D-Ribose is a Scam

[DRP7]

It appears as though the availability of intramuscular ribose is the limiting factor for the rate of resynthesis of ATP.....

this is of course a limiting factor, and oral ribose supplementation - even at high doses - can barely increase intramuscular ribose levels to a degree that would suffice to increase ATP synthesis at a rate that would translate into better performance.

The effects of four weeks of ribose supplementation on body composition and exercise performance in healthy, young, male recreational bodybuilders: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Accepted 22 May 2002. Available online 1 October 2002.


Background: Ribose is a pentose sugar that is present in ribonucleic acids, riboflavin, nucleotides, and adenosine triphosphate. Whether exogenous ribose administration affects skeletal muscle concentrations of total adenine nucleotides is unknown. Whether supplementation with ribose positively affects body composition or exercise performance in recreational bodybuilders also is unknown.

Objective: The purpose of this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to determine the effects of 4 weeks of ribose supplementation on body composition and exercise performance in healthy, young, male recreational bodybuilders.

Methods: Healthy, male recreational bodybuilders aged 18 to 35 years were recruited and randomized to a ribose-supplemented group (10 g/d in powder formulation) or a placebo group (dextrose). Each subject participated in a heavy-resistance training program designed to increase skeletal muscle mass. Body composition (ie, body weight, body fat, lean body mass, fat mass, and bone mineral content) was assessed using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry analysis. Muscular strength (as measured by a 1-repetition maximum-strength [1-RM] bench press) and total work performed (as measured by total repetitions for 10 sets of bench presses before muscular failure; 1-minute resting interval between sets) to muscular failure at a submaximal load (100% of pretest body weight) were ascertained. In addition, 24-hour dietary recalls were obtained before and after the study.

Results: Twenty men (mean age ? SE, 23.9 ? 1.4 years) were enrolled; 19 subjects completed 24-hour dietary recalls and exercise performance testing; 12 subjects completed the study (24-hour dietary recalls, exercise performance, and body composition). No baseline differences were found between the 2 groups for any of the measured parameters. The ribose-supplemented group experienced a significant pretreatment-to-posttreatment increase in the total work performed, whereas the placebo group did not change significantly (24.5 ? 7.6 to 29.3 ? 7.5 repetitions; 19.6% ribose [P = 0.028] vs 34.1 ? 8.6 to 38.2 ? 8.0 repetitions, 12.0% placebo). In addition, the ribose-supplemented group experienced a significant increase in 1-RM bench press strength, whereas the placebo group did not change significantly (114.1 ? 13.6 to 117.7 ? 14.0 kg, 3.2% ribose [P = 0.008] vs 129.6 ? 14.2 to 131.8 ? 14.5 kg, 1.7% placebo). No pretreatment-to-posttreatment within-group or between-group differences were found for any of the measures of body composition or the 24-hour dietary data.

Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that supplementation with ribose 10 g/d for 4 weeks resulted in significant increases in muscular strength and total work performed in recreational bodybuilders in this study, although no significant changes in body composition or 24-hour dietary data were found. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...744ad9d6aa94de

O.K., are you guys familiar with my main critique on many studies that investigate the effects of a supplement on performance?
what I have always criticised (e.g. in the Baylor studies done on arachidonic acid and on ecdysterone) is that the two gropus (treatment and placebo group) are apparently not appropriately matched!

please look at the numbers in this study now!



Number of repetitions in pretest:
-------------------------------

Ribose-Group: 24.5 +/- 7.6 repetitions
Placebo-Group: 34.1 +/- 8.6 repetitions


1-Rep-maximum (bench press) in pretest:
---------------------------------------

Ribose-Group: 114.1 +/- 13.6 kg
PLacebo-Group:129.6 +/- 14.2 kg

Please note that the subjects in the placebo-group had on average an 39% higher rep number and 13.6% higher 1-rep maximum strength than the subjects in the ribose-group.

I can't help myself, but the baseline performance appear to not have been equal in the both groups.
So, there is no wonder that the noob-group (=the ribose gropup, with the low baseline performance) will benefit relatively more (percentage-wise) from a 4-week training than the more advanced group.

again, look at the numbers:

The noob-group (ribose-group) increased on average by 4.8 reps while the placebo group increased on average by 4.1 reps. so, both groups gained the same number of repetitions after a 4-week training.
similar thing with the 1-Rep bench-press: The ribose-people increased by 3.6 kg while the placbo-people increased by 2.2 kg. the ribose people gained relatively more, but don't forget that they started from a different baseline.

