In Defense of Ephedrine

[YellowJacket]

Ephedrine's under a lot of question in regards to negative effects on the cardiovascular system. I personally do not think its fair that one person, who obviously abuses thedrug, is going to get it banned for everyone who has sense enough to use it responsibility. With the help of mystery meat of CEM, I have put together some studies (only 3, but they speak volumes), and I will be looking for more.....

Use of Ephedra-containing products and risk for hemorrhagic stroke.

Morgenstern LB, Viscoli CM, Kernan WN, Brass LM, Broderick JP, Feldmann E, Wilterdink JL, Brott T, Horwitz RI.

Stroke Program, Department of Neurology, University of Texas at Houston, USA. [email protected]

This case-control study examined the association between Ephedra use and risk for hemorrhagic stroke. For use of Ephedra at any dose during the 3 days before the stroke, the adjusted OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.32 to 3.11). For daily doses of < or =32 mg/day, the OR was 0.13 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.54), and for >32 mg/day, the OR was 3.59 (95% CI 0.70 to 18.35). Ephedra is not associated with increased risk for hemorrhagic stroke, except possibly at higher doses.

---------

An acute clinical trial evaluating the cardiovascular effects of an herbal ephedra-caffeine weight loss product in healthy overweight adults.

Kalman D, Incledon T, Gaunaurd I, Schwartz H, Krieger D.

Miami Research Associates, Miami, Florida 33143, USA. [email protected]

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to determine the acute effects of a commercial weight loss supplement containing herbal ephedrine and caffeine on cardiovascular function in healthy overweight adults. DESIGN: Randomized double blind clinical trial evaluating the cardiovascular effects of an ephedra-caffeine (Xenadrine(TM); XEN) based herbal product vs placebo (PLA). SUBJECTS: Twenty-seven healthy overweight adults (age 21-60 y; body mass index > or = 25 kg/m(2)). MEASUREMENTS: Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, serial electrocardiograms (EKG) and Doppler echocardiograms. RESULTS: A comparison of means between the groups indicated no statistically significant differences at the start of the study for the variables above. There were no serious adverse events. When examining the effects of XEN vs PLA on cardiovascular health/function, there were no significant effects observed in heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction, heart valve function or in cardiovascular physiology within the parameters measured. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that, over a 14-day period, ingestion of the commercial weight loss supplement in a healthy overweight population did not produce any noticeable cardiovascular side effects

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Herbal ephedra/caffeine for weight loss: a 6-month randomized safety and efficacy trial.

Boozer CN, Daly PA, Homel P, Solomon JL, Blanchard D, Nasser JA, Strauss R, Meredith T.

New York Obesity Research Center, St Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital and Columbia University, New York 10025, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To examine long-term safety and efficacy for weight loss of an herbal Ma Huang and Kola nut supplement (90/192 mg/day ephedrine alkaloids/caffeine). DESIGN: Six-month randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trial. SUBJECTS: A total of 167 subjects (body mass index (BMI) 31.8+/-4.1 kg/m(2)) randomized to placebo (n=84) or herbal treatment (n=83) at two outpatient weight control research units. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome measurements were changes in blood pressure, heart function and body weight. Secondary variables included body composition and metabolic changes. RESULTS: By last observation carried forward analysis, herbal vs placebo treatment decreased body weight (-5.3+/-5.0 vs. -2.6+/-3.2 kg, P<0.001), body fat (-4.3+/-3.3 vs. -2.7+/-2.8 kg, P=0.020) and LDL-cholesterol (-8+/-20 vs. 0+/-17 mg/dl, P=0.013), and increased HDL-cholesterol (+2.7+/-5.7 vs. -0.3+/-6.7 mg/dl, P=0.004). Herbal treatment produced small changes in blood pressure variables (+3 to -5 mm Hg, P< or =0.05), and increased heart rate (4+/-9 vs. -3+/-9 bpm, P<0.001), but cardiac arrhythmias were not increased (P>0.05). By self-report, dry mouth (P<0.01), heartburn (P<0.05), and insomnia (P<0.01) were increased and diarrhea decreased (P<0.05). Irritability, nausea, chest pain and palpitations did not differ, nor did numbers of subjects who withdrew. CONCLUSIONS: In this 6-month placebo-controlled trial, herbal ephedra/caffeine (90/192 mg/day) promoted body weight and body fat reduction and improved blood lipids without significant adverse events.

