Baylor Study on ArA

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. Baylor Study on ArA


    I just read over the study (not the abstract) and, with regards to overall body composition improvements, the results do not make much of a case for ArA supplementation. With the high price of the supplement, coupled with the lack of knowledge of the long term effects of supplementation, I'm not sure if the juice is quite worth the squeeze... If this has been addressed already, I'd appreciate it if someone could link me. If not, any comments would be appreciated.


  2. I didn't read the study, but if the results of the ArA supplementation group were truely insignificant its crazy that it'd go against numerous accounts overwhelming anecdotal experiences by trusted members of AM.
    Training log:

    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/267913-jswains-training-log.html
    •   
       


  3. The fact that I've gotten notably stronger at a relatively faster rate (compared to strength gains I've been having previousy) along with the very noticeable increase and prolonged DOMS (compared to how I rarely had DOMS before), I would say that ArA not only works but works very well. Placebo does not magically make one gain strength this quickly nor would it induce such noticeable and prolonged DOMS.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by kissdadookie View Post
    The fact that I've gotten notably stronger at a relatively faster rate (compared to strength gains I've been having previousy) along with the very noticeable increase and prolonged DOMS (compared to how I rarely had DOMS before), I would say that ArA not only works but works very well. Placebo does not magically make one gain strength this quickly nor would it induce such noticeable and prolonged DOMS.
    The Baylor study shows an increase in strength and power output.
    PEScience Representative
    http://pescience.com/insider
    http://selectprotein.com

  5. Quote Originally Posted by bdcc View Post
    The Baylor study shows an increase in strength and power output.
    Ah, then I do not know what the OP is concerned about. LoL. Gaining strength and power combined with a solid diet in a caloric surplus ='s lean mass gains.

    The juice here is 110% worth the squeeze.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by bdcc View Post
    The Baylor study shows an increase in strength and power output.
    statistically significant?

  7. Quote Originally Posted by bdcc View Post
    The Baylor study shows an increase in strength and power output.
    That's why I mentioned with regards to body composition. I'm also not arguing that it is ineffective. But if you take the time to read the study, it has some statistically significant Wingate improvements but negligible differences in LBM or fat loss. I've never tried ArA, and was/am strongly considering it, but after reading the results I'm curious to know if anyone has a scientific explanation.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by kissdadookie View Post
    The fact that I've gotten notably stronger at a relatively faster rate (compared to strength gains I've been having previousy) along with the very noticeable increase and prolonged DOMS (compared to how I rarely had DOMS before), I would say that ArA not only works but works very well. Placebo does not magically make one gain strength this quickly nor would it induce such noticeable and prolonged DOMS.
    increases inflammation.

    Prolonged DOMS is wanted?

  9. Results suggest that AA supplementation
    in trained males may exert favorable
    alterations in training adaptations and
    fasting prostaglandin and IL-6 levels.

    This was taken from the abstract. I know you said you read the whole study, and I haven't read it, so what exactly goes against this statement in the abstract?

    Edit: body composition is what you said so I guess I can agree with you on that.

  10. Just a thought.

    Exercising increases inflammation and DOMS over not exercising at all right?

    We all accept that due to the desire for better athletic performance, physique, etc...

    It's a matter of what cost:benefit ratio is acceptable to each individual.

    Probably why ArA doesn't really get sold in combination products much and is always just in a standalone.
    SNS Representative - [email protected] .com

  11. Quote Originally Posted by manstr View Post
    Results suggest that AA supplementation
    in trained males may exert favorable
    alterations in training adaptations and
    fasting prostaglandin and IL-6 levels.

    This was taken from the abstract. I know you said you read the whole study, and I haven't read it, so what exactly goes against this statement in the abstract?
    What part of that has to do with LBM and fat mass? Just do yourself a favor an look at page 38 of the study, since you'd prefer to quote me a piece of the abstract that has absolutely nothing to do with body comp.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by todd muelheim View Post

    What part of that has to do with LBM and fat mass? Just do yourself a favor an look at page 38 of the study, since you'd prefer to quote me a piece of the abstract that has absolutely nothing to do with body comp.
    Check the edit mr temper :3

  13. Quote Originally Posted by manstr View Post

    Check the edit mr temper :3
    Thank you. Priceline won't accept my hotel bid so I'm a bit cranky.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post
    increases inflammation.

