Isn't Olympus Labs LJ100 dosed low, or do they use a super high quality extract?

Shiznown

Shiznown

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
They're does at 100mg. I keep reading that 600mg is a good dose for LongJack. That would mean that they would only last 10 days.
 
paul56778

paul56778

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
if you want higher dose you could always go with Black Lion Research Viron which i use on a daily basis at 1 cap, i think it is around 250mg per cap and has added boron.
 
Shiznown

Shiznown

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
if you want higher dose you could always go with Black Lion Research Viron which i use on a daily basis at 1 cap, i think it is around 250mg per cap and has added boron.
Not messing with boron anymore, stuff gave me hot flashes and made my balls hurt.
 

georgetown

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
To your question yes LJ100 is a patented form of LongJack, it is a stronger extract.
 
Hyde

Hyde

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
Been taking 800mg twice daily (so 1.6g/day) of 100:1 tongkat Ali extract from Bulk Supplements for 5 days on 2 off for a bit now and it doesn't seem to be as strong as LJ100 per mg at all, but the shear dosage seems to be having more effect than 200mg of LJ100 had. And it was only ~$23 for at least a 2 month supply at that dosage. The downside is I'm shooting back a 1/4 tsp of powder 2x a day that tastes like burnt fireworks, but you don't wanna pay for capped product you have to buck up lol
 
cheftepesh1

cheftepesh1

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
Been taking 800mg twice daily (so 1.6g/day) of 100:1 tongkat Ali extract from Bulk Supplements for 5 days on 2 off for a bit now and it doesn't seem to be as strong as LJ100 per mg at all, but the shear dosage seems to be having more effect than 200mg of LJ100 had. And it was only ~$23 for at least a 2 month supply at that dosage. The downside is I'm shooting back a 1/4 tsp of powder 2x a day that tastes like burnt fireworks, but you don't wanna pay for capped product you have to buck up lol
You should consider capping yourself then
 
Hyde

Hyde

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
Do you guys have blood work to show?
Nope, and I don't plan on it. Female hormone panel doesn't show free test, and my total is already in the 600s so I'm not desperate. Things work decent as is. This is $23 I'm talking about for 2-3 months. If I feel better on it, totally placebo, that's money well spent. Me and the lady can't go to the movies at prime time for that lol
 
Hyde

Hyde

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
You should consider capping yourself then
Caps are dirt cheap and a scale is a reasonable investment if you want to cap your own supps, but it's just not worth my time - first bite of my meal behind it and it's gone. No biggie.
 
Lynks8

Lynks8

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Here on the forums dosages can sometimes get a little nuts. That's not to say higher doses of LJ100 don't elicit greater effects, but one doesn't need to use 600mg to see significant benefits.

Most of the studies I've seen showing enhanced sexual function, adaptation to resistance training, and mood/well-being used 100-200mg per day. A bottle of OL LJ100 gives you 60 100mg caps, so even if you wanted to do 200mg/day, you're getting 30 full days.

I've tried several cheaper extracts with various claimed concentrations, (including 200:1), and even a few with suspiciously high eurycomanone content claims. These are generally misleading as there's no accepted scientific standards regarding a particular concentration of the herb and what proportions of the active ingredients have to be before it is called a 200:1, a 100 to 1, or any other extract. While most have had effects at higher doses, none have been anywhere near as potent as LJ100 and I'm sure others have had the same experience.

For me, 200mg LJ100 > 800mg bulk powder allegedly standardized for 2% eurycomanone.

Regardless of who you get it from, if you want to try longjack, I'd definitely go with LJ100.
 
Shiznown

Shiznown

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Here on the forums dosages can sometimes get a little nuts. That's not to say higher doses of LJ100 don't elicit greater effects, but one doesn't need to use 600mg to see significant benefits.

Most of the studies I've seen showing enhanced sexual function, adaptation to resistance training, and mood/well-being used 100-200mg per day. A bottle of OL LJ100 gives you 60 100mg caps, so even if you wanted to do 200mg/day, you're getting 30 full days.

I've tried several cheaper extracts with various claimed concentrations, (including 200:1), and even a few with suspiciously high eurycomanone content claims. These are generally misleading as there's no accepted scientific standards regarding a particular concentration of the herb and what proportions of the active ingredients have to be before it is called a 200:1, a 100 to 1, or any other extract. While most have had effects at higher doses, none have been anywhere near as potent as LJ100 and I'm sure others have had the same experience.

For me, 200mg LJ100 > 800mg bulk powder allegedly standardized for 2% eurycomanone.

