The Arachidonic Acid Help Guide

[Jiigzz]

Again, instead of theorizing on here, shouldn't one go ask Will directly?

Who is theorizing? Go read about interactions for yourself.

As for asking will, he produces XFA; do you think he would talk against his own product?

Edit: bearing in mind that even if the n3 dose in XFA was insignificant to cause issue, people may misinterpret what he says and question XFA.

But a multi gram dose of n3?

 

[NewAgeMayan]

lulz

"No, I wont give up my fish oilz, EVA!!1!"

Easy for me, tho, as Ive never used the crap (fish oil)

 

[Jiigzz]

lulz

"No, I wont give up my fish oilz, EVA!!1!"

Easy for me, tho, as Ive never used the crap (fish oil)

Neither. I eat fatty fish 3x per week but stop for my 50 day run.

 

[kissdadookie]

Who is theorizing? Go read about interactions for yourself.

As for asking will, he produces XFA; do you think he would talk against his own product?

Edit: bearing in mind that even if the n3 dose in XFA was insignificant to cause issue, people may misinterpret what he says and question XFA.

But a multi gram dose of n3?

I've used fish oil as well as no fish oil with ArA. The non-fish oil run I even ran it with GMS and LCLT. Was there a difference? No. At least nothing tangible but I suppose theoretically if we were to measure strength gains in ounces and LBM in grams or something, maybe? But in all practicality, no difference that was appreciable.

Lots of anecdotal feedback on the subject as well, and at worse it's like a 50/50 split for those whom kept fish oil in as to it being less effective or no difference in effectiveness. If we tallied them all up, it might even be in favour of the no difference camp.

So whatever amount keeping fish oil in is inhibiting ArA, in all honesty, I have not seen much anecdotal feedback stating that it does so in any appreciable way. So this honestly IMHO is one of those looks good on paper but does it really matter in practice? No. Btw, this was the gist of Will's view as well if you listened to the interview. He is surmising his stand on the subject based on customer feedback over however many years he's had the product on the market.

Also, you honestly think that Will L. is saying what he's saying in regards to fish oil just to shill XFA? COME ON NOW. He stated nice and clearly on both Iron Radio as well as the PED podcast that ArA is what he is going to go down in the books for, not Anabolics.

Also, in regards to "basic biochemistry," going by "basic biochemistry" many bodybuilders shouldn't be able to grow due to a fundamentally broken inflammation response due to them pounding 6 grams or more of fish oil every day. This EXACT issue of fish oil consumption cancelling out ArA was brought up by Dr. Lowery on Iron Radio when they interviewed Will L. However, we know that this is NOT the case in practice because there’s A LOT of bodybuilders and powerlifters whom religiously pound massive amounts of fish oil daily and for years now (thus why Will L. has mentioned that if you are taking 2-3 grams of it, that’s a relatively modest dose and isn’t going to negatively impact ArA supplementation in a meaningful way).

 

[De__eB]

I've used fish oil as well as no fish oil with ArA. The non-fish oil run I even ran it with GMS and LCLT. Was there a difference? No. At least nothing tangible but I suppose theoretically if we were to measure strength gains in ounces and LBM in grams or something, maybe? But in all practicality, no difference that was appreciable.

Lots of anecdotal feedback on the subject as well, and at worse it's like a 50/50 split for those whom kept fish oil in as to it being less effective or no difference in effectiveness. If we tallied them all up, it might even be in favour of the no difference camp.

So whatever amount keeping fish oil in is inhibiting ArA, in all honesty, I have not seen much anecdotal feedback stating that it does so in any appreciable way. So this honestly IMHO is one of those looks good on paper but does it really matter in practice? No. Btw, this was the gist of Will's view as well if you listened to the interview. He is surmising his stand on the subject based on customer feedback over however many years he's had the product on the market.

Also, you honestly think that Will L. is saying what he's saying in regards to fish oil just to shill XFA? COME ON NOW. He stated nice and clearly on both Iron Radio as well as the PED podcast that ArA is what he is going to go down in the books for, not Anabolics.

Also, in regards to "basic biochemistry," going by "basic biochemistry" many bodybuilders shouldn't be able to grow due to a fundamentally broken inflammation response due to them pounding 6 grams or more of fish oil every day. This EXACT issue of fish oil consumption cancelling out ArA was brought up by Dr. Lowery on Iron Radio when they interviewed Will L. However, we know that this is NOT the case in practice because there’s A LOT of bodybuilders and powerlifters whom religiously pound massive amounts of fish oil daily and for years now (thus why Will L. has mentioned that if you are taking 2-3 grams of it, that’s a relatively modest dose and isn’t going to negatively impact ArA supplementation in a meaningful way).

Doesn't that logic apply to literally every legal supplement on the market?

Why take 1.5g of ArA, I could take 1.4g and the results would *probably* be indistinguishable.