    Prolonged DOMS is wanted?
    Depends. Inflammation is not always a bad thing as you may be well aware of. Inflammation is the body's response to damage and a signal for repair. So depending on severity of the inflammation and what induced the inflammation in the first place, it could be a very desirable thing. Without inflammation, growth becomes significantly slowed down or may not even happen since growth is caused by repair and the body's mechanism to trigger repair includes in a large part, inflammation.

    Also, look at how ArA actually works. The ArA deposits are located in the muscle cell membranes and through exercise the membranes break and releases the constituents of the bonds which the ArA makes within the membrane and these constituents appears to contain the same components which seems to be signaler's for muscle repair which in turn leads to growth. So this is actually desirable and also explains why in the trained individual, they have notably lower levels of ArA compared to non-trained individuals. So the DOMS in this case appears to be a positive effect caused by an increase of what naturally happens after the breaking down of muscle tissue through exercise.

    Now, DOMS here should be noted is different from let's say, inflammation caused by tendonitis.

  15. I've posted this many times but once again...

    Do you supplement fish oil daily? Have you cut out most foods in the typical western diet in favor of "healthy" fats (that are often low in ArA or ArA's precursor FA)?

    If so, you probably stand to benefit from ArA. Balance is the key, and most bodybuilding populations seem to be at risk for low levels of ArA relative to EPA/DHA.

    The subjects in the study, conversely, probably did not religiously use fish oil and use a typical BBing diet

    ArA is ultimately a dietary fatty acid. It's not something we use to reach supraphysiological anabolism...only optimal muscle growth (read: growth may not be optimal if ArA levels are too low in the body).

  16. lol how many threads like these, I think coop sitting back amused on the post not wishing to step in on the quickness for ruining the debating fun all are having. In the end so many threads are finding likeness for amateur night at the Apollo with many putting on their thinking cap with fun & some thought provoking post for reading, and some finding good studies too but always having the same ending.
    "To your wife you should kiss try today"-Touey

    Brotato's bark brings shakes to the pups in the yard

  17. Quote Originally Posted by mr.cooper69 View Post
    I've posted this many times but once again...

    Do you supplement fish oil daily? Have you cut out most foods in the typical western diet in favor of "healthy" fats (that are often low in ArA or ArA's precursor FA)?

    If so, you probably stand to benefit from ArA. Balance is the key, and most bodybuilding populations seem to be at risk for low levels of ArA relative to EPA/DHA.

    The subjects in the study, conversely, probably did not religiously use fish oil and use a typical BBing diet

    ArA is ultimately a dietary fatty acid. It's not something we use to reach supraphysiological anabolism...only optimal muscle growth (read: growth may not be optimal if ArA levels are too low in the body).
    You're assuming uncontrolled variables were in favor of proving the initial hypothesis correct? You would tear that response apart had it not been your own. I am in no way trying to say that ArA is of no value. I guess a better way to put it is that if you were presented a bottle of capsules, and the study info, what would your thoughts be? There are a few things in the study that I find very interesting, and show quite a bit of potential value in ArA supplementation. I know you had a great deal of success with it a couple years ago when neuron practically rewrote the book on dosing this stuff but that doesn't change the face that there are not many studies on it and the one I have read so far was meh. That being said, I can't wait to start my run next week.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by todd muelheim View Post
    You're assuming uncontrolled variables were in favor of proving the initial hypothesis correct? You would tear that response apart had it not been your own. I am in no way trying to say that ArA is of no value. I guess a better way to put it is that if you were presented a bottle of capsules, and the study info, what would your thoughts be? There are a few things in the study that I find very interesting, and show quite a bit of potential value in ArA supplementation. I know you had a great deal of success with it a couple years ago when neuron practically rewrote the book on dosing this stuff but that doesn't change the face that there are not many studies on it and the one I have read so far was meh. That being said, I can't wait to start my run next week.
    First, watch this video so that you can get an understanding of what ArA is and how it is broken down due to exercise:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jLXUzQrb6k

