effect performance and is not just a working as a blind placebo. So for a Phase I we are very pleased, and look forward to a larger and better controlled test for Phase II.

And I will remind you that I am giving the product away to prove it works. This debate is if it is safe or not.

Also note that not many companies go the clinical route when testing supplements. MN is leaps and bounds among other companies and deserve a lot of credit for doing so. You can also check out some of the logs where people have noticed great gains and muscle preservation. I myself have bulked with X Factor and bulked without it and noticed a complete difference.

 

[nunes]

Correct. And some more info. for ya





Yes, and No.... There are a lot of variables and unanswered questions and you can't rule AA use out completely. My response to your question wouldn't touch the complexity and detail that others may have so here is yet another quote which points out mainly how the next study may be changed or 'tailored" in the future.



Also note that not many companies go the clinical route when testing supplements. MN is leaps and bounds among other companies and deserve a lot of credit for doing so. You can also check out some of the logs where people have noticed great gains and muscle preservation. I myself have bulked with X Factor and bulked without it and noticed a complete difference.

I was not expecting that MN said the contrary(commercially it would be a disaster) but without new data I`m now skeptic about it, skeptic because as I said before MN launched the product without knowing a lot of things of it.
Another thing that gets me upset is when they say that they still not sure if the product is safe or not , makes me fell like a guinea pig...but one thing I agree, we got to give them credit , they are studding the compound (rare thing in the supplement world) but I still dont like when a product its launched with a lot of claims not proved and without knowing the consequences of use , but do what?, money rules...

 

[cal62887]

Another thing that gets me upset is when they say that they still not sure if the product is safe or not , makes me fell like a guinea pig...

The last thing MN is trying to do is to hurt the consumer. I know personally that they would not do that and are not in it just for the money as many owners/businesses are.

As far as safety, it seems as though it's not only completely safe at controlled levels but may prove to be more beneficial than MN originally thought.


Here is straight from the FAQ on safety

5. Is it safe?

Yes, as a matter of fact it is a component of Baby food. Studies using up to 1.5 grams of Arachidonic acid per day for 50 days have shown no ill effects. (10,11,12) Our own study at one gram per day also showed no ill effects. (13) As a matter of fact x factor showed very strong trends at reducing an important inflammatory marker predictive of total mortality. The marker reduced was IL-6 while corn oil (another omega 6) meanwhile had no effect (14) So X factor may very well have a protective benefit.

Here are the correlated citations:

10. Nelson GJ, Schmidt PC, Bartolini G, Kelley DS, Kyle D. The effect of dietary arachidonic acid on platelet fatty acid comnposition, and blood coagulation in humans. Lipids. 1997 Apr; 32(4): 421-5.



11. Kelley DS, Taylor PC. Nelson GJ, Schmidt PC, Makey BF, Kyle D. Effects of dietary arachidonic acid on human immune response. Lipids. 1997 Apr; 32(4): 449-56.



12 Nelson GJ, Schmidt PC, Bartolini G, Kelley DS, Phinney SD, Kyle D, Silbermann S, Schaefer FJ. The effect of dietary arachidonic acid on plasma lipoprotein distributions, apoproteins, blood lipid levels, and tissue fatty acid composition in humans. Lipids. 1997 Apr; 32940: 427-33.




13 Wilborn, C, M Roberts, C Kerksick, M Iosia, L Taylor, B Campbell, T Harvey, R Wilson, M. Greenwood, D Willoughby and R Kreider. Changes in whole blood and clinical safety markers over 50 days of concomitant arachidonic acid supplementation and resistance training. Exercise & Sport Nutrition Laboratory, Center for Exercise, Nutrition & Preventive Health Research, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798-7313.



14 Roberts, M, C Kerksick, L Taylor, M Iosia, B Campbell, C Wilborn, T Harvey, R Wilson, M. Greenwood, D Willoughby and R Kreider. Hormonal and intramuscular adaptations over 50 days of concomitant arachidonic acid supplementation and resistance training. Exercise & Sport Nutrition Laboratory, Center for Exercise, Nutrition & Preventive Health Research, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798-7313.

 

[nunes]

The last thing MN is trying to do is to hurt the consumer. I know personally that they would not do that and are not in it just for the money as many owners/businesses are.

As far as safety, it seems as though it's not only completely safe at controlled levels but may prove to be more beneficial than MN originally thought.


Here is straight from the FAQ on safety


Here are the correlated citations:

10. Nelson GJ, Schmidt PC, Bartolini G, Kelley DS, Kyle D. The effect of dietary arachidonic acid on platelet fatty acid comnposition, and blood coagulation in humans. Lipids. 1997 Apr; 32(4): 421-5.



