Phosphatidic acid for strength and size

[ZiR RED]

[h=1]Efficacy of phosphatidic acid ingestion on lean body mass, muscle thickness and strength gains in resistance-trained men.[/h]Hoffman JR, Stout JR, Williams DR, Wells AJ, Fragala MS, Mangine GT, Gonzalez AM, Emerson NS, McCormack WP, Scanlon TC, Purpura M, Jaeger R.
[h=3]Abstract[/h][h=4]ABSTRACT:[/h]BACKGROUND: Phosphatidic acid (PA) has been reported to activate the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway and is thought to enhance the anabolic effects of resistance training. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine if oral phosphatidic acid administration can enhance strength, muscle thickness and lean tissue accruement during an 8-week resistance training program.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h]Sixteen resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to a group that either consumed 750 mg of PA (n = 7, 23.1 +/- 4.4 y; 176.7 +/- 6.7 cm; 86.5 +/- 21.2 kg) or a placebo (PL, n = 9, 22.5 +/- 2.0 y; 179.8 +/- 5.4 cm; 89.4 +/- 13.6 kg) group. During each testing session subjects were assessed for strength (one repetition maximum [1-RM] bench press and squat) and body composition. Muscle thickness and pennation angle were also measured in the vastus lateralis of the subject's dominant leg.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h]Subjects ingesting PA demonstrated a 12.7% increase in squat strength and a 2.6% increase in LBM, while subjects consuming PL showed a 9.3% improvement in squat strength and a 0.1% change in LBM. Although parametric analysis was unable to demonstrate significant differences, magnitude based inferences indicated that the Delta change in 1-RM squat showed a likely benefit from PA on increasing lower body strength and a very likely benefit for increasing lean body mass (LBM).
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h]Results of this study suggest that a combination of a daily 750 mg PA ingestion, combined with a 4-day per week resistance training program for 8-weeks appears to have a likely benefit on strength improvement, and a very likely benefit on lean tissue accruement in young, resistance trained individuals

I haven't looked into the mechanisms yet. Though I am curious.

 

[3clipseGT]

Very interesting ZR.

 

[rambofireball]

260% increase in mass gains? Count me in. I'll have to research this later, this the only study you know of?

 

[Rodja]

260% increase in mass gains? Count me in. I'll have to research this later, this the only study you know of?

2.6%.

FT:
http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-9-47.pdf

 

[rambofireball]

2.6%.

FT:
http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-9-47.pdf

The controls had a 0.1% increase over the course of the study, the PA group had a 2.6% increase. At face value that would lead me to believe the PA group had a 260% increase in mass accrual than the control, no?

 

[Rodja]

The controls had a 0.1% increase over the course of the study, the PA group had a 2.6% increase. At face value that would lead me to believe the PA group had a 260% increase in mass accrual than the control, no?

That would be 2600% more than control (2.6/.1).

At first, I was curious as to why it seemed to work so much better for squat strength than bench strength, but I figured it out once I looked at the training template: there's barely any lat training and it's so late in the session that the intensity would not be there. Plus, they only used cable-based lifts instead of free-weights and/or BW.

 

[rambofireball]

That would be 2600% more than control (2.6/.1).

At first, I was curious as to why it seemed to work so much better for squat strength than bench strength, but I figured it out once I looked at the training template: there's barely any lat training and it's so late in the session that the intensity would not be there. Plus, they only used cable-based lifts instead of free-weights and/or BW.

Lol, I just realized this and was about to post it myself. 26x=2600%, not 260%, My bad.

And, I think you may have misread about the exercises used in the study, according to this table free weights and bodweight were used.

Table 2 Eight-Week Resistance Training Protocol
Monday/Thursday Tuesday/Friday
Exercise Sets/Reps (RM) Exercise Sets/Reps (RM)
Bench Press* 1,4 x 10 – 12 Squats* 1,4 x 10 – 12
Incline DB Press 3 x 10 - 12 Lunge/Front squat 3 x 10 - 12
Seated Shoulder Press* 1,4 x 10 – 12 Leg Curl 3 x 10 - 12
Upright rows 3 x 10 - 12 Knee Extension 3 x 10 - 12
Lateral raises 3 x 10 - 12 Calf Raises 3 x 10 - 12
Shrugs 3 x 10 - 12 Lat Pulldown 4 x 10 - 12
Triceps pushdown 3 x 10 - 12 Seated Row 4 x 10 - 12
Triceps extension 3 x 10 - 12 EZ Bar Curl 3 x 10 - 12
Situps 3 x 25 Dumbbell Curls 3 x 10 - 12
Situps 3 x 25

 

[Rodja]

Lol, I just realized this and was about to post it myself. 26x=2600%, not 260%, My bad.

