So...let's say a murderer confesses. "I shot him," he says, "somewhere between 8 and 8:30 PM on the night in question."
Now is this not definitive because he didn't tell us the number of grains in the bullet he used?
Really?
quote:Originally posted by CPLZ:
You could never ban creatine, your body produces it naturally and you ingest it everytime you eat red meat.
Could never ban creatine, because our body produces it naturally? Of course it could be banned--take testosterone as an example. Our bodies produce it naturally, yet injection, ingestion, or topical application of testosterone is banned by nearly all sports played under WADA jursidiction. It is banned specifically and also by reference, since testosterone is an anabolic steroid.
Artificial testosterone is detectable, and I imagine that manufactured creatine could be detected in similar ways.
Should it be banned? That's a philosophical question. I will comment that testosterone clearly enhances athletic performance, while it isn't obvious that creatine does.
quote:Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
Of course it could be banned--take testosterone as an example. Our bodies produce it naturally, yet injection, ingestion, or topical application of testosterone is banned by nearly all sports played under WADA jursidiction. It is banned specifically and also by reference, since testosterone is an anabolic steroid.
Artificial testosterone is detectable, and I imagine that manufactured creatine could be detected in similar ways.
I think we're splitting hairs with a meat axe here.
By definition, testosterone is not banned. Administration of additional testosterone is banned. One of the testing methods is to determine the level of testosterone in the system to see if it exceeds norms.
Creatine can be ingested naturally by eating red meat, along with our own body producing it naturally. The difficulty in testing for creatine supplementation, is that the levels ingested by supplementation do not differ greatly from the levels obtained by eating steaks.
As to your assertion that you assume manufactured creatine could be detected in similar ways, that's an assumption not supported with any evidence.
CPLZ,
If you can get the levels of Creatine used for building up by eating steaks then no problem. I'll have to check on how much Creatine is in a 16oz steak.
"To increase anaerobic work capacity, studies have used a dose of 5 grams four times per day for 5 days. For enhanced athletic strength and performance, studies have used a dose of 20 grams per day for 4-7 days. Daily maintenance doses of 2-5 grams or 0.3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight have been used."
OK, in order to get the performance enhancement one would start with 20 grams per day. A 2.2 lb. steak contains 4 grams. That means five 2.2 lb steaks a day for 4 to 7 days. Oh, BTW, that's raw uncooked steak. My guess is that you'd have to eat quite a bit more if you actually want to cook it. That's a lot of steak. After that you just have to eat an immense steak a day.
I don't think there's many people who could eat more than 11 pounds of steak a day for a week. Of course if they are willing to eat it raw then they can stop at 11 pounds a day.
"But keep something in mind - a lean 24 oz steak cooked medium, might only contain a few hundred milligrams (if that) by the time it hits your plate."
Let's assume two 24 oz cooked steaks to get 1 gram. That's 60 lbs of steak a day to get that 20 gram a day initial load.
I'm going to eat at Claim Jumper on Friday. I don't think the Filet is going to have much effect on my muscle mass at maybe 100 milligrams of creatine. I do promise to feel guilty though.
If you can get the levels of Creatine used for building up by eating steaks then no problem. I'll have to check on how much Creatine is in a 16oz steak.
"To increase anaerobic work capacity, studies have used a dose of 5 grams four times per day for 5 days. For enhanced athletic strength and performance, studies have used a dose of 20 grams per day for 4-7 days. Daily maintenance doses of 2-5 grams or 0.3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight have been used."
OK, in order to get the performance enhancement one would start with 20 grams per day. A 2.2 lb. steak contains 4 grams. That means five 2.2 lb steaks a day for 4 to 7 days. Oh, BTW, that's raw uncooked steak. My guess is that you'd have to eat quite a bit more if you actually want to cook it. That's a lot of steak. After that you just have to eat an immense steak a day.
I don't think there's many people who could eat more than 11 pounds of steak a day for a week. Of course if they are willing to eat it raw then they can stop at 11 pounds a day.
"But keep something in mind - a lean 24 oz steak cooked medium, might only contain a few hundred milligrams (if that) by the time it hits your plate."
Let's assume two 24 oz cooked steaks to get 1 gram. That's 60 lbs of steak a day to get that 20 gram a day initial load.
