I’m asking for an explanation that contradicts mine. A study doesn’t explain it, it shows a theoretical result under man-made circumstances by one party, as in this case.
Why would you even want me to sway my stance when you’re taking advice from me already? Wouldn’t you want me to back up what I say? As someone advocating health advice I have a responsibility not just to myself but to anyone I’ve helped to back up and defend my points.
You should already be spending your money on food. The point of supplements is to enhance nutrition, not replace it.
Once again, that’s not the point of glutamine. You’re not taking it because your body is deficient in it. You’re taking it in excessively to enhance pH levels. If my argument is weak, please explain exactly how glutamine does not enhance pH levels and cited sources backing up your claim.
Chief, throwing studies like that with no explanation of your own does nothing. At all. There are thousands upon thousands of studies out there. The thing is, you’re using it AS your argument, rather than a final topping to support your explanation. The problem is you’re letting the study do the explaining, which doesn’t work. Case in point:
" Hankard et al. investigated glutamines benefits in comparison to glycine (an amino acid) [49]. It was concluded that, glutamine enteral infusion may exert its protein anabolic effect by increasing protein synthesis, whereas an isonitrogenous amount of glycine merely decreases protein turnover with only a small anabolic effect resulting from a greater decrease in proteolysis than protein synthesis. To test glutamines attenuation of cell apoptosis (programmed cell termination), neutrophils were observed for 3, 24, and 48 hours in the absence or presence of glutamine (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mM respectively) [131]. The results showed that escherichia coli phagocytosis was much higher, and the maintenances of mitochondrial transmembrane potential was 20-38% higher in the presence of glutamine. These effects were additive and helped slow apoptosis."
There. A study relevant to human bodybuilders to counter your own. Have you walked away more enlightened from this? I can throw another study at you if you want as you have done. Does that prove anything? No. You’re not giving your own explanation. You’re countering MY explanation. You’re not saying WHY glutamine doesn’t enhance pH. You’re not saying WHY enhancing pH would be beneficial. Nobody is saying any of this because they’re just copying and pasting studies. Until I get valid arguments, my stance is rooted with abcbodybuilding which so far is the undisputed king of nutrition info. How do I know this? Nobody else is able to specifically counter their points to prove them wrong, and nobody ever matches their gargantuan resources of cited scientific journals.
Whoa there chiefton…I was merely picking ur brain as to what you consider to be “proper PW nutrition.” I rarely take advice from people I don’t know…as I have a very firm grasp on the subject at hand already…I am however always interested in the newest scientific studies being done…and the latest crackpot theories too…
Chaos is one person I listen to though, I know him personally and he knows his shit backwards and forwards…the med school thing might have something to do with that though. He’s also the first and only person I’ve talked endocrinology with in person that was on the level…when he speaks I listen, and people on this thread would be wise to do the same…
And if you understand the nature and the point of the studies, and why he cited them in relation to the argument at hand…it needs no explanation…but here ya go…I’ll speak for chaos…
In the first double blind study, glutamine made no significant differences in relation to bodybuilding…
In the second study done in a caloric deficit…glutamine did nothing to preserve LBM…
Therefore…glutamine is worthless to young healthy males in regards to bodybuilding and strength training…
And ur study isn’t a double blind study to see the differences in two groups in regards to certain goals both groups have in relation to bodybuilding or strength training…
Yeah, but I mean, if you think I’m wrong in one aspect of nutrition, why would I be right in another? If abcbodybuilding.com had even one unreliable article, my whole image of it would be ruined because that speaks of their reputation as a whole. I would think that one would only go for what they know is the best source.
And that’s not what I’m looking for because that’s not an explanation. You stated a statement and then said “There, that’s why.” Counter my specific points that I’ve layed out above.
Glutamine has NEVER been shown in a double blind scientific study to increase muscle gain. I have posted two articles that show it does not do so, and the article that proves that it does is not in existance. For a laugh what dosage do you prescribe glutamine supplementation at?
