This just in, Glycocarn alone > SP250, NO Xplod, Nano Vapor (scientific study within)

[BIGNFIT]

I am on Animal Pump for the fourth week, I am not impressed, at all. I bought for the first time, it will be the last time. 10 months ago, I´ve heard about GC, I will give it a shot soon.

[NO HYPE]

It's awfully convenient that the study was sponsored by Sigma-Tau (the company that has a patent on Glycocarn).

every company wants to promote their goods. so sigma tau created a study to promote their products like gaspari and xtend did. but if they didnt pay for it who would? a competitor? really you would need a rich neutral individual to create a study comparing the products and their claims and see which is best but itd never happen.

Try not to base your opinion on who funded the study. Take a close look at the study methods as well as the instruments used within the study.

We compared Glycine Propionyl-L-Carnitine (GlycoCarn(R)) and three different pre-workout nutritional supplements on measures of skeletal muscle oxygen saturation (StO2), blood nitrate/nitrite (NOx), lactate (HLa), malondialdehyde (MDA), and exercise performance in men.

Methods: Using a randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, 19 resistance trained men performed tests of muscular power (bench press throws) and endurance (10 sets of bench press to muscular failure). A placebo, GlycoCarn(R), or one of three dietary supplements (SUPP1, SUPP2, SUPP3) was consumed prior to exercise, with one week separating conditions. Blood was collected before receiving the condition and immediately after exercise. StO2 was measured during the endurance test using Near Infrared Spectroscopy. Heart rate (HR) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were determined at the end of each set.

[TheFugitive]

Keeping up with the Joneses

[NO HYPE]

This just in, Glycocarn alone > SP250, NO Xplod, Nano Vapor

My opinion.... exogenous nitrates would likely elicit the most significant effects on plasma NOx, VO2max, SpO2, StO2, ect.

[|ceman]

|ceman should take lessons from you.

LOL...I guess I do need to chill a little. A year ago I was the cool headed guy and des was always pissing people off; looks like we've switched roles.

I'll try to be nicer.

[namean]

confused...i am so

[De__eB]

My opinion.... exogenous nitrates would likely elicit the most significant effects on plasma NOx, VO2max, SpO2, StO2, ect.

I don't doubt that, I was going more for the 'one ingredient shows the same potential as products people commonly shell out money every month for aspect of things.

[De__eB]

I rather see a study comparing PLCAR vs. Glycocarn vs. LCLT vs. ALCAR.

Would definitely be worthwhile to see a study showing which take on carnitine works better

[Drop_Dead]

LOL...I guess I do need to chill a little. A year ago I was the cool headed guy and des was always pissing people off; looks like we've switched roles.

I'll try to be nicer.

the iceman needs to chill?


hahahahah


sorry

[jkeezo]

Superpump250 is six years old and definitely can use a tune up which I was tasked with reformulating it six months ago. We're proud such a "classic" formula is still doing so well and I guess the 30 day study we did proves just how effective it is at increasing strength, etc. Besides VPX, we're the only company with at least one clinical study on our product to my knowledge. The single dose study is fairly old and we are a much different company now. We view clinical research now much differently and us it to support safety data, structure function claims, foreign regulatory requirements, etc. Gaspari was 20-30X smaller when the single dose study was made and it's all they could really afford. Personally, I can't change something which occurred before I worked for the company but I can promise you any new studies done, any new formulas I create, are done with the best intentions. If you know me, you know I firmly believe in that.

Good to hear

[shadar]

Add in ALCAR-Arg to that list Really expensive (more than GPLC I believe) but promising in the limited research on it so far.

[evankyle]

Superpump250 is six years old and definitely can use a tune up which I was tasked with reformulating it six months ago.
-D

Can you give us an idea when the new version will be available?

[De__eB]

Add in ALCAR-Arg to that list Really expensive (more than GPLC I believe) but promising in the limited research on it so far.

Whats to believe that an arginate version would result in any improvement?

[eldawg]

confused...i am so

When compared to the placebo, none of the products used in the study did much to increase blood flow or exercise performance.

[shadar]

A few companies have released straight alcar-arg now. It's even showing up (or will be) in some blend products. As to the studies I haven't checked into it in the past few months honestly.

Whats to believe that an arginate version would result in any improvement?

I never looked too heavily into it honestly. I just briefly read about it while trying to learn about carnitine in general. It gave good results in one study, better than PLC/ALCAR (I think those were the other two forms used).


Basically I just think if a study is going to test the other four forms of Carnitine that ALCA should be tested too.

[shadar]

When compared to the placebo, none of the products used in the study did much to increase blood flow or exercise performance.

IMO it's a rather dubious outcome. Seeing as how caffeine alone should cause an increase in exercise performance. Thus a pre-workout containing it should garner at least that much benefit.

