[dwagman]

Well, Al, this WAS done in California. A lot of things are different there than in the rest of the world, including the weight of a kg. LOL Good catch!

I was in Kevin’s barn when Matt did that lift and have tons of pictures. In one of the pictures I took, you can see Matt setting his hook grip. I had forgotten that. Yet it still counts as an official USAWA/IAWA lift.

I also zoomed in closely on the picture I took of the loaded bar alone. You are indeed correct, it’s just some sort of 2″ thick bar (probably the original Fulton bar that would likely go at an auction for around 3.68 million 🙂 ). But that, too, doesn’t seem to matter regarding Matt’s record.

So I still don’t understand what “world record” Burk broke? Is it the “Southern California Iron Mind Bar Overhand Deadlift World Record?”

I realize that I’m being sarcastic, but with a purpose. I think it’s a joke how in strength sport everybody’s breaking world records. It’s like in powerlifting where you now have 10 different world organizations. So if you’re the world champ in your weight class, there are 9 others that can claim the same. What a joke!

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Lance, thanks for forwarding this to us. I don’t have the time right now for a detailed analysis of this research, so I went directly to the Method section to see what “high-volume resistance training”means. After all, it would be important to know how similar/dissimilar the training was compared to what a strength athlete such as us would do in order to get a sense of what we might be able to expect from this supplement.

Bottom line, they trained with very light weight for high repetitions and it appears that they trained by taking each set to failure. A serious problem, however, is that although the subjects used a weight identified as 12-RM, we don’t know how many reps they actually did per set. The assumption is that they went to failure on each set, but we don’t know that. Assuming that they did, this is a highly ineffective approach when maximal gains in strength and power is sought; training to failure produces less gains that not training to failure.

Another problem is that the scientists determined 1-RM, but did not determine 12-RM. So how did they know what amount of weight to have each subject lift? Also, there was only 1 minute of rest given between sets. Research is clear that this is ineffective in terms of maximal training gains. Still, it might be interesting to see how HMB might impact that sort of training approach.

At any rate, I see little resemblance here to how any of us would train, nor any serious athlete in any of the strength/power sports. Therefore I wouldn’t give too much to these findings.

The only thing in this research that’s notable is the change in creatine kinase (CK). Exercise scientists look at CK levels as a way to see how much muscle damage might have occurred, due to, as an example, a particular training approach. Basically, as part of muscle metabolism, when you train, CK can end up leaking out of muscle and into the blood stream. Depending on how much CK there is, you can draw certain conclusions as to how damaging the training session was.

The problem with this is that recently, and, of course reported in JOPP, scientists have discovered that you and I could be equally strong, train the exact same way in terms of volume and intensity, do the same exercises, etc., yet end up with markedly different levels of CK. Therefore, it’s not any more a perfect way to look at how damaging a training session might be, how effective a supplement might be, etc.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is that most supplement companies would take the result of lower CK in the HMB group to mean “greater long-term gains,” “stronger muscles,” “better recovery,” etc. However, the researchers point out two major limitations of their work, which I’m sure you’ll never see a supplement company presenting:

1. They didn’t measure performance changes. So there’s no way to know whether whatever they found with HMB actually would mean increased performance, long-term or short-term.

2. The approach they used to determine changes in c-reactive protein (linked to hormone changes) were meant for long-term changes, not short-term, as was the design for this study. So they correctly see that to mean by using a more appropriate test for this study, the results might have been different. This really surprises me because in light of HMB showing no changes on any hormones, you’d think they’d employ a more appropriate measurement device. This, particularly in light of 3 of the researchers being employed by the supplement manufacturer, and the study being funded by that company. Hmmmm…

Bottom line, I see nothing here that would make me spend money on HMB with the expectation to perform better at my next USAWA meet.

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Al, please note that all I said is that LH is but one more piece to the puzzle that WADA can and does use. In fact, that was part of the evidence used against Eddy Coan in ’97. I was there (testifying to get the USPF kicked out of the IPF) and he was GONE. It was AWESOME!

