|
|
|
|||
| Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts 
|
This is a continuation of an off-topic line in the UFC 100 Topic.
So, here's the actual report instead of a pamphlet: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hfl-suppl......port.pdf There are serious flaws. Let's look at this: "Table 1 shows the frequency of the substances found across all tests. Androstenedione was the most common finding across all product types tested, with 27% of the GCMS tests showing the presence of this substance. DHEA and 1,4 androstadiene-dione were also common findings, with 23% and 21% of products containing these substances, respectively. Ephedrine remained the most common stimulant contaminant, with 15% of products showing the presence of ephedrine contamination." All they cite is Andro, DHEA, and ephedrine. DHEA is legal so it's a non-issue. I can buy straight DHEA at any vitamin shop or drug store. But it is ineffective so there's no reason. Androstendione is a hormone precursor which was not banned until January 20th, 2005. It is not a synthetic hormone like previously banned steroids. It was classified as an anabolic, even though it has no proven anabolic effects. Ephedra, well that's for dieters, I was talking about protein supplements when we started. Speaking of which: "The highest incidence of contamination appeared to be in the “testosterone booster” product category type – 6 of the 9 products in this category (including product “stacks” which contained a testosterone booster component) contained steroid and/or stimulants as contaminants. This is equivalent to 67%. The second highest predominance of contamination was found in the “weight loss” products, with 29% of products tested (including “stacks”) containing steroid and/or stimulant contamination. The third highest incidence of contamination was found in “muscle building” products. In this category (including “stacks” that contained muscle building components), 24% contained steroid and/or stimulants contaminants." Protein supplements are not on this list at all! Neither is creatine. The other supplement I mentioned previously. I find this study to be vague and silly. Feel free to read it for yourself and make your own call.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts
|
Critter, this isn't my area of expertise so it may be a silly question, but a protein powder or protein supplement is not a muscle building product?
If a protein powder isn't for increasing muscle mass, what does it increase?
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
Doug Higley 1942 - 2022 7152 Posts
|
GNC bank accounts.
Higley's Giant Flea Pocket Zibit
|
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
A protein powder is not in the definition of muscle building supplements as defined in this study. They specifically state that they studied muscle building supplement stacks with "testosterone boosting properties."
Well, not to nitpick, but they wouldn't have found one in a supplement store because over the counter testosterone boosters just don't work. But what they meant is stuff like this: http://wholesalesupplementstore.com/musc......ack.html Now, Gakic is more of a stimulant anyway, but they don't say which specific stacks or supplements they tested, or which had what because it is such a crappy study, but it SEEMS like maybe this one might have the ephedra, but who knows. They also stated that the amounts in the supps they did test were trace. This means they would have a statistically non-existant effect on your body. Such small amounts would be destroyed in the pancreas before they could do anything(according to my A&P professor.) There was nothing scientific about this study. It was about as valid as a Uri Geller test. Quote: On 2009-07-15 19:59, balducci wrote:
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-07-15 22:42, critter wrote: Where does it say that (page and line number)? I looked, but I don't see it. It says the muscle building product category INCLUDES stacks, but nowhere does it say that it ONLY considers muscle building supplement stacks with "testosterone boosting properties". Quote:
On 2009-07-15 22:42, critter wrote: Trace amounts were found in some of the testosterone boosters. But some of the muscle builder products were found to have amounts above the trace level (see Appendix 2). You mention that Androstendione was not banned until January 20th, 2005. In that case it is especially interesting that the study was still able to purchase products containing it after July 1, 2006, when the study commenced. That certainly says something right there. If nothing else, the study shows how unregulated these products are.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
If you look at page ten it says the protein they tested was "negative."
Like I said, it was the 'stacks' that produced their results, not the protein. But it doesn't really matter because this study has no credibility. They cite one reference and no peer review. I don't consider a scientific study to be valid unless it can pass a peer review. To this date there is no irrefutable proof of there being any illegal drugs in currently marketed supplements. Critter goin' to study now.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts
|
Oh, okay, I thought you were still talking about the muscle builder category.