EDIT> Another point that should be made. It seems that Malto was the placebo used. So really it shouldn't be called Placebo at all that the other products were compared to but rather "sugar".

[De__eB]

IMO it's a rather dubious outcome. Seeing as how caffeine alone should cause an increase in exercise performance. Thus a pre-workout containing it should garner at least that much benefit.

EDIT> Another point that should be made. It seems that Malto was the placebo used. So really it shouldn't be called Placebo at all that the other products were compared to but rather "sugar".

Well, the caffeine alone wouldn't necessarily help out the metrics they were measuring/listed in their conclusion, would it (and I imagine they designed it specifically along those lines)?

[BIGNFIT]

I am on Animal Pump for the fourth week, I am not impressed, at all. I bought for the first time, it will be the last time. 10 months ago, I´ve heard about GC, I will give it a shot soon.

Rewrite. I guess AP started having an effect only at my 5th week of use, but I added in some PRO GF, at half a serving, the outcome was phenomenal; yesterday I misplaced my PRO GF at work, when I wanted to do the prewkt mix(AP+PRO GF),so I went in to lift just with AP, there was some good pump, along with vascularity, but not a the same degree as combined with PRO GF, so to say that AP does in fact work.

[WillBrink]

Well, the caffeine alone wouldn't necessarily help out the metrics they were measuring/listed in their conclusion, would it (and I imagine they designed it specifically along those lines)?

As much as I'm not a fan of NO type products in general, I am surprised they all did so poorly as a pre workout supplement if not for the caffeine and other stims alone. Being "proprietary" blends you don't know how much of each you are getting, but caffeine being dirt cheap, I would expect an effective dose, but that can be nullified if the person is a chronic user of caffeine already, and caffeine has a mixed track record in the data when it comes to resistance training vs endurance... Personally, I found the discussion, materials and methods, and conclusion of the study more interesting then it's results. Some good general overview (a quasi review if you will...) of the category.

On glycocarn, it's one of those cost/benefit things. Studies besides this one appear to show some benefit, but at the costs per dose for what's a fairly small benefit, not worth the $$$ in my view. If costs come down, might be another story, but every has to decide for themselves what's worth the $$$ to them compared to the benefits and other variables.

However, I applaud them for funding the studies to support their claims. Most companies spend their $$$ on marketing, and zero science. A few spend some on "studies" not worth the paper they are printed on and usually never see peer review and publication in a decent journal, and very few spend real $$ on real studies. This study may not be perfect, but it's not a sham study.

[De__eB]

As much as I'm not a fan of NO type products in general, I am surprised they all did so poorly as a pre workout supplement if not for the caffeine and other stims alone. Being "proprietary" blends you don't know how much of each you are getting, but caffeine being dirt cheap, I would expect an effective dose, but that can be nullified if the person is a chronic user of caffeine already. Personally, I found the discussion, materials and methods, and conclusion of the study more interesting then it's results. Some good general overview (a quasi review if you will...) of the category.

On glycocarn, it's one of those cost/benefit things. Studies besides this one appear to show some benefit, but at the costs per dose for what's a fairly small benefit, not worth the $$$ in my view. If costs come down, might be another story, but every has to decide for themselves what's worth the $$$ to them compared to the benefits and other variables.

However, I applaud them for funding the studies to support their claims. Most companies spend their $$$ on marketing, and zero science. A few spend some on "studies" not worth the paper they are printed on and usually never see peer review and publication in a decent journal, and very few spend real $$ on real studies. This study may not be perfect, but it's not a sham study.

well, the note on caffeine was in response to someone saying the study seemed off since caffeine alone should have provided some benefit, and while thats true, it wouldn't have had an effect on the things sigma tau was keeping track of in the study.

Completely agreed on the cost/benefit thing. There's lots of stuff out there thats shown in studies to help but is expensive. Diminishing return also plays somewhat of a role, as eventually, there's only so far you can push something, and adding on the next $$$ ingredient down the line is only going to give you a miniscule benefit that isn't going to realistically affect gains in any statistically significant manner.

[WillBrink]

well, the note on caffeine was in response to someone saying the study seemed off since caffeine alone should have provided some benefit, and while thats true, it wouldn't have had an effect on the things sigma tau was keeping track of in the study.

I'm not in total agreement with that. For example, if the study groups did not use caffeine chronic, and the dose was high enough (200mg+), I might have expected to see improvements in endurance testing of the study for example, or perceived exertion. Even when caff does not actually improve performance in some study, it usually does affect perceived exertion and such.

