Top 10 Supplements you need to have

[wavelength]

1-9: good food
10: whey or simply more protein from good food

Everything else is virtually useless for bodybuilding.

[Necrosis]

1-9: good food
10: whey or simply more protein from good food

Everything else is virtually useless for bodybuilding.

What? surely someone who is intelligent cant possibly beleive that with the giant mass of research proving otherwise.

[wavelength]

What? surely someone who is intelligent cant possibly beleive that with the giant mass of research proving otherwise.

You are kidding, right?

[The ChemistV2]

I disagree that all supplements are worthless. I have seen good results from the anti-aromatase supplement 6-0x0 and better pumps from the increased test production. Also have recently gained some lean muscular bodyweight recently from drinking a whey Hydrolosate (not plain isolate but an enzymatic digest of whey isolate) twice a day, and after training 30 years, you notice when something works or not. Vitrex boosted my test levels to the point I started seeing a little gyno, so I know that worked for me as well. I would say some test boosting sups work well if you're over 40 like myself..I see big difference in libido and muscle hardness.

[tbombz]

You are kidding, right?

He is absolutely NOT kidding. And it would behoove you to take note of all that he says, usmokepole is one of the most knowledgeable people in regards to nutrition that you will EVER get the priveledge of talking with.

 

[wavelength]

He is absolutely NOT kidding. And it would behoove you to take note of all that he says, usmokepole is one of the most knowledgeable people in regards to nutrition that you will EVER get the priveledge of talking with.
 

Every single supplement I ever took did absolutely nothing - in terms of bodybuilding. And I tried to do cuts and bulks with or without them. As long as there are no emperical scientific studies on a supplement, showing that there is a difference between taking it and not, I have to dismiss it as useless. The study would have to show that there is an actual difference for the purpose of bodybuilding, which is increasing muscle tissue resp. decreasing fat tissue at a better ratio than without it. Every "study" I ever performed on myself, clearly showed that they have no effect at all. I had a very enlightening discussion with Will Brink on that topic. According to him, supplement companies use the "throw shit on the wall and see what sticks" method. They do no research, have no idea if their supplements do anything, and they couldn't care less. For some reason, people are willing to believe the lies nonetheless (the shit sticks).

I'm not talking about hormones, pro-hormones and anabolic steroids, of course.

[tbombz]

Every single supplement I ever took did absolutely nothing - in terms of bodybuilding. And I tried to do cuts and bulks with or without them. As long as there are no emperical scientific studies on a supplement, showing that there is a difference between taking it and not, I have to dismiss it as useless. The study would have to show that there is an actual difference for the purpose of bodybuilding, which is increasing muscle tissue resp. decreasing fat tissue at a better ratio than without it. Every "study" I ever performed on myself, clearly showed that they have no effect at all.

I'm not talking about hormones, pro-hormones and anabolic steroids, of course.

I suggest you ask usmokepole for some suggestions for a quality supplement "stack". And see for yourself if it works. Maybe you tried all the wrong products, or werent taking them correctly.

[wavelength]

I suggest you ask usmokepole for some suggestions for a quality supplement "stack". And see for yourself if it works. Maybe you tried all the wrong products, or werent taking them correctly.

Funny that's always the argument, if something doesn't work, I must have done it all wrong. How about companies providing emperical scientific evidence before putting out products? I tried a lot of stuff and I did my research. Everybody who claims a certain supplement helps him in his bodybuilding goals (providing a better ratio of muscle tissue gain resp. fat loss), please do the exact same thing two times in a row but the second time without the supplement. As long as you have not done that, you don't know if it works for you.

[tbombz]

Funny that's always the argument, if something doesn't work, I must have done it all wrong. How about companies providing emperical scientific evidence before putting out products? I tried a lot of stuff and I did my research. Everybody who claims a certain supplement helps him in his bodybuilding goals (providing a better ratio of muscle tissue gain resp. fat loss), please do the exact same thing two times in a row but the second time without the supplement. As long as you have not done that, you don't know if it works for you.

