powerfull vs Bulk 1-carboxy-2-amino-3-pyrobenzo

Page 3 of 12 First 12345 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by xjsynx View Post
    All this L-dopa talk makes me think of Leonard...

    great call


  2. looks like PA been smoking a little too much L dopa judging by the pic
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    •   
       


  3. i must have some serious placebo going on with my powerfull then if pat arnolds right

  4. i just dont understand how pat would say something like that when i know for sure most people seem to love powerfull and 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.

  5. Placebo
    •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.[1] [2]. 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.[3] 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)
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by vince spider View Post
    i must have some serious placebo going on with my powerfull then if pat arnolds right
    There's other factors aside from the placebo effect to be taken into account when validating anecdotal experience. Keep in mind that aside from whatever supplements you are taking you are taking steps (diet, training, lifestyle, etc.) to achieve a certain result. Especially with a guy as dedicated as yourself, regardless of whether or not the supplements work, there "ain't nuthin'" getting between you and your goals. You what I mean?

  7. Quote Originally Posted by thesinner View Post
    There's other factors aside from the placebo effect to be taken into account when validating anecdotal experience. Keep in mind that aside from whatever supplements you are taking you are taking steps (diet, training, lifestyle, etc.) to achieve a certain result. Especially with a guy as dedicated as yourself, regardless of whether or not the supplements work, there "ain't nuthin'" getting between you and your goals. You what I mean?
    thats a fair call dude, but i still definetly have better sleep , increased libido, as well as more controlled agression and what i thought seemed to be bettet results in the gym . that was until mr arnold rained on my parade

  8. Quote Originally Posted by nycste View Post
    i just dont understand how pat would say something like that when i know for sure most people seem to love powerfull and 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.
    I don't think Pat is attacking the effectiveness of powerfull, I think he's trying to figure out what the heck it is first.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by vince spider View Post
    thats a fair call dude, but i still definetly have better sleep , increased libido, as well as more controlled agression and what i thought seemed to be bettet results in the gym . that was until mr arnold rained on my parade
    Oh man, I tried powerfull two years ago (original batch). That stuff made me crazy sleepy. I'm pretty sure L-Dopa this effect as well as it is used in some herbal sleep supplements.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by thesinner View Post
    There's other factors aside from the placebo effect to be taken into account when validating anecdotal experience. Keep in mind that aside from whatever supplements you are taking you are taking steps (diet, training, lifestyle, etc.) to achieve a certain result. Especially with a guy as dedicated as yourself, regardless of whether or not the supplements work, there "ain't nuthin'" getting between you and your goals. You what I mean?
    in saying that though sinner, with a guy as dedicated as vince spider ,that's already going on anyway (diet, training, lifestyle, etc.) so don't you think that he's going to notice and effect or not when he's using a particular supplement?

    just throwing it out in the mix

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Arnold View Post
    you can try l-dopa for a while if you like, it is very cheap. it may give you a transient lift. i remember when i was taking it i thought i felt something at first but then it seemed it was doing nothing. and you should not take it for too long because it has potentially serious side effects

    i am curious about the claims that USP makes in their ads. they are saying that l-dopa does not pass the blood brain barrier but that is a complete contradicition because the very reason l-dopa was developed was to pass the blood brain barrier. the purpose was to increase dopamine levels in the brain (particularly a region called the substantia nigra) for the treatment of parkinsons disease. L-dopa could pass into the brain and then metabolize into dopamine afterwards - dopamine itself cannot pass the BBB

    to learn about l-dopa, the FACTS about l-dopa, all you have to do is check out the wikipedia entry. Levodopa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    You gotta be careful with wiki...you really get what you paid for with that.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by thesinner View Post
    I don't think Pat is attacking the effectiveness of powerfull, I think he's trying to figure out what the heck it is first.
    here's what he said

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Arnold View Post
    i am a bit confused. the only thing other than l-dopa this powerful has is some plant sterols

    l-dopa actually f's up your sleep. gives you weird dreams. and the stuff certainly does not build muscle

    and i never heard of plant sterols doing much of anything.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by vince spider View Post
    thats a fair call dude, but i still definetly have better sleep , increased libido, as well as more controlled agression and what i thought seemed to be bettet results in the gym . that was until mr arnold rained on my parade
    it was placeboFULL

  14. Quote Originally Posted by b unit View Post
    here's what he said
    Well L-dopa doesn't build muscle. It's a precursor to dopamine. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter, similar to epinephrine & norepinephrine (they're all catecholamines), which causes a variety of different effects in the body. Any muscle building properties to come from L-Dopa would be from an indirect pathway. It sounds to me that Patrick has not seen anything suggesting a direct correlation between L-Dopa and musclebuilding. He's also not 100% that this is L-Dopa, just very suspicious.

