Pre-run supplement

Singer wrote: »

You are confusing "endorsement" with the actual efficacy of supplements.

That said, I ran a recent PB after necking a load of beetroot juice (and wearing a pair of Vaporfly 4%s #marginalgains).

I dont see how any of anything you said there has anything to do with Sonia endorsing or the efficacy of anything really.

MY BAD

I used to drink beetroot juice but not anymore. I started taking K2 and D3 after my achillies injury. I'm not sure why I started or if its a placebo but hey. I suppose having a good diet is better than any supplements

Murph_D

M.m.m. wrote: »

Personally I would point you to the company and ask you to speak to their experts who have probably studied for almost a decade in the field sooner than trawl through junk on Google Scholar. I don't think reading through random conference papers constitutes knowing anything really.

Surely what you call “random conference papers” are the basis for the creation of many of these supplements in the first place. But the idea that the company line is more reliable than independent research? You’re a gas man.

M.m.m. wrote: »

Personally I would point you to the company and ask you to speak to their experts who have probably studied for almost a decade in the field sooner than trawl through junk on Google Scholar. I don't think reading through random conference papers constitutes knowing anything really.

Again I'm confused here, you seem to be saying these ingredients enhance performance.

Nobody is claiming that any of this stuff is instant, well actually I can personally say the kick effect is instant with one sachet of Revive since I have used it and can attest to it but the longer term ingredients may well take months or whatever. Like a lot supplements and the likes and even with medication things dont take effect immediately.

Personally I would advise you to understand what the ingredients are supposed to do for you, whether those ingredients have been sufficiently researched independently and at varying levels and learn of possible side effects then you get to a level where you have basic understand to actually critically evaluate the information you are being given. Their information might well be valid but unless you understand enough of the basic concepts how are you able to evaluate what you are being told by someone with a vested interest.

With regards your confusion my response to El C was about supplements in general and repeatedly I have said that the dosage was why the claims being made were dubious at best

Mellow Yellow 26.2 wrote: »

I used to drink beetroot juice but not anymore. I started taking K2 and D3 after my achillies injury. I'm not sure why I started or if its a placebo but hey. I suppose having a good diet is better than any supplements

I wouldn't argue with you there. If you have a few quid and want to go out and take supplements I wouldn't hold it against you.

It would be great to get to the grocery store and go home and cook this stuff and keep up the discipline of it all the time.

I actually take another supplement myself and when I stop taking it for about a month I can feel the difference. I am not saying I couldn't get the ingredients in food somehow to replace the supplement but I have too much going on and not enough discipline to shop and cook for these ingredients so its a no brainer for me. Of course the other supplement I take is a lot cheaper than Revive but it is used for other reasons that have nothing to do with running.

Just on the whole topic of supplements, it is a top surgeon in Ireland who recommends the particular supplement that I am taking.(I am not talking about Revive). He operates on people every day, goes around the world to lecture and advise other hospitals and governments and has been requested by our own health minister for work. I would take that type of advice over a runner's expertise on boards any day.

So what I am saying is that I personally believe in supplements as I have noticed the difference from not using them.

They are not going to save lives, nobody is claiming they...maybe they will.
But thats why they are called supplements, they enhance and help the basic diet and do not replace food etc.

Testosterscone wrote: »

Personally I would advise you to understand what the ingredients are supposed to do for you, whether those ingredients have been sufficiently researched independently and at varying levels and learn of possible side effects then you get to a level where you have basic understand to actually critically evaluate the information you are being given. Their information might well be valid but unless you understand enough of the basic concepts how are you able to evaluate what you are being told by someone with a vested interest.

With regards your confusion my response to El C was about supplements in general and repeatedly I have said that the dosage was why the claims being made were dubious at best

That's a very patronising comment. Don't assume I don't

M.m.m. wrote: »

That's a very patronising comment. Don't assume I don't

My reference was more in a general sense than you specifically. Too many people tend to be too lazy and buy into the hack culture and accept what they are told without question.

