Guest viewing is limited

newest muscletech breakthrough

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jiigzz said:
You're way off base here. My note was an aside; a planning for what I might do when I get Hmb-fa if you will.

I was making a remark like "I wonder how itl stack with xgels or abe or forskolin" or whatever. I wasnt stating anything else, despite what you think. Take a step back for a second and breathe. Im not attacking you, MT or your friends who published the study , I was just making a remark as to how I could utilise this with my own routine.

Literally nothing of what you said WRT my statement is how I intended that to be read. I was NOT implying AT ALL that the same results would be met with leucine, protein and carbs. I was wondering what might happen if you used ALL together. All i knew was that there was an undisclosed protein used that i didnt know what it was, so i was wondering what might occur if you combine that, leucine and carbs to yield a even better post workout.concotion.
As you pointed out, the protein had sufficient leucine so that element was measured; how was I to know this if this isnt in the FT?
Click to expand...

You specifically mentioned leucine/protein, if you had meant other supplements, either I missed it or it wasn't clear. If I missed it, my apologies, if it was indeed not very clear to begin with, it is what it is and consider the matter settled then.

The Solution said:
and your expectations?
how can you make such bold statements when you never ran it
i can guarantee you never made godlike and steroid like gains using HMB have you?
I highly doubt it.

Only one way to figure out and that is trying it, and because its not released yet all the drama stirred means nothing.
But the claims are bold, and pretty much stating you can add 150 pounds to your big 3 in a 8-12 weeks run is a power lifters dream even those who have tons of years of experience under their belt.
Click to expand...

I did NOT make any statements in regards to what this stuff will do or will not do for the typical user running XYZ training. My comments were aimed SQUARELY at the posts that have been implying that the STUDY ITSELF was some how fabricated or fibbed. Nothing more and nothing less. The data for the study is the data, Ergo Log and many other posters have not provided any actual basis for their insinuations that the results of the data was somehow falsified. Their support for their suspicions that the data was fabricated essentially boils down to them going "No, this is beyond my regular expectations by miles and thus because it's outside of the realm of my personal beliefs, I doubt the results and just don't believe it."

I've CLEARLY pointed out several posts earlier in this thread that I am NOT saying what the HMB will or will not do or if the product from MT is a good or bad product, ALL of my comments have been based on the DATA available in the recent study as well as previous studies on HMB and are ENTIRELY WITHIN the CONTEXT of the data in those studies.

Doubting a product and hypothesizing if a product is good or not is one thing, insinuating that data in a very well put together study was somehow falsified ESPECIALLY when one did NOT bother to look over the data or even bother to ask Dr. Wilson directly (in which Dr. Wilson has been VERY open about his work, go look up his presentation on HMB that he had at a recent conference, people keep questioning the study and trying to imply that Wilson may perhaps be on the take yet when I posted the link for the video presentation on the other board, the majority just ended up going "man, that's mad long, I ain't watching that!"). Two very different things here which people seem to jumble up as one and the same.
 
kissdadookie said:
when I posted the link for the video presentation on the other board, the majority just ended up going "man, that's mad long, I ain't watching that!")
Click to expand...
lol poor kd noone ever takes the time for ones efforts
 
How long is this argument or whatever it is going to go on? Just wait for the stuff to come out, let people run it, and see what happens. Simple as that.
 
kbayne said:
How long is this argument or whatever it is going to go on? Just wait for the stuff to come out, let people run it, and see what happens. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

ah these are weighty questions kbayne all I may tell you is there are much longer threads which have a plenitudinous supply of

less real substance which many fear the back of will never be seen so while I agree with you my friend that it would seem "simple

as that" sometimes in life there are solutions but often times there are those for whom the presumption is the solution in their

journey is always to be in the dodgy uncertainty of the search
 
kissdadookie said:
Clearly people much prefer reading blurbs off a blog site rather than dig into studies in depth and dig up more information in general. Oh well, it's the age of twitter I guess :P
Click to expand...

Typing long winded posts doesn't make you knowledgeable its just intellectually frustrating...
 
kbayne said:
How long is this argument or whatever it is going to go on? Just wait for the stuff to come out, let people run it, and see what happens. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
Thats how they get your money
 
USPlabsRep said:
Typing long winded posts doesn't make you knowledgeable its just intellectually frustrating...
Click to expand...

