Talk:Bodybuilding supplement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Bodybuilding, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to bodybuilding on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

1 Rewrite
2 Vote replace all info as links to pages on: anabolic steroids, prohormones, HGH and insulin?
- 2.1 Time for Some Serious Revisions
3 Removed NPOV
4 DHT and Estrogen reason to criminalize?
5 Merging Protein powder
6 Example and Brands
7 This article should be renamed
8 Removed NO section
9 Meaningless babble
10 Fair use rationale for Image:Metrx.jpg
11 Fair use rationale for Image:Phosphagen.jpg

[edit] Rewrite

This article seriously needs a re-write. There is much missing.

How about some suggestions for changes then? johnSLADE (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree - the article is a disgrace to Wiki. Where do I start:

Soy Protein: The statement "It should be noted that soy protein is not a recommended protein for bodybuilding purposes, being that it has high estrogenic properties." should be removed. Soy is not a complete protein certainly but I would like to see studies proving it's "high estrogenic properties". Besides the article already states Soy is recommended for vegetarians (vegans would actually be more accurate as many vegetarians choose to use whey protein) and in their case they have little alternative.

Read this: Why Does Soy Suck? [1]

Egg protein: should be removed as the choice for those who are lactose intolerant - ionic exchange whey protein isolate is over 99% lactose free anyway.
Meal Replacements: "There is controversy over certain products that, in order to increase the calorie count and reduce costs, include a large amount of simple sugars." Huh? Reference to alleged controversy? I was in the dietary supplement industry a decade (I am no longer involved now in any capacity) and have never once heard anyone debate the merits of large amounts of simple sugars. (simple sugar is also an outdated term - high glycemic is the correct usage - the two are not the same)
Anabolic steriods: They cannot be sold as supplements legally so why is this even in an article on supplements? It's like adding Ducati to an article on the bicycle. Should be removed.
Prohormones: Now no longer legally sold as supplements anywhere in the world and thus irrelevant
HGH: Again, see steriods above. Totally irrelevant. Delete
Glutamine: "Research has shown glutamine helps the body increase HGH production, and has benefits for the Gastrointestinal Tract." HGH production? Reference please or delete
Glutamine: "Others argue that gluatamine also causes a larger insulin response (see insulin section for effects)." Total rubbish and has spelling errors. Reference or delete
BCAAs "are metabolized in the muscles (rather than the liver)"?? Huh? Reference please?This is nonsense
Creatine: "However, a number of people argue this is purely due to water retention" DELETE! This is total rubbish and urban legend! reference or delete (and quickly!)
Insulin Again, like steriods and HGH it cannot be sold as supplements legally so why is this even in an article on supplements? DELETE
Natural Testosterone Boosters the word 'may cause an increase' or more correctly 'are used in the hope of increasing the body's natural testosterone levels' The article makes it sound like these compunds conclusively work and there is not one single medically published research study demonstrating this in humans. ZMA should also be removed, it was developed by Victor Conte of Balco labs (of the steriod THG doping fame). It is literally just a zinc and magnesium supplement and has been widely dismissed as a scam (most major companies have dropped it from their lines such as EAS and Biotest Labs for example)
Nitric Oxide this should be removed completely or totally rewritten as this supplement would barely account for 1% of 1% of total bodybuilding supplement sales - it's does not merit a specific mention

All in all the article needs a total rewrite as it makes far too many claims about each products effectiveness with some like creatine, BCAAs and Glutamine containing total fabrication. Glen Stollery 04:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

how about discussing the side effects of all the supplements to make this article more two sided

The article is about "bodybuilding supplements", so why then should you not talk about steroids and hormone precursers simply because they are illegal?? What sense does that make? News flash, just because they are illegal does not discourage people from using them. I will go through the article again and address ALL of your points, most of which are incorrect. You will get your references, but have you not researched these things yourself??Cavell 01:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Cavell

