Iforce Intimidate . misleading marketing, see no use in the product.

[robertmm94]

To finish our conversation V.


First of all DAA penetrates the BBB more effectively than NMDA, so if the dose is 1/100 of DAA but it is 100x more powerful, it still does not even out because BBB permeability for NMDA is lower. Further, DAA has a ******better safety profile and relevant studies*******.

Second of all, the marketing is misleading. I honestly don't understand how anyone, reps included, can argue that its not semi misleading.

"What's the difference between N-Methyl-D-Aspartic Acid and D-Aspartic Acid?
D-Aspartic Acid drew national attention when people realized it could raise their testosterone by 42% in as little as 12 days. While that may sound impressive, it has been clinically proven that while D-Aspartic Acid can activate the NMDA receptor, pure NMDA can activate the NMDA receptor more than 100x (10,000%) more effectively!"

You really dont think that sounds misleading to the normal consumer?

"So if D-Aspartic Acid is a popular testosterone booster, imagine what something can do that is literally 100x more potent?!? That means 100x the testosterone production of DAA, 100x the IGF-1 production of DAA, and 100x the IGF-2 production of DAA!"

^^Words of PA who has expressed the same concerns with your misleading marketing.

Come on now guys, you all know the vast majority of supplement users will assume the above. If i was to go to a friend and say "hey bro! this works really well at boosting test, but Intimidate is 100 times stronger!!!" what do you think his outlook on the product would be?


Just to put a little cherry on it all, take a look at this thread.

********THEHUGE, DR. P, No hype, Bane and PA (on another thread) all show distrust with the compound. ********


http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...1685651&page=1

Bane- "I'll just go with D-aspartate, thank you. "

^^^ seems to be the consensus of the thread




Third- What the hell is the point of talking about how its 100x stronger if your using 100x less of a dose? Your results should be the same ( IF BBB permeability was the same) so in my opinion, saying how intimidate is 100x stronger than DAA is literally pointless and misleading.

You did NOT say "get equal results with 1/100th of the dose". Instead you focused on how its 100x stronger.
That doesnt seem some what misleading to anyone?

Ill just stick with DAA Plus , you know some dumb ass is going to use 3g as the dose eventually. Im sure you can imagine the outcome.

Whats the point in saying how its 100x stronger if your using 100x less of a dose? that's literally the same thing for MORE MONEY. ***Except (refer to original post at top)


^^^there ya go man, hopefully this wont get deleted like the last one.

In for discussion and thoughts.


BTW- no hate, i enjoy their products for the most part. But what i saw this product and write up , i had to bring attention to it because it really is misleading and it seems as if no one noticed.

[robertmm94]

Btw vaughn - please spare me the "well we had blahblah beta testers who all had amazing results" . That seemed to be your first line of defense last time and your going to lose that argument.

I could say the exact same thing for CEE, Glutamine, Arginine.

I could be wrong, but didnt you praise how good your Edcy product was compared to the compitition? I know thats your job, so pimp away, but im sure you had some really good results in beta testing right? Well i no several people who mega dosed it, some respected members here as well, who saw very little to nothing at all. "but the beta testers man, the beta testers"

[Irish Iron]

12th

[extremenergy3]

Firsteenth.

[ChrisG12]

umpteenth

[DASBUNKER]

Reading this thread boosted my free test over 9000

[VaughnTrue]

To finish our conversation V.


First of all DAA penetrates the BBB more effectively than NMDA, so if the dose is 1/100 of DAA but it is 100x more powerful, it still does not even out because BBB permeability for NMDA is lower. Further, DAA has a ******better safety profile and relevant studies*******.

Second of all, the marketing is misleading. I honestly don't understand how anyone, reps included, can argue that its not semi misleading.

"What's the difference between N-Methyl-D-Aspartic Acid and D-Aspartic Acid?
D-Aspartic Acid drew national attention when people realized it could raise their testosterone by 42% in as little as 12 days. While that may sound impressive, it has been clinically proven that while D-Aspartic Acid can activate the NMDA receptor, pure NMDA can activate the NMDA receptor more than 100x (10,000%) more effectively!"

You really dont think that sounds misleading to the normal consumer?

"So if D-Aspartic Acid is a popular testosterone booster, imagine what something can do that is literally 100x more potent?!? That means 100x the testosterone production of DAA, 100x the IGF-1 production of DAA, and 100x the IGF-2 production of DAA!"

^^Words of PA who has expressed the same concerns with your misleading marketing.