As opposed to you trying to prove a point with a study you link to on this thread only to have it turn out that you have evidently not bothered to actually look into the study you linked to thoroughly? Hmmmmmmm, intellectually frustrating you say...

After all, it would appear that the sole reason you posted the link to that study was to somehow demonstrate that HMB was bunk but your glaring oversight that the study was comparing anabolic effects of leucine vs. HMB when it was never the argument in the first place that HMB was a strong anabolic/mTOR activator. Or perhaps the fact that you attempted to frame HMB as an anabolic without understanding that HMB's strong point is it's anti-catabolic effect (via depressing the ubiquitin-proteasome proteolytic pathway, yes, I did you the favour of looking that up for you, laymans terms it equates to protein breakdown).

Never did I claim to be knowledgeable, but at least I'm doing my homework here, unlike yourself. It would appear that the legwork you should have been doing yourself, I had to do it for you, only to have you then come back and take things out of context or misconstrue my posts and essentially make it appear that I have been claiming XYZ when I have not.

It is not any fault of my own that my "long winded" posts have mostly been at best, glanced half-heartedly by, what have your contributions been apart from boiling down to brisk posts of "Nope, don't believe in this HMB" even though there's a study right there (several actually) which makes the entire believing it or not thing out to be pointless anyway, because there is actual data there, human data. The truly intellectually frustrating part of all this is that you are not even bothering with looking into the data. What kind of conclusion or notion can you form here if you don't even bother to look into the vast amount of data available?

One would think that you being the owner of USPLabs (I am making an assumption here, so if I am wrong, I apologize), looking into data in depth should be one of the things you should be really good at, how else are you to bring products to market with good ingredients? Oh wait... you did bring out aegeline that works well on mice due to the amount of BAT they have but somehow you are assuming that humans have an appreciable amount of BAT (even though the more recent research has been more about how we may increase BAT in humans rather than to try and stimulate the very minute amount we have as adults).
 
jimbuick said:
......
Click to expand...

Please point out what claims I am making about HMB for users that will utilize it for their own workout protocols or claims I am making about MT. From the beginning, I was only pointing out details and findings from the available studies on HMB.

Then again, seeing how the majority of people didn't bother looking through the studies yet just point to an Ergo Log post... one has to wonder...
 
kissdadookie said:
Please point out what claims I am making about HMB for users that will utilize it for their own workout protocols or claims I am making about MT. From the beginning, I was only pointing out details and findings from the available studies on HMB.

Then again, seeing how the majority of people didn't bother looking through the studies yet just point to an Ergo Log post... one has to wonder...
Click to expand...

You're doing it again!


I didn't say anywhere that you were making any claims. You keep reading **** in people's posts that isn't there. I quoted that because it was humorous to me because it is exactly what you are doing to other posters (namely Jiigzz)
 
jimbuick said:
You're doing it again!


I didn't say anywhere that you were making any claims. You keep reading **** in people's posts that isn't there. I quoted that because it was humorous to me because it is exactly what you are doing to other posters (namely Jiigzz)
Click to expand...

Here's Jigzz post:

"But the net result seems to favour an anabolic environment, no?

I mean 16lbs of LBM means that even though HMB is not itself anabolic, it helps create an anabolic environment by limiting breakdown.

I wonder what the results would be like if we also added a carbohydrate and then leucine and a protein shake post workout (bare in mind that both groups received supplemental whey as well).

Could be awesome"

So going strictly by that post, where is the suggestion that he was implying stacking it ABE and what not? Carbs, leucine, protein post (carbs to spike insulin, leucine/protein to activate mTOR). It would appear that he was under the impression that activating mTOR could be a variable here, which I explained in a reply post, was not a variable because all participants received 25 grams of Iso-100 (this was noted a good long whiles back on the suppversity post on the study prior to the study being published).

What exactly did I misconstrue given the information contained in his post? Please, enlighten us or enlighten me at least. That post simply wasn't all that clear to begin with. I'm not a mind reader, I can only go by what is presented in front of me.
 
kissdadookie said:
As opposed to you trying to prove a point with a study you link to on this thread only to have it turn out that you have evidently not bothered to actually look into the study you linked to thoroughly? Hmmmmmmm, intellectually frustrating you say...