    Now, that gives you a good idea of how muscle cells are affected when enough stress is placed on them (i.e., training). You should also at this point been able to have a good grasp as to one of the main mechanisms for how the break down of muscle cells in turn triggers the repair process. Now, let's go back and think about the very old idea of the more one trains the more the body adapts and thus in turn the less post workout soreness we feel. Take that idea and now also include it with the understanding of how muscle cells are affected through training and particularly how ArA comes into play. So with that in mind, is it really because our body just adapts to training after awhile and thus things like DOMS becomes shorter in length or becomes less perceptible or is it because after a certain point of regular training, we are simply depleting our ArA stores which in turn triggers the normal responses less due to there being a lower store of ArA and thus less supply of ArA metabolites when we break down muscle cell membranes?

    So like Cooper noted, ArA IS a dietary fatty acid and ArA plays an important role for OPTIMAL muscle growth (regular training without increased intake of ArA will eventually lead to a depletion of ArA from even base levels of non-training individuals, due to the fact that regular training resulting in more frequent breaking down of these muscle cell membranes). So with that in mind, IF one is not low in there ArA store, effects from supplementing with ArA would probably not show much in terms of effects or the effects may be much less pronounced.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by kissdadookie View Post

    First, watch this video so that you can get an understanding of what ArA is and how it is broken down due to exercise:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jLXUzQrb6k

    Now, that gives you a good idea of how muscle cells are affected when enough stress is placed on them (i.e., training). You should also at this point been able to have a good grasp as to one of the main mechanisms for how the break down of muscle cells in turn triggers the repair process. Now, let's go back and think about the very old idea of the more one trains the more the body adapts and thus in turn the less post workout soreness we feel. Take that idea and now also include it with the understanding of how muscle cells are affected through training and particularly how ArA comes into play. So with that in mind, is it really because our body just adapts to training after awhile and thus things like DOMS becomes shorter in length or becomes less perceptible or is it because after a certain point of regular training, we are simply depleting our ArA stores which in turn triggers the normal responses less due to there being a lower store of ArA and thus less supply of ArA metabolites when we break down muscle cell membranes?

    So like Cooper noted, ArA IS a dietary fatty acid and ArA plays an important role for OPTIMAL muscle growth (regular training without increased intake of ArA will eventually lead to a depletion of ArA from even base levels of non-training individuals, due to the fact that regular training resulting in more frequent breaking down of these muscle cell membranes). So with that in mind, IF one is not low in there ArA store, effects from supplementing with ArA would probably not show much in terms of effects or the effects may be much less pronounced.
    Thanks for the biochem lesson. It's still an assumption to contradict the findings of the study. Do you see what my point is here? Going with what you said, which I understand and agree with, the study should have been controlled better. That's the most valid answer I've seen so far. Trust me, I want this stuff to work, who wouldn't? The science in this particular study is just not there. When MN asked Baylor to run this study, perhaps they should have been more specific in what they were looking for in a test subject.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by todd muelheim View Post
    Thanks for the biochem lesson. It's still an assumption to contradict the findings of the study. Do you see what my point is here? Going with what you said, which I understand and agree with, the study should have been controlled better. That's the most valid answer I've seen so far. Trust me, I want this stuff to work, who wouldn't? The science in this particular study is just not there. When MN asked Baylor to run this study, perhaps they should have been more specific in what they were looking for in a test subject.
    I think when that study was created, ArA was STILL not that quite well understood however, the study was shown to have positive results in strength gains. The aspect I feel that the study did not address was that it didn't factor in the fact that getting positive results from ArA is dependent on the severity of ArA deficiency. It is now however understood that there is this concept of ArA deficiency particularly in those whom train intensely and regularly.

