QUOTE(Tham @ Dec 1 2014, 07:10 PM)
You can't take a single writeup of one person as the gospel truth.
That's just his opinion. If you listen to people like him, you'll end up
taking nothing at all.
It may not work for him, but that doesn't mean it won't work for you - and vice versa.
As I had told William, my late cancer friend - you can take 1,000 studies which
concludes that a particular supplement or herb is useless for cancer, but if it
works for YOU, to hell with all those studies !
Conversely, if 1,000,000 studies says that a supplement or drugs works for sure
in cancer, but if it is useless for YOU, those studies can all be used for toilet paper.
Plain common sense.
How could you not even have heard of HMB ? It's selling in bodybuilding shops,
GNC, Nature's Farm and health food stores everywhere.
I'm a very skinny person, don't even exercise, but I've known about HMB
for the past two decades.
HMB and HICA have advantages over leucine because they are metabolites, but
leucine is much cheaper, and, as a BCAA, definitely has usefulness in anything
relating to muscles and body tissues - bodybuilding, athletic performance,
degenerative disease. the cachexia (muscle wasting) of aging, cancer and and
other wasting diseases.
Why? Because there are many supplements out there, and if we were to take all of them that provided benefits, that would certainly burn a whole in the wallet.
For enthusiast bodybuilders, non-competitive, the supplements most regularly consumed would be a multivitamin, caffeine (coffee or other pre-workout formulas), fish oil, whey protein concentrate (or isolate), and creatine monohydrate. These are deemed as already sufficient to do the intended job, without breaking the bank.
Increasingly popular would be BCAA as it has been widely promoted by leading supplement brands and some of the more visible scientists or competitive bodybuilders behind these brands. One such person is Layne, who's a competitive bodybuilder as well as specializes in research on 'muscle protein and amino acid metabolism'.
Now this is a review from
http://josephagu.com/2013/03/26/bccas-for-...science-part-3/ :
QUOTE
Layne Norton may indeed be ahead of the game when it comes to his suggested BCAA protocol taken between meals separated by 4-6 hours. However, when compared to a sufficient protein intake (2.5-3g/kg) spread over the typical 3-4 meals (as suggested in part 2), I can’t see how this tactic could be much more beneficial, if at all. To quote Alan Aragon speaking about Layne Norton about the very topic:
“it’s crucial to realize that [Layne’s BCAA protocol] might be miniscule and not worth the effort or expense for non-competitive populations. In repeated personal communication, he has admitted to me that this tactic is done in attempt to clinch a very small edge to win. As a top-level, drug-free competitor, it’s justifiable to exploit all hypothetical nutritional means within reason in order to conjure the last bit of potential.”
*Note: Alan Aragon is another academic/science based heavyweight in the bodybuilding/nutrition research arena.
While not being well-versed with the scientific studies, the above claims do make sense, from a benefit vs cost point of view. This comment of mine is however strictly reserved for physique improvement and non-competitive bodybuilding. If you think this is dead wrong, we're of course all for learning on this thread, and not hostile to opinions.