Unanswered NAC hinders muscle growth

[Powercage]

AnecdoteMinds.com in full effect ;p

 

[EMPIREMIND]

It looks like you didn't read the thread, but to catch you up: keep in mind the effects could potentially be in the range of hours and days (redox reactions are impaired for up to 8 days), not minutes. So limiting NAC in general is likely wise for a healthy, natural person until we know otherwise. The multiple days of impaired recovery could certainly add up to impaired progress over time if you continue to regularly supplement with NAC. It would essentially negatively effect you to a greater extent the longer you take it.

The real question is, what do normally healthy people expect to gain from NAC? Why does a normal, healthy person need glutathione support for instance. Will that make any difference in overall health given an already healthy body?


Not sure where you are going with this. Just stop taking Pre Jym and you don't have to keep saying that



There isn't much (and by that I mean it's in its infancy and there isn't anything conclusive, but it's possible). Effects on anxiety and depression are is based on trichotillomania/OCD research. I am not certain how this would translate to someone with normally functioning brain chemistry.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

I read the op and replied to it. Honestly guys often take these type of things way out of context on this site. If you are natural and healthy you probably don’t need nac. If you are running a cycle, which I would think most guys on here taking nac are, then you are benefiting more from the liver protection and will build muscle either way. In a way this whole thread is borderline silly, and over analyzing things way too much.

 

[EMPIREMIND]

I

No one said to stop taking all anti-oxidants. What you are missing is that anti-oxidants are good in certain contexts, until they start hindering natural processes or act like pro-oxidants (or are flat out unnecessary). You are under the misconception that antioxidants are always beneficial. You can continue taking them if you want, but it is smarter to utilize them intelligently (such as OT and I were discussing).

There is no need to worry about fruits and veggies, but concentrated anti-oxidant intake (read: supplements) should be evaluated on a case by case basis. It is ultimately your money and your body, but realize this is being discussed with no ulterior motive of trying to sell you anything. In fact, some of us are trying to save you money and help you get the most out of your hard work in the gym.

missed this post, I completely agree with this.

 

[HIT4ME]

@EMPIREMIND - you are correct. While I think Powercage is right as well but I think there is A LOT of oversimplification, misinterpretation in this thread.

The study doesn't really discuss the antioxidant status of NAC. NAC increases an antioxidant - glutathione - but it is NOT glutathione.

The theory that is being infered here, and I can understand why, is that increased antioxidant levels are hindering the signaling pathways that trigger adaptive response. Maybe...

The theory we like to believe is that we exercise and this causes muscle damage and we repair that damage and then add a little more. But this is a bit naive. Damaged tissue is often weaker than the original tissue, not stronger - ask any surgeon.

Finally, there is evidence in the studies I posted that show that ROS actually causes muscle wasting. Granted, in the elderly, but if this secondary stress played a primary role in adaptive response then elderly people with their high levels of ROS and reduced glutathione levels wouldn't waste away. Powercage is actually pointing out here that there is an optimum level or antioxidant capacity and he is correct...but it is more complicated than "you will get huge" or "you will waste all your gains". It isn't an on/off switch.

It is nothing but foolish to think that if you take NAC and then go hit a brutal workout session that stimulates muscle growth, that all of your gains will be wasted. The reduced effect will be minimal.

It is like saying that drinking too much water will keep you from tanning.

Your body will respond if it has to.

And I use the methionine analogy because methionine is known to avtivate mtor and igf-1 and is powerful enough at this that it is promoted as a driver of aging and methionine restriction has been proposed as a means of anti-aging.

Yet, methionine and cysteine are the two sulphur containing aminos, botg increase glutathione, and methionine itself is used to make cysteine. So, if this is so direct, how does that work?

 

[Powercage]

We are getting too caught up on the term antioxidant when that was only one part of the discussion at the time.

Focus on the mechanisms and effects in the studies only.

 

[HIT4ME]

We are getting too caught up on the term antioxidant when that was only one part of the discussion at the time.

Focus on the mechanisms and effects in the studies only.

I agree with this but I also question the mechanisms being the end-all here.

Like I said, methionine is a related amino and has been shown to have a lot of the opposite actions, but it won't make you huge.

 

[OutOfStep]

So it wont mess with processes it’s been quantitatively shown to mess with in controlled settings, but you are sure it will help your skin and hair?

Logic checks out.

Get mad.

 

[EMPIREMIND]

So is the issue glutathione? Because let me tell you I know a handful of guys who use glutathione and they are still growing and have cleaned up thier blood work significantly since adding it in... I think like many other things it all depends.

 

[HIT4ME]

So is the issue glutathione? Because let me tell you I know a handful of guys who use glutathione and they are still growing and have cleaned up thier blood work significantly since adding it in... I think like many other things it all depends.

I think a lot of people in this thread are inferring it is the antiox status of NAC that hinders the inflammatory cascade that plays a role in adaptive response/muscle growth and this antioxidant effect is generally due to NAC increasing glutathione.

The study itself doesn't seem to talk too much about the exact mechanism and whether or not it is glutathione related (unless I am mis-remembering), just that it observed a negative impact on a bunch of pathways that play a role in the inflammatory adaptive response. I see a lot of peopke jumping to the conclusion it is the antioxidant effect on this thread though.

What is interesting is that the study itself and some of the other studies suggest decreased inflammation, decreased damage, and longer recovery periods - which is somewhat contradictory and itself indicates a more complex action than is being understood here.

Powercage is pointing out the pathways are the important part of this...and I don't disagree, but there are a bunch of pathways and the signals can be hard to read in real life.