Jiigzz
Legend
I think Ep1c is worth a shot. It's just my experience.
I want to give it another go in the next few months because some people's results have been fantastic and I feel like i'm missing out somewhat lol
Anyone not getting results from -epi? check in here.
- Thread starter fightnews
- Start date
I think Ep1c is worth a shot. It's just my experience.
I want to give it another go in the next few months because some people's results have been fantastic and I feel like i'm missing out somewhat lol
Goliath1
Banned
That's pretty much my thoughts..
I would double dose it myself, just not sure how cost effective it would end up being.. I would be disappointed to get anything less than amazing results..
A few buddies of mine have ran it and said endurance was really the only noticeable difference that stood out to them..
But it would be nice to find some natty supps that provide good results.. My favorite natty stack as of now is X-Gels and Anabeta..
GigaPaladin
New member
I've taken this stuff both with and without Green Tea Extract which is supposed to be an antioxidant. DO you think that may have hindered my gains? I mean does that hinder Cox-2 or whatever? I took it because there was a thread on bb.com where they talked about how green tea and vitamin c might enhance absorption of epicatechin. I only took 200 mg vitamin C which I always take with my nitrates so I don't think that did anything adversely
GigaPaladin
New member
Truthfully, now that I think about it I was on Follidrone for 3-4 weeks before I added the Green Tea and I didn't notice anything the first 3-4 weeks either. Reason I added the Green Tea is because the stuff wasn't doing anything.
kenpoengineer
Well-known member
Here are my results from Follidrone (this is in my log with details). I'm 54 and have always been a hard gainer:
6/2 to 8/1/2014
Weight : 158 lbs (No change due to eating Maintenance or slightly under)
Chest : 41 inches 41
Waist : 35 inches 34 (-1 Yes!!)
Arms : 15 inches 14.5 (-0.5! Boo!)
Shoulders : 46.5 inches 47.75 (+1.25 Yes!)
Foreams : 11.5 inches 12 (+0.5 Yes!))
Neck : 15.5 inches 15 (-0.5 Interesting)
Hips : 38 inches 38
Thighs : 23 inches 22.5 (-0.5 Boo!)
Calves : 13.5 inches 13.25
My AVI pic is a month before starting and here is my latest pic:
Invalid Link Removed
6/2 to 8/1/2014
Weight : 158 lbs (No change due to eating Maintenance or slightly under)
Chest : 41 inches 41
Waist : 35 inches 34 (-1 Yes!!)
Arms : 15 inches 14.5 (-0.5! Boo!)
Shoulders : 46.5 inches 47.75 (+1.25 Yes!)
Foreams : 11.5 inches 12 (+0.5 Yes!))
Neck : 15.5 inches 15 (-0.5 Interesting)
Hips : 38 inches 38
Thighs : 23 inches 22.5 (-0.5 Boo!)
Calves : 13.5 inches 13.25
My AVI pic is a month before starting and here is my latest pic:
Invalid Link Removed
nicksox15
Well-known member
I'm going to be giving this a shot in the next month but find those numbers insane. Lots of good feed back speaks to increased endurance and such, but saying that a 40 lb increase in bench in two weeks is due to epi is crazy. When I see that kind of talk it really turns me off from that person's feed back.
hurdlemaker
Well-known member
epi and anavar my friend, the two are a powerful combo for strength and muscular endurance. Maybe u didn't read the var part for that individual...var alone will usually cause a 20lb increase in that time, epi brought it to another level. No reason for me to ever make any of this up
kissdadookie
Well-known member
1) I've already addressed that study and how it's not very convincing that the stuff is actually inhibiting myostatin (again, vitamin-D3 has been shown to have a pronounced effect on myostatin).
2) That study had no control group.
3) That study tested GRIP strength out of all things.
4) You're not gathering diddly squat from the MOA of (-)epi because the overwhelming evidence available strongly points to it being mainly a powerful anti-oxidant/anti-inflammatory.
5) You're making very very very inaccurate assumptions about WHAT anti-oxidants/anti-inflammatories are possible of ESPECIALLY when we are talking about phytochemicals. They have a whole slew of not very well understood but very promising effects which INCLUDES strong body recomp potential AND ergogenic potential (even the study that was damning resveratol as being counterproductive to the positive effects of exercise actually showed that aerobic capacity was improved by 80% IIRC).
6) IF OL actually did all this research and understands the ingredient well, why are they essentially practically last to market after numerous out companies have put out their (-)epi products?
