ECA stack and fish oil to shrink fat cells and build more lean muscle???
Replies
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »jasonpoihegatama wrote: »An excerpt from the biomedcentral paper:
"Both of these intravenous infusion studies found that BCAAs decreased muscle protein synthesis as well as protein breakdown, meaning a decrease in muscle protein turnover. The catabolic state in which the rate of muscle protein breakdown exceeded the rate of muscle protein synthesis persisted during BCAA infusion. We conclude that the claim that consumption of dietary BCAAs stimulates muscle protein synthesis or produces an anabolic response in human subjects is unwarranted."
So, not only do 2 studies conclude that BCAAs do not preserve muscle, they actually work against muscle protein synthesis.
Sure this debate has been around for 20 years it was due to how much protein the body can absorb and how much could be absorbed into the muscle due to some protein can not last long and some are slower to absorb and some are fast to absorb than others protein this So protein synthesis could not take place in the muscle.
All groups had a 100% compliance with the study protocol. The BCAA group experienced a significantly greater gain in body weight than the whey group (2 ± 1 kg vs. 1 ± 1 kg; p < 0.02) and the carbohydrate group (2 ± 1 kg vs. 1 ± 1 kg; p < 0.01). For lean mass, the BCAA group gained significantly greater lean mass than the whey group (4 ± 1 kg vs. 2 ± 1 kg; p < 0.01) and the carbohydrate group (4 ± 1 kg vs. 1 ± 1 kg; p < 0.01). The whey group also gained significantly more lean mass than the carbohydrate group (2 ± 1 kg vs. 1 ± 1 kg; p < 0.02). BCAA group decreased their percent body fat significantly more than the whey group (2 ± 1% vs. 1 ± 1%; p = 0.039) and the carbohydrate group (2 ± 1% vs. 1 ± 1%; p < 0.01). Muscular strength was significantly greater in the BCAA group on the 10-RM bench press than the whey group (6 ± 3 kg vs. 3 ± 2 kg; p < 0.01) and the carbohydrate group (6 ± 3 kg vs. 2 ± 2 kg; p < 0.01). For the squat, the BCAA group gained significantly more strength on their 10-RM than the whey group (11 ± 5 kg vs. 5 ± 3 kg; p < 0.01) and the carbohydrate group (11 ± 5 kg vs. 3 ± 2 kg; p < 0.01).
For those interested in where this came from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3313152/
With thanks for funding to Scivation Inc. a company that sells supplements.
Yes most studies would be funded by supplements company's. And the products has to meat FDA regulation.8 -
What regulations do the FDA enforce for supplements?7
-
-
And do they actually regulate supplements?
ETA ref to Orrin Hatch DSHEA of 1994.5 -
No sorry they don't
. Your right! 6 -
jasonpoihegatama wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »jasonpoihegatama wrote: »An excerpt from the biomedcentral paper:
"Both of these intravenous infusion studies found that BCAAs decreased muscle protein synthesis as well as protein breakdown, meaning a decrease in muscle protein turnover. The catabolic state in which the rate of muscle protein breakdown exceeded the rate of muscle protein synthesis persisted during BCAA infusion. We conclude that the claim that consumption of dietary BCAAs stimulates muscle protein synthesis or produces an anabolic response in human subjects is unwarranted."
So, not only do 2 studies conclude that BCAAs do not preserve muscle, they actually work against muscle protein synthesis.
Sure this debate has been around for 20 years it was due to how much protein the body can absorb and how much could be absorbed into the muscle due to some protein can not last long and some are slower to absorb and some are fast to absorb than others protein this So protein synthesis could not take place in the muscle.