The problem is that in order to see the results, the difference without the product and those results, you need hundreds of years of time to do all that testing on yourself. there are dozens of things that have tons of research showing they are beneficial. if you want me to take 6 months to try each one, and 6 months to try without each one.. were are talking 50+ years of time just to find out whats the right combo of foods and supplements to use.


ONE supplement is going to make any difference. BUT when you combine a few supplements together, then you get to start seeing the progress pick up the pace. There isn't one Magic Bullet, its more like a magic cartridge filled with bullets that when combined produce the magic.

[wavelength]

The problem is that in order to see the results, the difference without the product and those results, you need hundreds of years of time to do all that testing on yourself. there are dozens of things that have tons of research showing they are beneficial. if you want me to take 6 months to try each one, and 6 months to try without each one.. were are talking 50+ years of time just to find out whats the right combo of foods and supplements to use.


ONE supplement is going to make any difference. BUT when you combine a few supplements together, then you get to start seeing the progress pick up the pace. There isn't one Magic Bullet, its more like a magic cartridge filled with bullets that when combined produce the magic.

It doesn't take 100 years. I did it in 10. You can do it in 1. Here's a simple experiment you can try: Do a 3 month bulk and a 3 month cut with all your supps in perfect combination. Then do the exact same thing with none of them. Keep everything else constant. If some of your supplements add a substantial part of macros, substitute them in the second try with macros from real food. We will assume that none of the supps do any harm. This means if you see no difference between the two tries, all supplements you took are useless. I did that, and not only with supps but also with a lot of other bodybuilding methods.

[tbombz]

THAT I have done, and yes the supplements I take do make a difference for me.

Heres what I take when gaining=

Whey isolate
Creatine
Fish oil
Zinc
Magneisum
Melatonin
Caffiene

Heres what I take when cutting=

Whey isolate
Fish oil
Evening primrose oil
Zinc
magnesium
melatonin
EGCG
Ephedrine-caffiene-aspirin
Some kind of carb drink

[wavelength]

THAT I have done, and yes the supplements I take do make a difference for me.

Heres what I take when gaining=

Whey isolate
Creatine
Fish oil
Zinc
Magneisum
Melatonin
Caffiene

Heres what I take when cutting=

Whey isolate
Fish oil
Evening primrose oil
Zinc
magnesium
melatonin
EGCG
Ephedrine-caffiene-aspirin
Some kind of carb drink

Supplements that can easily be substituted with real food and would be considered part of a balanced diet anyway, don't count IMO.

I have explained my method of determining if a supplement works, what's yours?

[tbombz]

None of those supplements I take could be substituted with "real food", for the purpouses that I use them.

[wavelength]

None of those supplements I take could be substituted with "real food", for the purpouses that I use them.

OK, then:
I have explained my method of determining if a supplement works, what's yours?

[tbombz]

Do results come?


thats it.

well, certain supps i can 'feel' that they work.

when im dieting, Taking whey pre workout when im low carbs really increases my energy levels and boosts my strength. So i KNOW that that works. ECA i can feel working, and i notice changes quickly. Fish oil definitely works, without fish oil i start to put on fat around 400g carbs per day..with fish oil I do not. I Can feel the melatonin every night when it makes me tired(i dont get tired without it).

[wavelength]

Do results come?


thats it.

well, certain supps i can 'feel' that they work.

when im dieting, Taking whey pre workout when im low carbs really increases my energy levels and boosts my strength. So i KNOW that that works. ECA i can feel working, and i notice changes quickly. Fish oil definitely works, without fish oil i start to put on fat around 400g carbs per day..with fish oil I do not. I Can feel the melatonin every night when it makes me tired(i dont get tired without it).

If results come or not is not a legit indicator. You don't know if they wouldn't come just the same if your were not using the supps.

You don't know if something is working by "feeling". It's possible that supps make you feel better, stronger, etc. That's one of the tricks of the supp industry. It has absolutely nothing to do with the goal of bodybuilding (more muscle, less fat). The ECA might help you in losing weight just like cardio but if just reducing calories doesn't do the same or an even better job (fat loss vs. muscle loss) can only be determined by experiment.

