Guest viewing is limited

Pf/cissus=Gyno?????

First off, "estrogenic" doesn't mean "bad". It's also dependent upon the receptor subtype. SERMs like clomiphene and tamoxifen are estrogenic depending upon the tissue and more specifically, the estrogen receptor subtype found in that tissue. They are estrogenic in tissues like bone (ER-beta) and this is good. They are also anti-estrogenic in other tissues such as breast tissue and the hypothalamus/pituitary, generally associated with the ER-alpha subtype.

He's posting abstracts stating that certain fractions of CQ may have estrogenic activity, but I only see it referenced to bone which is associated with the ER-beta subtype, not the ER-alpha which is more of the true concern and which that Eucommia ulmoides has been shown to interact with.

Agonism at the ER-beta subtype certainly isn't a bad thing as one can see its associated with many of the benefits of estrogens, including bone health. This is the same for raloxifene, tamoxifen, clomiphene. These work to agonize the ER-beta as well.

He's actually making for some good support for you. Estrogens and really all hormones aren't "good" or "bad" but one might view them as that for bodybuilding purposes, but nonetheless, one must consider which receptor subtype they're talking about.

Of course, he should know this so it makes me think he's just trying to be a jerkoff.

Exactly what I was saying above. People don't understand the interplay between Alpha and Beta ER sub-types.

I think it's important to note the low binding affinity that Phytos., have. This means that even if a Phyto were to bind to an Alpha receptor (unlikely) the binding affinity is so low the expression would be minimal.
 
Exactly what I was saying above. People don't understand the interplay between Alpha and Beta ER sub-types.

I think it's important to note the low binding affinity that Phytos., have. This means that even if a Phyto were to bind to an Alpha receptor (unlikely) the binding affinity is so low the expression would be minimal.

You would think the MD would be a little more aware instead of casting such a negative light on a great supplement. He does work for the other team.

Or if it did bind it would work as a weak estrogen like Nolvadex! We will dig into this further.
 
You would think the MD would be a little more aware instead of casting such a negative light on a great supplement. He does work for the other team.

Or if it did bind it would work as a weak estrogen like Nolvadex! We will dig into this further.

Definitely, to finally 'expunge' that label from an amazing supplement. As you said 'estrogenic' is consistently conflated with 'death', when such isn't the case.

The endocrine system is a pretty complex beast and nothing is characteristically 'good' or 'bad' as you quite rightfully pointed out.
 
Why take one abstract unfounded "study/report" over hundreds of peoples feedback and the full untainted study out there for CQ? Thousand of customers dont buy this for its benifits with worries of est sides and 10's -hundreds of companies dont include it in one supplement or another as an active or a filler(ie many ph's that use CQ as a filler) cause they know it will only have positive effects. Not based on unfounded reports of others wanting to discredit the supp for its popularity and nothing else.

Dont be so niave, and if you ersonally really have a problem then go ahead and hold out till your sure for yourself that its an unfounded opinoin/speculation before you take it and dont throw hearsay out as fact. I dont mind the extra stock being available for me to order.

He should ask the Good old Doc why he designed a supplement with Eucommia ulmoides which has been shown to interact with the ER-alpha subtype.
 
I didn't make you quote anything. You can say "I know not all Phytos are bad", but by saying you wouldn't use it anytime you would be susceptible, you display a lack of knowledge on the subject; phytos have a very low binding affinity to Alpha-1 Receptors, and would be highly unlikely (in most cases) to induce or exacerbate Gyno.

Tell me why I would use it then. I have no broken bones. I wanted to use it for the possible joint benefits. As the weights I push get heavier I was hoping it could keep my ligaments right up there too. I have no "proof" other than what people feel for joints. I do have proof it has estrogens. The only thing we KNOW this estrogen does is help heal bones. When and if your guys studying cissus find the active that helps with ligaments and tendons then I will use it. When I break a bone I will use it. For now, any unstudied estrogen I can keep out of my body I will.

I can attest from personal use that the second I discontinue Cissus use I have severe joint discomfort and also when I severely injured myself at the beginning of Jan (check my log and the chat log labeled "when the boss is away") that I used cissus in place of motrin and recovered from wearing a brace to even pick up my 25lb child out of his crib to leg pressing and squating 220lbs and 145lbs respectively for reps without discomfort or pain and can carry satallite dishes up a 28ft ladder now for work with no issue whatsoever.
This sounds to me than that the cissus is masking the joint pain and not healing it then. This could be a bad thing IMO.
 
First off, "estrogenic" doesn't mean "bad". It's also dependent upon the receptor subtype. SERMs like clomiphene and tamoxifen are estrogenic depending upon the tissue and more specifically, the estrogen receptor subtype found in that tissue. They are estrogenic in tissues like bone (ER-beta) and this is good. They are also anti-estrogenic in other tissues such as breast tissue and the hypothalamus/pituitary, generally associated with the ER-alpha subtype.

He's posting abstracts stating that certain fractions of CQ may have estrogenic activity, but I only see it referenced to bone which is associated with the ER-beta subtype, not the ER-alpha which is more of the true concern and which that Eucommia ulmoides has been shown to interact with.

Agonism at the ER-beta subtype certainly isn't a bad thing as one can see its associated with many of the benefits of estrogens, including bone health. This is the same for raloxifene, tamoxifen, clomiphene. These work to agonize the ER-beta as well.

He's actually making for some good support for you. Estrogens and really all hormones aren't "good" or "bad" but one might view them as that for bodybuilding purposes, but nonetheless, one must consider which receptor subtype they're talking about.

Of course, he should know this so it makes me think he's just trying to be a jerkoff.

Well you and the doc both obviously know more about this than me. I just don't want any extra estrogens without knowing exactly what I have them in there for. Hopefully you two could have a civil debate about this as I would like to know more.
 
I'm not backing the doc's phytoandrogen supplement here because I don't know for sure but it looks like maybe they extracted for the phytoandrogens.

