Guest viewing is limited

Baylor Study on ArA

toddmuelheim

toddmuelheim

Well-known member
I just read over the study (not the abstract) and, with regards to overall body composition improvements, the results do not make much of a case for ArA supplementation. With the high price of the supplement, coupled with the lack of knowledge of the long term effects of supplementation, I'm not sure if the juice is quite worth the squeeze... If this has been addressed already, I'd appreciate it if someone could link me. If not, any comments would be appreciated.
 
I didn't read the study, but if the results of the ArA supplementation group were truely insignificant its crazy that it'd go against numerous accounts overwhelming anecdotal experiences by trusted members of AM.
 
The fact that I've gotten notably stronger at a relatively faster rate (compared to strength gains I've been having previousy) along with the very noticeable increase and prolonged DOMS (compared to how I rarely had DOMS before), I would say that ArA not only works but works very well. Placebo does not magically make one gain strength this quickly nor would it induce such noticeable and prolonged DOMS.
 
kissdadookie said:
The fact that I've gotten notably stronger at a relatively faster rate (compared to strength gains I've been having previousy) along with the very noticeable increase and prolonged DOMS (compared to how I rarely had DOMS before), I would say that ArA not only works but works very well. Placebo does not magically make one gain strength this quickly nor would it induce such noticeable and prolonged DOMS.
Click to expand...
The Baylor study shows an increase in strength and power output. :)
 
bdcc said:
The Baylor study shows an increase in strength and power output. :)
Click to expand...

Ah, then I do not know what the OP is concerned about. LoL. Gaining strength and power combined with a solid diet in a caloric surplus ='s lean mass gains.

The juice here is 110% worth the squeeze.
 
bdcc said:
The Baylor study shows an increase in strength and power output. :)
Click to expand...

That's why I mentioned with regards to body composition. I'm also not arguing that it is ineffective. But if you take the time to read the study, it has some statistically significant Wingate improvements but negligible differences in LBM or fat loss. I've never tried ArA, and was/am strongly considering it, but after reading the results I'm curious to know if anyone has a scientific explanation.
 
kissdadookie said:
The fact that I've gotten notably stronger at a relatively faster rate (compared to strength gains I've been having previousy) along with the very noticeable increase and prolonged DOMS (compared to how I rarely had DOMS before), I would say that ArA not only works but works very well. Placebo does not magically make one gain strength this quickly nor would it induce such noticeable and prolonged DOMS.
Click to expand...
increases inflammation.

Prolonged DOMS is wanted?
 
Results suggest that AA supplementation
in trained males may exert favorable
alterations in training adaptations and
fasting prostaglandin and IL-6 levels.

This was taken from the abstract. I know you said you read the whole study, and I haven't read it, so what exactly goes against this statement in the abstract?

Edit: body composition is what you said so I guess I can agree with you on that.
 
Just a thought.

Exercising increases inflammation and DOMS over not exercising at all right?

We all accept that due to the desire for better athletic performance, physique, etc...

It's a matter of what cost:benefit ratio is acceptable to each individual.

Probably why ArA doesn't really get sold in combination products much and is always just in a standalone.
 
manstr said:
Results suggest that AA supplementation
in trained males may exert favorable
alterations in training adaptations and
fasting prostaglandin and IL-6 levels.

This was taken from the abstract. I know you said you read the whole study, and I haven't read it, so what exactly goes against this statement in the abstract?
Click to expand...

What part of that has to do with LBM and fat mass? Just do yourself a favor an look at page 38 of the study, since you'd prefer to quote me a piece of the abstract that has absolutely nothing to do with body comp.
 
USPlabsRep said:
increases inflammation.

Prolonged DOMS is wanted?
Click to expand...

Depends. Inflammation is not always a bad thing as you may be well aware of. Inflammation is the body's response to damage and a signal for repair. So depending on severity of the inflammation and what induced the inflammation in the first place, it could be a very desirable thing. Without inflammation, growth becomes significantly slowed down or may not even happen since growth is caused by repair and the body's mechanism to trigger repair includes in a large part, inflammation.

Also, look at how ArA actually works. The ArA deposits are located in the muscle cell membranes and through exercise the membranes break and releases the constituents of the bonds which the ArA makes within the membrane and these constituents appears to contain the same components which seems to be signaler's for muscle repair which in turn leads to growth. So this is actually desirable and also explains why in the trained individual, they have notably lower levels of ArA compared to non-trained individuals. So the DOMS in this case appears to be a positive effect caused by an increase of what naturally happens after the breaking down of muscle tissue through exercise.

