Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
hmmm shoukld i talk about the ingredient thats proven to cause renal (kidney) failure? Or just the BS increased absorption claims re: ethyl ester ? covered it along time ago in a similar thread ...anyway - drink LOTS of water boys.......
wouldnt take it if you paid me ...just my opinion (biased as it is b/c of the multitudes of bs supplements )...
Associate Member
Hmm interesting.....i'll prolly pick this up. ThanksOriginally Posted by RATTLEHEAD
Associate Member
So another good workout with the amp 02 in my system...did heavy legs today and just got home. Heavy squats kicked my ass today but i felt nice and powerfull on my lifts. I also noticed i was sweating a bit more then usual...so far no strength increase..but its only been my 2nd day. I will post up my workout later...time to go grill chicken.
Member
yea man, anytime. good luck
Member
one more client of mine who thrived off of and needed LIPOFLAME and the training suited for her :
guess it had be roids or I am full of bs............
Associate Member
hahah must of been those roids man! lolol
Associate Member
Last nights workout looked like this.
Smith Full Squats: 270x9, 320x6, 340x4
Str8 Hammer Leg Press: 360x10, 450x6
Lying Leg Curls: 120x10, 140x8, 160x6
Standing Calf Raise: 450x10, 540x8,540x8
Good workout overall besides being a little gassy :-x and i got to sleep early last night which was great. We shall see if these numbers increase as i continue taking the amp 02.
Senior Member
Rattle, what are your thoughts on the following in regards to HIT?
First, not everything that works is good. You can be sincere in what you believe and still be wrong. So far, so good, doesn’t mean you’re not going to have some serious issues with joint and tendon pain later on down the road. All too often a hero on this months muscle magazine turns into a zero a few months down the road because they become injured and can no longer train. Listen carefully, opinions and trends come and go. I get a head ache just thinking about all the high-intensity training techniques such as pre-exhaustion, forced reps, heavy negatives, down the rack, rest-pause, super sets, drop sets, and the list goes on, and on!
Let me be clear, various training techniques have nothing to do with genetic capabilities. There is not one single variable that is the total downfall of not being able to gain more muscle size. Forced reps, rest pause, drop sets; etc will all depict some form of muscular hypertrophy. However, a major problem (other than these techniques being less effective at stimulating muscular size-strength and putting more strain on the joints, tendons, and CNS) is that they take in a much selected group of principles and apply them. The theory of combining all different training techniques to increase muscle hypertrophy is short-sighting the way the human body responds. If genetics dictated the needs for a different training style, then some could use rest-pause or drop-sets and get bigger/stronger than what they could obtain with straight sets, and we know this is not the case! Time has proven that the genetically superior will respond better to all forms of training methods when compared to the genetically inferior. Simply changing the way you create damage by employing various beyond failure training methods does not alter the fact that overtraining of the CNS and joints/tendons will out pace muscular damage. So, it all boils down to finding that one training method that’s not only the most effective for all genetic types, but the safest. It just so happens that straight sets is that one training method. In final, straight sets is the superior training style that out does all the rest when periodized properly!
Member
You can become injured walking to your fridge to grab a water bottle. if anyone knows anything about serious injury, it's me. I've had multiple bulging discs, torn muscles, nerve damage. None of it is from my HIT routine, but it compromised my training for years. I've been to about a dozen different rehab facilities, none of which worked. 2 years afterwards, pain subsided to the point where I could begin light training. Since I've started HIT, I have not felt any pain like I was use to on a daily basis before. I feel that HIT rapidly built supporting muscle groups, a long with the torn muscles as well.
What I feel you don't understand about HIT is the fact that your training much less frequently than on a localized muscle group work out plan, or any other training program for that matter. Rest is a major component of hit. Like Arthur Jones (creator of HIT) says, if a weight trainer performed the HIT program as frequently as all these other training programs insist you do, it would probably kill you. Casey Viator, the youngest Mr. America winner at the age of 19, won his title and only trained 6 TIMES IN 4 WEEKS! before winning it! Your understanding of HIT is just skewed, and for some reason you've decided to write it off without fully understanding it. I trained for a few years in the style of training selected muscle groups every day. I can tell you I've never made gains like I currently do. Which is the ultimate reason why HIT made me a believer. Also, all that stuff about genetics is impossible to argue. Some people will be bigger, faster, and stronger than you and some of them don't even weight train. I personally know a few people that are just genetic freaks. I hate it haha, lucky bastards.
This was a good discussion. I enjoy it.