I am of the view that AAS, hGH, PHs and Insulin should not come under the heading of bodybuilding supplements, primarily for the following reason - There are serious negative connotations surrounding anabolic steroids, particularly in the United States, and I strongly believe it would be implicit NPOV to lump together legitimate and relatively harmless "supplements" such as protein powder, creatine, glutamine etc with such medicines.... I would like to add however that the US's stance on these medicines is not typical of Europe or the rest of the world. Lastly prohormones are still available and are manufactured in mass quantities in China. StrengthCoach 13:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Also there is evidence to suggest soy isoflavones have modest and limited effect on sex specific hormone levels. Pubmed is the place to dig this up. StrengthCoach 13:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on both points, including your comment on soy. My issue was the wording, as you said yourself it's "modest and limited effect on sex specific hormone levels" is a completely different ballpark to the statement "it (soy protein) has high estrogenic properties". The "information" on here is either exaggerated at best, inaccurate, manufacturer hype (I was one for ten years I should know) or a complete urban legend. I may be wrong which is why this all should be referenced to erase all doubt. Prohormones again are covered under their own category so I see no need to include them here as well - a link will do perhaps stating that in rare countires they are legal - although banned by the IOC and every other sporting federation. If anyone else agrees with StrengthCoach and I please speak up so we can make amends StrengthCoach what about the other supplements listed = your thoughts? Glen Stollery 16:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would opt for a rewrite from scratch, excluding AAS/PH/hGH/insulin and other medicines - including various types of protein powders (Whey Protein Concentrate, Whey Protein Isolate, Whey Protein Hydrolosate, Casein and Egg White etc...), Meal Replacement Powders, Creatine, Glutamine, Multi vitamin, fish oil. IMHO these all have their place. The various OTC stimulants that are used for dieting purposes and pre-workout should probably also be included although im not personally familiar with them. StrengthCoach 17:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I just rewrote the creatine section. I recently did a paper on creatine so I used my conclusions with appropriate citations. 70.33.75.96Madcat033

Nicely done, now re just need to rewrite the rest of it. I notice "Dr Cavell" has not got back to me with his alledged references yet? Looking forward to those, especially after not seeing them for over ten years in the sports nutrition industry! They'll be break-through! ;) Glen Stollery 10:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote replace all info as links to pages on: anabolic steroids, prohormones, HGH and insulin?

Cavell's logic for inclusion makes no sense. The article is about Supplements just because bodybuilders use steriods does not warrant their inclusion. Bodybuilders use tanning lotions too should we include those? Why include subjects that do not in any way fall into a category? Supplements are not steriods, steriods are not supplements so if you want to mention them then wouldn't it be more appropriate to link to the article on anabolic steroids (which by the way has no mention of dietary supplements funnily enough!) that way those interested in that subject can read about it there, and those wanting info on supplements will get just that.

Regarding my points on the various claims make about what each supplement does to the body, if you believe I am wrong them reference each study proving so. I am simply saying that all the information citing what each compound (claims it) does should be referenced (according to wiki guidelines this should have been done anyway). If they are referenced then the article is definitely sound (excluding all the topics covered that aren't supplements of course) Glen Stollery 09:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Same applies to prohormones, HGH and insulin - why not just point to their specific pages where the data is far more concise? Glen Stollery 11:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As no one has been able to provide any info to back up the claims made in this article I lave either removed them until referenced or put "manufacturers claim xxx may..." so it did not read as a proven fact. Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 00:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time for Some Serious Revisions

This article is a distaster! I'm sorry if I'm repeating what has been written before, but instead of just talking about it I'm going to start removing items and rewriting others. Please feel free to argue your points here if you disagree with any of my revisions or replacements. Yankees76 18:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. All I've had time to do is remove the grossly misleading and unsubstantiated statements but what's left is a pathetic line or two on half a dozen supplements and some "non" supplements. I can help rewrite over time of course Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 18:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. I started today by removing some items that are clearly not supplements (food, steroids, insulin etc.) and rewrote the section regarding Nitric Oxide supplements. I'll do more later. Yankees76 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Added thermos Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 03:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed NPOV

This article has come LIGHT YEARS from it's form when I added the NPOV. Vast improvement! Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Still light on the info, but it's coming along and so far it's avoided any misinformed edits. Keep up the great work! Yankees76 05:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DHT and Estrogen reason to criminalize?