Now, DOMS here should be noted is different from let's say, inflammation caused by tendonitis.
 
I've posted this many times but once again...

Do you supplement fish oil daily? Have you cut out most foods in the typical western diet in favor of "healthy" fats (that are often low in ArA or ArA's precursor FA)?

If so, you probably stand to benefit from ArA. Balance is the key, and most bodybuilding populations seem to be at risk for low levels of ArA relative to EPA/DHA.

The subjects in the study, conversely, probably did not religiously use fish oil and use a typical BBing diet

ArA is ultimately a dietary fatty acid. It's not something we use to reach supraphysiological anabolism...only optimal muscle growth (read: growth may not be optimal if ArA levels are too low in the body).
 
lol how many threads like these, I think coop sitting back amused on the post not wishing to step in on the quickness for ruining the debating fun all are having. In the end so many threads are finding likeness for amateur night at the Apollo with many putting on their thinking cap with fun & some thought provoking post for reading, and some finding good studies too but always having the same ending.
 
mr.cooper69 said:
I've posted this many times but once again...

Do you supplement fish oil daily? Have you cut out most foods in the typical western diet in favor of "healthy" fats (that are often low in ArA or ArA's precursor FA)?

If so, you probably stand to benefit from ArA. Balance is the key, and most bodybuilding populations seem to be at risk for low levels of ArA relative to EPA/DHA.

The subjects in the study, conversely, probably did not religiously use fish oil and use a typical BBing diet

ArA is ultimately a dietary fatty acid. It's not something we use to reach supraphysiological anabolism...only optimal muscle growth (read: growth may not be optimal if ArA levels are too low in the body).
Click to expand...

You're assuming uncontrolled variables were in favor of proving the initial hypothesis correct? You would tear that response apart had it not been your own. I am in no way trying to say that ArA is of no value. I guess a better way to put it is that if you were presented a bottle of capsules, and the study info, what would your thoughts be? There are a few things in the study that I find very interesting, and show quite a bit of potential value in ArA supplementation. I know you had a great deal of success with it a couple years ago when neuron practically rewrote the book on dosing this stuff but that doesn't change the face that there are not many studies on it and the one I have read so far was meh. That being said, I can't wait to start my run next week.
 
todd muelheim said:
You're assuming uncontrolled variables were in favor of proving the initial hypothesis correct? You would tear that response apart had it not been your own. I am in no way trying to say that ArA is of no value. I guess a better way to put it is that if you were presented a bottle of capsules, and the study info, what would your thoughts be? There are a few things in the study that I find very interesting, and show quite a bit of potential value in ArA supplementation. I know you had a great deal of success with it a couple years ago when neuron practically rewrote the book on dosing this stuff but that doesn't change the face that there are not many studies on it and the one I have read so far was meh. That being said, I can't wait to start my run next week.
Click to expand...

First, watch this video so that you can get an understanding of what ArA is and how it is broken down due to exercise:

Invalid Link Removed

Now, that gives you a good idea of how muscle cells are affected when enough stress is placed on them (i.e., training). You should also at this point been able to have a good grasp as to one of the main mechanisms for how the break down of muscle cells in turn triggers the repair process. Now, let's go back and think about the very old idea of the more one trains the more the body adapts and thus in turn the less post workout soreness we feel. Take that idea and now also include it with the understanding of how muscle cells are affected through training and particularly how ArA comes into play. So with that in mind, is it really because our body just adapts to training after awhile and thus things like DOMS becomes shorter in length or becomes less perceptible or is it because after a certain point of regular training, we are simply depleting our ArA stores which in turn triggers the normal responses less due to there being a lower store of ArA and thus less supply of ArA metabolites when we break down muscle cell membranes?

