
Im not in here because I think PS powder is hurting my sales, it isnt. Im here because you are lying, just like you were at mind and muscle when you posted this same crap. Ive considered PS in the past and may consider it in the future but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Ive never said PS wasnt good, Ive actually posted the opposite. However your comments about the nonanabolic- nonandrogenic metabolites of DHEA being suppressive is false and the above studies show that whether you want to believe it or not.
Yep, the same “crap” was posted on M&M and we came to the same conclusion – DHEA’s metabolites lower testosterone production.
Here it is for anyone who wants to see -
http://www.mindandmuscle.net/forum/i...howtopic=33280
-Pp
www.primordialperformance.com
Please no PM's. I don't check them often. If you want a fast response please email me, or get in touch with one of the PP reps. I don't get on the forums often, so if I don't respond to your post, please don't be offended. -eric
Care to prove that they are anti-androgenic?
They may not be direct anti-androgens, but they can have anti-androgenic effects. Here is one study that shows 7-oxo DHEA raising epitestosterone. (there are more studies on this)
Delayed effects of short-term transdermal application of 7-oxo-dehydroepiandrosterone on its metabolites, some hormonal steroids and relevant proteohormones in healthy male volunteers.
J Sulcova, R Hampl, M Hill, L Starka, and A Novacek
Clin Chem Lab Med, January 1, 2005; 43(2): 221-7.
Epitestosterone is generally considered an "anti-androgen" because it doesn’t poses significant androgenic/anabolic activity.
-Pp
www.primordialperformance.com
Please no PM's. I don't check them often. If you want a fast response please email me, or get in touch with one of the PP reps. I don't get on the forums often, so if I don't respond to your post, please don't be offended. -eric
Actually you were the only one who came to that conclusion.
And there is another study that was mentioned in an article by David Tolson saying that there was no change in testosterone or estradiol levels and only T3 was increased (J Ex Physiology online. 1999 2(4). Double-Blind Study Evaluating the Effects of Exercise Plus 3-Acetyl-7-oxo-dehydroepiandrosterone on Body Composition and Endocrine System in Overweight Adults. Colker CM, Torina GC, Swain MA, Kalman DS.)
Really?
I remember you saying you “dont recommend [7OH] for PCT”. Is this because you know it suppresses the HPTA?
It’s funny you’re mentioning 7-oxo studies now. Earlier you refused to acknowledge the relationship between 7OH, 5AT and 7-oxo. I guess whatever’s convenient for you eh?
-Pp
www.primordialperformance.com
Please no PM's. I don't check them often. If you want a fast response please email me, or get in touch with one of the PP reps. I don't get on the forums often, so if I don't respond to your post, please don't be offended. -eric
The transdermal studies are relevant because they give a very clear picture of what happens when these DHEA metabolites get into the system (an amplified result of what happens when administered orally).
Read the full text of any oral 7-oxo study. You will see the same general trend of reduced sex hormones, including a reduction in total Testosterone. It may not be significant enough to put in an abstract, but it’s a reduction of Testosterone none the less. This is enough to make me not want to use it for PCT, when minimizing suppression of the HPTA is critical.
Phosphatidylserine has a clear benefit of being able to suppress cortisol release, while simultaneously increasing testosterone production. (This is at least a step in the right direction)
If you have more studies or in-house blood tests for DHEA metabolites, feel free to post them up. As far as I can tell all the research has been laid on the table. At this point, it’s ultimately the consumer’s decision.
-Pp
Safety and pharmacokinetic study with escalating doses of 3-acetyl-7-oxo-dehydroepiandrosterone in healthy male volunteers.
M Davidson, A Marwah, RJ Sawchuk, K Maki, P Marwah, C Weeks, and H Lardy
Clin Invest Med, October 1, 2000; 23(5): 300-10.
www.primordialperformance.com
Please no PM's. I don't check them often. If you want a fast response please email me, or get in touch with one of the PP reps. I don't get on the forums often, so if I don't respond to your post, please don't be offended. -eric
Whoa, whoa, whoa, so PS is a test booster now?
Studies please.
And if you are using "HORMONAL EFFECTS OF PHOSPHATIDYLSERINE DURING 2-WKS OF INTENSE WEIGHT TRAINING" please provide the full text, I can't even access the abstract.
Thanks
Yes, but PS’s ability to increase testosterone is secondary in action. For instance, if you’re under any kind of physical or mental stress, PS will mitigate the drop in testosterone associated with the rise in cortisol… or perhaps increase testosterone if you’re suppressed from chronically high cortisol levels.