Member
As long as your performing these exercises correctly, resting for the prescribed time periods, and not overtraining (which overtraining is only prevalent with most other training programs, but it is an absolute sin with regards to HIT) you will undoubtedly be fine. A decent number of people I know follow HIT, none of us have ever experienced a related injury. But like I said, you can injure yourself walking to the kitchen and lifting a gallon of milk the wrong way. I got half my bulging discs swinging a baseball bat. I guess what it boils down to is the fact that life happens, all we can do is deal with it. Your chances of becoming injured due to HIT is far less than any other program I've ever seen or tried.
Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
i suggest before using this product take note of the ingredients.
Then google this exactly: Sodium Phosphate kidney failure
Read the MANY cases of renal failure and kidney damage associated with this ingredient. Still wanna take it - go right ahead.
I wont even get into the ethyl ester bvllshit etc , etc .....
Member
You have got to be kidding me. I thought you had some sort of science training?
Are you this disconnected from the basics of chemistry and medicine?
Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
OK so ill ignore the patronizing comments and get on with the conversation.
So educate me - what i know is when i researched the ingredients of the supp - in addition to the bs etyl ester increased absorption nonsense i found ALOT of info on sodium phosphate and its direct connection to renal failure and kidney damage. Especially when combined with NSAIDs - which , as we both know , may cause kidney problems in and of themselves for some. Im all ears - and not opposed to some new knowledge ....
Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
^^^^oh and btw - i know its used all the time before colonoscopy procdure etc ...i also know what i read re cases of kidney damage and renal failure are largely under reported in this very instance. I also know what i read re serum phosphate build up potential ...like maybe when you take it daily ...in say a supplement ...but again - im open to listen to what u have to say....
Member
It is an ionic compound which, like salt, dissociates into its constituent ions. When you ingest a sodium phosphate you are ingesting sodium and phosphate, nothing more. These are not toxic chemicals by their nature. They are completely normal and indeed *necessary* for life in a certain amount. Phosphate is literally a larger portion of your bones than calcium is. Only in vast quantities are they harmful, as would be calcium, magnesium, chloride and any other biologically necessary ion in our bodies.
The specific amount needed to cause harm, and the mechanism of that harm is specific to the ion and your health. For instance your ability to manage an excessive injection of calcium is going to depend on your body's ability to sequester that calcium into your bones and excrete it in your urine. If you are dehydrated the concentration of calcium in your urine is going to be quite large. This promotes the formation of kidney stones, possibly leading to kidney failure via obstruction. Phosphate is no different. When you ingest a massive amount of it, or your body cannot regulate it the concentration becomes high enough that it falls out of solution and precipitates inside the kidney causing damage. It poor kidney function in combination with the sheer *amount* of the ion that is the problem.
Visicol, the bowel prep solution is a series of 40 pills containing 1.5 grams of Sodium Phosphate each. 60 grams in two days. Even then the complication is extremely rare and limited those with preexisting renal disease.
You deserve being talked down to because you think 2 minutes on Google constitutes an informed opinion.
Member
This is becoming extremely interesting. not the Jerry Springer part of this discussion either. I'm very interested in reading this through to the end. All I have to add as of now is a little common sense: anything in large amounts is generally not good for the body. Even excessive water intake will kill you. Are you guy's arguing that the amount of the compound is unhealthy or the compound in general?
Member
you are a bitter bitter guy Jonhny ........... but whatever........ its the internet I cant stop you from throwing tomatoes at me
I have been doing this for 7 years
do you think that's possible by imposing some sort of mass scam on people?
Member
Good Lord THANKYOU
Also as far as " Ethy Ester Bullshit" that Johny states.
If its so "bullshit" then why is it used by Drug companies for their chosen method of delivery?
Yes Many Drugs are in fact "esterfied" Because its a very effective Form of delivery.
As Far as Supplements go. Patrick Arnold The "father of hormones" showed people at BB.com that in fact with esterfied aminos there is a MASSIVE peak or influx of the chosen ingredient which this elevate blood plasma levels for immediate use.
SO pre Workout or for quick delivery OR for making something Bioavalibel when previusoly it was not ,Ethy Ester dlivery is a technology that is of most importance.
Member
He is implying it is a toxic substance of some sort by its very nature. Take note as he quickly abandons that position after reading my post. The argument based on amount does not flay because the amount in this supplement cannot be anywhere near what would be needed to place you at risk.
Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
Kaioken - There are many studies re: etyhl ester - One i read on nutrient absorption in aids patient showed no increased absorption due to ethyl ester -in fact in some cases decreased absorption was observed. IMO It's BS marketing , hype , and totally unnecessary. Its a tool supp manufacturers use to market and inflate pricing on their products.
1- ABSTRACT
The Effects of Creatine Ethyl Ester Supplementation Combined with Resistance Training on Body Composition, Muscle Mass and Performance, and Intramuscular Creatine Uptake in Males
Mike Spillane, M.S.Ed.
Advisor: Darryn S. Willoughby, Ph.D.
Creatine monohydrate has become one of the most popular ingested nutritional supplements due to its potential enhancement of athletic performance. Creatine absorption from the serum into skeletal muscle occurs through the utilization of a membrane-spanning protein, CreaT1. Numerous creatine formulations have been developed primarily to maximize creatine absorption. Creatine ethyl ester (CEE) has been chemically modified by adding an ester group and is thought to increase creatine bioavailability by by-passing the CreaT1. This study examined how a seven week supplementation regimen with CEE affected body composition, muscle mass and performance, whole body creatine retention, as well physiological and molecular adaptations, associated with creatine uptake in nonresistance-trained males following a resistance-training program.
Creatine ethyl ester did not show any additional benefit to increase muscle strength or performance. Additionally, body weight, fat-free mass, thigh mass, and body fat were not significantly enhanced with creatine ethyl ester supplementation compared to placebo or creatine monohydrate groups. Increases in body water were similar to the placebo and creatine monohydrate groups. The vast majority of the improvement seen can be attributed to the training protocol itself, not the supplementation. Creatine ethyl ester supplementation did show a large increase in creatinine levels throughout the study. With no significant increase in total muscle creatine content, it can be concluded that a large portion of the creatine ethyl ester was being degraded within the GI track during ingestion. Furthermore, the skeletal muscle uptake of creatine ethyl ester uptake was not significant enough to increase skeletal muscle creatine levels without significant degradation occurring
2- Article:
Creatine ethyl ester (CEE) is a derivative of the nutritional supplement creatine used as an aid for athletic performance in sports and muscle development in bodybuilding. Creatine is one of the most popular sports supplements available, and naturally it is a compound used as an energy replenisher. Its chemical name is methylguanido-acetic acid, formed from the amino acids arginine, methionine and glycine. The most common form of supplementary creatine available is creatine monohydrate. For more detailed general information about creatine, please see our Creatine FAQs article
CEE is most commonly available as creatine ethyl ester hydrochloric acid (CEE HCl) in powder, capsule or tablet form. As a supplement, the compound was developed, patented and licensed through UNeMed, the technology transfer entity of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and has been developed and sold under numerous brand names by different supplement companies.
Since its launch just a few years ago, there have been many claims made by supplement companies that CEE is the new revolutionary creatine, and is far superior to creatine monohydrate. These claims have been backed up by articles in bodybuilding and fitness magazines and on websites, posts on internet forums and people's claims that CEE gives better results. The claims revolve around CEE's supposed better absorption rate and longer half-life than creatine monohydrate due to the fact that it is slightly more lipophilic. However these claims have not yet been conclusively proven by independent research and they seem to have been self perpetuating and may be nothing more than the successful results of cleverly targeted marketing.
This article examines the arguments for and against CEE, to provide information for you to make up your own mind if CEE is better than creatine monohydrate.
Arguments against CEE
* CEE and Creatine Kinase
CEE is claimed to be a true covalently bonded ester and is absorbed into blood as a molecule wholly intact. It is claimed that this is the reason why CEE is superior to monohydrate. However, inside cells CEE cannot be hydrolysed by the enzyme creatine kinase (CK - which catalyses free creatine) and may infact inhibit the enzyme. Therefore in theory, this would make CEE toxic to all organs and tissues which contain CK, including brain, heart and muscle, which it clearly isn't as there have been no reported deaths or even ill health. So this argument against CEE must be flawed.
* Breakdown to Creatinine
CEE is hydrolysed to the breakdown product creatinine after it has been absorbed from the digestive system. Child & Tallon (2004) studied the conversion of creatine to creatinine in the stomach. They compared three commercial creatine products during degradation in acidic solutions in order to mimic the stomach conditions. Creatine availability was assessed by immediately assaying for free creatine, CEE and creatinine. After 30 minutes incubation only 62-73% of the initial CEE was left from the CEE products, whereas more than 99% of the creatine remained available from the monohydrate product. These reductions in CEE availability were accompanied by substantial creatinine formation, without the appearance of free creatine. After 120 minutes there had been even further degredation of the CEE, while more than 99% of the creatine remained available from monohydrate.