4g Creatine per workout day? Might as well just take 3.5g, after all the difference isn't appreciable!

etc...

Whether something is directly measurable or reaches statistical significance in an individual anecdotal subject is irrelevant isn't it?

Shouldn't best practices still be followed?

 

[kissdadookie]

Doesn't that logic apply to literally every legal supplement on the market?

Why take 1.5g of ArA, I could take 1.4g and the results would *probably* be indistinguishable.

4g Creatine per workout day? Might as well just take 3.5g, after all the difference isn't appreciable!

etc...

Whether something is directly measurable or reaches statistical significance in an individual anecdotal subject is irrelevant isn't it?

Shouldn't best practices still be followed?

Best practices should be followed without question if let's say something is so new that nobody knows how to take it yet, then whatever best practice guideline is available should be taken then (probably).

However, this stuff has been out for a LONG time and I'm not the only one that has ran several cycles of it in various different dosing protocols finding that with or without fish oil (at least in the ~1-2 gram EPA/DHA taken a few hours away from ArA/workout) really didn't see a difference. So since we actually do have plenty of anecdotal feedback for a significant length of time now at this point, is what is being suggested (don't take fish oil) a best practice or more of a personal preference (especially for those whom are incredibly paranoid and don't want to lose a marginal fraction of possible gains based on what seems like the perfect idea on paper)?

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but in practical terms, I haven't seen what makes sense on paper played out in reality (and yes, I do realize that there are people who notice it works better sans fish oil, but there's just as many if not more that noted no difference, so at this point it's at best placebo in terms of there being a difference or not?).

Hey, whatever rocks ones boat.

 

[Jiigzz]

I've used fish oil as well as no fish oil with ArA. The non-fish oil run I even ran it with GMS and LCLT. Was there a difference? No. At least nothing tangible but I suppose theoretically if we were to measure strength gains in ounces and LBM in grams or something, maybe? But in all practicality, no difference that was appreciable.

Lots of anecdotal feedback on the subject as well, and at worse it's like a 50/50 split for those whom kept fish oil in as to it being less effective or no difference in effectiveness. If we tallied them all up, it might even be in favour of the no difference camp.

So whatever amount keeping fish oil in is inhibiting ArA, in all honesty, I have not seen much anecdotal feedback stating that it does so in any appreciable way. So this honestly IMHO is one of those looks good on paper but does it really matter in practice? No. Btw, this was the gist of Will's view as well if you listened to the interview. He is surmising his stand on the subject based on customer feedback over however many years he's had the product on the market.

Also, you honestly think that Will L. is saying what he's saying in regards to fish oil just to shill XFA? COME ON NOW. He stated nice and clearly on both Iron Radio as well as the PED podcast that ArA is what he is going to go down in the books for, not Anabolics.

Also, in regards to "basic biochemistry," going by "basic biochemistry" many bodybuilders shouldn't be able to grow due to a fundamentally broken inflammation response due to them pounding 6 grams or more of fish oil every day. This EXACT issue of fish oil consumption cancelling out ArA was brought up by Dr. Lowery on Iron Radio when they interviewed Will L. However, we know that this is NOT the case in practice because there's A LOT of bodybuilders and powerlifters whom religiously pound massive amounts of fish oil daily and for years now (thus why Will L. has mentioned that if you are taking 2-3 grams of it, that's a relatively modest dose and isn't going to negatively impact ArA

Do you actually understand that muscle growth is mutifactorial and not depedndant on one pathway? The role of cytokines and satellite cells integration is not fully understood and they may work independantly from one another.

In the case of Ara, if works via eicosanoids which are directly inhibited through n3 interaction. That much is well understood. So why supplement with Ara if you are directly inhibiting the pathway you wish to target?

If muscle growth can occur via multiple pathways then it is possible to grow irrespective of fish oil intake.

And oh yes, anecdotal feedback is a brilliant marker. Ill go take my oral IGF 1, arginine and glutamine now

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12695501

 

[kissdadookie]

Do you actually understand that muscle growth is mutifactorial and not depedndant on one pathway? The role of cytokines and satellite cells integration is not fully understood and they may work independantly from one another.

In the case of Ara, if works via eicosanoids which are directly inhibited through n3 interaction. That much is well understood. So why supplement with Ara if you are directly inhibiting the pathway you wish to target?

If muscle growth can occur via multiple pathways then it is possible to grow irrespective of fish oil intake.

And oh yes, anecdotal feedback is a brilliant marker. Ill go take my oral IGF 1, arginine and glutamine now

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12695501

Again, if eicosanoid inhibition of ArA is going to play a significant role and things work as simply as you are implying, then the plentiful bodybuilders literally pounding down 6+ grams of fish oil DAILY and for YEARS would have some serious deregulation of their cellular inflammation response.