I'm going to eat at Claim Jumper on Friday. I don't think the Filet is going to have much effect on my muscle mass at maybe 100 milligrams of creatine. I do promise to feel guilty though.
quote:Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:quote:Originally posted by CPLZ:
You could never ban creatine, your body produces it naturally and you ingest it everytime you eat red meat.
Could never ban creatine, because our body produces it naturally? Of course it could be banned--take testosterone as an example. Our bodies produce it naturally, yet injection, ingestion, or topical application of testosterone is banned by nearly all sports played under WADA jursidiction. It is banned specifically and also by reference, since testosterone is an anabolic steroid.
Artificial testosterone is detectable, and I imagine that manufactured creatine could be detected in similar ways.
Should it be banned? That's a philosophical question. I will comment that testosterone clearly enhances athletic performance, while it isn't obvious that creatine does.
Creantine is on the proposed list of prohibited substances for minor league UMPIRES. Baseball is proposing a much more strict drug policy for umpires than for its players. Some of the proposed subtances are commonly found in health drinks.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
"To increase anaerobic work capacity, studies have used a dose of 5 grams four times per day for 5 days. For enhanced athletic strength and performance, studies have used a dose of 20 grams per day for 4-7 days. Daily maintenance doses of 2-5 grams or 0.3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight have been used."
CADad,
I want to commend you for doing some homework and not dismissing something out of hand...and I mean that quite sincerely.
What you have referenced is probably an old study, because it outlines an outdated protocol for creatine. Within that obsolete protocol, everyone wanted to err on the side of safety. So what they would do, is start a week long initiation dose of creatine to saturate the system (that is your reference to 20 grams per day for a week), then use 3 to 4 weeks of maintenance dosing, of the 2 to 5 grams per day that you mentioned. That would be followed by 4 weeks of cleansing, taking no creatine supplements. The cycle would then be repeated ad infinitum.
Since those days, and many thousands of hours of research later, there is no credible evidence that...
The initiation dosing is needed to saturate the body with hydration.
That a cleansing period is necessary or helpful.
That creatine poses any health risks other than the risk of muscle pulls from negligent hydration.
Although some supplements have high doses of creatine in them, excess creatine is immediately expelled from the body in urine. It's like having an 8 ounce juice glass. Once you fill it with 8 ounces, anything else you put in the juice glass just spills out unused. You can put as much creatine as you want in your body, the excess is simply expelled and does not become systemic.
Todays creatine protocols are simply to take the supplement once to twice daily. No more initiation doses, no more cleansing periods.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Creantine is on the proposed list of prohibited substances for minor league UMPIRES. Baseball is proposing a much more strict drug policy for umpires than for its players. Some of the proposed subtances are commonly found in health drinks.
While I'm sure your correct, as your history has proven you to be accurate in your research, let's really think about what's being said.
An ignorant overreaction by a single person, gets creatine put on a proposal list, and somehow that is supposed to be condemning?
It should be obvious from this thread that there is much ignorance (please, that's not meant as a slam, simply stating a lack of true knowledge and research on the subject) and a penchant for over reaction concerning drugs and supplementation.
FrankF in another thread, posted this creatine link, that factually discusses credible studies done on the supplement.
MLB and the umpires union say a great many things. Some for substance and some for effect. Coming out and taking a stand against creatine, only shows off their true ignorance of the subject, or underlines their flair for dramatic effect.
CPLZ,
I got that information from Frank's link. The information on how much you get from a cooked steak was from a body building site that was extolling the virtues of creatine. So let's say the maintenance level of at least 2g per day. That's 6 lbs or more of cooked steak a day, every day. That's a lot, but I'm fine with anyone who can eat 6 lbs of steak a day and stay healthy and not go broke.
I got that information from Frank's link. The information on how much you get from a cooked steak was from a body building site that was extolling the virtues of creatine. So let's say the maintenance level of at least 2g per day. That's 6 lbs or more of cooked steak a day, every day. That's a lot, but I'm fine with anyone who can eat 6 lbs of steak a day and stay healthy and not go broke.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
CPLZ,
I got that information from Frank's link. The information on how much you get from a cooked steak was from a body building site that was extolling the virtues of creatine. So let's say the maintenance level of at least 2g per day. That's 6 lbs or more of cooked steak a day, every day. That's a lot, but I'm fine with anyone who can eat 6 lbs of steak a day and stay healthy.
