bbphato
Member
- Awards
- 0
hi fellas, what about xfactor? is good?
thanks a lot
thanks a lot
Ara cannot and will not cause cancer.I don't like that AA is a major cause of cancer. Maybe a good trade?
You are going to see a lot of mention of AA in relation to such diseases, as it is used a substrate to create many powerful mediators of cell growth. In diseased states, it is often the misuse of arachiodnic acid by the body, not necessarily the presence of this EFA itself, that will be important to progression. It should definitely not be taken if you have cancer, but healthy bodybuilders don't have much to worry about with AA.
J Nutr. 2004 Dec;134(12 Suppl):3421S-3426S.
Dietary (n-6) PUFA and intestinal tumorigenesis. Whelan J, McEntee MF.
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, and mortality due to colorectal cancer is only surpassed by lung cancer. Epidemiological studies demonstrate that dietary polyunsaturated fats can have a profound effect on colorectal cancer risk. Experimental data indicate that modulation of cellular (n-6) PUFA metabolism can affect the progression of the disease. This paper discusses the role (n-6) PUFA play in promoting intestinal tumorigenesis and how dietary PUFA from different families interact to modify the neoplastic process. Dietary PUFA that attenuate arachidonic acid metabolism [such as (n-3) PUFA] have antineoplastic properties, whereas those that augment arachidonic acid metabolism, such as linoleic, gamma-linolenic, and arachidonic acids do not appear to enhance tumorigenesis when added to the Western diet but may diminish the beneficial effects of other dietary lipids. It is the relative contributions of the different dietary PUFA that may determine overall risk for and progression of the disease.
Cancer. 1999 Sep 15;86(6):1019-27.
Association of energy and fat intake with prostate carcinoma risk: results from The Netherlands Cohort Study.
Schuurman AG, van den Brandt PA, Dorant E, Brants HA, Goldbohm RA.
Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
BACKGROUND: The roles of energy and fat intake as risk factors for prostate carcinoma are still questionable. Therefore, these factors were evaluated in the Netherlands Cohort Study described in this article. METHODS: The cohort study consisted of 58,279 men ages 55-69 years at baseline in 1986. After 6.3 years of follow-up, 642 incident prostate carcinoma cases were available for analysis. Intake of energy, fat, and separate fatty acids were measured by means of a self-administered questionnaire; fat intake was adjusted for energy by regression analysis. The case-cohort method was used to calculate rate ratios (RRs). Analyses were conducted for all prostate carcinoma cases together as well as for case subgroups (latent vs. nonlatent and localized vs. advanced). RESULTS: No associations were found in multivariate analyses between prostate carcinoma and intake of energy, total fat, total saturated fatty acids, or total trans unsaturated fatty acids (RR highest vs. lowest quintile: 0.99, 1.10, 1.19, and 0.99, respectively). Oleic acid intake showed a nonsignificant positive association (RR = 1.38, 95% CI: 0.88-2.19). Positive associations were also observed for intake of oleic acid in subgroup analyses. Linoleic (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0. 56-1.09) and linolenic (RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-1.04) acid intake were associated with nonsignificantly decreased risks; only for linolenic acid did these associations persist in subgroup analyses. No associations were found for intake of arachidonic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid, or docosahexaenoic acid. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that certain fatty acids might be involved in prostate carcinoma occurrence, although the possibility that these were chance findings cannot be ruled out. Copyright 1999 American Cancer Society.
Bull Cancer. 2005 Jul;92(7):670-84. Related Articles, Links
[Dietary fatty acids and colorectal and prostate cancers: epidemiological studies]
Astorg P. UMR Inserm 557/INRA/CNAM Epidemiologie nutritionnelle, Institut scientifique et technique de l'Alimentation, Conservatoire national des Arts et Metiers, 5 rue du Vertbois, 75003 Paris. [email protected]
OBJECTIVE: This study reviews epidemiological works having studied the associations of dietary fatty acids, especially of n-6 or n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), with the risks of colorectal and prostate cancers. METHODS: The epidemiological studies reviewed were those having tested the association of colorectal and prostate cancer risk with the dietary intake or the blood or adipose tissue levels of fatty acids, especially of n-6 and n-3 PUFA, and with the dietary intake of fish and seafood. RESULTS: Most studies based on a dietary questionnaire did not find any association of the risk of colorectal cancer with the consumption of either total fatty acids or any particular fatty acid, after adjustment for total energy intake had been made. A few studies suggest that trans fatty acid consumption could increase colorectal cancer risk. Most studies based either on a dietary questionnaire or on biomarkers, did not find any association of total, saturated or monounsaturated fatty acid, as well as of linoleic or arachidonic acids, with prostate cancer risk, after adjustment for total energy intake. Most studies failed to find an association of prostate cancer risk with fish or long-chain n-3 PUFA intake, but recent cohort studies did find an inverse association of fish consumption with the risk of the latest stages of prostate cancer. In contrast, alpha-linolenic acid intake was associated with an increase of prostate cancer risk in a majority of epidemiological studies, but other studies did not find this association. This latter point might be of concern, and needs to be clarified by other results, especially those of ongoing prospective studies.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jul;80(1):204-16. Related Articles, Links
Dietary intake of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids and the risk of prostate cancer.