What matters is IN PRACTICE. Something which you are glad and quick to discount.

Remember, ArA plays a MAJOR role in inflammation response. Inflammation response plays a MAJOR role in growth and adaptation. IF ArA is so easily and seriously inhibited in the inflammation response cascade due to fish oils, that's a disruption of a MAJOR pathway for growth and proper inflammation response. That is NOT some small insignificant thing like you are making it out to be ("oh, if it's going to inhibit this pathway, we can just go down other ones").

All you're doing right now is theorizing things on paper whilst completely discounting what is occurring in the real world scenarios. It has nothing to do with anecdotal feedback being a brilliant marker or not. It wasn't that long ago that ArA was looked at as a terrible thing that we do NOT want. That was based off of your good old "basic biochemistry."

There are plentiful nuances you are not accounting for by willy nilly throwing around your "dude this is basic biochemistry" bit. Do we know what types of cellular regulation is in play for what fatty acids gets taken up and at what amounts and which will displace what and at what levels and what the possible dose response relationship would be for this to occur and if there is a limit as to how much is displaced? Do you have the information for that? Or are you going to keep going back to the "basic biochemistry" bit?

 

[NewAgeMayan]

cliffs:

if your goal is to maximise delivery of ArA to skeletal muscle, minimise ingestion of any competing substrates.

Which was, afterall, the goal of 'that' thread.

 

[Kickstart7]

cliffs: if your goal is to maximise delivery of ArA to skeletal muscle, minimise ingestion of any competing substrates. Which was, afterall, the goal of 'that' thread.

what're substrates

 

[NewAgeMayan]

what're substrates

Im paraphrasing neuron, its a term he used, and I like it cos it sounds sciencey.

 

[kissdadookie]

cliffs:

if your goal is to maximise delivery of ArA to skeletal muscle, minimise ingestion of any competing substrates.

Which was, afterall, the goal of 'that' thread.

None of this has really been quantified. They certainly didn't go through such lengths in the ArA studies either.

So end of the day, those are just ideas that looks good on paper.

 

[NewAgeMayan]

None of this has really been quantified. They certainly didn't go through such lengths in the ArA studies either.

So end of the day, those are just ideas that looks good on paper.

On one hand I agree with you, and Id be a hypocrite to argue otherwise.

 

[JaySlayer]

I'm currently taking ArA along with intra md does anyone know if the intra workout would negate the ArA

 

[De__eB]

What if I told you that fish oil is wildly overused, nowhere near as beneficial as lots of people seem to assume, and that at doses such as 'bodybuilders literally pounding down 6+ grams of fish oil DAILY and for YEARS' there is an abundance of distinctly negative performance effects to be had.

 

[kissdadookie]

What if I told you that fish oil is wildly overused, nowhere near as beneficial as lots of people seem to assume, and that at doses such as 'bodybuilders literally pounding down 6+ grams of fish oil DAILY and for YEARS' there is an abundance of distinctly negative performance effects to be had.

I agree, those doses are nuts. I'm not advocating such dosages.

 

[SwolenONE]

What if I told you that fish oil is wildly overused, nowhere near as beneficial as lots of people seem to assume, and that at doses such as 'bodybuilders literally pounding down 6+ grams of fish oil DAILY and for YEARS' there is an abundance of distinctly negative performance effects to be had.

Very good point, and equally accurate.

 

[hvactech]

Anyone have an oily residue on the outside of their ara caps?

 

[Driven2lift]

Anyone have an oily residue on the outside of their ara caps?

Never with my X-gels or X-factor

Did one of the caps break in the bottle maybe?

 

[hvactech]

Never with my X-gels or X-factor

Did one of the caps break in the bottle maybe?

Thats what im thinking

 

[kissdadookie]

Anyone have an oily residue on the outside of their ara caps?

Every time and only with XFA.

 

[uwotmate]

not for me (xfactor original)

 

[Nyrin]

I'm currently taking ArA along with intra md does anyone know if the intra workout would negate the ArA

They're certainly not going to be synergistic, but the exercised-induced norepinephrine is going to mitigate the adipose shuttling you'd normally worry about with carbs. ArA's rather preferential to muscle tissue anyhow.

So no, not negated at all. Not optimized, but not severely affected.

 

[hvactech]

Every time and only with XFA.

Thats funny cause thats exactly what I have

 

[Kickstart7]

Will milk or any kind of beverage or food interfere with ARA

 

[kbayne]

Will milk or any kind of beverage or food interfere with ARA

Typically you want to dose if fasted prior to exercise away from food. If you're consuming intra-workout carbs/nutrition however, you're good to go.

