X Factor...

[cal62887]

IN SUPPORT OF?..


Through the influence of a very reputable member I have decided to put together a few sources, resources, and posts which may put some minds at ease.

The Main Three Concerns:

1. BAYLOR STUDY
2. DIET/EFA/NSAIDs
3. WHAT SHOULD I STACK IT WITH??
4. SAFETY (coming soon)




BAYLOR STUDY

1. Study
2. Findings
3. Response
4. Future Plans
5. Products/Companies Invested in ArA
6. More Reading Material


STUDY

Baylor Study:
https://beardocs.baylor.edu/bitstrea...ts_masters.pdf

Other Clinicals:
http://www.molecularnutrition.net/studies.html

FINDINGS

Published: 28 November 2007

Effects of arachidonic acid supplementation on training adaptations in resistance-trained males

Abstract (provisional)

Background
To determine the impact of AA supplementation during resistance training on body composition, training adaptations, and markers of muscle hypertrophy in resistance-trained males.

Methods

In a randomized and double blind manner, 31 resistance-trained male subjects (22.1 +/- 5.0 yrs, 180.0 +/- 0.1 cm, 86.1 +/- 13.0 kg, 18.1 +/- 6.4% body fat) ingested either a placebo (PLA: 1 g * d-1 corn oil, n = 16) or AA (AA: 1 g * d-1 AA, n = 15) while participating in a standardized 4d * wk-1 resistance training regimen. Fasting blood samples, body composition, bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM), leg press 1RM and Wingate anaerobic capacity sprint tests were completed after 0, 25, and 50 days of supplementation. Percutaneous muscle biopsies were taken from the vastus lateralis on days 0 and 50.

Results


Wingate relative peak power was significantly greater after 50 days of supplementation while the inflammatory cytokine IL-6 was significantly lower after 25 days of supplementation in the AA group. PGE2 levels tended to be greater in the AA group. No significant differences were observed between groups in body composition, strength, anabolic and catabolic hormones, or markers of muscle hypertrophy (i.e., total protein content or MHC type I, IIa, and IIx protein content) and other intramuscular markers (i.e., FP and EP3 receptor activity or MHC type I, IIa, and IIx mRNA expression).

Conclusions

AA supplementation during resistance-training may enhance anaerobic capacity and lessen the inflammatory response to training. However, AA supplementation does not promote greater gains in strength, muscle mass, or influence markers of muscle hypertrophy

RESPONSE

I apologize for jumping in, but I did feel it necessary to respond to this. First, here are my comments with regard to the study.. I will address some of your stronger accusations in my next post.

As you know, the Baylor study was finally published. I have to say on behalf of Molecular Nutrition that we are extremely excited to see this paper finally hit the medical books. This study is the first one of its kind with arachidonic acid, and we had some great findings, and some very promising results to follow up on. For those unfamiliar with exactly what we saw during the study, let me rundown the results.

Raw Data:

First, with regard to the raw data, the arachidonic acid group had higher numbers on all measures relating to body mass, strength, and performance. This includes Total body mass, DEXA lean mass, Leg press 1RM, Bench press 1RM, Wingate average power, Wingate anaerobic endurance, and Wingate relative peak power. The AA group also noticed higher levels of prostaglandins PGE2 and PGF2alpha, lower levels of inflammatory cytokine IL-6, and had no changes in any of the markers of safety.

Significant Findings:

Those key measures that reached the level of "statistical significance", the ultimate threshold for legitimacy in a medical study, were 1) increased peak anaerobic power over the 50-day study, 2) reduced IL-6 (inflammatory marker) at 25 days, and 3) no adverse effect on any of the markers of safety during the 50 day study.

Statistically Strong Findings:

Increases that reached the level of being considered "statistically strong" findings were increases in bench press 1RM, increased average anaerobic power, increased anaerobic endurance, reduced IL-6 levels at 50 days, and increased prostaglandin production.