I think one needs a certain amount of sleep, but if you can't get enough for the purpose of BB without the melatonin is questionable.

If what you are doing right now works for you, I wouldn't change it either. But you will never know for sure if anything can be related to the supps unless you haven't tried without.

[Necrosis]

You are kidding, right?

there is literally thousands of studies of herbs/nutrients that have ergogenic effects. increases in testosterone, decreases in estradiol, increases in protein synthesis, anti proteolytic, anti inflammatory, anti cortisol, enhanced glycogen storage etc etc etc...

if you want i could post some scientific research showing these benefits in vivo and vitro, in humans and animals, in cells lines etc... if your talking about specific supplements like no xplode or something, the individual ingredients have research behind them, theory behind them etc..

[wavelength]

there is literally thousands of studies of herbs/nutrients that have ergogenic effects. increases in testosterone, decreases in estradiol, increases in protein synthesis, anti proteolytic, anti inflammatory, anti cortisol, enhanced glycogen storage etc etc etc...

if you want i could post some scientific research showing these benefits in vivo and vitro, in humans and animals, in cells lines etc... if your talking about specific supplements like no xplode or something, the individual ingredients have research behind them, theory behind them etc..

Yes there are studies and there are theories on some supps. But theories oppose each other and studies only take into account certain aspects. Theoretical "nutrition science" has proven time and time again (at least in its current state) being useless for determinig if a bodybuilding method works or not. The only legit study is an emperical study with a representative number of people. What must be examined in such a study is not protein synthesis, insulin release, glycogen storage, etc. (which are only a few small and still poorly understood aspects) but the only thing that matters to budybuilding: ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain on a bulk resp. fat loss vs. muscle loss on a cut. This study must be repeated with and without the supplement while keeping all other parameters constant.

Can you name me the supplements (meaning single ingredients like: creatine, nitric oxides, etc.) which have undergone such testing? I can only say that I have done these tests on myself. Maybe I'm different but not one single supplement had any noticable effect on my bodybuilding goals.

[Necrosis]

Yes there are studies and there are theories on some supps. But theories oppose each other and studies only take into account certain aspects. Theoretical "nutrition science" has proven time and time again (at least in its current state) being useless for determinig if a bodybuilding method works or not. The only legit study is an emperical study with a representative number of people. What must be examined in such a study is not protein synthesis, insulin release, glycogen storage, etc. (which are only a few small and still poorly understood aspects) but the only thing that matters to budybuilding: ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain on a bulk resp. fat loss vs. muscle loss on a cut. This study must be repeated with and without the supplement while keeping all other parameters constant.

Can you name me the supplements (meaning single ingredients like: creatine, nitric oxides, etc.) which have undergone such testing? I can only say that I have done these tests on myself. Maybe I'm different but not one single supplement had any noticable effect on my bodybuilding goals.

if you mean double blind crossover RCTs or meta analysis only the most stringent testing methodology we have then yes there are a multitude of studies. you should visit mind and muscle.com and post there, its a great place to learn and a place i frequent.

empirical evidence has been conducted on numerous substance, supplements have undergone the same scrutiny as drugs wrt methodology. A well designed study elucidates wether a supplement is worth while. Just look at creatine, or even caffeine and its effects on testosterone and glycogen storage. Or leucine on protein synthesis and decreases in proteolysis in athletes.

lots of supplements have effects, they are not druglike but certainly work. Take a strong stimulant like AMP 1 OR 2, if you dont feel jacked and stimulated off that then i dont know what to tell you. Ephedrine has beta agonis properties demonstrated in vivo and vitro, similar to clen, albuterol etc.. and thermogenic, appetite supppresant effects etc... clearly your statment is to absolute.

[wavelength]

if you mean double blind crossover RCTs or meta analysis only the most stringent testing methodology we have then yes there are a multitude of studies. you should visit mind and muscle.com and post there, its a great place to learn and a place i frequent.

