PowerFULL Human and Healthy test subjects-Conclusively effective

Guest

Guest
Besides creatine, I'm not sure of a supplement that has this type of compelling human Data..

PowerFULL
In a study by Lin & Tucci* the average increase of HGH was 12mg/ml…which is like injecting 5 IU’s of synthetic HGH - (which is a **** load of HGH and would cost you thousands of dollars a month!).

In the same study, a good amount of the HEALTHY test subjects (not old, sick hospital patients) had an increase of 40ng/ml…which is like injection a WHOPPING 15IU’s of synthetic HGH – again, off the charts and would cost you thousands each month.

DO NOT BELIEVE ME just look up the reference below as the studies do not lie.

In a completely different study performed by Greenspan**, one ingredient in PowerFULL was shown to increase GH production by an incredible 221%!

This proves without a shadow of a doubt PowerFULL contains all-nautral organic ingredients that rival the effects of synthetic Human Growth Hormone!

In addition, these levels are substantially higher than those seen with GHB, the notoriously famous drug, which had a large following many years ago for its supposed ability to decrease fat mass, amongst other things.

Again, this is THIRD PARTY research using HEALTHY MEN so the results are solid as a freakin’ rock…

Speed

PowerFULL’s ingredients reach the blood stream 100% faster, proved to be 110% higher and lasted 165% longer!#

Safety

In addition, the 100% organic ingredients in PowerFULL have been proven extremely safe an effective, unlike synthetic Growth Hormone or synthetic L-dopa.#


* Lin T, Tucci JR. Provocative tests of growth-hormone release. A comparison of results with seven stimuli. Ann Intern Med. 1974 Apr;80(4):464-9

**Greenspan, S. et al (1991) “Dopaminergic regulation of gonadotropin and thyrotropin hormone secretion is altered with age” Horm Res 36:41-46.

#Tharakan B, Dhanasekaran M, Mize-Berge J, et al. Anti-parkinson botanical Mucuna pruriens prevents levodopa induced plasmid and genomic DNA damage. Phytother Res. 2007 Jul 11; Published Online Ahead of Print.
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Nice, a study from 1974. and you dug it up what, two years after PowerFULL's release?
 
metroba

metroba

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Ive always loved this stuff and will use it as long as its available.
 
Steveoph

Steveoph

NutraPlanet NinjaMonkey Rep
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
PowerFULL
In a study by Lin & Tucci* the average increase of HGH was 12mg/ml…which is like injecting 5 IU’s of synthetic HGH - (which is a **** load of HGH and would cost you thousands of dollars a month!).

In the same study, a good amount of the HEALTHY test subjects (not old, sick hospital patients) had an increase of 40ng/ml…which is like injection a WHOPPING 15IU’s of synthetic HGH – again, off the charts and would cost you thousands each month.
Perhaps this is just a slight oversight(hopefully typo?), but the units don't match up. Nano is 10^ -9 but milli is only 10^-3. If 12 mg/mL is 5 IU's, 15 IU's is 3* that or 36 mg/ml, which is an increase of a WHOPPING 1/36 000 000 th heh. I think, anyways it probably just a typo and meant the same units in both.
 
matthew76

matthew76

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Damn bro - you bet me to it! I was just cracking my CHEM book and emailing my Prof. about this... good catch!

Perhaps this is just a slight oversight(hopefully typo?), but the units don't match up. Nano is 10^ -9 but milli is only 10^-3. If 12 mg/mL is 5 IU's, 15 IU's is 3* that or 36 mg/ml, which is an increase of a WHOPPING 1/36 000 000 th heh. I think, anyways it probably just a typo and meant the same units in both.
 