Eucommia ulmoides (standardized for full spectrum of triterpenoids and phytolipids)
At least twelve compounds have been isolated and suggested to be the potential active constituents to mimicking testosterone in structure and fitting into the androgen receptor, though two have been focused on: the terpenoids and an unusual type of fatty acid
 
Tell me why I would use it then. I have no broken bones. I wanted to use it for the possible joint benefits. As the weights I push get heavier I was hoping it could keep my ligaments right up there too. I have no "proof" other than what people feel for joints. I do have proof it has estrogens. The only thing we KNOW this estrogen does is help heal bones. When and if your guys studying cissus find the active that helps with ligaments and tendons then I will use it. When I break a bone I will use it. For now, any unstudied estrogen I can keep out of my body I will.


This sounds to me than that the cissus is masking the joint pain and not healing it then. This could be a bad thing IMO.

Where did I tell you to use it, if I may ask? I simply told you that you were mistaken in your assumptions about the product.
 
Tell me why I would use it then. I have no broken bones. I wanted to use it for the possible joint benefits. As the weights I push get heavier I was hoping it could keep my ligaments right up there too. I have no "proof" other than what people feel for joints. I do have proof it has estrogens. The only thing we KNOW this estrogen does is help heal bones. When and if your guys studying cissus find the active that helps with ligaments and tendons then I will use it. When I break a bone I will use it. For now, any unstudied estrogen I can keep out of my body I will.


This sounds to me than that the cissus is masking the joint pain and not healing it then. This could be a bad thing IMO.

Cissus stimulates osteoblast and osteoclast production which have a role in tendon repair and restructure. The abstracts that the good old doc referenced validates our other studies but controversly, the other studies focus on the keto sterone content that stimulates osteoblast and osteoclast production.

Osetoblast and blasts are NEW cells.
 
In addition, You could believe the Good old Doctors signal abstract that is pretty vaque or the thousands and thousand of postive user feedback.
 
Dont be so niave, and if you ersonally really have a problem then go ahead and hold out till your sure for yourself that its an unfounded opinoin/speculation before you take it and dont throw hearsay out as fact. I dont mind the extra stock being available for me to order.

I didn't know it was hearsay when it was a medical study. Nor did I know it was niave to want to know what estrogens I am putting in my body. Cissus estrogens may be a godsend. Maybe the act like clomid and increase LH. Maybe the are like Nolva and help prevent gyno. Maybe they do nothing but help bone fractures. We don't know. I want to know what they are doing. Give me a little credit poopy, damn.
 
Well some quick searching on phytoestrogens it does look like they bind much stronger the ERb. Not 100% sure what this means in males other than what you have already told us in this thread. I would like to hear, as I said earlier, a civil discussion between you guys and the doc. I want to know why he thinks this is such a bad thing. Or maybe he doesn't. I don't think he recommends this product though.
 
And back at Lean Bulk the doc started talking way over my head again, lol. USP make this simple on me. Go do some studies on the estrogens in cissus and let us know how they work in males....
That should be pretty simple right?
 
Fortunately, I was alerted into this thread...

Jacob and USP company,

I will assure you I am not mistaken on my information. I would ask that you read in full at LB if purely interested as I am not to get into an e-battle; quite non-sensical.

We can get into the levels of herbal extracts and so on...but the truth remains: herbs are nature's proprietary blend. IF you do NOT adequately test for something because the data is "too new" (i.e. - 2007) which appears what your current claim is, then your issuing this supplement was, in effect, premature.

As for Eucommia if you really want to get in this; I have said it on that forum and this. I do NOT "play for the other team" rather consult with a number of companies actually on product development. Do not attempt to attack me as your sole defense - that is well overdone in this industry.

We can address Eucommia AND I HAVE in the appropriate threads on this forum and there, but you still offer that as your counter-suggestion. Truly poor form. We are still waiting at LB on the other compound which was the original topic you evaded, but this has been your way apparently of addressing the issue that I am growing rather tired of.

If asked about cissus, you counter with Eucommia - get over it. I have offered the rationale already, but that really appears as all you got.

Whomever said that cissus has NOT panned out when it comes to anything outside of fracture research, that is pure fact. And, should someone not possess a fracture...its use would certainly be questionable. There is an apparent superficial misunderstanding about how variants of the ER work and I do invite you to address this with me if so inclined.

Until you learn to stay on topic, however, I will NOT get into ridicule NOR will I get into this perpetual back-and-forth. If people are so inclined and some misinterpret many things like a "pump" for said products to mean it is "working" - then by all means, use it.

For those curious about how this came up or those keeping score...

Thread recap from LB is simple:

[1] I was asked about a bulk product - said I don't understand the nomenclature used. In fact, I went further in exploration to say this was the case with many USP products and until I understood what name game was being played, I would NOT encourage aiding their plight - this is easily remedied by the way.

[2] I was countered with Eucommia sucks because its phytoestrogenic (which shows superficial understanding there as well), and then I brought up cissus post-attack. Interestingly enough, the original topic was never addressed BUT I would appreciate it that UNTIL it is learned by said individuals to stay ON TOPIC, I would encourage their refraining from posting in my subforum until they can handle this simple concept. E-drama is NOT my style and the posting of this whole thing over here...without alluding to the fact that this is where you'd take it is rather shady (I suppose par for the course).



D_
 
Fortunately, I was alerted into this thread...

Jacob and USP company,

I will assure you I am not mistaken on my information. I would ask that you read in full at LB if purely interested as I am not to get into an e-battle; quite non-sensical.

We can get into the levels of herbal extracts and so on...but the truth remains: herbs are nature's proprietary blend. IF you do NOT adequately test for something because the data is "too new" (i.e. - 2007) which appears what your current claim is, then your issuing this supplement was, in effect, premature.

As for Eucommia if you really want to get in this; I have said it on that forum and this. I do NOT "play for the other team" rather consult with a number of companies actually on product development. Do not attempt to attack me as your sole defense - that is well overdone in this industry.