Come on now guys, you all know the vast majority of supplement users will assume the above. If i was to go to a friend and say "hey bro! this works really well at boosting test, but Intimidate is 10000 times stronger!!!" what do you think his outlook on the product would be?


Just to put a little cherry on it all, take a look at this thread.

********THEHUGE, DR. P, No hype, Bane and PA (on another thread) all show distrust with the compound. ********


http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...1685651&page=1

Bane- "I'll just go with D-aspartate, thank you. "

^^^ seems to be the consensus of the thread




Third- What the hell is the point of talking about how its 100x stronger if your using 100x less of a dose? Your results should be the same ( IF BBB permeability was the same) so in my opinion, saying how intimidate is 100x stronger than DAA is literally pointless and misleading.

You did NOT say "get equal results with 1/100th of the dose". Instead you focused on how its 100x stronger.
That doesnt seem some what misleading to anyone?

Ill just stick with DAA Plus , you know some dumb ass is going to use 3g as the dose eventually. Im sure you can imagine the outcome.

Whats the point in saying how its 100x stronger if your using 100x less of a dose? that's literally the same thing for MORE MONEY. ***Except (refer to original post at top)


^^^there ya go man, hopefully this wont get deleted like the last one.

In for discussion and thoughts.


BTW- no hate, i enjoy their products for the most part. But what i saw this product and write up , i had to bring attention to it because it really is misleading and it seems as if no one noticed.

I bolded your points since the wall of text isn't exactly easy on the eyes. My responses are below...

1. DAA has better BBB permeation. I am not doubting this. How much of your DAA is making its way to your NMDA receptors? How much of that DAA is actually doing any benefit, and how much of the benefit is from the methyl-donors in your body converting a small amount of DAA to NMDA?

The fact of the matter is no one knows. What we do know is that each person who has used Intimidate has reported significantly greater results than 3g of DAA per day.

2. Our marketing pulls words directly from the studies. The fact of the matter is that NMDA is literally(not figuratively) 100x more potent at agonizing the NMDA receptor than DAA. Yes, it is 100th the dose, and 100x stronger. That means the results should be identical, right? Please tell our testers that.

3. Your 3rd point is the same as your 2nd point.

[mes759]

Reading this thread boosted my free test over 9000

It's OVER 9000!

[VaughnTrue]

Btw vaughn - please spare me the "well we had blahblah beta testers who all had amazing results" . That seemed to be your first line of defense last time and your going to lose that argument.

I could say the exact same thing for CEE, Glutamine, Arginine.

I could be wrong, but didnt you praise how good your Edcy product was compared to the compitition? I know thats your job, so pimp away, but im sure you had some really good results in beta testing right? Well i no several people who mega dosed it, some respected members here as well, who saw very little to nothing at all. "but the beta testers man, the beta testers"

Hey bro...can you do me a favor? Find me some ECDY beta logs.

[VaughnTrue]

Ill just stick with DAA Plus , you know some dumb ass is going to use 3g as the dose eventually. Im sure you can imagine the outcome.

Oh...and in for someone taking >3 bottles of Intimidate/day to get 3g doses.

[huge908]

Curious if your sponsoring any blood tests or anything, or any loggers offering to perform it.

[VaughnTrue]

Curious if your sponsoring any blood tests or anything, or any loggers offering to perform it.

I'm not sure if anyone is currently running bloodwork with their logs, but I don't believe so.


TBH, I wouldn't expect a bigger test boost out of this than I would from any other top test booster out there(75-150%). I honestly believe Intimidate is working through other pathways than simple testosterone enhancement. I say this because of the specific results testers/users have been seeing. Traditionally, boosting only your testosterone increases things like libido/energy, but as time has shown offers very little in actual weight gains/body composition. Intimidate has really shone with each of the loggers by having them gain weight, yet get a lot leaner. I would not allocate these results simply to testosterone.

[Daycrawler]

To finish our conversation V.


First of all DAA penetrates the BBB more effectively than NMDA, so if the dose is 1/100 of DAA but it is 100x more powerful, it still does not even out because BBB permeability for NMDA is lower. Further, DAA has a ******better safety profile and relevant studies*******.

Second of all, the marketing is misleading. I honestly don't understand how anyone, reps included, can argue that its not semi misleading.

"What's the difference between N-Methyl-D-Aspartic Acid and D-Aspartic Acid?
D-Aspartic Acid drew national attention when people realized it could raise their testosterone by 42% in as little as 12 days. While that may sound impressive, it has been clinically proven that while D-Aspartic Acid can activate the NMDA receptor, pure NMDA can activate the NMDA receptor more than 100x (10,000%) more effectively!"

