BCAA's...

[Bouncer]

I will say that I get a bigger pump during a workout when using a pre workout drink like C4. I know your against that but for sure you can feel it working. I know there isn't much science behind it but let's not forget that for years science said that steroids have not been proven to have performance enhancing effects.

[Scrumhalf]

No, no, preworkouts are fine. In fact, I think that's about the only thing worth taking. My preworkout is just Caffeine and carbs. I don't like all the other stimulants that people take. I have no idea what they do to my bp and other physiological metrics.

[chuckz28]

No data?
Branched-chain amino acid supplementation does not enhance athletic performance but affects muscle recovery and the immune system. - PubMed - NCBI

Exercise-induced muscle damage is reduced in resistance-trained males by branched chain amino acids: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled... - PubMed - NCBI

Branched-chain amino acids activate key enzymes in protein synthesis after physical exercise. - PubMed - NCBI

Branched-chain amino acids supplementation enhances exercise capacity and lipid oxidation during endurance exercise after muscle glycogen depletion. - PubMed - NCBI

Exercise promotes BCAA catabolism: effects of BCAA supplementation on skeletal muscle during exercise. - PubMed - NCBI

Branched-chain amino acid supplementation attenuates muscle soreness, muscle damage and inflammation during an intensive training program. - PubMed - NCBI

Branched-chain amino acid supplementation before squat exercise and delayed-onset muscle soreness. - PubMed - NCBI

Branched-chain amino acid supplementation increases the lactate threshold during an incremental exercise test in trained individuals. - PubMed - NCBI

BCAA intake affects protein metabolism in muscle after but not during exercise in humans. - PubMed - NCBI

Nutraceutical effects of branched-chain amino acids on skeletal muscle. - PubMed - NCBI

Shall I continue? There are dozens more.

[rado]

Watch out chuck, we seem to have fucking neuroscientists these days lol....good post man.


Wait...it's coming.....

[Scrumhalf]

Watch out chuck, we seem to have fucking neuroscientists these days lol....good post man.


Wait...it's coming.....

Hmmm. not sure what that means.

But anyhow, Chuck, I haven't had a chance to look through all the links that you posted but here's my take:

Yes, BCAAs are amino acids and there is data to show their use in recovery, etc.

BUT... most of the studies I have seen (and I have not had a chance to look through all the links you have posted) HAVE BEEN WITH SUBJECTS THAT HAVE HAD INADEQUATE PROTEIN INTAKE!! Well under the 1.5g/lb rule of thumb that we typically use.

My point is not that BCAAs don't work, but that YOU GET PLENTY OF BCAAS WHEN YOU GET ADEQUATE PROTEIN IN YOUR DIET. BCAA supplementation is superfluous in the presence of adequate protein intake and IMO, only lines the pockets of the supplement manufacturers.

That being said, I'll look through your links more carefully when I get some time.


To add, we always need to ask ourselves two questions: 1) Is there any well designed empirical evidence that this chemical/nutrient/mineral, etc. that I am interested in actually does any good? and 2) if so, is this something that I am deficient in during my normal eating habits that would require supplementation? This is true for protein, it is true for vitamins and it is true for anything else. There's no need to take protein shakes if your normal diet has enough protein, there's no need to take vitamin supplements if your diet has enough veggies and fruits. We should ask the same question about BCAA supplements. Bioavailability of most things tends to be better with regular foods than supplementation, so if you are getting enough from your food, why spend money supplementing?

[rado]

Hmmm. not sure what that means.

But anyhow, Chuck, I haven't had a chance to look through all the links that you posted but here's my take:

Yes, BCAAs are amino acids and there is data to show their use in recovery, etc.

BUT... most of the studies I have seen (and I have not had a chance to look through all the links you have posted) HAVE BEEN WITH SUBJECTS THAT HAVE HAD INADEQUATE PROTEIN INTAKE!! Well under the 1.5g/lb rule of thumb that we typically use.

My point is not that BCAAs don't work, but that YOU GET PLENTY OF BCAAS WHEN YOU GET ADEQUATE PROTEIN IN YOUR DIET. BCAA supplementation is superfluous in the presence of adequate protein intake and IMO, only lines the pockets of the supplement manufacturers.

