Heads up for the X-Factor Fans: New Study Results!

[w_llewellyn]

These were trained guys going in; average bench press was 230, leg press 510 at baseline. That was the point of the study - to get a well trained group that was relatively plateaued on their own, so we would see the effects of ARA on a relevant population of users, not those experiencing "newbie gains".

[w_llewellyn]

The complete abstract should be posted on monday. The FULL paper is still in the works (phase II mechanism studies currently), and is expected to be published later this year.

[w_llewellyn]

Still need to see the FT before evaluating it. The general findings have been odd to me since I saw them though. For instance, wingate peak power is basically a very short, maximum effort test:



I find it hard to believe that 1.5g of arachidonic acid daily can make you absolutely obliterate the peak power of the placebo group. I mean that difference of 275%, in terms of magnitude, is just flat out unrealistic. I'm not sure of the 78W, etc that they used to measure the wingate test, but here's some references:

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/want.htm

As you can see, there is maybe a 50% increase in wingate power when going from the bottom 10% of performers to the top 10% of performers. So how do you explain a 275% increase? There's something in the full text we obviously need to see.

The increase was relative to placebo (so the ARA group noticed a near 3X greater improvement, not a 3X increase from baseline). Significant improvements in anaerobic power were noted in the ARA group during the Baylor study also. ARA appears to have a particularly strong effect on muscle anaerobic power output.

This study was well put together, and tightly controlled. These results speak to the effectiveness of ARA; particularly with an experienced resistance-trained group.

[Headshrinker]

Didn't we just go through this with Clear Muscle? In for MN sponsored logs of 1500mg x factor.

[Mr.Cooper69]

The increase was relative to placebo (so the ARA group noticed a near 3X greater improvement, not a 3X increase from baseline). Significant improvements in anaerobic power were noted in the ARA group during the Baylor study also. ARA appears to have a particularly strong effect on muscle anaerobic power output.

This study was well put together, and tightly controlled. These results speak to the effectiveness of ARA; particularly with an experienced resistance-trained group.

I know it was relative to placebo. When study groups are selected, they are usually matched for baseline characteristics, so this should indeed approximate a 275% improvement in peak power. If it doesn't, then the study is poorly designed due to lack of matching at baseline across all groups.

Like I said, the results strike me as odd for sure. I've used ArA and loved it, but I could never contend that it improved my peak power by 275%. That said, I will reserve judgment until reading the full text (not abstract).

[NewAgeMayan]

MrC, youve got me curious as to what you might anticipate the full text possibly revealing to make you then think "oh ok, those wingate results seem reasonable now"...?

[Nyrin]

I know it was relative to placebo. When study groups are selected, they are usually matched for baseline characteristics, so this should indeed approximate a 275% improvement in peak power. If it doesn't, then the study is poorly designed due to lack of matching at baseline across all groups.

Like I said, the results strike me as odd for sure. I've used ArA and loved it, but I could never contend that it improved my peak power by 275%. That said, I will reserve judgment until reading the full text (not abstract).

It could just be an artifact of the comparison. 78W versus 28W seems very large, but without knowing what the baselines were (trained subjects, so likely ~600W+?), it's hard to say if the difference will even be statistical significance.

Edit: All that said, I'm really not trying to hate on the study here. Just eager to see how the peculiarities of the summary description pan out. If anything:


...but I need more data.

[Mr.Cooper69]

MrC, youve got me curious as to what you might anticipate the full text possibly revealing to make you then think "oh ok, those wingate results seem reasonable now"...?

I don't know. I mean honestly I don't believe the results, but since this has been moved to the promo section I have to watch what I say. Like does ara work? I believe so, and countless users also have noticed benefit. Very few nonresponders. But as per usual, the magnitude of effect seen in Wilson's studies are just not believable. He consistently puts out results that are on par with illegal PEDs. If the results demonstrated reasonable improvements like we see in the creatine and beta alanine studies of the world, I'd be much less skeptical.

[w_llewellyn]

I don't know. I mean honestly I don't believe the results, but since this has been moved to the promo section I have to watch what I say. Like does ara work? I believe so, and countless users also have noticed benefit. Very few nonresponders. But as per usual, the magnitude of effect seen in Wilson's studies are just not believable. He consistently puts out results that are on par with illegal PEDs. If the results demonstrated reasonable improvements like we see in the creatine and beta alanine studies of the world, I'd be much less skeptical.

