Do supplements really work?

matthias7 said:
Cig ads.... the UK banned those as well ;)

Well beer ads have ever been and ever thus will be. It sounds like I'm living in Singapore -where they banned chewing gum and then lifted the ban for "medicinal purposes".
Click to expand...

But did they ban cigarettes? ;)
 
"work" is a very abstract notion.

by work, are we saying.. "does it build more muscle"?

A creatine mono supplement 70% of the time, increases ATP levels in one's body. Does that build muscle... not really.... depends on your diet, lifestyle and workout.

Protein supplement provides protein for the body. Does that build muscle... not necessarily, depends on your diet, lifestyle and workout...

and so on


and so on..
 
Steveoph said:
I guess it comes down to definitions, but the PDE5 inhibitory properties of Icariin have been Invalid Link Removed Viagara (Sildenafil) . So I think never was a stronger word than you intended to use :dunno: The upshot to drugs is that we know the safety and toxicology data on them.
Click to expand...

More accurately, I could have said, "many - if not most - people wrongly expect immediately-apparent effects and definite short-term outcomes from the drugs they take; assuming that supplements provide the same or closely similar results in similar time-frames will not only lead to disappoinment, but may cause many to assume that the difference in perceived affect results from the drug "working" and the supplement "not working". The most common effects of this misapprehension are misuse/abuse of supplements in search of that expected reaction, and the compromise of overall health through avoidance of supposedly bogus supplements*."

But that seemed over-long & complex. Was I wrong? Is this ^^ better?


* - remember, "supplements" includes all vitamin and mineral, GRAS herbs, missing or short-supply co-factors, more easily assimilable forms thereof, etc. "Supplements" != "Muscle-Tech"
 
I think the most natural meaning of "work" to a non supplement junkie would be whether it has the effect and magnitude of effect that the manufacturer claims. In almost all cases the answer to that is no.

To a supplement junkie/gym rat, "work" can mean even a near imperceptible increase in strength, size, and/or fat loss. I think for some it's almost like women with clothes...it's like getting a new toy in the hopes of getting huge and shredded.

Two different perspectives. I go by whether I've had a noticeable improvement over what I got in gains before and after the use of a supplement to decide if it "works." I'm not going for the kinda-sorta felt something. There are very few supplements I have used have given me noticeable increased rates of improvement.

The BCAA's, proteins, fish oils, and stuff like that are necessities and I know they give me noticeable increased rates of improvement...because I know I could never eat 300 grams of protein a day of meat, fish, eggs, and poultry, and I know that results are very much related to a diet that contains adequate amounts of nutrients. But the ironic thing is that these aren't the types of supplements that bring the outrageous claims...it's all of the other stuff...most of which does not work (using my definition.)

One guy said something to the effect of "if supplements worked there would only need to be one." There is a good point buried in there. If a supplement were invented that pretty much guaranteed you a 2lb muscle gain every month, within three years, you'd be hulking. And you'd stick to it...wouldn't change it for anything that didn't provide you a better result. And there'd be less supplements on the market because having to beat what works would be a huge barrier to entry. Look at anabolic steroids...same stuff that was said to work back 15 years ago when I was a kid still works. Then look at supplements...does anyone think smilax, yohimbe, Russian Bear, Cybergenics, chromium picolinate, boron, Hot Stuff, bull testicle serums, etc. work? They were marketed as steroid like back in the day, as alot of the current stuff is now. Fact is, if these supplements were providing results beyond what you could achieve naturally, we'd all be huge...and yet, when I see reviews of supplements where a guy swears the product worked, half the time the guy is coming off of a long layoff, or weights 165 lbs, or something similar.

Take waximaize...I was told it was going to give a noticeable feeling of muscle fullness and overall tightness, as if water was being sucked out of bodyfat and pumped into muscles. I used two huge tubs of it...never felt a thing and never got increases greater than I've gotten before or after using it. And the gym I work out at has one of the best powerlifters in the world working out there...he's noticed nothing whatsoever either and he's stopped taking it. That'll be gone in a few years...replaced by something else...yet the average size of everyone taking supplements will stay the same...indicating that the new hot supplement that replaces waximaize isn't doing much either.

The rule of thumb I go by when deciding whether to try a supplement is to try and read the boards and see if there is anything that is getting an overwhelming majority of positive reviews and that good reviews are coming from guys that are big and strong.

I may be completely full of **** because there is lots I haven't tried (couldn't try everything if I wanted to) and maybe I just haven't tried much of the stuff that works...but I felt compelled to write this post, for what reason, I don't know.
 
strategicmove said:
It would be great to know who sponsored those studies about multi(vitamins) reducing the average life span. It would also be interesting to know why the FDA is looking to ban Pyridoxamine (a Vit B6 analogue) and Pyridoxial-5'-Phosphate (another Vitamin B6 analogue) and classify them as drugs, if multi(vitamins) did not work. Or why GlaxoSmithKline bought Sirtris for $720 million in cash mainly to obtain deep research knowledge on Resveratrol's activation of sirtuins and related research. Just to name a few examples. I know resveratrol is not a vitamin, but the illustration is clear.
Click to expand...

Pyridoxial-5'-Phosphate + Pyridoxamine I'd better buy a heap of this - quick, quick, quick ;)
 
BoyFromAus said:
"work" is a very abstract notion.

by work, are we saying.. "does it build more muscle"?

A creatine mono supplement 70% of the time, increases ATP levels in one's body. Does that build muscle... not really.... depends on your diet, lifestyle and workout.


and so on..
Click to expand...

I didn't do weights till I tried creatine. It makes me want to just get to the gym and do it and you just don't get tired. It hurts my kidneys on loading so I'm trying to find a dose that I can handle.
 
Here is the formula, diet and experience first. When you know how your body reacts without supplements, you will know better how your body works with supplements. Yes there are supplements that work and work very well. The better you know how to use them the better they work. You need to find supps that work for you. People who say most of the supplements we discuss here don't work are displaying a lack of experience, what they are trying to say or should be saying is they have not gotten supplementation to work for themselves. There are some who do not repspond well to supplements in general however.

People who do not respond well to food in (ectomorphs) may not respond much better to supplementation, I mean why would they, ectomorphs have difficulty absorbing nutrients what makes you think it is going to be so different with herbals. Now some become more efficient with both as there body changes, this through stingent dieting and hard work over a number of years.

Were all different and react differently to different compounds. You can use supplementation to make a large impact if you know how. Knowing how takes years.
 
matthias7 said:
Pyridoxial-5'-Phosphate + Pyridoxamine I'd better buy a heap of this - quick, quick, quick ;)
Click to expand...

Yep! I am stocking as much of them as I can, especially Pyridoxamine.
 
poison said:
1) How do you know it hurts your kidneys, and 2) don't load, no need.
Click to expand...

My GP (physician) is disapproving of creatine saying "it would do" (aggrevate my kidneys). Strange my GP's knowledge of biochemistry is okay but it was surprising how they homed in very quickly on this response.

I really need to flesh this out more because nothing works like creatine. Cortyceps does heaps of stuff but it ain't herbal creatine.

Physiology was never my thing and how the kidneys are using ionic gradients and exactly what creatinin is up to is pretty key to understanding this.

Don't load pretty essential. How came up with this idea to start with?
 
My understanding is that elevated creatinine is a good marker for some kidney issues, but is not an issue in and of itself. Doctors see elevated creatinine, and assume there's a problem somewhere, because usually there would be...outside someone supplementing creatine. In other words, creatinine does no damage, it is simply something that would be a warning in someone NOT supplementing creatine. If you're supplementing, you'll have elevated levels, which will simply signify that you are supplementing creatine.

The loading phase of 5gr 4 times a day for 5 days has the same effect as 5gr once a day for 28 days: full elevated muscular creatine stores. They both get to exactly the same place, one just takes longer. Here's the rub: I read a study that showed that part of the loading phase's success was that creatine taken pre-workout is circulating in the bloodstream, which *may* have an effect above and beyond full creatine stores. The 4x daily loading phase ensured creatine was taken at some point pre-workout, and was circulating in the blood.

So as far as loading, 5gr a day will load you just fine, with less fuss (and less creatinine, if that's your worry). Taking your daily dose 45 minutes pre-workout should take care of the issue of circulating creatine in the system, if indeed there's truth to that.

Hultman et al (1) examined the effects of supplementation of creatine monohydrate on skeletal muscle creatine accumulation and degradation and on urinary creatinine excretion. A total of 31 male subjects participated in different dosage schemes over different time periods. Group 1 consisted of 6 subjects and ingested 20 g/day for 6 days; muscle creatine content was measured by biopsy on day 0, 7, 21, and 35. Group 2 had 9 subjects and ingested 20 g/day for 6 days and then 2 g/day for 28 days; muscle creatine content was measured on day 0,7, 21, and 35. Group 3 had 9 subjects and ingested 3 g/day for 28 days; muscle creatine content was measured on day 0, 15, and 29. Group 4 had 7 subjects and ingested a placebo (20 g/day for 5 days); urinary creatinine excretion was measured at various intervals. This same group repeated this same experiment with creatine supplementation.

FINDINGS: For groups 1 and 2, there were no significant changes in ATP concentration. Both groups had significant increases in muscle total creatine content. The majority of this increase was due to increases in free creatine. Combined data for groups 1 and 2 also revealed significant increases in muscle phosphocreatine and the phosphocreatine/ATP ratio after the 6 day loading phase. Group 2's levels of free creatine remained significantly elevated after 35 days, but groups 1's levels had returned to baseline levels.

Group 3 showed no significant changes in ATP concentration. After 28 days of supplementation, group 3's total creatine levels had increased by a similar amount as group 1 after 6 days of supplementation.

Group 4 showed greater urinary creatinine excretion over the final 20 days of the study after creatine ingestion when compared to ingestion of a placebo.

IMPLICATIONS: Ingesting creatine monohydrate at 20 g/day for 6 days can increase muscle free creatine, possibly enhancing recovery between short bouts of high intensity exercise. Once muscle saturation is achieved after 6 days, only 2 g/day is necessary to maintain saturated tissue levels of creatine. After supplementation is halted, it takes approximately a month for total creatine in muscle to return to normal levels.

Individuals looking to save money can achieve saturation within a month's time by ingesting only 3 g/day.

1. Hultman, E., K. Soderlund, J.A. Timmons, G. Cederblad, and P.L. Greenhaff. Muscle creatine loading in men. J. Appl. Physiol. 81(1):232-237. 1996.
Click to expand...
 
Also, keep in mind that studies have been done over 5 years in length, that's athletes supplementing creatine for over 5 years straight, with zero evidence of negative side effects. I myself have gone several years straight, and I'm here to tell the tale (though of course I was not being tested at all).

Creatine protects the brain, the heart, prevents catabolism in bed-ridden athletes, and more, besides the ATP advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top