Guest viewing is limited

New PA Study - Dose Too Low?

They used 1/2 the previously studied dose and lower. There was also a lack of dietary control and no post workout protein administered.

If one looks back at the U of Tampa study, the actual gains they saw were not exactly incredible but they were notable. That was with a 750 mg preworkout dose + ~25 gram whey isolate post workout protocol. Diet was also monitored along with the training. So if 750 mg showed such modest gains, lowering that dose by half and more, really hard to see this as an apples to oranges comparison.

What I would like to point out is that this was a study conducted using funding provided by from Chemi Nutra (the owners of MediaTOR, the TM'd source for PA). Reason to point this out is to point out the fact that just because a study is industry funded, it does not mean the study and data automatically becomes dubious or biased. One has to read the full text of the study in depth in order to grasp the data and the context they are presented in.

There has been a similar argument I've seen thrown at the HMB-FA study for a few years now, even though not a single bit of the data has been demonstrated to have been biased, doctored, or otherwise inaccurate. Recently I've seen mention that the HMB-FA study results were better than results from running test or deca. One has to question a person's knowledge if a person thinks a measly ~15 lbs gain in 12 weeks of strenuous training and controlled diet is even remotely close to what can be accomplished using moderate test or deca dosages in the same span of time (not even, even in 4-6 weeks using a good training program and diet, it would blow away the results from the 12 week HMB-FA study)..
 
Interesting article. Definitely in to hear people's thoughts on this.
 
Who performed the tampa study?
 
dynamo said:
I think Wilson did? Prior to that was Hoffman but Hoffman's sample size was too small so the findings were not statistically significant. Wilson replicated Hoffman's study though.
Click to expand...

Thought as much. Wouldn't trust any study results from him
 
Jiigzz said:
Thought as much. Wouldn't trust any study results from him
Click to expand...

Apart from that nonsense endorsement for that frog machine, I don't know, the data is the data. It's been peer reviewed. It's stands uncontested. He did replicate previous findings for both his PA and HMB-FA studies. I also largely see people using the argument that the HMB-FA findings were better than test and deca findings but the reality is that there's no comparable test and deca studies to compare it to (and let's be serious here, a measly ~15 lbs of lbm gain and loss of ~5 lbs of body fat over 12 weeks of tightly controlled and demanding training as well as diet, not exactly all that great compared to what one can achieve running test, deca, or even 1-DHEA if we look at the Texas A&M U study where they saw 10+ lbs of lbm gain and ~5 lbs bodyfat loss in just 4 weeks using straight powdered 1-DHEA @ 330 mg per day from Finaflex iirc where the grapefruit extract I believe was found to be bunk? so basically 330 mg of 1-DHEA without a bioavailibility enhancer).

Side note, I think one of the funniest things I've read recently is someone stating how the HMB study was bunk because the results were 4 times better than creatine. I had to scratch my head at that, show of hands, how many people here feel that creatine is a very potent ergogenic/muscle builder?
 
dynamo said:
Apart from that nonsense endorsement for that frog machine, I don't know, the data is the data. It's been peer reviewed. It's stands uncontested. He did replicate previous findings for both his PA and HMB-FA studies. I also largely see people using the argument that the HMB-FA findings were better than test and deca findings but the reality is that there's no comparable test and deca studies to compare it to (and let's be serious here, a measly ~15 lbs of lbm gain and loss of ~5 lbs of body fat over 12 weeks of tightly controlled and demanding training as well as diet, not exactly all that great compared to what one can achieve running test, deca, or even 1-DHEA if we look at the Texas A&M U study where they saw 10+ lbs of lbm gain and ~5 lbs bodyfat loss in just 4 weeks using straight powdered 1-DHEA @ 330 mg per day from Finaflex iirc where the grapefruit extract I believe was found to be bunk? so basically 330 mg of 1-DHEA without a bioavailibility enhancer).
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

There are other links to things of a similar nature, but Wilsons research is almost always EXTREMELY positive, and so I am very skeptical of anything he publishes. I don't take one positive paper as the bible, it needs other researchers to confirm the data (not just repeated by himself) before I consider it of interest. Obviously peer reviewed is the gold standard that we have, but researchers who know the system can also play the system. A friend of mine who is a researcher in mechanical engineering, where math plays a key component of his research, detailed how even papers where the math is incorrect pass the peer review process. It might be hard to do so, but he won't look at anything unless the results have been repeated by someone else.

It's been a while since I've read anything he has done and I may have written him off early, but his phenomenal results with other research he has conducted made me very skeptical of his ethics, lol.

Edit: Just to clarify, i'm not against peer review at all, but I am skeptical by nature and so anything extremely groundbreaking I want to see repeated studies before I start to consider it.
 