But on the topic of peer review ... what do you want peer reviewed? Down the road someone may want to redo the analysis with new samples and check the results but that's not something required for publication of a paper like this, one that does nothing more than analyze samples. And one normally doesn't cite references unless they are needed. I've written peer reviewed papers with just one or two references, that's not a big deal. Irrefutable proof is an impossible standard to meet. But there seem to be a large number of peer reviewed studies that do talk about banned substances of one sort or another being found in sports supplements. Some quick references ... I have not read these, just the abstracts, but they all appear to be peer-reviewed and all talk about banned substances being found in at least some forms of sports supplements: Kamber, M., N. Baume, M. Saugy, and L. Rivier. Nutritional supplements as a source for positive doping cases? Int. J. Sports Nutr. Exerc. Metab. 11:258-63, 2001. Parr MK, Geyer H, Reinhart U, Schänzer W. Analytical strategies for the detection of non-labelled anabolic androgenic steroids in nutritional supplements. Food Addit Contam. 2004 Jul;21(7):632-40. Martello S, Felli M, Chiarotti M. Survey of nutritional supplements for selected illegal anabolic steroids and ephedrine using LC-MS/MS and GC-MS methods, respectively. Food Addit Contam. 2007 Mar;24(3):258-65. Abstract from the last one: Several studies have highlighted that nutritional supplements may contain undeclared substances that are banned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)/World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). This paper describes a qualitative liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC-MS/MS) method to detect anabolic androgenic steroids (4-androsten-3,17-dion, 4-oestren-3,17-dion, 5alpha-androsten-17beta-ol-3-one, boldenone, nandrolone, nandrolone decanoate, testosterone, and testosterone decanoate) and ephedrine in food supplements. The products are dissolved in methanol and analysed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The methanolic solution was added to testosterone-d(3), evaporated to dryness, mixed with NaOH and extracted with n-pentane:diethylether (9:1). LC-MS/MS analyses were performed in selected reaction monitoring (SRM) on an ion-trap equipped with an atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) probe operating in positive-ion mode. The method was applied to 64 nutritional supplements. A total of 12.5% of the nutritional supplements analysed contained banned substances not declared on the label (anabolic steroids and ephedrine). Detection limits were in the range 1-25 ng g(-1).
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
That last abstract invalidates itself by declaring 4-Androstendione to be an anabolic steroid. There is no evidence of 4-Andro having any anabolic properties whatsoever. If they don't know that then they don't know what they are talking about.
If a study isn't peer reviewed then it doesn't really serve as proof, does it? I would have free reign to publish a paper declaring that pygmies lived in lucky charms and were responsible for the popping sound. There has to be a standard. To summarize, if there's no concrete evidence of a danger to the public, then why the panic? Sensationalism, that's why. Since we've both provided our data for consumption, this appears to now be just a difference of opinion. It's probably "Agree to disagree" time.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts
|
Critter, what are your qualifications on this subject if you do not mind my asking? Actually, never mind, it doesn't matter.
I've found you a number of peer-reviewed papers by a variety of medical doctors and biochemistry Ph.D.s and nutritionists and the like who have found evidence of banned substances in sports supplements ... and it really seems to me that you have closed your mind to evidence and are simply in nitpick mode. 4-androstenedione is _clearly_ described in the medical literature as a steroid hormone. It is listed as such in many medical papers. It is frequently described as a steroid in the Journal of the American Medical Association. On a steroidology site for physical fitness sorts, I've read "4-Androstenediol is not only a potent precursor to the anabolic hormone Testosterone, it is actually a true active anabolic steroid in its own right as well". That seems to be completely consistent with what the medical literature is saying. Maybe it is not in the same steroid 'category' as some other steroids are, but it appears the medical community still uses the word steroid to describe it. So why should I believe you instead of all of these peer-reviewed studies by medical researchers, chemists, nutritionists, etc.? As you say, we've each provided our evidence and people can make up their own minds. --- About your comment: "If a study isn't peer reviewed then it doesn't really serve as proof, does it?" Concerning the original study (more properly a lab analysis), it provides evidence. If there is some reason to doubt the evidence, other labs are free to redo the analysis. As I said before, your demand of 'irrefutable' proof is an impossible one to satisfy in this case. But I've also shown you that there are many peer-reviewed studies available, if you just look for them.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
I found no mention of peer review in these studies.