So like Cooper noted, ArA IS a dietary fatty acid and ArA plays an important role for OPTIMAL muscle growth (regular training without increased intake of ArA will eventually lead to a depletion of ArA from even base levels of non-training individuals, due to the fact that regular training resulting in more frequent breaking down of these muscle cell membranes). So with that in mind, IF one is not low in there ArA store, effects from supplementing with ArA would probably not show much in terms of effects or the effects may be much less pronounced.
 
kissdadookie said:
First, watch this video so that you can get an understanding of what ArA is and how it is broken down due to exercise:

Invalid Link Removed

Now, that gives you a good idea of how muscle cells are affected when enough stress is placed on them (i.e., training). You should also at this point been able to have a good grasp as to one of the main mechanisms for how the break down of muscle cells in turn triggers the repair process. Now, let's go back and think about the very old idea of the more one trains the more the body adapts and thus in turn the less post workout soreness we feel. Take that idea and now also include it with the understanding of how muscle cells are affected through training and particularly how ArA comes into play. So with that in mind, is it really because our body just adapts to training after awhile and thus things like DOMS becomes shorter in length or becomes less perceptible or is it because after a certain point of regular training, we are simply depleting our ArA stores which in turn triggers the normal responses less due to there being a lower store of ArA and thus less supply of ArA metabolites when we break down muscle cell membranes?

So like Cooper noted, ArA IS a dietary fatty acid and ArA plays an important role for OPTIMAL muscle growth (regular training without increased intake of ArA will eventually lead to a depletion of ArA from even base levels of non-training individuals, due to the fact that regular training resulting in more frequent breaking down of these muscle cell membranes). So with that in mind, IF one is not low in there ArA store, effects from supplementing with ArA would probably not show much in terms of effects or the effects may be much less pronounced.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the biochem lesson. It's still an assumption to contradict the findings of the study. Do you see what my point is here? Going with what you said, which I understand and agree with, the study should have been controlled better. That's the most valid answer I've seen so far. Trust me, I want this stuff to work, who wouldn't? The science in this particular study is just not there. When MN asked Baylor to run this study, perhaps they should have been more specific in what they were looking for in a test subject.
 
todd muelheim said:
Thanks for the biochem lesson. It's still an assumption to contradict the findings of the study. Do you see what my point is here? Going with what you said, which I understand and agree with, the study should have been controlled better. That's the most valid answer I've seen so far. Trust me, I want this stuff to work, who wouldn't? The science in this particular study is just not there. When MN asked Baylor to run this study, perhaps they should have been more specific in what they were looking for in a test subject.
Click to expand...

I think when that study was created, ArA was STILL not that quite well understood however, the study was shown to have positive results in strength gains. The aspect I feel that the study did not address was that it didn't factor in the fact that getting positive results from ArA is dependent on the severity of ArA deficiency. It is now however understood that there is this concept of ArA deficiency particularly in those whom train intensely and regularly.

So the issue isn't really a lack of control per se, the issue is that the study did not factor in the idea that ArA deficiency was an important variable in seeing how "effective" ArA supplementation is. What your disagreement with the study mainly appears to boil down to is that you're looking at ArA as if it was not a dietary fatty acid but as a performance enhancing supplement in isolation. We now know that it's not really a performance enhancing supplement but instead it's a dietary fatty acid which most trained individuals are deficient in and that it has a significant impact on optimizing gains to a very notable degree (again, depends on the severity of ones ArA deficiency).

I mean, would you argue the accuracy of creatine studies? Technically it's a dietary component we can get from food. People with high protein red meat diets most likely will not gain much if any from supplementing with creatine. You can claim that creatine studies don't have proper controls or are questionable since they didn't factor in people whom gets sufficient creatine through their food sources.

Lastly, you're questioning the study on body composition changes, but at the end of the day, the study ever only shown the benefits to be strength gains did it not? Depending on training and diet, it could play a significant role in body composition changes, but that is still going to come down to diet and training at the end of the day. The study was set out to look for body composition changes but in the end found that ArA supplementation was very effective at netting strength gains. There's nothing wrong with a study set out to prove/demonstrate one thing but in the end stumble upon demonstrating something else.
 
kissdadookie said:
I think when that study was created, ArA was STILL not that quite well understood however, the study was shown to have positive results in strength gains. The aspect I feel that the study did not address was that it didn't factor in the fact that getting positive results from ArA is dependent on the severity of ArA deficiency. It is now however understood that there is this concept of ArA deficiency particularly in those whom train intensely and regularly.

So the issue isn't really a lack of control per se, the issue is that the study did not factor in the idea that ArA deficiency was an important variable in seeing how "effective" ArA supplementation is. What your disagreement with the study mainly appears to boil down to is that you're looking at ArA as if it was not a dietary fatty acid but as a performance enhancing supplement in isolation. We now know that it's not really a performance enhancing supplement but instead it's a dietary fatty acid which most trained individuals are deficient in and that it has a significant impact on optimizing gains to a very notable degree (again, depends on the severity of ones ArA deficiency).
Click to expand...