    So the issue isn't really a lack of control per se, the issue is that the study did not factor in the idea that ArA deficiency was an important variable in seeing how "effective" ArA supplementation is. What your disagreement with the study mainly appears to boil down to is that you're looking at ArA as if it was not a dietary fatty acid but as a performance enhancing supplement in isolation. We now know that it's not really a performance enhancing supplement but instead it's a dietary fatty acid which most trained individuals are deficient in and that it has a significant impact on optimizing gains to a very notable degree (again, depends on the severity of ones ArA deficiency).

    I mean, would you argue the accuracy of creatine studies? Technically it's a dietary component we can get from food. People with high protein red meat diets most likely will not gain much if any from supplementing with creatine. You can claim that creatine studies don't have proper controls or are questionable since they didn't factor in people whom gets sufficient creatine through their food sources.

    Lastly, you're questioning the study on body composition changes, but at the end of the day, the study ever only shown the benefits to be strength gains did it not? Depending on training and diet, it could play a significant role in body composition changes, but that is still going to come down to diet and training at the end of the day. The study was set out to look for body composition changes but in the end found that ArA supplementation was very effective at netting strength gains. There's nothing wrong with a study set out to prove/demonstrate one thing but in the end stumble upon demonstrating something else.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by kissdadookie View Post

    I think when that study was created, ArA was STILL not that quite well understood however, the study was shown to have positive results in strength gains. The aspect I feel that the study did not address was that it didn't factor in the fact that getting positive results from ArA is dependent on the severity of ArA deficiency. It is now however understood that there is this concept of ArA deficiency particularly in those whom train intensely and regularly.

    So the issue isn't really a lack of control per se, the issue is that the study did not factor in the idea that ArA deficiency was an important variable in seeing how "effective" ArA supplementation is. What your disagreement with the study mainly appears to boil down to is that you're looking at ArA as if it was not a dietary fatty acid but as a performance enhancing supplement in isolation. We now know that it's not really a performance enhancing supplement but instead it's a dietary fatty acid which most trained individuals are deficient in and that it has a significant impact on optimizing gains to a very notable degree (again, depends on the severity of ones ArA deficiency).
    I like your style my man, although MN calls it a "legendary anabolic" on their website. And lets be honest, we aren't spending our hard earned money on an Omega 6 fatty acid, we're buying the notion that we will get bigger, stronger, faster, better in the bedroom, etc. What are your thoughts in the caloric differences between the two groups and the resulting changes in the key test points? I didn't fine tooth comb the study, so if it was addressed I apologize but am still curious.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by todd muelheim View Post
    I like your style my man, although MN calls it a "legendary anabolic" on their website. And lets be honest, we aren't spending our hard earned money on an Omega 6 fatty acid, we're buying the notion that we will get bigger, stronger, faster, better in the bedroom, etc. What are your thoughts in the caloric differences between the two groups and the resulting changes in the key test points? I didn't fine tooth comb the study, so if it was addressed I apologize but am still curious.
    Well, it is marketing and MN did stumble upon a dietary deficiency which lead to a supplement to fill that deficiency which ultimately resulted in very favourable results in terms of strength gains for most people. It might not be something to the degree of potency of synthetics but in terms of a natty supplement, it's pretty legendary and is technically anabolic (muscle repair is a anabolic response is it not?) in a market filled with natty supplements that costs more than synthetics many a times and which does next to nothing. So, I think for what it is and how effective it is, we can give MN a little slack on their marketing terminology :P

    From my understanding, only the ArA supplementing group had the hypercaloric diet. Both groups seemed to gain around 1 kg (2.2 lbs I think that is?) at the end of the 50 days. So lean body mass gains wasn't different but what's interesting is the fat gain. 50 days on that hypercaloric diet for the ArA group and with only .5 kg (roughly 1 lbs) of fat gain, that's pretty good IMO. If anything, the study may have short changed the body compositional effects of ArA supplementation by not giving the placebo group a hypercaloric diet as well.

