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

DAA

chipmunk

New member
Hi

Why is D.A.A. not mentioned here? I was under the impression it is a great natural T booster?

Is that correct..or has some research/proof come out to the contrary?

I am looking for the best product to boost nat T levels. yes i lift heavy, sleep, eat clean, etc...

Thanks
 
There are tons of threads about DAA here.

What tends to happen on forums is whatever is the latest gets the buzz. DAA first came out some time ago so the buzz around it has died down considerably but it is still a solid compound and is included in products still and is still talked about on the boards.

Did you have any questions about DAA specifically?
 
no not really. Just wanted to know it is worth taking.

i see the "top 5 supplements" and no-one said D.A.A. so kind of wondered if some new research came out to de-bunk it.

thank you
 
no not really. Just wanted to know it is worth taking.

i see the "top 5 supplements" and no-one said D.A.A. so kind of wondered if some new research came out to de-bunk it.

thank you
 
With due respect all the posts i see on the first [page were about P.C.T. not specifically about D.A.A.

Any how..thx
 
Recent studies show that there's no increase in test and some studies show lower test after use.
 
Matthandyo said:
Recent studies show that there's no increase in test and some studies show lower test after use.
Click to expand...

Yep this is what i heard as well so i havent been using it pct.
 
chipmunk said:
Hi

Why is D.A.A. not mentioned here? I was under the impression it is a great natural T booster?

Is that correct..or has some research/proof come out to the contrary?

I am looking for the best product to boost nat T levels. yes i lift heavy, sleep, eat clean, etc...

Thanks
Click to expand...

If you are interested OP, here is the study that showed REDUCED free & total Testosterone at 3 and 6g/day.

J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2015 Apr 1;12:15. doi: 10.1186/s12970-015-0078-7. eCollection 2015.


And another showing no increase:

the gonadal hormones and cortisol and prolactin were unaffected by 28 days of NMDA supplementation and not associated with the observed increases in muscle strength and mass. At the dose provided, NMDA had no effect on HPG axis activity or ergogenic effects in skeletal muscle. Key PointsIn response to 28 days of heavy resistance training and NMDA supplementation, similar increases in muscle mass and strength in both groups occurred; however, the increases were not different between supplement groups.The supplementation of NMDA had no preferential effect on augmenting testosterone or decreasing estrogen, cortisol, and prolactin.

Heavy Resistance Training and Supplementation With the Alleged Testosterone Booster Nmda has No Effect on Body Composition, Muscle Performance, and... - PubMed - NCBI
 
chipmunk said:
Hi

Why is D.A.A. not mentioned here? I was under the impression it is a great natural T booster?

Is that correct..or has some research/proof come out to the contrary?

I am looking for the best product to boost nat T levels. yes i lift heavy, sleep, eat clean, etc...

Thanks
Click to expand...

Well what happens on this board is people see one negative "study" posted that they don't completely understand and then discount the ingredient completely.
 
T-Bone said:
Well what happens on this board is people see one negative "study" posted that they don't completely understand and then discount the ingredient completely.
Click to expand...
People have a hard time understanding context

OP, DAA is fine to take if you want to try it out
 
T-Bone said:
Well what happens on this board is people see one negative "study" posted that they don't completely understand and then discount the ingredient completely.
Click to expand...

There are a few studies, but I'll admit none of which are "conclusive" and all ending by any means. Also, it should be understood that DAA may indeed have a much greater impact on T levels for those older or with low T already vs the type of subjects in the studies that showed little to no increase in T.
 
Like JJ said, it's mostly about what the newest shiny toy is. DAA has been around a while, so it's kind of old news. As mentioned, the studies cited above sparked some discussion and there's been even less talk about it since.

What I can say is that I've used DAA several times with great success; particularly in how I felt while using it. Hope that helps.
 
JudoJosh said:
People have a hard time understanding context

OP, DAA is fine to take if you want to try it out
Click to expand...

Yeah it's like how some people are with the weather. In the Wintertime people see that it's going to snow and that's all they see. They don't realize that they live in a huge state and the weather isn't the same for the entire state. They just see snow in the forecast and turn off the television believing its going to snow. Then they go about telling everyone else it's going to snow because they "saw it on the news". Now more people are infected because they believe what some random person told them is truth.
 
T-Bone said:
Yeah it's like how some people are with the weather. In the Wintertime people see that it's going to snow and that's all they see. They don't realize that they live in a huge state and the weather isn't the same for the entire state. They just see snow in the forecast and turn off the television believing its going to snow. Then they go about telling everyone else it's going to snow because they "saw it on the news". Now more people are infected because they believe what some random person told them is truth.
Click to expand...

Rather than just making metaphorical comparisons to the weather forecast why don't you say if and why you disagree with the most recent studies which indicate DAA may not be all it was initially spun out to be? What is the "context" you speak of we need to take into account.?
 
ucheoma said:
Rather than just making metaphorical comparisons to the weather forecast why don't you say if and why you disagree with the most recent studies which indicate DAA may not be all it was initially spun out to be? What is the "context" you speak of we need to take into account.?
Click to expand...