On Statistical Significance:

If the AA group did better on every measure, why is this not reported? In a non-publishable paper such results often are. But to enter the medical literate, the reviewers must be sure each result was not one of chance. After all, one group will always outperform another in a 2-group study. Statistical significance is required, which tries to assure mathematically that an observed relationship could not have occurred by pure chance. The threshold is usually a "95% confidence interval", which means that there was a 95% probability that the relationship between the variables was valid, and only a 5% or less probability it could have been a chance finding. A statistically strong finding is usually one of 80% CI or better. Statically strong trends are generally not reported in published papers, but, as in our case, are often reported in conferences and early abstracts to inform other scientists that this is an area worthy of more research

The arachidonic acid study was a small study. It was the first of its kind, and funded by Molecular Nutrition at a time when the product was still very young and our resources very limited. With these constraints we opted to fund a study with only 15 participants in each group. We knew going in that it would be difficult to reach statistical significance in small groups like this, as inter-individual variability might easily blur the strength of the data. But we were resigned to study it as best we could. In our case, we had great overall numbers, but it only took a couple of people in the placebo group to make good gains to drop below the threshold of statistical significance on many measures. This is one of the reasons it is much better to fund studies with large groups. As the populations increase, the effect that individual variables may have on the outcome (mathematically) can be reduced.

With the great success we've had with X-Factor and arachidonic acid licensing in recent months, we are in a much different position now than we were 2.5 years ago, and are preparing for another much larger study at the present time. We've also been working on some new strategies for our next phase of testing. In addition to using more participants, we are also looking at ways to better homogenize the groups. We'd like to work perhaps with more experienced athletes/bodybuilders to minimize placebo gains, and are even contemplating an adaptation period to training, as one of the drawback with the present study was that all individuals had to conform to a new weight lifting routine, which in of itself often stimulates growth.

Overall this first study, even thou small, still gave us some incredibly great findings. We had some strong statistical trends on some very key measures, and even some statistically significant gains worthy of publication in the medical literature! For a first crack at a study of this sort, I have to say that it sure ain't bad. Of course an out-of-the park homerun would have been better, but we can expect only so much on our first small study. If we gained anything from this it was that 1) we did see AA increase performance strongly enough to reach statistical significance, even in a small study 2) AA supplementation produced statistically strong trends on many other measures of performance, supporting the need for another, more thorough study, 3) we reinforced that AA supplementation was perfectly safe, and 4) we noticed a statistically significant reduction in IL-6 levels, a central regulator of inflammation.

If you ask me, the IL-6 data was the single most important finding of the study, and worth every penny we spent on it. Beforehand, it was a very commonly held belief that AA supplementation would increase inflammation. We now have proof to the contrary, and even that it reduces inflammation. With the safety data on AA supplementation now overwhelming, and the performance data very strong, we really believe we are on the doorstep of a recognized "huge" breakthrough in the science of muscle growth and supplementation. As nearly all people who use it can attest, arachidonic acid can be an amazing anabolic supplement. We know that we've developed something extremely big here with AA, and look forward to funding more research studies into this nutrient.

I'd also like to commend Baylor for their hard work and dedication to the project!

FUTURE PLANS? What changes will be made?

The Baylor study failed to produce statistical significance on the gains in body mass, lean body mass, and some other measures even though all weight and performance measures were higher in the AA group. We used small groups and there was too much personal variability. To produce a 95% confidence interval is difficult in supplement studies, especially small ones, as it only takes a few in the placebo group to make gains to skew significance.

To give you a little background, you will find that there is a P Value next to most outcomes in a study. First you look at the total outcome, in this case which group gained more weight and strength. For the Baylor study it was indeed the AA group, on every measure. Then you must measure all the individual differences in groups to determine the odds that the groups reflected a change caused by the intervention and not random chance; what confidence you can have in the result. This is the P value. A P value of .05 says there was a 95% chance the intervention caused X result. A P value of .15 says there was an 85% chance. Only a P Value of 95% or greater is considered "proof" in a clinical study. In our case, due to small groups and differences between individuals, we only reached statistical significance on a couple of measures. You can see from the standard deviations that the numbers were quite broad. This does not mean the study proved AA doesn't build muscle, only that we could not prove it with 95% confidence or greater based on the variability of the numbers.

Even so, we did have some statistically strong and statistically significant measures, which demonstrates that AA does indeed effect performance and is not just a working as a blind placebo. So for a Phase I we are very pleased, and look forward to a larger and better controlled test for Phase II.

And I will remind you that I am giving the product away to prove it works. This debate is if it is safe or not.

INVESTED INTEREST/ other companies and products

Gaspari Halodrol Liquid Gels
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/gn/halo.html

Universal Animal Test
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/univ/test.html

Axis Labs Hemodraulix
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...ht=Hemodraulix


MORE READING MATERIAL

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...x+factor+study
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=5838031

MD?s. ?The New Mass Builder?
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=5678811

[cal62887]

DIET/EFA/NSAIDs


DIET


It is possible to lose fat with an increase in calories.. many people have reported this which makes it a great product for a Recomp, Bulk, or Cut.