Kamber, M., N. Baume, M. Saugy, and L. Rivier. Nutritional supplements as a source for positive doping cases? Int. J. Sports Nutr. Exerc. Metab. 11:258-63, 2001. http://ajol.info/index.php/sasma/article......57/23634 References but no mention of peer review. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15370836 No mention of peer review. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17364927 No mention of peer review. EVERY study gave the erroneous definition of Androstendione as an "Anabolic" steroid. How can you possibly say that a clear example of a major flaw in the study is not a valid point? If they can't even get their definitions right in the abstract, how can the studies possibly warrant consideration? These are preliminary studies. Are they enough to warrant more serious studies? Possibly. Kind of a waste of money in this day and age in my opinion though. Especially with such scant evidence. As you said, there's no solid evidence. As I said, if there's no solid evidence then we are just spouting our opinions and this is a pointless and time wasting exercise. Also, since we're the only ones talking, I don't think anyone else cares either. If you'll excuse me, I have to be in the lab early tomorrow.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts
|
Critter, the papers I cited all appeared in refereed / peer-reviewed journals. I mean, come on, if you are unable to verify that elementary fact for yourself I am afraid that I must conclude that you really do not have much experience with research. (Especially as you appear to be claiming expertise in this area, and yet you do not even know which journals in the field are peer-reviewed and which are not.) Here is the proof of the peer-review status of the journals in question (the ones I cited, plus the additional one you cited [Sports Medicine]):
International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism http://hk.humankinetics.com/IJSNEM/journalSubmissions.cfm "Manuscripts are read by the editor and two reviewers; reviews will not be blind." Food Additives & Contaminants http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.......ktype=44 "Contributions to Food Additives and Contaminants must be original research and will be subjected to peer-review by referees." Sports Medicine http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/adis/smd (You have to follow some links to find this, but eventually you will find) "The Editor will perform an initial appraisal of each manuscript. Manuscripts are judged on the interest and importance of the topic, the use of the scientific method, the clarity of the presentation, and the relevance to the Journal's readers. Articles meeting the appropriate criteria are then passed to external peer review. The aim of the peer review process is to ensure publication of unbiased, scientifically accurate and clinically relevant articles. All articles in Sports Medicine are reviewed by members of the Journal's international Editorial Board and/or other specialists of equal repute before a decision on publication is made." As I said before, 4-androstenedione is _clearly_ described in the medical literature as a steroid hormone. It is listed as such in many medical papers. It is frequently described as a steroid in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The American Medical Association is wrong and you are correct? I concede that it may not be in the same steroid 'category' as some other steroids are and in some technical way you may be correct, but nonetheless it appears the medical community still uses the word steroid to describe it and that is the accepted common parlance in the medical community. This matter of terminology changes none of the results of the papers cited above. They have still found banned substances (whatever you want to call them) in sports supplements. (Oh, and I never said there was no solid evidence as you claim I did. Clearly there is a TON of solid peer-reviewed evidence.)
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
You sure like to hear yourself talk.
As I said, it is not an "Anabolic" steroid. It has no anabolic effects. Intestinal bile is a steroid. Several vitamin pre-cursors are steroids. Cholesterol is a steroid. None of these steroids are "anabolic." A steroid is simply a specific fat soluble organic compound with a carbon base. An "anabolic" steroid is a testosterone or testosterone relative which increases muscle mass through specific protein synthesis mechanisms. The research says Andro is an "anabolic," it is't. They listed several forms of Andro, none of which are anabolic, Thus, the reports are wrong several times over. The study is based entirely upon a flawed premise. End of story. Why do we have to keep rehashing the same useless data? I already found a flaw in your references. One is all I need to say it's crap. The study is crap and it's gonna' stay crap no matter how much you say it's candy. Quote: As I said before, 4-androstenedione is _clearly_ described in the medical literature as a steroid hormone. It is listed as such in many medical papers. It is frequently described as a steroid in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The American Medical Association is wrong and you are correct?
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
Let's shut this down once and for all.
