Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Excess Arachidonic Acid is damagingthe inflammation and Joint

smeton_yea said:
Honestly Im sketipical.

Dsade,Your saying that the inflammation isnt a factor because working out takes this factor out, correct?

How about the joint issues and aa attacking artertie walls , and whatever else AA does still exist. I guess thats the price one must pay. Which now transfers to a user of AA

John, are you noticing inflammation? How about your joints how are they holding up?
Click to expand...

I think the whole thing you are misinformed about (and most of us still are) is that inflammation does not mean much. Inflammation occurs when some tissue needs to be repaired.

If you have a inflamatory medical condition, then it's another story. A lot of us probably hear about people taking anti infla. to stop pain in joints.

I will challenge you to something. Take a NSAID everyday for 30 days, and let's see if you gain anything. Maybe this will clear up some of your confusion about it.

Am I noticing inflammation? Well, obviously. DOMS are an inflammatory response to injury. So I always feel inflammation, even off X Factor...

Hope this helps!
 
I just want to drop in and add that we are no longer recommending significant restrictions on Omega-3 intake. This was an early recommendation based on theoretical antagonism. As the recent British Journal of Nutrition articles mention (which BTW again determined 1.5g of arachidonic acid per day or less to be harmless), there doesn't seem to be much antagonism with AA storage when Omega-3's are taken in moderate amounts (the trial was with high fish consuming Japanese men).

It underlines what we've been learning from trial and error - a little fish oil seems good, or at the very least to not hinder the ability to make gains with X-Factor/AA products.
 
Topfueljunkie said:
Oh boy ! Here we go again with another "Arachidonic Acid is bad for you" thread ! I gotta tell ya man that there have been numerous studies done AA that Molecular did ensuring safety AND efficacy before the release of X-factor. There was a double blind, placebo controlled evaluation done on x-factor (which is AA) and there were NO significant changes in clinical safety markers indicating detrimental effects to health. JJOHN!!!!!....Get in here and help a bro out!:rant:

Edit: Tell 'em Aety!!!
Click to expand...

That Abstract from the MN website was never published in a peer reviewed journal. It has its flaws in terms of evaluation of inflammatory markers. Good preliminary report, but should not be taken as "gospel" though it is touted heavily for marketing purposes.

It has promise but it is pathway that is not completely well understood in the setting of supplementation of a precursor that causes a concomintant increase in pro as well as anti-inflammatory signalling (as well as vasocontrictive and vasodilatory signals). Take alook at the great pathway posted up by the sinner.

So what happens when there is disarray of this pathway - we dont' know if this substance has caused this? How about those predisposed ot inflammatory disroders? Are there subsequent alterations in gene expression of these inflammatory cytokines over baseline, role in histamine release, etc.

Stay away if you have a fam history or predisposed to any inflammatory disorder (IBD, psoriasis, asthma, etc) - just one reason. But then again, that is the case for almost any supplement.

As for the ability for it to induce muscle hypertrophy, pubmed fails to reveal any in vivo human study published in a reputable journal demonstrating its safety and efficacy in any way shape or form. :aargh:
 
DeerDeer; said:
That Abstract from the MN website was never published in a peer reviewed journal. It has its flaws in terms of evaluation of inflammatory markers. Good preliminary report, but should not be taken as "gospel" though it is touted heavily for marketing purposes.

It has promise but it is pathway that is not completely well understood in the setting of supplementation of a precursor that causes a concomintant increase in pro as well as anti-inflammatory signalling (as well as vasocontrictive and vasodilatory signals). Take alook at the great pathway posted up by the sinner.

So what happens when there is disarray of this pathway - we dont' know if this substance has caused this? How about those predisposed ot inflammatory disroders? Are there subsequent alterations in gene expression of these inflammatory cytokines over baseline, role in histamine release, etc.

Stay away if you have a fam history or predisposed to any inflammatory disorder (IBD, psoriasis, asthma, etc) - just one reason. But then again, that is the case for almost any supplement.

As for the ability for it to induce muscle hypertrophy, pubmed fails to reveal any in vivo human study published in a reputable journal demonstrating its safety and efficacy in any way shape or form. :aargh:
Click to expand...

