bodybuilding.com Store SuperSite BodySpace Forums
BodySpace  
Home BodyBlogs News Member Listing Help

valdo650

"Deal with injuries and get back to form :-(."

View valdo650's:

Contact valdo650:
Send Email
Send Private Message
Leave Comment for valdo650 Leave Comment

valdo650's Stats for Training
Coming Soon...


Archive for the 'Training' Category

Bench up to 300lbs…

Saturday, November 24th, 2007

I hit 300lbs x 5 reps last week at a weight of 196.5 lbs.  Now I got to work on my leg strength.  My leg strength has always been lagging because I never trained legs when I was younger.  My hack squat was up to 335 lbs x 6 reps on Friday so looks like I’m getting there. 

The thing though is I don’t think I have the look of someone who can rep 300 lbs.  I figure when I got to this milestone I would look pretty huge.  I know I don’t have the "look" that some of the more genetically blessed people on the board have…I think I look more like a normal person now though then the skinny person I used to be.  It’s a good step in the right direction ^_^.

No Comments.

Leave Comment

Experts predict near 100% obesity in our lifetime…

Monday, September 3rd, 2007

Very interesting article.  Goes to

show staying fit these days is a

battle in itself.  

——————————–  

America, 100 Percent Fat



Experts predict that nearly 100 percent of the population will be overweight in our lifetime.

By Martica Heaner, M.A., M.Ed., for MSN Health & Fitness
One glance around a shopping mall, at a children’s playground—or even down at your own belly—and you realize that with each passing year, more and more Americans are dramatically changing shape.

The stats are staggering.

The number of obese adults has doubled in just 20 years, with 67 percent of the adult population overweight or obese, according to recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control.

And things appear to be getting worse. Back in 1995, when researchers started to notice the changing landscape, one doctor sounded an alarm in The Lancet, a British medical journal. After studying the rise in obesity that had occurred over the 30-year period between 1960 and 1991, Dr. John Foreyt  at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston predicted that 100 percent of Americans would be overweight by the year 2230.

Upon seeing more recent data, Foreyt bumped up his projection by almost two centuries: “We’re gaining by 1 percentage point every year. Assuming that trend continues, 100 percent of the population will be overweight or obese by 2040.”

A recent report in the journal Epidemiologic Reviews suggests that this estimate is right on track. Researchers studied obesity prevalence rates from 1990 to 2006 and concluded that 75 percent of the population will be overweight, and 41 percent will be obese, by the year 2015— or by the time today’s crop of grade-school age kids get to high school.

The Skinny Aren’t Immune

Of course, the 100-percent-fat stat is just a scientific estimate. It’s based on analyzing past and current statistical trends in the population and assuming that they will continue at the same rate. In reality, not every single person will be fat. There will always be a handful of people that stays lean and fit (running marathons, hanging out at health clubs, shunning fast food).

But while these folks may never become officially overweight, they might still pack on a few extra pounds. It’s difficult for anyone—active or not—to withstand what Kelly Brownell, an obesity researcher and the director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University in New Haven, Conn. famously called the “toxic environment” that makes it easy to succumb to poor food choices, overeating and increased inactivity.

In fact, a 2006 study published in the International Journal of Obesity looked at nearly 13,000 male and female runners and found that regular runners who were not overweight still got heavier over a 17-year period if the amount of exercise they did remained constant. Only those who increased their exercise intensity gained less or were able to prevent getting fatter during the period.

The Fat Are Getting Fatter

Determining if a person is overweight or obese is usually based on a person’s body mass index, which factors in height with weight. A person with a BMI of 25 or above is considered overweight. Obesity starts at a BMI of 30, but is subdivided into three stages:

  • The first level of obesity occurs at BMIs of 30 to 34.9
  • The second level of obesity occurs between 35 and 39.9
  • The third level, known as morbid or severe obesity, occurs at BMIs of 40 or greater.

Morbid obesity is increasing the fastest. According to a 2003 study in the Archives of Internal Medicine, in 1986 about one in 10 people were obese; by 2000, one in five were obese.

But the prevalence of morbid obesity quadrupled. In 1986, one in 200 adults had BMIs of 40 or above, and the numbers had increased to one in 50 by the year 2000. Worse, the numbers of people with a BMI of 50 or greater (Think Johnny Depp’s invalid mother in the movie What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?) increased five times, from one in 2000 people to one in 400.

Kids May Suffer

Rather than accommodate the expanding population by making bigger airline seats and more plus-size clothing, experts say it’s time to start downsizing in a big way. “We have to get everyone to understand the seriousness of the situation,” says Dr. John M. Jakicic, director of the Physical Activity and Weight Management Research Center at the University of Pittsburgh.

There are costs to the country that people don’t think about, adds Yale’s Brownell. And it’s not just rising health care expenses. “The military is having trouble finding physically-fit recruits,” he says. “Plus, you have to believe that a poor diet is affecting school performance and it may be related to the fact that the U.S. gets outperformed by other countries on many academic tests. Productivity in the workplace also suffers.”

And, most worrying, there are the innocent kids whose lives are at stake. Currently one-third of American children are overweight or obese—and because of it, for the first time perhaps ever, the current generation of children is expected to die younger than their parents.

Type II diabetes, traditionally known as a disease that afflicted older overweight and inactive adults, is being seen in children as young as 5. “When these kids with all the associated risk factors of carrying extra fat reach their 30s, they are going to start having heart attacks,” says Foreyt. And fat children who grow up to be obese adults who then get pregnant are likely to pass on health problems, including greater risks for obesity and diabetes, to their children.