CEE is claimed to provide several advantages over creatine monohydrate because of increased solubility and stability. However it appears that the addition of the ethyl group to creatine actually reduces acid stability and accelerates its breakdown to creatinine. This substantially reduces creatine availability in its esterified form and as a consequence CEE is inferior to creatine monohydrate as a source of free creatine.
CEE offers no advantage over creatine monohydrate which has a bioavailability of nearly 100%, i.e. nearly all is absorbed. Infact if hydrolysis of CEE is less than 99% then it must be inferior to monohydrate, and in the case of hydrolysis there are no circumstances in which it could be better than the monohydrate in increasing tissue creatine levels.
* CEE is not a true covalently bonded ester
This means that it is infact a scam with the compound ionising in solution to free creatine, as does the monohydrate and all salts of creatine. In this case CEE would again represent no advantage over creatine monohydrate, except to the seller who can double the price.
* Lack of Simple Experiments
The failure of the US sports nutrition community (industry and universities) to call for closer examination of CEE seriously questions its credibility in the eyes of many scientists. A simple water solvation test would answer whether or not it was a covalent or ionisable derivative of creatine, a short experiment taking less than an hour! Investigation of whether CEE is a competitive or non-competitive inhibitor of creatine kinase would take just 2-3 hours. If either of these occurred then clearly CEE must be investigated in at least two species to investigate lethality and potential organ damage. If on the other hand CEE is ionisable then there is no reason why a bioavailability study should not be undertaken comparing it, on a molar/molar basis, to creatine monohydrate. My guess is that plasma AUC would be identical. Again a very simple study.
None of this is rocket science but could spare a few lives, if the manufacturers' claims on the absorption of CEE are to be believed.
* FDA Concerns
CEE is young, and was launched only as few years ago, and from day one the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had concerns. One of the original companies (MRI) who produced CEE HCl in 2004 contacted the FDA for approval (MRI 2004), and back then they (the FDA) noted that CEE HCl doesn't really fit into the definition of a 'supplement' as a 'dietary ingredient' (FDA 2004). They also noted concerns as to the design of trials for CEE HCl which failed to provide data showing that creatine levels are increasing as CEE dissociates and diffuses from the gut into the blood, which did not clearly demonstrate the relative concentration of CEE, creatine, and ethanol between the gut and blood especially during the first three hours after intake (ChemPharma Int'l). It was unclear how creatinine levels in the urine could be detected yet there were no recorded measurements for creatine in the blood during the first 190 minutes of the experiment. The FDA were concerned about the validity of the conclusion that CEE HCl was rapidly absorbed and dissociated into creatine and ethanol before being available to the tissues. In addition, it was noted that the long term toxicological effects of doses higher than three grams per day are unknown.
* CEE Powder is Cariogenic
CEE HCl is an acid, so when in contact with the teeth, it is likely to case dental erosion. Obviously this only refers to the powder version of CEE HCl, so to avoid this stick to creatine monohydrate or capsule forms of CEE.
* Gastro-Intestinal Problems
Some people claim to have suffered stomach upset and discomfort with CEE, whereas they have not with creatine monohydrate. However this is merely anecdotal claims, indeed creatine monohydrate is known for its side effect of nausea.
* Creatine Doesn't 'Work' for Everyone
It's commonly claimed, although not backed by science, that creatine, including CEE and creatine monohydrate, doesn't work for about one in four to one in six people. This may be due to lower levels of CK, or some other as yet unknown reason.
* Price
CEE is more expensive to buy that creatine monohydrate; considerably more. However to produce it, there is little difference. Sceptics claim that companies charge more to initiate perceived benefits over monohydrate.
Arguments For CEE
* Higher Plasma Delivery Rates
The Medical Research Institute (MRI - CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (CE2™) provides greater solubility in lipids, leading to improved absorption. Similarly SAN (San Corporation, CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (San CM2 Alpha™) avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids. Ultimately it is claimed that CEE products provide greater absorption and efficacy than creatine monohydrate. However, to date none of these claims have been evaluated by an independent, or university laboratory and no comparative data are available between CEE and monohydrate.
* Anecdotal Claims
There is no doubt creatine monohydrate 'works' – it's backed by a large amount of scientific research. However so many experienced creatine users do claim CEE is better. It's claimed to be better primarily because of permeability and lower preplasma hydrolysis rates, but it may be a case of perceived benefits as the results of clever marketing and judging quality by price.
