D aspartic acid (DAA) Test booster-the next big thing?

**MWarfare** · 02-17-2010, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by MWarfare
Never used the word ANABOLIC... not on our label that way either... I beleive I used myogenic in a prior post. So, Hence our terminology Myobolic-SERMS ... call it semantics...

Check out this interesting study below:

Iv'e extracted this section for my point...

"The activation of NF-kappaB has been observed also in muscles subjected to acute and intense exercise, implying that inflammatory processes may take place under the conditions of intense exercise. This may cause muscle damage and protein breakdown. Therefore, using NF-kappaB pathway inhibitors may prove beneficial in attenuating NF-kappaB-associated muscle damage in both disuse atrophy and strenuous exercise."

So, NFkappB inhibition... via its regulation of the inflamatory process after intense exercise, if inhibited... can reduce muscle damage... therefore, reducing muscle catabolism... and providing an overall beneficial enviornment for muscle anabolism and repair to occur. So, unlike anabolics that just say to the muscle cell "grow" ... Nf-KappaB Inhibitors work by reducing intense exersice induced inflamatory processes and damages caused by this process in the muscle, which also enables it to repair more efficinetly. This enhanced ability to repair itself from injury has been presented in the studies from my prior post (top of this entry)..

myogenic is an inappropriate word for what we are talking about here. its pretty much the same thing as anabolism. curcumin and other NF kappa beta inhibitors are not myogenic

BTW, did you know that cortisol is a potent inhibitor of NF-kappa beta activity?

also, remember that muscle damage is the stimulus for compensatory hypertrophy so to say that reducing it leads to greater anabolism is misguided. There has to be a balance. If you reduce the inflammatory response too much you may reduce the rebound increase in protein synthesis and satellite cell recruitment

Originally Posted by Patrick Arnold

myogenic is an inappropriate word for what we are talking about here. its pretty much the same thing as anabolism. curcumin and other NF kappa beta inhibitors are not myogenic

BTW, did you know that cortisol is a potent inhibitor of NF-kappa beta activity?

also, remember that muscle damage is the stimulus for compensatory hypertrophy so to say that reducing it leads to greater anabolism is misguided. There has to be a balance. If you reduce the inflammatory response too much you may reduce the rebound increase in protein synthesis and satellite cell recruitment

I just showed about 20 studies showing it is clearly has myogenic properties...

Also... I'm glad you picked cortisol to compare to Curcumin.... Here is why...

You just can't compare Cortisol to Curcumin... Completely different class of comounds ... Cortisol is a corticosteroid and curcumin is a polyphenol...

CORTISOL: Glucocorticoid excess is characterized by increased adiposity, skeletal myopathy, it inhibits the immune sytem, decreases reproductive funtion, increases cardiovascular disease, cholesterol and insulin resistance... Plus, it is an antagonist to anablism, reduces amino acid uptake and protein synthesis... as you may know, although we know much of the interaction, the "precise" molecular mechanisms for all of these effects are unknown. however, when talking about muscle growth... Cortisol is a purely catabolic hormone...

Curcumin has been shown to do eactly the oppostie of ALL of these just listed Negative effects... I would say it is the ANTI CORTISOL... it reduces adiposity, enhances the immune system, inhibits estrogen activity (SERM), inhibits cardiovascular dysfunction, lowers cholesterol, decreases insulin resistance, plus it enhances myogenesis and is anti-catabolic... if you look at all the studies I showed...when comparing Curcumin to Cortisol... Curcumin actually has the exact opposite effects in the body... the only similarity of cortisol and Curcumin is the inhibiton of inflamation... (Which also happens to be one of the only desireable effect of corticosteroid use)

Muscle cell growth via sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy occurs during training stress. Muscle cells experience microtrauma to the myofibrils, which then repairs so that muscles can handle the same load the next time around. That of course is how a muscle grows. Inhibiting excess inflamation in the trained muscles that are experiencing microtraumas is how Curcumin, via NF-kappaB inhibition, exerts its myogenic/anti-catabolic effects. Not by inhibiting the damage caused by training...

**MWarfare** · 02-17-2010, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by hyp_gnosis

Trust me I'm far from a biochemist.

The intentional obfuscation <see I can use big words too>

of your ingredients is relatively easy to circumnavigate with a Google search and the help of other knowledgeable forum members. You haven't even released the product and your competitors already know what you are concealing in the chemical nomenclature.

As such I recommend that you keep to the K.I.S.S principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) and remember transparent labeling is what most customers want. One only needs to read through post after post on BB.com of customers complaining about the use of prop blends and threads devoted to trying to figure out what some weird assed chemical compound is and whether it is safe to ingest or the amounts of the actives in a prop blend.

