[Skircus7]

I just received my electronic version of Muscular Development(Nov pg190) and saw another one of our beta-alanine articles published. They actually forgot Sebastian's name on the article this time, as Anssi and Sebastian collaborated on this write-up..lol But none the less, Sebastian wrote the beta-alanine section and Anssi wrote the leucine section.

This article is a head on comparison with creatine, showing their similarities and differences. As you all know, beta-alanine consistently gets touted as the next creatine for obvious reasons.

The point of this article was to show why it is often touted this way, but at the same time, also explain how this statement can be misleading if the details are not fully understood. Hopefully the intention of this article is understood and the reader realizes that beta-alanine DOES NOT replace creatine. At the same time getting the point across, that they do share many parallels, which brings about the comparison.

You all know I love beta-alanine, but I also have huge respect for creatine and do not want beta-alanine to be known as a replacement to creatine. Not only would it be inaccurate to market beta-alanine this way, it could also stop people from properly understanding how beta-alanine works and how different it is from creatine!

Creatine is one of my all time favorite supplements and NOTHING can ever replace it. I believe both creatine and beta-alanine to be the two most effective ergogenic aids in sports nutrition by FAR.

IntraXCell-FAQ-THE DEFINITIVE Beta-Alanine thread-

SteelEdge FAQ-

Our product summary review thread-

Beta-Alanine(IntraXCell) study-

Beta-Alanine & PreWO articles in Muscular Development!

Our beta-alanine article- science meets real world results, in Muscular Development-


ATHLETIC EDGE NUTRITION interviews OLYMPIC hopeful Michael James!








Thank you for your support and we have another VERY different article that should be out in MD next month!

[Boris]

I'm confused - it says a study found no performance improvement in 400m sprinters, I don't see the point of achieving higher muscular carnosine levels if it doesn't translate into a performance improvement?

[Athletic Edge N]

Originally Posted by Boris

I'm confused - it says a study found no performance improvement in 400m sprinters, I don't see the point of achieving higher muscular carnosine levels if it doesn't translate into a performance improvement?

Don't be, there about 20 human performance beta-alanine studies, showing without a doubt it increases anaerobic strength,power and endurance. Look at this study closely, understand how beta-alanine works and you can easily figure out why beta-alanine did not improve their 400m times.

I have a post about it from another forum I will bring over here later.

[Boris]

Originally Posted by Athletic Edge N

Don't be, there about 20 human performance beta-alanine studies, showing without a doubt it increases anaerobic strength,power and endurance. Look at this study closely, understand how beta-alanine works and you can easily figure out why beta-alanine did not improve their 400m times.

I have a post about it from another forum I will bring over here later.

I understand how it works, but I would expect an increased buffering ability to improve 400m running performance. It might not be as big an improvement in % terms as for a shorter race, but I'd expect it to be there nonetheless, though perhaps it's hard to measure due to experimental variation in times. I would expect an increased buffering ability to improve performance even over longer distances such as 1500m, because ultimately you will sprint for the finish and a bigger buffer should let you work harder that little bit longer before you reach exhaustion. But if the improvement is only 0.1 seconds, for example, then it will become increasingly hard to measure the improvement the longer the race, even if it is still present.

I'd be very interested to see any studies you have that show real world performance improvements in athletes who were already highly trained before supplementing. By real world I mean preferably in an Olympic event rather than the types of studies you sometimes see that test grip strength and endurance etc.

By the way, I'm trying Intrabolic at the moment, too early to tell if it is doing anything for me yet.

[Athletic Edge N]

Originally Posted by Boris

I understand how it works, but I would expect an increased buffering ability to improve 400m running performance. It might not be as big an improvement in % terms as for a shorter race, but I'd expect it to be there nonetheless, though perhaps it's hard to measure due to experimental variation in times. I would expect an increased buffering ability to improve performance even over longer distances such as 1500m, because ultimately you will sprint for the finish and a bigger buffer should let you work harder that little bit longer before you reach exhaustion. But if the improvement is only 0.1 seconds, for example, then it will become increasingly hard to measure the improvement the longer the race, even if it is still present.

I'd be very interested to see any studies you have that show real world performance improvements in athletes who were already highly trained before supplementing. By real world I mean preferably in an Olympic event rather than the types of studies you sometimes see that test grip strength and endurance etc.

By the way, I'm trying Intrabolic at the moment, too early to tell if it is doing anything for me yet.

Ok here is some of my response from another forum and YES most of the beta-alanine studies are on either physically active, highly trained and collegiate strength/power athletes. beta-alanine performance studies are most relevant studies out there for ANY supplement except creatine at this point and ALL but one performance test have showed significant real world improvement. Read below to figure out why it likely didn't for that particular study.

Thank you for your support with IntrAbolic, much appreciated

Originally Posted by Athletic Edge N

Hey guys, good discussion, maybe I can add a little something to it.

First, there is some confusion going on, starting from page one, as TWO different studies are being discussed with people thinking they are the same study. The neuromuscular fatigue(PWC(Ft) and (VT) study by Stout. et is not the same study as the Wim et al study looking at the NMR and 400m sprints ect.

This post is in response, to the Wim study posted here:

The 400m test is highly anaerobic as previously stated within this thread. The 400m is actually between 70-80% anaerobic.

Moving on. The study showed, while BA brought about a positive performance outcome on the repeated knee extensions/contractions the other two tests( isometric contraction/static and 400m), showed no improvement.

Here are some reasons that the lack of improvement could have occurred in the 400m, while improvements occurred in the isokinetic knee extensions. The possible reason for lack of improvement in the isometric contractions is explained in the study

1. You will notice that the subject performed, 5 repeated bouts of 30 knee extensions with 1 min rest time between each bout.Beta-Alanine primarily effected the 4-5th bout. Ever notice when supplementing with BA, that as you get further into your workout, that the drop in performance is much less
2. Aside from the warm up the subject did prior to the 400m sprint,it appears that they just did one sprint. Had they done repeated sprints, the outcome could have been different
3. The duration of the study was only 4 weeks and increased CARN concentrations were only in the 37-47% range depending on if they were looking at the soleus or gastroc(calf muscles). Had the study gone for 8-12 weeks, the additional 20-40% increased CARN concentrations we see with BA supplementation, could have made a significant difference.
4. Lastly, the authors themselves stated the quantity of subjects(7-8) may not have been enough for statistical power.

Any of these or a combination, could easily be responsible for the lack of improvement in the 400m. In regards to us gym rats, the performance test looking at the repeated leg extensions/contractions, is much more relevant anyway and the outcome was positive.



Interestingly, we have a middle distance runner/Olympic hopeful who has been using IntraXCell since 2006. He trains 400,600 and 800m. Read his interview to see his big improvement in sprint times as well as decreased rest time between bouts and much more. While not a placebo controlled study, his times are recorded by his strength coach and the improvements are very significant. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...edge+nutrition

As many of you know, we also had a study recently completed using IntraXCell on collegiate wrestlers. It went for eight weeks, and it's relevant to this discussion, because the researchers, actually used the 400m as of the their performance tests. Check it out http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=2940681 big improvements.

Originally Posted by Athletic Edge N

Yes, that's how it's stated in the method section. One 400m sprint per session with a warm up prior to the sprint. Except for the repeated bouts of leg extensions, the other performance tests, would either need to be changed up a bit to utilize the increase pH buffering capacity and/or the study needed to go longer in my opinion. Increasing the amount of subjects wouldn't hurt either.

[erikclaw]

This stuff gives me a great pump. No no product that I have tried worked for me, beta alanine does.