We can address Eucommia AND I HAVE in the appropriate threads on this forum and there, but you still offer that as your counter-suggestion. Truly poor form. We are still waiting at LB on the other compound which was the original topic you evaded, but this has been your way apparently of addressing the issue that I am growing rather tired of.

If asked about cissus, you counter with Eucommia - get over it. I have offered the rationale already, but that really appears as all you got.

Whomever said that cissus has NOT panned out when it comes to anything outside of fracture research, that is pure fact. And, should someone not possess a fracture...its use would certainly be questionable. There is an apparent superficial misunderstanding about how variants of the ER work and I do invite you to address this with me if so inclined.

Until you learn to stay on topic, however, I will NOT get into ridicule NOR will I get into this perpetual back-and-forth. If people are so inclined and some misinterpret many things like a "pump" for said products to mean it is "working" - then by all means, use it.

For those curious about how this came up or those keeping score...

Thread recap from LB is simple:

[1] I was asked about a bulk product - said I don't understand the nomenclature used. In fact, I went further in exploration to say this was the case with many USP products and until I understood what name game was being played, I would NOT encourage aiding their plight - this is easily remedied by the way.

[2] I was countered with Eucommia sucks because its phytoestrogenic (which shows superficial understanding there as well), and then I brought up cissus post-attack. Interestingly enough, the original topic was never addressed BUT I would appreciate it that UNTIL it is learned by said individuals to stay ON TOPIC, I would encourage their refraining from posting in my subforum until they can handle this simple concept. E-drama is NOT my style and the posting of this whole thing over here...without alluding to the fact that this is where you'd take it is rather shady (I suppose par for the course).



D_

First off, I wish my doctor was a cool as you.

My issue is that all innovative companies have trade secrets that cannot be revealed due to other knock off companies.

You may believe our nomenclature is false as I believe you did not extract for phytoadroginic fraction of Eucommia. You may have extracted for the specific fractions but Until you prove otherwise beyond I said so. We are left to believe the associated research that Eucommia has potent ER binding. You write up is superficial on Eucommia. I have my science team dissecting it. We will post our findings soon on this board and on leanbulk.

You are accusing us of an action that you are guilty of.
 
First off, I wish my doctor was a cool as you.[/qupte]

Again, continued nonsense offering.



My issue is that all innovative companies have trade secrets that cannot be revealed due to other knock off companies.

Yeah, we'll use MAN for example - seem to do just fine without proprietary and/or irrational naming systems.




You may believe our nomenclature is false as I believe you did not extract for phytoadroginic fraction of Eucommia. You may have extracted for the specific fractions but Until you prove otherwise beyond I said so. We are left to believe the associated research that Eucommia has potent ER binding. You write up is superficial on Eucommia. I have my science team dissecting it. We will post our findings soon on this board and on leanbulk.

You have your science team dissecting what? Eucommia? How about the two USP product questions on the table? Again, far be it from me to request keeping on task though.

You can believe what you will - my acknowledgement is the following - I didn't personally extract for anything...we both know very well how this industry works. There is however, a standard - challenge it, I personally have no time to continue this silly exchange as you won't even merely defend your own products but change topic in a very poor attempt to conversely discuss the opposite.

Shoot, I must have taught you a new word (i.e. - "superficial"). Well, let's see if I can get a bit more specific for you because obviously we won't get that kind of response on cissus and/or the bulk product, even yet still.

Eucommia ulmoides to date, has 27 recognized constituents within it. The more notable concentrations are found within the leaves and bark crossover compounds - all stemming from the ethanolic extract...

Irridoids: geniposidic acid, geniposide, asperulosidic acid, deacetyl asperulosidic acid and asperuloside

Phenols: pyrogallo, protocatechuic acid and p-trans-coumaric acid - anti-clastogenic

Isoflavanoids: though while being anti-clastogenic, they harbor the phytoestrogenic effect you are very wrongly speaking of.

Triterpenoids: recognized androgenic effect with recognized dose-response gradient

Pytolipids: recognized androgenic effect that doesn't appear to harbor the same dose-response effect when separated out, though MAN's PM has a mixed conglomerate

The actual extraction methods (and I'll make this really easy for you) stem from the patent holders for whom we'll acknowledge credit.

So, if you have a question regarding EU extracts of varying proportion, ask away (while off-topic...again, it seems to be the only thing we are going to see accurate in this thread anyway).




You are accusing us of an action that you are guilty of.

Completely false.

Is there question to what the EU extract is? Try again!

D_
 
In addition, You could believe the Good old Doctors signal abstract that is pretty vaque or the thousands and thousand of postive user feedback.

thats what i was getting at.

Jason, your telling me you NEVER take a supplement after you sit and wait for positive user reviews... or dont take it due to negative reviews? Im sure you do this many times over without EVER seeing a study in support or in condridiction to it, so why in this one case are you going to instead follow someones input against this consuumer supported product just cause they say so, especially when you know that this someone has something to gain by discrediting a competitor?

This logic is extrememly flawed and Im suprised(well maybe not that suprised) anyone here at AM.com would take this mindset given the nature of these boards, that being one of a community of consumers set up purely to confirm the usage of different diets, routines and supplements through widespread trial and error? Its the same reason all these companies come here to feel out their new supplements as well before sending them mainstream.
 
I didn't know it was hearsay when it was a medical study. Nor did I know it was niave to want to know what estrogens I am putting in my body. Cissus estrogens may be a godsend. Maybe the act like clomid and increase LH. Maybe the are like Nolva and help prevent gyno. Maybe they do nothing but help bone fractures. We don't know. I want to know what they are doing. Give me a little credit poopy, damn.

Its one thing to want to know, Its another to take a stance of ignorance to the consumer feedback of the product that confirms exactly what you demand a study for casue of someone elses biased study.
 
Yeah? Express to me where my logic is flawed.

