• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Essendon FC investigated over supplements

GROAR said:
Not looking good for the Sharks.

Wonder what they took?
Peptides or SARM's?
Click to expand...
its was Peptides the Telegraph (I think it was) was banging on about a few weeks ago with regard the Sharkies. Danky Dank was involved.
 
Thymosin Beta 4 and CJC-1295 peptides

"The ACC report described CJC-1295 as a growth hormone releasing peptide and "one of the principal peptides identified by the ACC and ASADA as being misused in both professional sports and the broader population".
Thymosin Beta 4 is used to aid injury recovery and is described in the ACC report as "not regulated". It is used extensively for performance enhancement in horses."


How can the players be banned if the substances weren't on the banned list at the time they took them ?
 
Lex:

Under the WADA Prohibited List, there is a catch-all. Eg in 2011:

Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (i.e. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued) is prohibited at all times.

Also under the Peptide/growth factor section, there is the following blanket ban effectively on all peptide growth factors that potentially enhance performance:

​
Growth Hormone (GH), Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGFs), Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), Mechano Growth Factors (MGFs), Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF), Vascular-Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) [FONT=Verdana,Verdana][FONT=Verdana,Verdana]as well as any other growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament protein synthesis/degradation, vascularisation, energy utilization, regenerative capacity or fibre type switching;
and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)[/FONT][/FONT].
 
Looks like the players lawyers are going to go after the club for giving them to the players (duty of care etc).

Can Cronulla stay afloat with that and all their sponsors bailing?

What a mess
 
Probably because there is no conclusive evidence that it works.

Sure some studies say it does, but many say its does not, although people with low levels naturally might find some benefit.

With myself, and few others i have observed, jack shit strength was gained besides a few kilos of fluid.
 
spartacus said:
Probably because there is no conclusive evidence that it works.

Sure some studies say it does, but many say its does not, although people with low levels naturally might find some benefit.

With myself, and few others i have observed, jack shit strength was gained besides a few kilos of fluid.
Click to expand...

it's a supplement, as in a "supplement."

"although people with low levels naturally might find some benefit."
 
0ni said:
Why is creatine not banned?
Click to expand...

WADA has a research and ethics division why does a lot work into creating the prohibited list. There's discussion on this in the minutes from various Ethics committee meetings at WADA, eg from 2002: http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/A...ee_Minutes/WADA_EducationCommittee_200207.pdf (see page 4

Basically:
- if it is performance enhancing, it will be of benefit to very few people, ie people with low creatine levels
- it is taken naturally as a part of a regular diet in daily foods.
- if you supplement with creatine, there is absolute threshold your body can buffer. The rest is excreted. Studies have shown no performance enhancing benefit at all beyond quite low supplementation levels. These supplementation levels (5g a day) are quite easily obtainable through food. So the maximum effect you can gain from supplementation is not well in excess of what you can achieve by eating meats rich in creatine (such as kangaroo).

Now I know you are going to say that IGF-1 and other growth factors found in food are banned. I imagine the reason they remain banned is that:
- you can supplement with exogenous synthetic IGF-1 and other growth factors at levels far in excess of what you could achieve through milk consumption
- these substances are only really found in milk and in negligible quanitites - is there scientific evidence to establish a performance enhancing effect due to consumption of IGF-1 through milk consumption? Milk has a bunch of other properties that are potentially performance enhancing albeit through natural mechanisms. Establishing a causal link between IGF-1 consumption in milk and performance enhancement is very difficult.
- they are also potentially found in bovine colostrum in higher quantities. But, while colostrum itself is not banned, WADA advises against consuming it in case it produces abnormal elevated levels of IGF and other growth factors - which will result in a positive doping reuslt.

In any event, testing for exogenous IGF-1 is so difficult that in reality the status of IGF-1 is no that different to creatine - banned but not really detectable. Does IGF-1 have appreciable performance enhancing benefits, when used in isolation? You would know the answer better than me. I thought it worked best in combination with HGH? Exogenous HGH can be tested now and there have been a few recent positive tests (eg Pat Mendes).

I'm sure with your google powers you could uncover much more debate about this. It's an interesting topic thats for sure and where the lines are somewhat blurry.
 
strong enough? said:
WADA has a research and ethics division why does a lot work into creating the prohibited list. There's discussion on this in the minutes from various Ethics committee meetings at WADA, eg from 2002: http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/A...ee_Minutes/WADA_EducationCommittee_200207.pdf (see page 4

Basically:
- if it is performance enhancing, it will be of benefit to very few people, ie people with low creatine levels
- it is taken naturally as a part of a regular diet in daily foods.
- if you supplement with creatine, there is absolute threshold your body can buffer. The rest is excreted. Studies have shown no performance enhancing benefit at all beyond quite low supplementation levels. These supplementation levels (5g a day) are quite easily obtainable through food. So the maximum effect you can gain from supplementation is not well in excess of what you can achieve by eating meats rich in creatine (such as kangaroo).

Now I know you are going to say that IGF-1 and other growth factors found in food are banned. I imagine the reason they remain banned is that:
- you can supplement with exogenous synthetic IGF-1 and other growth factors at levels far in excess of what you could achieve through milk consumption
- these substances are only really found in milk and in negligible quanitites - is there scientific evidence to establish a performance enhancing effect due to consumption of IGF-1 through milk consumption? Milk has a bunch of other properties that are potentially performance enhancing albeit through natural mechanisms. Establishing a causal link between IGF-1 consumption in milk and performance enhancement is very difficult.
- they are also potentially found in bovine colostrum in higher quantities. But, while colostrum itself is not banned, WADA advises against consuming it in case it produces abnormal elevated levels of IGF and other growth factors - which will result in a positive doping reuslt.