All groups had a 100% compliance with the study protocol. The BCAA group experienced a significantly greater gain in body weight than the whey group (2 ± 1 kg vs. 1 ± 1 kg; p < 0.02) and the carbohydrate group (2 ± 1 kg vs. 1 ± 1 kg; p < 0.01). For lean mass, the BCAA group gained significantly greater lean mass than the whey group (4 ± 1 kg vs. 2 ± 1 kg; p < 0.01) and the carbohydrate group (4 ± 1 kg vs. 1 ± 1 kg; p < 0.01). The whey group also gained significantly more lean mass than the carbohydrate group (2 ± 1 kg vs. 1 ± 1 kg; p < 0.02). BCAA group decreased their percent body fat significantly more than the whey group (2 ± 1% vs. 1 ± 1%; p = 0.039) and the carbohydrate group (2 ± 1% vs. 1 ± 1%; p < 0.01). Muscular strength was significantly greater in the BCAA group on the 10-RM bench press than the whey group (6 ± 3 kg vs. 3 ± 2 kg; p < 0.01) and the carbohydrate group (6 ± 3 kg vs. 2 ± 2 kg; p < 0.01). For the squat, the BCAA group gained significantly more strength on their 10-RM than the whey group (11 ± 5 kg vs. 5 ± 3 kg; p < 0.01) and the carbohydrate group (11 ± 5 kg vs. 3 ± 2 kg; p < 0.01).
For those interested in where this came from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3313152/
With thanks for funding to Scivation Inc. a company that sells supplements.
Yes most studies would be funded by supplements company's. And the products has to meat FDA regulation.
Well more importantly than the group funding the study is how abysmal that actual study is. When I looked up the paper, I thought I was getting the Pubmed extract, but honestly, that's it. There is no real methodology, just "we gave some guys carbs, some guys why, and some BCAA's" - that's it. No explanations of how they assigned people to groups - if there was any coordination for experience with training. No explanation of what extent protein intake was equalized across groups.
Even the numbers just look fishy. What kind of study has results with 1 significant digit in with a ± 1 variance, particularly for some numbers that are a 2, or a 6± 3?
The only thing useful about this study is as an example of how not to present a study.8 -
With all due respect, you are wrong. And you have provided nothing to back you claim.
http://physiqonomics.com/bcaas/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27175106
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-017-0184-9
Based on your statement though, I'm guessing you will unconvinced. Adequate dietary protein gives you all the BCAAs you need for training and BCAAs do nothing in regard to fuel substrate utilization. If my choice is to take your word for it or believe the research, I'm going with the research.
OP, a frustrating situation. But as others have said, time to nod, smile and walk away. As we see all the time, some people will believe whatever clickbait the read without being interested in facts or research. Nothing you can do when that happens...An excerpt from the biomedcentral paper:
"Both of these intravenous infusion studies found that BCAAs decreased muscle protein synthesis as well as protein breakdown, meaning a decrease in muscle protein turnover. The catabolic state in which the rate of muscle protein breakdown exceeded the rate of muscle protein synthesis persisted during BCAA infusion. We conclude that the claim that consumption of dietary BCAAs stimulates muscle protein synthesis or produces an anabolic response in human subjects is unwarranted."
So, not only do 2 studies conclude that BCAAs do not preserve muscle, they actually work against muscle protein synthesis.
Thank you. I've been on the fence about buying another tub - the first was given to me - and a good friend swears by BCAAs.
Appreciate your posting this.5 -
The substance used in supplements has to have already been approved by the FDA but i guess you wouldn't have a clue of the FDA test?. But you would have to try it for yourself this will be the best way instead of trying to understand numbers you cannot comprehend this way you can see if it works for you or not simple.10
-
I thought the DSHEA comment already covered the FDA.jasonpoihegatama wrote: »The substance used in supplements has to have already been approved by the FDA but i guess you wouldn't have a clue of the FDA test?. But you would have to try it for yourself this will be the best way instead of trying to understand numbers you cannot comprehend this way you can see if it works for you or not simple.
As far as trying something for one self, that seems one of the worst possible ways of testing something, given the existence of the placebo effect, and just how hard it is to do a blind study on one-self.
I far prefer the already established ways of testing the effectiveness of substances found in science.11 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »angmarie28 wrote: »Fatty_Nuff wrote: »I suspect your friend was contaminated by bad advice from some fitness trainer. If ECA (ephedra, caffeine, aspirin) "shrank" fat cells and caused weight loss, do you really think any of us would still be here?
