Hydroxy Cut and Ripped Fuel make u lose muscle?

[dawiz66]

I want to get cut up and ive been hearing alot about these two products.. which is better? and do they make you lose muscle while losing fat?Thanks..and also what about xenadrin?

[dnth8daplaya]

I've only tried Xen, but I assume they're all basically the same thing..If you're cutting it is extremly important to still lift while taking these products..due to the fact you're gonna be losing both fat and muscle BUT by lifting you'll be gaining and/or maintaining the muscle you have, but by experience you'll still lose a little muscle...hope that helped..LATE

[Dante B.]

Originally posted by dawiz66
I want to get cut up and ive been hearing alot about these two products.. which is better? and do they make you lose muscle while losing fat?Thanks..and also what about xenadrin?

I am only going to answer one portion of your question, since the other portion may be answered by checking out the thread titled
"Adipokinetix Alternatives" (and doing a respective search on each product itself).

One of the reasons, for which ECA may inhibit the sparing of muscle mass is through Beta-2 mediated protein synthesis. The (selective) Beta-2 agonist , Clenbuterol, in addition to enhancing thermogenesis, is also known to build muscle, as this, is probably due to the Beta-2 mediation by Clenbuterol.

Much like Clen, ECA can stimulate the Beta-2 receptors, but this is done indirectly via NE (norepinephrine). So, with ECA, you may get a muscle sparing effect as well.

I am glad that this question was asked, since I have forgotten about it, and I as well have some thoughts (theories on it). Now, again, in the process of the human bodies attempt to achieve balance (homeostasis), something can not be had for nothing. By up-regulation, and by down-regulation, the body attempts to reach it's perpetual set point (although it may not happen as such). Now, for any given action, you can either further, or frustrate that action. If you are trying to gain weight, you can further that attempt by eating more, and by exercising; you can frustrate that attempt by not eating enough, and by putting to much stress upon oneself.

The same, of course, holds true for dieting. You may further your bodies attempt to lose weight by exercising, and by eating enought to sustain yourself; or you may frustrate that effort, by not eating enough (therefore, putting your body in survival mode- slow metablosim), and not exercising enough (this,as I assume, is self explanatory).

I do not think that it is entirly accurate to say that ECA "spares muscle", as it would be to say that ECA mitigates the potential for muscle loss. I am not splitting hairs either, as inaccurate statements lead to inaccurate conclusions. This is much like the inaccuarcy of stating that in order to gain weight, you "have to eat alot". This is partially true, but not entirley accurate. It would be more proper to say that: in order to gain weight (with the assumption of concommitant exercise), one has to take in more calories than one burns off. This distinction is not subtle, since the former does not specify as to why you will gain weight, or why you will not; whereas the latter specifies the reason as to why this gain in weight may, or may not occur (since it is more accurate).

Getting back to ECA (and Beta-2), I think that one of the main reasons for which ECA may help to spare muscle mass (besides Beta-2 mediated protein synthesis), is the fact that stored fat is being released as a source of energy, to be burned by the body. Now keeping in mind that something can not be had for nothing, it would only make sense that if you were not getting enough calories, your body would possibly break down the muscle tissue in its attempt to maintain a balance of engery. But, with the inclusion of ECA, since the fat stores are being liberated moreso than normal, this makes for a situation were fat is preferentially used as a source of energy, rather than the more normal occurance of muscle being broken down (muscle is metabolically active, so if you are going to starve, the body does not want to keep the muscle tissue that is going to increase the bodies need of calories, so , as such, it is going to burn the active tissue, in favour of saving the metabolically inactive fat).