You really dont think that sounds misleading to the normal consumer?

"So if D-Aspartic Acid is a popular testosterone booster, imagine what something can do that is literally 100x more potent?!? That means 100x the testosterone production of DAA, 100x the IGF-1 production of DAA, and 100x the IGF-2 production of DAA!"

^^Words of PA who has expressed the same concerns with your misleading marketing.

Come on now guys, you all know the vast majority of supplement users will assume the above. If i was to go to a friend and say "hey bro! this works really well at boosting test, but Intimidate is 100 times stronger!!!" what do you think his outlook on the product would be?


Just to put a little cherry on it all, take a look at this thread.

********THEHUGE, DR. P, No hype, Bane and PA (on another thread) all show distrust with the compound. ********


http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...1685651&page=1

Bane- "I'll just go with D-aspartate, thank you. "

^^^ seems to be the consensus of the thread




Third- What the hell is the point of talking about how its 100x stronger if your using 100x less of a dose? Your results should be the same ( IF BBB permeability was the same) so in my opinion, saying how intimidate is 100x stronger than DAA is literally pointless and misleading.

You did NOT say "get equal results with 1/100th of the dose". Instead you focused on how its 100x stronger.
That doesnt seem some what misleading to anyone?

Ill just stick with DAA Plus , you know some dumb ass is going to use 3g as the dose eventually. Im sure you can imagine the outcome.

Whats the point in saying how its 100x stronger if your using 100x less of a dose? that's literally the same thing for MORE MONEY. ***Except (refer to original post at top)


^^^there ya go man, hopefully this wont get deleted like the last one.

In for discussion and thoughts.


BTW- no hate, i enjoy their products for the most part. But what i saw this product and write up , i had to bring attention to it because it really is misleading and it seems as if no one noticed.

Plenty of people hate on DAA also.


Both are great products.

[DiabeticLifter]

if this would have come up a month ago i would have gotten tests done with my diabetic ones.

regardless it worked, if you have doubts, no one is twisting your arm to buy it. as for me I will be buying it again.

[JH34PG]

Haters gonna hate....

[VaughnTrue]

if this would have come up a month ago i would have gotten tests done with my diabetic ones.

regardless it worked, if you have doubts, no one is twisting your arm to buy it. as for me I will be buying it again.

appreciate the support sir

Love it when an actual user(and a company rep not affiliated with iForce at that) can come in and vouch. Glad you enjoyed it enough to purchase more

[robertmm94]

Hey bro...can you do me a favor? Find me some ECDY beta logs.

The first post will take longer to answer so i will have to later.

And i did say " i could be wrong" . It was merely a guess. Since the product was crap in a bottle. Not saying its any worse or better than other edcy, just saying.


And is your only defense "beta log testers showed better improvements" ???? Answer that first please.

Or you actually dont have any scientific evidence for it working better and its all about "the logs" ?
you do realize what placebo is correct?

There are tons and tons and tons of products that went through beta testing and they all rave and praise how its the next supp holy grail. Then its dies with the hype. Beta-testers are prone and for the most part always experience a placebo effect. So yeah, i don't doubt there are people out there seeing good results.

But if you ask any respectable member of the forums (yourself included), the LAST evidence people would take would be beta tester's results. If you really need me to ill be happy to find some glowing logs on CEE and glutamine . Ah, remember the log on how glutamine helped improve someones focus like crazy? Or people raving about how powerful CEE is and how amazing their gainz are?

Please back up your claims with actual scientific evidence. Not immature "check the logs bro" bull****. Those are for companies like MT, All american EFX , etc. Dont stoop to their level.

[Illadelphia]

Haters gonna hate....

Solid contribution

[robertmm94]

Plenty of people hate on DAA also.


Both are great products.

What does plenty of people hating on DAA have to do with this? Idc if people hate on DAA, thats not the point of my thread. DAA has better BBB perm, is cheaper, has more relevant studies and should be considered safer.

[VaughnTrue]

The first post will take longer to answer so i will have to later.

And i did say " i could be wrong" . It was merely a guess. Since the product was crap in a bottle. Not saying its any worse or better than other edcy, just saying.


And is your only defense "beta log testers showed better improvements" ???? Answer that first please.

Or you actually dont have any scientific evidence for it working better and its all about "the logs" ?
you do realize what placebo is correct?