Shes a victim of the internet "fitness experts"
What ephedra is she taking? I thought that was banned in the US now but I see the legal status is complicated. Does she know about the gastrointestinal, psychiatric, and autonomic side effects?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra
There is a difference between ephedra and ephedrine - ephedrine is banned and ephedra is legal. It is important to note that it is banned during competition on the WADA list... so anyone competing at that level needs to stop taking it at least a few days before the competition to be sure it is fully metabolized before going into competition. Otherwise, you get in trouble for doping.
OP, I've taken an ECA stack at various times. It does 2 things:
1. It increases RMR by a few percentage points. This comes from both the ephedra and the caffeine.
2. It helps to mobilize "stubborn fat." I'll explain because I know this community will tell you that the idea of "stubborn fat" is a fairy tale, but it is an actual thing. *Yes, I expect this to get tons of "Woos," but I believe it will also help those who are open minded enough to keep reading.
Our fat cells contain mitochondria, like other cells. Fat cell mitochondria has 2 receptors that are relevant to storage and release of fat - alpha-2 receptors and beta-2 receptors. Alpha-2 keep fat stored / blocks release of fat while beta-2 helps release fat from storage to be used as energy. Not all fat cells contain the same ration of A2:B2 receptors. Specifically, fat with a higher ration of A2:B2 is the last to be lost when trying to lose weight... and some of us find it very difficult to get our bodies to mobilize that fat at all. For me, I suspect it is related to a health condition I have, but am not entirely familiar with the complexities as to why/how and there isn't likely much I can do about it. Anyway, the reason people lose fat in large amounts from certain body areas first and seem to lose little or nothing in other areas is a result of the A2:B2 ratio in certain fat cells.
Ephedra helps to block alpha-2 receptors. So it blocks the receptors that block release of fat. Thing is, someone who is very over-fat is not likely in need of such a thing. This is most helpful when getting down to the last body fat - the "stubborn fat" that is last to leave. It sounds like she doesn't need that just yet. Still, the increased RMR helps a little bit. Often, an ECA stack is taken along-side yohimbe / yohimbine, which is a beta-2 agonist... it increases effectiveness of the receptors that release fat.
ETA: Legal issue about ephedra/ephedrine is for U.S. I can't say about other countries because I don't know.Fatty_Nuff wrote: »
Ephedra is illegal if sold as a dietary supplement. But the main active ingredient, ephedrine, is available OTC. I suspect that's what people use in the stack.kshama2001 wrote: »What ephedra is she taking? I thought that was banned in the US now but I see the legal status is complicated. Does she know about the gastrointestinal, psychiatric, and autonomic side effects?
actually in most states ephedrine containing products are sold behind the counter which means you have to show your license and sign a thing and they limit you as to how much you can buy. most people use it to make meth which is why they put this in place. They also watch you to see what other items you may be buying that could be used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs. hell Ive been ID'ed just buying drain cleaner for my drains. I dont buy any meds behind the counter though as I dont need them.0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
I thought the DSHEA comment already covered the FDA.jasonpoihegatama wrote: »The substance used in supplements has to have already been approved by the FDA but i guess you wouldn't have a clue of the FDA test?. But you would have to try it for yourself this will be the best way instead of trying to understand numbers you cannot comprehend this way you can see if it works for you or not simple.
As far as trying something for one self, that seems one of the worst possible ways of testing something, given the existence of the placebo effect, and just how hard it is to do a blind study on one-self.
I far prefer the already established ways of testing the effectiveness of substances found in science.
Good luck with the numbers! LOl7 -
jasonpoihegatama wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
I thought the DSHEA comment already covered the FDA.jasonpoihegatama wrote: »The substance used in supplements has to have already been approved by the FDA but i guess you wouldn't have a clue of the FDA test?. But you would have to try it for yourself this will be the best way instead of trying to understand numbers you cannot comprehend this way you can see if it works for you or not simple.
As far as trying something for one self, that seems one of the worst possible ways of testing something, given the existence of the placebo effect, and just how hard it is to do a blind study on one-self.
I far prefer the already established ways of testing the effectiveness of substances found in science.