So consider this as follows, with the potential to either burn, or to spare muscle on a diet used in tandem with ECA:

1) Assuming a given amount of fat stores (someone who was too lean would not have much fat to burn), it is possible, with ECA, to use those fat stores as fuel, therefore, sparing muscle tissue as a source (something can not be had for nothing, and if the body needs to maintain a balance of energy, assuming a deficit, it needs to find an alternate source).
2) As long as there is a moderate amount of caloric deficit present, along with a moderate store of body fat (since, once again, if a person was too lean, it is doubtful that the fat stores, even with ECA, would be used as an alternate souce of energy), it is not likely that muscle would be burned as an alternate source of fuel, since the ECA is liberating fatty acids to be used instead.
3) IF the caloric deficit is too drastic, then it may so happen, that athough fat stores are being released in order to maintain a balance of energy, muscle may be burned as well, since the body may enter survival mode, for the fear of running out of fat stores in a situation in which (it senses) that it may starve.

4) So, a diet, of moderate caloric deficit, with exercise, and proper nutrition , combined with ECA ,is not likely to be condusive to muscle loss, assuming that once again your fat stores are adequate enough to provide an alternate source of energy during this deficit. Those who lose muscle on an ECA stack either:

a) did not have an adequate storage of fat, therefore, not providing the body with an adequate ,alternate source of energy
b) cut their calories too low, to the point where the body entered survival mode by up-regulation and down-regulation, upon sensing possible starvation.

This is just my thought on the matter, since it always intrigued me as to how some lose muscle on an ECA tandem diet, and some are spared the loss, for the reasons, perhaps, that I have mentioned above.

Dante

[dnth8daplaya]

DUDE!! You are a very intelligent, knowledgable individual, BUT..It is kinda frustrating to read a answer to a simple question asked by one, when the answer is 2 pages long and gets besides the point. I'm not hating on your answers, just saying they're kinda long and BORING..I'm probably gonna get some heat on expressing my opinion, but I just had to say it..And it's not only for this thread, it's for MOSTLY all of them you responded to..LATE

Originally posted by dantebattista


I am only going to answer one portion of your question, since the other portion may be answered by checking out the thread titled
"Adipokinetix Alternatives" (and doing a respective search on each product itself).

One of the reasons, for which ECA may inhibit the sparing of muscle mass is through Beta-2 mediated protein synthesis. The (selective) Beta-2 agonist , Clenbuterol, in addition to enhancing thermogenesis, is also known to build muscle, as this, is probably due to the Beta-2 mediation by Clenbuterol.

Much like Clen, ECA can stimulate the Beta-2 receptors, but this is done indirectly via NE (norepinephrine). So, with ECA, you may get a muscle sparing effect as well.

I am glad that this question was asked, since I have forgotten about it, and I as well have some thoughts (theories on it). Now, again, in the process of the human bodies attempt to ahcieve balance (homeostasis), something can not be had for nothing. By up-regulation, and by down-regulation, the body attempt to reach its perpetual set point (although it may not happen as such). Now, for any given action, you can either further, or frustrate that action. If you are trying to gain weight, you can furthr that attempt by eating more, and by exercising; you can frustrate that attempt by not eating enough, and by putting to much stress upon oneself.

The same, of course, holds true for dieting. You may further your bodies attempt to lose weight by exercsing, and by eating enought to sustain yourself; or you may frustrate that effort, by not eating enough (therefore, putting your body in survival mode- slow metablosim), and not exercising enough (this,as I assume, is self explanatory).

I do not think that it is entirly accurate to say that ECA "spares muscle", as it would be to say that ECA mitaigates the potential for muscle loss. I am not splitting hairs either, as inaccurate statements lead to inaccurate conclusions. This is much like the inaccuarcy of stating that in order to gain weight, you "have to eat alot". This is partially true, but not entirly accurate. It would be more proper to say that: in order to gain weight (with the assumpition of concommitant exercsie), one has to take in more calories than one burns off. This distinction is not subtle, sicne the former does not specify as to why you will gain weight, or why you will not; whereas the latter specifies the reason as to why this gain in weight may, or may not occur (since it is more accurate).