A Call to Action

“These stats are a wake-up call because the obese are walking time bombs,” says Foreyt. “But we’re not doomed if, both as individuals and as a nation, we focus on what we each can do to help the state of our health.”

Experts agree that just getting everyone to diet is not the answer. Instead, we need to change what has been called an “obesigenic” environment.

That’s not because diets don’t work—they do while you’re on them. But the odds of every single person having the will power to resist temptation for a lifetime are slim. Staying self-disciplined is twice as difficult when the cultural environment entices people to eat more and move less at every turn. So public health efforts are centering on eliminating, or at least decreasing, the environmental opportunities to get fat.

In addition to implementing community-based activity and nutrition programs, a strong effort is being made to revamp what happens at schools. “It’s interesting that the fatter our children have become, the less physical education we’ve required in curriculums,” points out Jim Johnson, Ph.D., the chair of the exercise and sports studies department at Smith College in Northampton, Mass.

But there’s a positive countertrend. More and more school districts are starting to provide healthful food and drink options. This year, the Texas state Senate approved a bill requiring all grade school-age children to get at least 135 minutes of exercise per week. The Rudd Center at Yale is at the forefront of working with companies on solutions to the obesity problems, such creating healthier food products.

“If every person, every business and every organization in a community commits to making and supporting small lifestyle changes, we can make a big impact,” says James Hill, the director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center.

Prevention, Not Treatment

While experts agree that treating obese people and encouraging fat people to lose weight and become more active is important, that alone won’t cure the problem. “For every one person you help, thousands more are becoming overweight,” Brownell says, “so it’s more important to focus on preventing the younger—and future populations—from becoming overweight with public health efforts.”

These initiatives include everything from changing school food and fitness policies to improving urban planning so that more public transportation, bike paths and safer sidewalks and neighborhoods are available.

“National and world governments will become more involved in legislation to change the toxic environment,” says Brownell. Current approaches include regulating junk-food advertising to kids and monitoring and banning unhealthy food manufacturing processes.

Many experts liken the challenge to smoking. “You don’t drive down the prevalence of lung cancer by treating patients, you do so by stopping smoking and preventing people from starting,” says Brownell.

The first anti-smoking efforts began in the 1960s and took 40 years before we saw the benefits of reduced smoking and decreasing lung cancer rates, says Jakicic. “I believe that we need to get much more aggressive to make a significant impact with obesity,” he says. “First, we need to stop the bleeding. If we can encourage healthy eating and physical activity, and if we see at least a plateau in weight gain, we can turn this thing around.”

 

Source - msnbc.com

 

 

No Comments.

Leave Comment

Accidental double post…

Monday, September 3rd, 2007

Sorry, double post…please ignore.

No Comments.

Leave Comment

Fight For Your Food Rights - From EatingWell Magazine Oct 2007…

Sunday, August 26th, 2007

Here’s some interesting facts as food for thought:

This fall Congress will decide whether to reauthorize or revamp the Farm Bill legislation that helps determine how federal funds are allocated to programs that stipulate what foods are available, how much they cost and where and how they’re grown.  "If you eat or pay taxes, if you care about chidlren, the land or small farmers you have a strong stake in these policies," says Dan Imhoff, author of Food Fight: The Citizen’s Guide to Food and Farm Bill (Whatershed Media, 2007).  What’s wrong with the current bill.  You do the math:

$90 billion (per year) at stake under Farm Bill legislation

$20 billion taxpayer dollars spent on crop subsidies in 2005

92% of subsidies spent on just five crops: corn, cotton, rice, wheat, and soybeans

520 million bushels of corn processed into high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS in 2006)

33 pounds of sweeteners derived from one bushel of corn

35 gallons of (HFCS-sweetened) soft drinks the average American consumes in a year

25% decrease in the prices of soft drinks (1985-2000)

40% INCREASE in the prices of fruits and vegetables (1985-2000)

33 million Americans cannot afford to eat balanced meals

Source - EatingWell Magazine October 2007 issue page 16

 

No Comments.

Leave Comment

Solid Article about Overtraining…

Friday, August 24th, 2007

I had to put this article for info’s sake…solid article…see below:

—————— 

You’re Overtraining!

A Few Questions

Let me ask you some questions. Ready?

3) What kind of intensity techniques are you using?

Without even knowing the answers to those questions, I can guarantee that more than 75% of you are overtraining.

If I had to take a guess, I’d say that most people do between 18-30 sets per workout. Why do you perform that many sets? Who told you to do that? Where did you read that and decide that it was the norm to do so?

What are you accomplishing by doing so many sets? Are extra sets making you stronger? Are they making you bigger? Are they getting you leaner? Are they helping you to recruit more motor units? Are you stretching the fascia? Inducing hyperplasia?

 

What exactly is all that training volume doing? And why does everyone seem to think it’s necessary and just blindly follow what everyone else is doing?

What are your goals when you go to the gym? Do you even have set goals? Do you know why you do certain exercises and not others? Do you know why you use certain rest periods and not others? Why do you do supersets, drop sets, post and pre-exhaustion? Do you understand how progress is actually made? Have you actually made progress, at all… ever? How would you know?

Everyone thinks they’re doing great and they don’t want to admit that anything is wrong with their training, but is there? Are you significantly bigger and stronger than you were at this time last year? Are you having to buy bigger shirts? Are you lifting much heavier weights? Is your sprint speed significantly faster now than it was in February of ‘06? What about your vertical?

Are you getting anywhere? If not, you’re overtraining. If so, you’re stillprobably overtraining.

One Intense Set

Try this for me: go to the gym and after a thorough warm-up, do one set of either a squat or deadlift. Don’t hold anything back. Use the heaviest weight you can use, with perfect form, for six to ten reps.