 

[Kickstart7]

Typically you want to dose if fasted prior to exercise away from food. If you're consuming intra-workout carbs/nutrition however, you're good to go.

ok! I've tried both ways to take it. So far taking it after I get a short workout has yielded amazing results. I take 1.5 grams after my first set and get so pumped it actually hurts. Never had such a good feeling before. I'm afraid to add GMS bc the pump could be explosive lol

 

[Kickstart7]

ok! I've tried both ways to take it. So far taking it after I get a short workout has yielded amazing results. I take 1.5 grams after my first set and get so pumped it actually hurts. Never had such a good feeling before. I'm afraid to add GMS bc the pump could be explosive lol

edit: short warmup**

 

[Kickstart7]

One last question lol. I'm getting mad back pumps from ARA. Can taurine be taken with it

 

[Negncic]

Every time and only with XFA.

I just opend my third bottle and all 3 bottles had the oily residue and most of the capsules were stuck together. All 3 bottles were ordered at the same time.

 

[kissdadookie]

I just opend my third bottle and all 3 bottles had the oily residue and most of the capsules were stuck together. All 3 bottles were ordered at the same time.

Pretty sure all the XFA is like that. I've gone through many bottles of it ordered a good length apart from each other. All been like that. Original XF is fine though.

 

[Dma378]

What's the longest recommended cycle length for ArA? Does it depend on dosage? Dosed about 60% of first bottle at 1g, then remainder and all of second bottle at 1.5g. Totaling about 6 weeks. Was wanting to grab another bottle and dose it at 2g which is only 12 doses, so about 2 more weeks.

 

[kbayne]

What's the longest recommended cycle length for ArA? Does it depend on dosage? Dosed about 60% of first bottle at 1g, then remainder and all of second bottle at 1.5g. Totaling about 6 weeks. Was wanting to grab another bottle and dose it at 2g which is only 12 doses, so about 2 more weeks.

50 straight days or 50 workout only days.

I believe a few members dose it for extended periods of time but at very low doses after the first 50 days.

 

[Jiigzz]

Again, if eicosanoid inhibition of ArA is going to play a significant role and things work as simply as you are implying, then the plentiful bodybuilders literally pounding down 6+ grams of fish oil DAILY and for YEARS would have some serious deregulation of their cellular inflammation response.

What matters is IN PRACTICE. Something which you are glad and quick to discount.

Remember, ArA plays a MAJOR role in inflammation response. Inflammation response plays a MAJOR role in growth and adaptation. IF ArA is so easily and seriously inhibited in the inflammation response cascade due to fish oils, that's a disruption of a MAJOR pathway for growth and proper inflammation response. That is NOT some small insignificant thing like you are making it out to be ("oh, if it's going to inhibit this pathway, we can just go down other ones").

All you're doing right now is theorizing things on paper whilst completely discounting what is occurring in the real world scenarios. It has nothing to do with anecdotal feedback being a brilliant marker or not. It wasn't that long ago that ArA was looked at as a terrible thing that we do NOT want. That was based off of your good old "basic biochemistry."

There are plentiful nuances you are not accounting for by willy nilly throwing around your "dude this is basic biochemistry" bit. Do we know what types of cellular regulation is in play for what fatty acids gets taken up and at what amounts and which will displace what and at what levels and what the possible dose response relationship would be for this to occur and if there is a limit as to how much is displaced? Do you have the information for that? Or are you going to keep going back to the "basic biochemistry" bit?

You need to read very carefully what I wrote.

Satellite cells play a MAJOR role in muscle growth - in fact without their activation you'd find it hard to grow at all, correct?

After skeletal muscle injury, satellite cells are rapidly activated then enter the cell cycle and proliferate, generating myoblasts that will fuse to form new skeletal muscle fibres within a few days. Following this repair response, new quiescent satellite cells are generated during muscle homeostasis (Sambasivan and Tajbakhsh, 2007; Tedesco et al., 2010).

When exercise damages muscle cells (which is will regardless of how much fish oil you consume provided the stimulus is right) SATELLITE CELLS are RAPIDLY ACTIVATED.

YES ARA is important for inflammation BUT WE KNOW THAT THE BODY DOES IS NOT DEPENDANT ON IT FOR MSUCLE GROWTH as shown through NSAID studies (here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23013520 AND here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18937524]

on current evidence, there is little reason to believe that the occasional use of NSAIDs will negatively affect muscle growth

Now, if NSAID use will not affect muscle growth when used sporadically, that must mean there are growth pathways that work INDEPENDANTLY of it, correct? Yes, long term use can inhibit muscle growth but satellite cell profileration also depends on this pathway.

Satellite cell activation AGAIN does not require inflammation TO ACTIVATE. But rather, inflammation is important for muscle cell healing (here: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/6559/)

More here:

http://dev.biologists.org/content/138/17/3647.full
http://www.nature.com/nrm/journal/v13/n2/pdf/nrm3265.pdf
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=uc7N2Ur6bpMC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=Satellite+Cells+AND+prostaglandins&********bl&ots=WBYtng0D9I&sig=x5VEv9da7PX6VW6pPh5lqW3he-Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GHK5VI-ECOS2mQX6hILIBQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Satellite Cells AND prostaglandins&f=false

Additionally, while inflammation is a key regulator of muscle growth, myogenic cells can act independently of the inflammation response to produce cytokines and growth factors (here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1467750/). What does this mean? It means that growth occurs through MULTIPLE pathways and is not dependent on inflammation for growth.

