BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > My products > The Protein Book
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 02-03-2009, 12:24 PM
esahlin esahlin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 98
Default Scivation product XTend study

Knowing that BCAA supplementation has been pushed for years by some bodybuilders I'm wondering if this following study by Scivations should persuade me to sheel out more $$ for their product:

The supplement company Scivation conducted a double blind study (as posted on bodybuilding.com) where they compared giving trained weightlifters (at least 2 years of wieghtlifting training under their belts) their XTend product and compared it to giving a different slice of the group whey and a differetn slice gatorade. I guess they are claiming the XTend product group gained like 9 lbs of LBM in 8 weeks where as the whey group gained like 5 and the gatorade group like 1 lb. All the subjects were on a lean mass type diet so I assume all had adequate protein intake during the day without adding the XTEND, Whey or gatorade around workout time. I guess XTEND is pretty much a BCAA type of supplement.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=113689801
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 02-03-2009, 12:25 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 23,179
Default

Until I see more details, especially about how body comp was measured (I'm guessing BIA which is crap), I'd say do nothing. 9 lbs in 8 weeks is a muscle gain that can't even be achieved with steroids, I might note.

So something is very weird about their results.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 02-03-2009, 12:32 PM
esahlin esahlin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 98
Default

Thats the first thing that popped into my head with the study....9lbs lbm in 8 weeks....I'm like forget roids....XTEND is cheaper, safer, legal and just as good.

I think bodyfat was calculated with calipers....and thus lbm deduced.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 02-03-2009, 05:57 PM
Pikku Pikku is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 450
Default

Quote:
The Whey group dropped their percent body fat by 1%, gained 5 pounds of lean body weight, increased their bench press by about 5 pounds (7 pounds) and squat by about 10 pounds (11 pounds).

...

I round up the bench press and squat weight because you can't increase bar weight in reality by anything other than 5 pound increments."
wtf? what's with the numbers in the brackets.. either you increased weight by 7pounds or you didnt? but if cant raise 'by anthing other than 5 pound increments' then whats with 7 and 11pounds??

This study reeks of dodgy imo
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 02-04-2009, 08:27 AM
BWTrainer BWTrainer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
9 lbs in 8 weeks is a muscle gain that can't even be achieved with steroids, I might note.

So something is very weird about their results.
Not just gained 9 lbms of LBM in 8 weeks, they also LOST 4 lbs of fat.

This stuff is way better than roids!

Hell, even the whey and gatorade groups both gained LBM and lost fat. Methinks something is fishy...

Last edited by BWTrainer : 02-04-2009 at 08:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 02-04-2009, 05:36 PM
Hannah Hannah is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England
Posts: 195
Default

My favourite bit of that thread is when someone dared to ask how these results were possible within the laws of thermodynamics and they got the reply

"Thermodynamic laws obviously just got backhand slapped by Xtend."

I like a nice unbiased, scientific approach .
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 02-04-2009, 05:45 PM
patriots2 patriots2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannah View Post
My favourite bit of that thread is when someone dared to ask how these results were possible within the laws of thermodynamics and they got the reply

"Thermodynamic laws obviously just got backhand slapped by Xtend."

I like a nice unbiased, scientific approach .
Awesome quote. It looks like T-Nation has some stiff competition on its hands.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 02-04-2009, 11:21 PM
cxw cxw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 251
Default

Below are the questions someone posted, with replies

what constitutes training consistently?
2 years on consistant training in a gym
how was BF% estimated
calipers, taken by the same individual
were the Xtend users also using Whey?
no
were the users white or black?
I don't know why this should matter at all
how good was compliance?
as good as can possibly be
how did they ensure the study was double blind...especially considering the consistency of Xtend?
If you had never tasted Xtend, could you tell? The fact of the matter is that they could have had vanilla Xtend and Grape Whey.
Would they see the same results if they had 36 32 year olds, instead of having 36 subjects through a wide range of age groups?
Impossible to tell
how much bias was brought into this study, if any?
None whatsoever. Just consider that we used Scivation Xtend versus Scivation Whey


The biggest clue is this

The Xtend guys dropped their body fat % by 2%, gained 9 pounds of lean body weight (I call that muscle!), increased their bench press by about 15 pounds and squat by 25 pounds!


Who gains 9 pounds of muscle and only increases their bench by 15 pounds and their squat by 25?

If you gained a whopping 45 pounds of muscle, your bench would only increase by 75 pounds and your squat by 125 pounds.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 02-06-2009, 09:12 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 23,179
Default

This was not quality muscle, clearly.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 02-06-2009, 09:26 PM
Pikku Pikku is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 450
Default

hmm, does water count as 'lean body weight' aka 'muscle'? If so it'd explain how they could gain that much muscle without raising their lifts by much
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.