Guest

Guest
Perhaps this is just a slight oversight(hopefully typo?), but the units don't match up. Nano is 10^ -9 but milli is only 10^-3. If 12 mg/mL is 5 IU's, 15 IU's is 3* that or 36 mg/ml, which is an increase of a WHOPPING 1/36 000 000 th heh. I think, anyways it probably just a typo and meant the same units in both.
should be ng.
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
The point is that you put out a product quite a while ago, and are now posting 'proof' that it works. "Hey, we now know it works, guys, so don't worry, you didn't waste your money!" Not only that, but you're comparing it's efficacy with that of creatine?

You post three studies and compare that with creatine's 16,271 studies (joke, but you get the point)? Creatines efficacy slams nearly every product out there, let alone PowerFULL. Ditto for anecdotal evidence.

Shoot, even beta-alanine has more studies than that. So does green tea. So does fish oil. I bet even bacopa does.
 
matthew76

matthew76

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
i'm a huge advocate of POWERFULL, which you can ask several guys' here on how much I push them to use - to their joy later - but I think his point is that it's just an old study and would like to see something newer, with fresh studies.

Great product, BTW! Daily staple for me.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I really am glad bulk powerfull (and now 1-carboxy) are available so reasonably priced. they are staples for me.
 
xjsynx

xjsynx

Member
Awards
0
So the study did not use PowerFULL which is means it is misleading title.
 
bioman

bioman

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Anecdotally, my results from using Powerfull are pretty similar to what the studies describe. No supplement makes my skin as "youthful" as Powerfull. pGHT comes close but it's availability looks questionable.
 

Guest

Guest
The point is that you put out a product quite a while ago, and are now posting 'proof' that it works. "Hey, we now know it works, guys, so don't worry, you didn't waste your money!" Not only that, but you're comparing it's efficacy with that of creatine?

You post three studies and compare that with creatine's 16,271 studies (joke, but you get the point)? Creatines efficacy slams nearly every product out there, let alone PowerFULL. Ditto for anecdotal evidence.

Shoot, even beta-alanine has more studies than that. So does green tea. So does fish oil. I bet even bacopa does.

I was not comparing the efficacy, but available research. We are not talking about vitamins or minerals but erogenic supplements that manipulate natural hormone production.

As far as hormone manipulating supplements, Please find better research besides a few rat studies.

Icarian-One unpublished rat study
Nettle root-rat studies

As far as beta Alanine goes, I am only familiar with 2 studies on performance.

How about asking question instead of jumping to conclusion.

But hey, If you do not like no need to buy it:whiner:
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Anecdotally, my results from using Powerfull are pretty similar to what the studies describe. No supplement makes my skin as "youthful" as Powerfull. pGHT comes close but it's availability looks questionable.
I was thinking of trying my own homemade pght. not too many ingredients in it, all legal
 

ReaperX

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
The point is that you put out a product quite a while ago, and are now posting 'proof' that it works. "Hey, we now know it works, guys, so don't worry, you didn't waste your money!" Not only that, but you're comparing it's efficacy with that of creatine?

You post three studies and compare that with creatine's 16,271 studies (joke, but you get the point)? Creatines efficacy slams nearly every product out there, let alone PowerFULL. Ditto for anecdotal evidence.

Shoot, even beta-alanine has more studies than that. So does green tea. So does fish oil. I bet even bacopa does.
oh snap. dis is sum good sheit. reps.
 

Guest

Guest
It used Levodopa, which is what I'm under the impression 1-C is.
Levodopa is synthetic. 1-c is extracted to contain natural decarboxylase inhibitors (meaning more dopamine) and is more potent then synthetic as the comparitve studies state.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
In fact, the natural components of our 1-C extraction contain LD increasing phytos that synthetically extracted LD does not. I have posted relevant research, plenty of it, displaying exactly that point previously as well.
 

Guest

Guest
In fact, the natural components of our 1-C extraction contain LD increasing phytos that synthetically extracted LD does not. I have posted relevant research, plenty of it, displaying exactly that point previously as well.
He rather praise a rat study than open his eyes to Human data.

He has an obvious agenda so lets move on.

The research is bright as day. You can chose to ignore it or accpet it totally up the consumer.

