Ever wonder how your supplements REALLY get made? I cover the actual process, and give some tips on how to get best quality for your $$$. How the supplements you take are actually made in most cases, no longer a mystery!
Do “Muscle Building Supplements” increase the risk of testicular cancer? I cover that in this vid!
Muscle-building supplement use and increased risk of testicular germ cell cancer in men from Connecticut and Massachusetts
British Journal of Cancer 112, 1247-1250 (31 March 2015)
In this vid, I discuss the popular “Testosterone booster” supplement D-Aspartic Acid (DAA) and update my opinions of this general category of supplements. Note the added study below recently published that found at higher doses, it actually lowered testosterone.
Study mentioned in the vid:
D-Aspartic acid supplementation combined with 28 days of heavy resistance training has no effect on body composition, muscle strength, and serum hormones associated with the hypothalamo-pituitary-gonadal axis in resistance-trained men
PAGE UPDATE: 2015 study and additional comments:
The criticism of some to prior studies was that it was possible higher doses were needed to impact T levels in younger resistance trained men. This study just out below found higher doses actually decreased testosterone! And the study was done on the appropriate population, resistance trained men, although they didn’t test the impact on TT and FT on strength or LBM as the prior study above did. The two studies combined however, do not paint a good picture for DAA in my view. This only lowers, my already low opinion of “T boosters” as a category of supplements…
Three and six grams supplementation of d-aspartic acid in resistance trained men
Geoffrey W Melville*, Jason C Siegler and Paul WM Marshall
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2015, 12:15
Although abundant research has investigated the hormonal effects of d-aspartic acid in rat models, to date there is limited research on humans. Previous research has demonstrated increased total testosterone levels in sedentary men and no significant changes in hormonal levels in resistance trained men. It was hypothesised that a higher dosage may be required for experienced lifters, thus this study investigated the effects of two different dosages of d-aspartic acid on basal hormonal levels in resistance trained men and explored responsiveness to d-aspartic acid based on initial testosterone levels.
Twenty-four males, with a minimum of two years’ experience in resistance training, (age, 24.5 ± 3.2 y; training experience, 3.4 ± 1.4 y; height, 178.5 ± 6.5 cm; weight, 84.7 ± 7.2 kg; bench press 1-RM, 105.3 ± 15.2 kg) were randomised into one of three groups: 6 g.d−1 plain flour (D0); 3 g.d−1 of d-aspartic acid (D3); and 6 g.d−1 of d-aspartic acid (D6). Participants performed a two-week washout period, training four days per week. This continued through the experimental period (14 days), with participants consuming the supplement in the morning. Serum was analysed for levels of testosterone, estradiol, sex hormone binding globulin, albumin and free testosterone was determined by calculation.
D-aspartic acid supplementation revealed no main effect for group in: estradiol; sex-hormone-binding-globulin; and albumin. Total testosterone was significantly reduced in D6 (P = 0.03). Analysis of free testosterone showed that D6 was significantly reduced as compared to D0 (P = 0.005), but not significantly different to D3. Analysis did not reveal any significant differences between D3 and D0. No significant correlation between initial total testosterone levels and responsiveness to d-aspartic acid was observed (r = 0.10, P = 0.70).
The present study demonstrated that a daily dose of six grams of d-aspartic acid decreased levels of total testosterone and free testosterone (D6), without any concurrent change in other hormones measured. Three grams of d-aspartic acid had no significant effect on either testosterone markers. It is currently unknown what effect this reduction in testosterone will have on strength and hypertrophy gains.
Full paper HERE
What do most medical doctors REALLY know about nutrition? The answer may surprise you. I cover why there’s so much confusion regarding what most medical doctors actually know about nutrition.
Not as uncommon a question as the more informed here might think! But, you too may have been asked that Q, and here’s a short vid to refer them to if/when they ask.
Levels of creatine, organic contaminants and heavy metals in creatine dietary supplements
Food Chemistry. Volume 126, Issue 3, 1 June 2011, Pages 1232–1238
High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) has been optimised for the analysis of the creatine content and possible organic contaminants in 33 samples of creatine supplements from the market. Creatinine resulted to be the major organic contaminant (44% of the samples over 100 mg/kg). About 15% of the samples had dihydro-1,3,5-triazine concentrations exceeding the detection limit of 4.5 mg/kg (maximum 8.0 mg/kg) and a dicyandiamide concentration over 50 mg/kg, while none of the samples were contaminated with thiourea. The heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead) content was also assessed by means of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Only mercury was present in detectable amounts (at levels lower than 1 mg/kg).
• A survey on quality of creatine supplements commercialised in Italy has been carried out.
• Creatinine resulted to be the major organic contaminant (44% of the samples over 100 mg/kg).
• 50% of the products exceeded the maximum level recommended by EFSA for organic contaminants.
• Among heavy metals, only mercury was present in detectable amounts (<1 mg/kg)
Full Paper, which is not free, is HERE
They answer, in many cases, is yes. I explore that issue in this vid. For those who want to get into the details of the topic, and excellent review paper is linked below.
How dieting makes the lean fatter: from a perspective
of body composition autoregulation through
adipostats and proteinstats awaiting discovery
A. G. Dulloo, J. Jacquet, J.-P. Montani and Y. Schutz
Department of Medicine, Division of
Physiology, University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Whether dieting makes people fatter has been a subject of considerable controversy
over the past 30 years. More recent analysis of several prospective studies suggest,
however, that it is dieting to lose weight in people who are in the healthy normal
range of body weight, rather than in those who are overweight or obese, that most
strongly and consistently predict future weight gain. This paper analyses the ongoing
arguments in the debate about whether repeated dieting to lose weight in normal-
weight people represents unsuccessful attempts to counter genetic and familial
predispositions to obesity, a psychosocial reaction to the fear of fatness or that
dieting per seconfers risks for fatness and hence a contributing factor to the obesity
Intermittent Fasting (IF), science or pseudo-science? In this vid I cover the essential issues of IF people need to know.
Review Paper Of Interest Mentioned In the Vid:
Meal frequency and timing in health and disease
Although major research efforts have focused on how specific components of foodstuffs affect health, relatively little is known about a more fundamental aspect of diet, the frequency and circadian timing of meals, and potential benefits of intermittent periods with no or very low energy intakes. The most common eating pattern in modern societies, three meals plus snacks every day, is abnormal from an evolutionary perspective. Emerging findings from studies of animal models and human subjects suggest that intermittent energy restriction periods of as little as 16 h can improve health indicators and counteract disease processes. The mechanisms involve a metabolic shift to fat metabolism and ketone production, and stimulation of adaptive cellular stress responses that prevent and repair molecular damage. As data on the optimal frequency and timing of meals crystalizes, it will be critical to develop strategies to incorporate those eating patterns into health care policy and practice, and the lifestyles of the population.
Full Paper HERE
After my review of the popular coffee concoction making the rounds with generally unsupported claims, I was asked what would I recommend for a “bio active” coffee that really delivered as promised. The result is Bomb Proof Coffee. Part I covers what’s in Bomb Proof Coffee and why those ingredients used, and Part II covers how to make it, doses, sources, etc. If you try it, make sure to report back with your experience! If you want to know the science behind Bomb Proof Coffee, the full write up is HERE.
Part I, what’s in BombProof Coffee and why:
Part II, how to make BombProof Coffee, doses, and sources:
Viagra and muscle? Does Viagra, or Cialis help build muscle? Athletes from body builders to football players to mountain climbers use these PDE inhibitor drugs. Why? In this vid I cover the facts behind their use.
Sildenafil Increases Muscle Protein Synthesis and Reduces Muscle Fatigue
Clinical and Translational Science
Volume 6, Issue 6, pages 463–468, December 2013
Reductions in skeletal muscle function occur during the course of healthy aging as well as with bed rest or diverse diseases such as cancer, muscular dystrophy, and heart failure. However, there are no accepted pharmacologic therapies to improve impaired skeletal muscle function. Nitric oxide may influence skeletal muscle function through effects on excitation-contraction coupling, myofibrillar function, perfusion, and metabolism. Here we show that augmentation of nitric oxide-cyclic guanosine monophosphate signaling by short-term daily administration of the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor sildenafil increases protein synthesis, alters protein expression and nitrosylation, and reduces fatigue in human skeletal muscle. These findings suggest that phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors represent viable pharmacologic interventions to improve muscle function.