Regardless of who you get it from, if you want to try longjack, I'd definitely go with LJ100.
I was looking at this https://www.amazon.com/Tongkat-Ali-Extract-100-VegiCaps/dp/B00N50VIDK/ref=sr_1_22_s_it?s=hpc&ie=UTF8&qid=1470169306&sr=1-22&keywords=tongkat+ali
 
Lynks8

Lynks8

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Gotcha. Barlowe's seems to be a reliable brand, and at first glance, 650mg seems enticing, but there are some issues, unfortunately.

1. Right off the bat, there's no information regarding what bio-active constituents its extracted for or standardized to. This alone is enough for me to pass.

3. The extraction method lists ethanol. LJ100 does not utilize any alcohol/solvents in the extraction process. Also, the method for measuring the extra ratio is listed as "calculation". No chemical analysis, no HPLC...no thanks.

3. Maltodextrin is listed as the carrier. As Noaddedhormones astutely pointed out, this could mean that 650mg has quite a bit of malto. LJ100 does not utilize a carrier; it's just pure, freeze-dried extract.

4. Price. Quality Longjack extracts are not cheap to make in efficacious dosages. While there are supplements out there where you can get much better value for your money if you really look around, Longjack is not one of them (from what I've seen). $18.95 for that much LJ is a big red flag. There are countless cheap LJ products out there that are just ground up roots with no standardization. People see Longjack/Tongkat-Ali and just think "great!, that's what i'm looking for", but the product does next-to-nothing. It's an unfortunate reality in this industry.
 
Hyde

Hyde

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
Yes and no - for one, buying a bulk powder lets you see and taste what you're getting. My longjack is the correct color and flavor. Cheap random brand capped products should be an immediate red flag. You hear a lot of stories of people uncapping them and there obviously being nothing like longjack even in them.

OL's product is a reliable one; I have used it and was happy. But I paid $27 for a single month of 200/day. I am most definitely noticing more effect out of my bulk powder at 1600/day, and I'm getting it for ~40% of the price ($23 for 100g vs $27 for 6g OL LJ100) even dosing 8x the amount.
 
Lynks8

Lynks8

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Yes and no - for one, buying a bulk powder lets you see and taste what you're getting. My longjack is the correct color and flavor. Cheap random brand capped products should be an immediate red flag. You hear a lot of stories of people uncapping them and there obviously being nothing like longjack even in them.

OL's product is a reliable one; I have used it and was happy. But I paid $27 for a single month of 200/day. I am most definitely noticing more effect out of my bulk powder at 1600/day, and I'm getting it for ~40% of the price ($23 for 100g vs $27 for 6g OL LJ100) even dosing 8x the amount.
Oh yea. No question that if you find a decent bulk powder and dose the ever-living-hell out of it, you can probably achieve good or better value. I'm talking about most of the capped products I see. The benefit of LJ100 products is the security/convenience of knowing what you're getting, and the consistency. I once found a bulk LJ powder that worked well for me at ~800mg. Ordered more, and the second bag did jack squat.

edit: I also want to make it clear I'm not solely advocating for OL's LJ100. I'm advocating for LJ100 as an ingredient.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
And all due respect - from what I remember, most of the LJ (from HP Ingredients) data is from conference material that Tambi was at. It doesn't have a whole lot of scientific teeth behind it. There is another extract (super high Eurycomanone %) called something like XXX-295 or something, that actually has more data on it in the area of breast cancer, it's on PubMed.
 

dynamo

Banned
Awards
0
And all due respect - from what I remember, most of the LJ (from HP Ingredients) data is from conference material that Tambi was at. It doesn't have a whole lot of scientific teeth behind it. There is another extract (super high Eurycomanone %) called something like XXX-295 or something, that actually has more data on it in the area of breast cancer, it's on PubMed.
You are correct. I think there was a more recent study on LJ100 which essentially would lump it into the bunks pile. Too lazy to dig that study up.
 
Shiznown

Shiznown

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Is the Now brand any good? "Testo Jack 200" They have it at GNC, so it would be more convenient than ordering it online.
Just saw it didn't give the extract info. I know Now is popular brand though.
 
NoAddedHmones

NoAddedHmones

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
You are correct. I think there was a more recent study on LJ100 which essentially would lump it into the bunks pile. Too lazy to dig that study up.
Come on, dig it up if you are going to make a call like that brah...
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNO

dynamo

Banned
Awards
0
Come on, dig it up if you are going to make a call like that brah...
Supplementation of Eurycoma longifolia Jack Extract for 6 Weeks Does Not Affect Urinary Testosterone: Epitestosterone Ratio, Liver and Renal Functions in Male Recreational Athletes. Chen CK et al. 2014

The above study may make you then exclaim "But that's not serum levels!" True, but it is still relevant. Notice that they looked at both t levels as well as E:T levels. Both were essentially not affected in any meaningful way. Two of the purported uses of LJ is that it increases T as well as decreasing E. Both in this case were found to not be the case.