In any event, testing for exogenous IGF-1 is so difficult that in reality the status of IGF-1 is no that different to creatine - banned but not really detectable. Does IGF-1 have appreciable performance enhancing benefits, when used in isolation? You would know the answer better than me. I thought it worked best in combination with HGH? Exogenous HGH can be tested now and there have been a few recent positive tests (eg Pat Mendes).

I'm sure with your google powers you could uncover much more debate about this. It's an interesting topic thats for sure and where the lines are somewhat blurry.
Click to expand...

So.. what you're saying is.. I should drink more milk.
 
strong enough? said:
WADA has a research and ethics division why does a lot work into creating the prohibited list. There's discussion on this in the minutes from various Ethics committee meetings at WADA, eg from 2002: http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/A...ee_Minutes/WADA_EducationCommittee_200207.pdf (see page 4

Basically:
- if it is performance enhancing, it will be of benefit to very few people, ie people with low creatine levels
- it is taken naturally as a part of a regular diet in daily foods.
- if you supplement with creatine, there is absolute threshold your body can buffer. The rest is excreted. Studies have shown no performance enhancing benefit at all beyond quite low supplementation levels. These supplementation levels (5g a day) are quite easily obtainable through food. So the maximum effect you can gain from supplementation is not well in excess of what you can achieve by eating meats rich in creatine (such as kangaroo).

Now I know you are going to say that IGF-1 and other growth factors found in food are banned. I imagine the reason they remain banned is that:
- you can supplement with exogenous synthetic IGF-1 and other growth factors at levels far in excess of what you could achieve through milk consumption
- these substances are only really found in milk and in negligible quanitites - is there scientific evidence to establish a performance enhancing effect due to consumption of IGF-1 through milk consumption? Milk has a bunch of other properties that are potentially performance enhancing albeit through natural mechanisms. Establishing a causal link between IGF-1 consumption in milk and performance enhancement is very difficult.
- they are also potentially found in bovine colostrum in higher quantities. But, while colostrum itself is not banned, WADA advises against consuming it in case it produces abnormal elevated levels of IGF and other growth factors - which will result in a positive doping reuslt.

In any event, testing for exogenous IGF-1 is so difficult that in reality the status of IGF-1 is no that different to creatine - banned but not really detectable. Does IGF-1 have appreciable performance enhancing benefits, when used in isolation? You would know the answer better than me. I thought it worked best in combination with HGH? Exogenous HGH can be tested now and there have been a few recent positive tests (eg Pat Mendes).

I'm sure with your google powers you could uncover much more debate about this. It's an interesting topic thats for sure and where the lines are somewhat blurry.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, creatine is not *really* thoroughly researched yet and we are still finding things out. Most studies only show a loading phase followed by a maintenance phase but fail to test consistently a wide range of factors. Then there are studies like this one that fly under the radar:

Creatine supplementation increases glycogen ... [Clin Sci (Lond). 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

Essentially, loading with 20g a day creatine skyrocketed creatine levels and muscle glycogen levels. As far as I am aware there are no studies that show creatine use with high dose over more than 7 days. The maintenance dose failed to maintain the high creatine and muscle glycogen levels. I would really like to see what 60g a day would do over day 20 days- I might try it myself soon actually and document the results here.

Creatine will also increase the conversion of testosterone to DHT significantly and this *possibly* may be another mechanism of action.
Three weeks of creatine monohydrate supplem... [Clin J Sport Med. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

Then there is evidence that creatine is incredibly anti-catabolic and even works as a myostatin inhibitor
Effects of resistance exercise with and witho... [J Appl Physiol. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI (free full text)

Another thing it does in HIGH doses is increase the levels of GLUT-4 that come out of the muscle cells during resistance training. This means that for about ~1 hour afterwards your muscles will soak up more carbs than without creatine. Combine this with a post workout shake of loads of sugar, leucine and hydrolysed protein and the whole lot will enter the muscles before insulin even has a chance to tell the GLUT-4 in your fat cells to soak up the carbs you just drank (you literally don't get fat if you down it in that hour and high creatine levels will increase the amount of sugar you'll be able to take in)
Effect of oral creatine supplementation on human mu... [Diabetes. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI - also one other study above shows this

It sounds like I'm going on or trying to make a silly point but I really do not see why creatine supplementation should be allowed with WADA tested athletes- especially when drugs such as cannabis are banned. I would commend anyone that can eat enough red meat to get 30g a day of creatine because that is pretty much 5kg of beef a day we are talking about. I'm just dumping info on creatine now I'm not especially trying to argue here (I know people have the incredible ability on the internet to read things in the most offensive way possible but that is not what I am trying to do)

Creatine will ALSO cause increased insulin resistance in the very short term after taking it- so if you're a morning trainer and like to eat afterwards you don't need to worry about insulin sensitivity early in the morning and fat gain if you take it first thing

Regarding IGF, I don't think that should be allowed despite it being in milk. It has a functional half life in the body of under an hour- if anyone would want to pin themselves every hour then congratulations lol, you want to win more than I do. There are other forms of IGF that are gene spliced to have longer half lives (up to 30h with IGF-1 LR3) but alas, this is not found in food
 
I drink milk every hour straight from my mums tittie...iLife she's not home she leaves out home brand coz the permeate is loaded with igf-1 bra! True story
 
I think pasteurisation would denature most of the IGF in milk anyway
Maybe this is why Bazza20 is so stronk, all dat der raw milk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top