    Let's just say this, the ArA group had a diet which was around 550 calories more per day than the placebo group. That should net you a weight gain of 1 lbs per week with obviously a good amount of fat gain per lbs. The fact that after 50 days, the ArA group only gained around 1 lbs of fat mass, that's pretty good. If anything, it would appear that the ArA supplementation kept the fat mass gain at bay which one could look at as a positive factor towards body composition changes.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by kissdadookie View Post

    Well, it is marketing and MN did stumble upon a dietary deficiency which lead to a supplement to fill that deficiency which ultimately resulted in very favourable results in terms of strength gains for most people. It might not be something to the degree of potency of synthetics but in terms of a natty supplement, it's pretty legendary and is technically anabolic (muscle repair is a anabolic response is it not?) in a market filled with natty supplements that costs more than synthetics many a times and which does next to nothing. So, I think for what it is and how effective it is, we can give MN a little slack on their marketing terminology :P

    From my understanding, only the ArA supplementing group had the hypercaloric diet. Both groups seemed to gain around 1 kg (2.2 lbs I think that is?) at the end of the 50 days. So lean body mass gains wasn't different but what's interesting is the fat gain. 50 days on that hypercaloric diet for the ArA group and with only .5 kg (roughly 1 lbs) of fat gain, that's pretty good IMO. If anything, the study may have short changed the body compositional effects of ArA supplementation by not giving the placebo group a hypercaloric diet as well.

    Let's just say this, the ArA group had a diet which was around 550 calories more per day than the placebo group. That should net you a weight gain of 1 lbs per week with obviously a good amount of fat gain per lbs. The fact that after 50 days, the ArA group only gained around 1 lbs of fat mass, that's pretty good. If anything, it would appear that the ArA supplementation kept the fat mass gain at bay which one could look at as a positive factor towards body composition changes.
    My thoughts exactly. That's a LOT more calories with a negligible gain in fat compared to placebo group. I was hoping someone would point that out, because I'd love to know more thoughts on it. #thenextECstack

  24. Quote Originally Posted by todd muelheim View Post
    My thoughts exactly. That's a LOT more calories with a negligible gain in fat compared to placebo group. I was hoping someone would point that out, because I'd love to know more thoughts on it. #thenextECstack
    Which I would consider to be yet another positive feather in ArA's cap. Ha ha ha.

    I can see why I've seen people mention how well ArA stacks with a PH cycle.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by todd muelheim View Post
    You're assuming uncontrolled variables were in favor of proving the initial hypothesis correct? You would tear that response apart had it not been your own. I am in no way trying to say that ArA is of no value. I guess a better way to put it is that if you were presented a bottle of capsules, and the study info, what would your thoughts be? There are a few things in the study that I find very interesting, and show quite a bit of potential value in ArA supplementation. I know you had a great deal of success with it a couple years ago when neuron practically rewrote the book on dosing this stuff but that doesn't change the face that there are not many studies on it and the one I have read so far was meh. That being said, I can't wait to start my run next week.
    Forget I said anything about the study, do you not agree, based on the nutritional science, that a typical BBing diet is low in ArA and high in EPA/DHA (which displace ArA)? Taking that a step further...do you not agree, based on all the info we know about fatty acids, that membrane balance is key for proper cell signaling (and that imbalances invite pathogenesis)?

    Arachidonic acid isn't some sort of special compound...it's a conditionally essential dietary fatty acid. Ideally, you do not want to be deficient in vitamins, minerals, EAAs, and EFAs since all must be acquired through diet. Thus, I think ArA can certainly serve a corrective purpose, and it will at the minimum produce vasodilation (and the strength increases that accompany this).

    You're right, there's no good evidence on ArA's effects on body composition. But there is evidence that supplementation increases plasma levels after 50 days (which promotes mostly vasodilating cascades) and there is evidence of strength effects. That alone makes it an ergogen at the very least

  26. Quote Originally Posted by mr.cooper69 View Post

    Forget I said anything about the study, do you not agree, based on the nutritional science, that a typical BBing diet is low in ArA and high in EPA/DHA (which displace ArA)? Taking that a step further...do you not agree, based on all the info we know about fatty acids, that membrane balance is key for proper cell signaling (and that imbalances invite pathogenesis)?