Aeternitatis puts it like this while on X Factor:

It usually goes like this:

Cutting cals: 3-5lb LBM gain
lean bulking cals:8-15lb LBM gain, usually no/little fat gain
Crazy bulking cals: up to 25lbs plus fat

X Factor FAQ:

14. Are there any particular foods I should be eating to make the product better?

Focus on nutrient dense whole foods (basically your typical Body building diet) that have various minerals/vitamins/anti-oxidants in them. Possibly magnesium rich foods may hold some promise for some (spinach, brown rice, etc)

Other than that.. X Factor fits nicely into almost any diet and works specifically well with an increase in protein. whether bulking or cutting.


EFA

X Factor FAQ:

13. Do I need to avoid fish entirely?

You should still eat fish. In fact low dose supplementation of fish oil (2-3 capsules) does not appear to affect the effectiveness of X factor. The good thing is that in that in some cases the clinical benefits of fish oil appear to be directly tied to increases in cell membrane arachidonic acid. This is great news for the future of this supplement.

NEW STUDY:

This is the first paper of its kind, as most previous investigations of arachidonic acid supplementation safety involved Westerners with low daily intakes of Omega-3 fatty acids. Habitual daily intakes of DHA and EPA in this study ranged from 42 to 691mg and 98 to 991mg, respectively. The average intakes were about 310mg and 550 mg per day. Among the findings were the following.

2-Week Buildup Window:

It took 2 weeks for maximum arachidonic acid levels to be achieved in serum phospholipids. This was the first study to closely examine the time it took to reach peak levels with AA supplementations, and reinforces anecdotal observations of a 2-3 week ?loading? window before significant results are noted with supplementation in bodybuilders/athletes.

4-Week Washout:

Arachidonic acid levels remained elevated for a few weeks after supplementation was discontinued. They reached their pretreated levels after 4 weeks. This may also explain why some continue to notice progress in the immediate weeks following AA discontinuation.

Omega-3?s Had No Effect:

Peak arachidonic acid levels were similar in this study to other studies where AA was given to subjects with low dietary levels of Omega-3 fatty acids. At these levels there did not appear to be any significant Omega-3 antagonism of arachidonic acid. This study reinforces the anecdotal observations that low doses of fish oil or regular fish consumption do not appear to appreciably diminish the results of arachidonic acid supplementation.

NSAIDs

X Factor FAQ:

11. Anything I should avoid while taking x factor

NSAIDS are to be ideally avoided due to their direct effects on inhibiting the COX enzyme (central to the mechanism by which x factor works). However it may be that taking NSAIDS at certain times is worse than others with respect to muscle building. Certainly if you have a headache and are known to respond to NSAIDs you could probably take the medication without interference.


12. Do I need to eliminate everything that is anti-inflammatory?

No. The only anti-inflammatory in the literature (so far) known to have adverse effects on x factor's benefit in skeletal muscle are NSAIDs (or its herbal equivalent white willow bark) due to their direct effect on the COX enzyme. Indirect anti-inflammatory products (which many products claim as a side benefit) most likely have no effect on what x factor does. Actually some of the benefits of arachidonic acid appear to be through reduction of systemic oxidative stress/insulin levels (provided the muscle is active) which ironically may actually reduce COX-2 in non muscle tissues. So all this stuff can be in the same ballpark.

List of popular NSAIDs:

http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/nsaid.html

Natural COX2 Inhibitors:

Natural COX-2 inhibitors:

Omega-3 fats
Ginger
Turmeric (curcumin)
White willow bark
Boswellia
Devil's claw root
Green tea
Resveratrol (grape seed extract)
Rosemary
Bee propolis
Hops
Quercetin


Polygonum cusipidatum root
Phellodendron amurense bark


Chamomile
Celery seed
Ginko
Skullcap
Barberry
Goldenseal
Goldthread
Oregon grape
Yelllow root (Berberine)
Rhubarb
Currant
Cabbage
Chives
Clove
Thyme
Sage
Lavender
Marjoram
Ginseng (form?)
Cardamom
Feverfew

Anything else to avoid?:

Melatonin:

Melatonin effect on arachidonic acid metabolism to cyclooxygenase derivatives in human platelets