Critical thinking is a dying artform so what may be perceived as arrogance is simply making sure I learn enough to be able to make rationale conclusions and opinions

El CabaIIo wrote: »

Does anyone actually know how well or unwell any supplements work outside of lab testing?

Not sure if this was rhetorical

but no, I don't think you can. If you are taking a supplement for 3 months, you can't distinguish the effects of the supplement from the effects of everything else that happens in those months, and the placebo effect means that even if you do improve as a result of taking the supplement, it doesn't mean the contents of the supplement actually do anything.

The only way to test the effectiveness of a supplement is in a lab, under controlled conditions.

Someone asked about beetroot juice? Here's a survey of studies
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-017-0204-9
There was also a study which confirmed it was the level of nitrates in beetroot juice which made it effective (the control group took beetroot juice that had had the nitrates removed)

kulekat

M.m.m. wrote: »

I actually take another supplement myself
..
Of course the other supplement I take is a lot cheaper than Revive ...

Just on the whole topic of supplements, it is a top surgeon in Ireland who recommends the particular supplement that I am taking.(I am not talking about Revive).

.

What other supplement are you taking?

kulekat wrote: »

What other supplement are you taking?

I take a treble dose of Evening Primrose oil

So the recommended dosage is 1000mg, I take 3000mg.

I stopped taking it for a month due to being on a double dose of antibiotics and I felt the difference the following month.

RayCun wrote: »

Not sure if this was rhetorical but no, I don't think you can. If you are taking a supplement for 3 months, you can't distinguish the effects of the supplement from the effects of everything else that happens in those months, and the placebo effect means that even if you do improve as a result of taking the supplement, it doesn't mean the contents of the supplement actually do anything.

The only way to test the effectiveness of a supplement is in a lab, under controlled conditions.

Someone asked about beetroot juice? Here's a survey of studies
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-017-0204-9
There was also a study which confirmed it was the level of nitrates in beetroot juice which made it effective (the control group took beetroot juice that had had the nitrates removed)

and what about if the contents is a plant based supplement?
Theres people out there who base their diet on a plant based diet.
So some of these supplements are actually giving the same nutrients as food so don't understand how 'Placebo' even enters the equation for some this argument.

M.m.m. wrote: »

I take a treble dose of Evening Primrose oil

So the recommended dosage is 1000mg, I take 3000mg.

I stopped taking it for a month due to being on a double dose of antibiotics and I felt the difference the following month.

What are you taking it for? A specific condition or general "wellness"?
What is the evidence that it is effective for that?

M.m.m. wrote: »

and what about if the contents is a plant based supplement?
Theres people out there who base their diet on a plant based diet.
So some of these supplements are actually giving the same nutrients as food so don't understand how 'Placebo' even enters the equation for some this argument.

The placebo effect applies to plant-based supplements as much as any other supplement.

You are told something will make you better > you do it > you get better
It doesn't have to be a supplement, it could be wearing a copper bracelet, or putting a cut onion on your bedside table, or a stretching regime, or a holy relic. When people take positive steps to control their health, it makes them feel better, and that actually makes them better.

But the effective thing is that they are taking steps, not the content of the steps. Which is why you need a control group.

A common test protocol would be
Get people to carry out a test (on a treadmill or a wattbike)
Give them supplement X for two weeks
Get them to take the test again

But if you do that, then whatever the supplement is, you will probably see some improvement in the second test. People think the supplement will work, so they think they will do better, and they do!

So you get 100 people in the test, and 50 of them get the real supplement, whatever it is, and 50 get something that you know doesn't work (but the test subjects think is the real supplement). 100 people take the second test, and they all improve, but you compare the results to see if the 50 people taking the real supplement improved more than the 50 taking the dummy. If they all improved by the same amount, then the real supplement is not actually effective.

RayCun wrote: »

What are you taking it for? A specific condition or general "wellness"?
What is the evidence that it is effective for that?

The placebo effect applies to plant-based supplements as much as any other supplement.