Now let's examine the other studies which are used for claims for long jack products objectively:

Performance:

There's one human study which demonstrates the possible ergogenic effects of LJ. This was shown for subjects 57-72 years of age. Previous research using young men did not demonstrate positive ergogenic benefits of LJ. Unless you are ~60+ of age, current data would suggest that LJ is a non-starter.

Libido and Fertility:

Here's where LJ actually does look very promising as it appears to be a legitimate aphrodisiac. Being a aphrodisiac however does not necessarily equate to boosting test in an meaningful and practical way which brings us to the next section.

Testosterone Boosting:

Other than various mice studies, there is one human study which gets referred to quite often from 2011. This looked at LJs effects on testosterone in hypogonadal men. There was a ~47% increase seen bringing the subjects out of clinical testosterone deficiency. Percentage-wise this looks phenomenal but there's a catch. 1) Over 3/4 of the subjects dropped out of the study. 2) A 47% increase from levels which were in clinical deficiency does not mean much other than that potentially it can help a little bit if one was hypogonadal. 3) If one factored in points 1 and 2, the findings of that study would really drop it down to insignificance.
 

malin

Member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Supplementation of Eurycoma longifolia Jack Extract for 6 Weeks Does Not Affect Urinary Testosterone: Epitestosterone Ratio, Liver and Renal Functions in Male Recreational Athletes. Chen CK et al. 2014

The above study may make you then exclaim "But that's not serum levels!" True, but it is still relevant. Notice that they looked at both t levels as well as E:T levels. Both were essentially not affected in any meaningful way. Two of the purported uses of LJ is that it increases T as well as decreasing E. Both in this case were found to not be the case.

Now let's examine the other studies which are used for claims for long jack products objectively:

Performance:

There's one human study which demonstrates the possible ergogenic effects of LJ. This was shown for subjects 57-72 years of age. Previous research using young men did not demonstrate positive ergogenic benefits of LJ. Unless you are ~60+ of age, current data would suggest that LJ is a non-starter.

Libido and Fertility:

Here's where LJ actually does look very promising as it appears to be a legitimate aphrodisiac. Being a aphrodisiac however does not necessarily equate to boosting test in an meaningful and practical way which brings us to the next section.

Testosterone Boosting:

Other than various mice studies, there is one human study which gets referred to quite often from 2011. This looked at LJs effects on testosterone in hypogonadal men. There was a ~47% increase seen bringing the subjects out of clinical testosterone deficiency. Percentage-wise this looks phenomenal but there's a catch. 1) Over 3/4 of the subjects dropped out of the study. 2) A 47% increase from levels which were in clinical deficiency does not mean much other than that potentially it can help a little bit if one was hypogonadal. 3) If one factored in points 1 and 2, the findings of that study would really drop it down to insignificance.
Ouch , someone better come up with good contr argument...... That does not look good...
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Supplementation of Eurycoma longifolia Jack Extract for 6 Weeks Does Not Affect Urinary Testosterone: Epitestosterone Ratio, Liver and Renal Functions in Male Recreational Athletes. Chen CK et al. 2014

The above study may make you then exclaim "But that's not serum levels!" True, but it is still relevant. Notice that they looked at both t levels as well as E:T levels. Both were essentially not affected in any meaningful way. Two of the purported uses of LJ is that it increases T as well as decreasing E. Both in this case were found to not be the case.

Now let's examine the other studies which are used for claims for long jack products objectively:

Performance:

There's one human study which demonstrates the possible ergogenic effects of LJ. This was shown for subjects 57-72 years of age. Previous research using young men did not demonstrate positive ergogenic benefits of LJ. Unless you are ~60+ of age, current data would suggest that LJ is a non-starter.

Libido and Fertility:

Here's where LJ actually does look very promising as it appears to be a legitimate aphrodisiac. Being a aphrodisiac however does not necessarily equate to boosting test in an meaningful and practical way which brings us to the next section.