Anyway, thanks for answering my questions.

No worries... We'll definitely be considering adding the words Resveratrol and Curcumin next to their chemical nomenclatures...

FYI... other than those... the rest of the labels are pretty transparent... Even our proprietary blends are no more than a few ingredients each... we break them down into sub groups on the label... still gives us a little protection on our formulas from competitors... but is MUCH easier for a consumer to understand what dosages they are getting...

**MWarfare** · 02-17-2010, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick Arnold

please try to limit your pasting of abstracts to those that are only really necessary to make a point. You are going way too overboard with superfluous and/or barely relevant references. It makes it laborious to read your posts (or maybe that is your point.....hmmm)

There has obviously been ample research done on Muscle Warfare products and technologies... When you get a chance to launch a product and express what you are doing, you want to share all of the details. I know that the readers, who look at all the science, know that the studies are entirely relevant... Maybe that isn't your style of info presentation on this board... But this is where we are coming from. We back up what we say.

Of course you and I both know, and some of the viewers of this thread, that we both have a vested interest. Mine, to gain credibility on this board for our science and help build my new brand. You've already got a lot of credibility here. So, yours is to challenge me to build yours. No worries... I'm cool with it all or I wouldnt be here pressing forward. We're both creating PR for this new technology, which can only help us both...

So, let the debate continue....

**deserusan** · 02-17-2010, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by Bane

That actually made me laugh

Originally Posted by Patrick Arnold

yeah i know, cuz its complete BS

Originally Posted by -MBS-

It's a little known expedite so it doesn't surprise me that neither of you have heard of it.

Originally Posted by Bane

Either BS or their attorney is trying to milk them some extra money promising them that their patent will be miraculously awarded in less than a year.
Great fun when they face the first examiner's answer will it be

That is if they have files a patent.

It's true actually.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...700_708_02.htm

Attorney's worth their hourly rate in intellectual property are familiar with 37 CFR 1.102. I don't know, I knew about it and I'm not attorney but the one we work with certainly won't walk us into immediate rejection....lol. Anyway, carry on.

**Ironman88** · 02-17-2010, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by deserusan

It's true actually.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...700_708_02.htm

Attorney's worth their hourly rate in intellectual property are familiar with 37 CFR 1.102. I don't know, I knew about it and I'm not attorney but the one we work with certainly won't walk us into immediate rejection....lol.

Haha...Do you think they actually have a basis for the petition considering the outlined criterion though?

**Rev 13:18** · 02-17-2010, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by deserusan

It's true actually.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...700_708_02.htm

Attorney's worth their hourly rate in intellectual property are familiar with 37 CFR 1.102. I don't know, I knew about it and I'm not attorney but the one we work with certainly won't walk us into immediate rejection....lol. Anyway, carry on.

The provision does exist, how do you like that.

**deserusan** · 02-17-2010, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ironman88

Haha...Do you think they actually have a basis for the petition considering the outlined criterion though?

Who knows. That's up to the patent office and the appointed IP attorney to hash out. If they can pull it off, then more power to them. Good attorneys can spin just about anything. Remember OJ?

**Bane** · 02-17-2010, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Rev 13:18

The provision does exist, how do you like that.

I never said whether such a thing exists or not duh,I am not a patent attorney and certainly my health is good(thank the Lord) and none of my patents is a public service,terrorism counter, energy or environment saviour(selfish bastard that I am

).
I still am willing to bet good money they will not get their patent in less than a year if they get it all

**Ironman88** · 02-17-2010, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by deserusan

Who knows. That's up to the patent office and the appointed IP attorney to hash out. If they can pull it off, then more power to them. Good attorneys can spin just about anything. Remember OJ?

Yea, I guess if the glove fits PA could be shyt out of luck, or is he? On a side note...can't wait to see how many more pages this thread gets.

**Bane** · 02-17-2010, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Ironman88

Yea, I guess if the glove fits PA could be shyt out of luck, or is he? On a side note...can't wait to see how many more pages this thread gets.

With Pat's patent filed 3 years ago I don't foresee him breaking much of sweat over this. Speaking of Pat why was he banned?

**Rev 13:18** · 02-17-2010, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Bane

I never said whether such a thing exists or not duh,I am not a patent attorney and certainly my health is good(thank the Lord) and none of my patents is a public service,terrorism counter, energy or environment saviour(selfish bastard that I am

).
I still am willing to bet good money they will not get their patent in less than a year if they get it all

I wasn't referring to any previous post by you but thought the provision was bunk, surprised it does exist. I agree the chances of their patents being issued earlier given the criteria required are twofold:

1) Slim
to
2) None

**Rev 13:18** · 02-17-2010, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Bane

With Pat's patent filed 3 years ago I don't foresee him breaking much of sweat over this. Speaking of Pat why was he banned?