Completely agreed on the cost/benefit thing. There's lots of stuff out there thats shown in studies to help but is expensive. Diminishing return also plays somewhat of a role, as eventually, there's only so far you can push something, and adding on the next $$$ ingredient down the line is only going to give you a miniscule benefit that isn't going to realistically affect gains in any statistically significant manner.

Agreed, a point I have made many times.

[DGreekStallion]

Stuff is expensive.

Agmatine sulfate works great for pumps, too.

[GoldenGains]

Such as?

nop-47?

Haa oh boy this should be good.

BTW I take 4.5gms of GlycoCarn pre workout (NOW and Jarrow brand), it is gooooood stuff. I am considering buying it bulk at 29 cents per gm and taking it every day but not sure if that is needed.

should be able to as it is a heart health supplement.

Add in ALCAR-Arg to that list .

I'm not sure if it's in the n.o category, I think it has other purposes

http://www.primordialperformance.com...rginocarn.html


Also in regards to Muscletech as much as I like to rip on them, their NOP-47 product seems the goods, extremely over priced! but it does contain a new science break through in regards to increasing n.o (they bought it off Glanbia)

http://www.glanbianutritionals.com/p...s/whey-peptide

[poison]

Umm, bump? Lol

I still haven't tried glycocarn, but I am not at all sold on it. Sigma tau did 3 studies, and one showed very poor results. User feedback is very mixed. I'll have to just try it.

[WillBrink]

Stuff is expensive.

Agmatine sulfate works great for pumps, too.

And the pump does what again for actual changes in strength, contractile tissues/LBM?

Don't fall for the marketing hype....

[tronchoc]

Good to see the reps made an effort to defend themselves...oh wait they didn't do sh*t. Pathetic.

[Daycrawler]

EDIT: figured I'd toss this in, but this study doesn't particularly reflect well on glycocarn either, NONE of the supplements INCLUDING Glycocarn performed anywhere near the way they are hyped. I don't want to appear too bias here

http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-7-16.pdf

Published today.

Sponsored by Sigma-Tau

Figures 1, 2, and 3, show the ingredient lists of 'SUPP1, SUPP2, SUPP3'

supp1 is sp250
supp2 is No Xplod
supp3 is Nano Vapor

Commence arguing!


Harsh wording for SUPP1, 2, and 3:

"Our findings indicate that, compared to a maltodextrin placebo, none of the products
tested in the present study result in effects that are statistically different with regards to exercise
performance, skeletal muscle blood flow, muscle pump, HLa, NOx, or MDA. These findings
clearly refute the advertisement claims for these products, at least in the context of their use to
impact acute exercise performance, blood flow, muscle pump, and NOx within a controlled
laboratory environment."

EDIT: To add another excerpt:

"These data indicate that 1) a single ingredient
(GlycoCarn®) can provide similar practical benefit as compared to finished products containing
multiple ingredients pertaining to many of the outcome measures included within the present
design, and 2) the tested finished products are clearly ineffective in terms of increasing blood
flow and improving acute upper body exercise performance, and do not produce results that
match the widely advertised marketing claims."

Why such a small sample size? 19 people? I feel like that's a poor representation of the general weightlifting population... That sample size is way too small in my opinion. I agree with the results but I'd rather have seen the same study done with at least 30 people or more... Just my thoughts so far as I read through it.

[JornT]

Why such a small sample size? 19 people? I feel like that's a poor representation of the general weightlifting population... That sample size is way too small in my opinion. I agree with the results but I'd rather have seen the same study done with at least 30 people or more... Just my thoughts so far as I read through it.

I'm not sure what your rationale is, but 19 vs 30 subjects has little influence on the external validity.

[De__eB]

Why such a small sample size? 19 people? I feel like that's a poor representation of the general weightlifting population... That sample size is way too small in my opinion. I agree with the results but I'd rather have seen the same study done with at least 30 people or more... Just my thoughts so far as I read through it.

Studies are expensive.

Bigger studies are more expensive without much benefit going from 19 to 30.

And depending on the methodology of picking people, the 30 won't even necessarily produce more accurate results than the 19.

[Daycrawler]

Studies are expensive.

Bigger studies are more expensive without much benefit going from 19 to 30.

And depending on the methodology of picking people, the 30 won't even necessarily produce more accurate results than the 19.

I realize that studies are expensive. And yes, you're right. 30 might not product more accurate results then the 19, but speaking generally you'd want a sample size of at least 30 to produce more accurate results and to achieve a normal sample size. I also was curious, it appears that compared to placebo, none of the four produced any greater benefits then the placebo. I was also curious as to if they measured the weight gain, body fat and so forth of the participants before and after. I read that this was done over a 12 month spread, with the participants lifting 3 or more times a week. It would seem that should be included to show the proof that they did indeed lift for a minimum of three days per week for the 12 months.