After all, it would appear that the sole reason you posted the link to that study was to somehow demonstrate that HMB was bunk but your glaring oversight that the study was comparing anabolic effects of leucine vs. HMB when it was never the argument in the first place that HMB was a strong anabolic/mTOR activator. Or perhaps the fact that you attempted to frame HMB as an anabolic without understanding that HMB's strong point is it's anti-catabolic effect (via depressing the ubiquitin-proteasome proteolytic pathway, yes, I did you the favour of looking that up for you, laymans terms it equates to protein breakdown).

Never did I claim to be knowledgeable, but at least I'm doing my homework here, unlike yourself. It would appear that the legwork you should have been doing yourself, I had to do it for you, only to have you then come back and take things out of context or misconstrue my posts and essentially make it appear that I have been claiming XYZ when I have not.

It is not any fault of my own that my "long winded" posts have mostly been at best, glanced half-heartedly by, what have your contributions been apart from boiling down to brisk posts of "Nope, don't believe in this HMB" even though there's a study right there (several actually) which makes the entire believing it or not thing out to be pointless anyway, because there is actual data there, human data. The truly intellectually frustrating part of all this is that you are not even bothering with looking into the data. What kind of conclusion or notion can you form here if you don't even bother to look into the vast amount of data available?

One would think that you being the owner of USPLabs (I am making an assumption here, so if I am wrong, I apologize), looking into data in depth should be one of the things you should be really good at, how else are you to bring products to market with good ingredients? Oh wait... you did bring out aegeline that works well on mice due to the amount of BAT they have but somehow you are assuming that humans have an appreciable amount of BAT (even though the more recent research has been more about how we may increase BAT in humans rather than to try and stimulate the very minute amount we have as adults).
Click to expand...

Do you know why compounds are able to be patented? Doesn't seem you do...
 
USPlabsRep said:
Thank you. That answers his Aegeline question....
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, I like how you're basically sidestepping the question on aegeline here. At best it metabolizes to octopamine which in and of itself doesn't do much of anything for humans. Aegeline itself is as USP has described it, a beta-3 agonist, again, pretty useless in humans seeing how our ADRB3 is located in BAT (which again, we have very little of, current research is trying to find ways to INCREASE BAT, not trying to activate ADRB3 in our BAT because it would do little to nothing since we have so little BAT to begin with). Should I also point out how your ad copy for Versa-1 points out that it's by the good folks that brought us Pink Magic? Whatever happened to Pink Magic? It would appear that after it hit the market, actual consumers did not really like that product, yet your "loggers" were bananas over it (just like your "loggers" go crazy for all USPLabs logs, placebro much?).

So, thank you, for trying to muddy things up just so that you can appear as if you are free and clear. Need I remind you that it was you whom was questioning my understanding of the HMB data and then it was also you that linked to a HMB study trying to "prove" that I did not know what I was talking about, only to have it turn out that you very obviously did not actually bother looking through the study you linked to, yet you are claiming that I am intellectually frustrating? Oh the irony.
 
kissdadookie said:
No it doesn't, I like how you're basically sidestepping the question on aegeline here. At best it metabolizes to octopamine which in and of itself doesn't do much of anything for humans. Aegeline itself is as USP has described it, a beta-3 agonist, again, pretty useless in humans seeing how our ADRB3 is located in BAT (which again, we have very little of, current research is trying to find ways to INCREASE BAT, not trying to activate ADRB3 in our BAT because it would do little to nothing since we have so little BAT to begin with). Should I also point out how your ad copy for Versa-1 points out that it's by the good folks that brought us Pink Magic? Whatever happened to Pink Magic? It would appear that after it hit the market, actual consumers did not really like that product, yet your "loggers" were bananas over it (just like your "loggers" go crazy for all USPLabs logs, placebro much?).

So, thank you, for trying to muddy things up just so that you can appear as if you are free and clear. Need I remind you that it was you whom was questioning my understanding of the HMB data and then it was also you that linked to a HMB study trying to "prove" that I did not know what I was talking about, only to have it turn out that you very obviously did not actually bother looking through the study you linked to, yet you are claiming that I am intellectually frustrating? Oh the irony.
Click to expand...