Testosterone Boosting:

Other than various mice studies, there is one human study which gets referred to quite often from 2011. This looked at LJs effects on testosterone in hypogonadal men. There was a ~47% increase seen bringing the subjects out of clinical testosterone deficiency. Percentage-wise this looks phenomenal but there's a catch. 1) Over 3/4 of the subjects dropped out of the study. 2) A 47% increase from levels which were in clinical deficiency does not mean much other than that potentially it can help a little bit if one was hypogonadal. 3) If one factored in points 1 and 2, the findings of that study would really drop it down to insignificance.
I wouldn't say that tongkat ali is "bunk" or useless by any means. However, that study you referenced (Chen 2014) is very interesting, as it used Physta, which is a quality extract that has been used in at least one study with promising results (see below):

We assessed stress hormones and mood state in 63 subjects (32 men and 31 women) screened for moderate stress and supplemented with a standardized hot-water extract of TA root (TA) or Placebo (PL) for 4 weeks. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with significance set at p < 0.05 was used to determine differences between groups.
Significant improvements were found in the TA group for Tension (−11%), Anger (−12%), and Confusion (−15%). Stress hormone profile (salivary cortisol and testosterone) was significantly improved by TA supplementation, with reduced cortisol exposure (−16%) and increased testosterone status (+37%).
These results indicate that daily supplementation with tongkat ali root extract improves stress hormone profile and certain mood state parameters, suggesting that this “ancient” remedy may be an effective approach to shielding the body from the detrimental effects of “modern” chronic stress, which may include general day-to-day stress, as well as the stress of dieting, sleep deprivation, and exercise training.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3669033/
Note: The above study used 200mg/day of Physta Tongkat Ali, which is standardized to 0.8-1.5% eurycomanone.

The 6 Week study you mentioned used 2x the dose (400mg vs 200mg) of Physta as the other study that noted improvements in hormones as well as mood in moderately stressed subjects. It seems to me that this may indicated that tongakt ali is most useful as an adaptogen. While it may not be able to increase testosterone all the time, it may be able to improve testosterone and reduce cortisol (as well as provide mood benefits) in stressed subjects.
 

dynamo

Banned
Awards
0
I wouldn't say that tongkat ali is "bunk" or useless by any means. However, that study you referenced (Chen 2014) is very interesting, as it used Physta, which is a quality extract that has been used in at least one study with promising results (see below):




Note: The above study used 200mg/day of Physta Tongkat Ali, which is standardized to 0.8-1.5% eurycomanone.

The 6 Week study you mentioned used 2x the dose (400mg vs 200mg) of Physta as the other study that noted improvements in hormones as well as mood in moderately stressed subjects. It seems to me that this may indicated that tongakt ali is most useful as an adaptogen. While it may not be able to increase testosterone all the time, it may be able to improve testosterone and reduce cortisol (as well as provide mood benefits) in stressed subjects.
Physta is the main commercial LJ extract to have studies. LJ does seem to have adaptogen-ic qualities to it but so does forskolin and ashwagandha. The difference here is that based on the available data, forskolin and ashwagandha appears to have positive and meaningful effects on boosting test levels in healthy individuals. The one LJ study which most if not virtually all point to for test boosting was on hypogonadal men and the study had a >3/4 dropout rate. In other words, LJ as a test booster for the majority of us on here (gym rats and what have you, in other words relatively healthy (hopefully) active individuals) appears to not be of much use.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
I wouldn't say that tongkat ali is "bunk" or useless by any means. However, that study you referenced (Chen 2014) is very interesting, as it used Physta, which is a quality extract that has been used in at least one study with promising results (see below):



Effect of Tongkat Ali on stress hormones and psychological mood state in moderately stressed subjects
Note: The above study used 200mg/day of Physta Tongkat Ali, which is standardized to 0.8-1.5% eurycomanone.

The 6 Week study you mentioned used 2x the dose (400mg vs 200mg) of Physta as the other study that noted improvements in hormones as well as mood in moderately stressed subjects. It seems to me that this may indicated that tongakt ali is most useful as an adaptogen. While it may not be able to increase testosterone all the time, it may be able to improve testosterone and reduce cortisol (as well as provide mood benefits) in stressed subjects.
What is interesting, is that even placebo noticed a 'significant' drop in those values as well. I mean, they reached statistical significance, but that to me is not clinical significance considering we are looking at point differences <1 between the two.

graph.jpg


Key: Profile of Mood States (POMS). Daily supplementation (200 mg/day for 4 weeks) with tongkat ali (TA) resulted in significant improvements compared to placebo (PL) for indices of Tension (−11%), Anger (−12%), and Confusion (−15%) in moderately stressed adults (N = 63). * = p < 0.05 by ANOVA.