Limiting inflammation may theoretically reduce excessive muscle degeneration and signals for scar formation, but reducing the availability of growth factors, cytokines, and prostaglandins may inhibit strong signals that promote the regenerative process as well. This paradox is explored in more detail later in this review.

Bolded; an important part of inflammation is the delivery of cytokines and growth factors via macrophages (who respond to inflammation). In addition, satellite cell proliferation is not dependent on inflammation to occur as trauma activates the cells where they begin the process of developing new cells and nuclei. This process is governed by IGF-1 which can be delivered via myogenic cells AS WELL AS macrophages (here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1467750/)

Now back to your question; where is your evidence? all you go by is some podcast with zero backing data. I have shown that growth occurs independently of inflammation as there are a multitude of pathways in which muscles go through after trauma, all of which require activation or cascading of various hormones and cells AND CAN ACT INDEPENDANTLY of Ara. I would also like to see evidence that is not circumstantial or random figure generating by you from non-geared Bodybuilders can grow using 6 grams of fish oil per day.

Now BACK OT:

Arachidonic Acid supplementation works DIRECTLY through the pathway that omega 3 works against and so using both would seem counter intuitive, no? If muscle growth can work independently of inflammation. But bear again in mind (and this is important) that fish oil shows only aMODEST improvement in inflammation recution suggesting that inflammation WOULD STILL OCCUR at trauma sites even with high dose use.

However, 18g of fish oil (2,754g EPA and 1854mg DHA) daily in otherwise healthy youth has been noted to reduce secretion of IL-2 in stimulated PBMCs by a variable 23-52%

which suggests that fish oil does not completely inhibit inflammation but again seriously competes with Ara

CONCLUSION:

Treatment with omega-3 fatty acids significantly reduced AA:EPA ratios in both healthy subjects and in patients with stable CAD. The treatment had no effect on hs-CRP levels in either group, and it reduced triglyceride levels in healthy subjects but not in patients with CAD.

So cliffs:

-We use Ara supplementation TO MAXIMISE THE INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE TO EXERCISE
-Fish oil used alongside CAN REDUCE ITS IMPACT
-USING THEM BOTH RECUES THE POINT OF SUPPLEMENTATION

Come back with evidence to counter your claim so we can have a proper discussion. Muscle growth can obviously occur with fish oil supplementation as it does not INHIBIT pathways, but what is the point of supplementing with Omega 3 in high doses when you want to maximize results of Ara supplementation? It WILL displace Ara, It WILL compete with it and yes, maybe some of it will work, but why not make sure more of it works? I want to make sure SNS customers get the most out of our supplement, not reduce its impact.

Seems like your arguing for the sake of arguing

 

[kissdadookie]

You need to read very carefully what I wrote.

Satellite cells play a MAJOR role in muscle growth - in fact without their activation you'd find it hard to grow at all, correct?



When exercise damages muscle cells (which is will regardless of how much fish oil you consume provided the stimulus is right) SATELLITE CELLS are RAPIDLY ACTIVATED.

YES ARA is important for inflammation BUT WE KNOW THAT THE BODY DOES IS NOT DEPENDANT ON IT FOR MSUCLE GROWTH as shown through NSAID studies (here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23013520 AND here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18937524]



Now, if NSAID use will not affect muscle growth when used sporadically, that must mean there are growth pathways that work INDEPENDANTLY of it, correct? Yes, long term use can inhibit muscle growth but satellite cell profileration also depends on this pathway.

Satellite cell activation AGAIN does not require inflammation TO ACTIVATE. But rather, inflammation is important for muscle cell healing (here: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/6559/)

More here:

http://dev.biologists.org/content/138/17/3647.full
http://www.nature.com/nrm/journal/v13/n2/pdf/nrm3265.pdf
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=uc7N2Ur6bpMC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=Satellite+Cells+AND+prostaglandins&********bl&ots=WBYtng0D9I&sig=x5VEv9da7PX6VW6pPh5lqW3he-Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GHK5VI-ECOS2mQX6hILIBQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Satellite Cells AND prostaglandins&f=false

Additionally, while inflammation is a key regulator of muscle growth, myogenic cells can act independently of the inflammation response to produce cytokines and growth factors (here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1467750/). What does this mean? It means that growth occurs through MULTIPLE pathways and is not dependent on inflammation for growth.