That study is laughable. It talks about the effect of glutamine on neutrophil cells, implicating it is not even an in vivo study, but an in vitro one. Also note it talks about enteral infusion, which may bypass one of the plethora of problems of glutamine, oral bioavailability. I hardly think prolonging cell life by altering apoptosis timing is the same thing as increasing muscle mass. My studies are DIRECTLY related to the point at hand, does glutamine help weight training athletes gain mass. They say no. Your convoluted arguements are no offense against double blind SPECIFIC topic related studies. Face it.
Magus said before that it’s the most abundant amino acid in your body and that there’s need to worry about it falling under supply. I was wondering where the source of that info comes from? Whatever article it was, did it take into account the fact that under severe stress, your ability to produce this amino acid decreases?
And Chaos, that was just one study because, like I said, I don’t use studies as the basis of argument. They’re there to further support your point, not make the point itself. And here is a study that does show it increases muscle gain:
“Alain Lavoinne et al. further investigated glutamine and intestinal protein synthesis/degradation [86]. Two groups of healthy humans were given either glutamine (group 1) or saline (salt containing) or isonitrogenous aminos (group 2). The glutamine group had a significantly greater increase in the rate of mucosal protein synthesis compared to saline. Furthermore, ubiquitin (a protein which promotes proteolysis) mRNA was greatly decreased after taking glutamine in relation to group two. This would effectively limit mucosal (mucous membrane) protein degradation, and may be imperative in prohibiting intestinal inflammation and mucosal damage, which supports the previous topic on gut protection. Thus, glutamine has once again shown to not only have anabolic effects, but anti-catabolic ones as well.”
Anabolism is what every bodybuilder strives for, and glutamine has been shown to increase its effects.
I’ve already searched and read various posts in this thread regarding creatine, so I’m aware of some things, but:
I’m currently trying to bulk up as much as I can. I have a new diet plan I’m sticking to in terms of proteins, carbs, supplements and all that jazz. I’m also working out regular (only abdominal area for now, until I put on weight), so I’m not in for the quick fix at all.
Will creatine supplements help me get big? I’m not bothered about being ripped/lean muscle machine for now, as I need to get the bigger build first, then I can work with that to sculp the body I want. But I need to get big, will creatine help me out here?
Creatine will retain water weight, so you will in that sense look bigger from that alone. However, since it allows you to train harder, you’re likely to put on mass and strength more efficiently.
Ok Reidar I’m not trying to come off as an elitist but your are digging a deeper hole for yourself. First of all you tell Magnus …
“Whatever article it was, did it take into account the fact that under severe stress, your ability to produce this amino acid decreases?”
How many times do I have to tell you that working out is NOT SEVERE STRESS. They are referring to burn victims and severely immunocompromised individuals. Please get this into your head as a primary fact.
Secondly you are basically posting studies that are jackshit related to skeletal muscle. SMOOTH INTESTINAL MUSCLE IS NOT SKELETAL MUSCLE. That article has NOTHING to do with lean muscle mass gains. Nada. Zip. Zelch. You see my studies? Specifically related to lean muscle mass gain, not some trivial aspect of mucosal membrane protein function. And I note you did not give me your prescribed dosing, waiting for someone on another board to feed you that information as well?
I’m not even going to grace your pseudoscience theory with an answer. Why? Because your fundamental view of science is incorrect. It is not up to people with theories to have their particular theory disproven. It is up to those people to provide scientific studies proving their point. I could give a shit about PH. I care about oral glutamine supplementation in healthy lifters and if it boosts LMM gains. So far I have posted two studies saying it does not. And you have posted none, because one doesn’t exist. So until you give me one that does, quit sidetracking into diluted PH arguements that are secondary to the main issue.
I never get the “digging a deeper hole” warning. I’m not debating for the sake of disagreement. I’m debating because I see something differently and want to settle it. If I’m proven false, I come away learning something. Maybe if you view this as some sort of pissing contest, then sure, but I don’t.
Yes, it is. Following a workout, muscle glycogen stores are depleted, and many muscle proteins are also broken down, leaving the body in a deficit state. As more and more glycogen and glucose is burned up for energy, blood glucose levels begin to drop-off, which in turn cause insulin levels to drop drastically. That is a very vital step to grasp because of the properties insulin has in relation to protein synthesis and anabolic hormone production. These drops give rise to the catabolic hormone Cortisol, which you undoubtly know about.