    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.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by thesinner View Post
    Well L-dopa doesn't build muscle. It's a precursor to dopamine. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter, similar to epinephrine & norepinephrine (they're all catecholamines), which causes a variety of different effects in the body. Any muscle building properties to come from L-Dopa would be from an indirect pathway. It sounds to me that Patrick has not seen anything suggesting a direct correlation between L-Dopa and musclebuilding. He's also not 100% that this is L-Dopa, just very suspicious.

    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.

    i await pats reply on this one, i'm sure he'll have some scientific response on it

    over to u pat


  16. 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.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by ReaperX View Post
    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.

    what he said

  18. Quote Originally Posted by ReaperX View Post
    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.
    This is not something a rep should get into unless given the "OK" from Jacob. You have to understand that a rep is just simply someone who's sponsored by the company to promote them on message boards. DO they know all the science 'mumbo jumbo' Patrick is inquiring? Not necessarily. There's no benefit for a rep to jump in and risk diggining himself in a hole arguing things beyond his understanding.

  19. 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.

  20. Awesome. Make sure to post the results !

  21. Quote Originally Posted by b unit View Post
    i await pats reply on this one, i'm sure he'll have some scientific response on it

    over to u pat

    judging by the photo, patrick looks like he's done quite a bit of practical work with l dopa, can it be smoked? he looks smashed!

  22. 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.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
    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.
    can you run an FTIR of both and scan the curves? I think that would be an faster/easier way of at least saying it isnt L-Dopa.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by b unit View Post
    in saying that though sinner, with a guy as dedicated as vince spider ,that's already going on anyway (diet, training, lifestyle, etc.) so don't you think that he's going to notice and effect or not when he's using a particular supplement?

    just throwing it out in the mix
    Think of it like a math equation:

    Results = x + y + z

    Where
    x=placebo effect
    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.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by b unit;
    i await pats reply on this one, i'm sure he'll have some scientific response on it

    over to u pat
    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.
    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.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by thesinner;
    Think of it like a math equation:

    Results = x + y + z

    Where
    x=placebo effect
    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.
    Agree with your thinking. Yet, you might approach the value of z by doing the following:

    let z = z1 + z2

    then,

    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.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by thesinner View Post
    I don't think Pat is attacking the effectiveness of powerfull, I think he's trying to figure out what the heck it is first.
    i think he did say its ingredients dont build muscle or have a postive effect on muscle.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by thesinner View Post
    Well L-dopa doesn't build muscle. It's a precursor to dopamine. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter, similar to epinephrine & norepinephrine (they're all catecholamines), which causes a variety of different effects in the body. Any muscle building properties to come from L-Dopa would be from an indirect pathway. It sounds to me that Patrick has not seen anything suggesting a direct correlation between L-Dopa and musclebuilding. He's also not 100% that this is L-Dopa, just very suspicious.

    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.
    let PA back his own statements, i doubt he needs your help.

    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?

  29. Quote Originally Posted by pistonpump View Post
    let PA back his own statements, i doubt he needs your help.

    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?
    He doesn't need my help. I just get annoyed sometimes because a lot of the things he says are misinterpretted.

    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.

  30. Quote Originally Posted by thesinner View Post

    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.
    okay i dont understand. if something increases test and or gh that doesnt equate to more help with muscle building? why supplement either then? please explain im confused by what youre saying.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-19-2008, 07:23 PM
  2. Bulk 1-carboxy-2-amino-3-pyrobenzol(3,4 diol)
    By snapps in forum Supplements
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-19-2008, 03:29 PM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-25-2007, 01:04 AM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-20-2007, 12:18 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-02-2007, 01:14 AM
Log in
Log in