You are told something will make you better > you do it > you get better
It doesn't have to be a supplement, it could be wearing a copper bracelet, or putting a cut onion on your bedside table, or a stretching regime, or a holy relic. When people take positive steps to control their health, it makes them feel better, and that actually makes them better.

But the effective thing is that they are taking steps, not the content of the steps. Which is why you need a control group.

A common test protocol would be
Get people to carry out a test (on a treadmill or a wattbike)
Give them supplement X for two weeks
Get them to take the test again

But if you do that, then whatever the supplement is, you will probably see some improvement in the second test. People think the supplement will work, so they think they will do better, and they do!

So you get 100 people in the test, and 50 of them get the real supplement, whatever it is, and 50 get something that you know doesn't work (but the test subjects think is the real supplement). 100 people take the second test, and they all improve, but you compare the results to see if the 50 people taking the real supplement improved more than the 50 taking the dummy. If they all improved by the same amount, then the real supplement is not actually effective.

I know what you're saying but for me something like a plant with actual nutrients, proteins etc that are scientifically proven to be something the body needs or lacks for a certain functionality or increase in that function is not placebo to me.

M.m.m. wrote: »

I know what you're saying but for me something like a plant with actual nutrients, proteins etc that are scientifically proven to be something the body needs or lacks for a certain functionality or increase in that function is not placebo to me.

Well, take for example omega oil, or fish oil.
The fatty acids that these oil contains are absolutely necessary for the body. If you have a deficiency in those fatty acids, and start taking the supplements, they will have a positive effect (beyond the placebo effect). I think that is fairly well established and accepted.

However, some people think* that
if
taking a supplement to get you to this level has proven health benefits
then
taking a supplement to get you to a higher level must also be beneficial

but it isn't true. In a lot of cases, the body wants this much of something. If it doesn't have this much then there will be problems. But any more than this much is pointless - it won't be used, it will be pissed out again. It could even be damaging if you take in too much to process. And studies have shown that taking omega oil has no positive effects on people who have normal levels of fatty acids from their regular diet.

It's like the oil in your car. There is a certain range your oil levels should be in. If your oil levels fall below that it will cause problems, your engine performance will suffer. At that point, adding oil will improve engine performance. But you can't keep improving performance by adding more oil - at first the extra oil will have no effect, and eventually extra oil will cause a different set of performance problems.

* and some people know it isn't true, but is useful as a sales pitch

RayCun wrote: »

Well, take for example omega oil, or fish oil.
The fatty acids that these oil contains are absolutely necessary for the body. If you have a deficiency in those fatty acids, and start taking the supplements, they will have a positive effect (beyond the placebo effect). I think that is fairly well established and accepted.

However, some people think* that
if
taking a supplement to get you to this level has proven health benefits
then
taking a supplement to get you to a higher level must also be beneficial

but it isn't true. In a lot of cases, the body wants this much of something. If it doesn't have this much then there will be problems. But any more than this much is pointless - it won't be used, it will be pissed out again. It could even be damaging if you take in too much to process. And studies have shown that taking omega oil has no positive effects on people who have normal levels of fatty acids from their regular diet.

It's like the oil in your car. There is a certain range your oil levels should be in. If your oil levels fall below that it will cause problems, your engine performance will suffer. At that point, adding oil will improve engine performance. But you can't keep improving performance by adding more oil - at first the extra oil will have no effect, and eventually extra oil will cause a different set of performance problems.

* and some people know it isn't true, but is useful as a sales pitch

Okay so I agree totally with what you've said so why is this thread saying that supplements are bull****. Ive just battled with another user about this forever and all of a sudden its widely accepted that they work and can definitely be a help or necessity.

My argument is over, I can sleep in peace.

M.m.m. wrote: »

Okay so I agree totally with what you've said so why is this thread saying that supplements are bull****. Ive just battled with another user about this forever and all of a sudden its widely accepted that they work and can definitely be a help or necessity.

They can be a help or necessity if you have a deficiency that you need supplements to redress.

if you are low on iron, iron supplements are really effective. If you aren't, they aren't (and can be dangerous).