***It can be noted that in this study, dosing and length of use are very comparable to the dose and length of use of everyday athletes.

 

[YellowJacket]

Proof of Ephedrine's effectiveness

An herbal supplement containing Ma Huang-Guarana for weight loss: a randomized, double-blind trial.

Boozer CN, Nasser JA, Heymsfield SB, Wang V, Chen G, Solomon JL.

Obesity Research Center, St Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center and Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York 10025, USA. [email protected]

OBJECTIVE: To examine in overweight humans the short-term safety and efficacy for weight loss of an herbal supplement containing Ma Huang, Guarana and other ingredients. DESIGN: An 8 week randomized, double-blind placebo controlled study of a herbal dietary supplement (72 mg/day ephedrine alkaloids and 240 mg/day caffeine). SUBJECTS: Overweight men and women (body mass index, > or =29 and < or =35 kg/m2). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome variable was body weight change. Secondary variables included anthropometric, metabolic and cardiovascular changes. RESULTS: Sixty-seven subjects were randomized to either placebo (n=32) or active Ma Huang/Guarana (n=35). Twenty-four subjects in each group completed the study. Active treatment produced significantly (P<0.006) greater loss of weight (X+/-s.d.,-4.0+/-3.4 kg) and fat (-2.1+/-3.0% fat) over the 8-week treatment period than did placebo (-0.8+/-2.4 kg and 0.2+/-2.3% fat). Active treatment also produced greater reductions in hip circumference and serum triglyceride levels. Eight of the 35 actively treated subjects (23%) and none of the 32 placebo-treated control subjects withdrew from the protocol because of potential treatment-related effects. Dry mouth, insomnia and headache were the adverse symptoms reported most frequently by the herbal vs placebo group at the final evaluation visit. CONCLUSIONS: This herbal mixture of Ma Huang and Guarana effectively promoted short-term weight and fat loss. Safety with long-term use requires further investigation.

 

[YellowJacket]

Importance of ephedrine in oxygen uptake

***Note: This is important during cardio, ie. cutting


The effect of an herbal dietary supplement containing ephedrine and caffeine on oxygen consumption in humans.

Greenway FL, Raum WJ, DeLany JP.

Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808, USA. [email protected]

OBJECTIVE: To determine if an herbal dietary supplement for weight loss increases metabolism. DESIGN: Measurement of peak oxygen consumption in response to the supplement followed by a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover measurement of oxygen consumption in response to the supplement. SETTING: The study was conducted in an academic research clinic. SUBJECTS: Ten obese females (aged 41 +/- 4 years [body mass index (BMI)] 33.3 +/- 2.6 kg/m2) participated in the peak oxygen consumption test; six of these females participated in the crossover trial. INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Peak oxygen consumption was measured for 45 minutes after taking two herbal dietary supplement capsules orally, each containing the equivalent of 10 mg of caffeine and 5 mg of ephedrine. The crossover trial measured oxygen consumption for 45 minutes after taking two herbal dietary supplement capsules or two placebo capsules orally. RESULTS: The herbal dietary supplement increased peak oxygen consumption 0.178 +/- 0.03 (SEM) kcal/min (8.01 +/- 1.35 kcal/min expressed over 45 minutes) above baseline (p < 0.0001), and 2.0 +/- 0.56 kcal/min over 45 minutes compared to placebo (p < 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The herbal dietary supplement increased oxygen consumption when taken according to the package directions. The significance of this rise for weight loss requires further research.

 

[Hal]

What are the journal citations in which we can find these aritcles?

 

[YellowJacket]

Pubmed.com

 

[Hal]

A little more specific please

 

[YellowJacket]

These are peer review studies from Pubmed.com. If you want more specific than that, I suggest going and looking for them.

 

[Biggs]

Well, uh... here's some *begin Flight of Bumble Bee*
-------
Obes Rev 2001 Aug;2(3):199-211
The safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical and herbal caffeine and ephedrine use as a weight loss agent.