7) Look at the marketing of your brand and products, it really boils down to you undercutting the competitors on price. Plain and simple and that is TOTALLY FINE. That is a TOTALLY LEGITIMATE SALES STRATEGY. Just don't go around suggesting that you guys have placed all this work into researching the ingredients in your products, all signs points to you guys having not done so or else your products wouldn't essentially consist of putting out existing products but for cheaper (thus competing mainly on price, which again, THAT IS TOTALLY FINE).
8) There ARE many studies on (-)epi, you are correct on that. It's obvious however that most likely yourself or OL in general didn't actually bother to go look through the studies because if you did, it would become VERY obvious that all signs points to it being a very interesting and promising phytonutrient which has very strong anti-oxidant/anti-inflammatory properties.
9) Lastly, and this is something worth pointing out, what your basically saying about (-)epi right now had already been said LONG ago by Brundel. At least Brundel actually appears to have read through the data and he shared many sources on this board. So essentially this smells a lot like you guys just cherry picking (without further investigating on your part) what you most likely saw being posted on the ingredient (mainly by Brundel) on this board.
FINALLY, why are you folks having a hissy fit over this? I have IN NO WAY damned (-)epi as being ineffective. The available EVIDENCE strongly suggests the effects it has is due to it's anti-oxidant/anti-inflammatory nature rather than directly inhibiting myostatin because the data of it inhibiting myostatin is pretty shaky at the moment. Thus ultimately it's not me being stuck on the idea of it possibly not actually being a myostatin inhibitor, it appears moreso that you guys are stuck on the idea of promoting it as a myostatin inhibitor because let's face it, claiming something is a myostatin inhibitor just sounds a lot cooler than saying it's an anti-oxidant/anti-inflammatory. From a marketing standpoint, I get it, but I'm not a vendor nor am I a retailer, thus I am pointing out information as they appear, not trying to wrap it in hype words and terms to sell something because I don't have anything to sell.
Just in case it isn't clear enough already, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE STUFF IS BUNK. Even Touey understood what I was saying for goodness sakes and 98.749332% of the time one can barely understand what Touey says.
hurdlemaker
Well-known member
Haha how much time has dookie spent typing novels in this thread?! I need a sandwich to finish his posts
kissdadookie
Well-known member
I try to be thorough kissdadookie
Well-known member
huxley309
Member
Because no one here knows it's true moa, most of it is conjecture backed up with a few studies.
No real solid proof, because well there just isn't as of yet so this argument will just keep going around in circles until a decent study actually does come up.
For me follidrone worked, but im still in two minds about how effective it was for me.
Got a run of ep1c lined up, however results will be skewed as i'll be running a whole bunch of stuff with it.
Still it'll be nice to see what it brings if anything.
Spaniard
Well-known member
1 - that's your opinion
2 - it's still a study none the less, when you were shouting that none existed.
3 - And? Again, it's still evidence of something happening
4 - In which study do they conclude that it's strength, LBM and endurance increases are from its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant benefits? That is what you personally are gathering from the data
5 - Which phytochemicals elicit such results, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant specifically?
6,7,8,9 - " "WHAT MYOSTATIN INHIBITION HAVE YOU SEEN?" We have seen it in rodents. From there, as done by BLR and Evomuse..." I specifically put in my post what you are bitching about.
8 (continued) - I've read the studies and I highly doubt that it's antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties are the MOA of the results being seen with this ingredient. You think they are that's terrific. What I am taking from this is that it's anything but antioxidant or anti-inflammatory.
" FINALLY, why are you folks having a hissy fit over this? I have IN NO WAY damned (-)epi as being ineffective."
- Bro, you're the one writing essays typing in circles. I'm in no way having a hissy fit. I responded to your questions
"Thus ultimately it's not me being stuck on the idea of it possibly not actually being a myostatin inhibitor"
- I'm not debating with you anymore. You literally just spent like 6 pages saying that it's absolutely not inhibiting myostatin in all caps shouting at the owner of the supplement company I work for to now say you're not saying that?
"it appears moreso that you guys are stuck on the idea of promoting it as a myostatin inhibitor because let's face it, claiming something is a myostatin inhibitor just sounds a lot cooler than saying it's an anti-oxidant/anti-inflammatory."
- It has zero to do with that. It's simply the fact that as an ingredient the most reasonable explanation according to the data is myostatin inhibition. I'd prefer to market it as anything else other that a myostatin inhibitor to be honest. Myostatin inhibitors are like unicorn blood.
