Anyone around here using zero supplements?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

I think Brandon Lilly doesn't take anything, at least not anything discussed above. I think supplements are silly, just my opinion.

I assure you the Lilly takes whey and creatine (he told me he did) plus other things that may confound his experience. You can believe what you want and it's important to base your beliefs on your feelings, particularly when there's decent data on the topic suggesting opposite of what you think. This isn't a flame or an attack, but I can say without pause that anyone who "thinks supplements are silly" or "don't work" is illogical.

As to who uses/doesn't use supplements well, given my phone interviews the past week or so here's the run down:
Starr and Suggs- both used lots of supplements
Coan- didn't use much supplements
Mike T- uses some supplements (BCAAs, whey, creatine)
Layne Norton- uses lots of supplements.

*shrugs*

Creatine helps when things are suboptimal, but the way it helps it's hard to see how it wouldn't be helpful regardless of the situation. And it's cheap. I can't say you will get better gainz, but it might make you feel a little better during your sessions.

Creatine helps in so many ways for both performance and health regardless of what else is going on that I honestly think it should be in the water supply.

The main problem is people take supplements and don't adequately adhere to good nutrition, they seem to think if they take whey, creatine and whatever else they will see results.

Supplements are...supplements. In that they can be used to supplement your diet, not take the place of it.

I get asked by people all the time 'Should I be using creatine?' 'Is Hydrolyzed WPI the best should I use it?'. If they can't tell me how much protein/carbs/fat they eat at least on an average scale, then my answer is always, no, get your nutrition right, then start using supplements.

Although whey is really just a form of protein to me, I don't consider it a supplement in the same sense as others, just my .02.

Agree with all of this.

[Walter Palmer]

There are many parents who are not getting their kids vaccinations these days because an actress in Hollywood believes that it can cause autism.

All of the science says her belief is wrong but now we are seeing outbreaks of diseases that were close to eradicated because some would rather trust Jenny McCarthy than the research literature.

And, by the way, the Wakefield study that kicked most of the controversy off, has been thoroughly discredited across the spectrum.

[idlehands]

I've been all through with lots of supplements for a period of time, to little to no supplements. My BEST deadift at my lowest body weight, I'm pretty sure I was only drinking a packet of knox gelatin in a cup of oj and that was about it. When I was doing body building competitions I was 100% no supplements, mostly because having whey, or shakes, digested too fast and left me hungry.

I'm taking supplements now, and enjoying it. For me it depends on money and how often I want to be drinking poor tasting powders.

[Paul1]

My local grocer sells 1kg tubs of greek yoghurt for $6.45 (AUD) and the tub contains a total of 57g of protein so that makes 11.3c per gram of protein.

It's a lot cheaper at CostCo. It's also got calcium, vit D, and is pretty good when I mix it with some flaxseed, chia seeds, and hemp hearts -- though yeah that does increase price.

Certainly you understand why the study you want to be done CANNOT be done, right?

These studies could be done if you wanted. The design is not all that hard. The people who are the LEAST interested in this kind of study are the supplement manufacturers. Vitamin C, vitamin E and CoQ10 manufacturers probably don't like the research showing they're basically pointless. Epistemology is the kicker here. How is it that we come to know anything? Does the existing evidence give you enough confidence about the outcome we're actually interested in? I doubt this stuff is harmful. But I don't have much reason to believe it's helpful either -- at least the nutritional aspect. And if it IS helpful, it's incremental. That is, the statistical benefit of the supplement is small and can only be teased out when you control for ALL other training factors.

I see it as analagous to weekend cyclists who shave their legs to cut drag a little.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

And, by the way, the Wakefield study that kicked most of the controversy off, has been thoroughly discredited across the spectrum.

Yea and the authors have been ostracized from the research community IIRC. I think one of our neurophys professors mentioned that

Jordan; is there any reasonably concievable (i mean a fair bet, not a massive accumulator style list of technically possibles) situation or biology where creatine isn't helpful? I havbe tried it three different times, and although i really want it to work (mostly because it is so cheap and the science says yes) i haven't ever noticed any quantitative or qualitative difference.

Unrelatedly, have you got the chapter headings all set in your book, and can you share them (Just the tip)?

There are some "non responders" to creatine insofar as it doesn't lead to more weight on the bar. It still does other stuff, is cheap, and is very safe so I'd take it anway.

