deserusan 
"Magna res est vocis et silentii temperamentum."
|
|
Archive for March, 2007
Thursday, March 29th, 2007
I’ll be utilizing this diet for the next 60 days until I begin a contest prep cut. Let me know your thoughts and be perfectly honest. I’ll be using two different calorie schemes for training and non-training days.
Click on the thumbnails for larger pics!!!!
Posted in Diet
Wednesday, March 28th, 2007
Most of these contestants busted their asses for 12 weeks for the 2007 Bodybuilding.com Transformation Contest. However, there were rules so please take note of who potentially was using steroids which was cleary against the rules which can be seen if you scroll down the first page of the thread:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=30111961
Best,
Des aka The Forum Jesus aka The Original Jealous Hater
Posted in Rants
Tuesday, March 27th, 2007
If you have read some of my previous entries or visited the forum you would know that I am highly against using glycocyamine (GAA) in supplemental formulations. To put it bluntly, it’s an unnecessary ingredient that is used for label dressing and to give a bloating effect in creatine supplementers. The reason I have this stance is because most of the population are indeed creatine monohydrate responders and if they aren’t, there are other viable forms with are absorbed via different pathways.
Some say that glycocyamine helps the body produce it’s own creatine which drops by about 30% due to supplementation in vivo. However, they can never answer this simple question, “If you are already supplementing with creatine you will be at saturation thus not needing your body to produce more right?”
It’s plain and simple to me, but some will defend it tooth in nail despite the fact numerous companies have pulled it from formulation after customers were concerned. Given the fact most of the concerns were manifested on open forums why did no one accurately defend it? Who knows but the fact it was pulled without question leads me to believe few understood it’s role and surely didn’t understand that the 4:1 ratio of betaine to glycocyamine is most likely a theoretical number. Here were the original studies on glycocyamine before the discovery in the late 1990’s that elevated homocysteine levels and high level of plasma glycocyamine could be attributed to neurological disorders.
1: BORSOOK ME, BILLIG HK, GOLSETH JG. Betaine and glycocyamine in the treatment of disability resulting from acute anterior poliomyelitis. Ann West Med Surg. 1952 Jul;6(7):423-7.
2: VAN ZANDT V, BORSOOK H. New biochemical approach to the treatment of congestive heart failure.Ann West Med Surg. 1951 Oct;5(10):856-62.
3: BORSOOK ME, BORSOOK H. Treatment of cardiac decompensation with betaine and glycocyamine. Ann West Med Surg. 1951 Oct;5(10):830-55.
4: BORSOOK H, BORSOOK ME. The biochemical basis of betaine-glycocyamine therapy. Ann West Med Surg. 1951 Oct;5(10):825-9.
I just had these pulled from my medical library and will be reviewing them in detail for an article I’m working on for publication. However the conclusions drawn from these studies did manifest themselves in a published patent by the original researcher ME Borsook. I found this alarming to be honest when finding the origin of the mythical 4:1 ratio which some say makes glycocyamine safe:
Does anyone else take issue with what is stated here?
Even at this point in time they knew this was a potentially toxic ingredient before later studies implicated excess GAA in nuerological disorders among humans and elevated homocysteine levels in rat models. No wonder this crap isn’t studied in humans anymore and is now only used to raises homocysteine in rats to induce cardiovascular disease.
Now some may say, well excess B-vitamins, creatine, and betaine will alleviate any potential lack of methylation. That’s great, but why risk it when it was clearly noted back in the original patent:
As you can see, there are some valid concerns regarding this ingredients presence in nutritional supplements. No matter how you approach the argument I firmly believe it’s an unnecessary risk and not serving the best interest of the consumer at large. I can assure you that this will not be the last you here from me on the topic.
Posted in Rants
Saturday, March 24th, 2007
Creatine ethyl ester is not a stable molecule in a nuetral pH environment like water. This is why those who originally applied for patenting rights were denied because there was no evidence to disprove it’s high conversion rate into creatinine.
Creatine Ethyl Ether James D. Mold, Robert C. Gore, Joseph M. Lynch, E. J. Schantz. J. Am. Chem. Soc.; 1955; 77(1); 178-180.