I like your style my man, although MN calls it a "legendary anabolic" on their website. And lets be honest, we aren't spending our hard earned money on an Omega 6 fatty acid, we're buying the notion that we will get bigger, stronger, faster, better in the bedroom, etc. What are your thoughts in the caloric differences between the two groups and the resulting changes in the key test points? I didn't fine tooth comb the study, so if it was addressed I apologize but am still curious.
 
todd muelheim said:
I like your style my man, although MN calls it a "legendary anabolic" on their website. And lets be honest, we aren't spending our hard earned money on an Omega 6 fatty acid, we're buying the notion that we will get bigger, stronger, faster, better in the bedroom, etc. What are your thoughts in the caloric differences between the two groups and the resulting changes in the key test points? I didn't fine tooth comb the study, so if it was addressed I apologize but am still curious.
Click to expand...

Well, it is marketing and MN did stumble upon a dietary deficiency which lead to a supplement to fill that deficiency which ultimately resulted in very favourable results in terms of strength gains for most people. It might not be something to the degree of potency of synthetics but in terms of a natty supplement, it's pretty legendary and is technically anabolic (muscle repair is a anabolic response is it not?) in a market filled with natty supplements that costs more than synthetics many a times and which does next to nothing. So, I think for what it is and how effective it is, we can give MN a little slack on their marketing terminology :P

From my understanding, only the ArA supplementing group had the hypercaloric diet. Both groups seemed to gain around 1 kg (2.2 lbs I think that is?) at the end of the 50 days. So lean body mass gains wasn't different but what's interesting is the fat gain. 50 days on that hypercaloric diet for the ArA group and with only .5 kg (roughly 1 lbs) of fat gain, that's pretty good IMO. If anything, the study may have short changed the body compositional effects of ArA supplementation by not giving the placebo group a hypercaloric diet as well.

Let's just say this, the ArA group had a diet which was around 550 calories more per day than the placebo group. That should net you a weight gain of 1 lbs per week with obviously a good amount of fat gain per lbs. The fact that after 50 days, the ArA group only gained around 1 lbs of fat mass, that's pretty good. If anything, it would appear that the ArA supplementation kept the fat mass gain at bay which one could look at as a positive factor towards body composition changes.
 
kissdadookie said:
Well, it is marketing and MN did stumble upon a dietary deficiency which lead to a supplement to fill that deficiency which ultimately resulted in very favourable results in terms of strength gains for most people. It might not be something to the degree of potency of synthetics but in terms of a natty supplement, it's pretty legendary and is technically anabolic (muscle repair is a anabolic response is it not?) in a market filled with natty supplements that costs more than synthetics many a times and which does next to nothing. So, I think for what it is and how effective it is, we can give MN a little slack on their marketing terminology :P

From my understanding, only the ArA supplementing group had the hypercaloric diet. Both groups seemed to gain around 1 kg (2.2 lbs I think that is?) at the end of the 50 days. So lean body mass gains wasn't different but what's interesting is the fat gain. 50 days on that hypercaloric diet for the ArA group and with only .5 kg (roughly 1 lbs) of fat gain, that's pretty good IMO. If anything, the study may have short changed the body compositional effects of ArA supplementation by not giving the placebo group a hypercaloric diet as well.

Let's just say this, the ArA group had a diet which was around 550 calories more per day than the placebo group. That should net you a weight gain of 1 lbs per week with obviously a good amount of fat gain per lbs. The fact that after 50 days, the ArA group only gained around 1 lbs of fat mass, that's pretty good. If anything, it would appear that the ArA supplementation kept the fat mass gain at bay which one could look at as a positive factor towards body composition changes.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. That's a LOT more calories with a negligible gain in fat compared to placebo group. I was hoping someone would point that out, because I'd love to know more thoughts on it. #thenextECstack
 
todd muelheim said:
My thoughts exactly. That's a LOT more calories with a negligible gain in fat compared to placebo group. I was hoping someone would point that out, because I'd love to know more thoughts on it. #thenextECstack
Click to expand...

Which I would consider to be yet another positive feather in ArA's cap. Ha ha ha.