I posted this research many moons ago in bits and pieces and so did mullet, but we found a new 2007 study and it all clicked.

It's funny, you provide the research and they still moan and if you do not have research they moan.

What other natural hormonal supplement has this type of research?

The urban population has a term for this type of behavior.
 
swole210

swole210

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
He rather praise a rat study than open his eyes to Human data.

He has an obvious agenda so lets move on.

The research is bright as day. You can chose to ignore it or accpet it totally up the consumer.

I posted this research many moons ago in bits and pieces and so did mullet, but we found a new 2007 study and it all clicked.

It's funny, you provide the research and they still moan and if you do not have research they moan.

What other natural hormonal supplement has this type of research?

The urban population has a term for this type of behavior.

There is allways one! Someone allways has to say something about everything, and make stupid arguments. Go to BB.com for that! Don't use it if u don't like it, PERIOD!
 
joebo

joebo

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Powerfull never did anything for me, but give me stomach problems. I guess some things aren't for everyone.
 
joebo

joebo

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
So the study did not use PowerFULL which is means it is misleading title.
I honestly could care less about the debate, but it is true that the title of the post is misleading since it wasn't conducted with PowerFULL
 

Guest

Guest
I honestly could care less about the debate, but it is true that the title of the post is misleading since it wasn't conducted with PowerFULL
You need to read the research to understand the title. In that case, a supplement company should not use any research to promote their products.

Green tea is extracted differently. Creatine is made by different sources. with your logic to quote a study, you need to use the exact source of creatine used in the specific study.

Is there a rule against posting Human research that I'm not aware of that should cause this sort of backlash. If so, I missed the memo!
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Green tea is extracted differently. Creatine is made by different sources. with your logic to quote a study, you need to use the exact source of creatine used in the specific study.
Well just as a comment on this, I have often heard USP as well as other companies make claim as to how a special extraction process makes their _____ better. Its a little bit hard for it to sound good both ways "our exclusive extraction processes makes ours even better, and here are human studies on the regular extracts showing how well it works".

That said, bulk powerfull (well now 1-carboxy) are staples for me, and I recommend them to many people
 

Guest

Guest
Well just as a comment on this, I have often heard USP as well as other companies make claim as to how a special extraction process makes their _____ better. Its a little bit hard for it to sound good both ways "our exclusive extraction processes makes ours even better, and here are human studies on the regular extracts showing how well it works".

That said, bulk powerfull (well now 1-carboxy) are staples for me, and I recommend them to many people
In this case, you have to venture out and compare products. I encourage that approach.

When A company funds the study it immediately becomes flawed. As a consumer, I rather have 3rd party unaffliliated research on Human subjects which I presented.

Buy our Cissus and buy any other cissus product and compare the color, consitency, and texture. We proven that our extracts are different.
 
jjohn

jjohn

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Powerfull just simply rocks. I have noticed steady increases in strength and libido, and especially sleep while on it. I got a bottle calling me..
 
San Quinn

San Quinn

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
I was thinking of trying my own homemade pght. not too many ingredients in it, all legal
I happen to have some brand new PGHT that I am not going to use. Not really sure what to do with it
:)

There is allways one! Someone allways has to say something about everything, and make stupid arguments. Go to BB.com for that! Don't use it if u don't like it, PERIOD!
Very true
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
It is possible I have an overreaching bias on this subject, but I simply do not see the controversy, or at least controversy proportionate to the response, in Jacob's comments; nevertheless, I am going to delineate my opinion on the subject once more and take my leave.

I wish to focus on the discourse present within this thread of "well the research was not conducted on PowerFULL in particular, so it must be false". For those of you who have expounded as much, I wish for you to do something for me:

I want you to choose a company [does not matter which one] and then choose one of their supplements [again, does not matter]. I then want you to investigate the claims made on such a product, whether it be LH increase, GH increase, Free T increase, Glucose Metabolism, etc., paying key attention to the relevant research they use to back their claims. What you will find, and I am surprised you all are still alliterating such a viewpoint with this being present, is that the disgusting and absolutely overwhelming majority of the companies will not be citing research which uses their exact extraction of the herb/phyto/amino quoted in the research. Period.