As to designer drugs being undetectable? Sorry, but I don’t buy that. Perhaps in 2005, when your previous reference was published, there were still some limitations. But for the past few years I’m sure that GC/MS can detect anything. But if the will isn’t there to do so, and to set the machines accordingly, then indeed many things won’t be detected. Clearly, then, athletes shouldn’t bear the brunt of the outrage.

As to detecting anything with the base steroid molecule, designer or otherwise, I wrote Don Catlin, director of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Lab. We’ve had many long conversations back when I was Science Editor for M&F. I’ll fill you guys in on his answer as soon as I get it.

On the Russian nasal thing…I don’t know for fact whether they did this or not. But what I do know, is that from a biological perspective, any anabolic androgenic steroid you’d take that would enter your system that quickly, and exit it that quickly, wouldn’t be able to effect any notable ergogenic benefits. We see that with sublingual T.

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Oh, one more point about Lance…

As I reread what I posted, I can see where some of you might think that I’m supporting Lance, that I reject the idea that he used performance-enhancing drugs, that I’m a Lance fan, etc. In truth, I could care less about Lance and what he did or didn’t do. It also has no impact on the good he’s done with his foundation and the people he’s helped. But what gets me all fired up is the witch-hunt based on hearsay. Whatever happened to due process? This guy is being chastised by he-said she-said. I thought we evolved beyond that.

I can’t wait to see what he actually told Oprah. And if he actually did admit to drug use, that doesn’t justify the approach used. Then again, cops use lies and deceit to get people to talk all the time, and like dumbasses they admit to stuff. Hmmmm…maybe I should rethink my position…

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Actually, the thought of Al using estrogen, and its effects on him (or her), is getting me strangely excited. This weekend might be fun in more ways than one…

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Al, I had not previously read that research. Thank you for sharing it.

I think that there is a misconception out there, however. It is my understanding that GC/MS can detect anything, even “designer” steroids (and I was referring to GC/MS in my parts per billion explanation earlier). The system might not know what steroid it is, but it’ll know that it’s a steroid. The problem is that in analyzing samples, the machine might be set to only look for known compounds. That is the issue.

I would also say that if the basic steroid molecule is not present, then it’s not a steroid. And just because the drug holds some commonalities with a steroid, that does not mean it’ll enhance performance. Consider that nobody would argue that your wife’s estrogen is a steroid. And nobody would argue that if you took estrogen, you wouldn’t get stronger (though perhaps prettier 🙂 ). So to believe that just because a designer steroid was created, and an athlete takes it, that doesn’t automatically mean that ergogenic properties are attached to this drug. Indeed, many of the therapeutically used testosterones (T) hold differences in properties, both therapeutically and ergogenically. So even T isn’t T.

Please also consider that in testing, WADA doesn’t only look at the presence of a certain, specific compound. They also look at other markers as evidence that something screwy is going on. As an example, when we’re talking about steroid use, they would also look for changes in luteinizing hormone (LH). Because LH stimulates the gonads in men to produce T, if you’re taking exogenous steroids, then your body knows that it need not produce T and thus reduces or all together stops production. This is in part accomplished because LH levels are decreased. So when steroid use is suspected, then a confirmation is reduced levels of LH.

So say an athlete uses a designer steroid. If the machine is set properly, then they can see in the printout that there’s a steroid, but they don’t know what kind. Then they could look at LH. If they find LH suppressed, then it’s pretty certain that the steroid is indeed a steroid and since steroids “and all related compounds” are banned, the athlete is considered positive. Of course for various political and organizational reasons, this might not result in a ban.

Please don’t take the above to mean that I don’t believe that there are designer drugs being developed and used in sport, even some things that might be undetectable. But just because somebody takes a steroid, that doesn’t mean performance will be enhanced. There’s probably a ton of plant sterols I could chew on, on my way to the Dino Gym this weekend. And if the lab you use tests for this, I’ll probably pee positive and you guys will kick me out of the organization. That’s a fact. But it’s an equal fact that I most certainly wouldn’t have ended up lifting more weight because of it. It just ain’t that simple.