I wonder what kind of freaky statistics they did when they claim that at baseline (=pretest) the groups did not differ in any measured parameter.
Come on, 40% more reps in the placebo group at baseline and no difference? This sounds more than fishy to me.
You all know: never trust a statistics that wasn't tweaked by yourself.

let me illustrate this a little bit what apparently happened in this study:
let's say Jay Cutler takes Placebo and I take Ribose. We both do a 4-week strength training. after these 4 weeks, I have increased my reps and 1-rep max by 30% (10%) and Jay Cutler increased his reps and 1-rep maximum by only 3% (1%). YAY!!! ribose works!!!!! Ahhhmmm..., well...?

Ribose administration during exercise: Effects on substrates and products of energy metabolism in healthy subjects and a patient with myoadenylate deaminase deficiency

Received: 27 June 1990 Revised: 26 October 1990 Accepted: 20 December 1990


Summary Nine healthy men and a patient with myoadenylate deaminase deficiency were exercised on a bicycle ergometer (30 minutes, 125 Watts) with and without oral ribose administration at a dose of 2 g every 5 minutes of exercise. Plasma or serum levels of glucose, free fatty acids, lactate, ammonia and hypoxanthine and the urinary hypoxanthine excretion were determined. After 30 minutes of exercise without ribose intake the healthy subjects showed significant increases in plasma lactate (p<0.05), ammonia (p<0.01) and hypoxanthine (p<0.05) concentrations and a decrease in serum glucose concentration (p<0.05). When ribose was administered, the plasma lactate concentration increased significantly higher (p< 0.05) and the increase in plasma hypoxanthine concentration was no longer significant. The patient showed the same pattern of changes in serum or plasma concentrations with exercise with the exception of hypoxanthine in plasma which increased higher when ribose was administered. http://www.springerlink.com/content/ul100240544177g2/




Effect of ribose supplementation on resynthesis of adenine nucleotides after intense intermittent training in humans

Submitted 30 May 2003 ; accepted in final form 24 September 2003


The effect of oral ribose supplementation on the resynthesis of adenine nucleotides and performance after 1 wk of intense intermittent exercise was examined. Eight subjects performed a random double-blind crossover design. The subjects performed cycle training consisting of 15 x 10 s of all-out sprinting twice per day for 7 days. After training the subjects received either ribose (200 mg/kg body wt; Rib) or placebo (Pla) three times per day for 3 days. An exercise test was performed at 72 h after the last training session. Immediately after the last training session, muscle ATP was lowered (P < 0.05) by 25 ? 2 and 22 ? 3% in Pla and Rib, respectively. In both Pla and Rib, muscle ATP levels at 5 and 24 h after the exercise were still lower (P < 0.05) than pretraining. After 72 h, muscle ATP was similar (P > 0.05) to pretraining in Rib (24.6 ? 0.6 vs. 26.2 ? 0.2 mmol/kg dry wt) but still lower (P < 0.05) in Pla (21.1 ? 0.5 vs. 26.0 ? 0.2 mmol/kg dry wt) and higher (P < 0.05) in Rib than in Pla. Plasma hypoxanthine levels after the test performed at 72 h were higher (P < 0.05) in Rib compared with Pla. Mean and peak power outputs during the test performed at 72 h were similar (P > 0.05) in Pla and Rib. The results support the hypothesis that the availability of ribose in the muscle is a limiting factor for the rate of resynthesis of ATP. Furthermore, the reduction in muscle ATP observed after intense training does not appear to be limiting for high-intensity exercise performance. http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/co...act/286/1/R182

so, again, no effects of ribose on performance!

and why is there an apparent contradiction between study 2 and 3 with regards to hypoxanthine levels? doesn't study 2 say that the after ribose hypoxanthine was lower than without ribose? and doesn't study three say that in the ribose group the hypoxanthine levels were higher?

[cakedonkey]

Dr.P,

Thanks for your input, it's always very much so appreciated. It'll be interesting to see Chuck's rebuttal.

