The official ask me anything thread

[Nac]

Synopsis, hehe

 

[Jiigzz]

Examine:



Found the bolded interesting.

Mr.Cooper dispelled this long ago.

 

[The_Old_Guy]

Mr.Cooper dispelled this long ago.

Did he? Cool. He said Amentoflavone worked too though, right? ?

 

[Jiigzz]

Did he? Cool. He said Amentoflavone worked too though, right? ��

Lmao. The disrespect is high, but hey, let's see what Synapsin will say about combining Agmatine with Yohimbine.

This post is from Furion (and liked by Synapsin)

There is no pharmacodynamic interaction between agmatine and yohimbine.
This pretty firm conclusion can drawn from both of the papers you referenced as well as the application of some simple receptor theory.
The papers actually indicate that agmatine is a ligand for post-junctional alpha 2 receptors (target of yohimbine) however does not appear to exert activation of these receptors as evidenced by the lack of downstream activity.

This finding is more or less apparent when looking at the structures of known alpha-2 agonists and agmatine. A quick glance at the hypothesized structural activity relationships of alpha 2 agonists suggests that an imidazoline ring and a hydrophobic group (phenyl or benzyl) may essential for strong agonist activity at the receptor (with exception of guanfacine- which appears to be biotransformed). Agmatine does not possess these which may provide some theoretical explanation as to why it does not exert any measurable direct agonist activity.

Furthermore, yohimbine binds to the (target) post-synaptic alpha-2 receptor (subtypes) non-competitively, meaning that the endogenous ligands for these receptors (epinephrine, agmatine) can’t theoretically displace it, essentially eliminating any chance of a pharmacodynamic interaction.

But hey, what do they know right?

 

[HIT4ME]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3004427

I respect all those guys...and everyone I'm here. But questions lead to knowledge. This is interesting...although I am unclear if they are talking about a matinee directly or another CDS....and they are talking rauwolscine and not Y.

 

[bosskardo]

Synopsis, hehe

Yeah
Damn autocorrect

 

[bosskardo]

Synopsis
What's your opinion on nicotine for cognitive benefits? 1 to 2 mg a day.
And what might be the best source (gum, inhaler, patch, tabs)?

Synapsin

And don't mind the autocorrect.
Though is this thread kind of dead?

 

[Jiigzz]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3004427

I respect all those guys...and everyone I'm here. But questions lead to knowledge. This is interesting...although I am unclear if they are talking about a matinee directly or another CDS....and they are talking rauwolscine and not Y.

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplements/224790-yohimbine-vs-alpha.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014299978902200

Serious question: How much of that study you posted did you read/ understand? Or did you just hone in on the one sentence in the abstract? That is a VERY complex paper you are citing, and goes pretty well beyond me, so i'd love to hear your expanded thoughts on it and its relevance here.

 

[Caldwood]

Synopsis
What's your opinion on nicotine for cognitive benefits? 1 to 2 mg a day.
And what might be the best source (gum, inhaler, patch, tabs)?

You can be a legit boss, and vape mmmmmhm.

 

[HIT4ME]

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplements/224790-yohimbine-vs-alpha.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014299978902200

Serious question: How much of that study you posted did you read/ understand? Or did you just hone in on the one sentence in the abstract? That is a VERY complex paper you are citing, and goes pretty well beyond me, so i'd love to hear your expanded thoughts on it and its relevance here.

That's a very good question. I only have access to the abstract, but I tend to kind of ....I don't know...questions pop into my head and I explore and search for answers, and for better or worse sometimes I may be a victim of that experience. In other words...I may read something that is "colored" by other studies and what I have recently learned from those studies.

And ...I don't always understand what I think I do

My takeaway from that study is that Agmatine displaces clonidine, which is pretty well known (as they are often referring to agmatine when they refer to clonidine displacing substance - but because I didn't have the full paper I wasn't sure in this case). But this report seems to suggest that Yohimimbine displaces agmatine - which actually is in line with my own personal experience. I am very sensitive to yohimbine and taking agmatine doesn't seem to improve my tolerance at all. This generally made me believe the two don't interact - but Agm has more subtle effects, and it would be easy to miss that it is not doing anything anymore if Y was displacing it.

And now you've brought more good stuff...so I have to go read that when I have time today.

 

[HIT4ME]

Lmao. The disrespect is high, but hey, let's see what Synapsin will say about combining Agmatine with Yohimbine.

This post is from Furion (and liked by Synapsin)

There is no pharmacodynamic interaction between agmatine and yohimbine.
This pretty firm conclusion can drawn from both of the papers you referenced as well as the application of some simple receptor theory.
The papers actually indicate that agmatine is a ligand for post-junctional alpha 2 receptors (target of yohimbine) however does not appear to exert activation of these receptors as evidenced by the lack of downstream activity.