Same with a deficiency in potassium, magnesium, vitamin C, fish oil, folic acid, whatever.... if you have a deficiency, then taking a supplement to bring you up to normal levels is a really good idea. If you are already at normal levels, then taking a supplement won't have any effect - your body will piss out what it doesn't need.

The list of things that you can take that will have a positive effect when you take more than normal levels is quite small (at least if you take out the things that are classed as doping!) and for some of these things, the dosage you take is important. Vitamin X might have a positive effect, but only if you take 10g/day for a year.

So with any supplement you have to ask

Do you have a medical condition that this is an effective treatment for?
Is this something that you get enough of already from your regular diet? (And if not, is it a better solution to change your diet, not take this supplement?)
Is this something that will have a positive effect if you consume more of it than is present in a regular diet? (And how much more would you need to consume for that effect?)

El CabaIIo

M.m.m. wrote: »

Okay so I agree totally with what you've said so why is this thread saying that supplements are bull****. Ive just battled with another user about this forever and all of a sudden its widely accepted that they work and can definitely be a help or necessity.

My argument is over, I can sleep in peace.

I don't think anyone said supplements didn't work, just that many companies who are in the buisness of selling oversell products and formulas. Everyone claims their supplement is the best and the market is sketchy at the best of times and they will say that their product is the best legal supplement on the market. The industry in itself is not really regulated as it's so saturated and claims can be made from 1 half assed study which may never get refuted because the effort and money going into refuting them is too high with a new compound coming out every 2 seconds.

Hell, some products get found to have trace amounts of anabolic steriods, banned stimulants and some nasty other compounds. It all leads to people being sceptical about everything in the industry because they can pretty much claim whatever they want.

Debates don't have to be battles either.

M.m.m. wrote: »

Okay so I agree totally with what you've said so why is this thread saying that supplements are bull****. Ive just battled with another user about this forever and all of a sudden its widely accepted that they work and can definitely be a help or necessity.

My argument is over, I can sleep in peace.

Where exactly did I claim supplements are BS? My points where the product mentioned were making claims that weren't supported as the science and research behind the ingredients has shown generally accepted dosage to effective treatment of deficiencies.

Testosterscone wrote: »

Calorie intake - Are you eating enough (of the right stuff) a health diet is too vague a description

Training - You have already said you are running 100% the whole time, address this

Stress levels - are these in check and are you recovering from training sufficiently

Sleep - Are you getting enough

Unless you address these no supplement will be worth a damn and will make any bit of blind difference. If you tick all these boxes then you can start to look at supplementation actually making a difference (but the problem is that anything that has any merit to it is not a quick fix but works on sustainable build up over a period of time)

Testosterscone wrote: »

Of the top listing ingredients that actually have any efficacy 4-5 are underdosed with Vitamin C being overdosed as a water soluble vitamin which makes it an overly expensive pee colourer.

Testosterscone wrote: »

For the record I am not anti suppliments they do have there place (for example one of the ingredients I mentioned before is valid for supplementation as citrulline would mean you are eating the rind of a watermelon to try and get enough from your food but at the levels they have in it is about 33% of recommended daily intake and even then this is something which works long term) but for the most part I would say that 99.9999% of people here (including myself) are wasting there time and money on suppliements till they properly fix there diet.

Ray actually raised a great point as well

RayCun wrote: »

but it isn't true. In a lot of cases, the body wants this much of something. If it doesn't have this much then there will be problems. But any more than this much is pointless - it won't be used, it will be pissed out again. It could even be damaging if you take in too much to process. And studies have shown that taking omega oil has no positive effects on people who have normal levels of fatty acids from their regular diet.

Supplementation in the absence of a deficiency can have an impact on hormonal response in some cases so taking something just to be safe can cause your body to secrete hormones to counteract. This is why it is important to know exactly what you are taking and why you could start off taking something to be safe and end up needing to supplement because ironically your body has been counteracting the excess in the system leaving you unable to manage levels in your body with hormone production.