There are tons and tons and tons of products that went through beta testing and they all rave and praise how its the next supp holy grail. Then its dies with the hype. Beta-testers are prone and for the most part always experience a placebo effect. So yeah, i don't doubt there are people out there seeing good results.

But if you ask any respectable member of the forums (yourself included), the LAST evidence people would take would be beta tester's results. If you really need me to ill be happy to find some glowing logs on CEE and glutamine . Ah, remember the log on how glutamine helped improve someones focus like crazy? Or people raving about how powerful CEE is and how amazing their gainz are?

Please back up your claims with actual scientific evidence. Not immature "check the logs bro" bull****. Those are for companies like MT, All american EFX , etc. Dont stoop to their level.

again, your questions/comments are bolded to make your posts readable for the rest of us.

1. I highly disagree that any Ecdy is crap in a bottle. Will I get you to agree with me? Probably not. I will however suggest you do some research into molecular crystallization. The extraction process of certain compounds can crystallize their structures, significantly changing their bioavailablility, absorption, and affects. This can be seen in pharmaceutical drugs, as well as natural compounds.

2. I don't understand what I'm "defending" here. Am I defending that NMDA is 100x more potent than DAA? Am I defending that Intimidate is a great product? Am I defending...fill me in here mang.

3. There is actually quite a bit of literature available on NMDA. Unfortunately, the vast majority of it was not done in humans, and even less showcased its abilities to raise HPTA output. That being said, there is a specific patent, as well as a host of studies that show NMDA should be extremely beneficial to increasing muscle mass.

N-methyl-aspartic acid (NMA) is used to increase the growth rate, feed efficiency and/or decrease the amount of body fat of an animal, such as a chicken, pig, fish
http://www.google.com/patents/US5691377

On top of that, these are pretty cool:

edit: post too long, will put up right after

4. Yes, I am quite aware of what placebo is, thanks for making sure.

5. I absolutely agree that beta testers are not the end all be all.





I am not making you, nor anyone else purchase this product. If you like the info we've presented, and believe it may aid your training, I suggest you purchase it. If not, I suggest you do not purchase it.

[D3Baseball]

I guess I'll take one for the team and run a couple free bottles to see how well it works.

[robertmm94]

I bolded your points since the wall of text isn't exactly easy on the eyes. My responses are below...

1. DAA has better BBB permeation. I am not doubting this. How much of your DAA is making its way to your NMDA receptors? How much of that DAA is actually doing any benefit, and how much of the benefit is from the methyl-donors in your body converting a small amount of DAA to NMDA?

The fact of the matter is no one knows. What we do know is that each person who has used Intimidate has reported significantly greater results than 3g of DAA per day.

2. Our marketing pulls words directly from the studies. The fact of the matter is that NMDA is literally(not figuratively) 100x more potent at agonizing the NMDA receptor than DAA. Yes, it is 100th the dose, and 100x stronger. That means the results should be identical, right? Please tell our testers that.

3. Your 3rd point is the same as your 2nd point.

1-Science wise, DAA having stronger BBB perm is the only thing you seem to know. Like i said. logs dont mean ****. Please stop telling me their results because it neither matters, nor do i care.

2- Thats great that your study says that. However the way you put it, is misleading. im not the only one who thinks so.

Answer this than.
If i was to go up to a random person in my gym and say
"hey man DAA is one the best test boosting prodcuts out there, but intimidate is 100x stronger!"
You dont think that average joe (who thinks Jacked and muscle tech protein is gods gift to earth" will think that he will get 100x more results from a product thats 10000 percent stronger?

You did NOT say "get equal results with 1/100th of the dose". Instead you focused on how its 100x stronger.

3- then I will change it to a safety issue. How many relevant studies on safety do you currently have on NMDA? Compared to DAA? Something that binds to the NMDA receptors 100x stronger, doesn't sound to great to me.

[VaughnTrue]

couldn't fit these in the prior post...too long.

Prepubertal Yorkshire gilts, 189 d of age and 96 kg body weight (BW), were used to determine the effects of intravenous injections of N-methyl-D,L-aspartate (NMA) on circulating concentrations of luteinizing hormone (LH) and growth hormone (GH). In Experiment 1, blood was sampled from four gilts every 15 min for 2 hr on four consecutive days. One hour after the initiation of sampling on each day, gilts received either vehicle (0.9% saline solution) or 1.25, 2.5, or 5 mg of NMA/kg BW as per a 4 x 4 latin square arrangement of treatments. There was no effect of treatment (P > 0.1) on concentrations of LH in serum. However, relative to vehicle-treated animals, gilts administered 2.5 mg of NMA/kg BW had elevated (1,120%; P < 0.05) circulating levels of GH. In Experiment 2, samples were collected from 15 gilts at 15-min intervals for 1 hr before and 1 hr after NMA (10 mg/kg BW; n = Cool or vehicle (n = 7). NMA increased serum concentrations of both LH (by 80%; P < 0.05) and GH (by 700%; P < 0.01). We suggest that LH and GH secretion in gilts was enhanced by treatment with NMA.

The paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus is an integration centre between the central and peripheral autonomic nervous systems. It is involved in numerous functions from feeding, metabolic balance, blood pressure and heart rate, to erectile function and sexual behaviour. In particular, a group of oxytocinergic neurons originating in this nucleus and projecting to extra-hypothalamic brain areas (e.g., hippocampus, medulla oblongata and spinal cord) control penile erection in male rats. Activation of these neurons by dopamine and its agonists, excitatory amino acids (N-methyl-D-aspartic acid) or oxytocin itself, or by electrical stimulation leads to penile erection, while their inhibition by gamma-amino-butyric acid (GABA) and its agonists or by opioid peptides and opiate-like drugs inhibits this sexual response. The activation of these neurons is secondary to the activation of nitric oxide synthase, which produces nitric oxide. Nitric oxide in turn causes, by a mechanism that is as yet unidentified, the release of oxytocin in extra-hypothalamic brain areas. Other compounds recently identified that facilitate penile erection by activating central oxytocinergic neurons are peptide analogues of hexarelin, a growth hormone releasing peptide, pro-VGF-derived peptides, endogenous peptides that may be released by neuronal nerve endings impinging on oxytocinergic cell bodies, SR 141716A, a cannabinoid CB1 receptor antagonist, and, less convincingly, adrenocorticotropin-melanocyte-stimulating hormone (ACTH-MSH)-related peptides. Paraventricular oxytocinergic neurons and similar mechanisms are also involved in penile erection occurring in physiological contexts, namely noncontact erections that occur in male rats in the presence of an inaccessible receptive female, and during copulation. These findings show that the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus plays an important role in the control of erectile function and sexual activity. As the male rat is a model of sexual behaviour and penile physiology, which has largely increased in the last years our knowledge of peripheral and central mechanisms controlling erectile function (drugs that induce penile erection in male rats usually do so also in man), the above results may have great significance in terms of a human perspective for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.

Four experiments were conducted to determine mechanisms by which n-methyl-d,l-aspartate (NMA) increases serum concentrations of growth hormone (GH). Blood samples were collected from barrows every 15 min for 2 h (Exp. 1, 2, and 3) or 3 h (Exp. 4) immediately before and immediately after i.v. treatments. In Exp. 1, barrows (n = 4/treatment) received either .9% saline or 1.25, 2.5, or 5 mg of NMA/kg of BW. The change in circulating GH concentrations was greater (P < .05) for barrows receiving 2.5 mg (by 883%) or 5.0 mg of NMA/kg of BW (by 1,095%) than for those injected with saline. In Exp. 2, barrows (n = 4/treatment) received NMA (2.5 mg/kg of BW) or injections of 1.25 mg of the pure d or pure 1 isomers of NMA/kg of BW. Growth hormone concentrations increased by 177% (P < .025) after NMA treatment and by 245% (P < .01) after injection of the pure d isomer of NMA. The pure 1 isomer of NMA had no effect (P > .1) on GH concentrations. In Exp. 3, barrows received NMA (2.5 mg/kg of BW) 10 min after i.m. injection of saline (n = 7) or ******** hydrochloride ( n = 8; 19.9 mg/kg of BW), an n-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist. The NMA increased (P < .01) GH concentrations by 289% in saline-pretreated barrows but had no effect (P > .1) on barrows pretreated with ******** hydrochloride. In Exp. 4, barrows (n = 4/treatment) received NMA 3 h after i.v. pretreatment with antisera to GH-releasing factor (GRF; 154 mL) or no pretreatment. Serum GH concentrations increased by 166% (P < .05) after injection of NMA in barrows receiving no pretreatment. The NMA had no effect (P > .1) on GH concentrations in barrows receiving antisera to GRF. Our results support the concept that NMDA stimulates GRF, and hence GH secretion, by activating an NMDA receptor.