Their use remains quite controversial and side effects are not uncommon. They are the precursors of testosterone, but some can also convert further into to DHT and estrogen. This is one of the many reasons they have become illegal in the United States and many European countries. To date most prohormone products have not been thoroughly studied, and the health effects of prolonged use are mostly unknown.

"one of the many reasons they have become illegal in the United States" is debatable. Something produces DHT and estrogen, and therefore that is sufficient to warrant making it illegal? "protecting people's health" might be an excuse too, if it weren't for the legal distribution of alcohol and cigarettes and the spread in obesity due to the high-sugar, high-carb, high-fat diet pumped by the media's advertising machine. The "reason" steroids are illegal is much up to debate; here in Canada it seems to be to atone for the national "shame" over Ben Jonson; but because prohormones or steroids might cause higher DHT or estrogen levels has no relationship to do with WHY they're illegal. With prohormones it's even siller - "look, they work! we'd better make them illegal". It's a sick attitude, but so prevalent and so ingrained that it's taken at face value.Skookum1 00:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Steroid use in Canada is not illegal [2], they're controlled substances. It is illegal to manufacture, import, export or sell these substances, but not illegal to use them.

In the United States however, steroids are a Schedule III substance, and even possession of any Schedule III substance is a federal offense punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a minimum fine of $1,000. They were designated as a Schedule III substance after Congressional hearings were held to determine the extent of use in professional and amateur sports, and a "silent epidemic" of high school steroid use. The main reason they were banned focused on legislative action far less to protect the public than to solve an athletic "cheating" problem. While the conversion of prohormones/Steroids DHT, estrogen and other side effects were secondary considerations to Congress, they have provided a seemingly valid public basis for the enforcement of the legislation. Yankees76 14:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Protein powder

Makes sense, that's a tiny "article"! _{§τοʟĿ€ʀγ}^Ť_č 12:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example and Brands

I've removed the short list of unverified "popular supplements". I also removed the spam links to company websites. I'm questioning whether this page is even the place to list all the brands in the first place - considering few if any even are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page. It only uglies up the page, and will eventually lead to giant list as editors try to list every brand under the sun. I'm strongly suggesting we remove that section. Thoughts? Yankees76 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I only noticed the section until you removed it. Good call, although pasting bb.com's top 5 list could be interesting, or perhaps note of what kind they are (protein, creatine, fat burners etc) - the top 5 have remained there for quite some time. Just maybe... Jack Daw 16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the brands list, mostly for the reasons I listed above. If you can make a good argument on why we need a list of potentially hundreds of brands, please do so. Other options could be explored as well. Thanks. Yankees76 17:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to mention "historically significant" manufacturers, if that doesn't sound too hyperbolic. Such as mentioning that Met-Rx were the first company to release a meal replacement powder, although it wasn't originally intended to be used by bodybuilders. Stuff like that basically. If sources can be found, maybe it should be noted that some people stack their own supplements using the basic ingredients from bulk retailers rather than buying proprietary supplements - increasingly so in my experience although that's obviously original research without a reference to back it up. - 85.210.31.129 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article should be renamed

These supplements are used by lots of different athletes, not just bodybuilders. Runners, bicyclists, fighters and countless other athletes have supplemented.