* Convenience
Most creatine monohydrate is available in powder form, and most CEE is in capsule or tablet form. Both are available in other forms, but seem to be less available that way, indeed the monohydrate capsules are much more expensive, akin to the price of CEE capsules. People prefer pills to powders so it stands to reason they'll opt for the CEE capsules.
Creatine Ethyl Ester V Creatine Monohydrate
You'll notice there are surprisingly few arguments in favour of CEE, and those that are there are weak. Yet it remains a very popular product. This is because the anecdotal evidence for it is very strong; a large number of users, who got on well with creatine monohydrate, are positive their gains were even better with CEE. But anecdotal evidence is weak evidence... isn't it? Yes it is, but it's also very powerful evidence, and couple this with strong marketing campaigns from the supplement companies, you'll have an argument in favour of CEE which over-rides any negative information from other sources. After all, isn't this what most supplement sales are based on, i.e. people's claims and strong marketing? And we know from using them, that a lot of supplements really have very little positive effects. Yet supplements sell, and sell well. Could CEE in reality, fall into this category? Is CEE just a heavily marketed supplement fad?
Although CEE is probably not harmful in any way, it seems that it simply may not be as efficient as creatine monohydrate, and for sure it is no more efficient as creatine monohydrate. It therefore seems logical to save money and buy the type of creatine which is tried and tested: creatine monohydrate. My point is even if CEE formulas do work somewhat, they are certainly no better than monohydrate. And the outlandish claims that CEE gives 'no water retention' and such like are preposterous.
References:
* ChemPharma Int'l. Final report of the study entitled "Identification and Quantitation of Bioavailable [14C] Compounds present it the Blood and Urine of Rats Following Oral Administration of a Single Dose of [14C] Creatine Ethyl Ester"
* Child R, Tallon MJ 2004. Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid 1Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. 2University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, [email protected]
* FDA 2004: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/doc...-01-vol181.pdf
* MRI 2004: http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/doc...pt0249-toc.htm
3- Double Blind Study:
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2009, :6doi:10.1186/1550-2783-6-6
Published: 19 February 2009
Abstract (provisional)
Numerous creatine formulations have been developed primarily to maximize creatine absorption. Creatine ethyl ester is alleged to increase creatine bio
Availability
This study examined how a seven-week supplementation regimen combined with resistance training affected body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength and power, serum and muscle creatine levels, and serum creatinine levels in 30 non-resistance-trained males. In a double-blind manner, participants were randomly assigned to a maltodextrose placebo (PLA), creatine monohydrate (CRT), or creatine ethyl ester (CEE) group. The supplements were orally ingested at a dose of 0.30 g/kg fat-free body mass (approximately 20 g/day) for five days followed by ingestion at 0.075 g/kg fat free mass (approximately 5 g/day) for 42 days. Results showed significantly higher serum creatine concentrations in PLA (p = 0.007) and CRT (p = 0.005) compared to CEE. Serum creatinine was greater in CEE compared to the PLA (p = 0.001) and CRT (p = 0.001) and increased at days 6, 27, and 48. Total muscle creatine content was significantly higher in CRT (p = 0.026) and CEE (p = 0.041) compared to PLA, with no differences between CRT and CEE. Significant changes over time were observed for body composition, body water, muscle strength and power variables, but no significant differences were observed between groups. In conclusion, when compared to creatine monohydrate, creatine ethyl ester was not as effective at increasing serum and muscle creatine levels or in improving body composition, muscle mass, strength, and power. Therefore, the improvements in these variables can most likely be attributed to the training protocol itself, rather than the supplementation regimen.
need i go on?
Oh and lets not blindly group esterification effectiveness with this particular ester used in these specific products - surely anyone see's how silly that would be.
Last edited by jimmyinkedup; 02-25-2009 at 10:04 PM.
Member
hmmm those must be the studies commissioned by the makers of the 'other creatines' which was in fact is true that many did
either way Johny Mr bitter let the market decide, we all see that people like these products ( not just mine)
I dont think they are very stupid or under some veil of mass ignorance which is what you think to seem people are under.
So why dont you just ignore us and are little crew of idiots and quite trying to save us
Member
no he just has an axe to grind cus it makes him feel super inside
and like some girl that got burned by a guy he seems to need to post stock and tell everyone how the boyfriend is a dick or something like that lol
Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
^^^ *L* yeah cause the NEJOM is in the Creatine manufacturing business. So is the JISSN. Oh and the FDa - they have an vested interest in other creatine comapnies too huh? Im also sure the Universities cited as refernces have a vested interest in the creatine market. Little dose of truth sucks for bogus claims huh?