It depends greatly on how you cook your steak, but for the sake of discussion, we'll use your numbers. Assuming a 16 oz steak to be normal, that would equate to 600% of normal daily intake.
I just pulled out my Usana multivitamins...
Vitamin A 150%
Vitamin C 1080%
Vitamin E 670%
Thiamine 900%
Riboflavin 790%
Vitamin B6 800%
Vitamin B12 1670%
Pantothenic Acid 450%
My point is, that having what appears to be a high dosage of something, doesn't automatically equate to a problem. Yes, you can overdo some supplements and vitamins with detrimental effect, to that there is no doubt. Creatine however, has never been shown to have such a negative effect, regardless of dosage. Your body absorbs it to a specific level and expels the rest harmlessly.
I honestly believe that creatine gets a bad rap because it will cause a change in the body, that being the complete hydration of muscle tissue. The effect of that hydration is not an increase in maximum performance, but in increase in endurance at that maximum level. It gets lumped into the negative category without regard for what it is, what it does, and how it does it. It's not magic, it's natural, it's not cheating anymore than taking a multivitamin is cheating.
Extracts from a post by CPLZ:
One of the testing methods is to determine the level of testosterone in the system to see if it exceeds norms. No! There's way too much variance in testosterone levels for that to work. There are two kinds of approved tests. 1) Measurement of the ratio of testosterone to epi-testosterone. Exogenous administration of T does not increase the E level, and so the ratio changes. 2) Measurement of the carbon isotope ratio 13C to 12C. The heavier isotope tends to move and react more slowly, and so it is typically deficient in biological materials, but the amount of deficiency depends on what a person ate in the last day or so. The 13/12 ratio in exogenous T is rather different than the T our bodies make. So the metabolites of T that are excreted are checked for 13/12 ratio.
Creatine can be ingested naturally by eating red meat, along with our own body producing it naturally. The difficulty in testing for creatine supplementation, is that the levels ingested by supplementation do not differ greatly from the levels obtained by eating steaks. People go to the trouble of ingesting creatine because the levels can differ greatly.
As to your assertion that you assume manufactured creatine could be detected in similar ways, that's an assumption not supported with any evidence. I guess you're not familiar with carbon isotope ratio testing....
One of the testing methods is to determine the level of testosterone in the system to see if it exceeds norms. No! There's way too much variance in testosterone levels for that to work. There are two kinds of approved tests. 1) Measurement of the ratio of testosterone to epi-testosterone. Exogenous administration of T does not increase the E level, and so the ratio changes. 2) Measurement of the carbon isotope ratio 13C to 12C. The heavier isotope tends to move and react more slowly, and so it is typically deficient in biological materials, but the amount of deficiency depends on what a person ate in the last day or so. The 13/12 ratio in exogenous T is rather different than the T our bodies make. So the metabolites of T that are excreted are checked for 13/12 ratio.
Creatine can be ingested naturally by eating red meat, along with our own body producing it naturally. The difficulty in testing for creatine supplementation, is that the levels ingested by supplementation do not differ greatly from the levels obtained by eating steaks. People go to the trouble of ingesting creatine because the levels can differ greatly.
As to your assertion that you assume manufactured creatine could be detected in similar ways, that's an assumption not supported with any evidence. I guess you're not familiar with carbon isotope ratio testing....
quote:Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
I guess you're not familiar with carbon isotope ratio testing....
Forgive my ignorance. Please explain how that would be used to test for creatine.
CPLZ,
Let's agree to disagree. You've made good points and like I said previously I understand that I'm in the minority wrt Creatine. Although this thread has been quite reasonable I've noticed the usual "no baseball" tendency to take things personally in some of the threads lately including some on my part so let's not get into that.
Here's another issue that I referred to and that's HGH.
This article from a couple years ago reflects my views on HGH, other than I believe it might be helpful for the 40 something age players. Anybody have anything newer or better?
HGH
Let's agree to disagree. You've made good points and like I said previously I understand that I'm in the minority wrt Creatine. Although this thread has been quite reasonable I've noticed the usual "no baseball" tendency to take things personally in some of the threads lately including some on my part so let's not get into that.
