PDA

View Full Version : What happened to Adonis X



musicfreak
03-20-2006, 02:08 PM
I took this product about a year ago and had some decent results with it. Does anyone know what happened to it. I can't find it on Syntrax's web site. If it is not avalible is there something better? Thanks in advance.

Slated
03-20-2006, 02:11 PM
it was a knock off of Molecular Nutrition's X-Factor which is a patented product.

Get the REAL thing

Get X-Factor!

Blap Blaow
03-20-2006, 02:19 PM
^^^
what that bloke said.

Syntrax even tried a second rip-off, Hyper-H. They're getting/were getting their asses sued over it; http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=8390003&postcount=6

cakedonkey
03-20-2006, 03:16 PM
I know, what the hell is up with that ****? I used to think Syntrax/SI03 was a half-respectable company but that is just bogus.

daveburton
03-20-2006, 10:13 PM
I know, what the hell is up with that ****? I used to think Syntrax/SI03 was a half-respectable company but that is just bogus.

Well we all learn in the end

davedepezio
03-21-2006, 07:27 AM
They have a product called Hyper H that looks like a replacement for it. Also I have never had any problems with SI03/Syntrax I think they are a very respectable company. I love there Nectar.

nni
03-21-2006, 07:31 AM
They have a product called Hyper H that looks like a replacement for it. Also I have never had any problems with SI03/Syntrax I think they are a very respectable company. I love there Nectar.

hyperH and adonis is what they are getting sued for.

rollinn10s
03-21-2006, 07:34 AM
I was looking at it and I thought it looked like a really decent product has anyone tried it?

nni
03-21-2006, 07:37 AM
I was looking at it and I thought it looked like a really decent product has anyone tried it?

yes its called x-factor sold by molecular nutrition.

SI03 Board Rep
03-21-2006, 07:57 AM
Ok guys first off I am not at liberty to discuss legal matters so please don't ask. What I can say is that Hyper H is a patent pending product. That is designed to increase testastarone and increase insulin levels. If anyone has any questions about the product please feel free to let me know.

jmil
03-21-2006, 08:00 AM
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/syn/hyper.html


I agree in that these matters certainly should not be discussed on this board...but Hyper H clearly says ARACHIDONIC ACID, unless you are changing the formula and keeping the same name?

quigs
03-21-2006, 10:41 AM
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/syn/hyper.html


I agree in that these matters certainly should not be discussed on this board...but Hyper H clearly says ARACHIDONIC ACID, unless you are changing the formula and keeping the same name?

I think that he's stating this because the molecular patent is for arachidonic acid's use in muscle anabolism...not its use in test/insulin increase.

Blap Blaow
03-21-2006, 10:54 AM
I think that he's stating this because the molecular patent is for arachidonic acid's use in muscle anabolism...not its use in test/insulin increase.
exactly.

My guess is Adonis was promoted as an anabolic supplement (as X-Factor is) so they discontinued it and release the 'new' Hyper-H which works through a 'different mechanism' :rolleyes:

jmil
03-21-2006, 11:10 AM
You guys are like the ones who ruin the surprise parties!!!

brucethejuice
03-21-2006, 11:18 AM
Ok all legal stuff aside has any one tried the Hyper-H ? I ran across it the other day when I was surfing around and thought that it looked intresting. I am thinking about using when I get done with my SwoleN log.

Fuerza_M
03-21-2006, 11:24 AM
I check the ingredients of hyper h an x factor and look very similar, the only thing i saw different is hyper-h contains Mortierella alpina oil and x-factor AA Oil not sure the difference maybe is the same thing with different name, somebody knows?

Blap Blaow
03-21-2006, 11:24 AM
Ok all legal stuff aside has any one tried the Hyper-H ? I ran across it the other day when I was surfing around and thought that it looked intresting. I am thinking about using when I get done with my SwoleN log.
it's pretty much the same ingredients as X-Factor for exactly the same price for a 50 day cycle at 1g AA per day. However 2 bottles of X-Factor get you a perfect 50 day cycle, whereas you'd need to buy 3 bottles of Hyper-H to do the same cycle with some left over (which then makes it more expensive).

Stick with the X.

xJonathanx
03-21-2006, 11:26 AM
Ok all legal stuff aside has any one tried the Hyper-H ? I ran across it the other day when I was surfing around and thought that it looked intresting. I am thinking about using when I get done with my SwoleN log.

You will not find much feedback on Hyper-H, as I have searched myself and found little to no results. However, the feedback from X-Factor is very likely to be identical to Hyper-H. They have the same main ingredient - Arachadonic Acid - the only difference is dosage, price, etc.

Some users would rather purchase Hyper-H, as it is lower-dosed and cheaper. Maybe for health or financial reasons. But there will always be a second choice to everything. MacDonalds to Burger King, Chevy and Ford, etc. While Mr Llewellyn has clearly advertised and educated the public about his AA compound, I can't say that having 2 similar products is anything new. We live in a competitive world and everybody wants the same thing. Just my .02

-Jon

downwitit
03-21-2006, 12:14 PM
Ok all legal stuff aside has any one tried the Hyper-H ? I ran across it the other day when I was surfing around and thought that it looked intresting. I am thinking about using when I get done with my SwoleN log.
I haven't tried it but I would think that you should see the same results that many of the Xfactor users have seen. I think it would be a good product to try out when you are done with your SwoleN.

hooker
11-14-2008, 03:34 PM
While Mr Llewellyn has clearly advertised and educated the public about his AA compound, I can't say that having 2 similar products is anything new.

-Jon

Has Mr. Llewellyn educated the public on the fact that a published medical study confirmed that AA does nothing at all to promote statistically greater gains in strength, muscle mass, or influence markers of muscle hypertrophy:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18045476

I mean...according to this study, AA does absolutely nothing more than a placebo.

cal62887
11-14-2008, 04:08 PM
Nice bump, Hooker.

Bill has indeed responded to this study and for your entertainment pleasure, I have posted that response below. Enjoy!





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/bitstream/2104/4890/1/Mike_Roberts_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/showthread.php?t=5923261&highlight=Hemodraulix


MORE READING MATERIAL

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=1245741&highlight=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

hooker
11-14-2008, 04:34 PM
Nice bump, Hooker.

Bill has indeed responded to this study and for your entertainment pleasure, I have posted that response below. Enjoy!




I notice you have used the word "entertainment"...I used the word proof. I've presented medical proof, you've presented a post from someone financially motivated to dispute this medical study which was published and peer-reviewed.

I'm open to seeing another study that supports his claims. It should be no problem, if he's right...but this one...this scientific study, published in a reputable medical journal....refutes any claims as to the anabolic properties of this particular compound.

Numerous medical studies have been proven wrong, so I'm sure there is future potential for this product to show anabolic properties.

But right now, the only published medical study, looking at whether AA is anabolic, suggests that it does not do what it is claimed to do.

It is not anabolic (according to this study) and does not increase strength. I'm more than willing to accept published medical studies to the contrary, as proof otherwise.

You have presented ad-copy as proof. I've presented a published medical journal to the contrary. I'd ask you to present the same, in the interest of research and proof.