[dtrain13]

Not trying to get involved in this but as you can see there are a multitude of studies that support d-Ribose supplementation or show it not to be effective as well. This is the problem with the supplement industry and pubmed or the like, you see this same "problem" can be applied to A LOT of compounds/ingredients found in most supplements. The "problem" is for every 5 positive studies there are 5 negative studies and vica versa(sp?). If you look hard enough you can find both the good and the bad, its there in one form or another.

[NO HYPE]

O.K., are you guys familiar with my main critique on many studies that investigate the effects of a supplement on performance?
what I have always criticised (e.g. in the Baylor studies done on arachidonic acid and on ecdysterone) is that the two gropus (treatment and placebo group) are apparently not appropriately matched!

please look at the numbers in this study now!

I just wanted to note the previous abstracts were found via the cited studies within the non-peer reviewed, bioenergy study that was posted earlier, so it wouldn't surprise me to see flaws.

[CHUCK DIESEL]

Not trying to get involved in this but as you can see there are a multitude of studies that support d-Ribose supplementation or show it not to be effective as well. This is the problem with the supplement industry and pubmed or the like, you see this same "problem" can be applied to A LOT of compounds/ingredients found in most supplements. The "problem" is for every 5 positive studies there are 5 negative studies and vica versa(sp?). If you look hard enough you can find both the good and the bad, its there in one form or another.

yeah but his purpose in this thread is to post study after study saying ribose doesnt work. Same with the "tribulus is crap threads."

All I know is the best strength and power creatine/ATP products avail., NOS ETHER and SizeOn both contain some type of ribose.

Dr.P,

Thanks for your input, it's always very much so appreciated. It'll be interesting to see Chuck's rebuttal.

Honesty, I didnt even read whats been posted on here since my last post, I really dont need a rebuttal, I don't see ribose by itself. You can post all the "ribose is a scam" studies you want. Its just funny being you are a SAN rep.

I only ask one thing, can you guys please stop with the 3 day, 4 day, 1 week cycle training studies.

[DRP7]

yeah but his purpose in this thread is to post study after study saying ribose doesnt work. Same with the "tribulus is crap threads."

All I know is the best strength and power creatine/ATP products avail., NOS ETHER and SizeOn both contain some type of ribose.


Honesty, I didnt even read whats been posted on here since my last post, I really dont need a rebuttal, I don't see ribose by itself. You can post all the "ribose is a scam" studies you want. Its just funny being you are a SAN rep.

I only ask one thing, can you guys please stop with the 3 day, 4 day, 1 week cycle training studies.

Chuck,

you and your products certainly belong to the most respected in this industry. I am sure that there was no intent in this thread to criticise your products that contain ribose, since a synergistic blend of different substances can potentially be more effective than the sum of its single ingredients.
so, critique on ribose is not necessarily a critique on your products.

IMO, the problem with d-ribose is actually that in humans only a small fraction of it actually enters the muscles because the largest part is being metabolised by the liver and converted to glucose. and you are right: studies done during a few days or 1 week do not necessarily reflect the effects of ribose over a few weeks or even months. I think we can all live with the statement that D-ribose (as single substance) requires more research.

In the meantime, I would suggest that everbody who actually is spending money on D-ribose should try to dissolve it in little water and hold it in his mouth cavity at least for a few minutes in order to allow for some buccal/subllingual absorption. even if only a fraction of it enters the bloodstream via this pathway it could potentially make a BIG difference with regards to the amount that actually will enter muscle cells since first-pass metabolisation is being avoided.

best regards

david

[NO HYPE]

In the meantime, I would suggest that everbody who actually is spending money on D-ribose should try to dissolve it in little water and hold it in his mouth cavity at least for a few minutes in order to allow for some buccal/subllingual absorption. even if only a fraction of it enters the bloodstream via this pathway it could potentially make a BIG difference with regards to the amount that actually will enter muscle cells since first-pass metabolisation is being avoided.

I have no idea what percentage of an oral dose, is actually converted to glucose, but it doesn't appear to undergo much first pass degradation.

From a clinical standpoint, I would think that if the oral delivery of ribose results in any significant depletion in bioavailability.... that an enterically-coated version would have been made available.