M.m.m. wrote: »

and what about if the contents is a plant based supplement?
Theres people out there who base their diet on a plant based diet.

Should be worth noting that from a nutritional standpoint many of those who are against plant based diets usually use the fact that one of the biggest issues with this approach is that many people have to heavily supplement due to being deficient of certain vitamins and minerals.

Remember supplement companies despite all their money pumped into research will still try sell you Whey protein and BCAA's religiously as part of a muscle building pack so it is not unfeasible that despite standing by a product are still making claims to sell as much of the product as possible.

yeah yeah yeah

The Art of debate is alive and well

pconn062

Testosterscone wrote: »

My reference was more in a general sense than you specifically. Too many people tend to be too lazy and buy into the hack culture and accept what they are told without question.

Critical thinking is a dying artform so what may be perceived as arrogance is simply making sure I learn enough to be able to make rationale conclusions and opinions

Great point.

ultrapercy

Ray D'Arcy interviewed an expert in the area of micro nutrition some time back. He basically denounced all supplements as urine enhancers ie expensive pee or placebos. Outside ofo those medically prescribed for an actual defficency like iron for anemia the only one he recommended was vitamin D for people who live in Northern Europe. Make of that what you will.

ultrapercy wrote: »

Ray D'Arcy interviewed an expert in the area of micro nutrition some time back. He basically denounced all supplements as urine enhancers ie expensive pee or placebos. Outside ofo those medically prescribed for an actual defficency like iron for anemia the only one he recommended was vitamin D for people who live in Northern Europe. Make of that what you will.

@ Testosterscone and co.

Time to do a U turn

M.m.m. wrote: »

@ Testosterscone and co.

Time to do a U turn

Do you actually read any of this what you or others write? You cited the reason you take something was on recommendation of an expert and now that an expert on a radio station makes claims you are happy to ignore your original stand point for the point of saying "ha you were wrong" and then talk about making U-turns :rolleyes:

Experts give there opinion based on their research and interpretation. One experts opinion does not equate to absolute fact. Research no matter how good it is, is not absolute but rather builds on the information available. and contributes to the understanding.

ultrapercy wrote: »

Ray D'Arcy interviewed an expert in the area of micro nutrition some time back. He basically denounced all supplements as urine enhancers ie expensive pee or placebos. Outside ofo those medically prescribed for an actual defficency like iron for anemia the only one he recommended was vitamin D for people who live in Northern Europe. Make of that what you will.

While I do agree with the general point trying to be made I would reckon his statements would come with caveats that would probably be reserved for a different fora and audience. The supplement industry polarises opinions and for the large part I would view it in a negative light and it's success being systemic of the short cut culture but I do think that at its very core under the exaggerated/false claims, and margin cutting I do think that (some) or the research is progressing and actually starting to show tangible results. Having said that I would probably put that at maybe 2/3% of the overall body of literature and sadly gets lost in all the noise

Supplementation in the presence of deficiency definitely has its merit but 99% of people do not use it as it was designed to be

Back to the original thread title

For anyone with an interest in looking into supplements a bit more here are a few good video's and channels who do a good job of wading through alot of the the background

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR5jW9iNNiw&list=PLp4G6oBUcv8z7yIq95QM2zVl1h33gfhDr&index=39

(^^ pretty good channel for meta reviews and balanced opinions^^)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=comoAuzEwss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUCq2uugFl4&t=54s

(More a social commentary on the fitness industry but knows his stuff and breaks things down pretty well)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNACHGhSRNCc98hHgBZhk_A

(Pretty good supplement podcast)

Make of it what you will as long as it is informed decisions

ultrapercy wrote: »

He basically denounced all supplements as urine enhancers ie expensive pee or placebos

Testosterscone wrote: »

The Art of debate is alive and well

I just know when to quit and its usually when it gets boring and goes around in circles as it has done once again.

skyblue46

There is a very good cover story in the December 1 edition of New Scientist magazine titled "Why supplements don't work. It's not just what you eat but how you eat it".