What the translation of that is would be the science is flawed - insults do absolutely nothing to contribute to this topic and I wouldn't assume a fair shake here in this particular subforum, but that is what happens.

How bout we strive for something that shows the science and this "real world" stuff agreeing. Novel, I know - but hey...I could care if you bathe in vats of the stuff - I have pointed out some "logic" if you want to call it that - readers can interpret it as they will.


D_
 
Its one thing to want to know, Its another to take a stance of ignorance to the consumer feedback of the product that confirms exactly what you demand a study for casue of someone elses biased study.

Yeah, those 3rd party studies really do stink, ok...it's obvious this will go nowhere here.


D_
 
Yeah, those 3rd party studies really do stink, ok...it's obvious this will go nowhere here.


D_

My real issue is not the third party study rather the ignorance to over whelming user feedback. And was the Logic post above directed at me? cause I was not referring to your logic(or scientific fact as you turned it into thinking its was directed at you) as my post was specifically directed at Jason not you sir. I value your opinion H. but I also value the feedback of the cosumers here as this is the reason why I frequent ANY board. Please re-read my post with the correct context in mind that its directed at Jasons Logic and not you.
 
My real issue is not the third party study rather the ignorance to over whelming user feedback. And was the Logic post above directed at me? cause I was not referring to your logic(or scientific fact as you turned it into thinking its was directed at you) as my post was specifically directed at Jason not you sir. I value your opinion H. but I also value the feedback of the cosumers here as this is the reason why I frequent ANY board. Please re-read my post with the correct context in mind that its directed at Jasons Logic and not you.

I was actually responding to the "flawed logic" comment in USPlabs post reply you offered when he was referencing this "good ole Doctor's" single (rather than signal I presume) abstract. And I am not offering contention to the fact that estrogen would have pertinent effect on joints from a fluidity standpoint alone, especially when people are taking slews of anti-E's, sometimes concurrently unfortunately.

Further still, I have NOT antagonized the anti-glucocorticoid effects...but countered the cummulative effect of hormonal alteration in a scenario when it is not needed - [in other words, the non-fracture populace; over 99% of those taking it based on marketing alone]. I also won't denounce the "pump" effect that some have misinterpretated as "benefit" either.

In fact, if you go to leanbulk and read the thread in question in its entirety, you may be surprised what was said and how it was said. You can evaluate that and think as you will.


D_
 
I was actually responding to the "flawed logic" comment in USPlabs post reply you offered when he was referencing this "good ole Doctor's" single (rather than signal I presume) abstract. And I am not offering contention to the fact that estrogen would have pertinent effect on joints from a fluidity standpoint alone, especially when people are taking slews of anti-E's, sometimes concurrently unfortunately.

Further still, I have NOT antagonized the anti-glucocorticoid effects...but countered the cummulative effect of hormonal alteration in a scenario when it is not needed - [in other words, the non-fracture populace; over 99% of those taking it based on marketing alone]. I also won't denounce the "pump" effect that some have misinterpretated as "benefit" either.

In fact, if you go to leanbulk and read the thread in question in its entirety, you may be surprised what was said and how it was said. You can evaluate that and think as you will.


D_

I rather ignore your condescending superior attitude. Like MAN consults with your service, USPLabs has a team of consultants. Before we hastily respond, they are researching the topic. I promise the response will be civil and without a superiority complex.

I will let the debate continue, but as I rarely do, I will have my science team log on and challenge your rational.

take care
 
I rather ignore your condescending superior attitude. Like MAN consults with your service, USPLabs has a team of consultants. Before we hastily respond, they are researching the topic. I promise the response will be civil and without a superiority complex.

I will let the debate continue, but as I rarely do, I will have my science team log on and challenge your rational.

take care

So, you have been challenging me on something that you have no basis to do as you are just now letting the science crew research it. Sounds like a real "superiority complex" - my opinion is its strawman at its finest. Good show.

How bout while you're at it, they also concentrate on your own products. Good grief - I probably should recheck if this thread is about cissus or eucommia as I am now unsure; funny the only ability you have is to turn a topic away from your own limelight - interesting.

This has again proven a waste of time - call it superiority or what you will because that's all you have, but state it as such rather than trying to play innocent and suggest this is driven by more than your offering on a product you have still been questioned on rather than anything from the MAN camp.

I have reviewed some of your other arguments against others which now just have seemed to lose interest as this is pretty standard for you.


D_
 
btw: if you ever want to address the original question asked of you in that thread on my subforum, by all means...you know where to find me - people merely asked me and you can fault me for an opinion I suppose, but the reality is - you NEVER ANSWERED!



D_
 
btw: if you ever want to address the original question asked of you in that thread on my subforum, by all means...you know where to find me - people merely asked me and you can fault me for an opinion I suppose, but the reality is - you NEVER ANSWERED!



D_


We've answered that accusation at nausea. My issues was not with you addressing the compound at hand, but you proceed to attack USPlabs in general. Geez, you attacked Recreate without even knowing the ingredients.

Sorry that I take offense to your verbal onslaught on my brand. USPlabs is always attacked by OTHER brands and not consumers. At USPLabs, we mind our own business and worry about our consumers and not the competition. If you attack our products, We are going to take a close look at your products.

Look Doc, I look at it this way, If you attack expect to be attacked. You want to attack and be free from retaliation. O but I understand the mentality, you are the all knowing and how dare you be questioned. I should just shut up and walk away. You know what I'm smart enough to do so, but I will allocate the job to my science team. They are graduates in pharmacology. I guarantee your intelligence will be challenged.
 
We've answered that accusation at nausea. My issues was not with you addressing the compound at hand, but you proceed to attack USPlabs in general. Geez, you attacked Recreate without even knowing the ingredients.

What was "attacked" was the marketing strategy, but lets label it accordingly - the Recreate thing was about the slant and the "2 years of slaving to collect monkey saliva." Whatever dude.