Greenway FL.

Pennington Biomedical Research Center, 6400 Perkins Road, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808, USA. [email protected]

Since passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, the sale of herbal dietary supplements containing caffeine and ephedrine for weight loss has become widespread in the United States. Reports of adverse events associated with the use of these non-prescription supplements have raised concerns in the United States regulatory community. Restricting the use of these products is now being considered. Such restriction should be based upon controlled clinical trials. This review of the literature in Medline relative to the use of caffeine and ephedrine in the treatment of obesity concludes that caffeine and ephedrine are effective in causing weight loss. Caffeine and ephedrine give equivalent weight loss to Diethylpropion and superior weight loss compared to dexfenfluramine. Caffeine and ephedrine have a long history of safe, non-prescription use. The adverse events accompanying acute dosing are mild and transient. Adverse events with caffeine and ephedrine reach and remain at placebo levels after 4-12 weeks of continuous treatment, but data from randomized trials up to 6 months only are available. Obesity is chronic, requires chronic treatment, its incidence is increasing and it has few effective treatments. The benefits of caffeine and ephedrine in treating obesity appear to outweigh the small associated risks. Restriction of dietary herbal supplements containing caffeine and ephedrine, often with other ingredients, should be based on controlled clinical trials of these products.
-------------------------
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000 Dec;24(12):1573-8
Safety and efficacy of treatment with an ephedrine/caffeine mixture. The first double-blind placebo-controlled pilot study in adolescents.

Molnar D, Torok K, Erhardt E, Jeges S.

Department of Paediatrics, University of Pecs, Hungary. [email protected]

OBJECTIVE: The present study was performed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a caffeine/ephedrine (CE) mixture in obese adolescents. SUBJECTS: Thirty-two (m/f = 16/16) obese children were included into the study. They were treated by diet (calculated daily energy requirement minus 500 kcal) and either CE or placebo (PL) for 20 weeks in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Those weighing less than 80 kg took one tablet three times (100 mg/10 mg), whereas those weighing more than 80 kg took two tablets three times per day. There were three dropouts (girls) from the PL group. The age, weight body mass index (BMI) values (mean (range)) of the PL and CE groups were 16.0 (14.3-17.6) and 16.0 (14.2-17.7) y, 103.0 (77.2-126.4) and 104.8 (69.8-150.2) kg, 35.2 (28.3-42.3) and 36.5 (31.3-51.8) kg/m2, respectively. RESULTS: The decrease in relative body weight, BMI and body fat (measured by bioelectric impedance) was significantly (P < 0.05) greater in the CE group (mean +/- s.d.; 14.4 +/- 10.5%, 2.9 +/- 1.9 kg/m2, 6.6 +/- 6.0 kg) than in the PL group (2.2 +/- 5.8%, 0.5 +/- 1.6 kg/m2, 0.5 +/- 2.7 kg). Relative body weight decreased by more than 5% in 81% of the CE group, out only in 31% of the PL group. Adverse events were negligible and did not differ between the CE and PL groups. Withdrawal symptoms were mild, transient and their frequency and severity were not different between the placebo and active groups. CONCLUSION: According to the present pilot study, CE can be a safe and effective compound for the treatment of obesity in adolescents.

 

[Biggs]

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1993 Feb;17 Suppl 1:S73-8
Ephedrine, caffeine and aspirin: safety and efficacy for treatment of human obesity.

Daly PA, Krieger DR, Dulloo AG, Young JB, Landsberg L.