Getting back to ECA (and Beta-2), I think that one of the main reasons for which ECA may help to spare muscl mass (besides Beta-2 mediated protein synthesis), is the fact that stored fat is being released as a source of energy, to be burned by the body. Now keeping in mind that something can not be had for nothing, it would only make sense that if you were not getting enough calories, your body would possibly break down the muscle tissue in its attempt to maintain a balacne of engery. But, with the inclusion of ECA, since the fat stores are being liberated moreso than normal, this makes for a situation were fat is preferetially used as a source of energy, rather than the more normal occurance of muscle being broken down.

So consider this as follows, with the potential to either burn, or to spare muscle on a diet used in tandem with ECA

1) Assuming a given amount of fat stores (someone who was too lean would not have much fat to burn), it is possible, with ECA, to use those fat stores as fuel, therefore, sparing muscle tissue as a source (something can not be had for nothing, and if the body needs to maintain a balcance of energy, assuming a deficit, it needs to find an alternate source).
2) As long as there is a moderate amount of caloric deficit present, along with a moderate store of body fat (since, once again, if a person was too lean, it is doubtful that the fat stores, even with ECA, would be used as an alternate souce of energy), it is not likely that muscle would be burned as an atlernate source of fuel, since the ECA is liberating fatty acids to be used instead.
3) IF the caloric deficit is too drastic, then it may so happen, that athough fat stores are being released in order to maintain a balance of energy, muslce may be burned as well, since the body may enter survival mode, for the fear of running out of fat stores in a situation in which (it senses) that it may starve.

4) So, a diet, of moderate caloric deficit, with exercise, and proper nutrition , combined with ECAis not likely to be condusve to muscle loss, assuming that once again your fat stores are adequate enough to provide an alternate source of energy during this deficit. Those who lose muscle on an ECA stack either:

a) did not have an adequate storage as fat, therefore, not providing the body with an alternate source of energy
b) cut their calories too low, to the point where the body entered survival mode by up-regulation and down-regulation, upon sensing possible starvation.

This is just my thought on the matter, since it always intrigued me as to how some lose muscle on an ECA tandem diet, and some are spared the loss, for the reasons, perhaps, that I have mentioned above.

Dante

[Dante B.]

Originally posted by dnth8daplaya
DUDE!! You are a very intelligent, knowledgable individual, BUT..It is kinda frustrating to read a answer to a simple question asked by one, when the answer is 2 pages long and gets besides the point. I'm not hating on your answers, just saying they're kinda long and BORING..I'm probably gonna get some heat on expressing my opinion, but I just had to say it..And it's not only for this thread, it's for MOSTLY all of them you responded to..LATE

Well, my friend, sometimes a simple question ,has quite the complicated explanation behind it. As he did mention the loss (or possibility of loss) form ECA, I though that I would address it, in detail. What would you learn, if I simply said: it works, or it doesn't work? It would not make sense, and it would not be accurate. Most confustion regarding supplements stems from inaccurate statements, so, when I write something (even if I am wrong), I try to be as specific as possible, since I wish to show the logic behind my answers, as opposed to the answer itself.
No offense taken, however.

[Par Deus]

Originally posted by dantebattista


Well, my friend, sometimes a simple question ,has quite the complicated explanation behind it.

And, it is MUCH more complicated than what you wrote. The sympathetic nervous system is just one of many components. It is leptin that is the master signal of your body going into survival mode -- before i am done with my series of articles on that subject, I will probably have written 50 or more pages.

[Par Deus]

But, the short answer is that they are likely to be somewhat muscle sparing, but nothing remotely magical.

[brwnsuga]

I appreciate the long answers myself. I want to know as much information about the question I asked and precise scientific knowledge is preferred. Most people don't post enough information about the subject they are replying to. Granted some of the questions are really basic, but specific questions like this one need detail. Why even bother taking any of these supplements if you don't want to have an understanding of the effects of your body? Knowing the science will help you put the supplement to it's best use. Bodybuilding starts and finishes with the mind.