11. Kelley DS, Taylor PC. Nelson GJ, Schmidt PC, Makey BF, Kyle D. Effects of dietary arachidonic acid on human immune response. Lipids. 1997 Apr; 32(4): 449-56.



12 Nelson GJ, Schmidt PC, Bartolini G, Kelley DS, Phinney superdrol, Kyle D, Silbermann S, Schaefer FJ. The effect of dietary arachidonic acid on plasma lipoprotein distributions, apoproteins, blood lipid levels, and tissue fatty acid composition in humans. Lipids. 1997 Apr; 32940: 427-33.




13 Wilborn, C, M Roberts, C Kerksick, M Iosia, L Taylor, B Campbell, T Harvey, R Wilson, M. Greenwood, D Willoughby and R Kreider. Changes in whole blood and clinical safety markers over 50 days of concomitant arachidonic acid supplementation and resistance training. Exercise & Sport Nutrition Laboratory, Center for Exercise, Nutrition & Preventive Health Research, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798-7313.



14 Roberts, M, C Kerksick, L Taylor, M Iosia, B Campbell, C Wilborn, T Harvey, R Wilson, M. Greenwood, D Willoughby and R Kreider. Hormonal and intramuscular adaptations over 50 days of concomitant arachidonic acid supplementation and resistance training. Exercise & Sport Nutrition Laboratory, Center for Exercise, Nutrition & Preventive Health Research, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798-7313.

Lets hope you are right , lets see the future studies...

 

[cal62887]

Lets hope you are right , lets see the future studies...

.... Well quoted from another forum, these are the conditions that MN (Bill) would like to have in the next study

And I am of course happy to see the positive data they were able to produce from it. But I will say that this is one area we really want to focus on for the next phase of testing. We would like to have larger groups, stronger training status requirements (maybe 3 years min), and perhaps even have an adaptation period if the study calls for everyone to standardize with one set of training protocols. We really want to find two groups that would be fairly static with their results without supplementation.

I too would love to see these results. I know from personal experience that AA works wonders for many people.

 

[nunes]

.... Well quoted from another forum, these are the conditions that MN (Bill) would like to have in the next study



I too would love to see these results. I know from personal experience that AA works wonders for many people.

thanks for your feedback, great help...

 

[John Smeton]

and on it goes. I was looking for the studies on omegas 3's.

 

[cal62887]

and on it goes. I was looking for the studies on omegas 3's.

Studies on Omega 3 usage with X Factor?

would you like the link to the full study that i've quoted above?

 

[John Smeton]

can you post it so everyone can see it?

again a low to moderate dose of omegas 3s are fine on Xfactor

 

[cal62887]

New Arachidonic Acid Study

This is brought over from bodyofscience.com


This is the full article for the corresponding NEWS headline.

New Paper on Arachidonic Acid Supplementation

A paper on the supplementation of arachidonic acid (AA) was recently published in the British Journal of Nutrition (British Journal of Nutrition (2007), 98, 451?453). This article is of interest to the athletic community supplementing arachidonic acid for a number of reasons, most notably its focus on safety, its close examination of the buildup and depletion of arachidonic acid in the body, and its use of AA combined with a high intake of Omega-3 fatty acids. Key to this review was a study published in the same journal in April of 2007 by Kusumoto et al. (Br J Nutr. 2007 Sep;98(3):626-35. Epub 2007 Apr 20), which involved the supplementation of arachidonic acid (840mg/d) in a group of 24 healthy Japanese men that consumed high amounts of fish in their diet. This is the first paper of its kind, as most previous investigations of arachidonic acid supplementation safety involved Westerners with low daily intakes of Omega-3 fatty acids. Habitual daily intakes of DHA and EPA in this study ranged from 42 to 691mg and 98 to 991mg, respectively. The average intakes were about 310mg and 550 mg per day. Among the findings were the following.

2-Week Buildup Window:

It took 2 weeks for maximum arachidonic acid levels to be achieved in serum phospholipids. This was the first study to closely examine the time it took to reach peak levels with AA supplementations, and reinforces anecdotal observations of a 2-3 week ?loading? window before significant results are noted with supplementation in bodybuilders/athletes.

4-Week Washout:

Arachidonic acid levels remained elevated for a few weeks after supplementation was discontinued. They reached their pretreated levels after 4 weeks. This may also explain why some continue to notice progress in the immediate weeks following AA discontinuation.