Next, are my thoughts as they pertain to the line of thought in this comment [not singling you out EasyEJL]:

Well just as a comment on this, I have often heard USP as well as other companies make claim as to how a special extraction process makes their _____ better. Its a little bit hard for it to sound good both ways "our exclusive extraction processes makes ours even better, and here are human studies on the regular extracts showing how well it works".
A supplement company will stumble upon a research involving a particular herb. Now, what often occurs, and what distinguishes abstracts from full-text articles, is the full-text article will delineate the particular constituents of said herb which were most prominent. I.e., 'x' herb standardized at 'x' percentage produced such and such an effect. So, supp., companies then surmise "if 'x' herb was standardized to 'x' and produced such and such, we'll standardize it to 'y'. So yes, in fact, it does work both ways.
 
Travis

Travis

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
It is possible I have an overreaching bias on this subject, but I simply do not see the controversy, or at least controversy proportionate to the response, in Jacob's comments; nevertheless, I am going to delineate my opinion on the subject once more and take my leave.

I wish to focus on the discourse present within this thread of "well the research was not conducted on PowerFULL in particular, so it must be false". For those of you who have expounded as much, I wish for you to do something for me:

I want you to choose a company [does not matter which one] and then choose one of their supplements [again, does not matter]. I then want you to investigate the claims made on such a product, whether it be LH increase, GH increase, Free T increase, Glucose Metabolism, etc., paying key attention to the relevant research they use to back their claims. What you will find, and I am surprised you all are still alliterating such a viewpoint with this being present, is that the disgusting and absolutely overwhelming majority of the companies will not be citing research which uses their exact extraction of the herb/phyto/amino quoted in the research. Period.

Next, are my thoughts as they pertain to the line of thought in this comment [not singling you out EasyEJL]:



A supplement company will stumble upon a research involving a particular herb. Now, what often occurs, and what distinguishes abstracts from full-text articles, is the full-text article will delineate the particular constituents of said herb which were most prominent. I.e., 'x' herb standardized at 'x' percentage produced such and such an effect. So, supp., companies then surmise "if 'x' herb was standardized to 'x' and produced such and such, we'll standardize it to 'y'. So yes, in fact, it does work both ways.
Wow great post. I read a lot of abstracts but never really delve into the full text...but then again I am not trying to create a product.

Either way good post.
 

Guest

Guest
It is possible I have an overreaching bias on this subject, but I simply do not see the controversy, or at least controversy proportionate to the response, in Jacob's comments; nevertheless, I am going to delineate my opinion on the subject once more and take my leave.

I wish to focus on the discourse present within this thread of "well the research was not conducted on PowerFULL in particular, so it must be false". For those of you who have expounded as much, I wish for you to do something for me:

I want you to choose a company [does not matter which one] and then choose one of their supplements [again, does not matter]. I then want you to investigate the claims made on such a product, whether it be LH increase, GH increase, Free T increase, Glucose Metabolism, etc., paying key attention to the relevant research they use to back their claims. What you will find, and I am surprised you all are still alliterating such a viewpoint with this being present, is that the disgusting and absolutely overwhelming majority of the companies will not be citing research which uses their exact extraction of the herb/phyto/amino quoted in the research. Period.

Next, are my thoughts as they pertain to the line of thought in this comment [not singling you out EasyEJL]:



A supplement company will stumble upon a research involving a particular herb. Now, what often occurs, and what distinguishes abstracts from full-text articles, is the full-text article will delineate the particular constituents of said herb which were most prominent. I.e., 'x' herb standardized at 'x' percentage produced such and such an effect. So, supp., companies then surmise "if 'x' herb was standardized to 'x' and produced such and such, we'll standardize it to 'y'. So yes, in fact, it does work both ways.