Leitzmann MF, Stampfer MJ, Michaud DS, Augustsson K, Colditz GC, Willett WC, Giovannucci EL.
Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. [email protected]
BACKGROUND: Laboratory studies have shown that n-3 fatty acids inhibit and n-6 fatty acids stimulate prostate tumor growth, but whether the dietary intake of these fatty acids affects prostate cancer risk in humans remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We prospectively evaluated the association between intakes of alpha-linolenic (ALA; 18:3n-3), eicosapentaenoic (EPA; 20:5n-3), docosahexaenoic (DHA; 22:6n-3), linoleic (LA; 18:2n-6), and arachidonic (AA; 20:4n-6) acids and prostate cancer risk. DESIGN: A cohort of 47866 US men aged 40-75 y with no cancer history in 1986 was followed for 14 y. RESULTS: During follow-up, 2965 new cases of total prostate cancer were ascertained, 448 of which were advanced prostate cancer. ALA intake was unrelated to the risk of total prostate cancer. In contrast, the multivariate relative risks (RRs) of advanced prostate cancer from comparisons of extreme quintiles of ALA from nonanimal sources and ALA from meat and dairy sources were 2.02 (95% CI: 1.35, 3.03) and 1.53 (0.88, 2.66), respectively. EPA and DHA intakes were related to lower prostate cancer risk. The multivariate RRs of total and advanced prostate cancer from comparisons of extreme quintiles of the combination of EPA and DHA were 0.89 (0.77, 1.04) and 0.74 (0.49, 1.08), respectively. LA and AA intakes were unrelated to the risk of prostate cancer. The multivariate RR of advanced prostate cancer from a comparison of extreme quintiles of the ratio of LA to ALA was 0.62 (0.45, 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Increased dietary intakes of ALA may increase the risk of advanced prostate cancer. In contrast, EPA and DHA intakes may reduce the risk of total and advanced prostate cancer.
X Factors active ingredient is Ara so I guess I use those two terms interchangeably.I'm not saying that X-Factor or any MN product leads to cancer in humans, but there exists a well established correlation between AA consumption and cancer in rodents. I was simply stating that was reason enough for me to avoid adding extra AA to my diet. I prefer the more mild eicosanoids like EPA, which tend to yeild less thromboxane. I apologize if my prior post came off as an accusation against your product. I've no doubt X-Factor is an effective anabolic.
Its pretty interesting people automatically say AA can cause cancer when in reality all it can possibly do is potentiate the growth of already existing cancer cells... And most studies ive read only show that when dosed at 2grams ED for over a year which is obviously not the standard dose of AA... i still stand by AA supplementation and will keep recommending it to others:wave2:X Factors active ingredient is Ara so I guess I use those two terms interchangeably.
Ara can fuel cancer that is already existing but has no way of creating cancer.
I appreciate your candor and in no way was I attacking you.
Whether you know it or not, there are many cancerous cells in everyone's body. The immune system keeps them in check, and when they get out of check is when the disease "cancer" is diagnosed. So by potentiating the growth of existing cancer cells, ARA can contribute to "causing" cancer in an otherwise healthy person. However, by cycling the supplement, I would think that the risks are greatly reduced.Its pretty interesting people automatically say AA can cause cancer when in reality all it can possibly do is potentiate the growth of already existing cancer cells... And most studies ive read only show that when dosed at 2grams ED for over a year which is obviously not the standard dose of AA... i still stand by AA supplementation and will keep recommending it to others:wave2:
I'm not sure where this misinformation comes from.Its pretty interesting people automatically say AA can cause cancer when in reality all it can possibly do is potentiate the growth of already existing cancer cells... And most studies ive read only show that when dosed at 2grams ED for over a year which is obviously not the standard dose of AA... i still stand by AA supplementation and will keep recommending it to others:wave2:
This is alarmist at best.Whether you know it or not, there are many cancerous cells in everyone's body. The immune system keeps them in check, and when they get out of check is when the disease "cancer" is diagnosed. So by potentiating the growth of existing cancer cells, ARA can contribute to "causing" cancer in an otherwise healthy person. However, by cycling the supplement, I would think that the risks are greatly reduced.