And, I think you may have misread about the exercises used in the study, according to this table free weights and bodweight were used.

Table 2 Eight-Week Resistance Training Protocol
Monday/Thursday Tuesday/Friday
Exercise Sets/Reps (RM) Exercise Sets/Reps (RM)
Bench Press* 1,4 x 10 – 12 Squats* 1,4 x 10 – 12
Incline DB Press 3 x 10 - 12 Lunge/Front squat 3 x 10 - 12
Seated Shoulder Press* 1,4 x 10 – 12 Leg Curl 3 x 10 - 12
Upright rows 3 x 10 - 12 Knee Extension 3 x 10 - 12
Lateral raises 3 x 10 - 12 Calf Raises 3 x 10 - 12
Shrugs 3 x 10 - 12 Lat Pulldown 4 x 10 - 12
Triceps pushdown 3 x 10 - 12 Seated Row 4 x 10 - 12
Triceps extension 3 x 10 - 12 EZ Bar Curl 3 x 10 - 12
Situps 3 x 25 Dumbbell Curls 3 x 10 - 12
Situps 3 x 25

I was speaking specifically about the lat training (or lack thereof).

 

[mr.cooper69]

The controls had a 0.1% increase over the course of the study, the PA group had a 2.6% increase. At face value that would lead me to believe the PA group had a 260% increase in mass accrual than the control, no?

Not a good comparison. A 0.1% increase in LBM over 8 weeks is pathetic.

 

[mr.cooper69]

Btw, the whole phenomenon of improved squat/lower body strength vs bench/upper body strength is also observed with betaine anhydrous. I wonder if these compounds have an increased propensity for delivery/storage in tissues of the lower body.

 

[mr.cooper69]

Goddamn it, the study had competing interests. This may very well mean nothing at all, but still...I thought ergogenic aids were finally getting some unbiased love!

 

[JudoJosh]

Goddamn it, the study had competing interests. This may very well mean nothing at all, but still...I thought ergogenic aids were finally getting some unbiased love!

http://www.google.com/patents/US20120141448

Not sure how much of an impact they had on it though. It still looks like there still is some ergogenic potential for it IMO

 

[rambofireball]

I was speaking specifically about the lat training (or lack thereof).

Yeah, that does seem like some bad study design to have one of the main markers of efficacy be placed on something which is not effectively controlled for.

Not a good comparison. A 0.1% increase in LBM over 8 weeks is pathetic.

I agree, it's nothing to boast about, but isn't the fact that the PA group followed the same program and had 26 times the growth an indication of it's effectiveness? (Not considering the possibility of bias/poor study design)

 

[mr.cooper69]

I agree, it's nothing to boast about, but isn't the fact that the PA group followed the same program and had 26 times the growth an indication of it's effectiveness? (Not considering the possibility of bias/poor study design)

In my opinion, no. Gaining 0.1% LBM in 8 weeks is pretty anomalous. For an 180 lb male at 15% BF, that means he would gain 0.15 lbs of LBM in 2 months (or less than 1 lbm of LBM gain in a YEAR). Idk what they fed the control group, but something they were doing was wrong.

 

[rambofireball]

In my opinion, no. Gaining 0.1% LBM in 8 weeks is pretty anomalous. For an 180 lb male at 15% BF, that means he would gain 0.15 lbs of LBM in 2 months (or less than 1 lbm of LBM gain in a YEAR). Idk what they fed the control group, but something they were doing was wrong.

Yeah that really doesn't seem right. You thinking it's foul play?

 

[mr.cooper69]

Yeah that really doesn't seem right. You thinking it's foul play?

Highly doubtful. JISSN isn't a joke of a journal either (at least, relative to some other journals that publish supplement studies). That said, I'd usually chalk it up to genetics and sample size, but 0.1% is too low even for someone with **** genetics. And there weren't significant changes in bodyweight x group x time, so it looks like the placebo group basically just got fat. I really don't have a good answer for you. A 2.6% increase of LBM in 8 weeks is pretty hefty though.