PHARMACOKINETICS

About 88% to 100% of an oral dose of D-ribose, up to 200 milligrams per kilogram per hour, is absorbed from the small intestine, from whence it is distributed to various tissues of the body, including cardiac muscle and skeletal muscle. Very little first-pass metabolism occurs in the liver. Following transport into cells, D-ribose is phosphorylated to D-ribose-5-phosphate. D-ribose-5-phosphate is metabolized via a number of pathways, including the pentose phosphate pathway and glycolytic pathway. Its metabolism is complex. It is also metabolized to PRPP, which is the precursor to purine nucleotides, as well as L-histidine and pyrimidine nucleotides. Those receiving very high doses of D-ribose excrete a small fraction of the administered dose unchanged in the urine.



INDICATIONS AND USAGE

D-ribose may have some protective effects in cardiac ischemia. Claims that it is an effective "energizer" and exercise-performance enhancer are not substantiated by credible evidence. D-ribose may also be beneficial in some rare genetic diseases, such as adenylosuccinase deficiency and myoadenylade deaminase deficiency.



RESEARCH SUMMARY

In a study of 20 men (aged 45 to 69 years) with documented severe coronary artery disease and a history of angina induced by normal daily activities, 60 grams of ribose (in four doses of 15 grams each) were tested against placebo. Treated subjects exhibited improvement as measured electrocardiographically, and time to onset of moderate angina (during exercise testing) increased significantly in those ribose-treated subjects. There was no significant electrocardiograph improvement in the placebo group, and there was no significant difference between the groups in time to onset of moderate angina. The authors concluded: "In patients with CAD, administration of ribose by mouth for three days improved the heart's tolerance to ischemia. The presumed effects on cardiac energy metabolism offer new possibilities for adjunctive medical treatment of myocardial ischemia."

Claims that supplemental ribose is an energy booster and exercise/athletic-performance enhancer are unfounded. Studies sometimes cited in support of these claims fall far short of being substantiating. It has been shown that administration of ribose in patients with myoadenylate deaminase deficiency disease can reduce cramping and stiffness caused by exercise. On the other hand, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial of ribose in McArdle's disease, 60 grams of ribose daily for seven days failed to improve exercise tolerance in these subjects. Finally, there is one case report of a patient with adenylosuccinate deficiency whose neurological symptoms (behavior and seizure frequency) improved with supplemental D-ribose.



CONTRAINDICATIONS, PRECAUTIONS, ADVERSE REACTIONS

None known.



PRECAUTIONS

Pregnant women and nursing mothers should avoid supplemental D-ribose.

Supplemental D-ribose may cause hypoglycemia and elevation in uric acid levels. Those with gout should avoid supplemental D-ribose, and those with elevated uric acid levels and hypoglycemics should exercise extreme caution in its use. Those with diabetes should also exercise extreme caution in its use. And those diabetics who decide to try D-ribose must be under a physician's supervision and have their blood glucose levels closely monitored and their antidiabetic medications appropriately adjusted, if necessary.



ADVERSE REACTIONS

Reported adverse reactions include hypoglycemia, hyperuricemia, hyperuricosuria, diarrhea, nausea and headache.



INTERACTIONS

Antidiabetic drugs: D-ribose may cause hypoglycemia. Diabetics who use D-ribose must have their blood glucose levels closely monitored and their antidiabetic medicines appropriately adjusted, if necessary.



OVERDOSAGE

No reports of overdosage.



DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION

No typical dosage. Most experimental studies with ribose used very high doses, usually about 60 grams daily. http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/n...dri_0226.shtml

[DRP7]

I have no idea what percentage of an oral dose, is actually converted to glucose, but it doesn't appear to undergo much first pass degradation.

From a clinical standpoint, I would think that if the oral delivery of ribose results in any significant depletion in bioavailability.... that an enterically-coated version would have been made available.

possibly the term "first-pass-metabolism" was not correct. I don't know. the last two days I have read a lot of papers on ribose and i was under the impression that hepatic conversion to glucose may be a critical factor. nonetheless, d-ribose is being rapidly cleared from bloodstream, which has been linked to the failure of even extended doses of dribose to signficantly increase muscular nucleotide-synthesis.