Glad to have you back, well written~!
 

Highlanda01602

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
It's funny, you provide the research and they still moan and if you do not have research they moan.

The urban population has a term for this type of behavior.
Liberalism? tee hee heeeee
 

fitnecise

Member
Awards
0
1) we don't know the l dopa standardization in your product
2) we don't know the dose since you put it in a propriety blend
3) the study uses 500mg it isnt likely you have that much
4) In the first study insulin and glucagon are more effective
5) does not tell us what the effect is on IGF-1, which is all that matters

I could go on ...
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
1) we don't know the l dopa standardization in your product
2) we don't know the dose since you put it in a propriety blend
3) the study uses 500mg it isnt likely you have that much
4) In the first study insulin and glucagon are more effective
5) does not tell us what the effect is on IGF-1, which is all that matters

I could go on ...

Whoa, dude, take it easy. You're guilty of gross...liberalism. :huh:


:rolleyes: powerFULL is only surpassed by creatine in the numver of studies it has generated, don't question.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
1) we don't know the l dopa standardization in your product
2) we don't know the dose since you put it in a propriety blend
3) the study uses 500mg it isnt likely you have that much
4) In the first study insulin and glucagon are more effective
5) does not tell us what the effect is on IGF-1, which is all that matters

I could go on ...
1) I've listed numerous times on this site how much % of Mucuna is LevaDopa. Which isn't taking into account the other natural phytos within MP which cause a greater amount of LD to cross the blood brain barrier than simply synthetic LD. As well, a simple search would have turned this up:

I can source a 98% natural l-dopa. Before our MP hits the R&D lab to concentrate the 1-c, we use a 75% natural l-dopa extract. Once the science is completed, we have a 50% l-dopa.
2) I am unsure if you are referring to the L-Dopa dose, or the dose of our extraction which contains L-Dopa. However, to answer both shortly, I have also shown numerous times that MP's L-Dopa content is much more potent to a concurrent synthetic L-Dopa dose. I.e., far less MP is needed to achieve the 500mg L-Dopa dosages in the study. Even in a proprietary matrix, with the standardization info above, there is by far enough natural L-Dopa to produce the effects of the 500mg synthetic sample.

3) Yes, it is likely. See above.

4) True.

5) True as well, however, I fail to see how this is relevant to the current discussion. (though obviously important as GH/Slin was used to achieve the IGF effect)


Why do I feel I've had this debate 5 times before?
 
Jayhawkk

Jayhawkk

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Healthy discussion is fine but some of these comments wil stop or we'll just remove you from the discussion.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Healthy discussion is fine but some of these comments wil stop or we'll just remove you from the discussion.
I feel the majority of this thread has been fine, though I must admit it is slightly irritating debating the same aspects once again.

I think personality opposition has much to do with this thread and others like it. If it was simply efficacy or science, I do not necessarily see the issue [some discrepancies exist in terms of preparations of the herb, etc., however the facts are there]. I could also see such a ceremonious uproar if Jacob had released the product with unrivaled hype only to have it bomb; however, and this is readily apparent, that is not the case. Anecdotally the product has by and large been quite the success. If 6/10 people were complaining, then I think this argument has a legitimate precedent. However, that is not what has occurred.

What I find increasingly apparent, is individuals operating under a guise of a public crusader, vehemently demanding empirical evidence whilst deliberately pursuing the debate on a moral impetus. I'm more than willing to debate the science of our products, it's quite enjoyable. What bothers me however, is arguing about this stuff because of USP-specific reasons. By and large the reoccurring individuals I see in these threads do not take such a stance with other companies; while a personal issue is perfectly find, I find it bothersome when it is presented as a legitimate scientific debate.
 

fitnecise

Member
Awards
0
One of the claims from Powerfull is that it builds muscle. Just because you have a GH release does not mean it coincides with IGF-1 and increase protein synthesis.