Hype sells to the masses and it’s a shame it cast one of the most studied and proven ergogenic aides in a negative spotlight, creatine monohydrate. Here is what initially tipped me off to the CEE hype parade:
Originally Posted by deserusan
<strong />
Analysis
Over the past few years I have payed a lot of attention to supplement trends as my level of interest in competitave natural bodybuilding has grown. Competing naturally requires a lot of research into what supplements are legal and what is not by whatever federation you choose to compete in. One of the best supplements out there is creatine monohydrate and their are numerous studies supporting it’s efficacy. However, one recent trend I have witnessed is companies and young aspiring bodybuilders touting the superiority of creatine ethyl ester over creatine monohydrate.
Creatine ethyl ester is merely creatine monohydrate with an added ester attached to make the creatine molecule more lipopholic. In theory, this would make the absorption more efficient and possibly would require less CEE to serve as an ergogenic aid.
Personally, I have used both CEE and monohydrate with great success. However, the recomended doses of CEE (2.5 grams) never seemed to have the same effect as the recommended dose of monohydrate (5.0 grams). To me this seemed a little odd considering the claims of most CEE products. When I started to experiment with higher doses of CEE (5 grams) I noticed similiar effects to that of monohydrate at the equivalent dose. Something wasn’t adding up here.
Upon further reading on monohydrate, because no ethyl ester studies exist, I came across one that studied the physiological differences between monohydrate responders and non responders. This intrigued me because it actually shows that monohydrate isn’t inefficient given a certain set of physiological values with regards to pre-existing creatine and phosphocreatine levels in muscles, muscle fiber cross-sectional areas (CSA), the prevalanace of type II muscle fibers, and the amount of fat free mass.
Type II muscle fibers are also called fast twitch muscle fibers. Olympic sprinters may have up to 80% fast twitch fibers while a marathon runner may have up to 80% type I fibers (slow twitch). Both fiber types produce the same force but type II can fire more rapidly, hence the name fast twitch. Based on the the study I was referring to it appears those with a high type II fiber % respond well to creatine monohyrate and much more efficiently to those with a type I fiber %.
Also, it appears that those with larger muscle fiber (CSA) and fat free mass percentages are also better monohydrate responders. This means that if you have a high bodyfat percentage you might not respond well to monohydrate or if you have low muscle mass. Also, if you have smaller muscles in general you might not respond well.
For someone like myself, I do have a high percentage of fat free mass and therefore I respond well to creatine monohydrate. Also, I require the same amount of CEE to have the same ergogenic effects as monohydrate. I feel some companies have been pushing CEE a little too hard and have been addressing some of it’s shortfalls for those who might not respond well, like me, by telling the consumer to take another dose.
It is my recommendation that any consumer out there interested in creatine supplementation try using the more basic form of creatine first, which is monohydrate. It is the only form of creatine that has been studied extensively and proven. CEE is a good choice for those who don’t fit the physiological criteria stated above, however for general purposes, it is not “better” than monohydrate as many companies would lead you to believe.
Syrotuik DG, Bell GJ.Acute creatine monohydrate supplementation: a descriptive physiological profile of responders vs. nonresponders. Journal of Strength Conditioning Research. 2004 Aug;18(3):610-7.
Bizzarini E, De Angelis L. Is the use of oral creatine supplementation safe? J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2004 Dec;44(4):411-6.
This will be an ongoing series into debunking the myths.
Posted in Rants
Saturday, March 24th, 2007
Since it was recommended I end "that" log/review there is no reason to leave it up on the main page. I must admit however, seeing myself up there is pretty cool. Bodybuilding.com isn’t my "e-home" for no reason!
Posted in Rants
Friday, March 23rd, 2007
Have a great weekend!
-Your Former Number One Supporter!
Posted in Rants
Thursday, March 22nd, 2007
Some of you may or may not know, but I am fortunate enough to be the boyfriend of Vanessa Adams (DVSNESS) who is an active member of this site. She’s a doll to say the least and here’s a picture of her four weeks out.
. Over the past few months she has been preparing for her first stage appearance in the New York Metropolitan Bodybuilding & Fitness & Figure Championships National Qualifier held on April 14 in New York City. Here’s the flyer for more information:
If you are in town and into bodybuilding and figure competitions this is one show you don’t want to miss. Why? Because I’ll be there routing for Vanessa! Just kidding. However, if you are in Tribeca with nothing to do please stop by. Vanessa could use your support and so could I. I’ll level with you here as long as you don’t tell Vanessa. It’s tough dating someone when they are dieting. I should be probably leave it at the because I’ll get my ass kicked for saying anymore. YOU’RE THE BEST VANESSA!