Sorry that I take offense to your verbal onslaught on my brand. USPlabs is always attacked by OTHER brands and not consumers. At USPLabs, we mind our own business and worry about our consumers and not the competition. If you attack our products, We are going to take a close look at your products.

Verbal onslaught? You're kidding, right? You turned your suggestion onto Eucommia well before I opted to get into cissus. Mind you, the thread here at AM in and of itself actually predates this discussion at LB on Eucommia in the Primal Male thread.



Look Doc, I look at it this way, If you attack expect to be attacked. You want to attack and be free from retaliation. O but I understand the mentality, you are the all knowing and how dare you be questioned. I should just shut up and walk away. You know what I'm smart enough to do so, but I will allocate the job to my science team. They are graduates in pharmacology. I guarantee your intelligence will be challenged.

Apparently you have not interacted with me. I don't dodge attempts at question, etc... In fact, quite the contrary. The mentality is again - a return to your strawman argument, the only thing you have had going. You admit not getting eucommia and have to research it, but yet you're full of opinion. Interesting.

"Graduates in pharmacology" - why bring this up already, when we both know this means nothing to herbal study per se.

Please spare me the nonsense already - you've offered enough of it. Obviously you have had your own agenda that predates anything I have had offered on you, so step off your own high horse already. Gimme a break - at least we both agree that this is nonsense (with perhaps different rationale) but if you'd like to alert people in my subforum of some links where you took the time to discuss the topic at hand "ad nauseum, we'd still like to see it. You've had ample time but instead you chose this way. Tell it like it really is - for those interested in how it went down - I have offered that already and you can go see for yourselves the classic attempts at poor editing and everything else.


D_
 
"Graduates in pharmacology" - why bring this up already, when we both know this means nothing to herbal study per se.
D_

Wow, your self-labeled superiority shines again. I rather employ a research pharmacist over an MD that surfs the internet. You will be questioned and Will see on how you deal with an expert asking an expert a question assuming you are an expert.


He will address your view on cissus.
 
What was "attacked" was the marketing strategy, but lets label it accordingly - the Recreate thing was about the slant and the "2 years of slaving to collect monkey saliva." Whatever dude.


D_

LOL. You think the Monkey Saliva is serious or an attempt to get the reader to click on the thread.

I'm pretty sure labeling Blue Print as the holy grail is just an attempt to get the consumer to read the copy. Come on.

Here is the real teaser, but probably bogus because of those Dumb Pharmacology grads we employ.

If I wanted to, I could break recreate down into 2 cutting edge products and could sale a few ingredients stand alone. THis is a very very special formula...

Compound 1 New to the industry mechanism of action:

Again, a very precise extract of this substance has been shown to inhibit the enzyme 11-B-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1, both selectively and very potently (4). In addition, it was shown to do so in muscle and adipose cells. Why is this good? 11beta-HSD1 is an enzyme responsible for converting the very weak glucocorticoid, cortisone, into the much more powerful, cortisol. We all know that excess cortisol can hamper your progress in the gym, and with the stress of living in our modern world, it’s certain that few people don’t have elevated cortisol levels. Unfortunately, this particular enzyme works against what we all as athletes and bodybuilders would like and works to increase cortisol levels. In addition, another sad bit of news is that activity of this enzyme only seems to increase as we get older (5).
By inhibiting 11beta-HSD1, it is thought that it could be used to treat obesity (reduce body fat) and improve insulin sensitivity. Additionally, a beneficial effect upon muscle mass would be expected (6).

Compound 2 New to the industry mechanism of action:

A compound found in a certain cactus plant, has a structural similarity to norepinephrine. It has both alpha and beta-adrenergic activity (9). Additionally, it directly stimulates postsynaptic receptors while enhancing the physiological effects of norepinephrine via increasing synthesis of it and inhibiting its’ reabsorption. The end result is a stimulant effect similar to ephedrine, without the “all over the place” behavior. In fact, it produces a great deal of focus.


Compound 3 mechanism of action:

An adenlyate cyclase activator, which in turn increases intracellular levels of cAMP (cyclic adenosine monophosphate), which eventually works to stimulate lipolysis in adipose cells. Beta 2-adrenergic agonists such as ephedrine and clenbuterol actually work by increasing cAMP as well. Unfortunately, because they work at a receptor, their effectiveness can decrease with continued use as the body down-regulates the number of receptors available. Forskolin bypasses the receptor and directly activates adenylate cyclase, obviating the need for “cycling” on and off of the product every few weeks.
Another potential benefit is that accumulation of cAMP in skeletal muscle may provide an anti-catabolic/anabolic effect as well (1). A study which evaluated body composition found that when they gave forskolin to men at 50 mg/day (without having them change their normal habits), they were able to reduce body fat percentage by 4.14%. In addition, they were able to lose 4.52 kg (9.9 lb) of fat mass and gained 3.71 kg (8.2 lb) of lean body mass (muscle tissue), over a 12 week period (2). Also, while others may cite this study, it was performed using Forslean and only Forslean.
Other benefits shown are a trend for an increase in total testosterone of 16.77% and a confirmed increase of 3.47% in free testosterone in men taking 50 mg/day of forskolin over a 12 week period


Compound 4 mechanism of action:

If there were one potential downfall of forskolin, it would be that the body still has a few mechanisms to reduce cAMP levels, either via modulation of adenylate cyclase activity or degradation of cAMP itself. Caffeine has the potential to work against such mechanisms to increase the effects of forskolin. (This part could be controversial to the more learned readers).
This might be better. Caffeine is a well known stimulant, thermogenic agent and stimulator of fat oxidation. No fat loss formula would be complete without it.

