Australian Institute of Sport - Supplements

thirtyfoot

I was at the Sports Nutrition Conference in Croker on saturday and one of the more interesting speakers was Greg Cox of the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS). They have a supplement classification systems which classes supplements from Group A to D. Gr A - they recommend, Gr B - no research yet so jury is out, Gr C - no proven scientific benefit so not recommended, and Gr D - strongly not recommended. Here is the list, I think Irish Sports Council should do something similar as opposed to their blanket opposition.

http://www.ais.org.au/nutrition/supclassification.asp

Also speaking was Hans Geyer from the Cologne Sports University. His group have done research on cross-contamination of supplements. They have a list that details what they regard are supplements that have minimal risk of contamination. His presentation detailed supplements that in their tests showed examples of banned substances due to cross-contamination - the presentation is due to be published on the ISC website in the next few days. Although his presentation was a bit haphazard and it is a reminder to any athlete who is tested or liable to be tested to be conscious of where they get their supplements and that they are from reliable sources. Here is the Cologne List of supplements with minimal risk of contamination. Its in German.

http://www.osp-koeln.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=99&limit=20&limitstart=60

g'em

Makes for an interesting read. Well, the English written stuff does anyway

And curiously ZMA and BCAAs fall under Category C?? i.e.

Supplements which have no proof of beneficial effects and are therefore not to be provided to official AIS programs

there's a heapload of scientific evidence to show that many athletes at all levels are deficient in zinc and manesium and that supplementing aids performance through an increase in Test and IGF-1.

Admittedly BCAA research often centres around their use as post-operative or surgical recovery aids but there's plenty of evidence to show they have significant anti-catabolic properties. Maybe they just feel there isn't enough evidence to support their use in athletes?

Creatine, of course, is deemed safe as houses. Damn straight

t-ha

I agree Tingle - in fact I'd say the only reason it hasn't been done already is that it would require alot of knowldge about the field of supplementation to compile such a list, so it's easier to just blanket state that they are all bad. Perhaps now they might review the AIS list and just copy & paste the whole thing seeing as someone else has done the hard work for them?

The German Link is an excellent idea & an english version would be a great resource to athletes. Fortunately I don't have to worry about testing myself, but I have friends who are burdened a fair bit by the worry that they might fail tests due to buying contaminated supplements.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Dragan

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

There have been a small number of studies into HMB but nothing that shows any real benefit to the athlete. However, the number of studies is very small and often times not to well controlled, hence the jusry being out I suppose.

tunney

t-ha wrote:

I agree Tingle - in fact I'd say the only reason it hasn't been done already is that it would require alot of knowldge about the field of supplementation to compile such a list, so it's easier to just blanket state that they are all bad.

I believe you are wrong.

The blanket ban I believe is not because of being unable to determine the benefits (if there are any) associated with a particular supplement but because of the high risk of the legal supplements being contaminated with banned substances and causing the athletes to test positive. there is nothing on the AIS 'A' list that cannot be gotten through a good diet.

thirtyfoot

tunney wrote:

I believe you are wrong.

The blanket ban I believe is not because of being unable to determine the benefits (if there are any) associated with a particular supplement but because of the high risk of the legal supplements being contaminated with banned substances and causing the athletes to test positive. there is nothing on the AIS 'A' list that cannot be gotten through a good diet.

But the Cologne List details supplements that are at a minimum risk of cross-contamination and regarded safe to use. When it comes to sports governance, I'd follow the Aussie model over the Irish model any day. Athletes will always try and give themselves an advantage and isn't it best for the sports governers to assist the athletes in making the right decisions. As an athlete if you know Supplements x or y are safe to use, you are more likely to use these than some dodgy internet product.

t-ha

tunney wrote:

The blanket ban I believe is not because of being unable to determine the benefits (if there are any) associated with a particular supplement but because of the high risk of the legal supplements being contaminated with banned substances and causing the athletes to test positive.

Then why have a blanket ban? Why not have supplements that are approved?

Incidentally, where did you get "high risk" from? I've heard people voice concern over potential contamination/non-labelling of ingredients in supplements ordered from irreptuable online stores - I've never seen anything concrete to back up the idea of there being a 'high' risk of unlabelled substances in supplements generally.

Buying from manufacturers in the EU, especially those who are ISO 9000 compliant, and IOC/WADA compliant is safe. This whole notion only really came about from athletes testing positive for banned substances and trying desperately to find an out & blaming their supplements.

rubadub

t-ha wrote:

Buying from manufacturers in the EU, especially those who are ISO 9000 compliant, and IOC/WADA compliant is safe.

I know nothing about IOC/WADA, but I would not rely so heavily on ISO 9000. It is called a "quality" system but really it is a business management tool rather than a enforced code to produce quality product. You write up your own standards and have procedures and record keeping etc in check with the guidelines of ISO 9000, then you are audited by external auditors to see that you are following your own procedures. In short if your procedures say you can test product and accept a massive failure/contamination rate or specifiy that you make a poor product then you are then ISO approved since you have followed your own quality levels however low they are.

One thing required by ISO is following statutory and regulatory requirements related to the product. The problem here is that the external auditors may have no idea of the industry (the company can specifically choose "easy" auditors who are likely to pass them). Also figures can easily be fudged.

In saying all that it is still a better sign than no system in place! People should be just wary of ISO especially for companies who do not really have to follow regulations, e.g. tilers, driveway layers etc, many see ISO and think it means they will do a good job.

You can translate that german page using this
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

Goldfinger

tunney wrote:

high risk of the legal supplements being contaminated with banned substances and causing the athletes to test positive.

This sentence in particular caused some headscratching on my part.
Who is supposed to be contaminating the supplements?
The manufacturers? On purpose?

To what end? If you're suggesting that it's deliberate on their part to improve the effectiveness of a given supplement, then presumably you're saying they'll be putting in enough of the banned substance to cost a shed-load more money that they could possibly make from the sale of the supplement itself.

That's a pretty selfless act on the manufacturers part to risk going bankrupt in order to give their customers a little sumptin' sumptin' in their whey!

thirtyfoot

Goldfinger wrote:

Who is supposed to be contaminating the supplements?
The manufacturers? On purpose?

The contamination can occur when manufacturers who produce banned substances in the same location as non-banned substances. It may not be a malicious act but due maybe to producing different supplements on the same assembly line. The Hans Geyer presentation is in the link below, and it details specific products that were found to contain banned substances, even though there was no mention on the ingredients list.

http://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/interactive-case-studies-archive-article.aspx?article=14348a03-6545-49db-8158-1a984a2ed8bc

g'em

Thanks for that Tingle. Just had a quick look through the findings:

they looked @ 634 supplements from 13 countries, involving 215 companies from 15 countries. 14.8% of supps were contaminated.

but all the supps quoted (possibly with the exception of the slimming tablets containing sibutramine) were all at an extreme end of the spectrum as far as supplements are concerned. They're all marketed as prohormones or "legal" anabolics, which the average gym-goer won't be interested in anyway. I'm guessing that this is the study the IT were referring to in their (now infamous) creo-munchers article. But a contaminated batch of Anabolic Xtreme Stanzanol is a far cry from contaminated whey!!

That's why idea of a blanket ban on supps is so frustrating- there's so, so many different types of supllements out there it's completely unfair to demonise the ones that are by-products of cheese-making

mloc

the whole blanket ban idea is a typical irish response, don't bother investigating the real causes behind a problem, instead just close our eyes, put our hands over our ears and keep shouting ban! ban! ban!

Dragan

Blanket ban eh????

Well i'm betting that i'm bigger and stronger than they guy who is going to be trying to stop me!!!