A patent was filed for Aegeline. You can't patent prior art. BAT is just secondary.
 
USPlabsRep said:
A patent was filed for Aegeline. You can't patent prior art. BAT is just secondary.
Click to expand...

WHO CARES IF YOU PATENTED IT OR NOT?!? THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION (plus par for the course, it's patented, or patent pending, by you guys for what is most likely to use as a marketing ploy, just like how your cissus is patented). My question was what the heck good was aegeline when it really doesn't do much for humans and the very scant available data would also suggest this? Why are you putting out aegeline and things like Pink Magic yet just poo poo'ing HMB even though it has a ton of substantial data behind it? What makes more sense? You patenting an ingredient that all data would suggest does little to nothing for humans or doing more in depth review of available data for an ingredient that has been shown to have various very interesting and promising effects on humans? Apparently you didn't opt for the latter and instead prefer the first thing.

Do I really need to reiterate yet again that you have basically poo poo'd HMB and the study without even bothering to look into the study in any reasonable level of detail? For goodness sakes, instead of getting the macro breakdown for the controlled diet directly from the study (or just simply e-mailing Dr. Wilson), I basically had to regurgitate the information for you. Why the heck am I doing all the leg work for you? Preposterous.
 
kissdadookie said:
No it doesn't, I like how you're basically sidestepping the question on aegeline here. At best it metabolizes to octopamine which in and of itself doesn't do much of anything for humans. Aegeline itself is as USP has described it, a beta-3 agonist, again, pretty useless in humans seeing how our ADRB3 is located in BAT (which again, we have very little of, current research is trying to find ways to INCREASE BAT, not trying to activate ADRB3 in our BAT because it would do little to nothing since we have so little BAT to begin with). Should I also point out how your ad copy for Versa-1 points out that it's by the good folks that brought us Pink Magic? Whatever happened to Pink Magic? It would appear that after it hit the market, actual consumers did not really like that product, yet your "loggers" were bananas over it (just like your "loggers" go crazy for all USPLabs logs, placebro much?).

So, thank you, for trying to muddy things up just so that you can appear as if you are free and clear. Need I remind you that it was you whom was questioning my understanding of the HMB data and then it was also you that linked to a HMB study trying to "prove" that I did not know what I was talking about, only to have it turn out that you very obviously did not actually bother looking through the study you linked to, yet you are claiming that I am intellectually frustrating? Oh the irony.
Click to expand...

BAT is specific per individual. Since you are a "data" guy and apparently an expert on EVERYTHING....

Invalid Link Removed

Ironically it will be included in the New Pink Magic and/is included in the Test Powder that can be found at a amazing price at NutraPlanet.

Invalid Link Removed

I always stop listening when an individual associates what scientist barely know about a topic as complex as BAT. You are annoying because people listen to what you write (you should take that as a positive and respect it) even though the majority of the time its incorrect or half truths.

Intellectually frustrating when attempting a discussion with ignorance and arrogance...
 
USPlabsRep said:
BAT is specific per individual. Since you are a "data" guy and apparently an expert on EVERYTHING....

Invalid Link Removed

Ironically it will be included in the New Pink Magic and/is included in the Test Powder that can be found at a amazing price at NutraPlanet.

Invalid Link Removed

I always stop listening when an individual associates what scientist barely know about a topic as complex as BAT. You are annoying because people listen to what you write (you should take that as a positive and respect it) even though the majority of the time its incorrect or half truths.

Intellectually frustrating when attempting a discussion with ignorance and arrogance...
Click to expand...

I like how you are claiming that I am posting half truths whilst you've just posted that BAT link. How is an ingredient that would work on maybe 50/50 depending on the person be a good ingredient? The prerequisite in that study basically was that a person needed to have a fair amount of BAT in their body to begin with. Like I've mentioned earlier in regards to BAT, research is currently trying to find ways to increase BAT in adult humans. Stimulating BAT is very very very low on the totem pole because to stimulate BAT in an effort to induce lipolysis, one needs a fair amount of BAT to begin with.