Good luck with the numbers! LOl
There are plenty of people here with the training to understand studies and the numbers involved. I don’t know why you would assume nobody can.4 -
So i moved this to BB. Discussions regarding ECA is only allowed in this subforum based on its inherent risk if not cycled or taken correctly.
Similarly with diet techniques such as PSMF, RFL, etc....
Carry on!3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »angmarie28 wrote: »Fatty_Nuff wrote: »I suspect your friend was contaminated by bad advice from some fitness trainer. If ECA (ephedra, caffeine, aspirin) "shrank" fat cells and caused weight loss, do you really think any of us would still be here?
Shes a victim of the internet "fitness experts"
What ephedra is she taking? I thought that was banned in the US now but I see the legal status is complicated. Does she know about the gastrointestinal, psychiatric, and autonomic side effects?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra
There is a difference between ephedra and ephedrine - ephedrine is banned and ephedra is legal. It is important to note that it is banned during competition on the WADA list... so anyone competing at that level needs to stop taking it at least a few days before the competition to be sure it is fully metabolized before going into competition. Otherwise, you get in trouble for doping.
OP, I've taken an ECA stack at various times. It does 2 things:
1. It increases RMR by a few percentage points. This comes from both the ephedra and the caffeine.
2. It helps to mobilize "stubborn fat." I'll explain because I know this community will tell you that the idea of "stubborn fat" is a fairy tale, but it is an actual thing. *Yes, I expect this to get tons of "Woos," but I believe it will also help those who are open minded enough to keep reading.
Our fat cells contain mitochondria, like other cells. Fat cell mitochondria has 2 receptors that are relevant to storage and release of fat - alpha-2 receptors and beta-2 receptors. Alpha-2 keep fat stored / blocks release of fat while beta-2 helps release fat from storage to be used as energy. Not all fat cells contain the same ration of A2:B2 receptors. Specifically, fat with a higher ration of A2:B2 is the last to be lost when trying to lose weight... and some of us find it very difficult to get our bodies to mobilize that fat at all. For me, I suspect it is related to a health condition I have, but am not entirely familiar with the complexities as to why/how and there isn't likely much I can do about it. Anyway, the reason people lose fat in large amounts from certain body areas first and seem to lose little or nothing in other areas is a result of the A2:B2 ratio in certain fat cells.
Ephedra helps to block alpha-2 receptors. So it blocks the receptors that block release of fat. Thing is, someone who is very over-fat is not likely in need of such a thing. This is most helpful when getting down to the last body fat - the "stubborn fat" that is last to leave. It sounds like she doesn't need that just yet. Still, the increased RMR helps a little bit. Often, an ECA stack is taken along-side yohimbe / yohimbine, which is a beta-2 agonist... it increases effectiveness of the receptors that release fat.
ETA: Legal issue about ephedra/ephedrine is for U.S. I can't say about other countries because I don't know.
Have you run UD2? Lyle McDonald talks about this pretty extensively in that book. Mobilizing fats to help address stubbord areas is why he cycles keto with carb refeeds. Once i am done my cycle of PSMF, i am considering going back to UD2 for that reason.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »angmarie28 wrote: »Fatty_Nuff wrote: »I suspect your friend was contaminated by bad advice from some fitness trainer. If ECA (ephedra, caffeine, aspirin) "shrank" fat cells and caused weight loss, do you really think any of us would still be here?
Shes a victim of the internet "fitness experts"
What ephedra is she taking? I thought that was banned in the US now but I see the legal status is complicated. Does she know about the gastrointestinal, psychiatric, and autonomic side effects?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra
There is a difference between ephedra and ephedrine - ephedrine is banned and ephedra is legal. It is important to note that it is banned during competition on the WADA list... so anyone competing at that level needs to stop taking it at least a few days before the competition to be sure it is fully metabolized before going into competition. Otherwise, you get in trouble for doping.
OP, I've taken an ECA stack at various times. It does 2 things:
1. It increases RMR by a few percentage points. This comes from both the ephedra and the caffeine.
2. It helps to mobilize "stubborn fat." I'll explain because I know this community will tell you that the idea of "stubborn fat" is a fairy tale, but it is an actual thing. *Yes, I expect this to get tons of "Woos," but I believe it will also help those who are open minded enough to keep reading.