Tag, you’re it…

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

I like going to the source when I hear stuff. The media in this country seems to be just too biased to be trusted. So I downloaded the USADA Armstrong report. Seems like a bunch of hearsay to me, and there are other problems. Here’s a sample, from page 34:

j. Testosterone use and administration at the Tour de France
U.S. Postal Service Team riders were also using testosterone during the 1999 Tour de France. Hamilton saw Armstrong using the “oil”, which was a mixture of olive oil and Andriol (testosterone) developed by Dr. Ferrari, and on at least one occasion during the 1999 Tour Armstrong squirted the “oil” in Hamilton’s mouth after a stage of the race.145 Dr. del Moral also provided testosterone to Hincapie1 and Vande Velde1 during the race.

I have to call bullshit on this for a few reasons, which I want you to know, is not my opinion, rather fact.

1. You cannot take any steroid, get tested, and pass the test. This is impossible, unless you wait a long, long time for it to clear your system. And in that event, what sort of ergogenic effect remains? Realize first, that the testing methods used by WADA is so sensitive, it can detect 1 part per billion. That’s the equivalent of finding 1 minute in 2,000 years or 1 penny in 10,000,000 bucks.

Now, you also can’t develop a “designer” steroid that’s undetectable. The reason for this is that all steroids share a common base molecule, otherwise it’s not a steroid. Therefore, whatever you do to that base molecule, it’s still a steroid and therefore it can be detected by the detection devices employed by WADA. When they get the readout, they might not know what sort of steroid it is, but they’ll know it’s a steroid. And that’s all that matters because according to WADA, “steroids and all related compounds” are banned.

So why wasn’t this detected? This “evidence” is hokey, to be polite, and wouldn’t stand a chance in a court of law.

2. Oral administration of testosterone has been proven to be a worthless ergogenic approach. You’ll still pee positive, however. This in and of itself not only places the credibility of the witnesses in question, but also their professionalism.

Man, I don’t know if I even want to read on. I probably will. You interested? Click the link that follows, then the first links to “download” or “read” on the page:

http://pdfdog.org/pdf/USADA%20Report%20on%20Lance%20Armstrong

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Lance, as a seasoned lifter, I wonder why you’re still getting sore. Perhaps you’re training too hard, something that doesn’t provide any gains anyway and should be avoided. So you might want to look at that. Also, DOMS (Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness) isn’t necessarily a bad thing or anything to be concerned about, other than it reducing your muscles’ force producing capacities. So again, training to failure not a good thing, but just being sore…who cares?

As to HMB and soreness, a study published in the International Journal of Sports Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism in 2001 found HMB not to reduce muscle damage indicators (e.g., muscle soreness). Another study published in 2005, in the same journal, looked at DOMS and found positive results. However, the subjects only did one bout of eccentric contractions, such as the lowering phase in a curl, which is known to induce a great deal of muscle damage. They trained these poor subjects into the ground, especially considering that they had no weight training experience. Problem 1: You don’t train that way (or at least you absolutely shouldn’t if you want to make gains). Problem 2: The scientists experimented with a concoction of HMB and KIC (alpha-ketoisocaproic acid). So we don’t know which one of the two contributed to the findings, or one over the other, or if they’re both needed to be effective, etc.

Regarding that company, I have no idea what research they may or may not have conducted. I tend to focus on peer-reviewed research published by independent scientists who have nothing to lose or gain from whether their findings are positive or negative. Sorry.

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

On the 17th they’re going to air what Armstrong said to Oprah. I’d like to hear this to see what he actually admitted to. Here’s what his lawyer had to say and I’d really like him to take USADA to court:

Responding to the press release previewing USADA’s report, Armstrong’s attorney Tim Herman called it a “one-sided hatchet job – a taxpayer funded tabloid piece rehashing old, disproved, unreliable allegations based largely on axe-grinders, serial perjurers, coerced testimony, sweetheart deals and threat -induced stories.”