Now (I’m stealing this from Mike Mentzer) imagine someone is holding a gun to your head and will pull the trigger if you don’t do one more rep. I guarantee you’d be able to squeeze it out. Now, if you don’t get at least another rep or two, the gunman will shoot every member of your family. You will get two more reps and now your set is done and you can rack the weight.

Now tell me how many more sets you can do with that kind of intensity. Thirty? Twenty five? Fifteen? I highly doubt it. Most people will be completely wasted after about eight sets done in this fashion. So what’s the point of doing thirty half-ass sets when you can get the job done with a third of that volume?

Am I saying you should work that hard on every set or even at every workout? Absolutely not. But I know a lot of people aren’t training anywhere near as hard as they should be. If they were, there’s no way they’d be able to do all that nonsensical and useless volume.

The Fastest Way to Make Progress

For those who don’t know, there are a few different ways to make progress in your workouts: you can increase the load (lift heavier weights), you can increase the density (do more work in the same timeframe), and you can even do the same amount of work in less time. Unless we’re training to increase anaerobic fitness or increase work capacity, only one of these methods really makes sense: increasing the load.

I don’t give a shit how many supersets you add and how low you decrease your rest periods and how many sets you can pile into a 45 minute workout; I can guarantee if you’re still using the same weights today that you were five years ago, or even five months ago, then you aren’t making progress.

You simply can’t get bigger and stronger without lifting heavier weights. You can set the stopwatch and do all your little supersets and drop sets until you’re blue in the face, but a 225 pound squat is still a 225 pound squat no matter how you do it. The fastest, easiest, simplest way to make progress without turning training into rocket science is to add weight to the bar. That’s it.

 

People want to make every excuse under the sun and will try every system they can find to get around this simple fact. One of my favorite excuses is to say that what I’m suggesting is impossible because no one can continue to get strong forever and continually add weight to the bar. If that were possible, they say, then the world would be filled with 1000 pound bench pressers.

What, as opposed to all of the 315 pound benchers out there right? Right. I mean, how many times do you ever see a single human being in a public gym bench press 315 pounds?! One guy out of 100 maybe? Give me a freaking break!

Yes, this is true: no one can continue to get stronger infinitely. But who (name me two people you know personally) has ever maxed out their strength levels? No one! Not a single solitary soul! Why don’t you see tons of strong guys in the gym every day? Because most people have no idea how to train and make progress.

An Experiment

Just for the sake of argument, let’s try a little experiment. Let’s assume I go into the gym today and do a particular exercise with all the weight I can handle for one set to failure (not a death set to nervous breakdown failure, just clean, concentric failure where another rep in perfect form would be impossible) and get ten reps with it.

Now I come back into the gym and hit that exercise again in four to seven or even fourteen days (however many it takes in my rotation for that particular exercise to come around again), and I can now do eleven or twelve reps with it. What’s changed?

It’s a new muscle. That’s what has changed. Last week I was physically unable to squeeze out more than ten reps, but today I can get eleven or twelve. I didn’t really improve my neural drive because I wasn’t training in that rep range. If I did only one to three reps we could say that I can now do an extra rep or two because I improved the ability of my nervous system to recruit more motor units; I made my nervous system work more efficiently in essence. This is how many athletes get stronger and stay in weight class sports.

But I didn’t do that; I was training in a hypertrophy range. So if I can do more reps with the same weight, it’s a new muscle. Maybe not so much “new,” per se, but it is changed, different. It has rebuilt itself and made itself bigger and stronger to handle the demands placed upon it. If that continues to happen each and every week for fifty two weeks a year, I’d obviously be significantly stronger at the end of the year. And since that strength was gained in a hypertrophy range, I’d also be significantly bigger.

Is Less Really More?

I think what I’m saying is pretty basic stuff and we can all agree on it. But now let me ask you this: if I was able to induce changes and create a new, stronger, bigger muscle from one set, then what’s the purpose of doing more than that? What does the second set and the third and the fourth do?

If I do three sets instead of one, will I be able to come back in a week and do three more reps instead of just one more? Probably not. What about if I did nine more sets after the first? Will I be able to go from ten to nineteen reps next week on the particular exercise in question?

Nope.

Now before some of you start thinking that Mike Mentzer came to me in a dream last night and because of this I have finally lost my mind, I want you to know I’m not advocating anything in particular here, and I’m not saying you should never do more than one set. Maybe it’s two, maybe it’s five, but I bet it’s probably less than you’re doing now, and that’s my point.

If I can achieve my goal of getting stronger and therefore bigger in just one or two sets, what are all the other sets helping me achieve? If someone can explain to me what the benefit of high volume training is, I’d be more than appreciative. Hundreds have tried, but I’m still not buying it.

Scientific mumbo jumbo about repeated efforts and motor units doesn’t fly with me. I live in the real world and have been a part of more training sessions than at least 99% of the planet. I know the “science” and I don’t care. Until I see something stand the test of time in the trenches, I’m not convinced.

“Well, Arnold did it and so do all pro-bodybuilders,” they say.

Yeah, but that doesn’t convince me of anything. Some people succeed in life, in spite of what they do, not because of it. If I were to ask any of these bodybuilders why they do fifteen sets per body part, I’d be anxious to get an answer that would actually make sense and persuade me that there’s something I’m missing.

 

Like I asked earlier, are you stretching the fascia, inducing hyperplasia? What exactly are the benefits of all the volume? And please don’t tell me you’re hitting the muscles from a variety of angles, blah, blah, blah. That subject has been debated to death. Even if it’s true that you do need to hit a wide variety of angles, which I don’t care to argue, my question remains the same: why so much volume? Why not one or two sets at each angle then?