Omega-3?s Had No Effect:

Peak arachidonic acid levels were similar in this study to other studies where AA was given to subjects with low dietary levels of Omega-3 fatty acids. At these levels there did not appear to be any significant Omega-3 antagonism of arachidonic acid. This study reinforces the anecdotal observations that low doses of fish oil or regular fish consumption do not appear to appreciably diminish the results of arachidonic acid supplementation.

Arachidonic Acid Supplementation is Safe:

This paper one again takes a review of the safety of arachidonic acid supplementation, with interest in its effects on many areas of health including inflammation, immune functioning, lipids, blood pressure, platelet aggregation, glucose concentrations, liver function, and bleeding time, and notes that arachidonic acid supplementation appears to be perfectly safe in healthy subjects. When noting the inclusion of the most recent AA study (Kusumoto), the British Journal of Nutrition review states:

?Taken together with earlier studies, this study suggests that, rather than being harmful, moderately increased arachidonic acid intake is probably harmless in healthy adults, although the effect of intakes above 1.5g/d are not known and the effect of increased intake in diseased individuals is not known.?

 

[John Smeton]

so low to moderate intake of omega 3's

Today i took in twenty fish oil capsules...

Its probally a good idea to limit the fish oil when on X -factor(AA) Im thinking..This study the people took in not even a gram a day right?

 

[cal62887]

so low to moderate intake of omega 3's

Today i took in twenty fish oil capsules...

Its probally a good idea to limit the fish oil when on X -factor(AA) Im thinking..This study the people took in not even a gram a day right?

Well mega dosing fish oil has several problems.

1. It's a waste of money
2. You dont need it to reach a maximal plasma response:

n–3 Fatty acids have important visual, mental, and cardiovascular health benefits throughout the life cycle. Biodistribution, interconversion, and dose response data are reviewed herein to provide a basis for more rational n–3 dose selections. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is the principal n–3 fatty acid in tissues and is particularly abundant in neural and retinal tissue. Limited storage of the n–3 fatty acids in adipose tissue suggests that a continued dietary supply is needed. A large proportion of dietary -linolenic acid (ALA) is oxidized, and because of limited interconversion of n–3 fatty acids in humans, ALA supplementation does not result in appreciable accumulation of long-chain n–3 fatty acids in plasma. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) but not DHA concentrations in plasma increase in response to dietary EPA. Dietary DHA results in a dose-dependent, saturable increase in plasma DHA concentrations and modest increases in EPA concentrations. Plasma DHA concentrations equilibrate in approximately 1 mo and then remain at steady state throughout supplementation. DHA doses of 2 g/d result in a near maximal plasma response. Both dietary DHA and EPA reduce plasma arachidonic acid concentrations. Tissue contents of DHA and EPA also increase in response to supplementation with these fatty acids. Human milk contents of DHA are dependent on diet, and infant DHA concentrations are determined by their dietary intake of this fatty acid. We conclude that the most predictable way to increase a specific long-chain n–3 fatty acid in plasma, tissues, or human milk is to supplement with the fatty acid of interest.

3. You risk skeletal muscle
4. Jeopardize Immune system function
5. Risk NEUROLOGICAL damage from high DHA levels

(thanks nohype)


As for X Factor and EFAs. I would simply drop the Fish Oils/CLA and get EFAs from diet while on cycle. Eat some fatty fish every once in a while and you're good to go.

 

[EasyEJL]

20 fish oil caps doesn't necessarily get you more than 2g of DHA

 

[FrankJ]

AA is not an anti-inflammatory.

Its a pro-inflammatory that forces your body to learn to deal with inflammation better. The end result is that your body learns to adapt better. It produces more chemicals that reduce inflammation, and it learns to recuperate faster/better, thus the muscle gains.

Taking an anti-inflammatory reduces that effectiveness because your body is not forced to adapt.

 

[MuscleGuyinNY]

AA is not an anti-inflammatory.

Its a pro-inflammatory that forces your body to learn to deal with inflammation better. The end result is that your body learns to adapt better. It produces more chemicals that reduce inflammation, and it learns to recuperate faster/better, thus the muscle gains.

Taking an anti-inflammatory reduces that effectiveness because your body is not forced to adapt.

Never thought of that. Huh.

 

[nunes]

AA is not an anti-inflammatory.

Its a pro-inflammatory that forces your body to learn to deal with inflammation better. The end result is that your body learns to adapt better. It produces more chemicals that reduce inflammation, and it learns to recuperate faster/better, thus the muscle gains.

Taking an anti-inflammatory reduces that effectiveness because your body is not forced to adapt.

Maybe your right but I would like to see some MN rep or chemist posting that...