Our fat cells contain mitochondria, like other cells. Fat cell mitochondria has 2 receptors that are relevant to storage and release of fat - alpha-2 receptors and beta-2 receptors. Alpha-2 keep fat stored / blocks release of fat while beta-2 helps release fat from storage to be used as energy. Not all fat cells contain the same ration of A2:B2 receptors. Specifically, fat with a higher ration of A2:B2 is the last to be lost when trying to lose weight... and some of us find it very difficult to get our bodies to mobilize that fat at all. For me, I suspect it is related to a health condition I have, but am not entirely familiar with the complexities as to why/how and there isn't likely much I can do about it. Anyway, the reason people lose fat in large amounts from certain body areas first and seem to lose little or nothing in other areas is a result of the A2:B2 ratio in certain fat cells.
Ephedra helps to block alpha-2 receptors. So it blocks the receptors that block release of fat. Thing is, someone who is very over-fat is not likely in need of such a thing. This is most helpful when getting down to the last body fat - the "stubborn fat" that is last to leave. It sounds like she doesn't need that just yet. Still, the increased RMR helps a little bit. Often, an ECA stack is taken along-side yohimbe / yohimbine, which is a beta-2 agonist... it increases effectiveness of the receptors that release fat.
ETA: Legal issue about ephedra/ephedrine is for U.S. I can't say about other countries because I don't know.Fatty_Nuff wrote: »
Ephedra is illegal if sold as a dietary supplement. But the main active ingredient, ephedrine, is available OTC. I suspect that's what people use in the stack.kshama2001 wrote: »What ephedra is she taking? I thought that was banned in the US now but I see the legal status is complicated. Does she know about the gastrointestinal, psychiatric, and autonomic side effects?
actually in most states ephedrine containing products are sold behind the counter which means you have to show your license and sign a thing and they limit you as to how much you can buy. most people use it to make meth which is why they put this in place. They also watch you to see what other items you may be buying that could be used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs. hell Ive been ID'ed just buying drain cleaner for my drains. I dont buy any meds behind the counter though as I dont need them.
Thanks, but you are talking about pseudoephedrine.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »angmarie28 wrote: »Fatty_Nuff wrote: »I suspect your friend was contaminated by bad advice from some fitness trainer. If ECA (ephedra, caffeine, aspirin) "shrank" fat cells and caused weight loss, do you really think any of us would still be here?
Shes a victim of the internet "fitness experts"
What ephedra is she taking? I thought that was banned in the US now but I see the legal status is complicated. Does she know about the gastrointestinal, psychiatric, and autonomic side effects?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra
There is a difference between ephedra and ephedrine - ephedrine is banned and ephedra is legal. It is important to note that it is banned during competition on the WADA list... so anyone competing at that level needs to stop taking it at least a few days before the competition to be sure it is fully metabolized before going into competition. Otherwise, you get in trouble for doping.
OP, I've taken an ECA stack at various times. It does 2 things:
1. It increases RMR by a few percentage points. This comes from both the ephedra and the caffeine.
2. It helps to mobilize "stubborn fat." I'll explain because I know this community will tell you that the idea of "stubborn fat" is a fairy tale, but it is an actual thing. *Yes, I expect this to get tons of "Woos," but I believe it will also help those who are open minded enough to keep reading.
Our fat cells contain mitochondria, like other cells. Fat cell mitochondria has 2 receptors that are relevant to storage and release of fat - alpha-2 receptors and beta-2 receptors. Alpha-2 keep fat stored / blocks release of fat while beta-2 helps release fat from storage to be used as energy. Not all fat cells contain the same ration of A2:B2 receptors. Specifically, fat with a higher ration of A2:B2 is the last to be lost when trying to lose weight... and some of us find it very difficult to get our bodies to mobilize that fat at all. For me, I suspect it is related to a health condition I have, but am not entirely familiar with the complexities as to why/how and there isn't likely much I can do about it. Anyway, the reason people lose fat in large amounts from certain body areas first and seem to lose little or nothing in other areas is a result of the A2:B2 ratio in certain fat cells.