Dept of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The safety and efficacy of a mixture of ephedrine (75-150mg), caffeine (150mg) and aspirin (330mg), in divided premeal doses, were investigated in 24 obese humans (mean BMI 37.0) in a randomized double blind placebo-controlled trial. Energy intake was not restricted. Overall weight loss over 8 weeks was 2.2kg for ECA vs. 0.7 kg for placebo (p < 0.05). 8 of 13 placebo subjects returned 5 months later and received ECA in an unblinded crossover. After 8 weeks, mean weight loss with ECA was 3.2 kg vs 1.3 kg for placebo (p = 0.036). 6 subjects continued on ECA for 7 to 26 months. After 5 months on ECA, average weight loss in 5 of these was 5.2 kg compared to 0.03 kg gained during 5 months between studies with no intervention (p = 0.03). The sixth subject lost 66 kg over 13 months by self-imposed caloric restriction. In all studies, no significant changes in heart rate, blood pressure, blood glucose, insulin, and cholesterol levels, and no differences in the frequency of side effects were found. ECA in these doses is thus well tolerated in otherwise healthy obese subjects, and supports modest, sustained weight loss even without prescribed caloric restriction, and may be more effective in conjunction with restriction of energy intake.

 

[Biggs]

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1993 Feb;17 Suppl 1:S69-72
Safety and efficacy of long-term treatment with ephedrine, caffeine and an ephedrine/caffeine mixture.

Toubro S, Astrup AV, Breum L, Quaade F.

Research Department of Human Nutrition, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Fredriksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind study, 180 obese patients were treated by diet (4.2 MJ/day) and either an ephedrine/caffeine combination (20mg/200mg), ephedrine (20mg), caffeine (200mg) or placebo 3 times a day for 24 weeks. 141 patients completed this part of the study. All medication was stopped between week 24-26 in order to catch any withdrawal symptoms. From week 26 to 50, 99 patients completed treatment with the ephedrine/caffeine compound in an open trial design, resulting in a statistically significant (p = 0.02) weight loss of 1.1kg. In another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 8 week study on obese subjects we found the mentioned compound showed lean body mass conserving properties. We conclude that the ephedrine/caffeine combination is effective in improving and maintaining weight loss, further it has lean body mass saving properties. The side effects are minor and transient and no withdrawal symptoms have been found.

 

[Biggs]

This last one I found pretty interesting... suggests the combo is beneficial, while separately don't do jack....


Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1992 Apr;16(4):269-77
The effect and safety of an ephedrine/caffeine compound compared to ephedrine, caffeine and placebo in obese subjects on an energy restricted diet. A double blind trial.

Astrup A, Breum L, Toubro S, Hein P, Quaade F.

Research Department of Human Nutrition, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.

The sympathomimetic agent ephedrine has potent thermogenic and anti-obesity properties in rodents. The effect is markedly enhanced by caffeine, while caffeine given alone has no effect. This study was undertaken to find out if a similar weight reducing synergism between ephedrine and caffeine is present in obese patients. In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind study, 180 obese patients were treated by diet (4.2 MJ/day) and either an ephedrine/caffeine combination (20mg/200mg), ephedrine (20 mg), caffeine (200 mg) or placebo three times a day for 24 weeks. Withdrawals were distributed equally in the four groups, and 141 patients completed the trial. Mean weight losses was significantly greater with the combination than with placebo from week 8 to week 24 (ephedrine/caffeine, 16.6 +/- 6.8 kg vs. placebo, 13.2 +/- 6.6 kg (mean +/- s.d.), P = 0.0015). Weight loss in both the ephedrine and the caffeine groups was similar to that of the placebo group. Side effects (tremor, insomnia and dizziness) were transient and after eight weeks of treatment they had reached placebo levels. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure fell similarly in all four groups. We conclude, that in analogy with animal studies, the ephedrine/caffeine combination is effective, while caffeine and ephedrine separately are ineffective for the treatment of human obesity.

*conclude Flight of Bumble Bee music*

 

[Hal]

YellowJacket

As I'm sure you are aware...there is a big difference between journals. Just about anyone can get a study published in a crappy journal....takes some real data to get into a good journal.

 

[YellowJacket]

YellowJacket

As I'm sure you are aware...there is a big difference between journals. Just about anyone can get a study published in a crappy journal....takes some real data to get into a good journal.

If you're refering to the above information as 'crap', then perhaps you can do better.

 

[Biggs]

... though you won't find a Harvard study in the National Enquirer...

it's more important to look at where the study was conducted, the authors involved... not necessarily which publication they are out of primarily...

each study is different and just because X Journal has a specific reputation, this does not necessarily mean every study will be flawless and golden... rather, review the studies individually and understand where they come from

 

[Hal]

I didn't mean that the studies were crap. However, if one can't give a real citation, well....that goes a long way towards saying that the study is crap.