Now, if you’re comparing working out to fighting a fucking war or something, then comparitively it’s not stressful. But it’s a subjective term, and one that you are using to make claims about. Your body is under stress after heavy lifting. When you lift heavy, you damage and tear your muscle fibers. That’s stress and that’s what I’m talking about, and you know it.
Yes, it does. The point was to prove glutamine’s anabolic properties, which affects muscle gains throughout your body. Read the concluding sentence. Anabolism = universally good.
And what I take is 5g of glutamine post-workout with my shake and 5g again before bed. Don’t know why you have to resort to accusing me of feeding off of other’s info, though; it’s immature, pointless, and really doesn’t bode well in an attempt to enlighten others of whatever you’re trying to say.
What you think is sidetracking is relevant to the serious lifter. It seems like you’re in some sort of nutrition tunnel vision. ALL of these affect you. pH levels are VERY relevant to what we’re discussing. During weight lifting, lactic acid is prevalent and severely inhibits athletic performance, for reasons such as an increased pH. Anything that raises your pH would enhance performance by reducing these catabolic properties. That’s just one aspect of glutamine, and it’s explained here: http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/magazine03/activerecovery.htm
Everything I have discussed is relevant; I just assumed you’d be able to put two and two together and realize how exactly for yourself. Instead, you’ve just said that you don’t care about pH and lactic acid build-up, or an insulin spike, or increased glycogen restoration, or anabolic boosts. I assumed you would be able to see how those correlate to muscle mass increases because they’re such elementary concepts, and I kept your reputation on the matter in mind.
My point in this is that the studies I posted are relevant because those secondary issues you tossed aside are what can hamper lean muscle gains.
Glutamine is so fucking cheap so who really cares about if it works or not just buy it try it and if you dont like the results your out what maybe 8 buck.
Please don’t give me a basic lecture on mucle states following exercise. The point I am making is that any study showing a positive effect of glutamine supplementation meets two criteria
IV or other non-oral administration
Burn victims or severly immunocompromised subjects
Secondly if you think any show of an anabolic or protein sparing effect on any cell in the body is relevant to bodybuilding, I don’t even know where to start. If said effects are not occuring in the skeletal muscle cells they are not relevant to lean muscle mass gains. I don’t care if your neutrophil membrane changes, that might help your immune system. I don’t care if it changes gastric protein function, thats a digestive tract improvement. Why can you not understand that skeletal muscle is skeletal muscle and thats all we care about?
Thirdly I assuming this was your dosage pattern. Grossly underdosed and a total waste of money, seeing as how the oral bioavailability of the product means you lose around 82% of that glutamine at a bare minumum. If you said 30 grams a day maybe you could possibly see some benefit under some circumstances.
You broaden this discussion by introducing more and more factors of anabolism, I can only assume hoping you’ll reach a depth over my head and I’ll bow down to your big picture arguement. To say that I don’t care about glycogen consumption and insulin spikes is absolutely ludicrous, and I never said anything remotely resembling that comment.
This is the problem you don’t seem to grasp, glutamine has been PROVEN in DOUBLE BLIND SCIENTIFIC STUDIES not to work. Why therefor is the ball in my court to disprove your theory about PH levels? If said mechanism worked, then guess what, in the studies glutamine would have…WORKED. But it did not, and you cannot provide anything related to skeletal muscle that says it does. You just continue to say studies (which are factual) don’t prove points but theories (which are unproven and theoretical) do. That is one of the most deranged views of science I have ever heard.
Am I reading this right?? You are only working the abdominal area?? Are you just doing crunches and sit ups??
If this is the case then you need to stop wasting money on supps and get a gym membership first…it may take you months to get in the groove of weight training regularly with any degree of efficiency.
If you eat like a madman and only do crunches and sit ups…and take creatine…you will ONLY put on water weight and fat. I want to say this again…romie has said this before and it’s still just as true…Muscle and Fat are two completely different types of tissue…you can’t “turn” muscle into fat and fat doesn’t “turn” into muscle…EVER…PERIOD. You need to start weight training seriously first before you start packing on the weight or it will all be fat and then you will have no choice but to lose the fat while trying to build muscle and body recompisitions are TOUGH.