If taken as directed 1 gram for 50 days you'll be fine as long as no preexisting inflammatory conditions exist.AA is an inflammatory pathway- it's also naturally in some foods eaten..
I like the idea of increasing DOMS and what not to stimulate growth and the feedback has been decent, but inflammatory pathway stimulation if not done carefully can be detrimental to your health-- but in all honestly the same can be said for almost anything!
The real problem is close to 100% of people don't know if they have anything going on inside them. Better safe than sorry I say. Many people have existing colon polyps which don't always lead to colon cancer but you never know. It's too much uncertainty IMO and all the studies done so far do not tell you what will happen in 20 years from now. BTW, one or two cycles of this is most likely not going to make any difference whatsoever but doing it over and over you can't definitely say nothing will go wrong in the long term.X Factors active ingredient is Ara so I guess I use those two terms interchangeably.
Ara can fuel cancer that is already existing but has no way of creating cancer.
I appreciate your candor and in no way was I attacking you.
I urge everyone to put health before supplements but as for long-term studies.... the longest study I've seen on Creatine has been 1 year or continual use. Yet, everyone has used creatine, in fact many have used it for several years without cycling it. There is no literature to say that 20 years down the road, that it may have detrimental effects.The real problem is close to 100% of people don't know if they have anything going on inside them. Better safe than sorry I say. Many people have existing colon polyps which don't always lead to colon cancer but you never know. It's too much uncertainty IMO and all the studies done so far do not tell you what will happen in 20 years from now. BTW, one or two cycles of this is most likely not going to make any difference whatsoever but doing it over and over you can't definitely say nothing will go wrong in the long term.
Thanks for the feedback and good words.This is not meant against any in this thread, just a general statement, and I fall into this category, but many put otc hormones in their body that have very little data as to their health effects, long term or short term. Ara is not for everyone, but I think risk wise is not any higher than ph's and probably less. Its effectiveness is on par with or above almost any other otc product that claims to effect body composition, outside of hormones.
Studies have been done up to 5 years in length on creatine. Zero negative sides.I urge everyone to put health before supplements but as for long-term studies.... the longest study I've seen on Creatine has been 1 year or continual use. Yet, everyone has used creatine, in fact many have used it for several years without cycling it. There is no literature to say that 20 years down the road, that it may have detrimental effects.
I understand completely what you're saying and the unknown is definitely a scary situation.
Good to know.Studies have been done up to 5 years in length on creatine. Zero negative sides.
I'm not sure if it will be coming out again. Where did you hear this from?When does the bulk x factor come out?
Bulk, im not sure about, but the new formula, I'm well aware of.I though I read recently talks about bulk or something. I don't mind if a new formula comes out too though.
I may be in the market for a new rep.Did you MN guys ever get round to recruiting a new rep?
OP - X Factor is pretty awesome, I used it years back when it first came out. It's certainly worth a shot and stacks well with loads of other products, especially test boosters.
Just wondering because John ran the MN recruitment promotion a month or so back on the company promotions board and there's been no update for a while.I may be in the market for a new rep.
Why?
Drummaboyzl was picked off of this board.Just wondering because John ran the MN recruitment promotion a month or so back on the company promotions board and there's been no update for a while.
New formula is out. You'll have to search for it since we are no longer board sponsors but ill give you a hint and say another BBoard may help youI though I read recently talks about bulk or something. I don't mind if a new formula comes out too though.
GNC exclusive? permanently? thats bad news i dont shop there.New formula is out. You'll have to search for it since we are no longer board sponsors but ill give you a hint and say another BBoard may help you
I'm not sure about the duration of time that it will be an exclusive so I cannot give you a definitive answer on that.GNC exclusive? permanently? thats bad news i dont shop there.
This is very old recommendations. Even when it was recommended to avoid EFAs it was more precautionary than anything.MN used to advise avoiding fish oil/ omega-3's and any anti-inflammatory compounds while on x-factor.
Boswellia Serrata is specific to the inhibition of the 5-LOX and not the COX cascade.Now, fish oil and boswellia (anti-inflammatory) are added to the formula. What is the reasoning behind that?
.....When is the new formula going to be at retailers.:think:
Sounds like pretty good reasoning. 5-LOX is also a culprit (along with estrogen) in prostate cancer...This is very old recommendations. Even when it was recommended to avoid EFAs it was more precautionary than anything.
There are even studies proven to say that EFAs will help Ara cycles. Boswellia Serrata is specific to the inhibition of the 5-LOX and not the COX cascade.
By blocking the 5-LOX you will cut down on negative sides like joint pain and headaches and allow for more COX absorption and more beneficial effects ie. muscular hypertrophy, muscular protein synthesis, and cAMP.
True.Sounds like pretty good reasoning. 5-LOX is also a culprit (along with estrogen) in prostate cancer...