Bolded; an important part of inflammation is the delivery of cytokines and growth factors via macrophages (who respond to inflammation). In addition, satellite cell proliferation is not dependent on inflammation to occur as trauma activates the cells where they begin the process of developing new cells and nuclei. This process is governed by IGF-1 which can be delivered via myogenic cells AS WELL AS macrophages (here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1467750/)

Now back to your question; where is your evidence? all you go by is some podcast with zero backing data. I have shown that growth occurs independently of inflammation as there are a multitude of pathways in which muscles go through after trauma, all of which require activation or cascading of various hormones and cells AND CAN ACT INDEPENDANTLY of Ara. I would also like to see evidence that is not circumstantial or random figure generating by you from non-geared Bodybuilders can grow using 6 grams of fish oil per day.

Now BACK OT:

Arachidonic Acid supplementation works DIRECTLY through the pathway that omega 3 works against and so using both would seem counter intuitive, no? If muscle growth can work independently of inflammation. But bear again in mind (and this is important) that fish oil shows only aMODEST improvement in inflammation recution suggesting that inflammation WOULD STILL OCCUR at trauma sites even with high dose use.

which suggests that fish oil does not completely inhibit inflammation but again seriously competes with Ara

So cliffs:

-We use Ara supplementation TO MAXIMISE THE INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE TO EXERCISE
-Fish oil used alongside CAN REDUCE ITS IMPACT
-USING THEM BOTH RECUES THE POINT OF SUPPLEMENTATION

Come back with evidence to counter your claim so we can have a proper discussion. Muscle growth can obviously occur with fish oil supplementation as it does not INHIBIT pathways, but what is the point of supplementing with Omega 3 in high doses when you want to maximize results of Ara supplementation? It WILL displace Ara, It WILL compete with it and yes, maybe some of it will work, but why not make sure more of it works? I want to make sure SNS customers get the most out of our supplement, not reduce its impact.

Seems like your arguing for the sake of arguing

TLDR

Cliff Note: You're just arguing over what you believe must be true because that's what looking at it on paper suggests to you.

Dr. Lowery didn't go into your diatribe on this topic on Iron Radio interviewing Will L., and this topic WAS BROUGHT UP. Mind you, Dr. Lowery did A LOT of work on fatty acids.

Take away point here: Apparently you like arguing with me instead of doing what is obviously the most logical thing to do (which I suggested), and that is to contact WIll L. yourself.

 

[Dma378]

50 straight days or 50 workout only days.

I believe a few members dose it for extended periods of time but at very low doses after the first 50 days.

Thanks man. So I'm grabbing another bottle. That will still only total about 45 workouts with the bumped up dosage.

 

[Jiigzz]

TLDR

Cliff Note: You're just arguing over what you believe must be true because that's what looking at it on paper suggests to you.

Dr. Lowery didn't go into your diatribe on this topic on Iron Radio interviewing Will L., and this topic WAS BROUGHT UP. Mind you, Dr. Lowery did A LOT of work on fatty acids.

Take away point here: Apparently you like arguing with me instead of doing what is obviously the most logical thing to do (which I suggested), and that is to contact WIll L. yourself.

My god man. Seriously?

Can I ask you this; they use 'science' to prove a point, you quote it and try make me believe it yet you wont read my evidence. Why?

A pseudoscientist at its finest

Can you provide ANY evidence to suggest n3 supplementation does not reduce the impact of AA? here's my side to say they do:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC424148/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2002.10719248#.VLmEVMsfp9A
http://www.jlr.org/content/55/6/1150.short
http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/58/5/880.short?sso-checked=true
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC424148/

But I mean, these studies weren't performed in humans and its just what's written on paper :blink:

 

[De__eB]

TLDR

Cliff Note: You're just arguing over what you believe must be true because that's what looking at it on paper suggests to you.

Dr. Lowery didn't go into your diatribe on this topic on Iron Radio interviewing Will L., and this topic WAS BROUGHT UP. Mind you, Dr. Lowery did A LOT of work on fatty acids.

Take away point here: Apparently you like arguing with me instead of doing what is obviously the most logical thing to do (which I suggested), and that is to contact WIll L. yourself.

Cliff Note: You're just opting to argue over what you believe must be true because that's what you heard from someone else with an economic interest in the subject (not that we don't have a financial stake here, obviously we do)

Your hard-on for name dropping the speculation and opinion of people in the field and taking those as fact is quite frankly tiring and annoying.

You're the one who started the argument. You're the one who asked for information. Information was provided, and now you're just going to deflect the argument to 'Oh yeah I have no response to you, just go contact the guy I quoted'

Cmon man. On the subjects ArA and PA I've linked you to numerous extremely broad compendiums of information to read, but you keep on just starting arguments about things that you (no offense) don't really have an understanding of beyond soundbytes from scientists.

--

It's not even about consumption of ArA and Fish Oil at the same time competing for space on the cell membrane.