Can you honestly give me an explanation you believe in, as to why you’re doing that many sets? And if you want to use the “what about bodybuilders?” argument, let me throw it right back in your face. What about one of the greatest bodybuilders of all time, seven time Mr. Olympia, Dorian Yates? He did nothing that ever resembled high volume and was absolutely enormous and strong as a bull.

 

But looking at pro bodybuilders is stretching it to the extreme. What about normal people? Why do you do four sets of an exercise versus two? Because there’s an invariable relationship between sets and reps? No, there isn’t. Well, sometimes there is and sometimes there isn’t, but that’s another topic for another article.

If the goal at hand is hypertrophy, what exactly is more volume accomplishing? Is it recruiting more motor units? I think so. Is that going to lead to greater strength gains? I don’t know. Maybe up to a certain point, but probably not. Some individuals may tolerate more volume and others less. I’m still not convinced that anyone, even if they have superior recovery ability and can tolerate more volume, actually needsmore volume, though.

Hypertrophy dogma tells us we need to do a certain amount of damage to the muscle and break it down, then let it rest and build itself up stronger before training it again. Well, if I do twelve sets for chest today and next week come back to the gym and my bench has gone from 100 pounds for ten reps to 100 pounds for eleven reps, why would that be any different than if I only did one to three sets for chest and still made the exact same progress? What exactly would be the difference?

For one, if I did the higher volume workout, I would’ve severely depleted my amino acid pool and glycogen stores, which would take away from my recovery ability. With the high volume I might get extreme levels of soreness (DOMS) which has been shown to decrease insulin sensitivity, so if I eat as many carbs as normal I may actually get fatter. My cortisol will go up and my Testosterone will go down. And lastly, I will have just shortened the life of my training career.

Let me explain that last statement. Your shoulders, knees, hips, etc., only have a limited number of sets in them for your entire life. Eventually they’ll just wear out. It’s just impossible for this not to happen; the body isn’t an indestructible machine and will eventually break down. It’s the natural process.

How many sets this is, nobody knows. But for the sake of this example let’s just pick a nice round number and go from there. Let’s assume that your shoulder has 10,000 sets of pressing in it for your entire fifty-year training career. (I plan on training that long and I hope you do too). We can hit fifteen of those a week and fast forward to our first shoulder surgery a lot faster than we’d like, or we can hit maybe two to six sets a week of heavy pressing and perhaps train healthily and injury free forever.

Now maybe you’re a reckless lunatic who lives fast and hard and works as a stuntman and plans on dying young and doesn’t really care about the future or think like that because you know you may die tomorrow. I’m completely fine with that and share many of your sentiments. I’m just giving you something to think about, and letting you know that all that destruction may not be worth it anyway if the results are exactly the same in the end.

Get Bigger, Simply

Here’s the simplest advice I can give for people looking to get bigger: get continually stronger in a hypertrophy range and your body will be forced to grow. If you can do this with one, two, or three sets, then I’m just not sure what the extra volume is actually doing.

I could be way off-base here and out of my mind; I just want people to think about what they do and why. I don’t have all the answers and don’t have specific recommendations I can make for every one. I just know that most people could and should probably be doing a whole lot less than they are now.

So the next time you go to the gym, just do me a favor and question everything you do. Do you know exactly why you do eight sets instead of two? Can you explain why you’re doing any of what you’re doing? Or are you just blindly following what everyone else does and getting nowhere fast?

About the Author

No Comments.

Leave Comment

Americans getting unhealthier, life expectancies less than 41 countries…

Saturday, August 11th, 2007

More information on probably what many of you already know…Americans getting fatter, less healthy, and other less than their peers in other countries.  See below:

——————————————–
-

 WASHINGTON - Americans are living longer than ever, but not as long as people in 41 other countries. For decades, the United States has been slipping in international rankings of life expectancy, as other countries improve health care, nutrition and lifestyles. Countries that surpass the U.S. include Japan and most of Europe, as well as Jordan, Guam and the Cayman Islands. “Something’s wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries,” said Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. A baby born in the United States in 2004 will live an average of 77.9 years. That life expectancy ranks 42nd, down from 11th two decades earlier, according to international numbers provided by the Census Bureau and domestic numbers from the National Center for Health Statistics. Andorra, a tiny country in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain, had the longest life expectancy, at 83.5 years, according to the Census Bureau. It was followed by Japan, Maucau, San Marino and Singapore. The shortest life expectancies were clustered in Sub-Saharan Africa, a region that has been hit hard by an epidemic of HIV and AIDS, as well as famine and civil strife. Swaziland has the shortest, at 34.1 years, followed by Zambia, Angola, Liberia and Zimbabwe. Many factors Researchers said several factors have contributed to the United States falling behind other industrialized nations. A major one is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say. But “it’s not as simple as saying we don’t have national health insurance,” said Sam Harper, an epidemiologist at McGill University in Montreal. “It’s not that easy.” Among the other factors: Adults in the United States have one of the highest obesity rates in the world. Nearly a third of U.S. adults 20 years and older are obese, while about two-thirds are overweight, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. “The U.S. has the resources that allow people to get fat and lazy,” said Paul Terry, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Emory University in Atlanta. “We have the luxury of choosing a bad lifestyle as opposed to having one imposed on us by hard times.” Racial disparities. Black Americans have an average life expectancy of 73.3 years, five years shorter than white Americans. Black American males have a life expectancy of 69.8 years, slightly longer than the averages for Iran and Syria and slightly shorter than in Nicaragua and Morocco. A relatively high percentage of babies born in the U.S. die before their first birthday, compared with other industrialized nations. Forty countries, including Cuba, Taiwan and most of Europe had lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. in 2004. The U.S. rate was 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. It was 13.7 for Black Americans, the same as Saudi Arabia. “It really reflects the social conditions in which African American women grow up and have children,” said Dr. Marie C. McCormick, professor of maternal and child health at the Harvard School of Public Health. “We haven’t done anything to eliminate those disparities.” Re-evaluating U.S. health care system Another reason for the U.S. drop in the ranking is that the Census Bureau now tracks life expectancy for a lot more countries — 222 in 2004 — than it did in the 1980s. However, that does not explain why so many countries entered the rankings with longer life expectancies than the United States. Murray, from the University of Washington, said improved access to health insurance could increase life expectancy. But, he predicted, the U.S. won’t move up in the world rankings as long as the health care debate is limited to insurance. Policymakers also should focus on ways to reduce cancer, heart disease and lung disease, said Murray. He advocates stepped-up efforts to reduce tobacco use, control blood pressure, reduce cholesterol and regulate blood sugar. “Even if we focused only on those four things, we would go along way toward improving health care in the United States,” Murray said. “The starting point is the recognition that the U.S. does not have the best health care system. There are still an awful lot of people who think it does.” © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20228552/