I only accept the kind of emperical study I have layed out (focusing only on the purpose of bodybuilding as described), which is the one I did on myself and which has proven time and time again that supplements do absolutely nothing, at least not for me.

empirical evidence has been conducted on numerous substance, supplements have undergone the same scrutiny as drugs wrt methodology. A well designed study elucidates wether a supplement is worth while. Just look at creatine, or even caffeine and its effects on testosterone and glycogen storage. Or leucine on protein synthesis and decreases in proteolysis in athletes.

The examples you have mentioned all fall into the category of examining a few, still poorly understood scientifc aspects. With the current state of nutrition science this method must be dismissed as explained.

lots of supplements have effects, they are not druglike but certainly work. Take a strong stimulant like AMP 1 OR 2, if you dont feel jacked and stimulated off that then i dont know what to tell you. Ephedrine has beta agonis properties demonstrated in vivo and vitro, similar to clen, albuterol etc.. and thermogenic, appetite supppresant effects etc... clearly your statment is to absolute.

Feeling "jacked or stimulated" must also be dismissed as an indicator, it has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of bodybuilding. I don't deny the effects of ECA. In my experience however, just like cardio, the same or even better results (again in bodybuilding terms, meaning ratio of fat loss to muscle loss at a certain rate of weight loss) can be achieved with reduction of calories.

I can't say anything about clen and albuterol, though. Those are prescription drugs and should not be considered supplements IMO.

[Necrosis]

I only accept the kind of emperical study I have layed out (focusing only on the purpose of bodybuilding as described), which is the one I did on myself and which has proven time and time again that supplements do absolutely nothing, at least not for me.

The examples you have mentioned all fall into the category of examining a few, still poorly understood scientifc aspects. With the current state of nutrition science this method must be dismissed as explained.

Feeling "jacked or stimulated" must also be dismissed as an indicator, it has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of bodybuilding. I don't deny the effects of ECA. In my experience however, just like cardio, the same or even better results (again in bodybuilding terms, meaning ratio of fat loss to muscle loss at a certain rate of weight loss) can be achieved with reduction of calories.

I can't say anything about clen and albuterol, though. Those are prescription drugs and should not be considered supplements IMO.

"I only accept the kind of emperical study I have layed out (focusing only on the purpose of bodybuilding as described), which is the one I did on myself and which has proven time and time again that supplements do absolutely nothing, at least not for me."

ok thats fine, but science disagrees with you. The double blind crossover rct is the gold standard of methodology, with cochrane reviews being highly respected. It exceeds your definition of evidence. If you want to know how well the study was designed or how the measures did, learn statistics. Look at the alpha level, the power, post hoc analysis, the tool used, anova, ancova etc.... all this has to be examined. I would think it ignorant to beleive you have devised another method of detecting truth then the scientific community at large.

"The examples you have mentioned all fall into the category of examining a few, still poorly understood scientifc aspects. With the current state of nutrition science this method must be dismissed as explained."

poorly understood? beta agonism, the adrenergic system, protein synthesis etc.. are understood quite well, if you are not well versed in the subject that is fine, but many people are.

"Feeling "jacked or stimulated" must also be dismissed as an indicator, it has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of bodybuilding. I don't deny the effects of ECA. In my experience however, just like cardio, the same or even better results (again in bodybuilding terms, meaning ratio of fat loss to muscle loss at a certain rate of weight loss) can be achieved with reduction of calories."

by jacked i meant stimulated and it does have something to do with bodybuilding. Sympathomimetics are known to increase strength via nor-adrenalin/adrenalin hence the stimulation from ephedrine has this property resulting in muscle gain over time. Also, beta agonsim is throughly established to have lipolytic effects, and ephedrine has been proven time and time again to result in non selective beta agonism. Both strength and fat loss are directly related to bodybuilding. Sure cardio causes fat loss, so does caloric restriction(in generalities) that does not mean that supplements wont help or are unescessary since cardios mechanism of action is different from ephedrines. You also have PPAR agonists like sesamin, things that increase fat oxidation like TTA, all applicable. I could go on with examples but surely your stance has no merit and its easily dismissed.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

Here's what I take for supps currently. Some are bbing related, most are health related, and all have some overlap:

[wavelength]

ok thats fine, but science disagrees with you. The double blind crossover rct is the gold standard of methodology, with cochrane reviews being highly respected. It exceeds your definition of evidence. If you want to know how well the study was designed or how the measures did, learn statistics. Look at the alpha level, the power, post hoc analysis, the tool used, anova, ancova etc.... all this has to be examined. I would think it ignorant to beleive you have devised another method of detecting truth then the scientific community at large.