In my eyes, it's about the end-game metabolites of DHA, EPA, and ARA, and the signalling that those metabolites provide that raises issues between Fish Oil and ArA co-ingrestion.

 

[kissdadookie]

Cliff Note: You're just opting to argue over what you believe must be true because that's what you heard from someone else with an economic interest in the subject (not that we don't have a financial stake here, obviously we do)

Your hard-on for name dropping the speculation and opinion of people in the field and taking those as fact is quite frankly tiring and annoying.

You're the one who started the argument. You're the one who asked for information. Information was provided, and now you're just going to deflect the argument to 'Oh yeah I have no response to you, just go contact the guy I quoted'

Cmon man. On the subjects ArA and PA I've linked you to numerous extremely broad compendiums of information to read, but you keep on just starting arguments about things that you (no offense) don't really have an understanding of beyond soundbytes from scientists.

--

It's not even about consumption of ArA and Fish Oil at the same time competing for space on the cell membrane.

It's about the end-game metabolites of DHA, EPA, and ARA, and the signalling that those metabolites provide that causes issues.

No, I just 1) don't really give a toss to continue this back and forth 2) know damn well I'm not an expert on this matter 3) pointed out that Jiigzz or whomever else wishes to get to the bottom of this, should just go ask Will L.

Dah fuq is the point of going back and forth with me? Why not go ask Will L.? DERP.

At this point, I dunno, should one just go by what anonymous individuals on a forums board is posting or if an actual person that does work on the subject is available, should one just go ask them instead? I think the latter makes more sense.

 

[De__eB]

No, I just 1) don't really give a toss to continue this back and forth 2) know damn well I'm not an expert on this matter 3) pointed out that Jiigzz or whomever else wishes to get to the bottom of this, should just go ask Will L.

Dah fuq is the point of going back and forth with me? Why not go ask Will L.? DERP.

I dunno, you tell me, you started it

 

[kissdadookie]

I dunno, you tell me, you started it

LoL, yeah, but very quickly I did point out to just go ask Will L.

The response I got back? That Will L. is possibly shilling XFA so won't be honest is what the response boiled down to. Go figure.

 

[Jiigzz]

No, I just 1) don't really give a toss to continue this back and forth 2) know damn well I'm not an expert on this matter 3) pointed out that Jiigzz or whomever else wishes to get to the bottom of this, should just go ask Will L.

Dah fuq is the point of going back and forth with me? Why not go ask Will L.? DERP.

At this point, I dunno, should one just go by what anonymous individuals on a forums board is posting or if an actual person that does work on the subject is available, should one just go ask them instead? I think the latter makes more sense.

If you start an argument (go back and read your posts) then you should at least be able to provide the evidence to back your claim. Clearly I am not going to email him but you could and just copy and paste his response here. I will take cited information into account not just someone's word for it. That goes for anything.

And as an additional note: Will L made a smart move bringing Ara to the market and X factor is a good product; im simply arguing that to maximize Ara; limiting n3 is a good option for all consumers. I would not suggest tis long term because the ratio is important for long term health.

Edit: until that point, I will simply leave it be.

 

[kissdadookie]

If you start an argument (go back and read your posts) then you should at least be able to provide the evidence to back your claim. Clearly I am not going to email him but you could and just copy and paste his response here. I will take cited information into account not just someone's word for it. That goes for anything.

And as an additional note: Will L made a smart move bringing Ara to the market and X factor is a good product; im simply arguing that to maximize Ara; limiting n3 is a good option for all consumers. I would not suggest tis long term because the ratio is important for long term health.

Hey, you choose to ignore how I quickly just pointed out to just go ask Will L., that's on you.

Me suggesting for you to go ask Will L. pretty much implies that you and I going back and forth on this subject is nonsensical because obviously this is not our field of work.

So again, go ask Will L.

As for your suggesting of limiting omega-3 intake, again, that's based on what would appear to be sound on paper, can you definitively say that in the body this will hold true to a degree of tangible/practical significance? Highly doubt it, but on paper it sure looks good. You could certainly be right, or wrong, da fuq do I really care? Go discuss this with Will L. because he seems to disagree.

 

[Jiigzz]

Hey, you choose to ignore how I quickly just pointed out to just go ask Will L., that's on you.

Me suggesting for you to go ask Will L. pretty much implies that you and I going back and forth on this subject is nonsensical because obviously this is not our field of work.

So again, go ask Will L.

As for your suggesting of limiting omega-3 intake, again, that's based on what would appear to be sound on paper, can you definitively say that in the body this will hold true to a degree of tangible/practical significance? Highly doubt it, but on paper it sure looks good. You could certainly be right, or wrong, da fuq do I really care? Go discuss this with Will L. because he seems to disagree.

I had an email conversation with Stephan Hawking on how the the universe can be reduced to one simple equation. But don't ask me to provide the evidence for you. Go ask for yourself.