Jiigzz said:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

There are other links to things of a similar nature, but Wilsons research is almost always EXTREMELY positive, and so I am very skeptical of anything he publishes. I don't take one positive paper as the bible, it needs other researchers to confirm the data (not just repeated by himself) before I consider it of interest.

It's been a while since I've read anything he has done and I may have written him off early, but his phenomenal results with other research he has conducted made me very skeptical of his ethics, lol.
Click to expand...

I've seen that bogus study before but the key there was that if someone read the full paper the red herrings were there. The HMB-FA study has been out for awhile, Wilson has provided all the supplemental material to the JISSN for review (obviously), the findings were very positive but they were very positive for the placebo control group as well, and the training protocol and monitored diet was the best designed and executed thus far that I have come across (which would make a huge difference in your results). He also cherry picked the subjects so if anything, the training, diet, and response to it all is not going to apply to the majority of people, but that doesn't change the data being the data or suggest that the data has been doctored or manipulated in any way (the raw data is going to be accurate since the study design was double blinded so even if one wished to manipulate the outcome, they couldn't).

He's only had one study with phenomenal results, the HMB-FA study. The PA and ArA results which came out of his lab (he conducted the PA study, not sure about the ArA study) were nowhere as impressive but none were as demanding as what the subjects were placed through in the HMB study.

The key takeaway however is that his HMB study was a replication of Kraemer's 2009 HMB study. Both studies used what is essentially a daily undulating training model. The difference being that Kraemer's was not as intense and used recreationally trained subjects whilst his study consisted of well trained subjects (and thus the training was scaled to such a demographic). Kraemer's study actually saw better gains with both studies seeing about the same amount of body fat loss.

I completely agree with at least one of his studies/endorsements being utter nonsense, the one with the frog training machine thing which is also endorsed by Mike O'Hearn.
 
dynamo said:
I've seen that bogus study before but the key there was that if someone read the full paper the red herrings were there. The HMB-FA study has been out for awhile, Wilson has provided all the supplemental material to the JISSN for review (obviously), the findings were very positive but they were very positive for the placebo control group as well, and the training protocol and monitored diet was the best designed and executed thus far that I have come across (which would make a huge difference in your results). He also cherry picked the subjects so if anything, the training, diet, and response to it all is not going to apply to the majority of people, but that doesn't change the data being the data or suggest that the data has been doctored or manipulated in any way (the raw data is going to be accurate since the study design was double blinded so even if one wished to manipulate the outcome, they couldn't).

He's only had one study with phenomenal results, the HMB-FA study. The PA and ArA results which came out of his lab (he conducted the PA study, not sure about the ArA study) were nowhere as impressive but none were as demanding as what the subjects were placed through in the HMB study.

The key takeaway however is that his HMB study was a replication of Kraemer's 2009 HMB study. Both studies used what is essentially a daily undulating training model. The difference being that Kraemer's was not as intense and used recreationally trained subjects whilst his study consisted of well trained subjects (and thus the training was scaled to such a demographic). Kraemer's study actually saw better gains with both studies seeing about the same amount of body fat loss.

I completely agree with at least one of his studies/endorsements being utter nonsense, the one with the frog training machine thing which is also endorsed by Mike O'Hearn.
Click to expand...

Fair points, after that HMB-FA study I started being very cautious of other things he had produced. Undulating periodisation is by far my most preferred method of training, which I even follow myself, but i've been doing it for several years and have not noticed results as dramatic as theirs, even when my diet is very tightly controlled haha.
 
Meh. Why they used such a small dose, no diet control, and no post workout protein is beyond me. This is no doubt interesting, but less relevant to most lifters than previous studies. Disappointing.

From what we know regarding PA's MOA and its regulated relationship to FKBP38 (mTOR inhibitor), I would theorize that oral supplementation of PA is likely such that a certain threshold must be reached before significant FKBP38 displacement, and thus significant mTOR signaling, can occur.
 
Lynks8 said:
Meh. Why they used such a small dose, no diet control, and no post workout protein is beyond me. This is no doubt interesting, but less relevant to most lifters than previous studies. Disappointing.
Click to expand...

I feel like it was almost their objective to make PA look worthless. I'm on it right now and I can already feel the gains coming to me, although I'm mega dosing out of my mind (2400mg), I've dosed at 750, whatever 2-3 tbsp. SL granules, etc. so I know this stuff definitely helps in some way.
 
Even if did not work, I do have the lowest cholesterol risk factor of my life which is even lower than the lowest value of the common reference ranges. Which was not the case before, so I attribute this to it and granules are cheap as chips
 
It work and it is no placebo! It might not work for everyone, but there is no denying the strength gain, and muscle fullness have got from it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top