bigbodymingle
New member
didnt know we were in the habit of deleting posts, i guess we know whos selling this stuff
Formex - A legal, oral AI
- Thread starter Perfection Awaits
- Start date
bigbodymingle
New member
you missed the point i guess
StoneColdNTO
Administrator
Well if you post names of competitors to our sponsors, of course they are going to get deleted.
Our sponsors pay good money, and have their competition plugged for free is not good business practice.
Think about it ?
bigbodymingle
New member
what name of a competitor did i use? who did i ad for???????????????
StoneColdNTO
Administrator
I have no idea, I was not specifically referring to you, but if you have a problem please take it to PM or email.
I never said I deleted any of your posts so give it a break......Thanks.
bigbodymingle
New member
k
Warmachine
Your Girls Pay my Bills
agreed. I love CEE, AIFM and NOexplode for energy but everything else otc has pretty much been a waste of money
Not trying to bash a sponsor but AIFM is transdermal ATD.
ATD does not need to be used transdermally.
ATD also is a androgen receptor antagonist. It has actually been seen to supress HTPA and lower testosterone.
I can post the study if you'd like.
NO-Explode is crap man...look at the ingredient profile. It is outrageously overpriced. Buy some caffeine tablets and Argnine AKG from BN for $10 and you have NO Explode.
If you look at their blends and then compare it to the amount of total grams in that blend you will see what i mean.
CEE has been proven to turn into almost 100% creatinine in the stomach, with therefore means its USELESS. I have numerous studies on this too.
And for the record there is many studies proving this study, but here is one im simple terms everyone should be able to understand.
Effects of ATD on male sexual behavior and androge...[Horm Behav. 1989] - PubMed Result
Effects of ATD on male sexual behavior and androgen receptor binding: a reexamination of the aromatization hypothesis.
Kaplan ME, McGinnis MY.
Department of Anatomy, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, CUNY, New York 10029.
The aromatization hypothesis asserts that testosterone (T) must be aromatized to estradiol (E2) to activate copulatory behavior in the male rat. In support of this hypothesis, the aromatization inhibitor, ATD, has been found to suppress male sexual behavior in T-treated rats. In our experiment, we first replicated this finding by peripherally injecting ATD (15 mg/day) or propylene glycol into T-treated (two 10-mm Silastic capsules) or control castrated male rats. In a second experiment, we bilaterally implanted either ATD-filled or blank cannulae into the medial preoptic area (MPOA) of either T-treated or control castrated male rats. With this more local distribution of ATD, a lesser decline in sexual behavior was found, suggesting that other brain areas are involved in the neurohormonal activation of copulatory behavior in the male rat. To determine whether in vivo ATD interacts with androgen or estrogen receptors, we conducted cell nuclear androgen and estrogen receptor binding assays of hypothalamus, preoptic area, amygdala, and septum following treatment with the combinations of systemic T alone. ATD plus T, ATD alone, and blank control. In all four brain areas binding of T to androgen receptors was significantly decreased in the presence of ATD, suggesting that ATD may act both as an androgen receptor blocker and as an aromatization inhibitor. Competitive binding studies indicated that ATD competes in vitro for cytosol androgen receptors, thus substantiating the in vivo antiandrogenic effects of ATD. Cell nuclear estrogen receptor binding was not significantly increased by exposure to T in the physiological range. No agonistic properties of ATD were observed either behaviorally or biochemically. Thus, an alternative explanation for the inhibitory effects of ATD on male sexual behavior is that ATD prevents T from binding to androgen receptors.
Effects of ATD on male sexual behavior and androge...[Horm Behav. 1989] - PubMed Result
Effects of ATD on male sexual behavior and androgen receptor binding: a reexamination of the aromatization hypothesis.
Kaplan ME, McGinnis MY.
Department of Anatomy, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, CUNY, New York 10029.