Abstract: The effect of melatonin on thrombin-induced [3H]-arachidonic acid (AA) metabolism to cyclooxygenase derivatives was determined in platelets obtained from normal volunteers at 0830 and 2030 h. Percent conversion of radioactive AA was generally greater at 2030 h than at 0830 h for every cyclooxygenase derivative analyzed. Micromolar or greater concentrations of melatonin decreased significantly the conversion of [3H]-AA to prostaglandin (PG) F2 and thromboxane (Tx) B2, and inhibited slightly the conversion to PGE2 and PGD2. After preincubation of platelets with 1 mM imidazole, the melatonin inhibitory effect was significant for PGF2 only. Melatonin (106 M) showed a significant inhibitory influence on platelet ATP release induced by phorbol-12 myristate-13 acetate (PMA) at 2030 h, an effect inhibited by 1 mM aspirin. These results indicate that at pharmacological concentrations melatonin inhibits human platelet cyclooxygenase.

*** thanks NO HYPE

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=2305511

[cal62887]

STACKING POSSIBILITIES

Here are some popular stacking combinations and a few links to upcoming logs? feel free to follow along!!!

Applied Nutriceuticals will sponsor 5 - 10 X-Factor + RPM + Drive

Little Rambo
Nuclear Arms
2425
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=6866721
Sapper
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=6862641
Ncangey

X Factor and Leviathan Reloaded2

robes1 FEMALE tester
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...ight=+x+factor
jamier11
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...light=x+factor

Mass FX and X Factor!!!

Babolat06
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...ight=+x+factor


Avant Research will sponsor 3 Napalm + X Factor

Punksurfer024


Designer Supplements will sponsor 3 X Factor + Lean Xtreme

Dirty Dean
Konvicted
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post121510121


Here are some popular logging combinations and a few links to the logs:




X Factor FAQ
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=2281231

Hyperdrol FAQ
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...&highlight=FAQ

Activate Xtreme FAQ
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3618041

RPM FAQ
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...1#post41854561


The Rest of the FAQs
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=4131083



Stack Combos:

1) X Factor either standalone or with a free T-booster is popular... check out the quoted post above for other great ideas.

2) All-in-one ArA products like Animal Test and HLGs by Gaspari are great products if you're looking to add more to your ArA supplementation (X Factor standalone).

Animal Test FAQ
http://www.animalpak.com/html/articl...ils.cfm?ID=386

[PrisonerDilemma]

First

But Company Promotion is that away

[cal62887]

Originally Posted by PrisonerDilemma

First

But Company Promotion is that away

Eh.. I almost succeeded....


I more or less just made this so that there was an easy reference post because I was tired of post hunting...

[J2jud]

Good job Cal.

[cal62887]

Originally Posted by J2jud

Good job Cal.

You think Ii should move this to the company promo.?

I'm not used to posting in there... Didn't know what constituted as company promo section material

[Diego Sanchez]

Wow. Thx for your effort and all the info.

[kknecht1]

Great Thread

[J2jud]

Originally Posted by cal62887

You think Ii should move this to the company promo.?

I'm not used to posting in there... Didn't know what constituted as company promo section material

That might be a good idea. On the other hand, it's good to have here in the supps section for members that dont view the "company promo" section.

[cal62887]

Guys...

Sorry that I posted this in the supp. section. I have PMed a MOD to move it. I'm not trying to force X Factor down your throats ... Just wanted to give a little information and didn't see this as a promotional post, notice all the links to other products...

So please don't take offense to it....

-cal

[PrisonerDilemma]

We're all willing to have X-Factor forced down our throats (no homo)

[cal62887]

Originally Posted by PrisonerDilemma

We're all willing to have X-Factor forced down our throats (no homo)

That just doesn't quite cover it....




But thanks for the support!

[getbustered]

lol, told ya.

Anyway, cal put tons of work into this, so everyone will just have to forgive him for making a little mistake in placement. As far as rookie mistakes go, I think that is one we can live with. Not nearly as bad as some things that non-rookie reps do around here.

[Sgt T-Man]

good post man, looked over it quickly as i am at work and can not read it.

looking forward to reading it tonight, as i am on day 6 of my X-Factor.

[cal62887]

Originally Posted by Sgt T-Man

good post man, looked over it quickly as i am at work and can not read it.

looking forward to reading it tonight, as i am on day 6 of my X-Factor.

hope this helps

[cal62887]

Originally Posted by getbustered

lol, told ya.

Anyway, cal put tons of work into this, so everyone will just have to forgive him for making a little mistake in placement. As far as rookie mistakes go, I think that is one we can live with. Not nearly as bad as some things that non-rookie reps do around here.