Again : Oh and lets not blindly group esterification effectiveness with this particular ester used in these specific products - surely anyone see's how silly that would be.
Member
"RE ; Google = informed opinion - No -I looked into an ingredient in a supplement and found some info that was disturbing to me . So you think daily unknown doses of sodium phosphate is a good idea and addition to a supplement? Daily unknown doses re: serum phosphate build up should be of no concern? Are you going to take it ?"
No I am not going to take it. But it has nothing to do with Sodium or Phosphorus. I am not going to take some proprietary blend of anything which does not have strong evidence supporting its use.
This stuff does not "build up". Your body is not a series of tubes to be clogged. You have sophisticated mechanisms to achive homeostasis while eating a huge variety of foods. Foods with sodium in them. Foods with Phosphorus in them.
The amount is not unknown either. There is a limit on the amount of *anything* you can put in a pill of a given size. Even if the pills were pure Sodium phosphate would be be ingesting little more of each ion than in a large bowl of soup.
I don't know what a dozen paraphrase of bolded studies of CEE has to do with me and my point. Not only did I not defend this product or mention CEE, I have gone on record in threads I know you have read specifically refuting the effectiveness of CEE.
You are outmatched. Just do yourself a favor and avoid me when you can, and when you cannot, just disappear.
Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
*L* nice intelligent input! Sucks when someone puts out truthful info on your BS supplement claims huh?
Member
argh dude just leave me alone lol
Rattlehead I just read your training input
VERY in depth I disagree with alot of it, but it has VERY strong arguments which I cant say are wrong at all.
I just have not found it to be for me or those I trained
Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
The CEE wasnt directed twords you.
*L* i didnt know it was a contest. See i dont feel the need to "match" anyone. I posted studies info and my opinion - if you dont like it fine - i put it out there - people can read and decide for themselves. I see reason not to take this - dont care about your insults - your arrogance - your know it all attitude - closed mindedness etc.....
Why not do this : Take sodium phosphate - u pick the dose say 10 grams a day - with tren and ibuprofen daily for oh say 75 days - then get some bloodwork and lets see how those kidneys are doing? You wont - because you never post any firsthand experience # 1 and you wouldn't be so stupid as to do it unnecessarily #2 Just like taking it in a supplement daily with the potential for regular use with other kidney stressing , commonly used in the bodybuilding community, compounds. Not an unlikely scenario here....
Please get over yourself ...ive expressed my opinion - you yours ....
I dont think this is a prudent supp for many reasons - this being one.
Member
I have a medical degree and I know a bit more about kidneys that you do. You have the balls to do a 2 minute google search and then call me arrogant for being "closed minded" to your opinion! Holy ****!
You are a damned idiot. As if science was simply a matter of personal opinion.
AR's Supplement Guru
I've taken a look at the ingredients of your lipoflame. Interesting compound, don't find some of those in the hydroxycuts I sell...
Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
^^^whatever - the more you post - the more people see your true colors.....
Ill say this again:
Why not do this : Take sodium phosphate - u pick the dose say 10 grams a day - with '> tren and ibuprofen daily for oh say 75 days - then get some bloodwork and lets see how those kidneys are doing? You wont - because you never post any firsthand experience # 1 and you wouldn't be so stupid as to do it unnecessarily #2 Just like taking it in a supplement daily with the potential for regular use with other kidney stressing , commonly used in the '> bodybuilding community, compounds. Not an unlikely scenario here....
Please get over yourself ...ive expressed my opinion - you yours ....
I dont think this is a prudent supp for many reasons - this being one.
Got Diet? ~VET~ AR Hall of Famer~
first off, i feel ashamed that someone in the medical community like you is acting like this, it is pathetic
second, if you know so much more about kidneys and such than we do, then write it out, tell us the pathways and mechanisms, don't just say "i have a medical degree" therefore you should bow down to me
third, watch the vagrant flaming, i'm not reporting you yet but too much more and i will as it's completely out of line
you're an adult, act like one
Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
oh and i call you closed minded for several reasons ..not just this thread. So i guess you know all there is to know? Cant learn any more? Dont need to read your peers studies and evals on specific compounds in specific circumstances ...because nothing that was ever thought to be 100% safe for years ended up not being so safe? Like oh i duuno - under reported instances of kidney damage/failure? Is it stupid to not want to take the compound associated with that - esp when nsaids ,which many bb'er commonly take, were mentioned as a risk increasing factor? What about AAS that stress kidneys as well . Yeah im so out there on this one.... *L*
Open up your mind - this supp has this ingredient ...in an amount unknown to you ...but you assume its safe ...b/c of the # of caps. But it is associated with the aforementioned disorders....the demographic here is very likely to be taking other risk increasing compounds .Do you , as a doctor, really think its smart to defend this ingredient ....with unknown risk factors ...in a demographic likely to be using one or more substances known to increase these risks?