Zarzeczny and co-workers (27) previously demonstrated that increasing perfusate ribose concentration from ~0 to ~5 mmol/l increased nucleotide synthesis rate in perfused rat skeletal muscles. Such a high plasma ribose concentration conceivably cannot be established in humans by oral ribose intake. First, the ribose intakes required would be beyond the limits of gastrointestinal tolerance. Second, because of the very rapid clearance of plasma ribose (19), it is very difficult to obtain high and stable plasma ribose levels by oral ribose ingestion. (32). In the present study, subjects ingested 4 g of ribose immediately before and after a 15-min intermittent exercise bout. Plasma ribose concentration measured 1 h after the last dose on average was <0.1 mmol/l, which is conceivably too low to significantly enhance muscle ribose uptake to stimulate purine nucleotide synthesis. We cannot exclude the possibility that substantially higher ribose intake rates than used here, if well tolerated, might enhance postexercise ATP recovery in humans. However, our findings provide strong evidence to suggest that the ribose doses used by athletes result in plasma ribose levels that are too low to allow for an ergogenic action. Our ribose administration regimen (4 doses at 4 g each) was even higher than that recommended for most, if not all, commercial ribose preparations.

taken from :B. Op 't Eijnde et al. (2001) Appl Physiol 91: 2275-2281.

It would be very interestign to know, where excess ribose goes to? to the liver? to other tissues? and what happens with excess ribose? what is its main metabolic fate?

If rapid clearance from blood stream (independent from first-pass metabolisation) hampers the ergogenic effects of ribose, then a time-released formulation or the administration of repeated smaller doses might be more helpful than single, large doses. ont he other hand, in the above mentioned study, they gave 4g of ribose 4 times per day to the study participants. and even this (=high dose + application over multiple times) didn't help.

[Al Shades]

Forget the performance aspect for a minute. What about using ribose to treat chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, and aging symptoms?

http://www.corvalen.com/Ribose_Full_Abstract_List.html

If someone is already deficient in atp production, would this be an effective supplement under those conditions?

Has anyone heard of Corvalen from the above link?

A related book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...X0DER&v=glance

[NeoRudyx]

[QUOTE=cakedonkey;71865563
Man, if they are hinging the benefits of D-ribose on the fact that it may influence post-excercise ATP production/restoration, we already have a proven effective, dirt-cheap supplement on our hands: creatine monohydrate.[/QUOTE]

Again Cakedonkey, here is a link to your prefered source, Quackwatch.org on creatine monohydrate:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery.../creatine.html

[cakedonkey]

Again Cakedonkey, here is a link to your prefered source, Quackwatch.org on creatine monohydrate:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery.../creatine.html

Your point being? It doesn't argue its use. It is in favor of it. Might want to read the article and the supporting full-texts before making yourself look even less competent than you are.

[NeoRudyx]

Your point being? It doesn't argue its use. It is in favor of it. Might want to read the article and the supporting full-texts before making yourself look even less competent than you are.

Quoted from your source of published scientific studies:

Caution Urged
There appears to be some potential for creatine supplementation. However, many questions remain. Are there any long-term harmful effects from supplementation? Is there a point where enhanced performance levels off from long-term supplement usage? What effect does "stacking" or taking two ergogenic aids simultaneously have on the body? What happens if you immediately stop taking the creatine supplement? Is the enhanced performance great enough to warrant the expense of the supplement? Until further research answers these questions, creatine is not recommended for the average athlete.

Quackwatch.org

Again, thank you for bringing this site into light!!

[cakedonkey]

Quoted from your source of published scientific studies:

Caution Urged
There appears to be some potential for creatine supplementation. However, many questions remain. Are there any long-term harmful effects from supplementation? Is there a point where enhanced performance levels off from long-term supplement usage? What effect does "stacking" or taking two ergogenic aids simultaneously have on the body? What happens if you immediately stop taking the creatine supplement? Is the enhanced performance great enough to warrant the expense of the supplement? Until further research answers these questions, creatine is not recommended for the average athlete.

Quackwatch.org

Again, thank you for bringing this site into light!!

Notice there are no scientific references after any of those statements. That is merely speculation and theory. Creatine is easily the most proven ergogenic aid in history with a safety record to back it up. Point blank.

With each post you make, you bring your company even lower than it already is. Really, you are grasping at straws here...

[MattyH7688]

Quoted from your source of published scientific studies:

Caution Urged
There appears to be some potential for creatine supplementation. However, many questions remain. Are there any long-term harmful effects from supplementation? Is there a point where enhanced performance levels off from long-term supplement usage? What effect does "stacking" or taking two ergogenic aids simultaneously have on the body? What happens if you immediately stop taking the creatine supplement? Is the enhanced performance great enough to warrant the expense of the supplement? Until further research answers these questions, creatine is not recommended for the average athlete.