:goodpost:

This is basically in line with my position on AA-based products. My minority opinion is that I would not use such products (I hear some asking "So what!"). Yet, I would not discourage others from doing so. One should weigh the pros and cons and decide which way to tilt.

The Life Extension Foundation, a well-respected institution at the forefront of modern medical and nutritional research, has tonnes of unbiased material on this and related material. The chart in TheSinner's link is also available there in a more elaborate form.

Judging by the number of threads and posts on this forum alone on the subject of AA and AA products, it is clear there is more controversy than consensus on the overall efficacy of employing AA to trigger hypertrophic growth.
 
thesinner; said:
eye of Re sees all
Click to expand...
The Left Eye (the Eye of Horus, The Eye of Thoth, the lunar eye) or Eye of Re (the Right Eye of Horus, the Solar Eye)?

Your comments are always welcome, Sinner :thumbsup:
 
DeerDeer said:
That Abstract from the MN website was never published in a peer reviewed journal. It has its flaws in terms of evaluation of inflammatory markers. Good preliminary report, but should not be taken as "gospel" though it is touted heavily for marketing purposes.

It has promise but it is pathway that is not completely well understood in the setting of supplementation of a precursor that causes a concomintant increase in pro as well as anti-inflammatory signalling (as well as vasocontrictive and vasodilatory signals). Take alook at the great pathway posted up by the sinner.

So what happens when there is disarray of this pathway - we dont' know if this substance has caused this? How about those predisposed ot inflammatory disroders? Are there subsequent alterations in gene expression of these inflammatory cytokines over baseline, role in histamine release, etc.

Stay away if you have a fam history or predisposed to any inflammatory disorder (IBD, psoriasis, asthma, etc) - just one reason. But then again, that is the case for almost any supplement.

As for the ability for it to induce muscle hypertrophy, pubmed fails to reveal any in vivo human study published in a reputable journal demonstrating its safety and efficacy in any way shape or form. :aargh:
Click to expand...

The Baylor study was just accepted for publication, and the statistically significant findings reported in the final published paper include both increased anaerobic peak power and reduced IL-6 (inflammatory cytokine) levels. The statistically strong findings were not reported, but such is the case for published peer reviewed papers. We still used small groups, took our first small crack at at, and results in a statistically significant change in performance and a good deal of safety data to boot.

So to say there is no proof it has any efficacy is humans is not entirely accurate. This paper has been accepted by the community, and IMO is a great starting point for the first test of its type on AA..

As for safety data, I am not going to dispute the "pathways" of AA metabolism, or that AA has little value to the morbidly obese/extremely ill population, but will take issue with the statement there is no safety data on its use with normal healthy people.

1) AA has been granted GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status from the FDA, in doses up to 30mg/kg/day. If you do this math it is well in excess of what we recommend. VERY few supplements have been given that level of safety approval from the FDA, as substantial data and review is required before it is given.

2) The U.S. Department of Agriculture did a series of extensive evaluations into its safety, and determined no ill effects in doses above what we recommend.

3) A paper published just recently in the British Journal of Nutrition reviewed the extensive studies into its safety, including the effects of AA supplementation on health markers of inflammation, immune functioning, lipids, blood pressure, platelet aggregation, glucose concentrations, liver function, and bleeding time, and other general markers of health, noting that arachidonic acid supplementation appears to be perfectly safe in healthy subjects.

If you'd prefer to be cautious I completely understand, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find other supplements with such overwhelming safety data behind them. Very few have even attempted to get GRAS approval.. Think you'll ever see it with creatine?? OR AAKG?
 
strategicmove said:
The Left Eye (the Eye of Horus, The Eye of Thoth, the lunar eye) or Eye of Re (the Right Eye of Horus, the Solar Eye)?

Your comments are always welcome, Sinner :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Never realized they were direction specific. I just remembered the wadjet as the eye of Re, and there was a lot of beliefs that it could see you; hence, their use in mummy tombs.

I was just trying to be comical, but my lack of knowledge in Egyptian Mythology has failed me. :sad:
 
The FDA article about GRAS which I pulled up ealier and linked references AA to a single cell type something...is this the same blend that X-Factor uses or is there different types ?
 