Sexual dimorphism has been found in the preoptic area of the hypothalamus (POA), a major site of glutamate actions via N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. The sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area (SDN-POA) of male rats exhibits about seven-fold greater nuclear volume than that of females. A naturally occurring neonatal neuronal apoptosis, that can be prevented by testosterone, may contribute to this sexual difference in SDN-POA nuclear volume. Since activation of NMDA receptors in the POA induces GnRH secretion, it may be involved in both elevation of serum testosterone and prevention of neuronal death in the SDN-POA. In the present study, protein expression of NMDA receptors in the POA of male and female fetuses was quantified on the day preceding the fetal testosterone peak (embryonic day 16; ED 16). Rats were then distributed in four groups: (1) untreated males, (2) untreated females, (3) males pretreated with MK-801 (a noncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist), and (4) females pretreated with MK-801. Serum levels of testosterone were estimated on the afternoon of ED 18. Expression of Bcl-2 and Bax, as well as neuronal apoptosis in SDN-POA, were observed on postnatal day 8. The results showed that (1) expression of NMDA receptors in the POA of male fetuses was higher than that of females on ED 16; (2) levels of testosterone were lower in MK-801 pretreated male fetuses than in intact males on ED 18; (3) expression of Bcl-2 in the POA of MK-801 pretreated male rats was significantly less than that of control males; (4) the apoptotic incidence in the SDN-POA of MK-801 pretreated male rats was significantly greater than in control males, while there was no significant difference in apoptotic incidence in the SDN-POA between MK-801 pretreated and intact females. These results suggest that the NMDA receptor is highly expressed in prenatal male fetuses, and that it might play an important role in the elevation of testosterone levels. Moreover, activation of NMDA receptors may protect SDN-POA neurons from naturally occurring neuronal death, by modulating testosterone and/or Bcl-2 expression.

The present experiments describe the effect of NMDA and kainate agonists of the NMDA and non-NMDA subtype of receptors respectively of the excitatory amino acids (EAAs) system in prepubertal (16 days of age) and peripubertal (30-day-old rats) male rats on the in vitro hypothalamic release of GnRH, and on the in vivo LH and FSH levels as well as the effect of testosterone on these effects. The addition of NMDA or kainate to the medium containing APOA-MBH areas significantly increased (P < 0.01) the GnRH release as compared with the respective controls. The increase in GnRH release observed with kainate was significantly higher (P < 0.01) than those observed with NMDA. NMDA administration increased significantly (P < 0.01) serum LH levels at both ages of sexual maturation while no effect was observed by kainate administration. MK 801, an antagonist of NMDA neurotransmission, and testosterone abolished the LH release response to NMDA. Contrary to that observed on LH, while NMDA did not modify serum FSH concentrations a significant increase (P < 0.01) was observed with kainate administration in prepubertal and peripubertal rats on this pituitary hormone, and CNQX, an antagonist of non-NMDA neurotransmission, and testosterone administrations blocked this FSH release effect of kainate. The NMDA and kainate release effect on LH and FSH respectively was significantly higher in prepubertal than in peripubertal rats. At both ages NMDA released more LH than kainate FSH. In conclusion, our experiments demonstrated that both subtypes of glutamate receptors NMDA and non-NMDA subtypes of EAAs increased GnRH release by APOA-MBH in vitro during sexual maturation. Nevertheless, while NMDA administration only increased serum LH levels, kainate showed only an effect on increasing FSH concentrations. These differential effects of NMDA and non-NMDA subtypes of EAA receptors on LH and FSH could probably explain some aspects of the differential modifications of LH and FSH observed in different physiological circumstances.

Previous research from our laboratory demonstrated that n-methyl-d, l-aspartate (NMA), a potent agonist of glutamate, increased growth hormone (GH) secretion in barrows and boars. To determine if testosterone modulates NMA-induced GH secretion, Poland China x Yorkshire swine were challenged with NMA in a model that compared GH responses in boars with those of barrows or barrows treated with testosterone propionate (TP). Boars and barrows weighing 112.6+/-1.4 kg (mean +/- SE) were fitted with indwelling jugular vein catheters. Barrows (n = 16) were given i.m. injections of TP (25 mg in corn oil) twice daily from d 0 to d 6. Boars (n = 16) and control barrows (n = 15) received twice daily injections of corn oil. On d 6, blood was sampled every 15 min for 4 h. Two h after sampling began, all animals received an i.v. injection of NMA at a dose of 2.5 mg/kg body weight. Mean testosterone concentrations (ng/ml serum) were similar (P > .1) for boars (8.1+/-0.Cool and barrows receiving TP (7.3+/-0.3), but were greater in both cases (P < .05) than for barrows receiving corn oil (.2+/-.01). Prior to NMA injections, mean GH concentrations were similar (P > .1) among groups and averaged 2.7+/-.2 ng/ml serum across treatments. Serum concentrations of GH after NMA increased (P < .05) similarly among groups and averaged 6.3+/-0.3 ng/ml across treatments during the 2-h period after injection. These results were not supportive of a role for testosterone as a modulator of NMA-induced GH secretion in male swine.