This finding is more or less apparent when looking at the structures of known alpha-2 agonists and agmatine. A quick glance at the hypothesized structural activity relationships of alpha 2 agonists suggests that an imidazoline ring and a hydrophobic group (phenyl or benzyl) may essential for strong agonist activity at the receptor (with exception of guanfacine- which appears to be biotransformed). Agmatine does not possess these which may provide some theoretical explanation as to why it does not exert any measurable direct agonist activity.

Furthermore, yohimbine binds to the (target) post-synaptic alpha-2 receptor (subtypes) non-competitively, meaning that the endogenous ligands for these receptors (epinephrine, agmatine) can’t theoretically displace it, essentially eliminating any chance of a pharmacodynamic interaction.

But hey, what do they know right?

Also, to elaborate a little - because I think this is very interesting - I think the study I found doesn't necessarily conflict what Furion is saying. Actually, it kind of confirms he is right to a degree. He is saying that Agm doesn't share the expected structure of A2 agonists, which is why it doesn't have the effect of an A2 agonist. He also says, in the last section of his post, that Y binds to post-synaptic A2 receptors and that this binding is non-competitive so things like Agm can't displace it. These are two very key points in my opinion.

In other words, the study confirms Furion is right - Agm cannot displace Y. The study shows that Y can displace Agm - which is in line with what Furion is saying.

Second, a lot of this seems to have more to do with post-synaptic binding. This, if I understand correctly, is key and may actually indicate that for typical "bodybuilding" or "workout" purposes, the combination is fine. If the two competed with each other things would become kind of a crap shoot. You put the two in a preworkout so that Agm can increase pumps and Y can increase stimulation and maybe fat burning. Agm can actually have relaxing qualities. So if the Agm wins you get pumps but no stimulation. If Y wins, no pumps but stimulation.

But with Furion's indication of the post-synaptic differences - you get to have your cake and eat it too potentially. Y will have a stimulatory effect in the brain and displace Agm there (avoiding relaxation); but Agm may still enhance pumps peripherally. So for the purposes of a pre-workout, they don't necessarily interact.

Also - one thing to keep in mind in Furion's post: he points out the differences between A2 agonists and Agm, but Y is an ANTagonist. I'm sure he understands the structure more than I do, but for the rest of us, this may get over looked.

Now, if you're using Agm for some of its other effects - anti-anxiety, opioid tolerance, withdrawal, depression, dementia, etc. - Y may not be a good combo.

 

[Jiigzz]

My main issue lies in the fact that examine researchers may be knowledgeable in this area, but theybare not exempt from error. They are not reading the thousands of research papers they are citing, and so they may actually be missing important revelations present in the text.

I find this same occurance on the boards where people draw conclusions based solely on the abstract, not realising that abstracts can be written in a way that is misleading in order to entice people to read more. In the majority of cases, people are not reading the FTs are are taking home more than they should based solely on the abstract.

Edit: should add that they'd read more than I do collectively, but it the premise remains the same. It's a great resource, but there may be some holes

 

[toddmuelheim]

The main problem with science is that it's very complicated.

 

[VeinNutrition]

My main issue lies in the fact that examine researchers may be knowledgeable in this area, but theybare not exempt from error. They are not reading the thousands of research papers they are citing, and so they may actually be missing important revelations present in the text.

I find this same occurance on the boards where people draw conclusions based solely on the abstract, not realising that abstracts can be written in a way that is misleading in order to entice people to read more. In the majority of cases, people are not reading the FTs are are taking home more than they should based solely on the abstract.

Edit: should add that they'd read more than I do collectively, but it the premise remains the same. It's a great resource, but there may be some holes

Very good and valid points, especially about the disparities between abstracts and full text.

I think the main appeal of examine is that they congregate and simplify ingredients for consumers. The average consumer is not an AM members - AM members are generally much more inquisitive - the average consumer may be overwhelmed by all the material out there, but Examine helps them see "all" the information in one place. As you said, it's a great resource but not an end all be all.

A slight tangent here, but as a brand owner to a brand rep , who I respect both the brand and the rep, I believe that one of the pillars of our industry is how well you can sell your product. Most consumers seem turned off by what may be seen as "scientific mumbo jumbo", they're not going to buy something they don't understand. So I really think it's a balance when you're selling to customers, if you give them the full run down of everything to the T, most customers are going to be overwhelmed or you're going to lose their attention. On the other hand, if you simplify things too much then you could stray to being misleading or incorrect. Just a thought I had, what's your opinion?

 

[Jiigzz]

Very good and valid points, especially about the disparities between abstracts and full text.

I think the main appeal of examine is that they congregate and simplify ingredients for consumers. The average consumer is not an AM members - AM members are generally much more inquisitive - the average consumer may be overwhelmed by all the material out there, but Examine helps them see "all" the information in one place. As you said, it's a great resource but not an end all be all.