Was wondering the same thing, was PA banned as a result of post(s) in this thread?

**deserusan** · 02-17-2010, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Rev 13:18

I wasn't referring to any previous post by you but thought the provision was bunk, surprised it does exist. I agree the chances of their patents being issued earlier given the criteria required are twofold:

1) Slim
to
2) None

If you read the entire law, there are numerous ways to get a patent this special designation.

**Rev 13:18** · 02-17-2010, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by deserusan

If you read the entire law, there are numerous ways to get a patent this special designation.

Ok then,

just slim chances :-)

**Ironman88** · 02-17-2010, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Rev 13:18

Was wondering the same thing, was PA banned as a result of post(s) in this thread?

This is the only thread he posted in today. I would take it as a serious insult if I were him. He's a genius swimming in a sea of supplement tards. Although I must admit, accurate information does seem to be a bannable offense here.

**DR_P** · 02-17-2010, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by MWarfare

So, yours is to challenge me to build yours. No worries... I'm cool with it all or I wouldnt be here pressing forward. We're both creating PR for this new technology, which can only help us both...

So, let the debate continue....

Without evaluating the actual scientific relevance of your posts, I can whoelheartedly say that I absolutely appreciate your willingness to face scientific debate and not to flee when being challenged. This is what distinguishes you from a few certain company reps* who use to respond to a scientific challenge with personal insults, accusations and their obligatory sentence: "your arguments are all wrong because you are a competitor and jealous hater".

I appreciate that you don't go to these low levels and wish that many others would behave like you.

* I think everybody knows who is addressed

**RebuildMe** · 02-18-2010, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by Bane

Speaking of Pat why was he banned?

Yeah I've been following the whole thread from the beginning and was wondering the same thing.

**MWarfare** · 02-18-2010, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by DR_P

Without evaluating the actual scientific relevance of your posts, I can whoelheartedly say that I absolutely appreciate your willingness to face scientific debate and not to flee when being challenged. This is what distinguishes you from a few certain company reps* who use to respond to a scientific challenge with personal insults, accusations and their obligatory sentence: "your arguments are all wrong because you are a competitor and jealous hater".

I appreciate that you don't go to these low levels and wish that many others would behave like you.

* I think everybody knows who is addressed

I really appreciate that... We really beleive in what we are doing with the Muscle Warfare brand... thanks

**De__eB** · 02-18-2010, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by RebuildMe

Yeah I've been following the whole thread from the beginning and was wondering the same thing.

also wondering...it seems like a few 'high profile' people have been banned recently.

**RebuildMe** · 02-18-2010, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by De__eB

also wondering...it seems like a few 'high profile' people have been banned recently.

Beejis60?

**Rev 13:18** · 02-18-2010, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by RebuildMe

Beejis60?

Hope this trend does not continue as the forums will become suckish.

**De__eB** · 02-18-2010, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by RebuildMe

Beejis60?

and the hugeeeeee

**MWarfare** · 02-18-2010, 08:13 AM

Here is an interesting study on the topic growth hormone release and N-Methyl-D-Aspartate... this specific study uses mammilian animal models to show the results of Growth Hormone increase immediately after administration of only 5mg of N-Methyl-D-Aspartate.... Get this..... Instant 1,095% Increase!

Due to the previous studies I've shown that show synergistic action in intact organ systems between the two, I'd like to see this study run with a combo of N-Methyl-D-Aspartate and D-Aspartic Acid to check for even more synergism on GH release...Due to all the data I have seen.... I'm pretty certain we would see a potential nice pop....

J Anim Sci. 1996 Mar;74(3):597-602.

N-methyl-D,L-aspartate-induced growth hormone secretion in barrows: possible mechanisms of action.