It would seem you're the one throwing a hissy fit. I've done nothing but respond to the questions you've had in a calm and respectful manner while your posts come across as condescending and hostile. You're not Coop, I think that's the role you're trying to assume here, it's rather obvious but you are no authority here. Your opinions are strictly based on what you gather from the data not the end all be all, so quit running around pretending to be such, it's off putting.
There is a positive way to approach a debate and a negative one. Instead of jumping down the throats of posters to fuel your Internet ego try and debate in a positive manner that will actually result in a positive discussion.
kissdadookie
Well-known member
Love it. You're going around in circles yet haven't addressed a single thing.
I'll leave it with the following:
You're stating that the most reasonable explanation the stuff is doing something is because of myostatin inhibition. Based on what? The most reasonable explanation actually doesn't suggest that at all (reasonable explanations can really only be extrapolated by available data, available data suggests the myostatin inhibition is not very likely and the ONE study that suggests myostatin inhibition is questionable to begin with due to how it was designed and what they tested for, of course this obviously flew over your head and you OL overlord there because all signs points to neither of you having bothered to do much if any homework on the ingredient, if you insist that you or your overlord have done extensive homework, that would only bring to question your/his/both analytical skills or lack thereof).
I came on to this board to get some discussion going on what might be the underlying actions/reasons the stuff may be working, yet you and your overlord (OL -> Olympus Labs -> OverLord, coincidence? I am of course jesting here) are completely stuck on myostatin inhibition and most likely, as I've pointed out earlier, myostatin inhibition sounds a lot more impressive than super antioxidant/anti inflammatory. But that's just an example of you and your overlord wanting to keep using hype terms.
Wait, so now you're saying they are stating myostatin inhibition sounds more impressive therefore they have to go with that?
Dude, really....take a break.
Spaniard
Well-known member
One more time.
"You're stating that the most reasonable explanation the stuff is doing something is because of myostatin inhibition. Based on what?"
Based on myostatin inhibition being the most likely MOA. Myostatin levels were reduced in that study. I realize the study isn't up to what we would like to see but it still offers a possible MOA. The reduction of myostatin would elicit the results people are seeing. Making that a more likely scenario for us. How many times have you heard of people getting huge or strong from an anti-oxidant? Never, not once. What would occur with the reduction of myostatin? Increases in strength and muscle mass. Which seems more likely? It has absolutely nothing to do with marketing.
Overlord? Okay, well it took this long to get to the bottom of it but here we are. You clearly have an agenda. I've seen you post frequently over on PHF. Now you're being inflammatory.
" yet you and your overlord (OL -> Olympus Labs -> OverLord, coincidence? I am of course jesting here)"
Ad hominem
"myostatin inhibition sounds a lot more impressive than super antioxidant/anti inflammatory."
Not more impressive, more likely. Not advertising, the more likely MOA due to the role myostatin has in the body. That is all
abformulations
Legend
1- Not much solid data (everyone knows this already)
2- Buy and try. It it works for you great, if not move on
3- just like any other supp.
4- just let (-) Epi live!!!!
2- Buy and try. It it works for you great, if not move on
3- just like any other supp.
4- just let (-) Epi live!!!!
Contaygious
Active member
More unicorn blood please.
Touey
Well-known member
[video=youtube;y2RKmVqnNdw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2RKmVqnNdw[/video]
koi1214
Well-known member
Check your PM
kissdadookie
Well-known member
Vitamin-D3 lowered myostatin acutely it would appear. Why have people not gone around parading the idea that we should take a ton of vitamin-d3 to inhibit myostatin? Answer this question first before you go around claiming "most likely MOA" because the most likely MOA going by what is known about (-)epi, it would suggest that it's not likely it's a direct inhibitor of myostatin or even a strong one at that.
For goodness sakes, every piece of "data" you've posted on the ingredient has essentially been regurgitation of what Brundel has posted. The difference here is that Brundel also provided a LOT of good resources on (-)epi, all of which actually points to anti-inflammatory/anti-oxidant properties being to thank for performance benefits.
Either you're in love with the myostatin inhibition for the sake of it being a nice hype term OR you guys are again, demonstrating a complete lack of going through the data available for the ingredients you are using.