Final chapter headings are done but I don't want to share them just yet...chicken counting, hatch..you know the deal.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

These studies could be done if you wanted. The design is not all that hard. The people who are the LEAST interested in this kind of study are the supplement manufacturers. Vitamin C, vitamin E and CoQ10 manufacturers probably don't like the research showing they're basically pointless. Epistemology is the kicker here. How is it that we come to know anything? Does the existing evidence give you enough confidence about the outcome we're actually interested in? I doubt this stuff is harmful. But I don't have much reason to believe it's helpful either -- at least the nutritional aspect. And if it IS helpful, it's incremental. That is, the statistical benefit of the supplement is small and can only be teased out when you control for ALL other training factors.

I see it as analagous to weekend cyclists who shave their legs to cut drag a little.

No, the study cannot be done because you cannot accurately control (these days) for nutrition, training, rest, AND get a decent sized sampling of people. It would cost too much money even if an IRB signs off on it. That being said, the supplements I reference and often recommend to those who have the other 90% down (or if supplements would help them get closer) all have enormous amounts of data across many populations in many scenarios. It would simply be foolish and bull-headed of me to say that we need more data or that I'm a skeptic. The outcomes shown are more than "incremental" and again, simply put if you choose not to take them that is fine but you are, unequivocally, leaving performance on the table provided everything else is in line.

I do not agree with your analogy but then again, I am known to be a contrarian.

[Tom Bryant]

As to who uses/doesn't use supplements well, given my phone interviews the past week or so here's the run down:
Starr and Suggs- both used lots of supplements
Coan- didn't use much supplements
Mike T- uses some supplements (BCAAs, whey, creatine)
Layne Norton- uses lots of supplements.

And Rip?

[Paul1]

you are, unequivocally, leaving performance on the table provided everything else is in line

If you believe the study can't be done, then how do you figure it is so unequivocal -- especially when it is "performance" that I'd be leaving on the table?

Let's appoint you to a guidelines committee. I run a national guidelines committee, I'm getting a flavor of this stuff. You need to make a guideline recommendation for BCAA supplements in recreational novices who are trying to increase strength over the long term. You get to decide two things: strength of recommendation (A through C) and level of evidence (I through III).

Level of evidence AT BEST is going to be a II, which is mainly based on observational studies or studies that don't have proper blinding and controls. But the problem is that you downgrade the level of evidence if the studies are not exactly generalizable to your recommendation. So if you have small controlled studies or observational studies, but they are looking at MPS or at inter-workout soreness or at 6 week outcome measures. These outcomes are not the same as an x-fold difference in strength acquisition in 12 months. So your level of evidence, frankly, is going to be III. For elite athletes it will probably also be III for lack of studies, and inability to control for the biological differences that separate winners and losers at that level.

And what about strength of recommendation? Would you really give it an A-grade recommendation strength that novice lifters should take BCAA supplements? You don't need high quality evidence to make an A-grade recommendation. For instance, I contend that flapping your arms does not make jumping off the roof any safer. Strength of recommendation A, level of evidence III -- just based on logic and maybe some very tragic case reports.

The fact is that you know that there are many many variables like programming, form, rest, dietary sufficiency, genetics, and probably training history that are more important in determining the outcome of someone's strength training. So your strength of recommendation is probably going to be a B.

I can buy that rec: Take BCAA supplements (B-III). That sounds about right -- quite optional given what we know.

[Mike C]

I just sat down and calculated the price for an equal amount of grams of protein in my jug of whey versus the cheapest brand of ground chicken from my grocery that is sitting in my fridge. To get the same amount of protein from the chicken, the total $$ would be almost twice as much for the chicken as I pay for my whey. My jug of whey costs about 1.8 cents per gram of protein, the chicken about 3.4 cents per gram. From a cost-benefits analysis (with protein as the variable), a good micro-economist would ask what rational individual would not choose the whey over the chicken?

And, just from my personal opinion, is whey really a "supplement" rather than just another thing humans do to milk? I mean yogurt, cottage cheese, cheese, etc, are all just products that humans have created through the processing of milk. Plus, whey (maybe not in powered form) is a pretty old food product, I mean there is even an old nursery rhyme that first appeared in print in 1805 about 'curds and whey'. Whey, cheese, yogurt, they're all processed foods.

Chicken is real food. Whey contains a shit ton of chemicals and heavy metals that are really bad for you including: arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. Small amounts won't kill you, but a ton of whey isn't a smart thing, especially since it isn't regulated by anyone including the FDA.

[paterfamilias]

Creatine helps in so many ways for both performance and health regardless of what else is going on that I honestly think it should be in the water supply.

Can you link to some of these, especially the health-related ones? I've started taking it regularly (5g/day) at age 46, and I have constant nagging doubts about the safety of it, based on nothing whatsoever.