The aromatization hypothesis asserts that testosterone (T) must be aromatized to estradiol (E2) to activate copulatory behavior in the male rat. In support of this hypothesis, the aromatization inhibitor, ATD, has been found to suppress male sexual behavior in T-treated rats. In our experiment, we first replicated this finding by peripherally injecting ATD (15 mg/day) or propylene glycol into T-treated (two 10-mm Silastic capsules) or control castrated male rats. In a second experiment, we bilaterally implanted either ATD-filled or blank cannulae into the medial preoptic area (MPOA) of either T-treated or control castrated male rats. With this more local distribution of ATD, a lesser decline in sexual behavior was found, suggesting that other brain areas are involved in the neurohormonal activation of copulatory behavior in the male rat. To determine whether in vivo ATD interacts with androgen or estrogen receptors, we conducted cell nuclear androgen and estrogen receptor binding assays of hypothalamus, preoptic area, amygdala, and septum following treatment with the combinations of systemic T alone. ATD plus T, ATD alone, and blank control. In all four brain areas binding of T to androgen receptors was significantly decreased in the presence of ATD, suggesting that ATD may act both as an androgen receptor blocker and as an aromatization inhibitor. Competitive binding studies indicated that ATD competes in vitro for cytosol androgen receptors, thus substantiating the in vivo antiandrogenic effects of ATD. Cell nuclear estrogen receptor binding was not significantly increased by exposure to T in the physiological range. No agonistic properties of ATD were observed either behaviorally or biochemically. Thus, an alternative explanation for the inhibitory effects of ATD on male sexual behavior is that ATD prevents T from binding to androgen receptors.
The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels.
Spillane M, Schoch R, Cooke M, Harvey T, Greenwood M, Kreider R, Willoughby DS.
Department of Health, Human Performance and Recreation, Baylor University, Box 97313, Waco, TX 76798, USA. darryn_willoughby@baylor.edu.
ABSTRACT: Numerous creatine formulations have been developed primarily to maximize creatine absorption. Creatine ethyl ester is alleged to increase creatine bio-availability. This study examined how a seven-week supplementation regimen combined with resistance training affected body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength and power, serum and muscle creatine levels, and serum creatinine levels in 30 non-resistance-trained males. In a double-blind manner, participants were randomly assigned to a maltodextrose placebo (PLA), creatine monohydrate (CRT), or creatine ethyl ester (CEE) group. The supplements were orally ingested at a dose of 0.30 g/kg fat-free body mass (approximately 20 g/day) for five days followed by ingestion at 0.075 g/kg fat free mass (approximately 5 g/day) for 42 days. Results showed significantly higher serum creatine concentrations in PLA (p = 0.007) and CRT (p = 0.005) compared to CEE. Serum creatinine was greater in CEE compared to the PLA (p = 0.001) and CRT (p = 0.001) and increased at days 6, 27, and 48. Total muscle creatine content was significantly higher in CRT (p = 0.026) and CEE (p = 0.041) compared to PLA, with no differences between CRT and CEE. Significant changes over time were observed for body composition, body water, muscle strength and power variables, but no significant differences were observed between groups. In conclusion, when compared to creatine monohydrate, creatine ethyl ester was not as effective at increasing serum and muscle creatine levels or in improving body composition, muscle mass, strength, and power. Therefore, the improvements in these variables can most likely be attributed to the training protocol itself, rather than the supplementation regimen.
Spillane M, Schoch R, Cooke M, Harvey T, Greenwood M, Kreider R, Willoughby DS.
Department of Health, Human Performance and Recreation, Baylor University, Box 97313, Waco, TX 76798, USA. darryn_willoughby@baylor.edu.
ABSTRACT: Numerous creatine formulations have been developed primarily to maximize creatine absorption. Creatine ethyl ester is alleged to increase creatine bio-availability. This study examined how a seven-week supplementation regimen combined with resistance training affected body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength and power, serum and muscle creatine levels, and serum creatinine levels in 30 non-resistance-trained males. In a double-blind manner, participants were randomly assigned to a maltodextrose placebo (PLA), creatine monohydrate (CRT), or creatine ethyl ester (CEE) group. The supplements were orally ingested at a dose of 0.30 g/kg fat-free body mass (approximately 20 g/day) for five days followed by ingestion at 0.075 g/kg fat free mass (approximately 5 g/day) for 42 days. Results showed significantly higher serum creatine concentrations in PLA (p = 0.007) and CRT (p = 0.005) compared to CEE. Serum creatinine was greater in CEE compared to the PLA (p = 0.001) and CRT (p = 0.001) and increased at days 6, 27, and 48. Total muscle creatine content was significantly higher in CRT (p = 0.026) and CEE (p = 0.041) compared to PLA, with no differences between CRT and CEE. Significant changes over time were observed for body composition, body water, muscle strength and power variables, but no significant differences were observed between groups. In conclusion, when compared to creatine monohydrate, creatine ethyl ester was not as effective at increasing serum and muscle creatine levels or in improving body composition, muscle mass, strength, and power. Therefore, the improvements in these variables can most likely be attributed to the training protocol itself, rather than the supplementation regimen.