See for me its easy - its associated with the disorder ....its in a supp u take daily ...why take it? at any dose ...especially with that specific ingredient being unnecessary ( and of course my other observations re this "supplement" and its bogus absorption claims and overpriced ingredients factor in my personal decision as well)....
Member
I did detail the mechanism of injury Jimmy referred to. Read the posts before you criticize.
I don't ask people to believe me based on my authority or education. You know I don't as I rarely bring my eduction up. It becomes relevant when this yahoo cooks up a theory about Phosphate based on a simple google search and then demands that it is intolerable on my part not to be "open minded" to his opinions. It is moronic, and after tolerating this guys incessant personal attacks in each post he makes he has some of his own medicine coming. I could not care less if you feel that a moderator should intervene. Be my guest. Here, let me provoke you...Learn the difference between a period and a comma. "Vagrant" means unemployed and homeless. "Flagrant" is the word you are looking for.
Last edited by BrokenBricks; 02-25-2009 at 11:15 PM.
Got Diet? ~VET~ AR Hall of Famer~
Lol, well you got me on the word use, sorry, it's way past my bedtime, but i would like a more detailed description of the mechanism, this could be typed by any freshman chemistry minor
The specific amount needed to cause harm, and the mechanism of that harm is specific to the ion and your health. For instance your ability to manage an excessive injection of calcium is going to depend on your body's ability to sequester that calcium into your bones and excrete it in your urine. If you are dehydrated the concentration of calcium in your urine is going to be quite large. This promotes the formation of kidney stones, possibly leading to kidney failure via obstruction. Phosphate is no different. When you ingest a massive amount of it, or your body cannot regulate it the concentration becomes high enough that it falls out of solution and precipitates inside the kidney causing damage. It poor kidney function in combination with the sheer *amount* of the ion that is the problem.
some in depth knowledge would be nice
Member
Everything you eat has sodium in it. Everything you eat has phosphorus in it. It is the sixth most common element in your body! You could say everything you said above about calcium. You just don't get it. You have a stunning lack of sophistication in your understanding of the body and its chemistry. It leads you to make erroneous claims about the safety of a given chemical. And I am sorry, but the *reason* you don't get it is becuase of inadequate education. That is not your fault anymore than it is my fault I don't know how to rebuild an engine from the ground up. I just don't go around arguing with mechanics about my opinions on engine maintenance, which is where you go wrong.
Have I not made it clear that Sodium phosphate is simply some sodium and some phosphate? Which of those do you have a problem with? Do you want a list of the foods which you need to stop eating to avoid those elements? It is all foods.....Does sodium kill people? You bet...does that mean it is bad for you in a certain reasonable amount? Not a bit. Can you *fit* an unreasonable amount into a few pills a day? Hardly.
Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
*yawn*
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2008/NEW01923.html
http://www.wellness.com/reference/vi...ing-and-safety
http://www.youhavealawyer.com/fleet/...phropathy.html
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/301/4/370-b
http://www.enotalone.com/article/9375.html
why would u want to take this in any supp at any dosage????
Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
You never answered this:
Why not do this : Take sodium phosphate - u pick the dose say 10 grams a day - with '> tren and ibuprofen daily for oh say 75 days - then get some bloodwork and lets see how those kidneys are doing? You wont - because you never post any firsthand experience # 1 and you wouldn't be so stupid as to do it unnecessarily #2 Just like taking it in a supplement daily with the potential for regular use with other kidney stressing , commonly used in the '> bodybuilding community, compounds. Not an unlikely scenario here....
I dont think this is a prudent supp for many reasons - this being one.
or this:
this supp has this ingredient ...in an amount unknown to you ...but you assume its safe ...b/c of the # of caps. But it is associated with the aforementioned disorders....the demographic here is very likely to be taking other risk increasing compounds .Do you , as a doctor, really think its smart to defend this ingredient ....with unknown risk factors ...in a demographic likely to be using one or more substances known to increase these risks?