For all this finger pointing at me about half truths, you seem to love to use half truths yourself, completely out of context as well. What's next? You'll just take bits and pieces of several studies, completely out of context, string them together to explain some new questionable ingredient that you will patent and throw into a product?
 
kissdadookie said:
Here's Jigzz post:

"But the net result seems to favour an anabolic environment, no?

I mean 16lbs of LBM means that even though HMB is not itself anabolic, it helps create an anabolic environment by limiting breakdown.

I wonder what the results would be like if we also added a carbohydrate and then leucine and a protein shake post workout (bare in mind that both groups received supplemental whey as well).

Could be awesome"

So going strictly by that post, where is the suggestion that he was implying stacking it ABE and what not? Carbs, leucine, protein post (carbs to spike insulin, leucine/protein to activate mTOR). It would appear that he was under the impression that activating mTOR could be a variable here, which I explained in a reply post, was not a variable because all participants received 25 grams of Iso-100 (this was noted a good long whiles back on the suppversity post on the study prior to the study being published).

What exactly did I misconstrue given the information contained in his post? Please, enlighten us or enlighten me at least. That post simply wasn't all that clear to begin with. I'm not a mind reader, I can only go by what is presented in front of me.
Click to expand...

I stated leucine + protein + carbs as my post workout is usually a bowl of weetbix, milk with a banana and 3-5g of leucine.

I didnt know what protein the group had, i just knew there was an undisclosed protein used so I just assumed it wouldnt have enough leucine. You cleared that up which is fine and I only reacted the way I did as you then went on to tell me how my logic was flawed as the protein used had enough leucine which I stated I didnt know.

My post was purely a hypothetical; hence the "I wonder".

54 pages in on mobile and the same things are being said over and over.

Surely you can understand the skepticism without always saying "but the data is right there....."

I dont know what bf% or what the lifters training routines were like prior to commencement but I can say that if they utilising a one a week split for strength, then it is no wonder this overreaching plan worked so well because their base of strength likely wouldnt have been high.
I train at a gym where people hav been going 2+ years and still unable to many reps on bench at their own bodyweight. Heck some cant even squat their bodyweight properly.

However if they were elite lifters with well developed plans; would the same results have been made given that gains at this point are hard to come by?

On that note, i am unsubbing from this thread :D
 
With you jiigzz on the unsubbing.
 
Given these conditions, especially #2 as it relates to most members on this board, and the results observed by the study, it seems favourable for one to follow each component of this study.

I know a few loggers are, but let's be serious, such dramatic improvements in body composition knowing that the subjects are similar in nature to many of us makes this entire process intriguing. And if so, who in their right mind wouldn't change their routine for 12 weeks to achieve these compelling results..?
 
Philosophy said:
Given these conditions, especially #2 as it relates to most members on this board, and the results observed by the study, it seems favourable for one to follow each component of this study.

I know a few loggers are, but let's be serious, such dramatic improvements in body composition knowing that the subjects are similar in nature to many of us makes this entire process intriguing. And if so, who in their right mind wouldn't change their routine for 12 weeks to achieve these compelling results..?
Click to expand...

Even if the training doesnt seem that perfect,for most of the guys on this forum, i think they wouldnt give us a routine with no results. I think i will give this product a try and see how it goes.
 
Markos4 said:
Even if the training doesnt seem that perfect,for most of the guys on this forum, i think they wouldnt give us a routine with no results. I think i will give this product a try and see how it goes.
Click to expand...
well thats what they want, they get your money then come out with the new super duper supplement
 