Compound 5 mechanism of action:

Caffeine – While certainly not a novel compound, Caffeine is a well known stimulant, thermogenic agent and stimulator of fat oxidation. No fat loss formula would be complete without it. In fact, caffeine has been shown to increase metabolic rate by 150 calories a day, which equates to 1.29 pounds over the course of 1 month. Not great, but not too shabby either. Taking these facts into consideration makes the following compound worth its weight in gold…


Cir20X™ – Potent Fat Loss Scientific Breakthrough


Compound 6 New to the industry mechanism of action:


Cir20x™ – As if the compounds I just described weren't enough, this baby is worth the price of admission and then some! This naturally occurring compound has demonstrated some impressive properties. Specifically, it has been shown to be 20 times more potent at stimulating lipolysis in fat cells as compared to caffeine. Caffeine is clearly a considerably active compound itself, so for this compound to have such potent effects is nothing short of amazing.
Recreate is the only product to contain this rare, fat-burning wonder. In fact, it's so rare we actually had to farm out land to grow and cultivate it ourselves – which we've been doing for the last 22 months! Yet another reason why Recreate is head and shoulders above any fat loss product in the world…

Compound 7 New (the Plant is not new but the extraction is) to the industry mechanism of action:

A very specific extract of this plant was shown to reduce waist size by almost one and a quarter inches in only 8 weeks, while decreasing appetite by 20% as compared to placebo (7). In addition, those taking the active ingredient reduced consumption of sweets, refined sugars, cholesterol and saturated fats by the conclusion of the study as compared to placebo. At the same time, consumption of fruits, vegetables and fish didn’t change. In other words, it nearly “made” them follow a healthy diet and make better food choices, while also causing them to eat less. The group taking the caralluma lost 1.5 kg (3.3 lb) of fat mass as well, over the course of the study. It has been used for centuries by tribal populations that wished to suppress their appetite. It also has a well established safety record and had shown no serious adverse effects. As far as how it works, it is thought that steroidal glycosides present in the plant may increase ATP in the hypothalamus, potentially “tricking” it into thinking that energy or food intake is sufficient so there is no need to increase appetite (7,8).
 
Wow, your self-labeled superiority shines again. I rather employ a research pharmacist over an MD that surfs the internet. You will be questioned and Will see on how you deal with an expert asking an expert a question assuming you are an expert.


He will address your view on cissus.

Omigod...you have an interesting way to slant things and this is all! First, I am NOT going to trade resumes with anyone nor was my comment suggested as such.

IF you stated he had an advanced degree in herbal studies or was a Master Herbalist, then fine. In any event, I know what pharmacology texts discuss so this is completely ludicrous as the two are NOT one and the same which is all I was saying. Call me names or what you will (that has been your standard, so its par for the course)...

And I await your guy's offering on cissus (I kid you not btw), though this still hasn't addressed the original question - perhaps he can do this as well (dunno).


D_
 
Did anyone ever tell you I am not involved in marketing of Blue Print and certainly did NOT label anything the "Holy Grail." Sorry for the apparent confusion there..in fact, I was one who questioned it over at bb.

And I wasn't insinuating anything about the monkey saliva, but the purchase of the farm and chasing around monkeys for two years marketing offering. But, hey...what do I know?


D_
 
thats what i was getting at.

Jason, your telling me you NEVER take a supplement after you sit and wait for positive user reviews... or dont take it due to negative reviews? Im sure you do this many times over without EVER seeing a study in support or in condridiction to it, so why in this one case are you going to instead follow someones input against this consuumer supported product just cause they say so, especially when you know that this someone has something to gain by discrediting a competitor?

This logic is extrememly flawed and Im suprised(well maybe not that suprised) anyone here at AM.com would take this mindset given the nature of these boards, that being one of a community of consumers set up purely to confirm the usage of different diets, routines and supplements through widespread trial and error? Its the same reason all these companies come here to feel out their new supplements as well before sending them mainstream.

Actually that is the thing. These days I would never buy a product without trying to find out as much about the ingredients as possible. Most companies will put anything in their marketing to get you to buy it. I looked up all I could (granted only on the internet) for studies on cissus the first time I took it. I can't say I noticed anything from it good or bad. Now I have a new study out. It tells me some new things, things that make me want more answers before I try it again. If the fact that a bunch of guys I don't know say the stuff rocks while stacking 8 different products together doesn't convince me 100% on a product I'm sorry that bothers you.
 
especially when you know that this someone has something to gain by discrediting a competitor?

Also what does dinoiii have to gain by "attacking" USP? He doesn't put his name on any "joint" supplements I know of.
 
Issuing an apology to Jacob. It was thesinner who talked about diadzein awhile ago. This is why I want info on my phytoestrogens.

LG Sciences Formadrol is ATD and Diadzein. This is the unbeatable combination of exactly the things you don'twant during post cycle therapy :clap2:

Diadzein was added, and expressed in their writeup due to the fact that it will take up estrogen receptors. Unfortunately, it's a strong enough phytoestrogen to cause estrogenic sides. To top it all of, it's ability to increase in LH has been shown to lead to zero increase in testosterone due to the fact that it also blocks receptors in the testes from producing Testosterone.
 
Actually that is the thing. These days I would never buy a product without trying to find out as much about the ingredients as possible. Most companies will put anything in their marketing to get you to buy it. I looked up all I could (granted only on the internet) for studies on cissus the first time I took it. I can't say I noticed anything from it good or bad. Now I have a new study out. It tells me some new things, things that make me want more answers before I try it again. If the fact that a bunch of guys I don't know say the stuff rocks while stacking 8 different products together doesn't convince me 100% on a product I'm sorry that bothers you.

Cissus did not gain it's popularity through marketing. Cissus gained it's fame by accident. Cissus was never marketed as a Joint product but as an anti gluccosteroid/anabolic in our first fat loss formula. People used cAMPHIBOLIC and noticed that joint pain/tendonitis was reduced or dissappeared all together. We then sponosored Logs on AM and bb.com asking people with Joint/tendon issues to try a bottle and report back. The feedback was postive and CIssus Rx was born. With the postive feedback flooding the industry other companies followed our lead and produced Cissus products.

No one is hear to convince you to purchase. You have to take in all the possible information and make a consumer educated decision.

The doctor is labeling all phyto estrogens and SERMs as evil which is not the case. Remember SERMS (estrogens) increase LH and testosterone.