2 more coming...damn 12,000 character limit

[VaughnTrue]

and finally.

The role of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor activation in the central regulation of luteinizing hormone (LH) and growth hormone (GH) was tested by administering a bolus intravenous dose of N-methyl-D,L-aspartic acid (NMA), a NMDA receptor agonist, to 24-week-old intact (n=5), estradiol-treated intact (n=3) and castrated (n=3) Holstein bull calves. The calves were bled for 12h pre- and 100 min post-NMA injection (1.75 mg-/kgBW) periods at 10 min intervals. Concentrations of LH and GH in plasma were measured by specific RIA. Prior to administration of NMA, the average concentration of LH, but not GH, differed significantly among the 3 groups. As expected, administration of estradiol prevented the normal ontogeny of pulsatile LH secretion, while castration resulted in an increased frequency of LH discharges. Injection of NMA resulted in an acute (P<0.001) release of LH in 3 of 5 intact and 3 of 3 estradiol-treated intact calves with the peak response being observed at 20 min (3.18 +/- 1.3 and 5.58 +/- 1.3 ng/ml, respectively) following the challenge. Treatment with NMA did not alter the release of LH in castrate calves. Concentrations of GH in plasma increased (P<0.001) within 20 to 30 min after administration of NMA in intact, estradiol-treated intact and castrate calves with a similar response being observed in each group. Based on these findings, we suggest an involvement of glutamatergic neurotransmission in the hypothalamic or supra-hypothalamic control of LH and GH secretion, and that the excitatory effects of NMDA receptor activation on LH release are overtly influenced by gonadal steroids in bull calves.

A group of oxytocinergic neurons originating in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus and projecting to extrahypothalamic brain areas (e.g. hippocampus, medulla oblongata and spinal cord) control penile erection. Activation of these neurons by dopamine and dopamine agonists, excitatory amino acids (N-methyl-D-aspartic acid) or oxytocin itself, or by electrical stimulation leads to penile erection, while their inhibition by GABA and GABA agonists or by opioid peptides and opiate-like drugs inhibits this sexual response. The activation of oxytocinergic neurons in the paraventricular nucleus by dopamine, oxytocin and excitatory amino acids is apparently secondary to the activation of nitric oxide (NO) synthase. NO in turn activates, by a mechanism that is as yet unidentified, the release of oxytocin from oxytocinergic neurons in extrahypothalamic brain areas. Several peptide analogues of hexarelin, a growth hormone releasing peptide, also induce penile erection when injected into the paraventricular nucleus and, to a lesser extent, systemically, apparently by acting on a specific receptor to activate oxytocinergic neurons as shown for the above drugs and oxytocin. Paraventricular oxytocinergic neurons and mechanisms similar to those reported above are also involved in the expression of penile erection in physiological contexts, namely when penile erection is induced in the male by the presence of an inaccessible receptive female, which is considered a model for psychogenic impotence in man, as well as during copulation.

[VaughnTrue]

1-Science wise, DAA having stronger BBB perm is the only thing you seem to know. Like i said. logs dont mean ****. Please stop telling me their results because it neither matters, nor do i care.

2- Thats great that your study says that. However the way you put it, is misleading. im not the only one who thinks so.

Answer this than.
If i was to go up to a random person in my gym and say
"hey man DAA is one the best test boosting prodcuts out there, but intimidate is 100x stronger!"
You dont think that average joe (who thinks Jacked and muscle tech protein is gods gift to earth" will think that he will get 100x more results from a product thats 10000 percent stronger?

You did NOT say "get equal results with 1/100th of the dose". Instead you focused on how its 100x stronger.

3- then I will change it to a safety issue. How many relevant studies on safety do you currently have on NMDA? Compared to DAA? Something that binds to the NMDA receptors 100x stronger, doesn't sound to great to me.

The only thing I can comment on here is #3. I have no clue what Joe Blow at the gym may think.

Your messiah covered that issue already...PA flat out said there is no reason to believe any toxicity will be noted with the oral administration of DAA or NMDA.