Thanks!

[cal62887]

Anyone have any more Ideas as to what I should include in this post?

Safety of X Factor?... basically just looking to cover all of the repeated questions on XF so there's an easy to access thread on it all.

[PrisonerDilemma]

That would be awesome.

[aeneas26]

I think adding to the safwety issue is a good idea. I am considering taking X factor, but the safety issue is what I am still researching. It seems like a lot of respected members say that if you are 30 or over it might not be a good idea to promote inflamation in your body.

I am still researching so don't hold me to that sentiment, and I am tempted to try the supplement. I just don't want to engage in any unnecessary risk.

[cal62887]

Originally Posted by aeneas26

I think adding to the safwety issue is a good idea. I am considering taking X factor, but the safety issue is what I am still researching. It seems like a lot of respected members say that if you are 30 or over it might not be a good idea to promote inflamation in your body.

I am still researching so don't hold me to that sentiment, and I am tempted to try the supplement. I just don't want to engage in any unnecessary risk.

Well I'll surely do a Safety post but I'll help you out real quick so that hopefully you can make a decision


How old are you? There is no age requirement besides >18 yrs. old however there seems to be a few reputable people who believe that in those 35+ the body may not be able to handle inflammation as well as those under the age of 35.

Other than the age requirement, there is also an issue with any pre-existing inflammation problems, chronic pain, or cancer. For inflammation I would suggest asking yourself how bad the condition is, if it's been a problem lately, or if it's been cured... Examples would be those with mild asthma have taken X Factor with no problem but those with more serious inflammatory conditions such as colitis should avoid ArA.

Chronic pain such as arthritis is another one that a user should be aware of. Many people who suffer from chronic pain have to take NSAIDs on a regular basis and therefore X Factor may not work due to the inhibited effects of the COX. This is also a problem since ArA can cause more inflammation.

ArA Cannot Cause Cancer... let me repeat.. I can't cause cancer however if you have cancer it can speed the growth of the condition:

23. Will x factor cause cancer?

No the ingredient in x factor is not a carcinogen but like other non cancer causing growth promoting agents could be used by an existing tumor

In one study involving the prostate arachidonic acid was observed to cause growth through the PI3K mechanism (PI3K inhibitors blocked growth promoting effects) (18)

PI3K is also the mechanism by which IGF-1 works. So one of the ways x-factor acts as an anabolic is similar to IGF-1.

Other studies have shown stimulation of protein synthesis by arachidonic acid through stimulation of the beta 2 receptor (19, 20) . But stimulation of beta 2 receptors doesn't cause cancer in non cancerous tissues.

Testosterone effects on cancer are analogous to the PI3K and beta 2 mechanisms I just mentioned. It doesn't cause cancer either, but cancer cells will make use of it as a growth promoting agent.

I would also avoid X Factor if you have had cancer even if you've been cleared and have no current problems. I say this just because cancer is nothing you want to play around with...

[aeneas26]

Thanks for the condensed version. That seems to concur with most of what I read. So as not to clutter up the thread, I might PM you some questions if that is alright.

[cal62887]

Originally Posted by aeneas26

Thanks for the condensed version. That seems to concur with most of what I read. So as not to clutter up the thread, I might PM you some questions if that is alright.

A-OK by me

[damnglass]

so if i high dosed green tea and grape seed extract from rpm would that have hindered my gains?i was using alot of both while i did a 2 month x factor cycle,recomped with same weight but slightly leaner,i did not know if it was my training or the product,if i were to try a second cycle without them how would that be any different?

im well aware that taking green tea during a workout could be counter productive,i also made the mistake of taking it close to a workout before i read in the supp science section of the damages and that may have contributed to hindering my x factor results.

[naturalguy]

GREAT thread, very informative

[cal62887]

Originally Posted by damnglass

so if i high dosed green tea and grape seed extract from rpm would that have hindered my gains?i was using alot of both while i did a 2 month x factor cycle,recomped with same weight but slightly leaner,i did not know if it was my training or the product,if i were to try a second cycle without them how would that be any different?

im well aware that taking green tea during a workout could be counter productive,i also made the mistake of taking it close to a workout before i read in the supp science section of the damages and that may have contributed to hindering my x factor results.

Neither one of those products could cause too much damage to an XF cycle. The list is more for basic knowledge than a list of products to avoid. RPM/Drive/X Factor are fast becoming one of the more popular stacks around and have been getting great feedback.

