powerfull vs Bulk 1-carboxy-2-amino-3-pyrobenzo
- 09-05-2007, 06:55 PM
- 09-05-2007, 09:11 PM
09-05-2007, 09:31 PM
09-05-2007, 09:33 PM
i just dont understand how pat would say something like that when i know for sure most people seem to loveand among all the people a small sample size must be proving that it works or does something beneficial.
i actually tested powerfull i think a while back got a bunch of pills in mail i dont honestly remember anything from it i think i continued to succed in my workouts and whatever but nothing that i remember being amazing. im not bashing powerfull i hope or look foward to trying it again soon.
09-05-2007, 09:35 PM
•From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Placebo effect is the term applied by medical science to the therapeutical and healing effects of inert medicines and/or ritualistic or faith healing manipulations. . When referring to medicines, placebo is a preparation which is pharmacologically inert but which may have a therapeutical effect based solely on the power of suggestion. It may be administered in any of the ways in which pharmaceutical products are administered. Regarding placebo procedures, psychic surgery is a clear example.
Sometimes known as non-specific effects or subject-expectancy effects, a so-called placebo effect occurs when a patient's symptoms are altered in some way (i.e., alleviated or exacerbated) by an otherwise inert treatment, due to the individual expecting or believing that it will work. Some people consider this to be a remarkable aspect of human physiology; others consider it to be an illusion arising from the way medical experiments are conducted.
The placebo effect occurs when a patient takes an inert substance (“a sugar pill”) in conjunction with the suggestion from an authority figure that the pill will aid in healing and the patient’s condition improves. This effect has been known for years.
for more information on placebo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo...technical_term)
09-05-2007, 09:44 PM
09-05-2007, 09:50 PM
09-05-2007, 09:51 PM
09-05-2007, 09:53 PM
09-05-2007, 09:54 PM
just throwing it out in the mix
09-05-2007, 09:59 PM
09-05-2007, 09:59 PM
09-05-2007, 10:01 PM
09-05-2007, 10:15 PM
You'll see on their write-up that it says this product has been shown to increase HGH and testosterone; however, this alone (on a scientific basis) does not necessarily mean that it will build muscle. Believe it or not, there were a lot of scientists back in the day who were convinced that Legit Anabolic Steroids wouldn't work. Obviously, research proved them wrong.
09-05-2007, 10:43 PM
09-05-2007, 10:44 PM
Funny how this thread is addressing PowerFULL and there isn't a single USPLabs representative in sight to prove Patrick wrong.
Instead of arguing in behalf of USPLabs, why don't THEY give us the insight as to why PA is wrong and why PowerFULL is still 'off the hook' per se.
Consumer sales do not equal an effective product. All it means is that people are buying it....with various reasons as to why.
If Patrick is really wrong why doesn't the company who produces the product defend itself ? I'm sure a rep has seen this thread.
BTW, if you screwed up on the nomenclature, you are technically 'mislabeling' a product which is illegal.
09-05-2007, 10:52 PM
09-05-2007, 10:54 PM
09-06-2007, 01:46 AM
I'm going to run a series of blood glucose tests on both 1-Carboxy and L-Dopa over the next few days, and compare results.
The only result that would be useful would be a large discrepancy in outcomes...so I'll be looking for that.
I'm thinking I'll set it up like this:
Take morning fasting BG.
Eat a standard meal (or shake) that will remain constant throughout all tests.
Take BG at 60, 90, and 120 min post prandial. This is baseline.
The next day test L-Dopa. Same meal, same time of day.
60min post, I'll take BG and immediately take 250mg L-Dopa
Then take 90, 120, 150min readings.
Next day, test 800mg 1-Carboxy, same fashion
Next day, 500mg L-Dopa, same
Next day, 1600mg 1-Carboxy, same
Patrick, any suggestions?
Now, this is assuming that both compounds should have some effect on post-prandial BG, which may not even be the case. We'll find out.
09-06-2007, 01:53 AM
09-06-2007, 02:38 AM
09-06-2007, 02:54 AM
Anybody have the full text on this?
1: Exp Clin Endocrinol. 1983 Jan;81(1):41-8.Links
Effect of l-dopa on growth hormone, glucose, insulin, and cortisol response in obese subjects.Vizner B, Reiner Z, Sekso M.
Plasma growth hormone, glucose, insulin and cortisol response to oral administration of L-dopa and in insulin-tolerance test were investigated in 18 obese subjects. The results were compared with the results obtained in 10 normal subjects. The obese subjects displayed a lack of growth hormone responsiveness to L-dopa and a diminished GH responsiveness to hypoglycemia. There was no significant difference in glucose response to hypoglycemia in normal and obese subjects. Obese subjects showed normal increments of plasma cortisol following induction of hypoglycemia although there was no consistent cortisol response after L-dopa administration. A blood glucose response following L-dopa administration was seen in most of normal subjects while no increment of blood glucose was noticed in obese subjects.
PMID: 6343098 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I'd like to see what that "response" was.
09-06-2007, 06:54 AM
09-06-2007, 07:06 AM
Results = x + y + z
y=effect from user workin' his balls off
z=effectiveness of the product
By anecdotal experience, we are able to conclude that the user had a good experience while using the product, but there are too many other factors in the equation to be able to attribute anything quantifiable to the product. We'll never know the value of z because we have no way of finding x or y.
09-06-2007, 07:17 AM
Agree completely. The entire discussion was sparked off by Patrick Arnold's statement that L-Dopa had no anabolic properties, direct or indirect, and that plant sterols were basically useless in a general sense.Originally Posted by b unit;
Most of the subsequent discussion has centered on subjective interpretations of what he actually might have wanted to say. I am sure he would find time to clarify his thoughts here. And do that better than anyone else. That would help cut a lot of speculation. And advance our objective knowledge a tad.
09-06-2007, 07:27 AM
Agree with your thinking. Yet, you might approach the value of z by doing the following:Originally Posted by thesinner;
let z = z1 + z2
Results = x + y + z1 + z2
If z1 represents the new supplement you have just added and z2 represents all the other supplements other than the current one, then you can approach a value for z1 by determining the impact on "Results" due to z1, if everything else in the equation remained unchanged. I agree x may also change due to z1, but this change in x will taper off with time.
09-06-2007, 08:36 AM
09-06-2007, 08:48 AM
HGH and testosterone do not build muscle? okay, well it doesnt but it sure does help and play a big part in whether muscle gets built and how much.....so if this product does increase GH production over baseline then that would mean it would help to build muscle among other benefiets, it wouldnt do it directly but indirectly but why would it matter if its overall outcome is aided muscle benefiets?
09-06-2007, 09:09 AM
Just because something increases HGH and Test levels doesn't mean it's going build muslce. You also have to take into account how it increases them as well. You're making assumptions as to how this product works. I'm not trying to knock USP or promote PA by saying any of this, but we can't simply take data on hormone levels and say that for sure makes something anabolic. That's not how the scientific method works.
09-06-2007, 09:43 AM
Similar Forum Threads
- By gotDOMS in forum SupplementsReplies: 21Last Post: 04-19-2008, 07:23 PM
- By snapps in forum SupplementsReplies: 20Last Post: 04-19-2008, 03:29 PM
- By windwords7 in forum SupplementsReplies: 28Last Post: 11-25-2007, 01:04 AM
- By tom1234 in forum SupplementsReplies: 10Last Post: 09-20-2007, 12:18 PM
- By maxotguy in forum NutraplanetReplies: 1Last Post: 06-02-2007, 01:14 AM