 

[Biggs]

true, though Pubmed and the US Natnl Library of Medicine won't put too much disreputable **** up there I'd say... you're usually talking about JAMA, Obesity Rev., Time, US News, Phytomedecine, Sleep Med Rev., Pharmacotherapy, Anesth. Intensive Care, just to name a few... not lightweights in the medical field... for the most part, definitely trustworthy as to the validity of the studies, things of that nature... and *damn-hella-shitball-mufucka* more reputable than X Supp Company Guru Bob's Take On Whey Supplementation

 

[YellowJacket]

I didn't mean that the studies were crap. However, if one can't give a real citation, well....that goes a long way towards saying that the study is crap.

Im not too concerned with where the studies are published or if they're published at all. Im more concerned who did them, under what conditions they were done, etc. I can read the set up, results and conclusions, I dont need a big name company to publish it to do so.

 

[Hal]

Come on...a study published in Medical Hypothesis is no where near as relevant as something in JAMA or ACTA (..)
As far as who did the study or where it was conducted.....if it was scientifically relevant it'd be published in a reputatble journal.

 

[YellowJacket]

Come on...a study published in Medical Hypothesis is no where near as relevant as something in JAMA or ACTA (..)
As far as who did the study or where it was conducted.....if it was scientifically relevant it'd be published in a reputatble journal.

How do you know they werent? And like I said, if you see problems with them, dont hesitate to pick them apart, otherwise, I dont think you can say much.

 

[Biggs]

scientifically relevant to who though... there's a reason heavy hitting medical journals don't publish thousands of studies supporting OTC weight loss drugs... establish a rep, and protect your interests... you can't blame them, but by the same token, just because JAMA has huge circulation and publishes X study out of Duke Univ., small circulation journal Y could publish the same study, does that make Duke Univ.'s validity questionable?

 

[Hal]

Well, I can't really critique the articles until I see them. Untill I see a refererence these positngs have little meaning to me.

 

[YellowJacket]

Well, I can't really critique the articles until I see them. Untill I see a refererence these positngs have little meaning to me.

Then perhaps you should move on.. or take it upon yourself to do a bit of searching. Each of these studies can be found at various places on the internet. You can find exactly where they're published (if they are published). Universities like Texas, Columbia, Duke, Harvard, Brown, & PBRC all come with stellar reputations, I tend to agree with the statements made anyway, not to mention they are performed by these top Universities. Not to say I only believe something based on who's performs the studies, but like I said, until someone can prove otherwise, its safe to say these are as legit as they come.

 

[Hal]

Misc studies results have been posted here, without reference to published studies, I don't see the logic of putting searching for the studies on me. If the studies have any validity at all they been published somewhere. If they haven't been published at all...well, then they most likely can't be published because they're crap.

 

[YellowJacket]

Misc studies results have been posted here, without reference to published studies, I don't see the logic of putting searching for the studies on me. If the studies have any validity at all they been published somewhere. If they haven't been published at all...well, then they most likely can't be published because they're crap.

And who's purpose is that to resolve? Hmm.....not mine. These stduies actually only confirm the obvious (or what I thought was the obvious), but if you want to refute them, but all means do.


(Hint: You really cant, but its entertaining none the less)

 

[Hal]

I can't refute or confirm anything without a citation.

 

[YellowJacket]

I can't refute or confirm anything without a citation.

Then I guess you'd better start searching.

 

[Hal]

Or I just discount them as little more than legend, since actual citations aren't provided.

 

[YellowJacket]

Or I just discount them as little more than legend, since actual citations aren't provided.

Thats fine too, but thats the easy way out. Most of these I found are also derivitives of Neurology.com, an online database of related studies, sorry man, but I think you're out gunned.

 

[Hal]

Maybe, maybe...but without a citation I don't have anything to respond to. Gimme a cittation or two. I'll respond to them.

 

[YellowJacket]

Maybe, maybe...but without a citation I don't have anything to respond to. Gimme a cittation or two. I'll respond to them.