Just as with most things concerning X Factor, it basically comes down to the amount of Green Tea and Grape Seed you're taking. There is great feedback with SuperPump being used in conjunction with X Factor or other ArA products and SP250 contains a bit of White Willow (although there is now way to get the exact amount).

I'm willing to bet your cycle was not effected but you're more than welcome to try another cycle and omit whatever products you would like to and see how the second cycle goes.

[cal62887]

SAFETY? after all, better safe than sorry

The Main Issues:

1. Inflammatory Conditions
2. CANCER
3. Chronic Pain

Is it safe?

Yes, as a matter of fact it is a component of Baby food. Studies using up to 1.5 grams of Arachidonic acid per day for 50 days have shown no ill effects. (10,11,12) Our own study at one gram per day also showed no ill effects. (13) As a matter of fact x factor showed very strong trends at reducing an important inflammatory marker predictive of total mortality. The marker reduced was IL-6 while corn oil (another omega 6) meanwhile had no effect (14) So X factor may very well have a protective benefit.

INFLAMMATORY CONDITIONS

X Factor FAQ:

18. Is there anyone who should not take X factor?

Anyone with a inflammatory condition or family history of inflammatory condition should not take x factor.

***pretty clear cut and simple.

I?m sure there are ton more but the ones that come to mind would be:
-IBS
-Asthma
-Osteoarthritis
-Multiple Sclerosis
-Rheumatoid Arthritis
-(hopefully more people will be able to add to this list)
** Just be aware of your current/past conditions and family history.

Interesting to Note

Originally Posted by Aeternitatis

X-Factor? Reduces Inflammatory Marker

Study suggests arachidonic acid may offer health-protecting benefit to exercising individuals.

June 17, 2006: Jupiter, FL.
Researchers at the Exercise & Sports Nutrition Laboratory in Baylor University have concluded their preliminary studies into the effects of arachidonic acid (AA) supplementation (X-Factor?, Molecular Nutrition) on resistance-trained males. Their results were presented at the International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) conference this past weekend in Las Vegas Nevada. One facet of this study looked at the effects of AA supplementation on Interleukin-6 (IL-6), a primary regulator of inflammation in the body. Analysis of the data showed that the X-factor group noticed a trend towards significant reductions in serum IL-6 after 50 days of supplementation.

In addition to being a central regulator of inflammation, Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is the primary stimulus for the hepatic production of C-reactive protein. IL-6 is associated with a number of adverse health conditions including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune disorder, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, osteoporosis and cancer. IL-6 is used as a primary serum marker of inflammation, and is an independent predictor of mortality in a number of serious illnesses. A decrease in serum IL-6 may represent a protective effect against systemic inflammation.

Example of the Above Study

So I have seen the Baylor study about X-factor reducing one of the primary markers for inflammation in the body Il-6. I was skepitcal because it just did not makes sense that a product could induce muscular inflammation but reduce systemic inflammation in the body, but x-factor seemed safe and effective so I just dismissed my skepticism.

I think Molecular Nutrition may have really stumbled on to something that may have very broad implications in not only undertanding health and nutrition, as well a creating a heck of a good anabolic compund, but I think that X-factor may really have broad implications for the way inflammation is understood and this could revolutinize facets of the health care industry.

For years, despite the fact that I brush my teeth and floss rather regularly, my gums would always bleed whether with flossing or just brushing. Now inflamed/bleeding gums are a pretty good indication of systemic inflammation in the body, and systemic inflammation is begining to be understood as contributing to a number of health problems/disease. I just noticed this the past couple of days and did not make the conncetion until now, but my gums no longer bleed with brushing or flossing. This may seem very insignificant facially, but put in context of the supplement that I am using this is absolutely momentous. I really think MN may be on the verge of something huge with this, not only for bodybuilding purposes, but for general health and well being. I would love for Aeter, phosphate bond, (Bustered is useless) to repond to this.

Response To Above Post

IL-6 is a key pro-inflammatory cytokine. Among other things, it plays a role in fever and the "acute phase" inflammatory response to injury or trauma. It is also the key stimulus for the hepatic production of C-reactive protein. IL-6 and C-reactive protein elevations are linked to a number of undesirebale health conditions including cardivascular disease, diabetes, and certain forms of cancer. They are also linked to systemic inflammation (aka Metabolic Syndrome).