-Pp
Here is the abstract -
HORMONAL EFFECTS OF PHOSPHATIDYLSERINE DURING 2-WKS OF INTENSE WEIGHT TRAINING
[Annual Meeting Abstracts]
Fahey, T. D.; Pearl, M.
California State University, Chico
A double-blind, crossover design study, measured the effects of 800 mg/d soybean derived phosphatidylserine (PS) or placebo (C) during 2-wk intense weight training on cortisol (CT), adrenocorticotropin hormone (ACTH), testosterone (TS), luteinizing hormone (LH), well-being (WB), and muscle soreness (MS) in 11 trained males. Subjects did 5 sets of 10 repetitions of 13 exercises, 4 times/wk for 2, 2-wk periods (3-wk recovery). Venous blood was sampled 6 mornings (T1-T6) and 15-min following the 8th work-out (T7). WB and MS were estimated using 10-point scales. CT was the same in PS and C in T1-T6 but decreased between T6 and T7 in PS (15.6 ± 1.7 to 10.0±0.9μg/dL, mean±SEM, P<0.05) but not in C. ACTH did not change in PS in T1-T7 but increased in C between T4 and T5-7 by over 50%. TS increased in PS between T1 (3.3±0.3 ng/mL) and T3 (4.4±0.5 ng/mL) and fell in both treatments between T3 and T7 (3.3±0.3 ng/mL, PS; 3.3±0.4, C). LH increased significantly between T1 (1.5±0.1 mlU/mL) and T6(2.2±0.3 mlU/mL) in PS but did not change in C. WB was greater in P than C in T2-T6. In C, WB at T3 was markedly depressed (4.9±0.8). MS increased in both treatments and was greater in C than PS at T2 (61%) and T5(55%). Cortisol decreased in PS after exercise, possibly by depressing ACTH. PS attenuated the negative effects of intense weight training on perception of well-being and muscle soreness
www.primordialperformance.com
Please no PM's. I don't check them often. If you want a fast response please email me, or get in touch with one of the PP reps. I don't get on the forums often, so if I don't respond to your post, please don't be offended. -eric
What I said was LX was not created as a PCT product although it can be used since it increases total testosterone, free testosterone, lowers estrogen, lowers cortisol, increases lean mass, decreases fat mass and helps to prevent futrure gains of fat. It doesnt suppress HPTA and you dont have a single study to show that it does. I dont sell hormones or products that suppress HPTA so I dont see the need in coming out with a product specifically to remedy that situation. However LX will work very well during PCT.
You were the one who said the compounds were the same. I have repeatedly said that they are different. Since you dont understand the difference I can still prove that you are wrong just by using all of the 7OXO studies.
Transdermal use isnt relevant because it prevents 7oxo from going through the liver. Its a HUGE difference but since you dont understand how these compounds work its easy to see why you are so confused.
wow, am I the only one looking at this thinking it'a a bit immature? I think this sets in stone the fact that I will never buy a designer supplement product. I don;t even know what the hell you guys are talkign about, but even I can tell that you are going back and forth. Perhaps you BOTH have good supplements?
E L E
www.primordialperformance.com
Please no PM's. I don't check them often. If you want a fast response please email me, or get in touch with one of the PP reps. I don't get on the forums often, so if I don't respond to your post, please don't be offended. -eric
Designer Supplements has been around for a long time now and has produced many great products. He is trying to debunk information which is being presented by PP for the good of the board. I would side with Designer any day of the week over a new company like PP. And no one is debating if the products are good or not, but rather the information the PP is selling products by and saying it is so much better than LX when there is no science to back it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joebo
If you could choose just one fat loss product that you have used in the past, what would it be? I'm looking to drop about 7 lbs and looking for a little help in doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted By Designer Supps
If youre going to be serious about your diet Ill send you a bottle of Adrenalean for free. Try it out and let me know how it worked towards the 7lbs of fatloss. PM me your addy if you are interested.
Heres where I found this...
If you could choose only one fat loss product...
Yeah I would back a company too if they were given me free product. Primordial may be a new company but I have received nothing but good info and results from them...these bros know their stuff
I've received free product from a lot of companies and in return have provided negative feedback on these companies. No one is debating the effectiveness of any product, but again the fact that the information that is being given to promote a product is misleading.
There is also this:
Wanna get Adrenalean? Testers Wanted!!
And a special on Nutraplanet for Adrenalean and a free t-shirt.
There is nothing wrong with free products. What makes all this interesting is after gibbob2 shows support for PP, joebo comes in to support DS. All perfectly fine. However, when it is shown that joebo has a biased opinion, he responds with
"I've received free product from a lot of companies and in return have provided negative feedback on these companies."
Which is obviously untrue, shown by his comment 35 minutes earlier.
But all this is in good fun, so who really cares?