Here is a quote directly from his personal forum on PHF

I dont see any evidence that there is any toxicity. The studies are not relevant to the oral use of DAA as it is being used so you cannot use them as evidence of toxicity. D'aniello has also done animal studies with DAA and has not observed toxicity

If you want to remain cautious that is fine, that is your choice

[robertmm94]

again, your questions/comments are bolded to make your posts readable for the rest of us.

1. I highly disagree that any Ecdy is crap in a bottle. Will I get you to agree with me? Probably not. I will however suggest you do some research into molecular crystallization. The extraction process of certain compounds can crystallize their structures, significantly changing their bioavailablility, absorption, and affects. This can be seen in pharmaceutical drugs, as well as natural compounds.

2. I don't understand what I'm "defending" here. Am I defending that NMDA is 100x more potent than DAA? Am I defending that Intimidate is a great product? Am I defending...fill me in here mang.


3. There is actually quite a bit of literature available on NMDA. Unfortunately, the vast majority of it was not done in humans, and even less showcased its abilities to raise HPTA output. That being said, there is a specific patent, as well as a host of studies that show NMDA should be extremely beneficial to increasing muscle mass.

On top of that, these are pretty cool:

edit: post too long, will put up right after

4. Yes, I am quite aware of what placebo is, thanks for making sure.

5. I absolutely agree that beta testers are not the end all be all.
Then please stop using that argument





I am not making you, nor anyone else purchase this product. If you like the info we've presented, and believe it may aid your training, I suggest you purchase it. If not, I suggest you do not purchase it.

1-duh, why would you think a product you rep for is crap and then openly display you dislike to the bodybuilding community . I know your not stupid. You can defend it all you want. Human trials and Edcy are ****.


2-Well you should be defending how your marketing is misleading.
-and why your product will work better if DAA has a bettter BBB perm.
-finally you should defend your stance on the safety issue and i will refer to posts from the thread i posted earlier

3-I never doubted it would be beneficial to muscle mass. But saying that it will be any better than DAA is premature.

4-glad to be of service
5-then stop using the argument please.

Lastly- thank you, i thought you where making me buy the product.

Im trying to bring attention to how your being misleading. I think Iforce is a good company and am disappointed in the marketing. Even more so if you truly cant see how its misleading.

[Synapsin]

Can someone provide some form of annotation as to why each of those studies is of importance?

[robertmm94]

The only thing I can comment on here is #3. I have no clue what Joe Blow at the gym may think.

Your messiah covered that issue already...PA flat out said there is no reason to believe any toxicity will be noted with the oral administration of DAA or NMDA.

Here is a quote directly from his personal forum on PHF

Where does he talk about administering NMDA ? That post was about DAA and activating the NMDA receptors

[VaughnTrue]

1-duh, why would you think a product you rep for is crap and then openly display you dislike to the bodybuilding community . I know your not stupid. You can defend it all you want. Human trials and Edcy are ****.

what are you trying to say here? I honestly have no clue wtf you're talking about. What human trials? What Ecdy? I specifically mentioned you to look at molecular crystallization...what in this response relates to anything I have said?

2-Well you should be defending how your marketing is misleading.

I do not agree that our marketing is misleading. NMDA is literally 100x the potency of DAA. You can spin this any way you want, I disagree.

-and why your product will work better if DAA has a bettter BBB perm.
I believe the vast majority of DAA's effects are from its ability to be methylated(thus becoming NMDA) in the body, and then agonize the NMDA receptor. Intimidate will get you more NMDA in your body, making a 30mg dose of Intimidate more effective than 3000mg of DAA.

-finally you should defend your stance on the safety issue and i will refer to posts from the thread i posted earlier

What else would you like me to post? NMDA baby food studies? LOL there is absolutely ZERO evidence than orally administered NMDA can cause toxicity. PA agrees with me...it's obviously you who doesn't understand. Why not post up some studies showing orally administered NMDA is toxic? That may be a better starting point

3-I never doubted it would be beneficial to muscle mass. But saying that it will be any better than DAA is premature.
[b] I don't even know how to respond to this...[b]

4-glad to be of service
5-then stop using the argument please.

Lastly- thank you, i thought you where making me buy the product.

Im trying to bring attention to how your being misleading. I think Iforce is a good company and am disappointed in the marketing. Even more so if you truly cant see how its misleading.

I appreciate your input on our marketing. I will make sure to bring it to iForce's attention

my responses are in bold

[robertmm94]

It's best to be silent and thought of as a troll, then to post and remove all doubt

how am i being a troll?

Im sorry that respected members gain friends on here and no one wants to speak out against him.