Quackwatch.org

Again, thank you for bringing this site into light!!

its saying if u r gonna half ass ur lifting then there is no point in taking it

[NeoRudyx]

Notice there are no scientific references after any of those statements. That is merely speculation and theory. Creatine is easily the most proven ergogenic aid in history with a safety record to back it up. Point blank.

With each post you make, you bring your company even lower than it already is. Really, you are grasping at straws here...

So I take it you are questioning your own quoted scientific publishes sources as referenced in other threads?

That must be a first for you?

[Elliptical Envy]

This thread is off the chain!

[NO HYPE]

Quoted from your source of published scientific studies:

Caution Urged
There appears to be some potential for creatine supplementation. However, many questions remain. Are there any long-term harmful effects from supplementation? Is there a point where enhanced performance levels off from long-term supplement usage? What effect does "stacking" or taking two ergogenic aids simultaneously have on the body? What happens if you immediately stop taking the creatine supplement? Is the enhanced performance great enough to warrant the expense of the supplement? Until further research answers these questions, creatine is not recommended for the average athlete.

The efficacy of creatine supplementation 2007

[u5711]

Quoted from your source of published scientific studies:

Caution Urged
There appears to be some potential for creatine supplementation. However, many questions remain. Are there any long-term harmful effects from supplementation? Is there a point where enhanced performance levels off from long-term supplement usage? What effect does "stacking" or taking two ergogenic aids simultaneously have on the body? What happens if you immediately stop taking the creatine supplement? Is the enhanced performance great enough to warrant the expense of the supplement? Until further research answers these questions, creatine is not recommended for the average athlete.

Quackwatch.org

Again, thank you for bringing this site into light!!

Ok, well I just found this thread and read this article. And BeastSports, you're essentially debating the discussion portion of the article, not the facts portion. The article supports creatine usage, and taking their discussion portion as the final end-all word and opinion of creatine use is really shortsighted IMO.

[G.W. Hayduke]

Well, I'm not sure what my un-pubmed'd opinion is worth in this thread, but I like to think it's at least somewhat respected. Anyways, with that said, I stand by NOS Ether as an effective supplement. Since it has so many ingredients it's hard to say exactly which one in particular is the workhorse, so I'll digress. Suffice it to say, I've had moments of severely criticizing Diesel's products but can honestly say that, in practice and in theory, he makes some very good stuff.

Assuming ribose is useless, NOS Ether still imparts a strong impact on training capacity.

[Achilles_1986]

Bump.

Any new info for or against D-Ribose? I was looking into Jarrow's and it would be pretty expensive to add to my staples at 10g esp if its not effective.

Good thread though.

[Robboe]

Bump.

Any new info for or against D-Ribose? I was looking into Jarrow's and it would be pretty expensive to add to my staples at 10g esp if its not effective.

Good thread though.

Move on.

[Achilles_1986]

Move on.

I did some more digging and this seems to be the best move.

[m_risinger]

found this on google search, ribose is not a scam,

[neddo]

found this on google search, ribose is not a scam,

Okay.

[thefleshlight]

found this on google search, ribose is not a scam,

false

[THEHUGE]

false

Are you questioning Google Search brah?

[thefleshlight]

Are you questioning Google Search brah?

Yes... sopa be damned!!!

[artsands]

I am a family physician who has been practicing for 40 years (board-certified in the US and Australia). I am very familiar with d-ribose. I agree that this simple, inexpensive sugar has not been shown to help healthy athletes, there is substantial evidence that it helps those with congestive heart failure -particularly those who have diastolic dysfunction. I have prescribed this OTC med to multiple patients who have heart failure and have numerous individuals who have benefited from this sugar. I have tested such patients with B-type naturetic peptide (BNP), a very acurate marker from cardiac wall tension. I do a baseline level and then retest them 7-10 days later - 50+ % shown an improvement in BNP as well as subjective improvement.

So don't waste your money on d-ribose if you're healthy - but when you get to be my age and have heart failure, don't hesitate to use it.

Art Sands MD
Fort Collins, CO

[thefleshlight]

So don't waste your money on d-ribose if you're healthy - but when you get to be my age and have heart failure, don't hesitate to use it.

So you have heart failure?

Does the Coors Lite help with that?

[neddo]

So you have heart failure?

Does the Coors Lite help with that?

Coors Lite helps with everything bro, everything.