No. That's not how it works. You provide the argument, you back it up. The onus is NOT on me to look up your argument.

Have you ever heard of studies performed IN PEOPLE? The ones who make up "what sounds good on paper". Seriously?

How exactly do you think Will L arrived at his conclusion? Through speculation? No. I bet he used evidence based on studies. If he didn't, then his point is moot as it is not placebo controlled or does it take into account interactions within the body than may disprove his theory.

Can you provide evidence it wont? you're making the claim, you back it up. The onus is not on me to disprove what is commonly known. It is on you.

Stop playing strawman

 

[Jiigzz]

Something looking good "in theory" applies when something has not been tested in vivo and thus it is not possible to fully know how that compound will behave once consumed. Studies performed in humans are done to test whether the "works good on paper" also translates to "it does work well in humans" such as with the information I provided.

Many of these studies are done in humans, see here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17461697

Thirty patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and 30 healthy subjects

These are the humans

Treatment with omega-3 fatty acids significantly reduced AA:EPA ratios in both healthy subjects and in patients with stable CAD. The treatment had no effect on hs-CRP levels in either group, and it reduced triglyceride levels in healthy subjects but not in patients with CAD

this is the outcome following the trials IN HUMANS. Funnily enough it doesn't say, fish oil administration did nothing to the AA:EPA ratio

 

[NewAgeMayan]

Well, I have learnt some new things today. Thanks gentlemen.

 

[kissdadookie]

I had an email conversation with Stephan Hawking on how the the universe can be reduced to one simple equation. But don't ask me to provide the evidence for you. Go ask for yourself.

No. That's not how it works. You provide the argument, you back it up. The onus is NOT on me to look up your argument.

Have you ever heard of studies performed IN PEOPLE? The ones who make up "what sounds good on paper". Seriously?

How exactly do you think Will L arrived at his conclusion? Through speculation? No. I bet he used evidence based on studies. If he didn't, then his point is moot as it is not placebo controlled or does it take into account interactions within the body than may disprove his theory.

Can you provide evidence it wont? you're making the claim, you back it up. The onus is not on me to disprove what is commonly known. It is on you.

Stop playing strawman

Onus is on you actually. I basically pointed out that I am not an expert on this and for you to go consult Will L. You clearly are refusing to, why?Perhaps you have this nagging feeling that your sound on paper theories may not actually play out the way you think in real life? Who knows, again, go ask the expert on this topic.

ITT: People apparently feel nice and cozy arguing with anonymous strangers on a message forum (I've been guilty of this, I'll own up to that) but when asked to go ask an expert on the topic at hand, they circle and circle but just refuse to do so.

Lesson: People like being experts on the Internet but avoid at all cost to consult actual experts/professionals of the topic on hand.

That there is the internet.

 

[Jiigzz]

Onus is on you actually. I basically pointed out that I am not an expert on this and for you to go consult Will L. You clearly are refusing to, why?Perhaps you have this nagging feeling that your sound on paper theories may not actually play out the way you think in real life? Who knows, again, go ask the expert on this topic.

ITT: People apparently feel nice and cozy arguing with anonymous strangers on a message forum but when asked to go ask an expert on the topic at hand, they circle and circle but just refuse to do so.

Lesson: People like being experts on the Internet but avoid at all cost to consult actual experts/professionals of the topic on hand.

That there is the internet.

You provided an argument, you are expected to back it up with evidence. "That which can be argued without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Hitchens Razor: The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim

the burden of proof in a debate (the onus) lies with whoever makes the (greater) claim; if this burden is not then met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents do not need to argue against it

You bought the debate into the thread, you failed to provide evidence except "go look for it yourself".

You ask him for the evidence and post it in this thread as you are the one making the claim.

IIRC you are constantly in threads acting like an expert but when challenged you cower and try to push the burden on to others. You are the one challenging what is commonly known, you provide evidence to support an alternative view.

Email him yourself.

 

[kissdadookie]

You provided an argument, you are expected to back it up with evidence. "That which can be argued without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Hitchens Razor: The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim

You bought the debate into the thread, you failed to provide evidence except "go look for it yourself".

You ask him for the evidence and post it in this thread as you are the one making the claim.

Suggesting you to ask Will L. is not the equivalent of "go look for it yourself." If you can't comprehend why the best course of action here is indeed for you to go ask him, that's on you.

For the record, you're the one making claims. I clearly stated that you could be right or you could be wrong, I can't affirmatively say either way. However, you're going around in circles essentially insinuating that you are right. That there is essentially you making claims.

 

[Jiigzz]

Suggesting you to ask Will L. is not the equivalent of "go look for it yourself." If you can't comprehend why the best course of action here is indeed for you to go ask him, that's on you.

I literally cannot argue with you. Your claim is unfounded, your argument is moot.