|
By David Barr
| The following is
a letter I received this week and spent some time composing
the reply. I thought it would be worth publishing because it
deals with common misconceptions pertaining to the industry,
blood flow stimulation, and in particular NO-Xplode. Enjoy! |
 |
---------------
Subject:
N.O. (L-Arginine) upset?
"I have cycled on and off of
N.O. Xplode for a few years and the effects have surpassed anything
that could be considered a placebo effect. While taking the supplement
my veins are much more noticeable and significantly so. I have attached
three pictures.
One of my arms while taking the supplement
for 2 months, and the others of the same arm when cycled off of
the supplement. Did I psychologically produce more pronounced veins?
I am a firm believer in the placebo effect, but this is somewhat
extreme for even the best theory. I did notice gains that were significant.
I am able to bench double my body weight and surpass plateaus when
I use the supplement as directed over time. Any ideas? I hope that
there is a better explanation then that I am just an anomaly. I
look forward to your reply. Thank you"
-----------------
My
reply is as follows:
[Author] I appreciate you coming to
me with your dilemma. It represents perfectly what I am opposed
to in the supplement industry -and you're not the only victim.
Let me begin by asking: do you know
what's in NO-Xplode? I'm sincerely enquiring. Do you know what each
of the ingredients does to the body? Of course not, and this is
not meant to be unintentional. You're not alone. In fact I strongly
recommend that you read "The Supplement Industry is Violating
Your Rights", to see why ignorance is such a powerful tool.
Getting back to your specific issue,
look at it this way: there are roughly 40 ingredients in NO-Xplode
(yes, that's 40 ingredients!!!) and yet you've attributed
your elevated blood flow to arginine. There are a couple of problems
with this, one of which was mentioned in the previous paragraph.
I don't doubt that this product increases
vascularity and likely even blood flow, but you must understand
that parsing one ingredient from 40 is erroneous -particularly when
that one ingredient has overwhelmingly demonstrated to not have
the claimed effect. Further, I must make it quite clear that vascularity
is a result of blood pressure which does not necessarily relate
to nutritive blood flow.
The Stimulant Effects
For example, the one consistent claim
about this product is that it contains a large quantity of stimulants.
How much? We don't know because it's part of the proprietary claim,
but a well-known effect of stimulants (think caffeine) is an increase
in blood pressure (which makes our veins appear more pronounced).
This is consistent with the results
of the strength increases you find -stimulants are great for strength,
although I'd be more than a little concerned about consuming an
unknown quantity of these drugs.
Lastly, the stimulant effect is also
consistent with the other claim about this product: it needs to
be cycled. To make this clearer, at the time of this writing, the
NO-Xplode FAQ from the official BSN web site cites "a tolerance
that has built up to caffeine from coffee." as an example of
why something would need to be cycled. No supplements have ever
shown the need or even a benefit from cycling, although this is
patently obvious requirement with stimulant use.
Other Reasons For
Vascularity
Getting to the other potential reasons
for an increase in vascularity (thank you for the pictures BTW),
as I wrote in the literature review of Arginine AKG, it is possible
to stimulate blood flow through insulin. In fact I strongly recommend
this method to every client, as it has the potential to be most
anabolic nutritional/supplement intervention we know of -this is
contingent of the presence of protein/essential amino acids. Sadly,
although NO-Xplode contains maltodextrin which can stimulate insulin
(and subsequently blood flow), it doesn't have any protein for the
stimulation of growth and recovery.
Lastly, the elevation in vascularity
you experience is likely a consequence of the glycerol in the product.
This is widely used to pull water into the bloodstream -again, creating
a more vascular appearance.
A more detailed discussion about which
of these ingredients is having a predominant effect would be a great
idea, but again we have no clue as to how much of each you're actually
putting in your body.
Other Concerns About
NO-Xplode
While we're on the topic of the ingredients
in this product, I strongly recommend you check out the full array
of effects from Anti-creatine (guanidinopropionic acid) and Creatoxin
(glycocyamine). They have the potential to be both ergolytic (performance
impairing) and harmful to health. While I don't doubt for a second
that the stimulant effects override much of the majority of the
ergolytic potential, even a slight detriment to maximal performance
is clearly unwarranted. Oh yeah, and the whole health thing too.
:)
The addition of citrulline to NO-Xplode
is also of interest. Citrulline supplementation has also been shown
to have an ergolytic effect and could theoretically hinder nitric
oxide production, but I'll leave the details for a more thorough
literature review.
For more information I'd love to point
you to my full review of NO-Xplode, complete with detailed literature
reviews of Anti-creatine and Creatoxin, but everyone has refused
to publish it. Score a big win for the industry (and ignorance).
The Strange Psychology
Lastly [Author], the very title of
the email concerns me. I'm not going to nitpick the science (that'd
be a whole other page), but rather discuss the very idea of being
upset about a literature review. This is important because once
again, you're not alone.
Why do people
actually get upset about the presentation of science?
It's due to an internal conflict between
previously held beliefs and conflicting novel information. This
is a natural psychological phenomenon called cognitive dissonance,
and it usually manifests itself in anger or frustration.
But who do we get upset about in this
case? The researchers for conducting the study? The editors for
publishing the work? Or maybe the subjects for having their specific
physiological responses? No of course not. The anger is most often
directed at the person who presents the data: me.
This anger and frustration is even
greater when the novel information conflicts with what someone wants
to believe -and we all want to believe that something can be of
benefit to us. Adding fuel to this fire is the marketing of products
which use the armamentarium of psychology to make people want something
(although this shouldn't be news to anybody).
Conclusion
[Author] I sincerely hope that this
information has been enlightening in many respects. I also hope
that your frustration shifts to the industry where it rightfully
belongs. Again I think you for coming me to about this and wish
you all the best!
After the email…
This was sent to the original author
who not only replied but turned out to be a pretty cool guy. He
granted consent to publish the pics and I'm sure we'll be communicating
for some time to come.
As always: raise your expectations.
Raise The Barr!
About The Author
|