Philosophy said:
Here is the training protocol used in the study.Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
My biggest problem with this study is this:It is a 12 week study, they overreach on weeks 9 and 10. Clearly the HMB-FA group had less decrements in strength and performance during the overreaching cycle while the placebo group lost a great deal of strength and performance. Yuri Verkhoshanksy has written on multiple occasions that the larger the decrements in an overreaching cycle (he terms concentrated), the longer it takes for the individual to experience the effects of supercompensation. Now the HMB-FA group had significantly less decrements which may have lead to an earlier supercompensatory effect (Dr. Wilson even stated most gains came in weeks 11 and 12). I suspect that the placebo group would achieve similar results if the study was extended an extra 2 weeks (and possibly better) to allow for supercompensation to take place judging by the large amount of strength lost
 
braskibra said:
My biggest problem with this study is this:It is a 12 week study, they overreach on weeks 9 and 10. Clearly the HMB-FA group had less decrements in strength and performance during the overreaching cycle while the placebo group lost a great deal of strength and performance. Yuri Verkhoshanksy has written on multiple occasions that the larger the decrements in an overreaching cycle (he terms concentrated), the longer it takes for the individual to experience the effects of supercompensation. Now the HMB-FA group had significantly less decrements which may have lead to an earlier supercompensatory effect (Dr. Wilson even stated most gains came in weeks 11 and 12). I suspect that the placebo group would achieve similar results if the study was extended an extra 2 weeks (and possibly better) to allow for supercompensation to take place judging by the large amount of strength lost
Click to expand...

Here is the difference though:

HMB-FA group did not decline in strength during the overreach phase. They continued to improve. Placebo group started losing strength during the overreach phase. The difference is the overreach period.

Theres also data that suggests that a recovery period which lasts too long will actually negatively affect adaptation. Basically you will "untrain." It's like taking 2 steps forward and 3
steps back.

Your theory is good but you did not factor in that a 4 week, even 3 week, recovery phase would most likely result in losing adaptation from training. The body will super compensate during a recovery period but if that period is too long, you end up losing some of what you gained.
 
fightnews said:
well thats what they want, they get your money then come out with the new super duper supplement
Click to expand...
I really find it bizarre that you're this skeptical of HMB-Fa even though the study conducted is actually quite good and demonstrates how to really optimize the use of the ingredient whilst you are all goo goo ga ga over Micro-PA and comparing it to PH. Btw, both Dr. Stout and Dr. Wilson has done a lot of work on HMB. The HMB-Fa study came out of Wilson's lab. Wilson's lab also did the study on PA. Another study he and his lab worked on has been for ArA for Molecular Nutrition. The ingredient (HMB) and the research behind it has very little to do with MuscleTech, people really need to stop seeing this as some kind of MuscleTech marketing conspiracy, MuscleTech simply had the foresight to see this as a very promising ingredient for a product and thus inked an exclusivity deal for the ingredient. Much like how Biotest realized how PA is a very promising ingredient and thus were first to market with a PA product (which btw, PA is legit, really am enjoying it).
 
kissdadookie said:
Here is the difference though:

HMB-FA group did not decline in strength during the overreach phase. They continued to improve. Placebo group started losing strength during the overreach phase. The difference is the overreach period.

Theres also data that suggests that a recovery period which lasts too long will actually negatively affect adaptation. Basically you will "untrain." It's like taking 2 steps forward and 3
steps back.

Your theory is good but you did not factor in that a 4 week, even 3 week, recovery phase would most likely result in losing adaptation from training. The body will super compensate during a recovery period but if that period is too long, you end up losing some of what you gained.
Click to expand...



Not at all, the time the LDTE is displayed is determined by the volume, duration, and decrease in strength. A greater decrease in strength (placebo), will take longer to elicit supercompensation. When overreaching, losing strength is expected and theoretically should result in a larger supercompensatory effect. 2 weeks is no where near long enough to lose "some of what you gained". Yuri explicitly states the LDTE is observed to last from 4-12 weeks. In my opinion, the follow-up is no where near long enough. Should have re-tested 4 weeks after completion of the overreach.

Where is the data suggesting recovery too long, how is lifting 3x a week recovery? Its restoration. Moderate volume of general work with some speed-strength and gradually increasing intensity is restoration. Your suggestion only holds truth if they completely rested.