No Comments.

Leave Comment

Shaq’s Big Challenge…An Inspiring Story…

Wednesday, August 8th, 2007

So I’m not much for reality shows.  In fact, I hate 99% of them, but this show has been quite good and I loved it.  Shaq is truly making a difference here and I loved following the story of these kids go from essentially dying to healthy kids.  I heard this show didn’t get very good ratings, which is sad because the show was something that has been missing in today’s TV shows, positive stories.  All we got on TV these days just seem like crap almost to the point where the only TV I’ll watch is comedy stand up and sports.  Even sports is getting annoying with all the atheletes doing some crap.

Anyway, I have more respect for Shaq after this show.  He truly cares and wants to make a difference and the show was real.  They actually came up with a true, proven, and feasible solution to the problem. 

If you never seen the show, it’s a treat to watch.  Go to ABC’s website and watch the full episodes on the player. 

No Comments.

Leave Comment

Final thoughts on Non-Hormone Stack…

Sunday, August 5th, 2007

Well, I finished my 8 week non-hormone stack.  I have never taken any supplements other than Whey and multi-vitamins.  After 8 weeks here were the results:

Pre-Stack - 190lbs @ 12%

Post-Stack - 193.3lbs @ 8.2%

My diet did not change much and as you can see I gained a good load of fat free mass and trimmed out the excess fat.  I am quite happy with the results and would recommend this stack I got.  Note that the maker of the this stack have now increase the product over 300% so the dosage is higher and lasts longer than my stack did (This also means the price went up).  The stack included the following supplements:

Gamma-O, 7-Medoxy, GHS-Pro Spray, L-Arginine

I will now be taking a week off from the week and starting up on a new stack after this which will include the following:

Universal Animal Stack, Designer Supplements - Activate Xtreme, Controlled Labs Purple Wrath.

I look forward to positive results :) .

No Comments.

Leave Comment

Bally’s Files for Chapter 11…

Friday, August 3rd, 2007

I’ve never been a fan of Bally’s, but this news came a bit as a shock. I heard from a good lifting buddy of mine that this might be an ongoing trend because of new casual gym goer friend health clubs are popping up like Planet Fitness.  I hope this isn’t the beginning of the end for serious lifter gyms like Gold’s and PowerHouse.

——————————————-

NEW YORK - Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp, one of the largest U.S. health club operators, has filed for bankruptcy protection, after struggling in recent years with membership declines and too much debt.

The Chicago-based company and more than 40 affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors on Tuesday with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan.

Bally listed $396.8 million of assets and $761.3 million of debts as of December 31, court papers show.

The company said the reorganization process will not affect memberships or operations at its more than 375 health clubs. It also intends to keep paying employees and vendors.

Bally will seek approval of a “prepackaged” reorganization plan supported by holders of much of two bond issues.

It said the plan would reduce debt by $150 million and provide $90 million of capital through a rights offering backed by affiliates of Anschutz Investment Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Tennenbaum Capital Partners LLC. Existing stockholders would receive nothing for their shares, Bally has said.

Bally also said it lined up $292 million of financing to fund operations during and after bankruptcy proceedings. It hopes to emerge from Chapter 11 “as promptly as possible.”

Bally has struggled in recent years to attract new members, and in March said it expected continued membership declines through at least 2008.

Among the affiliates that are reorganizing is Jack LaLanne Holding Corp., named for the fitness and nutritional expert, court papers show.

Bally said Jefferies & Co. and the law firm Latham & Watkins LLP are advising it on the bankruptcy process. It said a committee of bondholders retained Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin Capital and the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP as advisers.

Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

No Comments.

Leave Comment

Know your supplement scams…

Monday, July 23rd, 2007

So a lot of sites try to sell you a “secrets of supplements” book or information sheet on-line…but here’s a nice a good free one to share from testosterone nation.  I found their last article about bulking VERY helpful and this one looks very promising.  Read the article below: 

<strong />

Dirty Tricks
Supplement Company Shenanigans

 

We know it’s hard to believe, but the nutritional supplement business can often be more crooked than a Mafia owned tobacco company. Yep, it’s true. We know that when you think of supplement manufacturers you get a pristine image of altruistic do-gooders, companies built on honesty, integrity and good will, companies that just want to help people achieve their dreams and….