Placebo outperformed TA for "Vigor" on that same test.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Physta is the main commercial LJ extract to have studies. LJ does seem to have adaptogen-ic qualities to it but so does forskolin and ashwagandha. The difference here is that based on the available data, forskolin and ashwagandha appears to have positive and meaningful effects on boosting test levels in healthy individuals. The one LJ study which most if not virtually all point to for test boosting was on hypogonadal men and the study had a >3/4 dropout rate. In other words, LJ as a test booster for the majority of us on here (gym rats and what have you, in other words relatively healthy (hopefully) active individuals) appears to not be of much use.
Don't get me wrong, I'd pick ashwagandha over tongkat ali any day of the week (ashwagandha is one of my favorite ingredients), and I'm a fan of forskolin as well. I find that tongkat ali is better than either ashwagandha or forksolin for increasing libido though, which is always nice. Actually, I really like ashwagandha WITH tongkat ali. Both have adaptogenic properties, and the stress/anxiety reduction from ashwagandha pairs nicely with the increase in libido from tongkat ali. I find that tongkat ali is best utilized when paired with other ingredients that can increase testosterone and/or improve body composition (such as ashwagandha and forskolin); I think it compliments them quite well.
 

dynamo

Banned
Awards
0
Don't get me wrong, I'd pick ashwagandha over tongkat ali any day of the week (ashwagandha is one of my favorite ingredients), and I'm a fan of forskolin as well. I find that tongkat ali is better than either ashwagandha or forksolin for increasing libido though, which is always nice. Actually, I really like ashwagandha WITH tongkat ali. Both have adaptogenic properties, and the stress/anxiety reduction from ashwagandha pairs nicely with the increase in libido from tongkat ali. I find that tongkat ali is best utilized when paired with other ingredients that can increase testosterone and/or improve body composition (such as ashwagandha and forskolin); I think it compliments them quite well.
There's are so many different ingredients which has a notable increase on ones libido though. lol. Which is fine if one includes such an ingredient for libido enhancement, but claiming that LJ is a major t-booster however, I would have to second guess the product.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
There's are so many different ingredients which has a notable increase on ones libido though. lol. Which is fine if one includes such an ingredient for libido enhancement, but claiming that LJ is a major t-booster however, I would have to second guess the product.
Ok, I see what you're saying. Yeah, there are at least a handful of ingredients that can increase libido. All I was saying is that I wouldn't throw tongkat ali in the "bunk" category as a supplement in general (ie something that's completely useless like CEE), just that it may not be so awesome for what it's most commonly advertised as being effective for. I'm not saying that's what you were suggesting, just pointing it out for people that may have read it that way.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Ok, I see what you're saying. Yeah, there are at least a handful of ingredients that can increase libido. All I was saying is that I wouldn't throw tongkat ali in the "bunk" category as a supplement in general (ie something that's completely useless like CEE), just that it may not be so awesome for what it's most commonly advertised as being effective for. I'm not saying that's what you were suggesting, just pointing it out for people that may have read it that way.
Agreed on that. A tool in the toolbox
 

GNO

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
There's are so many different ingredients which has a notable increase on ones libido though. lol. Which is fine if one includes such an ingredient for libido enhancement, but claiming that LJ is a major t-booster however, I would have to second guess the product.
I am not sure what a major t-booster even is? Does it depend on what my starting levels are? My age? Body physiology?
 
rtmilburn

rtmilburn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Uncle Danes we need you up in dis b!tch.
 

dynamo

Banned
Awards
0
I am not sure what a major t-booster even is? Does it depend on what my starting levels are? My age? Body physiology?
As in if it has any test boosting benefits for us, relatively healthy active individuals whom are not ~60+ in age and suffering from hypogonadism.

If you take the test boosting data from forskolin and ashwagandha and compare it to LJ, those two would appear to be far more effective as test boosting ingredients.
 

GNO

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
As in if it has any test boosting benefits for us, relatively healthy active individuals whom are not ~60+ in age and suffering from hypogonadism.

If you take the test boosting data from forskolin and ashwagandha and compare it to LJ, those two would appear to be far more effective as test boosting ingredients.
Your definition of major t-booster is one that has any benefits at all? How do you determine whether there is a benefit?
 

dynamo

Banned
Awards
0
Your definition of major t-booster is one that has any benefits at all? How do you determine whether there is a benefit?
Ok, since you wish to be fickle.

1) I'm saying companies have ad copy claiming the ingredient as a major test booster.
2) I also meant major test booster as in the main purported test boosting ingredient in a product or in the case of your product, the only active ingredient.

We can go into ad-copies if you wish. Let's use yours:

"Remember, LJ100Ⓡ is the
only patented form of Tongkat Ali, studied in multiple clinical trials to support its efficacy! Do not accept imitations!"

^ Blatant lie and also neglecting to point out that Physta is actually the patented form which has the most studies behind it.