To just give an example of how little homework I have seen from you guys in regards to the products you have on offer. Ostarine. I’ve stated on one of the threads that it’s very likely to suppress at 20+ mg doses typically being used especially at the lengths the stuff is being used for. You kept arguing that it’s not essentially (and I know you’re going to come in with a response that essentially breaks down to you playing semantics). How is it that you guys are practically the only vendor of the ingredient that is so set on giving the impression that the stuff is negligibly suppressive? For goodness sakes, Blackstone’s Mike Arnold when he was still doing Q&A for them has stated to basically NOT use it for PCT and also stated in no uncertain terms that the stuff is suppressive. This is coming from a company that has put a nice big dose of ostarine into a product called PCT IV in which the intention of the product is to be used for PCT. I mean, even they basically practically implied to people later on that the stuff can suppress and not to use it for PCT.
I'm stating the obvious. I haven't been stuck on this thing working a certain way just because that's my personal belief, it's based on what makes the most sense from the information available.
How am I disputing that the stuff is effective or not? All I've done is posed the idea that myostatin inhibition is pretty unlikely based on the information available. That does not mean it doesn't work. Completely different things there which are completely independent from each other.
No, you haven't. You went from theorizing MOA to criticizing their marketing...calling people overlords and accusing them of using the terms because they sound more "impressive". In others words, bull****ting people.
We get it, you don't like OL. Get over it.
And you're right you havne't been stuck on that one way, you've been stuck on anything BUT that way. Sort of like your religious defensive of Muscletech and their 16lbs of muscle marketing with a new fancy HMB. Please.
kissdadookie
Well-known member
I criticized them because as Spaniard would put it, it is the likeliest reason. I can only go by what is presented to me. A company and their rep being pretty much the ONLY ones being so adamant on the MOA being most likely myostatin inhibition whilst none of the other companies whom have (-)epi products out have been in arms to defend the myostatin inhibition MOA theory, what other conclusions can one make from that?
Either OL didn't do their homework and just regurgitating cool things they've read from other posts on the matter (very likely as far as I can tell) or they like pushing a myostatin inhibitor because that's a good buzz term.
Do I really not like OL? No. Why am I directing most of my posts now at them? Because they are the ones coming on here completely tossing the idea that MAYBE myostatin inhibition isn’t what is bringing the benefits here for the ingredient and then being completely stubborn and steadfast on the myostatin inhibition MOA based on VERY little evidence. THEN they come out and say that they’ve essentially OBSERVED myostatin inhibition in whatever this alpha-test phase is supposed to be. How was myostatin inhibition observed? OL completely disappeared from this thread without ever answering that question (yet it was him whom made this claim, he literally claimed observing myostatin inhibition in their testing of their product) and now just threw Spaniard on here essentially giving things the runaround.
I am completely indifferent towards OL, however, I brought up a valid point of discussion only for it to be argued against by them with very little to substantiate their arguments with? Serious? All of a sudden that makes me some sort of OL hater?
Actually the only one I see "completely stubborn and steadfast" about anything is you. You have a habit of doing this. They could have avoided all of this is they sent you two bottle to test.
kissdadookie
Well-known member
I honestly would have declined. I like to buy my supps and if they turn out good, I share my positive experiences, if something turns out bad, I typically very rarely talk about it
I honestly would have declined. I like to buy my supps and if they turn out good, I share my positive experiences, if something turns out bad, I typically very rarely talk about it
Oh, I thought Muscletech gave you those bottles. Am I wrong?
kissdadookie
Well-known member
They did, but I was posting about it possibly being good WAY before they offered it to me (all based on having looked through a ton of HMB studies). Bought two more bottles afterwards to last me through now and next month before I deload.
cutz
Banned
haha that's funny. I'm surprised it's still ip
kissdadookie
Well-known member
You should see my Alpha-GPC log Admin. They sent me months worth of product, that was like a 90 day log or something, I very very very rarely talk about those products or Alpha-GPC in general, for a reason. The company was very nice though.
So full page ads touting 16lbs of muscle from a new form of HMB is ok....yet Spaniard saying the "Likely" MOA is myostatin inhibition is not.
Got it.
He never sent me $5. Plus, I just get a kick of selective outrage.
kissdadookie
Well-known member
I've actually posted openly about the MT promotion of CM being inaccurate. I've said as much multiple times on the other board.
I don't discriminate.
I've actually posted openly about the MT promotion of CM being inaccurate. I've said as much multiple times on the other board.
I guess it was hidden in all those posts of you defending how great it was.
kissdadookie
Well-known member
I was defending the ingredient itself. If another company had a product for that ingredient, my posts would have been the same. Very much like how I have talked about PA.