Ok well one of the studies posted used 4 caps of Muscle Warefare NMDA. I'm referring to the second one posted by kboxer. That would 706 mg of "NMDA Proprietary Blend"....So you really have no idea how much DAA your getting or even what type. The positive studies were on "Sodium D-aspartate" at 3 grams per day. The first study posted by him doesn't indicate, or I can't find the type of DAA studied.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Another thing is these studies used youngsters in their 20's with most likely already high testosterone levels. I have yet to see a study saying DAA lowers testosterone for an older guy with already low levels, or people that are post-cycle when levels are already shot. The majority of the younger folks use this in PCT anyway...

One or two flawed negative studies don't cancel out the positive ones or for that matter user experience.
 
T-Bone said:
Another thing is these studies used youngsters in their 20's with most likely already high testosterone levels. I have yet to see a study saying DAA lowers testosterone for an older guy with already low levels, or people that are post-cycle when levels are already shot. The majority of the younger folks use this in PCT anyway...

One or two flawed negative studies don't cancel out the positive ones or for that matter user experience.
Click to expand...

Take your point about the 2nd study but perhaps to be fair this shouldn't be presented as a study on anything in particular given there are so many compound in that product. However I cant see how you can discount the first study out of hand as 'flawed' simply because it doesn't indicate they type of DAA used. I think 'inconclusive' would be a more balanced assessment. Also there have only been two studies in humans: one positive, the second reporting t levels were not significantly altered (as per the 2015 study)

But I can understand why you'd be more sceptical than others about studies with negative connotations for DAA.
 
Hey Chipmunk. I read another post from you that you are in your 40s. I'd start by investing $65 in a CBC and Female Hormone Panel from PrivateMDlabs dot com. This will tell you your total testosterone, LH, FSH, estrogen levels. After you know these then you can decide if you'd like to try any of the "boosters".
 
I have to agree that if you have healthy test levels pretty much all test boosters are not going to really do much. Heck even script Clomid is going to work far better for some 30-40 year old or someone in PCT vs a 20 year old.

Studies are great but lets all remember that for years the "research" told everyone that AAS were not effective for muscle gains lol.
 
BCseacow83 said:
I have to agree that if you have healthy test levels pretty much all test boosters are not going to really do much. Heck even script Clomid is going to work far better for some 30-40 year old or someone in PCT vs a 20 year old.

Studies are great but lets all remember that for years the "research" told everyone that AAS were not effective for muscle gains lol.
Click to expand...

research said anabolics weren't effective for gaining muscle? Ima need to see a paper before I believe research ever suggested anything even remotely like this.
 
T-Bone said:
Another thing is these studies used youngsters in their 20's with most likely already high testosterone levels. I have yet to see a study saying DAA lowers testosterone for an older guy with already low levels, or people that are post-cycle when levels are already shot. The majority of the younger folks use this in PCT anyway...

One or two flawed negative studies don't cancel out the positive ones or for that matter user experience.
Click to expand...

yeah...i know how the internet works..:-)

I'll keep taking it. like a multi vit.

Thx
 
kenpoengineer said:
Hey Chipmunk. I read another post from you that you are in your 40s. I'd start by investing $65 in a CBC and Female Hormone Panel from PrivateMDlabs dot com. This will tell you your total testosterone, LH, FSH, estrogen levels. After you know these then you can decide if you'd like to try any of the "boosters".
Click to expand...

yeah...maybe that's a good start.

Thx
 
JudoJosh said:
research said anabolics weren't effective for gaining muscle? Ima need to see a paper before I believe research ever suggested anything even remotely like this.
Click to expand...

Grab a PDR from like 20-30 years ago. Many of the studies were set up poorly or improperly. Too low of a dose was usually the main problem. They would use a dose that would suppress natural levels of test but not a high enough one to surpass what the natty test was doing. They would then conclude that AAS did not increase muscle/performance. They would also tend to use no training during the test. My point is not that AAS do not work, of course they do. My point was when a study is not properly designed the results have to almost be dismissed or at least taken with a grain of salt.
 
BCseacow83 said:
Grab a PDR from like 20-30 years ago. Many of the studies were set up poorly or improperly. Too low of a dose was usually the main problem. They would use a dose that would suppress natural levels of test but not a high enough one to surpass what the natty test was doing. They would then conclude that AAS did not increase muscle/performance. They would also tend to use no training during the test. My point is not that AAS do not work, of course they do. My point was when a study is not properly designed the results have to almost be dismissed or at least taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
Again, provide an example
 
I don't have time to dig up old papers from 40 some odd years ago. It used to be plainly stated in old PDR's that they did not increase muscle and such. This is not a thread about whether or not they work, they do no debate about that. The studies were set up to fail, most likely with an agenda of keeping athletes from partaking in them. If you don't believe me that's fine but they did POORLY designed studies on anabolics years ago.
 
Ok here a pretty good review of research. A summery of results and why they were WRONG like I said is on page 7 and 8

.researchgate.net/profile/Fred_Hartgens/publication/8460137_Effects_of_androgenic-anabolic_steroids_in_athletes/links/546c64280cf20dedafd5547d.

add pdf at the end and search this can't post links.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top