A slight tangent here, but as a brand owner to a brand rep , who I respect both the brand and the rep, I believe that one of the pillars of our industry is how well you can sell your product. Most consumers seem turned off by what may be seen as "scientific mumbo jumbo", they're not going to buy something they don't understand. So I really think it's a balance when you're selling to customers, if you give them the full run down of everything to the T, most customers are going to be overwhelmed or you're going to lose their attention. On the other hand, if you simplify things too much then you could stray to being misleading or incorrect. Just a thought I had, what's your opinion?

a friend once told me that if someone cannot break a complex topic down to its simplest form, then you don't understand what you are talking about.

This happens often with what i deal with. People are great at regurgitating something they read, but terrible at actually understanding the complexity of it all.

A good explanation is one that balances complexity with simplicity.

 

[carguy123]

a friend once told me that if someone cannot break a complex topic down to its simplest form, then you don't understand what you are talking about.

This happens often with what i deal with. People are great at regurgitating something they read, but terrible at actually understanding the complexity of it all.

A good explanation is one that balances complexity with simplicity.

Reminds me of a Einstein quote.... "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

 

[HIT4ME]

My main issue lies in the fact that examine researchers may be knowledgeable in this area, but theybare not exempt from error. They are not reading the thousands of research papers they are citing, and so they may actually be missing important revelations present in the text.

I find this same occurance on the boards where people draw conclusions based solely on the abstract, not realising that abstracts can be written in a way that is misleading in order to entice people to read more. In the majority of cases, people are not reading the FTs are are taking home more than they should based solely on the abstract.

Edit: should add that they'd read more than I do collectively, but it the premise remains the same. It's a great resource, but there may be some holes

No one is arguing that abstracts are equal to full texts. You are one of the smartest people on this board, so I am not arguing or taking any of that away; actually I am not even saying you are even "wrong" - just that there is a different angle. This started with The_Old_Guy quoting a source and asking a question. That source had an idea; and yes the source is fallible. You then pointed out that Mr. Cooper and Furion have put this to bed long ago - which The_Old_Guy ironically pointed out that those sources are fallible too.

And that is the issue at hand. We are ALL fallible. And just because something is accepted/believed doesn't make it true. Questions can not be untrue, only answers can be.

a friend once told me that if someone cannot break a complex topic down to its simplest form, then you don't understand what you are talking about.

This happens often with what i deal with. People are great at regurgitating something they read, but terrible at actually understanding the complexity of it all.

A good explanation is one that balances complexity with simplicity.

Occam's razor is nice, but I think you are missing some of the complexity at work here in that statement. Simple answers often come with a knowledge base that is required to make those answers simple. For instance, it becomes difficult to explain how any drug works if you don't first have an idea of the fact that our bodies have drug receptors and that drugs have different chemistry and molecular structures - or if you don't understand what a molecule even is.

The fact is, the question that was posed is actually pretty complex and I'm not sure anyone fully understands it. We have some research pointing in multiple directions and smart people like Cooper and Furion may have a knowledge base that allows them to navigate their way through the woods with a probably right answer, but there are certainly pieces of the puzzle missing.

And that's why having people like Synapsin, Jiigzz, Mr. Cooper, Furion, The_old_guy, etc. asking questions and discussing and revisiting topics can be very interesting. The discussion with all of you tends to elevate my knowledge, and I'm sure others as well.

I do understand having a knee-jerk reaction to the examine site though. I believe their articles are actually pretty good - but someone can read them and think they know everything or that everything there is "fact" and it is not - there are more questions than answers in all of this.

Very good and valid points, especially about the disparities between abstracts and full text.

I think the main appeal of examine is that they congregate and simplify ingredients for consumers. The average consumer is not an AM members - AM members are generally much more inquisitive - the average consumer may be overwhelmed by all the material out there, but Examine helps them see "all" the information in one place. As you said, it's a great resource but not an end all be all.

A slight tangent here, but as a brand owner to a brand rep , who I respect both the brand and the rep, I believe that one of the pillars of our industry is how well you can sell your product. Most consumers seem turned off by what may be seen as "scientific mumbo jumbo", they're not going to buy something they don't understand. So I really think it's a balance when you're selling to customers, if you give them the full run down of everything to the T, most customers are going to be overwhelmed or you're going to lose their attention. On the other hand, if you simplify things too much then you could stray to being misleading or incorrect. Just a thought I had, what's your opinion?

I think you are more right than you realize with the "scientific mumbo jumbo". In my experience helping people with supplements and selling supplements, most people don't even want to know how something works - they could care less. You try to tell them and they can actually get mad. They just want to know, "What will make me lose weight? Is it safe?" and they want definitive answers without realizing that definitive answers aren't easy to come by.

Reminds me of a Einstein quote.... "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

It was Richard Feynman who always said this.