See for me its easy - its associated with the disorder ....its in a supp u take daily ...why take it? at any dose
Where you go wrong is you try to argue opinions - ...you see i read info on an ingredient - i assessed it - i formed and stated an opinion - based on facts i read. Re read this thread. You then sarcastically question my knowledge of chemistry - which i ignore and ask for your input. You then proceed to explain why i deserve to be talked down to ..blah blah blah. I have my opinion - in my mind it is justified. Answer my above questions honestly and on some level we agree i believe - i cant imagine you saying yeah ill take it with an nsaid and tren. Or yeah its a good thing to take a supp with this ingredient and other potential associated risk factors(unknown to you). Or you know what maybe you think its fine ...and thats ok - but taking the thread to personal attacks etc ...you went there - its stupid - and YOUR peers wrote the articles i read....the FDA - who we both know well - warned not only against high dosage but low dose long term use - "potential build up of phosphate crystals leading to possible renal failure. "
Thats my opinion - you havent changed it.
Last edited by jimmyinkedup; 02-25-2009 at 11:36 PM.
Associate Member
Agreed
Member
The mechanism that phosphate injures kidneys is really that simple. It is identical to dumping sugar in water, seeing it dissolve, then letting the water evaporate and watching sugar crystals form as the concentration of sugar rises above the solubility maximum. It is a purely physical process and does not depend on hormones or biochemical processes. The only complication is that for a charged chemical like phosphate to precipitate it needs an oppositely charged cation to balance it electrically. Calcium is the cation in this case.
Let us say for instance the concentration of phosphate in the blood is 2.5 to 4.5 milligrams per deciliter in a normal subject. The amount in the bones is hundreds of times this, but in the blood that is the amount. When the level exceeds this many things happen, but two are relevant here, first is parathyriod hormone is released which then inhibits the kidneys from reabsorbing the phosphate in the urine. This allows you to excrete the excess. You reabsorb the vast vast majority of all phosphate that enters the kidneys. This give you wide latitude in your consumption of phosphate becuase at any moment your kidneys can simply elect to stop reabsorbing it and you will urinate it out without difficulty.
Now there is a certain magic concentration at which the phosphate concentration in the urine is too high to remain dissolved. When that happens it crystallizes inside the renal tubules and blocks them. What does that mean for us? Surely we can do better than "Phosphate = badness" Imagine pouring that sugar or salt into warm water again....it is not simply that if you add one tablespoon of salt to a pot of water 10% stays solid and 90% dissolves and adding another tablespoon gives you again 10% more solid salt and 90% dissolved....it doesn't work that way. ALL of it dissolves with a little stirring until you come to a certain point when everything changes and NOTHING dissolves afterwords. Dissolved phosphate is completely harmless and is simply carried out in the urine...the kidney has no problem with the chemical...what it has a problem with is the physical microtrauma of crystals of any sort, phosphate or otherwise. But as our salt analogy describes, the process is not linear...you go from zero effect to rapid and immediate effect. The question is, when is that line crossed? How much is too much. Well it turns out that you need to take vast amounts of phosphorus in to run any risk of that happening. You also need damaged kidneys. The bowel prep was near completely phosphorus, you took 40 horse pills in quick succession, and still there were only a handful of reported cases and only in people with documented renal insufficiency.
I can do this all over again to explain how NSAIDS are not a cause of renal insufficiency (with the exception of AIN, which, if you had it you would know it). NSAIDS limit a mechanisms your kidneys have to compensate for *existing* damage. My kidney function is no worse after taking an NSAID for a month that if I had not taken it at all. It is only when I become dependent on the vasodilatory effect of prostaglandin that NSAIDS become an issue.
This haphazard collection of words google will spit out at you when you search for renal failure simply does not constitute an argument. Without an understanding of the biology involved interpreting that data becomes impossible.
Member
I am not going to take 10 GRAMS of sodium phosphate a day for 75 days for about a dozen reasons, none of which help your point. Who would eat TEN GRAMS of salt everyday on top of their normal diet? It is a retarded question. You cannot just arbitrarily select a ridiculous amount of a substance and claim that harm at one dosage bears some linear relevance at any dosage. A standard large pill contains about one third to a half a gram of ingredients. Those pills have a dozen ingredients. Even if I granted you that they contain 100mg each of sodium phosphate you would need to take 600 of them per day to reach the amount in the bowel prep.
You had to ask three times because it was a silly enough question I was going to let it slide. Let me ask you, would you eat 300 eggs in one sitting? Maybe your stomach would burst! Therefore why would you want to ingest this potentially deadly substance in any dosage?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