"Supplementing with LJ100Ⓡ can:
● Increase sports performance
● Promote anabolic state
● Reduce catabolic state
● Maintain normal high free testosterone level"

^ I've already addressed the sports performance point in my earlier post, so unless you're of the age ~60+, it's a non starter. The promotion of anabolism and being anti-catabolic IIRC was seen in mice and possibly cell culture data, it never panned out in any meaningful practical way in humans. The testosterone point I've also addressed.

Mind you, not targeting your company here nor just your product. Lot's of companies have made LJ based test booster products now. One really has to actually go into the literature and look at them analytically to figure out that it's really not much of a test booster.
 

georgetown

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Ok, since you wish to be fickle.

1) I'm saying companies have ad copy claiming the ingredient as a major test booster.
2) I also meant major test booster as in the main purported test boosting ingredient in a product or in the case of your product, the only active ingredient.

We can go into ad-copies if you wish. Let's use yours:

"Remember, LJ100Ⓡ is the
only patented form of Tongkat Ali, studied in multiple clinical trials to support its efficacy! Do not accept imitations!"

^ Blatant lie and also neglecting to point out that Physta is actually the patented form which has the most studies behind it.

"Supplementing with LJ100Ⓡ can:
● Increase sports performance
● Promote anabolic state
● Reduce catabolic state
● Maintain normal high free testosterone level"

^ I've already addressed the sports performance point in my earlier post, so unless you're of the age ~60+, it's a non starter. The promotion of anabolism and being anti-catabolic IIRC was seen in mice and possibly cell culture data, it never panned out in any meaningful practical way in humans. The testosterone point I've also addressed.

Mind you, not targeting your company here nor just your product. Lot's of companies have made LJ based test booster products now. One really has to actually go into the literature and look at them analytically to figure out that it's really not much of a test booster.
What are you trying to prove? Just wondering many people myself included benefit from LJ regardless of studies. It can only help people get closer to their goals so does it really bother you if they happen to label it a test booster?
 
rtmilburn

rtmilburn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Ok, since you wish to be fickle.

1) I'm saying companies have ad copy claiming the ingredient as a major test booster.
2) I also meant major test booster as in the main purported test boosting ingredient in a product or in the case of your product, the only active ingredient.

We can go into ad-copies if you wish. Let's use yours:

"Remember, LJ100Ⓡ is the
only patented form of Tongkat Ali, studied in multiple clinical trials to support its efficacy! Do not accept imitations!"

^ Blatant lie and also neglecting to point out that Physta is actually the patented form which has the most studies behind it.

"Supplementing with LJ100Ⓡ can:
● Increase sports performance
● Promote anabolic state
● Reduce catabolic state
● Maintain normal high free testosterone level"

^ I've already addressed the sports performance point in my earlier post, so unless you're of the age ~60+, it's a non starter. The promotion of anabolism and being anti-catabolic IIRC was seen in mice and possibly cell culture data, it never panned out in any meaningful practical way in humans. The testosterone point I've also addressed.

Mind you, not targeting your company here nor just your product. Lot's of companies have made LJ based test booster products now. One really has to actually go into the literature and look at them analytically to figure out that it's really not much of a test booster.
Well idc if it raises test if it provides effects of increase test levels, libido, alpha feeling, energy, etc and also has ergogenic effect ie. Increase gym preformonce. I however dont feel that lj does that. There are lots of ingredients that do
 

dynamo

Banned
Awards
0
Well idc if it raises test if it provides effects of increase test levels, libido, alpha feeling, energy, etc and also has ergogenic effect ie. Increase gym preformonce. I however dont feel that lj does that. There are lots of ingredients that do
What are you trying to prove? Just wondering many people myself included benefit from LJ regardless of studies. It can only help people get closer to their goals so does it really bother you if they happen to label it a test booster?
If you're ok with what would likely be placebo effects, go for it, I'm not the one to try to stop you.

As for the performance, I suppose you're ~60+ of age? Because young men which they used for LJ studies have not exhibited performance enhancements. I'll give it to you on libido though.
 

georgetown

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
If you're ok with what would likely be placebo effects, go for it, I'm not the one to try to stop you.

As for the performance, I suppose you're ~60+ of age? Because young men which they used for LJ studies have not exhibited performance enhancements. I'll give it to you on libido though.
21, definitely feel more energy, libido, drive, and performance. Mind you im using bulk powder so if $5 worth of placebo is benefiting me im all for it.

Edit: honestly im actually only supplementing with it to pair with ashwaghanda, control cortisol with different approaches
 
rtmilburn

rtmilburn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
If you're ok with what would likely be placebo effects, go for it, I'm not the one to try to stop you.