My original statement was that "Lawmakers still don't understand that protein is not a steroid." You inferred that protein is not a steroid, but grouped it with supplements that may contain steroids. However, even in the studies you reference, the protein tested negative. Even your own references don't support your position. My contention was that protein is not a steroid. It isn't. I was right. Your contention is that protein contains steroids. It doesn't, I was right. Your classification of protein supplements is without merit. The debate is over.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts
|
Since you restated your point, I will also restate mine.
Some sports supplements HAVE been found to contain banned substances including steroids. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence (some of which I linked to above) has proven this fact beyond a shadow of a doubt. Protein powders may NOT contain steroids (which is your point) but some other sports supplements DO. Apparently we were debating different things. I agree, Debate Done.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-07-16 19:37, critter wrote: You seem very sure of yourself here, Critter. Now, I have no expertise in endocrinology, but I can read. Your claim that "there is no evidence of 4-Andro having any anabolic properties whatsoever appears to be false. In the Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism 90(2), 2005, a peer reviewed study clearly claimed that 4-Andro is an anabolic steroid. The article has the catchy title "-4-Androstene-3,17-Dione Binds Androgen Receptor, Promotes Myogenesis in Vitro, and Increases Serum Testosterone Levels, Fat-Free Mass, and Muscle Strength in Hypogonadal Men" by Jasuga et. al. In the article's conclusion Jasuga et. al. state Quote:
A compound must have structural and pharmacological resemblance to testosterone and promote muscle growth to be classified as an anabolic steroid. 4-Androstenedione has remarkable structural similarity to testosterone, binds AR, promotes myogenic differentiation through an ARmediated mechanism, and increases muscle mass and As I said above, I'm not qualified to assess this work, but your claim of "no evidence" clearly does not stand. BTW, you can read the article here. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
Thanks M, I hadn't seen this study.
As the article states: "Previous studies of 4-androstene-3,17-dione (4-androstenedione) administration in men have not demonstrated sustained increments in testosterone levels, fat-free mass (FFM)" and it is these previous studies that I was referring to. There was a review which summarized multiple studies that had studies the effect of androstenedione on strength training. They found no effect on muscle strength, size, or upon bodyfat levels, in comparison with the control groups. The dosage was 50-100mg daily, except for one study, where it was 300mg and was combined with other supps. The results of all tests were the same. It was published around '05 or '06. I will try to find a link. So, chances are good that the results of this other study could be an anomaly. That's why science requires multiple tests. So, I guess we could say the results are inconclusive, but the preponderance of research suggests no anabolic effects. The Andro thing was really sidetracking though. The first post that this was a continuation of was about protein. That discussion has been resolved. It's too bad it got sidetracked, but that's ok because if it hadn't I wouldn't have gotten to read this study.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-07-17 00:36, critter wrote: There is more, but I won't read it. Interestingly Page et al published "Tissue Selectivity of the Anabolic Steroid, 19-Nor-4-Androstenediol-3β,17β-Diol in Male Sprague Dawley Rats: Selective Stimulation of Muscle Mass and Bone Mineral Density Relative to Prostate Mass" in 2008 in the journal Endocrinology. To Page, the issue appears to be settled: it is an anabolic steroid. Maybe one day I'll study enough endocrinology to make deeper sense of the issues. But not anytime soon. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts
|
It is clear that the literature in the Journal of the American Medical Association and other medical journals are NOW describing 4-androstenedione as a steroid. I pointed this out many posts ago.
Maybe there was some doubt about its status as a steroid before 2005-2006, maybe the preponderance of the literature before 2005-2006 said something else, but it seems to have been decided since then that it IS a steroid. Good night all.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
Which still has nothing to do with protein.
Look, I've seen the evidence. Your data has convinced me that it is inconclusive. We can keep going "Is not" "Is too" until the end of time, but in the end both sides have conflicting data that is irrelevant to the original subject.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
Jason London Loyal user Napa Valley 207 Posts
|
In one of your above posts you mention that over the counter test boosters don't work. Actually, that's false. They do work. They work very well. I know, I've used them before.
Also, Gakic is NOT a stimulant by any means. Gakic, when used correctly, will increase your strength. Again, I know because I've used it. Just my thoughts.
Jason London
This space for rent |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » "Steroids" in supplements. (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jul 15, 2009 11:19 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.11 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|