Aw, who are we kiddin’? The supplement biz has a horrible reputation. Sadly, it’s an industry full of back stabbers, bottom feeders and con men. Take a look at the top rungs of many supplement companies and you’ll find more ex-cons and ex-drug dealers than you can shake a stick at. It’s a cutthroat industry where competitors are thought of as mortal enemies and consumers are often considered mindless dopes who can be led around by their noses with promises of bigger muscles and shrinking waistlines.

Of course not every supplement company fits into that ugly category. There are a couple out there made of up of people who actually haven’t been to jail, who respect the people who use their products, and refuse to put a supplement on the market unless it’s innovative, safe and effective. But the truth is you can count the number of good companies out there on one hand of “Mr. Stumpy,” your junior high school shop teacher.

While some muscle magazines still try to hide the fact that they’re owned by or affiliated with supplement companies, T-mag has always been up front about its relationship with Biotest. We don’t play the games most companies do and because of that, we’ve attracted the top talent in the magazine and supplement industry. And since many of us have been involved with other aspects of the business for years, we know what really goes on behind the scenes.

In fact, if we did a “tell all” book about the industry, we’d be hauled into court by at least a dozen other magazines and supplement makers. So, needless to say, we’re not going to do that. What we are going to do is talk about all the dirty tricks we’ve seen used to push crap products on unsuspecting consumers.

You may never look at a supplement ad the same way again.
Dirty Trick #1 — Payola

Back in the fifties, scandal rocked the music industry. Record companies, in order to build an audience for certain artists or releases, would pay radio stations to play their songs. It was done under the table and it was illegal.

Unfortunately, the supplement industry is guilty of this, too. Many companies offer a kickback to the clerks or salesmen at health food and vitamin stores. If the salesman behind the counter sells a bottle of their product to some geek, he gets paid a previously agreed upon amount of cash.

Ever wonder why the occasional salesman will pull out some product that you’ve never heard of and extol its virtues? Well, chances are good that he’s just trying to pad his wallet.

This practice has become so widespread that just about every supplement company has been forced to, at one time or another, offer equal kickbacks just so that they’d be able to compete with other products on an equal footing.

Educated buyers don’t have to worry about this sort of thing, but pity the poor newbie who walks out of a store with a shopping bag full of payola-induced purchases.
Dirty Trick #2 — Labelling Hijinks

Below is an ingredients list that you might see on any one of a number of meal replacements:

SuperPro (unique blend of whey protein concentrate from specially filtered and ion-exchanged whey protein, calcium caseinate, milk protein isolate, taurine, L-glutamine, sodium caseinate, egg albumin, and calcium alpha-ketoglutarate [AKG])

Newbies see the listing for “SuperPro” and they think it’s some sort of a magical, super-effective protein. It ain’t no such thing.

It should come as no surprise to you that the FDA has labelling laws, and one of them requires that food manufacturers list ingredients by quantity. The ingredient that appears first on the list is the predominant ingredient, and the subsequent ingredients are listed in descending order of weight. If the product contains 100 grams of magic substance A, 50 grams of magic substance, B, and 25 grams of semi-magic substance C, substance A would have to appear on the label first, followed of course by B and then C.

As such, almost any MRP would ordinarily have maltodextrin listed as the first ingredient, and as most of you know, maltodextrin is a cheap, sweet, carbohydrate powder. But, no consumer wants to buy a protein drink where maltodextrin is the first ingredient, right?

Well hell, that’s easy to get around. All you need to do is put a whole bunch of ingredients together, one or more of which might be protein, and trademark the conglomeration. Give it a fancy, magical name that then, in the FDA’s eyes, the substance stands as its own entity. Then, naturally, your new magic substance gets to be first on the ingredient list. That’s how things like Metamyosin came into existence.

The same thing happens with a lot of products.

Is it dishonest? Maybe not, but you gotta’ admit it’s just a little bit sneaky, especially if you go around touting the magical qualities of your spay-shul protein.
Dirty Trick #3 — Using “hidden” ingredients

There’s nothing magic about protein powders and MRPs. But not many companies have the integrity to come out and say, “Listen, this stuff’s convenient, tastes goods, and the ingredients are of the highest quality available. But in the end, hey, it’s just food.”

Nope, instead they hype the product up so much that newbies and mentally deficient people think they’ve got their hands on chocolate flavored steroids. So how do the dirty supplement makers prolong the marketing hype? Well, we’ve known a couple of them to add a secret ingredient to the product, one not advertised on the label.

One trick is to put a little creatine in protein powders. Why would they do this? Simple. Although creatine can help you build muscle in the long run, one of the first things that happens is humungous water retention, causing users to sometimes gain a few pounds of water in the first week of usage. By sneaking in some creatine, users of the protein powders will think, “Golly, I done went and gained two pounds off this stuff in just a few days. I’m gonna be hyooooge!”

Some fat burners also have a little something extra added, typically a diuretic. Although these are usually claimed on the label (as they should be since it’s the law), the ads seldom tell you why ingredients like dandelion root, damiana, sarsparilla root, buchu leaves, couch grass, corn silk, uva ursi leaves, and juniper berries are added. We’ll tell you, though. They’re added so you’ll piss off a few pounds of water the first week and think that you’re losing fat!

Many of the so-called topical “fat burners” on the market now are nothing more than localized diuretics, giving you temporary results (if any). You could get the same local water loss effect by using Preparation-H and plastic wrap, an old trick used by competitive bodybuilders the night before a show.