AdelV said:
xfactor gave me 0 results and caused a bicep injury..(how do I know it was related? ive never had injuries in my life, no joint pains or muscle aches, last week os xfactor and i wasnt even going hard, INJURY)

thats what i say about it..

:D
Click to expand...


This is one of the better quotes I've came across.
 
Exogeneous injection of cloprostenol (one of the anabolic metabolites of AA) causes diarhea and (in some users) slight lethargy (nothing compared to M1T lethargy).

Have you seen any of these sides (to a lesser degree) associated with X-factor?

I am also wondering if exogeneous PGF2a would cause negative feedback, or if X-factor would potentiate the effects of this prostraglandin.
 
DeerDeer said:
As for the ability for it to induce muscle hypertrophy, pubmed fails to reveal any in vivo human study published in a reputable journal demonstrating its safety and efficacy in any way shape or form. :aargh:
Click to expand...

Hence why I said MOLECULAR did the studies and never mentioned that they were peer reviewed. Perhaps I had poor wording though and I made it seem like there were in vivo studies done by others. Either way, thanks for your two cents DeerDeer. Well said.
 
Thank You!!!!

w_llewellyn said:
I just want to drop in and add that we are no longer recommending significant restrictions on Omega-3 intake. This was an early recommendation based on theoretical antagonism. As the recent British Journal of Nutrition articles mention (which BTW again determined 1.5g of arachidonic acid per day or less to be harmless), there doesn't seem to be much antagonism with AA storage when Omega-3's are taken in moderate amounts (the trial was with high fish consuming Japanese men).

It underlines what we've been learning from trial and error - a little fish oil seems good, or at the very least to not hinder the ability to make gains with X-Factor/AA products.
Click to expand...



THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!! This question has been asked about one billion times and finally it seems it has been answered relatively solidly now.
 
Topfueljunkie said:
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!! This question has been asked about one billion times and finally it seems it has been answered relatively solidly now.
Click to expand...


One just has to be wary - which is a given.

An example being with Vioxx - a drug that underwent multimillion dollar clinical trials adn studies, tightly regulated and examined that was subsequently pulled off the market. Arachidonic acid as a supplement has not been studied to a similar extent by any means.

Geat info by w_llewellyn, nonetheless. GRAS acceptance is positive, though not definitive as completely ok.
 
thesinner said:
Exogeneous injection of cloprostenol (one of the anabolic metabolites of AA) causes diarhea and (in some users) slight lethargy (nothing compared to M1T lethargy).

Have you seen any of these sides (to a lesser degree) associated with X-factor?

I am also wondering if exogeneous PGF2a would cause negative feedback, or if X-factor would potentiate the effects of this prostraglandin.
Click to expand...

well i am on xfactor and had to stop poseidon cuz i got the runs

wondering if its because i took xfactor tooo

im on blast day 2 day 3 on monday, one serving daily will go to 2 tomm on monday and see if i get the runs while still on xfactor

ive noticed no other negative side effects on joints from xfactor

i have noticed increased acne
 
nycste said:
well i am on xfactor and had to stop poseidon cuz i got the runs

wondering if its because i took xfactor tooo

im on blast day 2 day 3 on monday, one serving daily will go to 2 tomm on monday and see if i get the runs while still on xfactor

ive noticed no other negative side effects on joints from xfactor

i have noticed increased acne
Click to expand...


well increased acne is a sure sign of anabolism:icon_lol:!
 
DeerDeer said:
Geat info by w_llewellyn, nonetheless. GRAS acceptance is positive, though not definitive as completely ok.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in light of supplements in general, which virtually never have GRAS status or near the same volume of safety data, it puts AA on its very own pedestal of safety..

Also, AA is a food product. Food ingredients can get GRAS, and when given they are expected to be safe. Drug are often expected to present tangible health risks, side effects, etc but they are weighed in light of benefits for the purpose of medical treatment (VIOXX is a drug). VIOXX is not GRAS, and is not allowed to be used in food/supplements. So you are really comparing apples and (synthetic) oranges..
 
DeerDeer said:
One just has to be wary - which is a given.

An example being with Vioxx - a drug that underwent multimillion dollar clinical trials adn studies, tightly regulated and examined that was subsequently pulled off the market. Arachidonic acid as a supplement has not been studied to a similar extent by any means.