I can see why I've seen people mention how well ArA stacks with a PH cycle.
 
todd muelheim said:
You're assuming uncontrolled variables were in favor of proving the initial hypothesis correct? You would tear that response apart had it not been your own. I am in no way trying to say that ArA is of no value. I guess a better way to put it is that if you were presented a bottle of capsules, and the study info, what would your thoughts be? There are a few things in the study that I find very interesting, and show quite a bit of potential value in ArA supplementation. I know you had a great deal of success with it a couple years ago when neuron practically rewrote the book on dosing this stuff but that doesn't change the face that there are not many studies on it and the one I have read so far was meh. That being said, I can't wait to start my run next week.
Click to expand...

Forget I said anything about the study, do you not agree, based on the nutritional science, that a typical BBing diet is low in ArA and high in EPA/DHA (which displace ArA)? Taking that a step further...do you not agree, based on all the info we know about fatty acids, that membrane balance is key for proper cell signaling (and that imbalances invite pathogenesis)?

Arachidonic acid isn't some sort of special compound...it's a conditionally essential dietary fatty acid. Ideally, you do not want to be deficient in vitamins, minerals, EAAs, and EFAs since all must be acquired through diet. Thus, I think ArA can certainly serve a corrective purpose, and it will at the minimum produce vasodilation (and the strength increases that accompany this).

You're right, there's no good evidence on ArA's effects on body composition. But there is evidence that supplementation increases plasma levels after 50 days (which promotes mostly vasodilating cascades) and there is evidence of strength effects. That alone makes it an ergogen at the very least
 
mr.cooper69 said:
Forget I said anything about the study, do you not agree, based on the nutritional science, that a typical BBing diet is low in ArA and high in EPA/DHA (which displace ArA)? Taking that a step further...do you not agree, based on all the info we know about fatty acids, that membrane balance is key for proper cell signaling (and that imbalances invite pathogenesis)?

Arachidonic acid isn't some sort of special compound...it's a conditionally essential dietary fatty acid. Ideally, you do not want to be deficient in vitamins, minerals, EAAs, and EFAs since all must be acquired through diet. Thus, I think ArA can certainly serve a corrective purpose, and it will at the minimum produce vasodilation (and the strength increases that accompany this).

You're right, there's no good evidence on ArA's effects on body composition. But there is evidence that supplementation increases plasma levels after 50 days (which promotes mostly vasodilating cascades) and there is evidence of strength effects. That alone makes it an ergogen at the very least
Click to expand...

1. Consider it forgotten
B. I'd like to think/hope so, at the very least just due to increased O3 supplementation compared to everyone else and hopefully decreased PUFA oil consumption
iii. Yes, but we are also inducing inflammation...if we're on the topic of pathogenesis :-)

Gummy bears and hot dogs can be ergogenic as well so that's neither here nor there. I'd really be interested in your thoughts on the caloric differences between the groups and the almost insignificant fat gain on the ArA side. I haven't thought much about it, I was hoping someone much more intelligent than I would chime in and give me something to run with.
 
todd muelheim said:
1. Consider it forgotten
B. I'd like to think/hope so, at the very least just due to increased O3 supplementation compared to everyone else and hopefully decreased PUFA oil consumption
iii. Yes, but we are also inducing inflammation...if we're on the topic of pathogenesis :-)

Gummy bears and hot dogs can be ergogenic as well so that's neither here nor there. I'd really be interested in your thoughts on the caloric differences between the groups and the almost insignificant fat gain on the ArA side. I haven't thought much about it, I was hoping someone much more intelligent than I would chime in and give me something to run with.
Click to expand...

All the studies on inflammation are related to chronic high intake of inflammatory compounds, not a 50 day run of arachidonic acid amidst a lifetime of otherwise anti-inflammatory nutrition.

Could you elaborate on the caloric differences and fat gain? I haven't read the study in a very long time and haven't really been following this thread
 
mr.cooper69 said:
I've posted this many times but once again...

Do you supplement fish oil daily? Have you cut out most foods in the typical western diet in favor of "healthy" fats (that are often low in ArA or ArA's precursor FA)?

If so, you probably stand to benefit from ArA. Balance is the key, and most bodybuilding populations seem to be at risk for low levels of ArA relative to EPA/DHA.

The subjects in the study, conversely, probably did not religiously use fish oil and use a typical BBing diet

ArA is ultimately a dietary fatty acid. It's not something we use to reach supraphysiological anabolism...only optimal muscle growth (read: growth may not be optimal if ArA levels are too low in the body).
Click to expand...