On an unrelated note…I hurt my back today…AGAIN. I hate my gym. I was doing hack squats on the hack sled today and I went down on the second rep and almost felt something pop…I immediately racked it and got up…hurts like hell right now. I’ll be going BACK to the chiro this week or next for sure…prolly get x rays this time.
“To test these two powerhouses in combination with each other; an eight-week experiment was performed on 29 athletes by Mark Lehmkuhl et al. [73]. They utilized three groups: a placebo § group (.03 g of placebo per kg of body mass, and 4 more grams of placebo per day) a creatine monohydrate (CM) group (.03 g of CM per kg of body mass, and 4 more grams of placebo per day) and a creatine/glutamine (CG) group (.03 g of CM per kg of body mass, and 4 more grams of glutamine per day). Furthermore, they used a double blind test, which means that the subjects and scientists performing the experiment did not know which group they were in; only those overseeing the tests did. Additionally, the diet and training programs were identical for each group. The results showed that the CM and CG group displayed the highest level of performance, and further that the CG group achieved better results than the CM group. The CG and CM groups displayed a significant increase in body mass, LBM, and initial rate of power production during multiple cycle ergometer bouts. The results of the CG group were better than the CM and P groups.”
This was a double-blind study done on athletes with orally-ingested supplements.
Everything I’ve posted was still relevant. You’re saying your immune system has nothing to do with lean muscle mass. That’s ridiculous. If every part of your body isn’t functioning at its peak, you won’t grow as efficiently.
Case in point: most bodybuilders take multi-vitamins as an essential part of their diet, and it’s not because it in itself increases muscle mass.
I also stand by my point that studies by themselves don’t provide adequate proof. You need multiple studies with a defining conclusionary explanation stating the circumstances overviewing the entire presentation. There are too many variables that come into play during an experiment.
i had a whole slew of lower back problems from rounding my back as i went below parralel on squats, hackquats and on the first portion of the lying down hamstring curl machine.
Magnus sorry to hear about your back man, hope the Xrays come back ok. If you do make it back see if you can grab that Doctors number for me and I’ll give him a call. I have national boards in 10 days so I"m really seriously busy.
Reidar if your going to the extreme of including improved immune function being directly related to lean muscle mass game then perhaps you possible have somewhat of a point. I understand the importance of global wellness but there are questions about the efficacy of glutamine on the immune system as well. I have no stance on its functions other than as directly relates to gaining muscle as I haven’t studied them though. That study is ill designed and shows really nothing, as they pollute the data on glutamine by pairing it with the one unarguably effective non-hormonal bodybuilding aid (besides food which I put in a different catagory) creatine. Secondly I don’t see statistically values either which is odd in an abstract. “Better” does not mean “significantly better” or “statistically better” you dig?
Heres the explanation you so strive to hear. Glutamine is a non-essential, easily synthesizable amino acid. Oral bioavailability means dosing needs to be on a mega basis to reach suitable levels to affect any change. The body is perfectly capable of synthesizing all it needs and has been shown as able to do so on diets containing NO glutamine. It would be my conjecture, starting from the fact that studies prove this stuff doesn’t work, that relative to PH levels availability of glutamine for substrate binding is not the limiting step the PH/lactic acid chain. This would explain why supplementation (what actually gets from point a to point b) doesn’t help. Its quite possible the limiting step is enzyme limited by a kinase or reductase further down the line, meaning that even if glutamine bound up more ions that it still couldn’t be processed. Or it could be a catalyst is required for glutamine to bond ions and thats the limiting step.
In conclusion we basically KNOW that glutamine levels don’t affect muscle gain, so any reason why is pie in the sky. I mean this is like me saying I have this great theory on why Bigfoot exists, he is the missing link and he is in caveman drawings or whatever, and forcing you to refute my missing link arguement rather than accepting 1000’s of hours of searching have turned up nothing.
Alright here are my ten day out pics, competition is on next Sat. Still feel real flat till I start carb loading next wed. Weighing in at 180 right now, need to weigh in at 176 to make it to the top of the middle wt division which is 156 - 176.
I’ll post here again that last day on friday. This low carb shit is killing me…I’m actually dreaming of food at night. LOL!!!