Ephedra helps to block alpha-2 receptors. So it blocks the receptors that block release of fat. Thing is, someone who is very over-fat is not likely in need of such a thing. This is most helpful when getting down to the last body fat - the "stubborn fat" that is last to leave. It sounds like she doesn't need that just yet. Still, the increased RMR helps a little bit. Often, an ECA stack is taken along-side yohimbe / yohimbine, which is a beta-2 agonist... it increases effectiveness of the receptors that release fat.
ETA: Legal issue about ephedra/ephedrine is for U.S. I can't say about other countries because I don't know.
Have you run UD2? Lyle McDonald talks about this pretty extensively in that book. Mobilizing fats to help address stubbord areas is why he cycles keto with carb refeeds. Once i am done my cycle of PSMF, i am considering going back to UD2 for that reason.
No, I have done RFL, but haven't read his other books.
ETA: People on keto are not as glycogen depleted as they want to think. Yes, they have less glycogen stored, but there is still quite a bit to access. The ECA stack depletes glycogen further. Last time I did something similar to RFL, but decided on my own to skip the cheats and glycogen refeeds. Unfortunately, I ended up getting forced to have a glycogen refeed... BG went too low and I had absolutely nothing to self-rescue. Paramedics ended up goving me D50.
1 -
jasonpoihegatama wrote: »The substance used in supplements has to have already been approved by the FDA but i guess you wouldn't have a clue of the FDA test?. But you would have to try it for yourself this will be the best way instead of trying to understand numbers you cannot comprehend this way you can see if it works for you or not simple.
Yes, everyone does have a clue about "the FDA test," whatever that's supposed to mean. The clue is that the FDA does not approve or regulate supplements. They can contain powdered pig poop as far as you know.
Thinking how to explain why trying something for yourself is not the same as science is making me sad. Let's go:
One person's experience doesn't prove anything, ever. That one person could have a million things going on with him other than taking or not taking a supplement, leading to the observed results. Also, it's very difficult for a single person to act as a control group for himself. If you start working out and taking a supplement, and get larger, was it because you took the supplement, or because you started working out? What would have happened over the same time period if you hadn't taken the supplement? You can't know. Also, in the case of factors which are not easily measured like "feeling better" or "hitting my workouts harder" it's impossible to tell if something is really happening or if you just think it is, because you know you are taking a supplement, and you expect results. This is called the placebo effect. The placebo effect is one reason a control group is so important, because if the control group also sees an unexpected improvement, you know it's not because of the supplement.
How to run a science experiment with a control group, how to control for variables other than the one being measured, how to read and interpret a study, how to pay attention to bias in the group conducting the study, and the existence of the placebo effect are all things that are taught in school that really any basic adult needs to understand to function in a modern society. Without knowing these concepts, you're at the mercy of whatever someone wants to sell you.4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »angmarie28 wrote: »Fatty_Nuff wrote: »I suspect your friend was contaminated by bad advice from some fitness trainer. If ECA (ephedra, caffeine, aspirin) "shrank" fat cells and caused weight loss, do you really think any of us would still be here?
Shes a victim of the internet "fitness experts"
What ephedra is she taking? I thought that was banned in the US now but I see the legal status is complicated. Does she know about the gastrointestinal, psychiatric, and autonomic side effects?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra
There is a difference between ephedra and ephedrine - ephedrine is banned and ephedra is legal. It is important to note that it is banned during competition on the WADA list... so anyone competing at that level needs to stop taking it at least a few days before the competition to be sure it is fully metabolized before going into competition. Otherwise, you get in trouble for doping.
OP, I've taken an ECA stack at various times. It does 2 things:
1. It increases RMR by a few percentage points. This comes from both the ephedra and the caffeine.
2. It helps to mobilize "stubborn fat." I'll explain because I know this community will tell you that the idea of "stubborn fat" is a fairy tale, but it is an actual thing. *Yes, I expect this to get tons of "Woos," but I believe it will also help those who are open minded enough to keep reading.