Geat info by w_llewellyn, nonetheless. GRAS acceptance is positive, though not definitive as completely ok.
Click to expand...

Vioxx is a synthetic drug, which channels Arachidonic Acid metabolism by inhibiting the COX-2 enzyme, which is undesireable if you're using X-factor, actually. What happened with Vioxx was that the initial testing by Pfizer overlooked some things, and the drug was viewed as safe. As more and more people used it, a trend of stroke and infarction began to appear. By inhibiting COX-2, patients were getting an upsurge in COX-1 metabolism, and this caused abnormal blood clots. Other coxib's are still available on the market (celebrex) and have been proven to be less potent and thus less risk of platelette aggregation.
 
thesinner said:
Vioxx is a synthetic drug, which channels Arachidonic Acid metabolism by inhibiting the COX-2 enzyme, which is undesireable if you're using X-factor, actually. What happened with Vioxx was that the initial testing by Pfizer overlooked some things, and the drug was viewed as safe. As more and more people used it, a trend of stroke and infarction began to appear. By inhibiting COX-2, patients were getting an upsurge in COX-1 metabolism, and this caused abnormal blood clots. Other coxib's are still available on the market (celebrex) and have been proven to be less potent and thus less risk of platelette aggregation.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but your description of the Vioxx situation is not entirely accurate. It is not a question of "abnormal blood clots". THe pathway is not entirely understood! Millions were put into the studies to bring it to market, then more studies were performed.

Post marketing studies which are several millions of dollars are performed after a drug has been in use for some time. What was found was an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. It was viewed as twice the risk of cardiac evens vs just naprosyn (1.1% vs 2.5%). So overall the risk of a cardiac event with either is low, but double. Seems liek a little, but can be deemed statisticlaly significant - an purportedly was. Heartattacks were 0.5% (vioxx) vs 0.1% (naprosyn) based on the studies.

Vioxx marketing strategies among other things were brought itno questions, lots of aggressive marketing was use to push the drug to market that violated several policies. As of Nov 9th, Merck is agreeing to pay almost 5billion in Vioxx claims.
 
dsade said:
First you need to account for the fact that AA is incorporated into your celullar membrane. The act of working out FREES that AA and sends it into the cascade that results in production of prostaglandins (thus triggering growth).

Excess AA intake, without working out, would be the culprit IMO.

Think of your membranes like a sponge, and working out like squeezing the sponge...once you free the AA to do its thing, you will not have a huge amount accumulating to do much, if any, damage.
Click to expand...

This is the best counter response I have seen, MN should hire you.
 
Yeah it makes me want to try it. Im just looking for the logs and results of the testees, whos bodybuilding are in check
 
smeton_yea said:
Yeah it makes me want to try it. Im just looking for the logs and results of the testees, whos bodybuilding are in check
Click to expand...

You heard it first here folks ! Smeton wants to see your "logs" and the results of your "testes"!!!!

Sorry, smeton I just had to..........
 
DeerDeer said:
It is impossible to solely attribute it to AA. ;-)
Click to expand...

Of course, training, good diet, and dedication the key elements.

Could you do some AAS, not train well with a bad diet and get big? I don't think so..

But I see what you mean :)
 
What happens if we just supplement directly with prostoglandins instead of arachadonic acid ?
 
take a step back and think. AA is found in food and in the body, its GRAS, the amounts recommended for anabolism are not in excess of the recommended amount. It has been around forever and has had no linkage to causing health problems when used responsibly. LIke anything else. Testosterone is made by the body. It is debatable healthy to supplement with it under certain circumstances (HRT). But of course there is a difference between use and abuse. be your own judge but hell i'm convinced to use AA moderately for anabolism.
 
I don't doubt AA's effectiveness. The only problem is there is a lot of 'unknown' about AA still. I remember back when creatine was still first discovered. I feel that as AA becomes more understood that is when it will be capable of being fully utilized.
 
I feel there is value to supplementing with AA, although I'm not sure as to what extent and what dosing, time of usage.

Other things I doubt are like ecdysterone, creatine ethyl ester, and some other supplements which I feel have very little to no value at all.