Here's another issue that I referred to and that's HGH.
This article from a couple years ago reflects my views on HGH, other than I believe it might be helpful for the 40 something age players. Anybody have anything newer or better?
HGH
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
CPLZ,
Let's agree to disagree.
No worries, Mate.
The truth is, (as opposed to all those times I'm just plain lying
) over the years and at one specific juncture, my feelings about supplements and nutrition evolved, and evolved quite dramatically.My/our generation is/was woefully under educated about nutrition and health. The information simply wasn't considered important or available for our generations competitive athletic years.
When Junior made a commitment to athletic excellence, I sought nutritional/supplement advice from a great many people I thought would be in the know. I found a great many people who spoke with great authority, but seemed to contradict each other, leaving me with the same unanswered questions. I wound up doing my own research and uncovered some nutritional textbooks, read those and in the studies they quoted, found some texts dealing specifically in sports nutrition, and pardon the pun, devoured those. It didn't make me an authority, but I now feel competent enough to answer what, why and when, the three most important components of nutrition/supplementation. And of course, why not, equally important.
It's amazing to me the disinformation that's out there, and from people you'd think would be credible sources. I've heard personal trainers at our gym dispensing pure myth and garbage. It's just what's been handed down to them and they blindly accept it as gospel.
The best text I've run across on the subject is Dan Bernadot's Advanced Sports Nutrition. It's already 5 years old, but if you want the skinny on what to eat, how much, and when, this is a fantastic book. It also differentiates between the needs of different sports. There is also a whole section devoted to supplementation, with candid talk about legal and illegal supplements, risks, myths, and benefits.
quote:The best text I've run across on the subject is Dan Bernadot's Advanced Sports Nutrition. It's already 5 years old, but if you want the skinny on what to eat, how much, and when, this is a fantastic book. It also differentiates between the needs of different sports. There is also a whole section devoted to supplementation, with candid talk about legal and illegal supplements, risks, myths, and benefits.
I just recieved this book this week. I bought it as well as a few others off of Amazon to supplement my textboosk. In fact, I have it sitting right here. Haven't jumped into it quite yet, but I think it'll make for some good reading..
"Once again, I would never encourage my son to use steroids. I am just trying to put this into perspective with many other advantages players have today that they did not have back then. Steroids are just one of those advantages."
I didn't read through all the post but what I got from the first few post I read is that some posters feel that they would not want their sons to do steroids but its ok for my son because he is a professional baseball player...
I didn't read through all the post but what I got from the first few post I read is that some posters feel that they would not want their sons to do steroids but its ok for my son because he is a professional baseball player...
This has been an interesting discussion.
Not really sure why people don't understand the difference between using corticosteroids and anabolic/androgenic steroids.
As far as Big Mac not telling us which type of steroid he used, he probably had no clue (though the word andro has been associated with him), and what does it matter, most of that stuff didn't come in a box with a label on it. In fact, I'll bet most who used stuff had no clue.
When you all go to the doc and get a shot, do you ask him what type of cortizone he's injecting into your body? I doubt it.
Not really sure why people don't understand the difference between using corticosteroids and anabolic/androgenic steroids.
As far as Big Mac not telling us which type of steroid he used, he probably had no clue (though the word andro has been associated with him), and what does it matter, most of that stuff didn't come in a box with a label on it. In fact, I'll bet most who used stuff had no clue.
When you all go to the doc and get a shot, do you ask him what type of cortizone he's injecting into your body? I doubt it.
TPM
I don't know about other adults on here but I know as much as I can about every med that a doc gives me---with the internet today you can research every and each med there is and the info includes all the prospective and possible side effects
I don't know about other adults on here but I know as much as I can about every med that a doc gives me---with the internet today you can research every and each med there is and the info includes all the prospective and possible side effects
Cortisone is a therapeutic drug. As far as I know, no one has ever suggested you shouldn't be able to try to get well, or to cope with injuries.
You don't see people who are already physically fine using cortisone to perform better, though, now do you?
I suppose using ice after pitching would be banned under that theory as well.
You don't see people who are already physically fine using cortisone to perform better, though, now do you?
I suppose using ice after pitching would be banned under that theory as well.