N.O.-Xplode™'s Proprietary Blend 18,000mg **
(Contains A Patented Nutrient Suspension Matrix & Efforsorb™ Delivery System)
N.O. Meta-FusionPatent Pending **
L-Arginine AKG Normal dose = 3-4g, L-Citrulline Malate Normal dose = 3-4g, RC-NOS™ (Rutacarpine 95%), L-Citrulline AKG Normal dose 3-4g, L-Histidine AKG normal dose 1-2g, NAD (Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide), Gynostemma Pentaphyllum (Leaves & Stem) (Gypenosides 95%)
AVPT (Advanced Volumizing & Performance Technology) **
Modified Glucose Polymers (Maltodextrin), Di-Creatine Malate normal dose 4-5g, Trimethylglycine, Creatine Ethyl Ester -Beta-Alanine Dual Action Composite (CarnoSyn®), Sodium Bicarbonate, Sodium Creatine Phosphate Matrix, Creatinol-O-Phosphate-Malic Acid Interfusion, Glycocyamine, Guanidino Proplonic Acid, Cinnulin PF® (Aqueous Cinnamon Extract) (Bark), Ketoisocaproate Potassium, Creatine ABB (Creatine Alpha-Amino-N-Butyrate)
Ener-Tropic Xplosion™(Patent Pending) **
L-Tyrosine, Taurine, Glucuronolactone, Methylxanthine (Caffeine), L-Tyrosine AKG, MCT's (Medium Chain Triglycerides)[Coconut], Common Periwinkle Vinpocetine 99%, Vincamine 99%, Vinburnine 99% (Whole Plant)
Phospho-Electrolyte Replacements™ **
Di-Calcium Phosphate, Di-Potassium Phosphate, Di-Sodium Phosphate
Glycerol Hydrating Polymers™ **
Potassium Glycerophosphate, Magnesium Glycerophosphate, Glycerol Stearate
Warmachine, please see what I bolded. 1 serving is 18grams. I took 5 of the ~32 ingredients at their normal doses and made 18g. Please tell me where the other 28 ingredients are? Dont worry they are in there, but you're probably getting about 50mg of everything in there.
Keep spending your money on sugar water
. Theres tons of MUCH better preworkout supplements out there, for much cheaper. I was going to let everything you said go until you called everything else a waste of money, when in fact anyone who has followed supplements knows the three things you listed are possible the three biggest money wasting products around.
Sure, they might work for you, with it being 100% placebo. Try something else, and I promise you'll never go back. Just make sure you tell me what you try next, in case you are going to pick Cell-Tech Hardcore.
(Contains A Patented Nutrient Suspension Matrix & Efforsorb™ Delivery System)
N.O. Meta-FusionPatent Pending **
L-Arginine AKG Normal dose = 3-4g, L-Citrulline Malate Normal dose = 3-4g, RC-NOS™ (Rutacarpine 95%), L-Citrulline AKG Normal dose 3-4g, L-Histidine AKG normal dose 1-2g, NAD (Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide), Gynostemma Pentaphyllum (Leaves & Stem) (Gypenosides 95%)
AVPT (Advanced Volumizing & Performance Technology) **
Modified Glucose Polymers (Maltodextrin), Di-Creatine Malate normal dose 4-5g, Trimethylglycine, Creatine Ethyl Ester -Beta-Alanine Dual Action Composite (CarnoSyn®), Sodium Bicarbonate, Sodium Creatine Phosphate Matrix, Creatinol-O-Phosphate-Malic Acid Interfusion, Glycocyamine, Guanidino Proplonic Acid, Cinnulin PF® (Aqueous Cinnamon Extract) (Bark), Ketoisocaproate Potassium, Creatine ABB (Creatine Alpha-Amino-N-Butyrate)
Ener-Tropic Xplosion™(Patent Pending) **
L-Tyrosine, Taurine, Glucuronolactone, Methylxanthine (Caffeine), L-Tyrosine AKG, MCT's (Medium Chain Triglycerides)[Coconut], Common Periwinkle Vinpocetine 99%, Vincamine 99%, Vinburnine 99% (Whole Plant)
Phospho-Electrolyte Replacements™ **
Di-Calcium Phosphate, Di-Potassium Phosphate, Di-Sodium Phosphate
Glycerol Hydrating Polymers™ **
Potassium Glycerophosphate, Magnesium Glycerophosphate, Glycerol Stearate
Warmachine, please see what I bolded. 1 serving is 18grams. I took 5 of the ~32 ingredients at their normal doses and made 18g. Please tell me where the other 28 ingredients are? Dont worry they are in there, but you're probably getting about 50mg of everything in there.