The reduction in IL-6 was probably the most important finding of the Baylor study, IMO. We believe this is tied to AA (combined with exercise) improving the physiological response to training in skeletal muscle tissue, which in turn improves insulin sensitivity and control. There has long been a tight association noted between hyperinsulinemia (caused by insulin resistance) and systemic inflammation.

AA is still an "as needed" pro-inflammatory, so while it seems to reduce inflammatory marker levels in subjects taking it with training, it can still be used locally by the body "as needed" if you have certain inflammatory conditions. I suspect there is some middle ground where some people may notice reduced signs of minor inflammation.

Is it safe for women to take?

Yes. Arachidonic acid has been taken by men and women for thousands of years. In fact, wild cattle and pigs have approximately 10-12 times more Arachidonic acid (per gram of fat) than the domesticated cattle we are used to eating today.

**In fact we have two Female Loggers coming up in the future. Link to robes1 Log is in the possible stacks in my post above.

[cal62887]

CANCER

Will x factor cause cancer?

No the ingredient in x factor is not a carcinogen but like other non cancer causing growth promoting agents could be used by an existing tumor

In one study involving the prostate arachidonic acid was observed to cause growth through the PI3K mechanism (PI3K inhibitors blocked growth promoting effects) (18)

PI3K is also the mechanism by which IGF-1 works. So one of the ways x-factor acts as an anabolic is similar to IGF-1.

Other studies have shown stimulation of protein synthesis by arachidonic acid through stimulation of the beta 2 receptor (19, 20) . But stimulation of beta 2 receptors doesn't cause cancer in non cancerous tissues.

Testosterone effects on cancer are analogous to the PI3K and beta 2 mechanisms I just mentioned. It doesn't cause cancer either, but cancer cells will make use of it as a growth promoting agent.

Originally Posted by w_llewellyn

You are going to see a lot of mention of AA in relation to such diseases, as it is used a substrate to create many powerful mediators of cell growth. In diseased states, it is often the misuse of arachidonic acid by the body, not necessarily the presence of this EFA itself, that will be important to progression. It should definitely not be taken if you have cancer, but healthy bodybuilders don't have much to worry about with AA.

Study

J Nutr. 2004 Dec;134(12 Suppl):3421S-3426S.
Dietary (n-6) PUFA and intestinal tumorigenesis. Whelan J, McEntee MF.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, and mortality due to colorectal cancer is only surpassed by lung cancer. Epidemiological studies demonstrate that dietary polyunsaturated fats can have a profound effect on colorectal cancer risk. Experimental data indicate that modulation of cellular (n-6) PUFA metabolism can affect the progression of the disease. This paper discusses the role (n-6) PUFA play in promoting intestinal tumorigenesis and how dietary PUFA from different families interact to modify the neoplastic process. Dietary PUFA that attenuate arachidonic acid metabolism [such as (n-3) PUFA] have antineoplastic properties, whereas those that augment arachidonic acid metabolism, such as linoleic, gamma-linolenic, and arachidonic acids do not appear to enhance tumorigenesis when added to the Western diet but may diminish the beneficial effects of other dietary lipids. It is the relative contributions of the different dietary PUFA that may determine overall risk for and progression of the disease.

Cancer. 1999 Sep 15;86(6):1019-27.
Association of energy and fat intake with prostate carcinoma risk: results from The Netherlands Cohort Study.

Schuurman AG, van den Brandt PA, Dorant E, Brants HA, Goldbohm RA.
Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The roles of energy and fat intake as risk factors for prostate carcinoma are still questionable. Therefore, these factors were evaluated in the Netherlands Cohort Study described in this article. METHODS: The cohort study consisted of 58,279 men ages 55-69 years at baseline in 1986. After 6.3 years of follow-up, 642 incident prostate carcinoma cases were available for analysis. Intake of energy, fat, and separate fatty acids were measured by means of a self-administered questionnaire; fat intake was adjusted for energy by regression analysis. The case-cohort method was used to calculate rate ratios (RRs). Analyses were conducted for all prostate carcinoma cases together as well as for case subgroups (latent vs. nonlatent and localized vs. advanced). RESULTS: No associations were found in multivariate analyses between prostate carcinoma and intake of energy, total fat, total saturated fatty acids, or total trans unsaturated fatty acids (RR highest vs. lowest quintile: 0.99, 1.10, 1.19, and 0.99, respectively). Oleic acid intake showed a nonsignificant positive association (RR = 1.38, 95% CI: 0.88-2.19). Positive associations were also observed for intake of oleic acid in subgroup analyses. Linoleic (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0. 56-1.09) and linolenic (RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-1.04) acid intake were associated with nonsignificantly decreased risks; only for linolenic acid did these associations persist in subgroup analyses. No associations were found for intake of arachidonic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid, or docosahexaenoic acid. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that certain fatty acids might be involved in prostate carcinoma occurrence, although the possibility that these were chance findings cannot be ruled out. Copyright 1999 American Cancer Society.