Power increased to a greater extent in ARA (723.01± 104.53 W to 800.66 ± 112.60 W) than the placebo (738.75 ± 129.76 to 766.51 ± 136.52 W). This represents a total improvement of 10.7% with ARA (and 3.8% with PLA). The Baylor study reported a similar statistically significant power improvement of 8.5% with ARA. This effect was consistent across two studies now.

"I don't believe the results." is not a very compelling argument; certainly not enough to warrant challenge to a researcher's (team of researchers, really) professional reputation.

[blueboy22]

I have said this repeatedly....as far as changes to my physique and increases in amount of weight lifted, no product currently in production matches XF's (ArA) results.

I have used XF twice, most recently 3 years ago, but never went above 4 caps/day. I recall neuron double dosing it, and saying the results were much more pronounced. The last time I used it I was taking 4 caps pre on workout days, and spread out 2/2 on off days. What would you recommend for a 6 cap dosing schedule?

Looking forward to reading the abstract Monday. Great work MN.

[ahawk01]

Power increased to a greater extent in ARA (723.01± 104.53 W to 800.66 ± 112.60 W) than the placebo (738.75 ± 129.76 to 766.51 ± 136.52 W). This represents a total improvement of 10.7% with ARA (and 3.8% with PLA). The Baylor study reported a similar statistically significant power improvement of 8.5% with ARA. This effect was consistent across two studies now.

"I don't believe the results." is not a very compelling argument; certainly not enough to warrant challenge to a researcher's (team of researchers, really) professional reputation.

Thanks for the response.

[NewAgeMayan]

But as per usual, the magnitude of effect seen in Wilson's studies are just not believable. He consistently puts out results that are on par with illegal PEDs. If the results demonstrated reasonable improvements like we see in the creatine and beta alanine studies of the world, I'd be much less skeptical.

When you say 'results' ^here, are you referring to just the wingate numbers, or including the lbm and strength numbers too?

[Mr.Cooper69]

Power increased to a greater extent in ARA (723.01± 104.53 W to 800.66 ± 112.60 W) than the placebo (738.75 ± 129.76 to 766.51 ± 136.52 W). This represents a total improvement of 10.7% with ARA (and 3.8% with PLA). The Baylor study reported a similar statistically significant power improvement of 8.5% with ARA. This effect was consistent across two studies now.

"I don't believe the results." is not a very compelling argument; certainly not enough to warrant challenge to a researcher's (team of researchers, really) professional reputation.

That seems a lot more reasonable. As I said, I don't have access to the full text, and you do. So of course I cannot put forth a compelling argument. Newagemayan specifically asked about my opinion, and I wouldn't even post here if 10 people didn't mention my name beforehand. So please, carry on Mr. Llewlyn.

[Mr.Cooper69]

When you say 'results' ^here, are you referring to just the wingate numbers, or including the lbm and strength numbers too?

I was referring to all of them, i.e. how the Baylor study found no change in LBM and this study found a marked increase in LBM vs placebo. For further Qs, PM me or ask it in the general section. This is MN's promo so it's not appropriate for me to answer anything else here.

[NewAgeMayan]

Sure thing, understood.

[NewAgeMayan]

Mr.Llewellyn, does MN have any plans to release XF with larger gel counts per bottle? Or are you sticking with 100 for the foreseeable future?

[w_llewellyn]

I was referring to all of them, i.e. how the Baylor study found no change in LBM and this study found a marked increase in LBM vs placebo. For further Qs, PM me or ask it in the general section. This is MN's promo so it's not appropriate for me to answer anything else here.

The Baylor study reported a 1.2kg increase in LBM in the group taking ARA (it was 1.6kg here). There was a change. It was just not possible to associate this change with ARA supplementation. Same with strength, average power, and total work (except PP, which was SS improved). All were improved more in the ARA group vs PLA during Baylor, but the statistical associations with supplementation were only strong in these cases, not significant. There was too much "noise" in the Baylor study for several reasons (too much heterogeneity in the groups, 90g/day of supplemental protein producing competing effects, training wasn't controlled). These were addressed with the Tampa study. That is the process. You do a study, learn what you can, and if necessary refine your work. The fact the many of the improvements were repeated speaks to reproducibility, and the reliability of both findings.