Keep spending your money on sugar water
. Theres tons of MUCH better preworkout supplements out there, for much cheaper. I was going to let everything you said go until you called everything else a waste of money, when in fact anyone who has followed supplements knows the three things you listed are possible the three biggest money wasting products around.Sure, they might work for you, with it being 100% placebo. Try something else, and I promise you'll never go back. Just make sure you tell me what you try next, in case you are going to pick Cell-Tech Hardcore.
Last edited:
J Appl Physiol. 1996 Feb;80(2):452-7.
Caffeine counteracts the ergogenic action of muscle creatine loading.
Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Department of Kinesiology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
This study aimed to compare the effects of oral creatine (Cr) supplementation with creatine supplementation in combination with caffeine (Cr+C) on muscle phosphocreatine (PCr) level and performance in healthy male volunteers (n = 9). Before and after 6 days of placebo, Cr (0.5 g x kg-1 x day-1), or Cr (0.5 g x kg-1 x day-1) + C (5 mg x kg-1 x day-1) supplementation, 31P-nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the gastrocnemius muscle and a maximal intermittent exercise fatigue test of the knee extensors on an isokinetic dynamometer were performed. The exercise consisted of three consecutive maximal isometric contractions and three interval series of 90, 80, and 50 maximal voluntary contractions performed with a rest interval of 2 min between the series. Muscle ATP concentration remained constant over the three experimental conditions. Cr and Cr+C increased (P < 0.05) muscle PCr concentration by 4-6%. Dynamic torque production, however, was increased by 10-23% (P < 0.05) by Cr but was not changed by Cr+C. Torque improvement during Cr was most prominent immediately after the 2-min rest between the exercise bouts. The data show that Cr supplementation elevates muscle PCr concentration and markedly improves performance during intense intermittent exercise. This ergogenic effect, however, is completely eliminated by caffeine intake.
Caffeine counteracts the ergogenic action of muscle creatine loading.
Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Department of Kinesiology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
This study aimed to compare the effects of oral creatine (Cr) supplementation with creatine supplementation in combination with caffeine (Cr+C) on muscle phosphocreatine (PCr) level and performance in healthy male volunteers (n = 9). Before and after 6 days of placebo, Cr (0.5 g x kg-1 x day-1), or Cr (0.5 g x kg-1 x day-1) + C (5 mg x kg-1 x day-1) supplementation, 31P-nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the gastrocnemius muscle and a maximal intermittent exercise fatigue test of the knee extensors on an isokinetic dynamometer were performed. The exercise consisted of three consecutive maximal isometric contractions and three interval series of 90, 80, and 50 maximal voluntary contractions performed with a rest interval of 2 min between the series. Muscle ATP concentration remained constant over the three experimental conditions. Cr and Cr+C increased (P < 0.05) muscle PCr concentration by 4-6%. Dynamic torque production, however, was increased by 10-23% (P < 0.05) by Cr but was not changed by Cr+C. Torque improvement during Cr was most prominent immediately after the 2-min rest between the exercise bouts. The data show that Cr supplementation elevates muscle PCr concentration and markedly improves performance during intense intermittent exercise. This ergogenic effect, however, is completely eliminated by caffeine intake.
Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid
Child R1 and Tallon MJ2
Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. 2University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, DrChild@CR-Technologies.net
Creatine ethyl ester (CEE) is a commercially available synthetic creatine that is now widely used in dietary supplements. It comprises of creatine with an ethyl group attached and this molecular configuration is reported to provide several advantages over creatine monohydrate (CM). The Medical Research Institute (CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (CE2) provides greater solubility in lipids, leading to improved absorption. Similarly San (San Corporation, CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (San CM2 Alpha) avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids. Ultimately it is claimed that CEE products provide greater absorption and efficacy than CM. To date, none of these claims have been evaluated by an independent, or university laboratory and no comparative data are available on CEE and CM.
This study assessed the availability of creatine from three commercial creatine products during degradation in acidic conditions similar to those that occur in the stomach. They comprised of two products containing CEE (San CM2 Alpha and CE2) and commercially available CM (Creapure?). An independent laboratory, using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), performed the analysis. Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37? 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes. Creatine availability was assessed by immediately assaying for free creatine, CEE and the creatine breakdown product creatinine, using HPLC (UV)
After 30 minutes incubation only 73% of the initial CEE present was available from CE2, while the amount of CEE available from San CM2 Alpha was even lower at only 62%. In contrast, more than 99% of the creatine remained available from the CM product. These reductions in CEE availability were accompanied by substantial creatinine formation, without the appearance of free creatine. After 120minutes incubation 72% of the CEE was available from CE2 with only 11% available from San CM2 Alpha, while more than 99% of the creatine remained available from CM.
CEE is claimed to provide several advantages over CM because of increased solubility and stability. In practice, the addition of the ethyl group to creatine actually reduces acid stability and accelerates its breakdown to creatinine. This substantially reduces creatine availability in its esterified form and as a consequence creatines such as San CM2 and CE2 are inferior to CM as a source of free creatine.
Child R1 and Tallon MJ2
Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. 2University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, DrChild@CR-Technologies.net
Creatine ethyl ester (CEE) is a commercially available synthetic creatine that is now widely used in dietary supplements. It comprises of creatine with an ethyl group attached and this molecular configuration is reported to provide several advantages over creatine monohydrate (CM). The Medical Research Institute (CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (CE2) provides greater solubility in lipids, leading to improved absorption. Similarly San (San Corporation, CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (San CM2 Alpha) avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids. Ultimately it is claimed that CEE products provide greater absorption and efficacy than CM. To date, none of these claims have been evaluated by an independent, or university laboratory and no comparative data are available on CEE and CM.
This study assessed the availability of creatine from three commercial creatine products during degradation in acidic conditions similar to those that occur in the stomach. They comprised of two products containing CEE (San CM2 Alpha and CE2) and commercially available CM (Creapure?). An independent laboratory, using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), performed the analysis. Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37? 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes. Creatine availability was assessed by immediately assaying for free creatine, CEE and the creatine breakdown product creatinine, using HPLC (UV)
After 30 minutes incubation only 73% of the initial CEE present was available from CE2, while the amount of CEE available from San CM2 Alpha was even lower at only 62%. In contrast, more than 99% of the creatine remained available from the CM product. These reductions in CEE availability were accompanied by substantial creatinine formation, without the appearance of free creatine. After 120minutes incubation 72% of the CEE was available from CE2 with only 11% available from San CM2 Alpha, while more than 99% of the creatine remained available from CM.
CEE is claimed to provide several advantages over CM because of increased solubility and stability. In practice, the addition of the ethyl group to creatine actually reduces acid stability and accelerates its breakdown to creatinine. This substantially reduces creatine availability in its esterified form and as a consequence creatines such as San CM2 and CE2 are inferior to CM as a source of free creatine.
I used to be a member here and I seem to remember "Perfection Awaits" as a big homebrew guy that got all his shit flushed down the toilet by his parents cause he was a kid living at home. Now no offense but it's seems like you might just want to believe all these legal "hormones" are just as good cause you can't do the real thing.
1% of that was true. Interesting you joined just to post that though. I dont just believe these things to work..do a simple google search and go on some forums and see the hundreds of people who agree with me...all i was doing was saying a new product that could be useful to the steroid community that is legal was released, and then told warmachine why no-xplode sucked. Just because it's legal doesnt mean it doesnt work. M1T was legal once, you know. Steroids were legal once too.
Last edited:
Sounds like you do believe it works
Similar threads