Estienne MJ, Harter-Dennis JM, Barb CR, Hartsock TG, Campbell RM, Armstrong JD.
Department of Agriculture, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne 21853, USA.
Four experiments were conducted to determine mechanisms by which n-methyl-d,l-aspartate (NMA) increases serum concentrations of growth hormone (GH). Blood samples were collected from barrows every 15 min for 2 h (Exp. 1, 2, and 3) or 3 h (Exp. 4) immediately before and immediately after i.v. treatments. In Exp. 1, barrows (n = 4/treatment) received either .9% saline or 1.25, 2.5, or 5 mg of NMA/kg of BW. The change in circulating GH concentrations was greater (P < .05) for barrows receiving 2.5 mg (by 883%) or 5.0 mg of NMA/kg of BW (by 1,095%) than for those injected with saline. In Exp. 2, barrows (n = 4/treatment) received NMA (2.5 mg/kg of BW) or injections of 1.25 mg of the pure d or pure 1 isomers of NMA/kg of BW. Growth hormone concentrations increased by 177% (P < .025) after NMA treatment and by 245% (P < .01) after injection of the pure d isomer of NMA. The pure 1 isomer of NMA had no effect (P > .1) on GH concentrations. In Exp. 3, barrows received NMA (2.5 mg/kg of BW) 10 min after i.m. injection of saline (n = 7) or ******** hydrochloride ( n = 8; 19.9 mg/kg of BW), an n-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist. The NMA increased (P < .01) GH concentrations by 289% in saline-pretreated barrows but had no effect (P > .1) on barrows pretreated with ******** hydrochloride. In Exp. 4, barrows (n = 4/treatment) received NMA 3 h after i.v. pretreatment with antisera to GH-releasing factor (GRF; 154 mL) or no pretreatment. Serum GH concentrations increased by 166% (P < .05) after injection of NMA in barrows receiving no pretreatment. The NMA had no effect (P > .1) on GH concentrations in barrows receiving antisera to GRF. Our results support the concept that NMDA stimulates GRF, and hence GH secretion, by activating an NMDA receptor.

**RebuildMe** · 02-18-2010, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by MWarfare

Here is an interesting study on the topic growth hormone release and N-Methyl-D-Aspartate... this specific study uses mammilian animal models to show the results of Growth Hormone increase immediately after administration of only 5mg of N-Methyl-D-Aspartate.... Get this..... Instant 1,095% Increase!

Due to the previous studies I've shown that show synergistic action in intact organ systems between the two, I'd like to see this study run with a combo of N-Methyl-D-Aspartate and D-Aspartic Acid to check for even more synergism on GH release...Due to all the data I have seen.... I'm pretty certain we would see it....

J Anim Sci. 1996 Mar;74(3):597-602.

N-methyl-D,L-aspartate-induced growth hormone secretion in barrows: possible mechanisms of action.

Estienne MJ, Harter-Dennis JM, Barb CR, Hartsock TG, Campbell RM, Armstrong JD.
Department of Agriculture, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne 21853, USA.
Four experiments were conducted to determine mechanisms by which n-methyl-d,l-aspartate (NMA) increases serum concentrations of growth hormone (GH). Blood samples were collected from barrows every 15 min for 2 h (Exp. 1, 2, and 3) or 3 h (Exp. 4) immediately before and immediately after i.v. treatments. In Exp. 1, barrows (n = 4/treatment) received either .9% saline or 1.25, 2.5, or 5 mg of NMA/kg of BW. The change in circulating GH concentrations was greater (P < .05) for barrows receiving 2.5 mg (by 883%) or 5.0 mg of NMA/kg of BW (by 1,095%) than for those injected with saline. In Exp. 2, barrows (n = 4/treatment) received NMA (2.5 mg/kg of BW) or injections of 1.25 mg of the pure d or pure 1 isomers of NMA/kg of BW. Growth hormone concentrations increased by 177% (P < .025) after NMA treatment and by 245% (P < .01) after injection of the pure d isomer of NMA. The pure 1 isomer of NMA had no effect (P > .1) on GH concentrations. In Exp. 3, barrows received NMA (2.5 mg/kg of BW) 10 min after i.m. injection of saline (n = 7) or ******** hydrochloride ( n = 8; 19.9 mg/kg of BW), an n-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist. The NMA increased (P < .01) GH concentrations by 289% in saline-pretreated barrows but had no effect (P > .1) on barrows pretreated with ******** hydrochloride. In Exp. 4, barrows (n = 4/treatment) received NMA 3 h after i.v. pretreatment with antisera to GH-releasing factor (GRF; 154 mL) or no pretreatment. Serum GH concentrations increased by 166% (P < .05) after injection of NMA in barrows receiving no pretreatment. The NMA had no effect (P > .1) on GH concentrations in barrows receiving antisera to GRF. Our results support the concept that NMDA stimulates GRF, and hence GH secretion, by activating an NMDA receptor.

PA is banned, quit pimping and posting nonsense while nobody else can prove you wrong dude.

**MBSowards** · 02-18-2010, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by RebuildMe

PA is banned, quit pimping and posting nonsense while nobody else can prove you wrong dude.

There is no shut down sequence on the random study generator.

**De__eB** · 02-18-2010, 08:22 AM