As for the rest I will search before further comment.

By the way to USP, there are human nettle root studies and far more than 2 on beta-alanine, perhaps you should have looked before comment.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
One of the claims from Powerfull is that it builds muscle. Just because you have a GH release does not mean it coincides with IGF-1 and increase protein synthesis.
True, but just because PowerFULL claims GH release does not mean its other ingredients would not regulate protein synthesis through other mechanisms (i.e., look at the the PureSAP component of PFull, paying close attention to stigmasterol [one of the saponins in PureSAP])

As for the rest I will search before further comment.

By the way to USP, there are human nettle root studies and far more than 2 on beta-alanine, perhaps you should have looked before comment.
Here, I will do that for you.

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/usp-labs/60384-powerfull-claims.html

I think I ended up posting about 5-6 studies displaying exactly what I claimed above.
 

Guest

Guest
One of the claims from Powerfull is that it builds muscle. Just because you have a GH release does not mean it coincides with IGF-1 and increase protein synthesis.

As for the rest I will search before further comment.

By the way to USP, there are human nettle root studies and far more than 2 on beta-alanine, perhaps you should have looked before comment.
Please post the Human studies on the 3,4 Divanil. I stated studes on Beta Alanine that researched increase in performance.

You are regurgitating Pat Arnolds argument about IGF-1.

Maybe you should post some evidence to counter our evidence that such a huge increase of HGH dose not lead IGF-1 conversion before commenting.:cheers:
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
From what I was reading today, the HGH leading to IGF-1 seems to be related to rising insulin. damn I need to hunt to find that again now
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
That is what I was alluding to above, in response to Fitenice's comment.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
yeah, I mean I read something specific though about rising insulin levels causing the release of IGF 1 as hgh went down from the insulin. dang, I have no idea where I read it tho. I'm going to have to relook thru the last bit of stuff i've read
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Ah it was in Christian Thibaudeaus + Anthony Roberts Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, but they dont list references.
 

Guest

Guest
1) we don't know the l dopa standardization in your product
2) we don't know the dose since you put it in a propriety blend
3) the study uses 500mg it isnt likely you have that much
4) In the first study insulin and glucagon are more effective
5) does not tell us what the effect is on IGF-1, which is all that matters

I could go on ...
3). Why is it unlikely? At USPlabs(you may think otherwise when you formulate) the goal is formulatting supplements with affective dosages. You may have a different mind set when formulatting, but the reason USPLabs products are successful is because of Correct and affective dosages. There is more than 500mg per 2 cap serving. If you bothered to read the OTHER study showing that Natural l-DOPA is stronger than synthetic.

4). Go use Glucagon and insulin and risk DEATH.:frustrate

5). We posted several favorable studies so Please do the same, or should we just take your word for it?
 

Guest

Guest
Healthy discussion is fine but some of these comments wil stop or we'll just remove you from the discussion.
He is also a competitor at Recomp Performance Nutrition Co-President.

Maybe, He can post some Human studies on his products.
 

Guest

Guest
Whoa, dude, take it easy. You're guilty of gross...liberalism. :huh:


:rolleyes: powerFULL is only surpassed by creatine in the numver of studies it has generated, don't question.
Question the research with research not with "because I said so" approach.

I stated that "Besides creatine, I'm not sure of a supplement that has this type of compelling human Data"

You are obviously reading that sentence with a biased eye.
 
datBtrue

datBtrue

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Thanks for posting these studies...it is appreciated.

Two quick questions:

  1. How long do you think that it is possible to heep GH elevated w/ L-Dopa or Powerfull? Is this a short term effect or do you think w/ consistent dosing it will have a sustained propensity to keep GH elevated for say a three month period?
  2. Forget the science, just based on your own opinion do you think that GH can be spiked at a particular time, say post workout w/ a large dose of powerfull? or are we talking about a slower cumulative buildup effect?
 

Similar threads


Top