    Arachidonic acid isn't some sort of special compound...it's a conditionally essential dietary fatty acid. Ideally, you do not want to be deficient in vitamins, minerals, EAAs, and EFAs since all must be acquired through diet. Thus, I think ArA can certainly serve a corrective purpose, and it will at the minimum produce vasodilation (and the strength increases that accompany this).

    You're right, there's no good evidence on ArA's effects on body composition. But there is evidence that supplementation increases plasma levels after 50 days (which promotes mostly vasodilating cascades) and there is evidence of strength effects. That alone makes it an ergogen at the very least
    1. Consider it forgotten
    B. I'd like to think/hope so, at the very least just due to increased O3 supplementation compared to everyone else and hopefully decreased PUFA oil consumption
    iii. Yes, but we are also inducing inflammation...if we're on the topic of pathogenesis :-)

    Gummy bears and hot dogs can be ergogenic as well so that's neither here nor there. I'd really be interested in your thoughts on the caloric differences between the groups and the almost insignificant fat gain on the ArA side. I haven't thought much about it, I was hoping someone much more intelligent than I would chime in and give me something to run with.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by todd muelheim View Post
    1. Consider it forgotten
    B. I'd like to think/hope so, at the very least just due to increased O3 supplementation compared to everyone else and hopefully decreased PUFA oil consumption
    iii. Yes, but we are also inducing inflammation...if we're on the topic of pathogenesis :-)

    Gummy bears and hot dogs can be ergogenic as well so that's neither here nor there. I'd really be interested in your thoughts on the caloric differences between the groups and the almost insignificant fat gain on the ArA side. I haven't thought much about it, I was hoping someone much more intelligent than I would chime in and give me something to run with.
    All the studies on inflammation are related to chronic high intake of inflammatory compounds, not a 50 day run of arachidonic acid amidst a lifetime of otherwise anti-inflammatory nutrition.

    Could you elaborate on the caloric differences and fat gain? I haven't read the study in a very long time and haven't really been following this thread

  28. Quote Originally Posted by mr.cooper69 View Post
    I've posted this many times but once again...

    Do you supplement fish oil daily? Have you cut out most foods in the typical western diet in favor of "healthy" fats (that are often low in ArA or ArA's precursor FA)?

    If so, you probably stand to benefit from ArA. Balance is the key, and most bodybuilding populations seem to be at risk for low levels of ArA relative to EPA/DHA.

    The subjects in the study, conversely, probably did not religiously use fish oil and use a typical BBing diet

    ArA is ultimately a dietary fatty acid. It's not something we use to reach supraphysiological anabolism...only optimal muscle growth (read: growth may not be optimal if ArA levels are too low in the body).
    Have you cut out most foods in the typical western diet in favor of "healthy" fats (that are often low in ArA or ArA's precursor FA)?

    I doubt this happens...it should but I doubt it...

  29. Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post
    Have you cut out most foods in the typical western diet in favor of "healthy" fats (that are often low in ArA or ArA's precursor FA)?

    I doubt this happens...it should but I doubt it...
    Most hardcore BBers are all about their fish oil, nut butters, and olive oil. Hardcore as in, uneducated

  30. Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post
    Have you cut out most foods in the typical western diet in favor of "healthy" fats (that are often low in ArA or ArA's precursor FA)?

    I doubt this happens...it should but I doubt it...
    I would wager that most if not many have cut fatty red meats out of their diets. ArA is contained mostly in fat of red meat.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-10-2005, 01:35 PM
  2. finaly study on Lipostabil
    By mass_builder in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-24-2004, 01:22 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-22-2004, 01:00 AM
  4. Medical Study on Back Pain Treatments
    By Dr of Golf in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-12-2003, 08:29 PM
Log in
Log in