Have you cut out most foods in the typical western diet in favor of "healthy" fats (that are often low in ArA or ArA's precursor FA)?

I doubt this happens...it should but I doubt it...
 
USPlabsRep said:
Have you cut out most foods in the typical western diet in favor of "healthy" fats (that are often low in ArA or ArA's precursor FA)?

I doubt this happens...it should but I doubt it...
Click to expand...

Most hardcore BBers are all about their fish oil, nut butters, and olive oil. Hardcore as in, uneducated
 
USPlabsRep said:
Have you cut out most foods in the typical western diet in favor of "healthy" fats (that are often low in ArA or ArA's precursor FA)?

I doubt this happens...it should but I doubt it...
Click to expand...

I would wager that most if not many have cut fatty red meats out of their diets. ArA is contained mostly in fat of red meat.
 
kissdadookie said:
Depends. Inflammation is not always a bad thing as you may be well aware of. Inflammation is the body's response to damage and a signal for repair. So depending on severity of the inflammation and what induced the inflammation in the first place, it could be a very desirable thing. Without inflammation, growth becomes significantly slowed down or may not even happen since growth is caused by repair and the body's mechanism to trigger repair includes in a large part, inflammation.

Also, look at how ArA actually works. The ArA deposits are located in the muscle cell membranes and through exercise the membranes break and releases the constituents of the bonds which the ArA makes within the membrane and these constituents appears to contain the same components which seems to be signaler's for muscle repair which in turn leads to growth. So this is actually desirable and also explains why in the trained individual, they have notably lower levels of ArA compared to non-trained individuals. So the DOMS in this case appears to be a positive effect caused by an increase of what naturally happens after the breaking down of muscle tissue through exercise.

Now, DOMS here should be noted is different from let's say, inflammation caused by tendonitis.
Click to expand...

Inflammation is a natural process. I don't believe anyone is arguing that point. We are discussing adding ArA and accelerating the inflammation response that already occurs with exercise and daily nutrition to gain muscle.

drop the ArA add 20 grams of Vegetable oil above your normal intake of Omega 6 fats, DOMS will increase..

s there a study(s) comparing ArA in trained to non-trained individuals with a controlled diet across both groups? I love to read it..

The western diet is an Omega 6 dominated diet.
 
What Foods Are High in Arachidonic Acid?


Arachidonic acid is ultimately one of the unsaturated fatty acids. Unlike many of the other unsaturated fats, however, arachidonic is predominantly found in animal-based foods. Often referred to as an omega-6 fatty acid, it is considered a "good" fat, since it's used in the production of hormones and the body's immune response. However, too much of this fatty acid can eventually lead to an elevation in cholesterol, which can cause plaque to accumulate along the arterial walls. According to the Mayo Clinic, this may result in coronary artery disease and increase your risk of heart attack and stroke.

Fish

While you've probably heard that fish are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, some varieties contain arachidonic acid. Tilapia contains one of the highest levels of omega-6 fatty acid, but you can also find it in catfish, yellowtail and mackerel. However, mackerel is a great source of omega-3 fatty acid, so it should balance the presence of arachidonic acid.


Red Meat

Another source of arachidonic acid is red meat. Generally, the fattier the meat, the more arachidonic acid is found in it, according to a study done by the Department of Food and Science at RMIT University; most of the fatty acid content is found within the fat itself. Beef and lamb, for the most part, have less of this unsaturated fat than other foods.

White Meat

White meat tends to contain levels of arachidonic acid. Of the white meats, duck contains the highest levels, by far, but you can also find it in turkey, chicken and pork. In pork, the highest concentrations are isolated in the fat, much like in beef and lamb, so it's easier to avoid high intakes of this unsaturated fat through cut selection and food preparation.

Eggs & Dairy

Arachidonic Acid is found in both eggs and dairy. Since your total fat consumption should be anywhere between 25 and 30 percent of your total caloric intake, it's important to get this healthier fat into your diet. With eggs, however, you also need to be concerned with cholesterol. Eggs are fairly high in this fatty substance, so additional moderation is necessary to ensure that you keep your cholesterol in a healthy range.-Dana Severson
 
USPlabsRep said:
Inflammation is a natural process. I don't believe anyone is arguing that point. We are discussing adding ArA and accelerating the inflammation response that already occurs with exercise and daily nutrition to gain muscle.

drop the ArA add 20 grams of Vegetable oil above your normal intake of Omega 6 fats, DOMS will increase..

s there a study(s) comparing ArA in trained to non-trained individuals with a controlled diet across both groups? I love to read it..