Richard Feynman also pointed out that the only source of the validity of any idea was experiment.

 

[Nac]

Shut up and calculate.

 

[Jiigzz]

No one is arguing that abstracts are equal to full texts. You are one of the smartest people on this board, so I am not arguing or taking any of that away; actually I am not even saying you are even "wrong" - just that there is a different angle. This started with The_Old_Guy quoting a source and asking a question. That source had an idea; and yes the source is fallible. You then pointed out that Mr. Cooper and Furion have put this to bed long ago - which The_Old_Guy ironically pointed out that those sources are fallible too.

And that is the issue at hand. We are ALL fallible. And just because something is accepted/believed doesn't make it true. Questions can not be untrue, only answers can be.



Occam's razor is nice, but I think you are missing some of the complexity at work here in that statement. Simple answers often come with a knowledge base that is required to make those answers simple. For instance, it becomes difficult to explain how any drug works if you don't first have an idea of the fact that our bodies have drug receptors and that drugs have different chemistry and molecular structures - or if you don't understand what a molecule even is.

The fact is, the question that was posed is actually pretty complex and I'm not sure anyone fully understands it. We have some research pointing in multiple directions and smart people like Cooper and Furion may have a knowledge base that allows them to navigate their way through the woods with a probably right answer, but there are certainly pieces of the puzzle missing.

And that's why having people like Synapsin, Jiigzz, Mr. Cooper, Furion, The_old_guy, etc. asking questions and discussing and revisiting topics can be very interesting. The discussion with all of you tends to elevate my knowledge, and I'm sure others as well.

I do understand having a knee-jerk reaction to the examine site though. I believe their articles are actually pretty good - but someone can read them and think they know everything or that everything there is "fact" and it is not - there are more questions than answers in all of this.




I think you are more right than you realize with the "scientific mumbo jumbo". In my experience helping people with supplements and selling supplements, most people don't even want to know how something works - they could care less. You try to tell them and they can actually get mad. They just want to know, "What will make me lose weight? Is it safe?" and they want definitive answers without realizing that definitive answers aren't easy to come by.



It was Richard Feynman who always said this.

Richard Feynman also pointed out that the only source of the validity of any idea was experiment.

It may have not been clear, but that is what I meant lol.

If you have the knowledge, then simplifying it down should be relatively easy to do. If you can only regurgitate, then you haven't understood.

 

[Jiigzz]

Reminds me of a Einstein quote.... "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

That's prob where he got it from. Was thinking when he said it that it was rather profound.

 

[HIT4ME]

It may have not been clear, but that is what I meant lol.

If you have the knowledge, then simplifying it down should be relatively easy to do. If you can only regurgitate, then you haven't understood.

Yeah... But with this I am often in between. I kind of get it so that I am not just regurgitating... But I I still hard for me to grasp fully and explain. Haha. And like I said before... I don't always understand what I think I understand. Lol.

 

[Jiigzz]

Yeah... But with this I am often in between. I kind of get it so that I am not just regurgitating... But I I still hard for me to grasp fully and explain. Haha. And like I said before... I don't always understand what I think I understand. Lol.

Haha, it wasn't a dig at anyone

It's just a general observation. In some cases it's a tool to guide learning, but I also use it as a guide to how well I think someone knows something lol

 

[rtmilburn]

Haha, it wasn't a dig at anyone

It's just a general observation. In some cases it's a tool to guide learning, but I also use it as a guide to how well I think someone knows something lol

I've also noticed the smart people on this board like you Danes Cooper furion etc etc always talk in circles. Trying to make people come to their own conclusions. PA was the worst at this would do it so much that other smart people would also get confused.

 

[Jiigzz]

I've also noticed the smart people on this board like you Danes Cooper furion etc etc always talk in circles. Trying to make people come to their own conclusions. PA was the worst at this would do it so much that other smart people would also get confused.

Haha, I never really notice how I come across until others point it out. Most of the time it's not how I intend lol

 

[Bigrob1]

What's the best way to kickstart after dmz cycle

 

[Jebrook]

What's the best way to kickstart after dmz cycle

Kickstart what? Your HPTA? Get a SERM. End of story.

 

[Bigrob1]

Yes Hpta thanks I've heard good and bad things about serms thanks again

 

[Brick_boozoka]

Hello,

I’m a former competitive bodybuilder now have a city government job requiring a 5 panel basic drug test involving hair and an additional standard steroid test through urine. My question is regarding DERMACRINE and would it show up or pop causing a false positive for steroid usage? I know the dhea is naturally occurring but I’m
More concerned with the pregnolone. I’ve seen the test and I believe the employer tests for actual steroids, as I saw a panel of the compounds when tested. I don’t believe they test actual testosterone to epitestosterone levels. Assuming this, then it is virtually impossible to fail a drug test right ?

Thanks
Mike