That being said, I'll look through your links more carefully when I get some time.

It means sarcasm.

In other words, I see many times where a few of you will ALWAYS try to counter what's real or factual. BCAA supps do work, to what extent? Who knows without real science proof ON OURSLEVES....not a mice or some tool.

I enjoy reading articles, data, etc....on anything that is pertaining to being healthy, nutrition, fitness etc...what I lol about is how certain some of you are on your hypotheses lol....some if not most of you can barely fucking spell or put a coherent sentence together. But let me adhere to your advice right:laugh::rofl:

I'm obviously going a bit off the charts here. However it's comical how some will swear it's their way or the highway :agreed:and doesn't matter what data shows or proves otherwise.

Why can't someone just post and let it be an open topic rather than shaving against the grain. Red meat is good for you, oh wait it's not. Salt is good for you, oh wait it's not. Bcaa don't do shit, oh wait perhaps they do:retard: coffee is good for you, oh wait you get stained teeth lol....not one of you tools on this board is an MD or any type of physician that has any fucking clue other than what Google tells you, what you watch on some show from national geographic or what little Johnny just told you.

We all here obviously speak from experience, well some of you:thumb:

[rado]

Imagine taking ibuprofin or aspirin for a headache and not being sure if it helps or not..

Been there many times, not always going to work.

[Scrumhalf]

Rado, I read through your post several times and I'm afraid I am at a loss as to what you are getting at.

You seem to be suggesting that I have arbitrary fixed beliefs that I stick to, while in reality I am the exact opposite. I will go with scientific evidence every time, even if it proves me wrong. That's what a person who believes in the scientific method does.

Are you saying that we shouldn't debate empirical evidence but should just go with anecdotal data? Are you saying that you shouldn't quote studies, which by the way are done on human subjects, not mice?

I'm not sure what being an MD or physician has to do with understanding nutrition research. Yes, it helps to have a scientific background so that you can critically examine data, and some of the details of how the metabolic pathways work may need training in the field, but surely examining the experimental setup and the data should be doable to anyone with a high school science education.

Not trying to be argumentative, but your post is pretty confusing.

[Bouncer]

It means sarcasm.

In other words, I see many times where a few of you will ALWAYS try to counter what's real or factual. BCAA supps do work, to what extent? Who knows without real science proof ON OURSLEVES....not a mice or some tool.

I enjoy reading articles, data, etc....on anything that is pertaining to being healthy, nutrition, fitness etc...what I lol about is how certain some of you are on your hypotheses lol....some if not most of you can barely fucking spell or put a coherent sentence together. But let me adhere to your advice right[emoji23]:rofl:

I'm obviously going a bit off the charts here. However it's comical how some will swear it's their way or the highway :agreed:and doesn't matter what data shows or proves otherwise.

Why can't someone just post and let it be an open topic rather than shaving against the grain. Red meat is good for you, oh wait it's not. Salt is good for you, oh wait it's not. Bcaa don't do shit, oh wait perhaps they do:retard: coffee is good for you, oh wait you get stained teeth lol....not one of you tools on this board is an MD or any type of physician that has any fucking clue other than what Google tells you, what you watch on some show from national geographic or what little Johnny just told you.

We all here obviously speak from experience, well some of you:thumb:

What is an open topic bro? Should we not debate it at all? Should those that agree with a subject post why they agree and everyone else should just say nothing? It's called a discussion and a debate. You seem to take it personal. It's not an attack on you. It a different view.

[rado]

Rado, I read through your post several times and I'm afraid I am at a loss as to what you are getting at.

You seem to be suggesting that I have arbitrary fixed beliefs that I stick to, while in reality I am the exact opposite. I will go with scientific evidence every time, even if it proves me wrong. That's what a person who believes in the scientific method does.

Are you saying that we shouldn't debate empirical evidence but should just go with anecdotal data? Are you saying that you shouldn't quote studies, which by the way are done on human subjects, not mice?

I'm not sure what being an MD or physician has to do with understanding nutrition research. Yes, it helps to have a scientific background so that you can critically examine data, and some of the details of how the metabolic pathways work may need training in the field, but surely examining the experimental setup and the data should be doable to anyone with a high school science education.