Yes of course, double blind crossover would be much better than my method. That's why I asked you for what supplement ingredients it has been performed, but: measuring the only thing that matters to bodybuilding: enhancement in the ratio of fat loss vs. muscle loss resp. muscle gain vs. fat gain for a certain rate of weight change. I would be really interested in a list of studies provided for supplements like ECA, NO, Creatine, certain combinations of aminos, etc. The only supp I think it has been performed on seriously is Creatine.

poorly understood? beta agonism, the adrenergic system, protein synthesis etc.. are understood quite well, if you are not well versed in the subject that is fine, but many people are.

What I meant is how they relate to the goal of bodybuilding, which is not necessarily concerned with any of those factors. Again, the goal of bodybuilding is muscle gain and fat loss. Everything else is just theory. And let's be honset, theories in nutrition science change every year.

by jacked i meant stimulated and it does have something to do with bodybuilding. Sympathomimetics are known to increase strength via nor-adrenalin/adrenalin hence the stimulation from ephedrine has this property resulting in muscle gain over time. Also, beta agonsim is throughly established to have lipolytic effects, and ephedrine has been proven time and time again to result in non selective beta agonism. Both strength and fat loss are directly related to bodybuilding. Sure cardio causes fat loss, so does caloric restriction(in generalities) that does not mean that supplements wont help or are unescessary since cardios mechanism of action is different from ephedrines. You also have PPAR agonists like sesamin, things that increase fat oxidation like TTA, all applicable. I could go on with examples but surely your stance has no merit and its easily dismissed.

I agree, it is possible that supps really enhance the ratio of fat loss / muscle loss at a certain rate of weight loss. IMO, it's just not the case with supplements available today. The only thing that counts is emperical evidence. In my case, it does not support the specific theories you mention - at least not in relation to the only thing that matters for bodybuilding, as defined above.

I'm not saying that it is impossible that certain supps work for certain people. But I do think that claims based on certain aspects covered by nutrition science or based on how someone "feels" must be dismissed. As soon as someone at least makes the same experiment as I did, and finds out his supps actually do improve the formula important for bodybuilding, that's fine. However, I have yet to come across one single person who actually did what I did and not came to the same conclusion as I did.

[wavelength]

Here's what I take for supps currently. Some are bbing related, most are health related, and all have some overlap:

Will, if we just focus on bodybuilding,

can you tell me for what basic supp ingredients double blind crossover studies have been seriously performed on a representative number of people, testing the ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain on a bulk resp. fat loss vs. muscle loss on a cut, both with a certain rate of weight change?

Also you mentioned that you do your own emperical studies using feedback from your clients. What is the result on those basic supp ingredients regarding the mentioned ratio?

I admit that I'm not up-to-date with the latest studies, so I would be interested if there actually are studies opposing my experience.

[tbombz]

I'm sorry , and i mean no disrespect, you seem very intelligent...

but your a lost cause, wave length  

Your just too stubborn and hard headed. The fact that there are alot of very beneficial supplements on the market today has been prooven already. You cant admit it, or just cant see it.  




One other thing... if what someone 'feels' has to be dismissed... then how YOU 'feel' about supplements not working for you when you tried them must be dismissed as well. Supplements do work, but they are not drugs. You have already said your natural, you have said you do things like running, you have said you have a low calorie diet.... supplements are beneficial, but not to the point that you would have been able to notice a difference in your body composition after 6 months time. Not the way you diet + train + natural status. The fact that you "FEEL" that they didn't do anything for you, that must be dismissed.  


And 'feeling' stronger definitely does help bodybuilding goals. lifting heavier weights means more muscle stimulation, more glycogen depletion, more pump, more test, more gh, more igf-1, more insulin sensitivity, more lipolysis, more protein synthesis...