AA on the other hand, once properly utilized could prove to be extremely useful. I am pretty optimistic about the compound to be honest, there just still is a lot of 'unknown' about it to be 100% sure.
 
Also too, there is just more scientific evidence for AA, vs. Ecdysterone, creatine ethyl ester, and all these other spirostans.
 
I was referring to just general actual use in the body. The body does use AA, just how much and to what extent is the question.
 
ReaperX said:
I was referring to just general actual use in the body. The body does use AA, just how much and to what extent is the question.
Click to expand...

True, but the body also makes AA as needed.

I believe a lack of dietary AA is actually a good thing for bodybuilding as the body is forced to metabolize fat when AA is required.
 
tamiller866 said:
True, but the body also makes AA as needed.

I believe a lack of dietary AA is actually a good thing for bodybuilding as the body is forced to metabolize fat when AA is required.
Click to expand...

i agree with this. In this sense, ecdysterone and AA are not comparable.
 
pudzian2 said:
take a step back and think. AA is found in food and in the body, its GRAS, the amounts recommended for anabolism are not in excess of the recommended amount. It has been around forever and has had no linkage to causing health problems when used responsibly. LIke anything else. Testosterone is made by the body. It is debatable healthy to supplement with it under certain circumstances (HRT). But of course there is a difference between use and abuse. be your own judge but hell i'm convinced to use AA moderately for anabolism.
Click to expand...

One cannot compare AA to testosterone. There are no studies in any way shape or form that it is anabolic in the same manner - or any manner at all. All you have is an inflammatory pathway that you can potentially throw into disarray. How long a substance has been around does not substantiate its claims in any way.

TO each their own of course, but until a clear cut demonstration in a controlled manner of its anabolism is displayed in an obvious manner other than empiric evidence, I would use it with caution or not at all.
 
DeerDeer said:
One cannot compare AA to testosterone. There are no studies in any way shape or form that it is anabolic in the same manner - or any manner at all. All you have is an inflammatory pathway that you can potentially throw into disarray. How long a substance has been around does not substantiate its claims in any way.

TO each their own of course, but until a clear cut demonstration in a controlled manner of its anabolism is displayed in an obvious manner other than empiric evidence, I would use it with caution or not at all.
Click to expand...

yea i didnt say there were any comparisons between their respective anabolic pathways... I was simply providing a metaphor to those who think that AA is a "foreign substance" to the body. Such as taking exogenous TESTOSTERONE....the body is very familiar with testosterone
 
The Herb Boswellia serrata , or 5lox, if you took these with AA, would it block out the effects of muscle building ?

In this months Life extension it says high AA levels cause inflamation, we know that.... asthma, allergies, atheroscerosis, osteoporosis, and possibly tumor formation.

Off subject it also says red meat causes prostate challanges.It says switch to fish. Dave Draper still eats REd meat I beleive, Bill Pearl stopped and he said he noticed a difference and he still gained muscle. I eat red meat..Im just all about facts.
 
pudzian2 said:
yea i didnt say there were any comparisons between their respective anabolic pathways... I was simply providing a metaphor to those who think that AA is a "foreign substance" to the body. Such as taking exogenous TESTOSTERONE....the body is very familiar with testosterone
Click to expand...


Gotcha. Great point to discuss, nonetheless. I can' tcome up with a good comparison though.
 
smeton_yea said:
The Herb Boswellia serrata , or 5lox, if you took these with AA, would it block out the effects of muscle building ?

In this months Life extension it says high AA levels cause inflamation, we know that.... asthma, allergies, atheroscerosis, osteoporosis, and possibly tumor formation.

Off subject it also says red meat causes prostate challanges.It says switch to fish. Dave Draper still eats REd meat I beleive, Bill Pearl stopped and he said he noticed a difference and he still gained muscle. I eat red meat..Im just all about facts.
Click to expand...

yea but what is considered "high"? 1g?
 
pudzian2 said:
yea but what is considered "high"? 1g?
Click to expand...

Yes, if you take 1 gram a day for 2 years straight. It's considered high if a guy eats all that in his regular diet, but 50 days at 1g is safe and there are no problems associated with this. Note that you must be a healthy individual to use XF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top