Posted in Rants
Wednesday, March 21st, 2007
Well as you can probably guess, I do already have another supplement stack planned which I will be logging and reviewing for all of you out there. If you have have been following you know that I am currently training for a bodybuilding competition this fall. While bulking is fun I will soon be shifting my focus towards recomping a bit to lower my bodyfat percentage a bit before my actual cutting cycle.
The stack I have chosen will be Designer Supplements Melting Point, Molecular Nutrition X-Factor, and Gaspari Nutrition Halodrol Liquigels. My primary reason for choosing these three supplements on top of the typical creatine, protein powder, and multivitamin stack is because of their potentially strong recomping synergy.
Arachadonic acid (AA) combined with tetradecylthioacetic acid (TTA) in theory should have a strong syngergy to activate PPAR alpha in adipose tisse causing fatloss. Also, the enhanced inflammation caused by AA should aide in hypertrophy along with constituents of the Halodrol Liquigels (arachadonic acid, 5a-etioallocholanetrione, DHEA, 20-hydroxyecdysterone, and 3,4-divanillytetrahydrofuran).
In all honesty, I’m very excited to try the Halodrol Liquigels (HLG) because I have never tried a product which is anti-aromatic or contains a Sex-Hormone Binding Globulin (SHBG) effector. Now some of you out there are probably wondering if this means I’m crossing over to the “dark side.” Yes, HLG contains Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and it is a prohormone. However, for political reasons I have decided to compete in the OCB and this compound is legal. I will be commenting on this more as we progress through the review so stay tuned.
Posted in Rants
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007
I must say that being asked to end my current review/log due to a potential conflict of interest was rather disappointing to say the least. As a bodybuilder and avid supplement user I have always prided myself in being able to look at a product for what it is and not who makes it. If a product contains a stellar formulation then it deserved to be brought to light.
I often found myself taking on this role because of my ability to communicate research driven formulation to those who have less aptitude to do so. Unfortunately, when trying to have an objective discussion about a product on an open forum the discussion is often plagued by subjective analysis based only on a truly limited perspective and bias.
Fighting tooth and nail, often taking on numerous members with only a fistful of research medium, a fair amount of wit, and firm grasp on the ?bigger picture,? I defended those companies who both supported the industry and used a research driven approach to supplement formulas. I did this because I have experienced first hand the quick buck artists who rot the foundation of the industry. We know who they and believe it or not, I tried to bolster good products with my talents to be the wrench in the guerilla marketing campaigns.
I guess now that Im affiliated my outlook and perspective on the industry has changed? **** NO! My motivations are still the same and even more so now, I?d like to see those who use sound clinical or pure research driven formulation work together.
Why? This is what will save the industry from itself. Whether it be small licensing agreements or having an affiliated member give their educated opinion on a product which doesn?t compete with one of their own, these are the strides which must be taken and not be stifled because of greed.
You are starting to see this more and more as the smaller companies are wising up and using intelligence rather than deception to corner a bigger piece of the market. Frankly, I?m glad the recent events have transpired because it has taught me lesson that needed be taught. This is a business and I shouldn?t be doing any favors for those who care about nothing besides absolute dominance of the industry.
Here?s my bottom line, I hope they choke on their sad and pathetic self image as a leader in the industry. You may have one of the biggest bottom lines but you will never ever have someone like myself go to bat for you ever again. Sometimes doing what?s right is more important than following a rule. I wish you good luck because you have just awakened a dragon that now views you as a conflict to his interest.
Posted in Rants
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007
<strong />
The Workout: 9.9
**I’m excluding all warm up sets**
Hammer Strength Isolate High Pulldown: 360lbs x 6, 360lbs x 6, 360lbs x 6
Low Cable Rows: 235lbs x 6, 235lbs x 6, 235lbs x 6
Rack Pulls: 405lbs x 5, 405lbs x 5, 405lbs x 5
Single Arm Dumbell Rows: 120lbs x 6/6, 120lbs x 6/6, 120lbs x 6/6
Seated Dumbell Curls: 35lb’ers x 10/10, 35lb’ers x 10/10, 35lb’ers x 10/10
Seated Hammer Curls: 40lb’ers x 10/10, 40lb’ers x 10/10
Bent Over Hanging Curls: 25lb’ers x 15/15, 25lb’ers x 15/15
Precor Elliptical for 20 minutes
Thoughts
Uber strong training session. What?
__________________________________
__________________________________________
Deserusan’s Essential Workout Selection
Pantera - This Love
Posted in Training
|
View all comments | Leave Comment