 

[rambofireball]

Highly doubtful. JISSN isn't a joke of a journal either (at least, relative to some other journals that publish supplement studies). That said, I'd usually chalk it up to genetics and sample size, but 0.1% is too low even for someone with **** genetics. And there weren't significant changes in bodyweight x group x time, so it looks like the placebo group basically just got fat. I really don't have a good answer for you. A 2.6% increase of LBM in 8 weeks is pretty hefty though.

No worries man. Beyond everything you mentioned above, it is a pretty tiny participant number as well, which adds more potential for wonky results.

Regardless, I'll be super interested to see how people like it once it's released by someone.

 

[EasyEJL]

In my opinion, no. Gaining 0.1% LBM in 8 weeks is pretty anomalous. For an 180 lb male at 15% BF, that means he would gain 0.15 lbs of LBM in 2 months (or less than 1 lbm of LBM gain in a YEAR). Idk what they fed the control group, but something they were doing was wrong.

Hmm is that right? was it LBM or muscle by dexxa? I mean in the 200lb 15%, sure you'd say 170lbs is LBM, but muscle is probably only what 45? still .1% sucks.

Or was it meant to be a maintenance diet? I only glanced at it

 

[mr.cooper69]

Hmm is that right? was it LBM or muscle by dexxa? I mean in the 200lb 15%, sure you'd say 170lbs is LBM, but muscle is probably only what 45? still .1% sucks.Or was it meant to be a maintenance diet? I only glanced at it

It says LBM.Upon closer inspection, the PL group basically gained no LBM OR fat mass. The PA group gained no real fat mass but had the 2.6% rise in LBM. So it would follow that the PA group was eating above maintenance

 

[mmats]

It was just proven bioavailable in humans - http://www.jissn.com/content/10/S1/P22

Now when are we going to see some supplements available? Chemi Nutra still has it listed as "coming soon"

 

[mr.cooper69]

We already knew it was bioavailable, how else would the effects of the initial study be observed? It's under patent right now and basically only the patent holders want to sell it...licensing not available

 

[mmats]

We already knew it was bioavailable, how else would the effects of the initial study be observed? It's under patent right now and basically only the patent holders want to sell it...licensing not available

Layne mentioned just a few months ago that he still had concerns of the bioavailability (maybe because of competing interests from the initial study). Some articles I read before led me to believe it had possibly already been licensed out, but maybe they were just worded poorly. Im still waiting on a response from Chemi Nutra.

 

[mmats]

Response from Chemi Nutra -

Thanks for reaching out regarding Mediator® Phosphatidic Acid (PA).

At this point Mediator® is not currently available to the commercial market. However, a customer that is using it in a finished product should be releasing their product very soon; likely by the New Year.

Best regards,

 

[De__eB]

We already knew it was bioavailable, how else would the effects of the initial study be observed? It's under patent right now and basically only the patent holders want to sell it...licensing not available

The patent is being butchered pretty heavily in review.

Claims 4-5, 10-24, and 27 have already been cancelled by Chemi-nutra.

Claims 1-3, 6-9, 25-26, 28-36 (all of the rest) are still rejected in the 3rd revision and subsequent non-final rejection of the patent.

 

[flightposite]

Looks like biotest is planing a release.

 

[Geoforce]

Looks like biotest is planing a release.

Yeah, Biotest is bringing it out this month. At probably only 200 dollar markup!

 

[flightposite]

Yeah, Biotest is bringing it out this month. At probably only 200 dollar markup!

Lmao. Yeah for auto ship only hahaha

 

[mmats]

One more day - http://www.t-nation.com/store/

 

[mmats]

lol $65 for 20 servings...

anyone take the plunge?

 

[Geoforce]

lol $65 for 20 servings...

anyone take the plunge?

I haven't read the article yet but I'm sure it's a micro encapsulated patent pending liquicap delivery system designed to immediately deliver phosphatic acid right to the muscles. And I'm sure some really strong guys have mentioned that it has dropped bodyfat and/or increased muscle mass at a rate they never thought was possible.