Bull Cancer. 2005 Jul;92(7):670-84. Related Articles, Links
[Dietary fatty acids and colorectal and prostate cancers: epidemiological studies]

Astorg P. UMR Inserm 557/INRA/CNAM Epidemiologie nutritionnelle, Institut scientifique et technique de l'Alimentation, Conservatoire national des Arts et Metiers, 5 rue du Vertbois, 75003 Paris. pierre.astorg@cnam.fr

OBJECTIVE: This study reviews epidemiological works having studied the associations of dietary fatty acids, especially of n-6 or n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), with the risks of colorectal and prostate cancers. METHODS: The epidemiological studies reviewed were those having tested the association of colorectal and prostate cancer risk with the dietary intake or the blood or adipose tissue levels of fatty acids, especially of n-6 and n-3 PUFA, and with the dietary intake of fish and seafood. RESULTS: Most studies based on a dietary questionnaire did not find any association of the risk of colorectal cancer with the consumption of either total fatty acids or any particular fatty acid, after adjustment for total energy intake had been made. A few studies suggest that trans fatty acid consumption could increase colorectal cancer risk. Most studies based either on a dietary questionnaire or on biomarkers, did not find any association of total, saturated or monounsaturated fatty acid, as well as of linoleic or arachidonic acids, with prostate cancer risk, after adjustment for total energy intake. Most studies failed to find an association of prostate cancer risk with fish or long-chain n-3 PUFA intake, but recent cohort studies did find an inverse association of fish consumption with the risk of the latest stages of prostate cancer. In contrast, alpha-linolenic acid intake was associated with an increase of prostate cancer risk in a majority of epidemiological studies, but other studies did not find this association. This latter point might be of concern, and needs to be clarified by other results, especially those of ongoing prospective studies.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jul;80(1):204-16. Related Articles, Links
Dietary intake of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids and the risk of prostate cancer.

Leitzmann MF, Stampfer MJ, Michaud DS, Augustsson K, Colditz GC, Willett WC, Giovannucci EL.
Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. leitzmann@mail.nih.gov

BACKGROUND: Laboratory studies have shown that n-3 fatty acids inhibit and n-6 fatty acids stimulate prostate tumor growth, but whether the dietary intake of these fatty acids affects prostate cancer risk in humans remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We prospectively evaluated the association between intakes of alpha-linolenic (ALA; 18:3n-3), eicosapentaenoic (EPA; 20:5n-3), docosahexaenoic (DHA; 22:6n-3), linoleic (LA; 18:2n-6), and arachidonic (AA; 20:4n-6) acids and prostate cancer risk. DESIGN: A cohort of 47866 US men aged 40-75 y with no cancer history in 1986 was followed for 14 y. RESULTS: During follow-up, 2965 new cases of total prostate cancer were ascertained, 448 of which were advanced prostate cancer. ALA intake was unrelated to the risk of total prostate cancer. In contrast, the multivariate relative risks (RRs) of advanced prostate cancer from comparisons of extreme quintiles of ALA from nonanimal sources and ALA from meat and dairy sources were 2.02 (95% CI: 1.35, 3.03) and 1.53 (0.88, 2.66), respectively. EPA and DHA intakes were related to lower prostate cancer risk. The multivariate RRs of total and advanced prostate cancer from comparisons of extreme quintiles of the combination of EPA and DHA were 0.89 (0.77, 1.04) and 0.74 (0.49, 1.08), respectively. LA and AA intakes were unrelated to the risk of prostate cancer. The multivariate RR of advanced prostate cancer from a comparison of extreme quintiles of the ratio of LA to ALA was 0.62 (0.45, 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Increased dietary intakes of ALA may increase the risk of advanced prostate cancer. In contrast, EPA and DHA intakes may reduce the risk of total and advanced prostate cancer.

Great thread on the matter?
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=806085

[cal62887]

Originally Posted by naturalguy

GREAT thread, very informative

Thanks Naturalguy !!!!

[kerplunk]

two thumbs up, nice posts.