In my opinion, a greater decrease in strength during the overreach will actually benefit the subjects greater in the long-term (due to greater supercompensatory response and LDTE which probably manifested itself 4-6 weeks after completion of the study)

If you look at the study completed by verkhoshansky the LDTE peaked 2 months after completion of a concentrated loading cycle (with a 10% decrease in strength during the cycle, similar to placebo)
 
kissdadookie said:
I really find it bizarre that you're this skeptical of HMB-Fa even though the study conducted is actually quite good and demonstrates how to really optimize the use of the ingredient whilst you are all goo goo ga ga over Micro-PA and comparing it to PH. Btw, both Dr. Stout and Dr. Wilson has done a lot of work on HMB. The HMB-Fa study came out of Wilson's lab. Wilson's lab also did the study on PA. Another study he and his lab worked on has been for ArA for Molecular Nutrition. The ingredient (HMB) and the research behind it has very little to do with MuscleTech, people really need to stop seeing this as some kind of MuscleTech marketing conspiracy, MuscleTech simply had the foresight to see this as a very promising ingredient for a product and thus inked an exclusivity deal for the ingredient. Much like how Biotest realized how PA is a very promising ingredient and thus were first to market with a PA product (which btw, PA is legit, really am enjoying it).
Click to expand...


I think HMB-FA has a place, but one randomized controlled trial by a stakeholder in the ingredient is not exactly a dearth of evidence. Until some other respected individuals replicate similar studies the ingredient will be looked at with skepticism.
 
braskibra said:
I think HMB-FA has a place, but one randomized controlled trial by a stakeholder in the ingredient is not exactly a dearth of evidence. Until some other respected individuals replicate similar studies the ingredient will be looked at with skepticism.
Click to expand...

Going to post this but I know 90% of you will not bother with it:

Invalid Link Removed
 
The MT marketing dept. are evil geniuses *insert dastardly laugh*.... this is THE MOST hype I've ever seen from a supp. that's not even available yet. Whether negative or positive they've got their product on everyone's radar.
 
JoeRecomp said:
The MT marketing dept. are evil geniuses *insert dastardly laugh*.... this is THE MOST hype I've ever seen from a supp. that's not even available yet. Whether negative or positive they've got their product on everyone's radar.
Click to expand...

I hate seeing this from people. MT has done a very good job distancing themselves from the "old MT". All of their recent products have properly dosed ingredients that are undisclosed, which they provide studies for.

They haven't even made any claims yet about this product. The data is there, and I surely understand people's skeptism, but I can't understand how someone could be so critical of something that they've yet to try or even see RL results from
 
kissdadookie said:
Going to post this but I know 90% of you will not bother with it:

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Did you conduct a double blind trial to receive that statistic?
 
kissdadookie has not just beaten a dead horse on this topic he's chopped it up into pieces, ground it into mulch, spread the mulch out onto a football field and then carpet bombed the field with about 500 nukes
 
Quadzilla99 said:
kissdadookie has not just beaten a dead horse on this topic he's chopped it up into pieces, ground it into mulch, spread the mulch out onto a football field and then carpet bombed the field with about 500 nukes
Click to expand...

Good. That makes the information far easier for people to digest then since I've helped break it down into little tiny pieces.
 
kissdadookie said:
WHO CARES IF YOU PATENTED IT OR NOT?!? THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION (plus par for the course, it's patented, or patent pending, by you guys for what is most likely to use as a marketing ploy, just like how your cissus is patented). My question was what the heck good was aegeline when it really doesn't do much for humans and the very scant available data would also suggest this? Why are you putting out aegeline and things like Pink Magic yet just poo poo'ing HMB even though it has a ton of substantial data behind it? What makes more sense? You patenting an ingredient that all data would suggest does little to nothing for humans or doing more in depth review of available data for an ingredient that has been shown to have various very interesting and promising effects on humans? Apparently you didn't opt for the latter and instead prefer the first thing.

Do I really need to reiterate yet again that you have basically poo poo'd HMB and the study without even bothering to look into the study in any reasonable level of detail? For goodness sakes, instead of getting the macro breakdown for the controlled diet directly from the study (or just simply e-mailing Dr. Wilson), I basically had to regurgitate the information for you. Why the heck am I doing all the leg work for you? Preposterous.
Click to expand...

Cissus is patented and its public record.
 
De__eB said:
I think the most revealing thing in the study is what proper diet and training does.

The results in the control group exceed what the overwhelming majority of people here are getting with or without natural or unnatural supplementation.
Click to expand...

How do we know the diet was proper?
 
USPlabsRep said:
How do we know the diet was proper?
Click to expand...

