NO precursors side/long term effects?

regomello

New member
Awards
0
Hello everyone.

Someone here mentioned NO as an aging factor.

May long term use of citrulline or agmatine decrease the endothelium's capacity to synthesize NO without exogenous support?

Can NO precursors supplementation affect the endothelium's or blood vessels' natural capacities in the future?

A big thank you.
 

macwad

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Dont know the answer for your question.
Just would like to warn people to cycle nitrates. MrCooper once said that and I think people just dont know about it and preworkout's labels dont mention it.
Nitrates are powerfull and people should be cautios about a long term use of it
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Hello everyone.

Someone here mentioned NO as an aging factor.

May long term use of citrulline or agmatine decrease the endothelium's capacity to synthesize NO without exogenous support?

Can NO precursors supplementation affect the endothelium's or blood vessels' natural capacities in the future?

A big thank you.
My assumption would be, to some degree, yes - they can effect endothelial function (not just capacity). Some of these improvements, however, could be beneficial depending on which NO precursor you are talking about.

Arginine itself has been hypothesized to have anti-aging function and as part of a food supply, it is used long-term by everyone (until they die).

Agamatine has been shown in studies to help prevent, or maybe even reverse, cognitive decline with age, Alzheimer's and dementia (in rats at least). It has also been shown to be neuroprotective in ischemic events. It also has some function to decrease blood glucose levels, decrease anxiety, and improve the function of other drugs.

Not sure on nitrates, and I think there is some conflicting evidence - but our guts also make nitrates/nitrites.

It's always good to cycle, but something like agmatine I wouldn't worry about. Of course, our bodies have a goal at hand and we usually have 2-3 pathways to achieve that goal - and I am starting to believe that the over-use of a single pathway is what often leads to issues. Change is a good thing.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
cheftepesh1

cheftepesh1

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
I would say over time no matter what your supplementing, if the body synthesizes it, the capacity will change. I would cycle everything you take over time to avoid any of those issues.
 

lukinosnake

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
EVERYTHING must cycled in my opinion. The only things that you can always use are vitamins, fish oil and protein.
 

regomello

New member
Awards
0
Wow.

So, in -a sort of reductionist, I know- conclusion: precursors help the endothelium synthesize NO, so long term use might decrease its capacity to synthesize it naturally, without exogenous (supplement) support?

Hence the recommendation to cycle NO precursors?

Interesting.

And HIT4ME, great read on agmatine. Thanks!
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Wow.

So, in -a sort of reductionist, I know- conclusion: precursors help the endothelium synthesize NO, so long term use might decrease its capacity to synthesize it naturally, without exogenous (supplement) support?

Hence the recommendation to cycle NO precursors?

Interesting.

And HIT4ME, great read on agmatine. Thanks!
Glad you liked it. And - I think you're right about the general view that exogenous compounds are generally viewed as reducing your body's own production of the same ingredient endogenously. I think it's overly simplistic to think it "impairs" your body's production though. Your body has the capability to make some compounds, if it doesn't need them because they are being provided through diet, it won't. This is true of a lot of amino acids, vitamins, etc. Just because it's making less doesn't mean it can't compensate, just that it is in range and doesn't need to make more.

In some cases, reducing the body's NEED for production may actually be helpful. I mean, look at fish oil - you can convert (in theory) flax to DHA/EPA - and EPA to DHA and DHA to EPA - but if you're getting it from fish oil, there is no guess work and your body doesn't have to jump through hoops to create it, which eliminates enzymatic loads, etc.

Our bodies, however, ARE designed to go through periods where certain ingredients are abundant, followed by scarcity of the same ingredient. Our environment changes, and our bodies are prepared to adapt.
 

Similar threads


Top