Would you like that with coffee and the morning paper?

To be honest, I dont give a **** where they came from, the publishing 'magazine' is no where important as the facility that conducted the study (in my opinion). When I see a study, I see what institution covered and conducted it, not where I found it. Granted if it were a good study, it would be posted in a high class journal, but I think these are basic studies and speak for themselves.

 

[Hal]

Any study worth publishing is worth publishing in a good journal. If the study can't stand up to the rigours of a good journal, well...it's almost certainly crap.

 

[YellowJacket]

Any study worth publishing is worth publishing in a good journal. If the study can't stand up to the rigours of a good journal, well...it's almost certainly crap.

Like I said before, this discussion is going in circles, if you want to refute them, please do. Find them in a journal, and tear them apart, other than that, nothing you have said really holds water until you can provide reasoning for them being 'crap'. Thanks.

 

[Hal]

So it's up to me to find the articles alluded to and refute them as need be? You must be kidding!

 

[YellowJacket]

So it's up to me to find the articles alluded to and refute them as need be? You must be kidding!

Hey man, you're the one screaming they are crap, if I didnt believe in them, I wouldnt have posted them. So yes, if you would like to refute them and pick them apart, its your job to come up with the required info. Im not going to post them and then go research to pick them apart, come on now.

 

[John Benz]

Hey man, you're the one screaming they are crap, if I didnt believe in them, I wouldnt have posted them. So yes, if you would like to refute them and pick them apart, its your job to come up with the required info. Im not going to post them and then go research to pick them apart, come on now.

Hal, You are 100% correct. A study done at Harvard by some undergrad can be found at pubmed, even if they were deemed unworthy to be published in a major journal. Unpublished studies, and those with no citation are as worthless as last week's lunch.

These crap articles are being published here every day; it's time to cease and desist.

 

[YellowJacket]

Hal, You are 100% correct. A study done at Harvard by some undergrad can be found at pubmed, even if they were deemed unworthy to be published in a major journal. Unpublished studies, and those with no citation are as worthless as last week's lunch.

Oh, what a surprise


At least its better than a Testosterone magazine article where references are cited that actually GO AGAINST the point you're trying to prove! LMAO!

 

[John Benz]

Oh, what a surprise


At least its better than a Testosterone magazine article where references are cited that actually GO AGAINST the point you're trying to prove! LMAO!

At least testerone is a printed magazine and not some amateurish article that never made it anywhere but the pubmed directory.

 

[YellowJacket]

So Pubmed now processes and submits amateur material? Nice John. Better delete half the boards material, since most of it is a derivitive of Pubmed.

 

[Biggs]

... why then is there even a Pubmed link down there? let's all use the test rag

 

[John Benz]

So Pubmed now processes and submits amateur material? Nice John. Better delete half the boards material, since most of it is a derivitive of Pubmed.

My thoughts exactly. Unpublished and/or uncited pubmed articles are a joke. Pubmed publishes everything in sight, some good; some junk. Without being published in a journal and cited per source, they are worthless in an argument on any given topic.

 

[YellowJacket]

My thoughts exactly. Unpublished and/or uncited pubmed articles are a joke. Pubmed publishes everything in sight, some good; some junk. Without being published in a journal and cited per source, they are worthless in an argument on any given topic.

Well thats news to me, but certainly its better than Testosterone magazine. Like I said before, if the studies are worthless, feel free to rip them apart and refute them with studies (not from Pubmed) that say otherwise, until then, I will continue to hold Pubmed right up there at the top with the golden standards of research.

 

[John Benz]

... why then is there even a Pubmed link down there? let's all use the test rag

Pubmed is a good source of information; a tool. They list it all, good and bad; but they can't make the right selections for you. You have to use common sense and wade through the crap, and find the good published articles. Leave those unpublished, uncited ones on the scrap heap.

 

[YellowJacket]

Pubmed is a good source of information; a tool. They list it all, good and bad; but they can't make the right selections for you. You have to use common sense and wade through the crap, and find the good published articles. Leave those unpublished, uncited ones on the scrap heap.