The western diet is an Omega 6 dominated diet.
Click to expand...

Western diets are dominated by omega-6 fats but how much of it really is going to be ArA in practical terms? The richest sources of ArA and the main sources really are still going to be the fats in fatty red meats and we all know that consuming mass quantities of that does come with it's own issues. Other sources of ArA are going to be pretty low on ArA content.

As for adding ArA, are we REALLY accelerating the inflammation response or is the reality instead that we're getting an inflammation response which is more in line to how the response would be if are ArA levels were adequate. Like in one of the posts on this thread I made earlier today, there's this idea that after a period of regular training, things like DOMS tends to go away, is considered to be our bodies "adapting" to the training. Now, that is the idea which is usually touted but after understanding the importance of ArA and how that leads to inflammation which causes things such as DOMS, is it really that our body has "adapted" to training or is the reality that we have lowered our ArA levels significantly to the level where we are no longer getting optimum/normal inflammation responses?
 
De__eB said:
I repeat...

Why in the world would they do that...

Given what we know about the fat composition of animals based on their diet, one can significantly improve the omega fat ratio of their diet by eating healthier animals.
Click to expand...

Healthier animals tend to be less fatty, so we're back to square one, not being able to get to the ArA. I mean, we could, but that typically means eating fattier meat which also comes with a lot of the other omega-6 fatty acids which we don't need so much of, at least that's how I understand it after looking at where ArA is most abundantly available in. It's not as if just because we eat the fatty meat from healthier animals that it ends up being the case that the composition of omega-6 in these animals are mostly going to be ArA rather than being mostly all the other omega-6's we don't need that much of.

I mean, unless I've been misinformed which I clearly could be here.
 
kissdadookie said:
Healthier animals tend to be less fatty, so we're back to square one, not being able to get to the ArA. I mean, we could, but that typically means eating fattier meat which also comes with a lot of the other omega-6 fatty acids which we don't need so much of, at least that's how I understand it after looking at where ArA is most abundantly available in. It's not as if just because we eat the fatty meat from healthier animals that it ends up being the case that the composition of omega-6 in these animals are mostly going to be ArA rather than being mostly all the other omega-6's we don't need that much of.

I mean, unless I've been misinformed which I clearly could be here.
Click to expand...

I'm just responding to your 'cutting out fatty red meat' comment since I consider that a silly thing to do ;)

The average person consumes barely a few hundred milligrams of ArA in their diet daily. If you're supplementing a couple of grams a day, you're going way above and beyond what's really feasible to eat through diet.

at 100mg/100g for a relatively fatty cut of beef you'd have to eat 4 and a half pounds of beef to hit 2g/day.
 
De__eB said:
I'm just responding to your 'cutting out fatty red meat' comment since I consider that a silly thing to do ;)

The average person consumes barely a few hundred milligrams of ArA in their diet daily. If you're supplementing a couple of grams a day, you're going way above and beyond what's really feasible to eat through diet.

at 100mg/100g for a relatively fatty cut of beef you'd have to eat 4 and a half pounds of beef to hit 2g/day.
Click to expand...

Gotcha! :)
 
todd muelheim said:
I just read over the study (not the abstract) and, with regards to overall body composition improvements, the results do not make much of a case for ArA supplementation. With the high price of the supplement, coupled with the lack of knowledge of the long term effects of supplementation, I'm not sure if the juice is quite worth the squeeze... If this has been addressed already, I'd appreciate it if someone could link me. If not, any comments would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Give one bottle a try and you'll discount the study. Trust me and 100's of others on this forum...
 
bakerwil said:
Give one bottle a try and you'll discount the study. Trust me and 100's of others on this forum...
Click to expand...

I plan on running the full 50 days with LCLT and GMS as advised. Scientific studies are only as good as the minds who devised them anyway.
 
todd muelheim said:
I plan on running the full 50 days with LCLT and GMS as advised. Scientific studies are only as good as the minds who devised them anyway.
Click to expand...

Never discount the real world feedback is my moto....

Science is only as good as the results it produces EnVivio across a spectrum of consumers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top