I hate the way they market everything, but in a way I tip my hat to them as misleading genuises. A lot of the people on that site lick up everything they say as gospel. Many people on that site would buy it if it was 20 servings for 125 dollars.

 

[De__eB]

The ingredient is really expensive FWIW and it looks like T-Nation is licensing it from Chemi-Nutra.

 

[MultiVitamin]

Would really love to take the plunge is my funds would allow me..

 

[BigGame84]

Got a discount so bought 3 bottles. Will be stacking with Analyzed Supplements Leucine tabs. Let the fun begin...

 

[MultiVitamin]

Got a discount so bought 3 bottles. Will be stacking with Analyzed Supplements Leucine tabs. Let the fun begin...

You should run a log (or post link if you already are)

 

[HATEFULone]

lol $65 for 20 servings...

anyone take the plunge?

Test p is like $10 a vial, $30 at the most. What ever happened to supplements that worked? M1T was laced with Dbol at one point and it was cheap.

 

[toddmuelheim]

Subbed

 

[Geoforce]

Got a discount so bought 3 bottles. Will be stacking with Analyzed Supplements Leucine tabs. Let the fun begin...

Would definitely like your feedback. T-nation has so many people who won't talk negatively about them no matter what. Really hope you have a good run. Let us know.

 

[toddmuelheim]

Would definitely like your feedback. T-nation has so many people who won't talk negatively about them no matter what. Really hope you have a good run. Let us know.

It's not that dissimilar to one of the companies on this board...no offense to them, but they pretty much can do no wrong no matter what. Tnation is also highly, highly moderated as well so we don't even get to see the negative. I'm eager to see feedback on this.

 

[BigGame84]

I probably won't do a log because I'd be too lazy at doing it. But I will report back what I experience when I can. I figured Leucine tabs would be ideal to stack with this. The human study and research is the reason why I decided to take the plunge.

 

[Grayson]

PA + ARA maybe?

 

[BigGame84]

PA + ARA maybe?

Actually in the middle of an X-Factor run right now. Might just stack them both but I might not know just how effective PA is if I do.

 

[Grayson]

Actually in the middle of an X-Factor run right now. Might just stack them both but I might not know just how effective PA is if I do.

On second thought, maybe it wouldn't be good. Different MOA's supporting the same function wouldn't theoretically synergize.

 

[BigGame84]

Got my 3 bottles of Micro-PA delivered today but still have about 2/3 left of my last bottle of X-Factor so I'll probably just wait to finish my run of ArA and then start the MicroPA.

 

[mcc23]

Would definitely like your feedback. T-nation has so many people who won't talk negatively about them no matter what. Really hope you have a good run. Let us know.

They banned me from their site for making a light hearted joke about the price of the Indigo s***

 

[Geoforce]

They banned me from their site for making a light hearted joke about the price of the Indigo s***

not surprising. They don't really allow anyone to talk about their products in a negative manner on the site. They will either delete it or ban individuals. T-nation.com has some good and informative forums....as long as you aren't talking negatively about a Biotest product in ANY of them!

 

[Christurner14]

Anyone had any decent results from this yet??

 

[De__eB]

The product just came out a couple of weeks ago. You couldn't really make any anecdotal claims at all about it yet.

The study results were promising and in trained athletes though, so it should be good to go.

 

[kissdadookie]

On second thought, maybe it wouldn't be good. Different MOA's supporting the same function wouldn't theoretically synergize.

Why wouldn't they synergize? PA supposedly amplifies mTOR signalling whilst ArA helps induce increased inflammatory response from training which leads to a higher demand for repair/protein synthesis. It would seem to me that the two theoretically does not compete and may be complementary. Unless the two competes for absorption into the cells or something.

 

[BigGame84]

I heard creatine is good to take with this. So my cycle will start next week. Micro-PA, Leucine tabs from Analyzed Supps and Creatine.

I guess you could stack this with ArA but I wouldn't get a good read on how Micro-PA is working when taking it with X-Factor.

 

[kissdadookie]

I heard creatine is good to take with this. So my cycle will start next week. Micro-PA, Leucine tabs from Analyzed Supps and Creatine.

I guess you could stack this with ArA but I wouldn't get a good read on how Micro-PA is working when taking it with X-Factor.

Supposedly helps with creatine absorption, but I would think that it would do little to nothing if you are already saturated.