“Ignoring the 500-600 tests Lance Armstrong passed, ignoring all exculpatory evidence, and trying to justify the millions of dollars USADA has spent pursuing one, single athlete for years, USADA has continued its government funded witch hunt of only Mr. Armstrong, a retired cyclist, in violation of its own rules and due process, in spite of USADA’s lack of jurisdiction, in blatant violation of the statute of limitations, and without honoring… national and international rules,” Herman said in a statement.

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Oh, one more point about supplements not containing what’s on the label…or in this case more than what’s on the label.

The IOC commissioned a study a few years back, that we of course reviewed in JOPP. They wanted to know how many supplements out there might contain trace elements of anabolic androgenic steroids that would pop an athlete positive. The university that conducted the study randomly chose supplements from all sorts of countries around the world.

Of course the American supplements were the most contaminated at 18% of the samples taken.

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

You crack me up about the steroids comment. LOL Spot on! But I’d actually take that one a step farther…If any of us start taking a supplement (sans steroids, of course), and we think we’re getting stronger from it, how do we know that to be true?

Consider that the reason you train is to make gains. And as anyone who’s spent any time under a barbell knows, the body goes through cycles that are hard to predict. So once you start taking whatever supplement, how do you know that you’re not just experiencing a training gain and the supplement has nothing at all to do with it?

And let me pose this rhetorical question as well. How much of a gain beyond the training gain you’d expect anyway is necessary for you to consider the supplement to be worth the cost?

Take creatine as an example. It’s clear that this supplement will make you stronger (IF you’re a responder; about 1/3 of people out there are considered non-responders; interesting stuff on that in JOPP). There’s some variability in the research, but you could expect about a 3 rep or so gain, and maybe in the neighborhood of 10-15 pounds on 1-RM. Is that worth 50 bucks? Not to me. But it’s a personal decision.

But this is less personal a decision. A few years back we reviewed a study in JOPP that found some manufacturers’ creatine to contain anabolic androgenic steroids. I’d posit, not a worthwhile chance to take if you compete in a drug tested organization. But hey, that’s just me.

And that brings me to the final point on supplements…the label. Independent labs have found over and over again that supplements do not contain what the label claims. From my experience, it seems to be around 30% to 35% of supplements on the shelves that don’t contain what’s claimed. Yeah, I’m gonna spend money on something that holds a 30% chance of not being what I think it is. How many of you would go to a restaurant where there’s but a 20% chance that when you order a steak, potatoes, and beer, that instead you’ll get a salad and water? Tssss…

A final point on the placebo. We also reviewed work on the placebo effect in JOPP. It’s a true and measurable phenomenon. In fact, this study found the placebo effect to be much greater than the effect that most people get out of creatine.

Hey, how ’bout one of you guys giving me a beer at the Dino Challenge and telling me that the hops was grown in a lab where the light emits anabolic properties, thus the beer will make me stronger? YEAH!

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

ET, you can contact me via [email]dan@jopp.us[/email]. You can check out a sample issue from this link and see the cover. If you’d like, you can subscribe directly through that sample issue; the first page gives info.

http://www.jopp.us/journal/Vol8-1/Vol8-1.zip

Hope to see you at Al’s next wk-end.

Dan

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

So Al, may I assume that beer drinking is your third passion in life?

I’ll bring my pistol, carbine, and shotgun, but still want to add some record breaking attempts after the meet, if possible (I’m pretty sure Ruth will, too).

Dan

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

YEAH!

I train in my garage but have to do my chins and one-armed chins outside. Living in Colorado, I know what it’s like to train while it snows, rains, and is cold as all heck. Actually, that’s precisely what I have to do now…though admittedly, today is above freezing. I might get soft now… grin

Dan

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Well, it WAS a great discussion until Dinoman took it down the gutter by uttering the word Crossfit. See, now you made me do it. Sheesh…

d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[Author]

Posts