As for the performance, I suppose you're ~60+ of age? Because young men which they used for LJ studies have not exhibited performance enhancements. I'll give it to you on libido though.
If you actually read what i said, i was not supporting lj at all. I was saying other ingredients were better geez
 

dynamo

Banned
Awards
0
21, definitely feel more energy, libido, drive, and performance. Mind you im using bulk powder so if $5 worth of placebo is benefiting me im all for it.
I mean, go for it. $5 isn’t the worst price to pay even if it is placebo. It’s like 2 Big Macs so not terrible.

If you actually read what i said, i was not supporting lj at all. I was saying other ingredients were better geez
Ah, caught it. My mistake :)
 
Lynks8

Lynks8

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
First and foremost, "dynamo" is likely user 'kissdadookie'. He has an agenda against Olympus Labs. He also gets off on e-arguing. He will likely respond to me with a huge wall of text.

Now, that is not to say there isn't a valid point in the general statement that Longjack is not scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have significant ergogenic benefits. The science is not super strong in this regard. However:
There is more data than what is being shown that supports LJ100's benefits on t-levels, libido, and mood. This is the primary reason most of us supplement with LJ, and there are countless anecdotal reports from users here and all across various boards that demonstrate LJ is, as supplemental herbs go, one of the best for these purposes.

If the argument is: don't take LJ100 if you're expecting significant resistance-training-adaptation benefits, then I would agree with you. If the argument is: LJ100 is "bunk", I would vehemently disagree. I love the boost I get in libido/mood/aggressiveness from LJ100 and anything that motivates me ultimately helps me in the gym as well as I can push myself harder.

Supplementation of Eurycoma longifolia Jack Extract for 6 Weeks Does Not Affect Urinary Testosterone: Epitestosterone Ratio, Liver and Renal Functions in Male Recreational Athletes. Chen CK et al. 2014

The above study may make you then exclaim "But that's not serum levels!" True, but it is still relevant. Notice that they looked at both t levels as well as E:T levels. Both were essentially not affected in any meaningful way. Two of the purported uses of LJ is that it increases T as well as decreasing E. Both in this case were found to not be the case.
You said this study would essentially prove LJ100 is bunk.

-The study does not prove longjack is bunk, nor does it somehow invalidate all previous studies.

-This study was not designed to test longjack's overall effects on libido/mood/performance/etc. It was designed to test toxicity and whether-or-not it would affect an athlete's ability to pass a doping test.

-Show me where in this study they looked directly at T levels? I only see the T:E ratio? A urinary T:E test is really not relevant here. It is my understanding that T:E is only significantly affected by exogenous test supplementation. If you have an herb like longjack that assists with some endogenous production, epitestosterone will rise accordingly and the ratio will remain relatively the same, will it not?


I will respond to the rest of your post later if I have time, but I really take issue with you calling LJ "bunk". There are far too many happy users who notice great benefits in libido, mood, motivation, etc, for your cherry-picked arguments to hold much weight.
 

dynamo

Banned
Awards
0
First and foremost, "dynamo" is likely user 'kissdadookie'. He has an agenda against Olympus Labs. He also gets off on e-arguing. He will likely respond to me with a huge wall of text.

Now, that is not to say there isn't a valid point in the general statement that Longjack is not scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have significant ergogenic benefits. The science is not super strong in this regard. However:
There is more data than what is being shown that supports LJ100's benefits on t-levels, libido, and mood. This is the primary reason most of us supplement with LJ, and there are countless anecdotal reports from users here and all across various boards that demonstrate LJ is, as supplemental herbs go, one of the best for these purposes.

If the argument is: don't take LJ100 if you're expecting significant resistance-training-adaptation benefits, then I would agree with you. If the argument is: LJ100 is "bunk", I would vehemently disagree. I love the boost I get in libido/mood/aggressiveness from LJ100 and anything that motivates me ultimately helps me in the gym as well as I can push myself harder.



You said this study would essentially prove LJ100 is bunk.

-The study does not prove longjack is bunk, nor does it somehow invalidate all previous studies.

-This study was not designed to test longjack's overall effects on libido/mood/performance/etc. It was designed to test toxicity and whether-or-not it would affect an athlete's ability to pass a doping test.

-Show me where in this study they looked directly at T levels? I only see the T:E ratio? A urinary T:E test is really not relevant here. It is my understanding that T:E is only significantly affected by exogenous test supplementation. If you have an herb like longjack that assists with some endogenous production, epitestosterone will rise accordingly and the ratio will remain relatively the same, will it not?


I will respond to the rest of your post later if I have time, but I really take issue with you calling LJ "bunk". There are far too many happy users who notice great benefits in libido, mood, motivation, etc, for your cherry-picked arguments to hold much weight.
I've already addressed all of your points before you pointed out your points. Now we are just going around in circles.

