powerfull vs Bulk 1-carboxy-2-amino-3-pyrobenzo
- 09-06-2007, 12:38 AM
- 09-06-2007, 12:54 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, 04:54 AM
09-06-2007, 05:06 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, 05:17 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, 05:27 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, 06:36 AM
09-06-2007, 06:48 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, 07:09 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, 07:43 AM
09-06-2007, 07:48 AM
If "muscle-building" is synonymous with "anabolic", and if testosterone is one of the most anabolic compounds known to science, and if L-Dopa's anabolic pathway occurs via increased growth hormone (GH) secretion and enhanced endogenous testosterone release via a prolactin-inhibiting mechanism, then it is hard to imagine that L-Dopa has no anabolic properties, direct or indirect. How substantial this anabolic impact actually is, is an entirely different matter.
09-06-2007, 07:57 AM
In the science world, you cannot say that something will build muslce without data explicitly showing that it does in fact build muscle. You can say it increases Test and HGH. Will that build muscle? It might, but it also might not. The transitive property doesn't apply to biochemistry; you can't say since A->B and B->C, then A->C.
09-06-2007, 07:58 AM
yup. A->C the way you write it assumes that there was a direct transition and completely leaves out the intermediate.
09-06-2007, 08:02 AM
09-06-2007, 08:30 AM
great marketing can go a long way to generate a strong placebo response. i remember reading about this stuff called hot stuff back in 89-90. it was advertised in more obscure bodybuilding publications first and then got more mainstream over time. it swore to be a steroid equivalent and had everything but the kitchen sink in there. i sent away for it and got it in the mail and opened it up and it was like a unique treasure with its odd orange looking label. i tasted its strange banana flavor and thought to myself that i was drinking a truly unique concoction. i could swear i felt the testosterone running through my veins and i worked out harder and ate better then i could in a long time. i made great progress and swore up and down that hot stuff was amazing stuff
later i found out it was complete BS
the same thing happened to me about a year or two later with the first metrx, but to a lesser extent
09-06-2007, 08:34 AM
09-06-2007, 08:35 AM
why dont you test it PA?
09-06-2007, 08:36 AM
09-06-2007, 08:36 AM
What should he test?Originally Posted by pistonpump;
09-06-2007, 08:38 AM
09-06-2007, 08:41 AM
09-06-2007, 08:45 AM
09-06-2007, 08:48 AM
09-06-2007, 08:49 AM
lots of things raise gh. amino acids, blood pressure medicine, fasting etc. etc.
these things don't equate into any muscle growth however.
as far as testosterone goes i did a literature search on l-dopa and testosterone levels and really could not find any specific data at all. I suppose the possibility exists that it could raise it in a very modest fashion like less than 50% and even that will probably only be transient. you are not gonna notice anything really from that
09-06-2007, 08:52 AM
and even if i do test it, and come to the conclusion that its the same do you think that is going to end this debate at all?
no, it will only make the debate more intense and aggravating
09-06-2007, 09:08 AM
if it is the same maybe people the people that know this wont buy it thinking its something else. I have three bottles i bought for like $10 each so im gonna use it regardless. I did notice a libido boost but that could just be dopamine increase??..
09-06-2007, 09:30 AM
libido increase is a listed side effect of l-dopa
yeah it has something to do with dopamine
cabergoline is a much safer dopaminergic agent that purportedly can raise testosterone and increase libido. you can get that through research chem houses. but once again, don't expect any noticeable anabolic effects
09-06-2007, 09:50 AM
09-06-2007, 09:54 AM
Change your avatar to the the picture (above) of where you look doped up w/ the hairnet.
09-06-2007, 10:12 AM
09-06-2007, 10:37 AM
I will try to be civil but PA makes if real hard.
1-carboxy is our name for our extraction of L-dopa that contains natural decarboxlase inhibitors. Pat are you the only one with access to a lab and chemists? We are working directly with Universities and Biotech firms in India lead by men with Doctorates. It's cool that you sport a BA in chemistry and have alot of on the job experience. But Please stop feeding your ego as the smartest man in the indusrty it's becoming repulsive.
I'm begining to questions your High and mighty approach to degrading other companies products as worthless.
"It doesn't work unless Ergo Makes it"
09-06-2007, 10:49 AM
09-06-2007, 11:23 AM
Well, yes Pat, if I had a lab I'm sure I could come up with some more accurate testing methods than this...****!
Edit: Wow, you can't say dic*? What is this, ****ing church?
In my kitchen lab, I have access to a glucometer, and...a toaster. I'm already reasonably certain that neither of these compounds can make toast, so I'm going to go with the glucose testing.
As for USP's comment...interesting. It certainly feels different than L-Dopa + a Decarboxylase inhibitor, which I've used many times.
And I agree with Patrick on this one, I'd be surprised if L-Dopa + a Decarboxylase inhibitor did much for building muscle. I haven't noticed anything in the past from that combo. Transient spikes in GH/Test certainly don't automatically equate to more muscle/less fat...there's so much more to it than that.
But, I've never considered taking it for that purpose. I use it for the central dopamine effects on motivation/drive/focus/libido, etc. I bought the 1-Carboxy for the above purposes + enhanced sleep efficiency, which it seems to be doing a great job of. And, at $18 for 100g, its not exactly breaking the bank.
It seems to me like this product might be mis-marketed...but I'm sure there's more money to be made in selling to people with hopes of building muscle and losing body fat than there is selling the idea of increased motivation and sleep efficiency.
09-06-2007, 12:59 PM
"But, we totally skipped the L-Dopa part and discovered a brand new compound thatís closely related and is readily available for the body to use"
so at first it was a brand new compound. then i called your ass on it so you switched your story to some crazy extraction technique with natural decarboxylase inhibitors.
well what are these natural decarboxylase inhibitors?
who are these universities and biotech firms in india.
i cannot believe that people here buy your BS. but they do apparently
09-06-2007, 01:04 PM
09-06-2007, 01:05 PM
This thread is getting rather explosive. This surely was not originally intended.
09-06-2007, 01:12 PM
09-06-2007, 01:25 PM
09-06-2007, 01:26 PM
these statements completely miss the point. rarely do my criticisms of competitors have anything to do with a product "per se". in fact, often the product is something i think is useful and i will say so in my posts alot of times
Jungle Warfare (6-dehydromethyltest)
with all three products (which have been involved in recent debates of mine) i have gone on the record as saying they are useful ingredients that apparently have ergogenic benefits.
the REAL POINT of my criticisms jacob is false and misleading claims. that is where i attack competitors, and i attack because it is unfair business practice to lie like that. For years i have taken the high ground in my advertisements and marketing and maintained a very modest and honest approach. I hate watching others make all this money the easy way, the way its always been done in this industry. I hate it so much i wanna puke every time i open up a mag or see some disgusting hype filled thread
09-06-2007, 01:28 PM
do they mean 100mg taken in one day versus l-dopa taken that day?
do they mean the average levels (area under the curve) from 100mg intramuscularly every week versus one week of daily doses of l-dopa?
just another example of meaningless marketing hyperbole
Similar Forum Threads
- By gotDOMS in forum SupplementsReplies: 21Last Post: 04-19-2008, 05:23 PM
- By snapps in forum SupplementsReplies: 20Last Post: 04-19-2008, 01:29 PM
- By windwords7 in forum SupplementsReplies: 28Last Post: 11-24-2007, 11:04 PM
- By tom1234 in forum SupplementsReplies: 10Last Post: 09-20-2007, 10:18 AM
- By maxotguy in forum NutraplanetReplies: 2Last Post: 06-04-2007, 02:12 PM