Mind you, I've also had tuffles on probably this board but most likely on the other board about PA being effective (folks wanted to lump it into useless pipe dream products) even though clearly I've been using whatever PA is available that is cost effective (thus I went with King when it came out, but now I'm not so sure about it because they've replaced Mediator with a Activator prop complex).
kissdadookie
Well-known member
Ah, defending the ingredient itself. Now it all makes sense
Knock yourself out and go read the posts
I was very specific with my wording when I posted about the stuff, largely referred to it as HMB-FA/HMB rather than CM. Only thing I defended MT for is that the stuff works based on the data available on HMB, just conditionally effective as it needs to be used under certain circumstances to take advantage of what the stuff does. The MT defense came in the context that folks were claiming that HMB-FA didn't do diddly squat. 20+ years of HMB data suggests that is the farthest from the truth.De__eB
Well-known member
Myostatin Inhibition as a result of (-)-epicatechin is if anything consequential to other effects thereof and not a primary ergogenic effect of the ingredient.
--
Lowered myostatin does not equate to increased strength, certainly not at the levels of inhibition being obtained acutely by various natural compounds. ((-)-epi...Vitamin D...etc...)
Lowered myostatin does not equate to an increase in muscle endurance.
Lowered myostatin does however equate to increased muscle size, and reduced muscle frailty.
--
So why are people taking (-)-epi products reporting wildly increased strength and endurance when clinical data would not indicate that to be the case with the % myostatin inhibition being elicited by (-)-epi?
Furthermore, the only human study on the ingredient in the context of myostatin inhibition does not even report the actual reduction in myostatin experienced, simply that the ratio of follistatin/myostatin was modified.
--
But, myostatin inhibition is a white elephant of supplement marketing. Everyone's seen the myostatin knockout dogs and mice, everyone's heard the miraculous claims of what's going to be possible when the holy grail is found. So companies go ahead and market the ingredient as a myostatin inhibitor, because that's what the people want.
The ingredient may very well work, the overwhelmingly positive feedback on it certainly indicates that it does. But it's not because of myostatin inhibition.
--
Lowered myostatin does not equate to increased strength, certainly not at the levels of inhibition being obtained acutely by various natural compounds. ((-)-epi...Vitamin D...etc...)
Lowered myostatin does not equate to an increase in muscle endurance.
Lowered myostatin does however equate to increased muscle size, and reduced muscle frailty.
--
So why are people taking (-)-epi products reporting wildly increased strength and endurance when clinical data would not indicate that to be the case with the % myostatin inhibition being elicited by (-)-epi?
Furthermore, the only human study on the ingredient in the context of myostatin inhibition does not even report the actual reduction in myostatin experienced, simply that the ratio of follistatin/myostatin was modified.
--
But, myostatin inhibition is a white elephant of supplement marketing. Everyone's seen the myostatin knockout dogs and mice, everyone's heard the miraculous claims of what's going to be possible when the holy grail is found. So companies go ahead and market the ingredient as a myostatin inhibitor, because that's what the people want.
The ingredient may very well work, the overwhelmingly positive feedback on it certainly indicates that it does. But it's not because of myostatin inhibition.
Knock yourself out and go read the posts
Yeah. HMB was such a success. As I said, your selective outrage is quite telling.
De__eB
Well-known member
Not really? A demonstrable mechanism exists by which ArA, and other phospholipid substrates can enhance signaling of myokine pathways. I haven't been around the industry too terribly long, but as far back as I can remember, the data was pretty positive on the ingredient.
In fact, I could probably make a feasible marketing case that arachidonic acid should inhibit myostatin, given various logical leaps based on IL-6 and NF-Kb pathway interactions with myostatin.
--
Did you even read my post? I not once said the ingredient didn't work.
I simply said that myostatin inhibition as a primary target/effect is unlikely given the clinical effects of myostatin inhibition on the scale seen in related studies compared to the anecdotal effects in users.
kissdadookie
Well-known member
HMB failed because people used it as an anabolic and EAS apparently pushed it as an anabolic. Yeah, you use the wrong tool for the wrong situation, what do you expect?
Is it not telling how the way people remember HMB is as if EAS created the stuff or something? Yet Metabolic Tech really has pretty much not much of anything to do with EAS and how EAS pushed the ingredient.
Is it also not telling how HMB basically consistently stayed up there as a good product for those whom were cutting? How is it that they valued it, plenty of great anecdotal feedback on it for that use, and now with a study that really pushed the envelope for creating a viable usage scenario for the ingredient then panned so greatly essentially sight unseen?
If HMB and the study is so questionable, then following the same line of logic, ArA should be a sham too should it not? Seeing how the recent ArA study is coming out of the same lab as the HMB-FA study.