|
2003/05/25, 11:35 AM
I would like to throw this topic out for discussion. I find it very fascinating, and a practice I use(or I guess I should say not use) I do not use Glutamine. Haven't for quite some time. I read both installments of David Barr's "Destroying the Dogma". He presents a very compelling argument for eliminating glutamine supplementation except for specific instances. He provides numerous articles to back his stance as it regards glutamine and its purported role in several situations (eg, immune enhancer, anabolic capabilities, etc...). While some of his argument is speculative, I seem to substantiate his conclusions. Except for replenishment of glycogen stores after intense training while on a low carb diet and helping to maintain or increase lean body mass in severly catabolic conditions (AIDS patients), glutamine does not appear to have a significant role in bodybuilding. The last line or so is very key. The glutamine that is used in the "experiments" that purportedly have all these protein syntesis effects, etc. were IV doses. No powder has been shown to do this. Could this be yet another of the supplements companies taking a good sound bit of science and putting their "spin" on it for sales? Comments please. I know many of you will quote from websites the many benefits, but any reputed proof out there? Please read this article.
--------------
As far as genetics go, the skies the limit. You are limited only by your mental perception of it.
Ron
|
|
|
|
2003/05/25, 12:39 PM
Hey I'm glad you bring that up BB1fit. I've been very curious about the yields of Glutamine use as well. Looking at your results it would appear that it's far from being a "required" suppliment. I'll be watching this post closely. <bump!>
--------------
Dont wait! Procrastinate NOW! =)
|
|
2003/05/25, 01:39 PM
Wow thanks again. You seem to know a lot about bodybuilding so your words always mean a lot to me. I was just reading all this stuff about how great Glutamine is and was probably going to go and buy some seeing as people see it a a must. Glad to hear I maybe dont need it. I have no experience with it so I will have to wait and see what other on FT think about it.
|
|
2003/05/25, 02:09 PM
I guess it would help if I posted the article website ...http://www.testosterone.net/nation_articles/body_230glut.html. There will probably be those who denounce this due to this being a pro steroid website in alot of ways, but this does not mean research is not sound. Research is research, and if Glutamine would help them, I am sure they wouldn't knock it. Anyway it goes, fascinating reading.
--------------
As far as genetics go, the skies the limit. You are limited only by your mental perception of it.
Ron
|
|
2003/05/25, 05:32 PM
Good article bb1, always good to read points from the other side. But from my own experiences and I had told you that I had to research Glutamine heavily for a college paper, I still feel that Glutamine has a very rightful place as a supplement. There argument that Glutamine increases protein synthesis is rather odd because, to be honest, most of the Glutamine we ingest won't even make it to our muscles. The body will instead use the glutamine where it is needed most. In a lot of the studies I poured over, often times, glutamine ended up helping out the gut, bowels and all that good stuff. So, if one REALLY knows about glutamine, they will realize that most of it probably won't go towards muscle building persay, but it helps in so many other areas that in the end, more muscle may be the result. But it was a good article. By the way, where are the studies that he is citing from?
|