My best advice is not to use the product if you have major concerns..move on and research the next product.

take care
 
LG obviously things its ok though:
Originally Posted by Legal Gear
Well, Daidzein is an ERM, which means it is not selective, so it works on all estrogen receptors, which isn't a bad thing for men. Remember, we as men don't have a uterus or ovaries, so blocking the effects of estrogen across the board isn't a big deal like for a woman. So, the point is that an ERM, which isn't selective should be more than fine for a male undergoing post cycle therapy and possibly prefferable (this is totally debatable).
 
Also what does dinoiii have to gain by "attacking" USP? He doesn't put his name on any "joint" supplements I know of.

Funny, He states that he has been preaching for years that Cisuss is estogenic but produces a 2007 study that is specific to bone and compares it to a SERM that increases LH and testosterone....Not such a bad thing in my opinion.
 
Cissus did not gain it's popularity through marketing. Cissus gained it's fame by accident. Cissus was never marketed as a Joint product but as an anti gluccosteroid/anabolic in our first fat loss formula. People used cAMPHIBOLIC and noticed that joint pain/tendonitis was reduced or dissappeared all together. We then sponosored Logs on AM and bb.com asking people with Joint/tendon issues to try a bottle and report back. The feedback was postive and CIssus Rx was born. With the postive feedback flooding the industry other companies followed our lead and produced Cissus products.

No one is hear to convince you to purchase. You have to take in all the possible information and make a consumer educated decision.

The doctor is labeling all phyto estrogens and SERMs as evil which is not the case. Remember SERMS (estrogens) increase LH and testosterone.

My best advice is not to use the product if you have major concerns..move on and research the next product.

take care

The thing is though I badly want a product that is good for tendons/ligaments. This was my hope, but if the joint confort comes from estrogen effects I want to know how this phytoestrogen effects the rest of me, particularly HPTA. Apparently (and I have not researched this yet) diazdein doesn't increase testosterone nor is it selective to ERb. We know very little about cissus phyto e's, just wanna know more is all.
 
Funny, He states that he has been preaching for years that Cisuss is estogenic but produces a 2007 study that is specific to bone and compares it to a SERM that increases LH and testosterone....Not such a bad thing in my opinion.

If we find out cissus phyto's increase LH and test expect me to be first in line for some. The thing is we don't know.
 
The thing is though I badly want a product that is good for tendons/ligaments. This was my hope, but if the joint confort comes from estrogen effects I want to know how this phytoestrogen effects the rest of me, particularly HPTA. Apparently (and I have not researched this yet) diazdein doesn't increase testosterone nor is it selective to ERb. We know very little about cissus phyto e's, just wanna know more is all.

I can't blame but I applaud you for that.
 
Journal of Endocrinology, Vol 170, Issue 3, 591-599
Copyright © 2001 by Society for Endocrinology

Articles

Dietary soy-phytoestrogens decrease testosterone levels and prostate weight without altering LH, prostate 5alpha-reductase or testicular steroidogenic acute regulatory peptide levels in adult male Sprague-Dawley rats
KS Weber, KD Setchell, DM Stocco, and ED Lephart



Nutritional factors, especially phytoestrogens, have been extensively studied for their potential beneficial effects against hormone-dependent and age-related diseases. The present study describes the short-term effects of dietary phytoestrogens on regulatory behaviors (food/water intake, locomotor activity and body weight), prostate weight, prostate 5alpha-reductase enzyme activity, reproductive hormone levels, and testicular steroidogenic acute regulatory peptide (StAR) levels in adult Sprague-Dawley rats. Animals were fed either a phytoestrogen-rich diet containing approximately 600 microg/g isoflavones (as determined by HPLC) or a phytoestrogen-free diet. After 5 weeks of consuming these diets, plasma phytoestrogen levels were 35 times higher in animals fed the phytoestrogen-rich vs phytoestrogen-free diets. Body and prostate weights were significantly decreased in animals fed the phytoestrogen-rich diet vs the phytoestrogen-free fed animals; however, no significant change in prostate 5alpha-reductase enzyme activity was observed between the treatment groups. Locomotor activity levels were higher in the phytoestrogen-rich vs the phytoestrogen-free animals during the course of the treatment interval. Plasma testosterone and androstenedione levels were significantly lower in the animals fed the phytoestrogen-rich diet compared with animals fed the phytoestrogen-free diet. However, there were no significant differences in plasma LH or estradiol levels between the diet groups. Testicular StAR levels were not significantly different between the phytoestrogen-rich vs the phytoestrogen-free fed animals. These results indicated that consumption of dietary phytoestrogens resulting in very high plasma isoflavone levels over a relatively short period can significantly alter body and prostate weight and plasma androgen hormone levels without affecting gonadotropin or testicular StAR levels. The findings of this study identify the biological actions of phytoestrogens on male reproductive endocrinology and provide insights into the protective effects these estrogen mimics exert in male reproductive disorders such as benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer.

Obviously in rats and I'm sure anybody can find another study to refute it. But they are at least male rats.
 
Huh, hadn't heard this one before. There is no 'proof' here by any means but more food for thought.
Phytoestrogen supplementation: a case report of male breast cancer.

Research papers

European Journal of Cancer Prevention. 13(6):481-484, December 2004.
Dimitrakakis, C 1; Gosselink, L 1; Gaki, V 2; Bredakis, N 2; Keramopoulos, A 2
Abstract:
Patients seeking alternatives to hormone replacement are increasingly using non-prescription phytoestrogen supplements. The potential of these herbal remedies to prevent bone loss, heart disease, menopausal symptoms or breast cancer has been a focus of attention in scientific and lay literature. It is important to understand the effects of phytoestrogens, particularly whether excess exposure can promote hyperplasia or neoplasia of breast tissue. We report the case of a man diagnosed with breast cancer whose history was notable for extensive use of supplemental phytoestrogens and the absence of family history of breast cancer or BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation. In conclusion, breast tissue effects of phytoestrogens remain unclear. The increasing popularity and availability of phytoestrogen dietary supplements necessitates additional research in order to counsel patients regarding their safety and efficacy.