Not trying to be argumentative, but your post is pretty confusing.

No worries bro, it's all good...it's hard to sit here and literally type as I'm trying to convey it.

It seems to me, and if I'm wrong then my apologies. You tend to always(and I preface this, I could be wrong)seem to disagree with many things, more so when you have a belief on anything. Almost as if you're pushing what you believe regardless of what one reads or finds, or just works for them.

I do agree that we should discuss things and have opinions on subjects, sure why not. But for the most part, sometimes you tend to come off like the; "nope, that's not right,,,it's wrong" type of attitude. Almost as if you hold the golden key to all answers; I won't compare you to bouncer because that'd be an inuslt:thumb:and I respect you a tad bit more...bouncer just shoves shit down people's throat like a child, without reason. Only because Google told him or he saw it on some show like dukes of hazard.

And again, not trying to be an ass or being a cunt here...just voicing out what I see from you and others.

[rado]

What is an open topic bro? Should we not debate it at all? Should those that agree with a subject post why they agree and everyone else should just say nothing? It's called a discussion and a debate. You seem to take it personal. It's not an attack on you. It a different view.

It's a wonderful thing to discuss....what's not so wonderful is to push others views aside. And I'm not going to go back and find examples either. I don't take anything personally, not anymore. What I don't necessarily like reading is when one member will post something and a few will always right away dismiss it as being wrong or just stupid.

I, like many others on here love helping others and we should ALL act accordingly and post about our views, real results, experiences, etc......NOT just shoot it down and be like...."well Google said so or I saw it on fucking greys anatomy so it's right" type of bs.

I've been guilty of this myself in the past.

[Scrumhalf]

You tend to always(and I preface this, I could be wrong)seem to disagree with many things, more so when you have a belief on anything. Almost as if you're pushing what you believe regardless of what one reads or finds, or just works for them.

Not my intention at all. The only thing I push for is empirical evidence. This area of nutrition, supplements and bodybuilding is so full of frauds and snake oil salesmen that any time anything is proposed, I always turn my skeptical eye on the claim. Of course, there a lot of things like creatine that have been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to be effective. There are many other things where the jury is out, and there are of course things that are flat out bullshit. I will always be the voice for informed, science and evidence-based analysis. If the experiments are well designed and the results are shown to be valid to statisitcal significance, then great! Otherwise, I reserve the right to call BS! :)

[rado]

For me, I'd take advice from some of those great sites chick posted. I frequent them often and reputable with REAL MEDICAL ADVICE AND RESEARCH.

And then you have a few who will argue otherwise?!?!? I mean come on man

[rado]

Not my intention at all. The only thing I push for is empirical evidence. This area of nutrition, supplements and bodybuilding is so full of frauds and snake oil salesmen that any time anything is proposed, I always turn my skeptical eye on the claim. Of course, there a lot of things like creatine that have been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to be effective. There are many other things where the jury is out, and there are of course things that are flat out bullshit. I will always be the voice for informed, science and evidence-based analysis. If the experiments are well designed and the results are shown to be valid to statisitcal significance, then great! Otherwise, I reserve the right to call BS! :)

:thumb:I agree with this scrum....just when I read your posts and see how you at times can be so "pro" on certain things....fuck dude, you remind me of those bible thumpers trying to push the bible down my spine....ugh:x

[rado]

Rado, I read through your post several times and I'm afraid I am at a loss as to what you are getting at.

You seem to be suggesting that I have arbitrary fixed beliefs that I stick to, while in reality I am the exact opposite. I will go with scientific evidence every time, even if it proves me wrong. That's what a person who believes in the scientific method does.

Are you saying that we shouldn't debate empirical evidence but should just go with anecdotal data? Are you saying that you shouldn't quote studies, which by the way are done on human subjects, not mice?

I'm not sure what being an MD or physician has to do with understanding nutrition research. Yes, it helps to have a scientific background so that you can critically examine data, and some of the details of how the metabolic pathways work may need training in the field, but surely examining the experimental setup and the data should be doable to anyone with a high school science education.

Not trying to be argumentative, but your post is pretty confusing.

It's so much easier to talk in person...just makes better business;)