This has nothin to do with the glutamine articles/studies right?

So if they're uncited, that makes them null correct? even if it confirms common knowledge? Even if its done by more then legit universities and institutions? Even if you can read and comprehend the method, materials, results and conclsion and it all matches?

Riiiiight.

 

[John Benz]

Well thats news to me, but certainly its better than Testosterone magazine. Like I said before, if the studies are worthless, feel free to rip them apart and refute them with studies (not from Pubmed) that say otherwise, until then, I will continue to hold Pubmed right up there at the top with the golden standards of research.

If they are not worthless, cite them and where they were published, please. If not one major journal felt they were golden, neither do I.

 

[windwords7]

I know that this is going to be an excellent debate on the merits of a stated case, right fellas? LOL! Pretty please!

 

[John Benz]

This has nothin to do with the glutamine articles/studies right?

So if they're uncited, that makes them null correct? even if it confirms common knowledge? Even if its done by more then legit universities and institutions? Even if you can read and comprehend the method, materials, results and conclsion and it all matches?

Riiiiight.

If they were professionally done and deemed worthy, they would have been printed in a major journal. Every Harvard grad who does one of these studies, does it with the highest aspirations of getting his/her work published. Journals will turn you down if your work is not noteworthy. And if is not, why would I heed advice from someone turned down for publication.

Read my lips, Pubmed is a directory for every scrap of information. They DO NOT evaluate or determine if it is correct or not! Good stuff in there sure; but a lot of junk as well. Anything uncited and unpublished must be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[YellowJacket]

If they were professionally done and deemed worthy, they would have been printed in a major journal. Every Harvard grad who does one of these studies, does it with the highest aspirations of getting his/her work published. Journals will turn you down if your work is not noteworthy. And if is not, why would I heed advice from someone turned down for publication.

Now you're going off in the wild blue. Whats the criteria for getting your studies published? Insufficient data I would assume is one ite on the list of musts, but if you re-read this articles, each are fully detailed. Who knows, no one even knows if they appear in journals or not, for all we know, they could be. Back to my main point, if you feel they're crap and unworthy, feel free to pick them apart, no one thus far has taken up that offer, only giving opinions that it's PROBABLY unworthy, sorry, I just dont see it.

Read my lips, Pubmed is a directory for every scrap of information. They DO NOT evaluate or determine if it is correct or not! Good stuff in there sure; but a lot of junk as well. Anything uncited and unpublished must be taken with a grain of salt.

Really cant read your lips as this is the internet, but on a serious note, I dont think its a fair assumption to say because it doesnt include a citation of journal publication that its total trash, and if your only basis for saying its total trash is the lack of journal cited and not content, well then this argument is over because that holds no merit.

 

[windwords7]

I think balance in your approach to pubmed is the key. You cant assume that just becuase its on pubmed that its gospel and equally you cant assume that its not. That's where multiple studies become the key, seeing the study demonstrated more than once, in different circumstances, with the same or similar results.

 

[YellowJacket]

Originally posted by windwords7
I think balance in your approach to pubmed is the key. You cant assume that just becuase its on pubmed that its gospel and equally you cant assume that its not. That's where multiple studies become the key, seeing the study demonstrated more than once, in different circumstances, with the same or similar results.

Oh, stellar point. Thats why I always request multiple studies. You can find 1 study on the effects of dietary **** on muscle growth, but can you find 2? Doubtful. Good point Jake.

 

[John Benz]

....Back to my main point, if you feel they're crap and unworthy, feel free to pick them apart, no one thus far has taken up that offer, only giving opinions that it's PROBABLY unworthy, sorry, I just dont see it.

I won't pick apart uncited articles, as without citation and publication, it's just someone's opinion, not a reference source. The authors of these uncited and unpublished works have no credibility, even less than the writers of a bodybuilding mag. At least those writers know their subject, and are not delving into whether gluatamine can cure feline aids through intravenous administration or grow new skin on a deformed dog. Sheeeeze, do you even read what you post, or just spit out words to see where they splatter? Please do not keep quoting and posting uncited work. This argument is over. Sorry you can't find any journal publications to back up your articles.