As for the following which you stated:

"don't take LJ100 if you're expecting significant resistance-training-adaptation benefits, then I would agree with you. "

Now you're just trying to mince words and attempt to muddle up my point. Why are people taking this and what is your ad-copy and many other LJ ad-copies insinuating? They are implying that taking LJ will give significant test and/or training performance boosts, the data really does not support this. What do we call things that don't work for what they are being purported to do in a meaningful way? Bunk.
 
Last edited:
Lynks8

Lynks8

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I've already addressed all of your points before you pointed out your points. Now we are just going around in circles.
Nope. But, by all means, deflect. I would rather not go around in circles with you anyway. We can agree to disagree if you like.
 

dynamo

Banned
Awards
0
Nope. But, by all means, deflect. I would rather not go around in circles with you anyway. We can agree to disagree if you like.
Your long winded post was was going around in circles. Claiming that I'm deflecting in turn is very much as if you're deflecting what I said. I also rather not go around in circles as that proves to be an utter waste of everybody's time.
 
rtmilburn

rtmilburn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I've already addressed all of your points before you pointed out your points. Now we are just going around in circles.

As for the following which you stated:

"don't take LJ100 if you're expecting significant resistance-training-adaptation benefits, then I would agree with you. "

Now you're just trying to mince words and attempt to muddle up my point. Why are people taking this and what is your ad-copy and many other LJ ad-copies insinuation? They are implying that taking LJ will give significant test and/or training performance boosts, the data really does not support this. What do we call things that don't work for what they are being purported to do in a meaningful way? Bunk.
If i remeber right dr. Tambabi(or something like that) has done like 3 or 4 studies done on lj and it did show raise in test in regular people at 800mgs of lj100. unlce Danes can clarify he knows a lot more then i.
 
Lynks8

Lynks8

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Your long winded post was was going around in circles. Claiming that I'm deflecting in turn is very much as if you're deflecting what I said. I also rather not go around in circles as that proves to be an utter waste of everybody's time.
Your subjective opinions on my post aside: I would say the bigger waste of everyone's time is making bold and unsubstantiated claims about a ingredient and then using poor evidence to back up those claims. The study you posted and the urinary T:E ratio are not relevant to your claim that LJ is bunk. You have not addressed this, therefore you're deflecting. I'm happy to let those reading our posts come to their own conclusions.
 

dynamo

Banned
Awards
0
If i remeber right dr. Tambabi(or something like that) has done like 3 or 4 studies done on lj and it did show raise in test in regular people at 800mgs of lj100. unlce Danes can clarify he knows a lot more then i.
Link.

Your subjective opinions on my post aside: I would say the bigger waste of everyone's time is making bold and unsubstantiated claims about a ingredient and then using poor evidence to back up those claims. The study you posted and the urinary T:E ratio are not relevant to your claim that LJ is bunk. You have not addressed this, therefore you're deflecting. I'm happy to let those reading our posts come to their own conclusions.
I've provided that along with a lot more information which you conveniently ignored. Let's also not forget that you have product claims that LJ100 is the only patented studied extract of LJ which is (here comes a pun?) patently false since it's actually Physta.

I was being objective. Need it be pointed out to everyone that you literally stated that anecdotal feedback on it has been great? Does one really need to point out that anecdotal feedback is pretty much the equivalent of subjective opinions?

But let's keep in within what can be found in the literature. The test boosting in humans data came from a study where over 3/4 of the subjects dropped out + it was on hypogonadal men + it only got them over the clinical testosterone deficiency threshold. How is this in any, way, shape, or form suggesting a promising test boosting ingredient?
 
rtmilburn

rtmilburn

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Link.



I've provided that along with a lot more information which you conveniently ignored. Let's also not forget that you have product claims that LJ100 is the only patented studied extract of LJ which is (here comes a pun?) patently false since it's actually Physta.

I was being objective. Need it be pointed out to everyone that you literally stated that anecdotal feedback on it has been great? Does one really need to point out that anecdotal feedback is pretty much the equivalent of subjective opinions?

But let's keep in within what can be found in the literature. The test boosting in humans data came from a study where over 3/4 of the subjects dropped out + it was on hypogonadal men + it only got them over the clinical testosterone deficiency threshold. How is this in any, way, shape, or form suggesting a promising test boosting ingredient?
Would love to give links if i knew about them. Danes was the one he told me about it and has put links up about it in the past. Thats why ive mention him a few time for his input. He also his a really smart guy. Things he recently has been very inactive on the this forum.
 

Similar threads


Top