(C) 2004 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
 
Funny, He states that he has been preaching for years that Cisuss is estogenic but produces a 2007 study that is specific to bone and compares it to a SERM that increases LH and testosterone....Not such a bad thing in my opinion.

Yes, I have and will continue to do so...the mechanism is NOT new nor limited to the study I posted and you KNOW that...what I did that morning as I told you over at LB is find but one example from a plethora (claim what you will to suit your plight as this has seemed typical).

And here, I thought posting the most recent would be beneficial - instead I get chastized for that too, so I concede - do what you will, because this is beyond just defending your brand - this is complete misrepresentation to suit your purposes.

That said, Raloxifene has minimal immpact on the HPTA! In fact, when compared head to head as an FYI...the only "SERM" and it kind of doesn't fit the class "cleanly" that had good impact on the HPTA is Clomid...so - do what you will and continue doing it. Again, bathe in the stuff for all I care, but do NOT tell me its release may not have been premature in the way it has been touted.

You can attempt to chastize my work (Agmatine for instance, though in order to get to the bottom line here, I fortunately used to work with the people who studied the compound directly and as for the Eucommia - if there wasn't a true patented extraction method for the phytoandrogen, it would NOT have made the Primal Male formula...I assure you). You will never hear me claiming chasing any animal to get saliva or doing some super-duper, beat-em-all extract (completely rare to the industry ummm, and DSHEA compliant through and through)...no that is delusional and downright dishonest...but hey, who the hell am I...apparently just another guy with an "ego" - shocking, I'm sure.



And for the record...NO, I have NOT been involved in any joint formulation so my vested interest is NOT there.

Still, might appreciate an answer to the original compound as it was asked of me...and hey - if you go review that thread...what did I say? I have NO IDEA what the compound is and am UNFAMILIAR WITH THE NOMENCLATURE. That really sounds like someone who claims to "know it all."

Anyway - thanks for playing...gimme a break. Geesh!


D_
 
Yes, I have and will continue to do so...the mechanism is NOT new nor limited to the study I posted and you KNOW that...what I did that morning as I told you over at LB is find but one example from a plethora (claim what you will to suit your plight as this has seemed typical).

And here, I thought posting the most recent would be beneficial - instead I get chastized for that too, so I concede - do what you will, because this is beyond just defending your brand - this is complete misrepresentation to suit your purposes.

That said, Raloxifene has minimal immpact on the HPTA! In fact, when compared head to head as an FYI...the only "SERM" and it kind of doesn't fit the class "cleanly" that had good impact on the HPTA is Clomid...so - do what you will and continue doing it. Again, bathe in the stuff for all I care, but do NOT tell me its release may not have been premature in the way it has been touted.

You can attempt to chastize my work (Agmatine for instance, though in order to get to the bottom line here, I fortunately used to work with the people who studied the compound directly and as for the Eucommia - if there wasn't a true patented extraction method for the phytoandrogen, it would NOT have made the Primal Male formula...I assure you). You will never hear me claiming chasing any animal to get saliva or doing some super-duper, beat-em-all extract (completely rare to the industry ummm, and DSHEA compliant through and through)...no that is delusional and downright dishonest...but hey, who the hell am I...apparently just another guy with an "ego" - shocking, I'm sure.



And for the record...NO, I have NOT been involved in any joint formulation so my vested interest is NOT there.

Still, might appreciate an answer to the original compound as it was asked of me...and hey - if you go review that thread...what did I say? I have NO IDEA what the compound is and am UNFAMILIAR WITH THE NOMENCLATURE. That really sounds like someone who claims to "know it all."

Anyway - thanks for playing...gimme a break. Geesh!


D_


Assume as you may Doc about our operations because you excel at thinking you know it all. With our next release Recreate, USPlabs will release 2 new compounds and 3 new extractions. After recreate, we have a brand new Testosterone releasing compound. I assure you our products are not smoke and mirrors. You can chastise and criticize all you like, and I must admit you are soooo good with your Internet acronyms like OMIgod and capitalization of specific words.

For a doctor, you've become childish and condescending in debate, or the word "troll" may fit your internet lingo better so OMIgod, I'm done with your silliness.
 
I read in the other forums that people wrote about cissus and gyno and it made me a little worried. Is this a side-effect that has been reported in many cases? I didn't know cissus and powerfull has estrogenic properties, do they?:jaw:

Oscar

Ps. Im dosing 2/2/2 each + Anagen

In 3 years and thousands and thousands of users and repeat users(meaning the use for 6--8 months straight or longer) not 1 report and many many consumers with pre existing GYNO conditions have reported 0 agitation of symptoms.

Pretty conclusive.
 
Leucine and my use of other supplements has no relevance to this matter.

I do not have access to the study,otherwise I would not have asked USPLabs to provide the text.Given the fact that USPLabs sells cissus products I would think that you or Jacob would be happy to post up a study indicating cissus to be devoid of any chance of inducing gyno.

The abstract I provided is enough to raise healthy skepticism,as is the bulk of Dinoii's commentary.USPLabs merely dismissing my request as unfounded ,as well as labeling D's words as childish when D has presented a grounded arguement,does not paint USPLabs as a whole in a good light.

As a representative I think I would not hesitate to step up to defend my product,I would one surely do so if Avant product was called into question.



It's odd, there is an imposition for a burden of proof here, where the charges lack a leg to stand on.

Colin,

You first provide me with something beyond that single abstract to imply Cissus contains androgens and/or other gyno-inducing constituents, and I will do the legwork to dig up that whole study. If one abstract, unfounded, then legitimately refuted, is enough to sway your use, you should stay away from supplements in general.

I have read probably over 100 studies on Leucine alone and I am still undecided.
 
Back
Top