I really don't understand where your pessimism (to put it kindly) is coming from. Seriously. The data is the data. Wilson has been incredibly open about the work. It's a very well designed and executed study. Do you have any studies of your own that comes anywhere close to this study design and execution? I mean, it honestly feels like you have a bone to pick here but I don't know exactly what's behind it driving all this.

Why do you not just go and ask Dr. Wilson? Aren't you located in Florida? Wilson has posted on the other board that anybody who wishes to visit his lab is more or less welcome to go and visit and even train there.
 
Invalid Link Removed
 
kissdadookie said:
I really don't understand where your pessimism (to put it kindly) is coming from. Seriously. The data is the data. Wilson has been incredibly open about the work. It's a very well designed and executed study. Do you have any studies of your own that comes anywhere close to this study design and execution? I mean, it honestly feels like you have a bone to pick here but I don't know exactly what's behind it driving all this.

Why do you not just go and ask Dr. Wilson? Aren't you located in Florida? Wilson has posted on the other board that anybody who wishes to visit his lab is more or less welcome to go and visit and even train there.
Click to expand...

I hope you back up every study you read with this level of intent.

Maybe you could make a tv show where people pick studies out of a hat and then they have to try go against your stance lol.

KDD vs. The world
 
USPlabsRep said:
How do we know the diet was proper?
Click to expand...

Well, assuming the weight data is accurate and not entirely forged, then I'm assuming they were all on a significant surplus. If it was completely bogus, I'd like to believe the IRB would've flagged this.

I really think the key takeaway here is differences in the level at which people are working out recreational and those undergoing training programs like this.

Look at the sorts of bulks and cuts professional athletes in weight-classed sports undergo.

You've got LHW guys bulking to 240, cutting and depleting to 205, and then loading back to 225-230 immediately before a fight.

I'm going to go out on a super bold limb here and say a lot of those guys lost a substantial amount of the weight gained over the course of this study in the following month.
 
Jiigzz said:
I hope you back up every study you read with this level of intent.

Maybe you could make a tv show where people pick studies out of a hat and then they have to try go against your stance lol.

KDD vs. The world
Click to expand...

The problem here is that not a single person which has posted implying that the study was bogus or that the results at least were bogus, has provided any substantial backing to what they are implying. Do you not remember the PM/comment/whatever you sent me on the other board? The reasoning behind your pessimism was essentially that the results looked too good to be true.

If the results looks too good to be true, then look into the details of the study that yielded the results. Find the flaws in the details, however, thus far, it's the same ole same ole "I just don't believe it" reasoning. Stating things like "Oh, XYZ company funded the study. The researchers were shills. Etc." simply makes no sense when one is unable to pick apart gross errors or misinformation in the details of the research.

Yeah, it's basically me against a bunch of people that have been poo pooing a study which they never bothered to look into in depth in the first place.

De__eB said:
You've got LHW guys bulking to 240, cutting and depleting to 205, and then loading back to 225-230 immediately before a fight.

I'm going to go out on a super bold limb here and say a lot of those guys lost a substantial amount of the weight gained over the course of this study in the following month.
Click to expand...

I am totally with you on that. Even Wilson stated that LBM included water weight and glycogen, not just new muscle tissue.
 
kissdadookie said:
The problem here is that not a single person which has posted implying that the study was bogus or that the results at least were bogus, has provided any substantial backing to what they are implying. Do you not remember the PM/comment/whatever you sent me on the other board? The reasoning behind your pessimism was essentially that the results looked too good to be true.

If the results looks too good to be true, then look into the details of the study that yielded the results. Find the flaws in the details, however, thus far, it's the same ole same ole "I just don't believe it" reasoning. Stating things like "Oh, XYZ company funded the study. The researchers were shills. Etc." simply makes no sense when one is unable to pick apart gross errors or misinformation in the details of the research.

Yeah, it's basically me against a bunch of people that have been poo pooing a study which they never bothered to look into in depth in the first place.



I am totally with you on that. Even Wilson stated that LBM included water weight and glycogen, not just new muscle tissue.
Click to expand...

My statement was a joke; i've just literally never seen anyone so defensive over one study lol.

I'm going to read the FT now. The whole thing. Again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top