Our fat cells contain mitochondria, like other cells. Fat cell mitochondria has 2 receptors that are relevant to storage and release of fat - alpha-2 receptors and beta-2 receptors. Alpha-2 keep fat stored / blocks release of fat while beta-2 helps release fat from storage to be used as energy. Not all fat cells contain the same ration of A2:B2 receptors. Specifically, fat with a higher ration of A2:B2 is the last to be lost when trying to lose weight... and some of us find it very difficult to get our bodies to mobilize that fat at all. For me, I suspect it is related to a health condition I have, but am not entirely familiar with the complexities as to why/how and there isn't likely much I can do about it. Anyway, the reason people lose fat in large amounts from certain body areas first and seem to lose little or nothing in other areas is a result of the A2:B2 ratio in certain fat cells.
Ephedra helps to block alpha-2 receptors. So it blocks the receptors that block release of fat. Thing is, someone who is very over-fat is not likely in need of such a thing. This is most helpful when getting down to the last body fat - the "stubborn fat" that is last to leave. It sounds like she doesn't need that just yet. Still, the increased RMR helps a little bit. Often, an ECA stack is taken along-side yohimbe / yohimbine, which is a beta-2 agonist... it increases effectiveness of the receptors that release fat.
ETA: Legal issue about ephedra/ephedrine is for U.S. I can't say about other countries because I don't know.Fatty_Nuff wrote: »
Ephedra is illegal if sold as a dietary supplement. But the main active ingredient, ephedrine, is available OTC. I suspect that's what people use in the stack.kshama2001 wrote: »What ephedra is she taking? I thought that was banned in the US now but I see the legal status is complicated. Does she know about the gastrointestinal, psychiatric, and autonomic side effects?
actually in most states ephedrine containing products are sold behind the counter which means you have to show your license and sign a thing and they limit you as to how much you can buy. most people use it to make meth which is why they put this in place. They also watch you to see what other items you may be buying that could be used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs. hell Ive been ID'ed just buying drain cleaner for my drains. I dont buy any meds behind the counter though as I dont need them.
Thanks, but you are talking about pseudoephedrine.
no Im talking about ephedrine products too . http://www.namsdl.org/library/80C44CE7-1C23-D4F9-74E686FED14B0ED4/ bronkaid has ephedrine in it. not pseudoephedrine. I know what my state will card you for . many drugs are behind the counter here due to having ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in them. bronkaid being one of them IF you can find a store that carries it.. same with primatene tablets0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »angmarie28 wrote: »Fatty_Nuff wrote: »I suspect your friend was contaminated by bad advice from some fitness trainer. If ECA (ephedra, caffeine, aspirin) "shrank" fat cells and caused weight loss, do you really think any of us would still be here?
Shes a victim of the internet "fitness experts"
What ephedra is she taking? I thought that was banned in the US now but I see the legal status is complicated. Does she know about the gastrointestinal, psychiatric, and autonomic side effects?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra
There is a difference between ephedra and ephedrine - ephedrine is banned and ephedra is legal. It is important to note that it is banned during competition on the WADA list... so anyone competing at that level needs to stop taking it at least a few days before the competition to be sure it is fully metabolized before going into competition. Otherwise, you get in trouble for doping.
OP, I've taken an ECA stack at various times. It does 2 things:
1. It increases RMR by a few percentage points. This comes from both the ephedra and the caffeine.
2. It helps to mobilize "stubborn fat." I'll explain because I know this community will tell you that the idea of "stubborn fat" is a fairy tale, but it is an actual thing. *Yes, I expect this to get tons of "Woos," but I believe it will also help those who are open minded enough to keep reading.
Our fat cells contain mitochondria, like other cells. Fat cell mitochondria has 2 receptors that are relevant to storage and release of fat - alpha-2 receptors and beta-2 receptors. Alpha-2 keep fat stored / blocks release of fat while beta-2 helps release fat from storage to be used as energy. Not all fat cells contain the same ration of A2:B2 receptors. Specifically, fat with a higher ration of A2:B2 is the last to be lost when trying to lose weight... and some of us find it very difficult to get our bodies to mobilize that fat at all. For me, I suspect it is related to a health condition I have, but am not entirely familiar with the complexities as to why/how and there isn't likely much I can do about it. Anyway, the reason people lose fat in large amounts from certain body areas first and seem to lose little or nothing in other areas is a result of the A2:B2 ratio in certain fat cells.