I wouldn't go throwing around suggestions that Tampa's work is flawed or manipulated (clearly the only conclusions to be drawn). It is terrible for anyone to do this to someones reputation without evidence, let alone someone that works in our industry, which exists because of the scientists that do this work. So you know, I chose Tampa because their work is so strong and highly regarded in the academic community. This study is solid, and the researchers are solid.

[w_llewellyn]

Mr.Llewellyn, does MN have any plans to release XF with larger gel counts per bottle? Or are you sticking with 100 for the foreseeable future?

We occassionally do custom runs of 200 soft gels per bottle; but through limited distribution channels. I'm sure you'll see em again.

[NewAgeMayan]

We occassionally do custom runs of 200 soft gels per bottle; but through limited distribution channels. I'm sure you'll see em again.

Gotcha.

Any idea where the 1500mg dosing quantity came from for the study? As in, how was that specific dose decided upon?

[w_llewellyn]

Gotcha.

Any idea where the 1500mg dosing quantity came from for the study? As in, how was that specific dose decided upon?

They asked me and I recommended it. I wanted to be sure everyone noticed results, and they were significant. I still think 1 gram per day is plenty for most users though.

[GiftedNatty]

Extremely excited to run this in the coming year

[Nyrin]

MN posted the one-page study summary: http://www.molecularnutrition.com/mm..._ACID_NSCA.pdf

Definitely still need the full text. Too many unanswered questions here. The LBM increase with ArA seems nice and a 10.8% increase in wingate over 8 weeks is a lot nicer than 3.8%, but I don't understand why the placebo group had no LBM increase (57.7 +/- 4.8 to 57.8 +/- 5.6) over the full 8 weeks. Although the fundamentals of the training program are described, nothing is mentioned about diet. This could just as easily suggest that ArA made ad libitium eaters hungrier, for all the data we have!

Nonetheless, interest remains piqued

[w_llewellyn]

MN posted the one-page study summary: http://www.molecularnutrition.com/mm..._ACID_NSCA.pdf

Definitely still need the full text. Too many unanswered questions here. The LBM increase with ArA seems nice and a 10.8% increase in wingate over 8 weeks is a lot nicer than 3.8%, but I don't understand why the placebo group had no LBM increase (57.7 +/- 4.8 to 57.8 +/- 5.6) over the full 8 weeks. Although the fundamentals of the training program are described, nothing is mentioned about diet. This could just as easily suggest that ArA made ad libitium eaters hungrier, for all the data we have!

Nonetheless, interest remains piqued

Definitely not just food. Right now they are doing some underlying mechanisms studies. ARA triggers a known anabolic pathway. Expect to see more on this by end of year.

PLA likely made low progress on LBM because they were well trained already. That was the objective. The strength/power gains were likely more due to neurological adaptation to the new training routine. Significant LBM gains are difficult when you've been trained consistently already. You don't keep packing on mass indefinitely. If I could have added even 1 lb for every 8 weeks of my training, I'd be huge now!

[SwolenONE]

[JSClen]

sorry, don't know if this was answered elsewhere, but how did they dose on off days? 1500 mg on training days and how much on off days?

[w_llewellyn]

sorry, don't know if this was answered elsewhere, but how did they dose on off days? 1500 mg on training days and how much on off days?

same

[SwolenONE]

Industry legend Will Brink reviews the recent Arachidonic Acid (ARA) study results here:

http://www.brinkzone.com/bodybuildin...h-muscle-mass/

[SwolenONE]

Ergo-Log chimes in as well:

http://www.ergo-log.com/daily-1500-m...d-bulkier.html

[SwolenONE]

Part III of Monica M series on ARA, looking at recent studies:

Arachidonic Acid (ARA) Part III: Effects On Muscle Growth, Strength & Performance.

"The impetus for human studies on the effect of ARA supplementation on muscle growth and strength gains came from early studies on isolated animal muscle and muscle cell culture. It was found that an increase in ARA flux through the COX enzyme (either induced by stretch or ARA supplementation) promotes production of the prostaglandins PGF2-alpha and PGE2 in muscle tissue, and that PGF2-alpha potently stimulates muscle protein synthesis while PGE2 stimulates muscle degradation. What do the human studies say? "

MORE!

http://www.brinkzone.com/articles/ar...ins-in-humans/