Layne Norton & Eric Satterwhite - The Lipoic Acid Project!

**webmaster** · 12-17-2003, 05:19 PM

Layne Norton & Eric Satterwhite team up to bring your The Lipoic Acid Project. Find out how to use this information to get the most out of your supplementation.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne25.htm

HOW TO REVIEW: Post Your Review Of This Article - CLICK ON POST REPLY BELOW! You do NOT need to be a registered member to post a reply in this section!

beerman_420 · 12-17-2003, 09:43 PM

overall a good article its just difficult to understand for the average shmo like me

**str8flexed** · 12-18-2003, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by beerman_420
overall a good article its just difficult to understand for the average shmo like me

just diligently go through it a few times. If you still don't get some things let me know.

12-18-2003, 05:06 AM

Good paper!

**str8flexed** · 12-18-2003, 12:35 PM

thanks

BigKazWSM747 · 12-18-2003, 03:04 PM

Awesome work Layne and Eric!

12-18-2003, 06:05 PM

Could you explain this?

Quote:

As the amount of ALA goes up, not only does the average blood glucose go down, but the Standard Deviation decreases as well.

Standard Deviation is a number that represents the amount of variation between a grouping of values. In this case, less is more! The standard deviation dropped from 31 to 5! I interpret this as ALA having the ability to improve glucose uptake by muscle tissue in the entire body, not just the worked muscle. Common sense would tell you that your biceps and triceps are not going to take up as much glucose as quickly as your legs. But this is the trend we started to see.

You mean the SD of blood glucose levels I presume. Why does an increase in this mean that "ALA has the ability to improve glucose uptake by muscle tissue in the entire body, not just the worked muscle?"

I will read the article better later as I'm tired now.

thanks

**str8flexed** · 12-18-2003, 11:01 PM

yes SD is refering to blood glucose readings. As far as the rest I don't know how i can explain it any better than eric did. Maybe you should ask him as he wrote that section. I did the introduction and discussion, so eric would be better to ask about that. I'll see if i can get him to post on here.

ballbags1 · 12-19-2003, 10:19 AM

Very informative article, thanks bro

EricS · 12-31-2003, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Unregistered
Could you explain this?

You mean the SD of blood glucose levels I presume. Why does an increase in this mean that "ALA has the ability to improve glucose uptake by muscle tissue in the entire body, not just the worked muscle?"

I will read the article better later as I'm tired now.

thanks

Its says a DECREASE in the SD. We saw the degree of decrees in the SD similar across all days as the amount of ALA increased regardless of what body part was being trained. I had a day of training that was devoted only to biceps and triceps. Even when combined these two muscle groups have far less mass and total fiber couts than the Legs as a unit. There for would take up less glucose themselves.

The amount of carbohydrates remained constant so it is going somewhere. Yes, it is an assumption that it would be goign to other muscles, but I think it is a fairly safe one as we don't excreet glucose.

So with a high SD that means that the values were all over the place. leg day may have been very low, and arm day may have been very high. As we increased ALA those numbers become more consistant. The all dropped and stayed with in a closer range.

You have to remember the final numbers are averages and averages of averages. so things can get blurred. But if we are dumping the same amount of glucose in our system everytiem adn the numbers are dropping acrosse the board, One could conclude that muscle tissue in general, not just what was just worked out is taking up glucose faster - IE an improved ability to uptake glucose.

Make sence?

01-03-2004, 02:41 PM

very boring article.stupidly technical and i get feeling the kids who wrote didnt understand the terms they were using. all this research has been done by proper scientists not high school kids

**str8flexed** · 01-03-2004, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Unregistered
very boring article.stupidly technical and i get feeling the kids who wrote didnt understand the terms they were using. all this research has been done by proper scientists not high school kids

thanks bud, too bad I'm about to get my BS in biochemistry and Eric is about to get his in Exercise physiology. And yes this is mostly based off of previous research but we are the first to have developed this theory in regards to nutrient partitioning.

Layne "ohhh did the big science words hurt your brain...ooooh poor baby"

BigKazWSM747 · 01-03-2004, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by str8flexed
thanks bud, too bad I'm about to get my BS in biochemistry and Eric is about to get his in Exercise physiology. And yes this is mostly based off of previous research but we are the first to have developed this theory in regards to nutrient partitioning.

Layne "ohhh did the big science words hurt your brain...ooooh poor baby"

LOL! OWNED!

**str8flexed** · 01-03-2004, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
LOL! OWNED!

dude that pic is freaking histerical

thelast10 · 01-06-2004, 03:30 PM

a little off topic but what high school courses did your friend take to be able to take excersize physiology?

03-07-2004, 12:21 PM

Who gives a **** that you are getting a BS in anything. Eric and you pretty much just write articles based on what you are learning in class. I am going to start writing articles based on past research, take a few tests after eating rice krispies and get $25 of supplements a pop. I think you are a hardcore lifter, have a good build and seem to train hard and what not. But quit talking about your school major and ****. It doesn't matter. Don't write **** about other authors already have.

**** I don't know, I guess you just seem arrogant on this board-as if you are better than everyone. Gets old quick

That pic of the bear was balls deep funny, I almost pissed myself laughing

Not So Big · 03-07-2004, 12:45 PM

layne and eric, good article must have took awhile to write to.

i wish i could actually understand most of the stuff in the article though, one day i hope to be able to understand things like that, maybe when im in college i will.. but for now it seems hard for a 10th grader to actually read it with an understanding, either way im sure it will help those who kno.

**alan aragon** · 04-10-2004, 01:40 AM

kudos layne & eric.

not everyone's gonna dig the technical stuff, but oh well, i guess you can please everyone. maybe next time throw in some analogies related to porking hot chicks, just to keep the lay public's attention

.

your key findings for me were 2 things: the effective dosages, and the significant results in a healthy athletic subject (as opposed to the insignificant effects seen in previous research). this may further my and many others' contention that we bodybuilders are different animals indeed. bring on the biochemistry. it makes me feel better that i had to take what seemed like too much of it though my undergrad nutrition program (i actually liked biochem by the end of my MS, and can now appreciate and apply what i felt was torture during the undergrad).

**str8flexed** · 04-10-2004, 02:43 AM

thanks alan, I'm glad you enjoyed it

rtoews · 06-26-2009, 01:06 AM

Thanks for the article. Got a couple of questions:

"It is crucial that one consumes carbohydrates before exercise for several reasons:"

How long before exercise must one consume carbs? Half hour? Hour?

"I also suggest consume a shake composed of 35g of whey protein along with 35g dextrose during my workout.

"The carbohydrates in the shake should account for about consuming this shake provides several benefits:"

The sentence beginning "The carbohydrates..." doesn't appear to parse. Looks like something got left out between "should account for about" and "consuming this shake." What's the intended wording?

Thanks!