Ephedra helps to block alpha-2 receptors. So it blocks the receptors that block release of fat. Thing is, someone who is very over-fat is not likely in need of such a thing. This is most helpful when getting down to the last body fat - the "stubborn fat" that is last to leave. It sounds like she doesn't need that just yet. Still, the increased RMR helps a little bit. Often, an ECA stack is taken along-side yohimbe / yohimbine, which is a beta-2 agonist... it increases effectiveness of the receptors that release fat.
ETA: Legal issue about ephedra/ephedrine is for U.S. I can't say about other countries because I don't know.Fatty_Nuff wrote: »
Ephedra is illegal if sold as a dietary supplement. But the main active ingredient, ephedrine, is available OTC. I suspect that's what people use in the stack.kshama2001 wrote: »What ephedra is she taking? I thought that was banned in the US now but I see the legal status is complicated. Does she know about the gastrointestinal, psychiatric, and autonomic side effects?
actually in most states ephedrine containing products are sold behind the counter which means you have to show your license and sign a thing and they limit you as to how much you can buy. most people use it to make meth which is why they put this in place. They also watch you to see what other items you may be buying that could be used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs. hell Ive been ID'ed just buying drain cleaner for my drains. I dont buy any meds behind the counter though as I dont need them.
Thanks, but you are talking about pseudoephedrine.
no Im talking about ephedrine products too . http://www.namsdl.org/library/80C44CE7-1C23-D4F9-74E686FED14B0ED4/ bronkaid has ephedrine in it. not pseudoephedrine. I know what my state will card you for . many drugs are behind the counter here due to having ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in them. bronkaid being one of them IF you can find a store that carries it.. same with primatene tablets
OK, I've not seen ephedrine available for years. So yes, you are correct... IF you can find ephedrine available at a store, I agree you would have to show ID. Typically, pseudoephedrine containing products are sold behind the counter and ephedrine containing products are not sold at all.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »jasonpoihegatama wrote: »The substance used in supplements has to have already been approved by the FDA but i guess you wouldn't have a clue of the FDA test?. But you would have to try it for yourself this will be the best way instead of trying to understand numbers you cannot comprehend this way you can see if it works for you or not simple.
Yes, everyone does have a clue about "the FDA test," whatever that's supposed to mean. The clue is that the FDA does not approve or regulate supplements. They can contain powdered pig poop as far as you know.
Thinking how to explain why trying something for yourself is not the same as science is making me sad. Let's go:
One person's experience doesn't prove anything, ever. That one person could have a million things going on with him other than taking or not taking a supplement, leading to the observed results. Also, it's very difficult for a single person to act as a control group for himself. If you start working out and taking a supplement, and get larger, was it because you took the supplement, or because you started working out? What would have happened over the same time period if you hadn't taken the supplement? You can't know. Also, in the case of factors which are not easily measured like "feeling better" or "hitting my workouts harder" it's impossible to tell if something is really happening or if you just think it is, because you know you are taking a supplement, and you expect results. This is called the placebo effect. The placebo effect is one reason a control group is so important, because if the control group also sees an unexpected improvement, you know it's not because of the supplement.
How to run a science experiment with a control group, how to control for variables other than the one being measured, how to read and interpret a study, how to pay attention to bias in the group conducting the study, and the existence of the placebo effect are all things that are taught in school that really any basic adult needs to understand to function in a modern society. Without knowing these concepts, you're at the mercy of whatever someone wants to sell you.
Well you need to read the FDA Act again. Because no one can use an unknown ingredient in supplements. You can put salt in cause it's been used in foodstuffs already and the FDA has approved salt for human consumption.
You bring up a good point everyone is different. And that's why the debate about protein absorbing and protein synthesis has been around for 20 odd years. I know there are some good BCAA's products and some bad ones.
8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions