Best Natty products by category

snagencyV2.0 said:
unfortunately, as I thought, we do not have MASS 550 in UK as of yet..so, you would have to order from an online retailer that ships there - our home website store ships anywhere worldwide, shipping fees apply of course
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

stock up on some quality ish' peoples
 
mass 550 sounds great and all.. but it said in the study "on trout fish" how do you know if its effective on humans or has the same effects on muscle/protein synthesis? i would guess the effects would be so small it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference, not sold on it tbh.
 
the reviews are pulling the same results as follidrone in terms of customer satisfaction and results.

Im going to run a Mass 550 / Follidrone 90 day cylce on the 26th I believe
 
Auslifter said:
mass 550 sounds great and all.. but it said in the study "on trout fish" how do you know if its effective on humans or has the same effects on muscle/protein synthesis? i would guess the effects would be so small it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference, not sold on it tbh.
Click to expand...
you don't have to be "sold on it" .. your choice on what you wish to use

in reference to your statement however, we spent 2yrs in R&D with this one, conferring with a lot of great minds across the globe, to put this one together....we do not just throw random studies out to support our direction and decide to mix something together in poor form....remember this is cutting edge, NEW stuff -- of course there will not be many clinical studies done as of yet, these things take time....when you live on the edge of innovation and ingenuity as we do, there are not always studies in hand to present to the masses, who may wish to be "scientifically convinced" before they make purchase..

as joshlm69 says - we are getting great feedback in the early going from the beta logs, and alpha testing prior to release was extremely positive as well
 
snagencyV2.0 said:
you don't have to be "sold on it" .. your choice on what you wish to use

in reference to your statement however, we spent 2yrs in R&D with this one, conferring with a lot of great minds across the globe, to put this one together....we do not just throw random studies out to support our direction and decide to mix something together in poor form....remember this is cutting edge, NEW stuff -- of course there will not be many clinical studies done as of yet, these things take time....when you live on the edge of innovation and ingenuity as we do, there are not always studies in hand to present to the masses, who may wish to be "scientifically convinced" before they make purchase..

as joshlm69 says - we are getting great feedback in the early going from the beta logs, and alpha testing prior to release was extremely positive as well
Click to expand...

well i would rather be "scientifically convinced" that what im paying hard earned money for isn't just "cutting edge new stuff for trout fishes" and will actually provide noticeable results, not just misleading results that end up coming from the individuals own diet/training and not the supplement, when it comes to unknown compounds or so called innovative breakthrough muscle pills. where as when something has human based research, with facts backing that it will actually provide something useful towards training then im more inclined to give it a shot.
 
Auslifter said:
well i would rather be "scientifically convinced" that what im paying hard earned money for isn't just "cutting edge new stuff for trout fishes" and will actually provide noticeable results, not just misleading results that end up coming from the individuals own diet/training and not the supplement, when it comes to unknown compounds or so called innovative breakthrough muscle pills. where as when something has human based research, with facts backing that it will actually provide something useful towards training then im more inclined to give it a shot.
Click to expand...



^ this ^
 
all in how you wish to look at & perceive things, auslifter
I remember roughly when you first came to this forum, and had a preconceived perception on something that I helped you correct..
fwiw, not all trials are performed on humans, but that does not make them less relevant in their data or translation

as well: your point made here in bold
Auslifter said:
well i would rather be "scientifically convinced" that what im paying hard earned money for isn't just "cutting edge new stuff for trout fishes" and will actually provide noticeable results, not just misleading results that end up coming from the individuals own diet/training and not the supplement
Click to expand...
may seem to have some validity on the surface, but rather is greatly flawed in the simple comparison and perspective that ALL supplement use universally, no matter what it is, is going to provide better end results when care is taken to incorporate proper and beneficial dietary intake and training endeavors....to hold this standard as a "pick and choose" rebuttal, is rather quarrelsome and biased catch 22 when singling out one product on the market in this fashion

in any event, it's all good, and you can certainly observe and decide on your own with whatever criteria you feel comfortable with
we won't be mad at ya :D
 
Joshlm69 said:
Having a lot of coffee isnt very healthy though..
Click to expand...
why do you say this?
as a generic and generalized statement with no specific parameters on who is drinking or what kind of coffee we are talking about, it is essentially quite false & incorrect

check out this link, some good enlightening factoids on coffee intake from Harvard school of public health

Invalid Link Removed


Dr. Rob van DamDr. Rob van Dam
Assistant Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health

The Summary
•Drinking up to six cups a day of coffee is not associated with increased risk of death from any cause, or death from cancer or cardiovascular disease.
•Some people may still want to consider avoiding coffee or switching to decaf, especially women who are pregnant, or people who have a hard time controlling their blood pressure or blood sugar.
•It’s best to brew coffee with a paper filter, to remove a substance that causes increases in LDL cholesterol.
•Coffee may have potential health benefits, but more research needs to be done.
•Read more about coffee and tea compared to other beverages.

1. The latest Harvard study on coffee and health seems to offer good news for coffee drinkers. What did the research find?

We looked at the relationship between coffee consumption and overall mortality in the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which together included about 130,000 study volunteers. (1) At the start of the study, these healthy men and women were in their 40s and 50s. We followed them for 18 to 24 years, to see who died during that period, and to track their diet and lifestyle habits, including coffee consumption. We did not find any relationship between coffee consumption and increased risk of death from any cause, death from cancer, or death from cardiovascular disease. Even people who drank up to six cups of coffee per day were at no higher risk of death. This finding fits into the research picture that has been emerging over the past few years. For the general population, the evidence suggests that coffee drinking doesn’t have any serious detrimental health effects.

2. So for coffee drinkers, no news is good news? Why is this finding so important?

It’s an important message because people have seen coffee drinking as an unhealthy habit, along the lines of smoking and excessive drinking, and they may make a lot of effort to reduce their coffee consumption or quit drinking it altogether, even if they really enjoy it. Our findings suggest that if you want to improve your health, it’s better to focus on other lifestyle factors, such as increasing your physical activity, quitting smoking, or eating more whole grains.

3. Is there an upper limit for the amount of coffee that is healthy to drink each day?

If you’re drinking so much coffee that you get tremors, have sleeping problems, or feel stressed and uncomfortable, then obviously you’re drinking too much coffee. But in terms of effects on mortality or other health factors, for example, we don’t see any negative effects of consuming up to six cups of coffee a day. Keep in mind that our study and in most studies of coffee, a “cup” of coffee is an 8-ounce cup with 100 mg of caffeine, not the 16 ounces you would get in a grande coffee at a Starbucks, which has about 330 mg of caffeine.

Also keep in mind that the research is typically based on coffee that’s black or with a little milk or sugar, but not with the kind of high-calorie coffeehouse beverages that have become popular over the past few years. A 24-ounce mocha Frappachino at Starbucks with whipped cream has almost 500 calories—that’s 25 percent of the daily calorie intake for someone who requires 2,000 calories a day. People may not realize that having a beverage like that adds so much to their energy intake, and they may not compensate adequately by eating less over the course of the day. This could lead to weight gain over time, which could in turn increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, and that’s a major concern.

4. Is there any research that suggests coffee may have some beneficial health effects?

Yes, research over the past few years suggests that coffee consumption may protect against type 2 diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, liver cancer, and liver cirrhosis. And our latest study on coffee and mortality found that people who regularly drank coffee actually had a somewhat lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease than those who rarely drank coffee; this result needs to be confirmed in further studies, however. This is a pretty active area of research right now, and it’s not at the stage where we would say, “Start drinking coffee to increase your health even if you don’t like it.” But I think the evidence is good that for people in general—outside of a few populations, such as pregnant women, or people who have trouble controlling their blood pressure or blood sugar—coffee is one of the good, healthy beverage choices.

5. Why does it seem like scientists keep flip-flopping on whether coffee is bad for you or good for you?

Often people think of coffee just as a vehicle for caffeine. But it’s actually a very complex beverage with hundreds and hundreds of different compounds in it. Since coffee contains so many different compounds, drinking coffee can lead to very diverse health outcomes. It can be good for some things and bad for some things, and that’s not necessarily flip-flopping or inconsistent. Few foods are good for everything. That’s why we do studies on very specific health effects—for example, studies of how coffee affects the risk of diabetes—but we also conduct studies such as this most recent one looking at coffee consumption and mortality over a long period of time, which better reflects the overall health effect.

Coffee is also a bit more complex to study than some other food items. Drinking coffee often goes along together with cigarette smoking, and with a lifestyle that’s not very health conscious. For example, people who drink lots of coffee tend to exercise less. They are less likely to use dietary supplements, and they tend to have a less healthful diet. So in the early studies on coffee and health, it was hard to separate the effects of coffee from the effects of smoking or other lifestyle choices.

Over the several decades that coffee has been studied, there have been some reports that coffee may increase the risk of certain cancers or the risk of heart disease. But in better conducted studies, such as the one we just published—larger studies that have a lot of information about all other lifestyle factors and make a real effort to control for these lifestyle factors—we do not find many of these health effects that people were afraid of.

6. What is the latest research on the risks of coffee or caffeine during pregnancy?

For pregnant women, there has been quite a bit of controversy over whether high intake of coffee or caffeine may increase the risk of miscarriage. The jury is still out. But we know that the caffeine goes through the placenta and reaches the fetus, and that the fetus is very sensitive to caffeine; it metabolizes it very slowly. So for pregnant women it seems prudent to reduce coffee consumption to a low level, for example one cup a day.

7. Should people with high blood pressure consider reducing their coffee or caffeine intake? What about people with diabetes?

We know that if people are not used to using any caffeine, and they start to use caffeine, their blood pressure goes up substantially. Within a week of caffeine consumption, however, we see that the effect is less pronounced—there is less of an increase in blood pressure. After several weeks of continued caffeine consumption, however, a little bit of increase in blood pressure remains. In studies that look at the incidence of hypertension in the general population, drinking caffeinated coffee is not associated with a substantial increase in risk. But if people have hypertension, and are having a hard time controlling their hypertension, they could try switching from caffeinated coffee to decaffeinated coffee, to see if it has a beneficial effect.

With diabetes, it’s a bit of a paradox. Studies around the world consistently show that high consumption of caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee is associated with low risk of type 2 diabetes. But if you look at acute studies that just give people caffeine or caffeinated coffee, and then have them eat something rich in glucose, their sensitivity to insulin drops and their blood glucose levels are higher than expected. There isn’t any long-term data on coffee consumption and glucose control. But if people have diabetes and have trouble controlling their blood glucose, it may be beneficial for them to try switching from caffeinated to decaffeinated coffee. Making the switch from caffeinated to decaf may be better than quitting coffee altogether, because some research suggests that decaffeinated coffee actually reduces the glucose response.

8. How do you explain the paradoxical findings on coffee and caffeine consumption and diabetes?

It’s possible that there are simply different effects for short-term and long-term intake of coffee and caffeine. And, as I mentioned before, it’s becoming increasingly clear that coffee is much more than caffeine, and the health effects that you see for caffeinated coffee are often different than what you would expect based on its caffeine content.

For example, if you look at exercise performance, it seems that caffeine can be somewhat beneficial, but caffeinated coffee is not. Or if you look at blood pressure and compare the effects of caffeinated coffee to the effects of caffeine, you’ll find that caffeinated coffee causes blood pressure increases that are substantially weaker than what one would expect for the amount of caffeine it contains. The same is true for the relationship between coffee, caffeine, and blood glucose after a meal. It’s possible that there are compounds in coffee that may counteract the effect of caffeine, but more research needs to be done.

9. Is drinking coffee made with a paper filter healthier than drinking boiled coffee or other types of coffee?

Coffee contains a substance called cafestol that is a potent stimulator of LDL cholesterol levels. Cafestol is found in the oily fraction of coffee, and when you brew coffee with a paper filter, the cafestol gets left behind in the filter. Other methods of coffee preparation, such as the boiled coffee common in Scandinavian countries, French press coffee, or Turkish coffee, are much higher in cafestol. So for people who have high cholesterol levels or who want to prevent having high cholesterol levels, it is better to choose paper filtered coffee or instant coffee, since they have much lower levels of cafestol than boiled or French press coffee. Espresso is somewhere in the middle; it has less cafestol than boiled or French press coffee, but more than paper filtered coffee.

10. Do tea and coffee have similar beneficial effects?

One could expect some of the beneficial effects of coffee to be similar for tea, since some of the compounds are similar. A study in China has found that drinking large quantities of Oolongtea—a liter a day—is beneficial for glycemic control in people with diabetes. But research on tea in the U.S. has not shown the type of beneficial effect we see for coffee, probably because people in the U.S.tend to drink tea that is weaker in strength and tend to drink less of it.

References

1. Lopez-Garcia E, van Dam RM, Li TY,Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Hu FB. The Relationship of Coffee Consumption with Mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:904-914. Summary for patients.

Terms of Use

The aim of the Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Source is to provide timely information on diet and nutrition for clinicians, allied health professionals, and the public. The contents of this Web site are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this Web site. The information does not mention brand names, nor does it endorse any particular products.
Click to expand...
 
Drinking a lot of coffee also promotes having yellow and stained teeth, I'm sure that's not worthwhile, instead of just buying a pre workout, you only get 1 set
 
Auslifter said:
well i would rather be "scientifically convinced" that what im paying hard earned money for isn't just "cutting edge new stuff for trout fishes" and will actually provide noticeable results, not just misleading results that end up coming from the individuals own diet/training and not the supplement, when it comes to unknown compounds or so called innovative breakthrough muscle pills. where as when something has human based research, with facts backing that it will actually provide something useful towards training then im more inclined to give it a shot.
Click to expand...

f'' science....scientists change their minds and get things wrong more than weathermen, wait---weathermen are scientists, lol!!!

i would rather base my purchases on:
1. companys i trust
2. word of mouth-if something works, people are gonna talk...same for stuff that doesn't work!!!
3. recommendations from guys who have recommended good stuff to me before


in my almost 9 years on this forum i have tried hundreds of supplements, and those 3 rules of thumb have worked 95% of the time....the other 5% wasn't that the product didn't work for most, it just didn't work for me....

see that is why we have forums like AM, to compare our results.....otherwise just read muscle magazine ad's and get all the "scientifically convinced" you ever wanted to be!!!
 
Teeth get brushed 2x a day type 1 diabetic so I take it black but I do smoke like a chimney
 
Just throwing this out there, but if clear muscle does what it says it does, it's not anabolic, it's anti-catabolic.
 
Joshlm69 said:
Drinking a lot of coffee also promotes having yellow and stained teeth, I'm sure that's not worthwhile, instead of just buying a pre workout, you only get 1 set
Click to expand...

There is a large body of evidence supporting the potential health benefits of coffee, including in diabetes risk reduction. Check out PubMed IDs 20171062, 16443894 as good places to start. Such studies exist on a range of conditions, including various forms of cancer risk reduction.
 
thebigt said:
f'' science....scientists change their minds and get things wrong more than weathermen, wait---weathermen are scientists, lol!!!

i would rather base my purchases on:
1. companys i trust
2. word of mouth-if something works, people are gonna talk...same for stuff that doesn't work!!!
3. recommendations from guys who have recommended good stuff to me before
Click to expand...

Scientists don't just "change their minds." New evidence comes out. That's how science works.

Sure, a product that works will have great word of mouth. But there's usually some science there, too. ;)
 
TheNietzsche said:
Scientists don't just "change their minds." New evidence comes out. That's how science works.

Sure, a product that works will have great word of mouth. But there's usually some science there, too. ;)
Click to expand...


that is true for every walk of life....that is how life works. although i agree that science has it's place.

but---i would rather go by word of mouth, than be scientifically convinced that something SHOULD work. even big pharma drops huge amounts of money on drugs that are scientifically convincing on paper and bomb in the real world, the chances of this happening with supplements is much greater, imo. now once a supplement is scientifically researched and THEN gets great word of mouth i am ready to buy.
 
thebigt said:
even big pharma drops huge amounts of money on drugs that are scientifically convincing on paper and bomb in the real world, the chances of this happening with supplements is much greater, imo. now once a supplement is scientifically researched and THEN gets great word of mouth i am ready to buy.
Click to expand...

Well I can't argue with that.
 
Yea, screw science. Who needs objective data when you have subjective potentially biased anecdotal feedback to go off of.
 
JudoJosh said:
Yea, screw science. Who needs objective data when you have subjective potentially biased anecdotal feedback to go off of.
Click to expand...

Scientific studies are often times also biased and poorly run. They are also often constructed to provide a desired outcome. This is not to say that it should be ignored, but perhaps considered part of a whole with regards to making a decision on a particular supplement.
 
todd muelheim said:
Scientific studies are often times also biased and poorly run. They are also often constructed to provide a desired outcome. This is not to say that it should be ignored, but perhaps considered part of a whole with regards to making a decision on a particular supplement.
Click to expand...

Can you back up these statements? Show me that the majority (you state "often" which implies many) that have been constructed to show a certain outcome.

I think you'll find that you are very wrong; especially as many credible studies (those peer reviewed in reputable journals) use placebo controlled trials and/ or are at least single blind.

People who do not work in research are quick to refute it based on nothing but speculation.
 
Jiigzz said:
Can you back up these statements? Show me that the majority (you state "often" which implies many) that have been constructed to show a certain outcome. I think you'll find that you are very wrong; especially as many credible studies (those peer reviewed in reputable journals) use placebo controlled trials and/ or are at least single blind. People who do not work in research are quick to refute it based on nothing but speculation.
Click to expand...

Often and majority are two very different words. I do work in research and if you do a simple google search you can find what you are looking for. Idk, start with glutamine or hmb. If you think that scientific studies are the be all end all and that anecdotal evidence is worthless then I see no reason to spin both of our wheels here.
 
I think there is some misunderstanding of scientific research and what the implications are. This is something that I have seen on both sides of the coin
 
Jiigzz said:
Can you back up these statements? Show me that the majority (you state "often" which implies many) that have been constructed to show a certain outcome.

I think you'll find that you are very wrong; especially as many credible studies (those peer reviewed in reputable journals) use placebo controlled trials and/ or are at least single blind.

People who do not work in research are quick to refute it based on nothing but speculation.
Click to expand...

there is corruption in every profession, when there is ample motivation to cheat someone usually finds a way to do it....it happens in medicine with unnecessary surgeries, it happens with fda passing drugs that should not be passed, it happens in law enforcement, it happens in government...why would we expect science to be immune to corruption?
 
thebigt said:
there is corruption in every profession, when there is ample motivation to cheat someone usually finds a way to do it....it happens in medicine with unnecessary surgeries, it happens with fda passing drugs that should not be passed, it happens in law enforcement, it happens in government...why would we expect science to be immune to corruption?
Click to expand...

We don't; but relying on anecdotal to determine efficacy can also cause issue.

Look up the MSG study where people were giving two meals containing MSG but were only told one had it; everyone had headaches and other 'symptoms' from the first meal but none with the second.

Both contained MSG yet only the one they knew had it caused issue
 
todd muelheim said:
Also, the misinterpretation of these studies is probably what makes me most insane.
Click to expand...

I think this is a bigger issue than flawed study designs.
 
Jiigzz said:
We don't; but relying on anecdotal to determine efficacy can also cause issue.

Look up the MSG study where people were giving two meals containing MSG but were only told one had it; everyone had headaches and other 'symptoms' from the first meal but none with the second.

Both contained MSG yet only the one they knew had it caused issue
Click to expand...

point taken:
nothing is infallible...
 
JudoJosh said:
Yea, screw science. Who needs objective data when you have subjective potentially biased anecdotal feedback to go off of.
Click to expand...

wow...i thought someone with a science background would embrace anocdotal feedback as an invaluable tool.

i wonder how many times researchers have been targeting a compound for treatment of an ailment or disease only to find it didn't work...but thru anecdotal feedback found it had amazing effects on something they hadn't considered? since they weren't targeting that effect it is doubtful they would have discovered it if not for feedback.

look at the pdr, how many drugs have muti-purpose prescribing uses outside of what they were intended? i would be willing to bet at least a few of these other uses were discovered by anecdotal feedback. also side effects comes into play, anecdotal feedback seems like it would play a significant role in determining side effects since the person giving the anecdotal feedback is the one suffering from them.

any scientist or researcher who would discount anecdotal feedback...well i just don't believe there are many who do, i have to think that if you are smart enough to be a scientist then you should be smart enough to see the value of anecdotal feedback, just my opinion.
 
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I never said anecdotal evidence didn't have a value.
 
Jiigzz said:
I enjoy reading studies and stuff so I like to defend what I stand for :D
Click to expand...

i enjoy logging and trying new products then giving anecdotal feedback, so i also like to defend what i stand for.


you can read studies on pubmed or numerous other scientific sites, i actually go to them believe it or not....but the feedback i get from products on this forum is what i rely on.

if not for sharing feedback why would we even come here to AM when there are no studies being done here?
 
and to get this straight...... ArA basically makes your work out for muscle break down more effective? Hence why greater affect of DOMS occur? I'm trying to understand why taking DOMS in a pill will help me achieve gains
 
symbianblack said:
and to get this straight...... ArA basically makes your work out for muscle break down more effective? Hence why greater affect of DOMS occur? I'm trying to understand why taking DOMS in a pill will help me achieve gains
Click to expand...

ArA is a pro-inflammatory, it causes inflammation in the body. Unlike fish oil, it is an anti-inflammatory. So basically the simple answer to your question is yes, it causes more muscle breakdown, thus the increase in DOMS!
 
Remember, not everyone will feel DOMS and they are not an indication that the supplement is working or not.
 
thebigt said:
i enjoy logging and trying new products then giving anecdotal feedback, so i also like to defend what i stand for.

you can read studies on pubmed or numerous other scientific sites, i actually go to them believe it or not....but the feedback i get from products on this forum is what i rely on.

if not for sharing feedback why would we even come here to AM when there are no studies being done here?
Click to expand...

Exactly why both sides are important to forum life :)
 
symbianblack said:
and to get this straight...... ArA basically makes your work out for muscle break down more effective? Hence why greater affect of DOMS occur? I'm trying to understand why taking DOMS in a pill will help me achieve gains
Click to expand...

That, and it also enhances pgf2a signalling.

I cover how it works in the Ara help thread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top