There have also been rumors that many of the early meal replacements, “engineered foods,” and kitchen sink formulas had some type of illegal drug added to the first batch. One industry insider we know has proof of such shenanigans locked away in his desk. He has lab analyses that prove that small doses of a real anabolic steroid were added to the product. When early users got surprising results, word spread about the new “miracle” product and an entire industry was born. The evidence, if there was any to begin with, was literally consumed and the drug was never used again in later batches.
Dirty Trick #4 — Skimping on the active ingredients

There are plenty of supplements out there that work, but these tend to be on the expensive side. The raw ingredients are costly and so is the manufacturing process. So how does a dirty (or in many cases, simply ignorant) supplement company still profit from today’s hot supps? Easy. They use only a small amount of the active ingredient, just enough where they can legally claim it on the label, although not enough to actually do anything for the poor guy buying it.

This started with creatine of all things, which is silly because creatine is already cheap. It was discovered that many “no-name” store brands were selling buckets of nothing but sugar and poor quality protein and claiming the stuff had creatine in it. It did, but you’d have to eat the whole bucket to get even a measly five gram serving!

This was a popular trend of the “kitchen sink” products, powders than contained a little bit of seemingly every hot supplement on the shelves. Of course, there wasn’t enough of anything in there to have much of an effect on the consumer, but gosh darn it, it sure looked good listing all that stuff on the label, didn’t it?!

More recently, this dirty trick has been pulled with tribulus and some of the powdered methoxy-isoflavone products on the market. Sure, these powders contain methoxy, but not enough to help a person build muscle (and besides, powdered methoxy, without a specialized carrier, just doesn’t work that well anyhow). Still, there are a lot more consumers out there who don’t closely read labels than those who do, so these products are still raking in the dough, at least from first-time users who just don’t know any better.
Dirty Trick #5 — Using crap ingredients

This relates closely to dirty trick number four, only this time the company uses enough of the right ingredient, they just use a poor quality and less effective version of it. This is being pulled a lot these days with Tribulus products. Word is spreading about the effectiveness of quality products like Tribex-500 so other “me too” companies are rushing to put out their own versions.

The things is that there’s a world of difference between quality Tribulus terrestris and the floor sweepings used by most companies. Sure, the cheapo companies can claim Tribulus on the label, but the consumer won’t be getting the good stuff. It’s sort of like choosing between a Porsche 911 and a Ford Escort. Hey, they both have four wheels, a motor, and doors and stuff, right? They’re both labeled as cars, so what’s the dif? (Plenty!)

This is also a popular underhanded trick used in the protein powder and MRP market. Sorry, but there’s no way you’re getting quality ingredients in those dirt cheap, five-pound buckets of protein. It’s like the guy at the corner selling “Rolexes” for twenty bucks. Don’t be scammed by him or the discount protein powders or supplements.
Dirty Trick #6 — Tricks with Growth Hormone

There are scores of companies in both the bodybuilding and longevity world who are selling GH products.

The trouble is, they’re not selling real GH. They’re selling what are hopefully GH secretagogues. In reality, the product is perhaps an amino acid like arginine, that, when taken in huge amounts on an empty stomach, can cause a temporary surge in GH. Never mind that you’d need to duplicate this surge several times a day in order for it to have any beneficial effects.

This is analogous to selling a hammer as a GH-releasing product. Pain often causes a release in GH so, if you hit yourself in the head with a hammer, you’ll get a temporary surge in growth hormone. In order to support the efficacy of their hammer as a bodybuilding or life extending product, the supplement company is using research that was gleaned from studies that used real GH.

Only the uneducated consumer doesn’t know any better.

Homeopathic companies are doing the same thing, but their products are based on a different theory. According to strict homeopathy, a chemical works in the body because it has a particular energy or resonance that has a specific effect. It’s not the chemical itself that has an effect, but its vibrational energy. So, in an effort to distill this energy and make the most effective product possible, they “cicuss” it, which means they distill it in water over and over again. For instance, they might put one part substance A in 10 parts of water. They’d shake it up, and then put one part of the mixture in 100 parts of water and shake it up.

As such, the original substance becomes more and more dilute. In fact, they think that the most powerful medicines contain no molecules of the original subtance; only the vibrational chemical energy. Yeah, I know, I don’t get it either.

Still, using research done on real GH to support their claims is downright wrong.
Dirty Trick #7 — Skewing the studies

Everyone likes to see studies on new supplements, but this can be a double edged sword. After all, there are plenty of studies showing that HMB works great, yet 99% of people who’ve tried it will tell you it’s worthless. So what’s up with that?

One answer is that the supplement really does work… but only in very high dosages. HMB has been shown to work okay at 12 grams a day. But that’s about 48 pills at the cost of 14 clams per day! Not realistic, especially for only mediocre results.

Pyruvate also comes to mind. Back around 1996, pyruvate caused some nipple hardening excitement among the fitness community. In one study performed before pyruvate became available, it supposedly increased fat loss by 48%. It was also supposed to minimize the loss of muscle while dieting and increase endurance. At one time, pyruvate was even supposed to be a prescription drug! Changes in dietary supplement regulations, however, allowed pyruvate and many other compounds to be sold legally without a prescription.

Pyruvate hit the market, everybody tried it and sure enough… no one noticed much, if any, fat loss. What the hell happened? Several things: the original studies were performed on very obese women who used 36 grams a day. However, when it hit the shelves the recommended dosage was somewhere around 2 to 5 grams a day. If you wanted to take as much pyruvate as was used in the original studies you’d have to spend ten to twenty bucks worth every day!

(Many people get sick to their stomachs at this dosage anyway and pyruvate also degrades rather quickly, so there’s a chance you’re not getting what you paid for if it’s been on the shelf for a while.)

These days pyruvate is still being sold, but essentially it was D.O.A. from the very beginning.

One of the oldest tricks involving scientific studies is to perform the tests on a very select group of people and then assume it will work for everyone the same way. The problem is a study performed on 89-year-old women from Pakistan with two-pack-a-day smoking habits probably won’t have the same effect on younger, weight trained males. (Remember boron?)