A better name would perhaps be Athletic Supplements

Seconded. Perhaps "Nutritional Supplements" or "Food Supplements", although I guess it's debatable as to how drugs used by athletes would fit under this heading, although I do believe they should be included in this article; so maybe something like uh... "Nutritional Supplements and Performance Enhancing Supplements" with a clear distinction between the two to appease those that don't like to see them lumped together? It's also worth noting that the range of supplement users is even broader that athletes. Elderly or unwell people take meal replacement powders, amino acids and such. Many people who don't technically qualify as athletes take multivitamins, thermogenics, fish oil, etc to improve general health, or as part of a weight loss regime. - 85.210.31.129 16:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposed. There is already a dietary supplement article for some of the products and markets mentioned above. I don't think the scope of this particular article is intended to cover supplements used by runners, bicyclists and elderly individuals, but instead intended to cover supplements marketed to and consumed by bodybuilders. Yankees76 18:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also opposed. While other athletes may use supplements, I think the supplements on this page are bodybuilding supplements in particular because they focus on increasing anabolism and muscle mass, and improving short bouts of hard work, like weightlifting. They aren't performance enhancers per se. Thermogenics have their own article, other types of supplements could have their own. Brad T. Cordeiro 18:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Supplements and dietary regimens used by endurance athletes differ greatly from those used by strength trainers/bodybuilders. This article doesn't need to be everything to everybody, it has a narrow scope and nothing is wrong with that. Feel free to create "Endurance Athletics Supplements", etc to cover the other areas. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed NO section

The entire section is a bunch of unreferenced baloney. I mean, take a look it again. Read the first half of the paragraph, and then the sentenced that I've bolded below:

“

Many studies show that nitric oxide (NO) acts as a signaling molecule that plays a vital role in causing the relaxation of the smooth muscle tissue that makes up the walls of blood vessels. NO freely crosses the endothelial cell membrane into the smooth muscle tissue of the blood vessels to facilitate vasodilation. Promoters argue this allows more blood and oxygen, and hence more nutrients to be delivered to muscle tissue, while increasing waste removal – aiding muscle growth. This is called active hyperemia. However, NO supplements do not actually contain nitric oxide but the amino acid arginine and other precursors such as citrulline, Pycnogenol, L-aspartic acid, and ginsenosides – which the body uses to synthesize NO.

”

They should be called No NO supplements. Besides, even if NO supplements contained "NO" - they claims as to what it does are not cited at all. Yankees76 not sure of your opinion here (and if you disagree of course readd) but I'd prefer it wasnt done until verifiable references are found.

Thanks, Glen 21:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL - I beleive I wrote most of that section earlier in the year. I disagree that the NO section should be removed based strictly on that fact that 95% of supplements marketed as NO boosters probably don't work. Nitric Oxide does have all of the properties listed above (signaling molecule that plays a vital role in causing the relaxation of the smooth muscle tissue that makes up the walls of blood vessels, promotes active hyperemia, etc.) I think a rewrite stating the effects of NO in the body is a good start, while also saying that there is a distinct difference between what NO does naturally in the body and what Nitric Oxide boosting supplements actually acheive once ingested. I'd be 100% in favor of removing it ALL if NO supplements weren't selling like they are. I'll leave it out pending a rewrite. Yankees76 14:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I really think the NO section should be added in. Although NO supplements aren't the best selling, you must admit that there is significant marketing out there for them. For example, UFC events, which are extremely popular, are rife with ads for Xyience's NOX-CG3 product, which is a NO booster (and a very expensive one, at that.) With these products gaining steam, and the cost of many of them being very high in many cases, I think we should do our best to inform people about them. --Hesir 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section recently added for "Estrogen Blockers" for the same reasons above. There is at least a couple NO supplements that sell very well, "estrogen blockers" are a dead and unproven category, with little to no reliable sources to warrant their inclusion. Yankees76 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaningless babble

"Increasing the intake of protein in the diet allows muscles to repair themselves and grow more effectively." Increasing? If you are already eating enough proteins there is no benefit from eating more proteins, except you become likelier to get colon cancer. This article should mention the fact that you can eat all the proteins you want, that wont necessarily make there muscles bigger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.220.45.151 (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Fixed 75.153.213.7 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Metrx.jpg

Image:Metrx.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Phosphagen.jpg

Image:Phosphagen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.