Basically, many companies use studies as window dressing, knowing that most people aren’t going to go look them up.
Dirty Trick #8 — The “If ya can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” tactic

This one isn’t really a dirty trick, but it’s still indicative of the character of a company.

Let’s say one supplement company comes out with a new product. Another rival company immediately goes on the attack, saying the product is worthless. Then something happens: the public starts buying this stuff like crazy! They like it! Suddenly, the rival company decides this stuff ain’t so bad after all and quickly rushes their own version to the shelves.

The fact is, there are two types of supplement companies out there. The first type will sell anything they can make a buck on whether they believe in the product or not. “If someone is out there buying powdered goat testicles, then dammit, we better start selling powdered goat testicles!” they say.

The other type of company avoids the bandwagon and only sells a product they truly think is efficacious — supplements they want to use themselves, in other words. We’ll give you one guess which category most supplements manufacturers fall into.
Dirty Trick #9 — Marketing “leftover” and rejected supplement ideas

Bottom feeders in the supplement industry abound. These companies usually watch the truly innovative leaders in the industry and either try to steal their ideas or pick up any “leftovers” tossed out in the garbage. We’ll give you two examples.

At one time, in order to improve delivery into the body and pharmacokinetics, Biotest looked into making various prohormones into a new form called pentyl ethers. This was over two years ago. They dropped the idea because this stuff basically sucked when compared to other methods.

Of course, if you flip through the muscle mags today you’ll see ads for this “new” product, a pentyl-ether version of all things, 5-estrogenic-to-the max-AD! Apparently, some companies care more about making a quick buck than they do about their poor customers who are losing hair and growing tits!

How does this happen? Well, sometimes the bottom feeders simply try to guess what the leader companies are doing. Other times they buy the dead idea from chemical companies. Then they rush the development and testing of the supplement in an attempt to beat the first company to the market. What results is often a sub-par copycat product. (This happened with one of the Androsol copies on the market.)

Beware the bottomfeeders.
Dirty Trick #10 — Sabotaging other companies

Luckily, we can only think of one nasty little company who pulls this one on a regular basis, but one is bad enough. What happens is this: A good product is produced that’s safe and highly effective. The Rat at the rival company either can’t sell the stuff or is jealous because he didn’t think of it, so he makes up some stories, rats the good company out, and starts screaming often enough and loud enough so that “da man,” half in order to shut the guy up and half because he’s unfamiliar with the science behind the product and is scared shitless, tells the supplement company to stop selling the supplement. Sure, the stoppage is “pending further investigation,” but we all know that’ll never happen.

The really sad part here is that consumers won’t be able to buy good supplements because of the jealousy or sheer nastiness of one twisted individual. This threatens the whole future of effective supplementation. (In case you didn’t know, something like this happened with our original T2 formula and is being attempted with some of Biotest’s other products as well.)
Dirty Trick #11 — Making outright false claims in ads

We can understand if a company thinks its product is good, but in reality it doesn’t pan out. That happens sometimes. But what if the company just outright lies about what the product is supposed to do?

We’ve seen many examples of this, from sugary “weight gainers” being promoted as fat loss supplements to, more recently, fat burners being sold as mass builders! Talk about pissing on the buyer’s leg and telling him it’s raining!

Of course, these companies just stick a few pictures of roided up pro-bodybuilders in their ads, the lowest of the low of all shady advertising techniques. But 90% of people are conned into believing the ad. A picture is worth a thousand words, and perhaps at least a couple of hundred lies.
Dirty Trick #12 — Games with Spelling

New companies, in what must be an attempt to trick the uninitiated, often give themselves a name that’s very, very, close to that of a respected phamaceutical company.

Most of you have no doubt heard of companies like Schering, Searle, Glaxo Wellcome, Merck, or SmithKline Beecham. Newbies have heard these names, too. They might not be able to identify them as pharmaceutical companies or be able to name any products they make, but they’re vaguely familiar with the names. So, when they see a product on the shelf at the supplement store that has a name that’s virtually identical to the names of one of these companies — with the exception of a few letters — they say to themselves, “Oh yeah, I’ve heard of that company. They must be legit.”

And so they end up buying the products based on mistaken identity.

It sounds far-fetched but it happens all the time.

Likewise, there are a whole slew of supplement companies that sell various blends and concoctions of prohormones, but rather than admit that they’re selling prohormones, they give their products names that are very, very close to those of known steroids. Equipoise becomes something like Equipose, or something very similar. What’s more is that they list the actual Physician’s Desk Reference description of the real drug in their product literature, thus strengthening the notion that this company, somehow, is selling steroids legally.

It’s a crying shame.


Caveat Emptor

Now, let us ask you a few questions: If a supplement maker uses these nasty tricks above, what do you think that company feels for its customers? How smart does that company think you are? Actually, they don’t care what the smart consumer thinks; you’re not their target audience! Instead they go after newbies and dumb folks, about the same crowd that calls Miss Cleo for tarot reading and buys those penis enlargement pills.

The moral of the story is to stick to companies you trust, those with good track records who offer money-back guarantees. And to be blunt, if a company screws you or anyone else, don’t bend over for them again. Take your business elsewhere. There really are some good people in the supplement business, but you might have to look around awhile to find them.

© 1998 — 2001 Testosterone, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Please PM if you want the article link.  I think directly posting a link is in violation of the terms of our bodyblog.  Thanks.

No Comments.

Leave Comment


Member Login

Sign in for more FREE features and tools!

Username or
Email Address:
Password:
Remember Me


New to Bodybuilding.com?
Sign Up Now It's FREE!



Arson