Arachidonic acid

[thombrogan]

Originally Posted by w_llewellyn

Are you following this at all?

Unreal.

Yes, I'm following this. My favorite part was:

Originally Posted by w_llewellyn

I just want to add that while most sports nutrition companies put the bulk of their disposable budget into marketing, my company has given grants to

If you don't believe providing unsolicited advice of your good deeds is marketing; or, worse, you know it, but are cynical enough to pretend otherwise; then don't worry about convincing me about anything else. You've said quite enough.

[jvc11]

In 31 trained males subject to a standardized weight lifting program and diet (500kcal excess with 2g/kg protein) given either 1g arachidonic acid daily or placebo, supplementation over 50 days appeared to increase peak power (7.1%) and average power (3.6%) on a Wingate test but failed to positively influence muscle mass or weight lifting measures of power (bench press and leg press)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18045476

so this study is wrong ??

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by w_llewellyn

I just want to add that while most sports nutrition companies put the bulk of their disposable budget into marketing, my company has given grants to Benedictine University, Baylor University, and now the University of Tampa (working in conjunction with Auburn University) specifically to study this ingredient. I'd hardly say that I'm putting the onus on the public to just believe me; "try it, it works". I've put my money where my mouth is to prove it works. I came here expecting an intelligent conversation on this research.

BTW; since it has come up, X-Factor sells for about $40 most sites, not $90.

The $90 value came from the site you linked to. http://www.molecularnutrition.co/pro...601001285.html

One inconclusive study and one unpublished study isn't convincing. That's all I'm saying. I am not criticizing your research or integrity. Please don't interpret it that way. Keep researching. Sincerely. I really hope this stuff works. I'd be the first in line to buy it. But the evidence isn't there yet.

[w_llewellyn]

Originally Posted by jvc11

In 31 trained males subject to a standardized weight lifting program and diet (500kcal excess with 2g/kg protein) given either 1g arachidonic acid daily or placebo, supplementation over 50 days appeared to increase peak power (7.1%) and average power (3.6%) on a Wingate test but failed to positively influence muscle mass or weight lifting measures of power (bench press and leg press)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18045476

so this study is wrong ??

No, not at all. It was an great study. Perhaps a bit underpowered, so seeing statistical significance may have been more difficult. If you read the paper you will see that all of the other performance variables were trending but not significant, such as the bench press (which was improved 25 lbs in ARA group). "Statistical analysis revealed a low to moderate effect-size increase in bench press strength in the AA group". This means there appears to have been an effect, but we are only "very likely" (80-95% confident) associating it with the supplement. The threshold for statistical significance is high, which is why we place such weight in these findings when we do see it.

Again, Tampa is really a continuation of the Baylor work; a compliment, not a contradiction. My advice is to take time and read the full paper, and a little bit about statistical significance, especially in relation to small group studies like these.

[w_llewellyn]

Here is the Baylor abstract as it was first presented at the ISSN conference. Same Study; same data.

Performance and body composition changes after 50 days of concomitant arachidonic acid supplementation and resistance training.

M Iosia, M Roberts, C Kerksick, B Campbell, T Harvey, C Wilborn, R Wilson, M. Greenwood, D Willoughby and R Kreider. Exercise & Sport Nutrition

Laboratory, Center for Exercise, Nutrition & Preventive Health Research, Baylor
University, Waco, TX 76798-7313. Mike_Iosia@baylor.edu.

ABSTRACT

Arachidonic acid (AA) is a polyunsaturated omega-6 (ω-6) fatty acid that is stored within skeletal muscle phospholipids and has been purported to stimulate changes in strength and body composition while resistance training. The purpose of this study was to determine if 50 days of concomitant resistance training and AA supplementation affects performance and/or body composition adaptations in previously resistance-trained males. Thirty-one subjects (22.1 ± 5.0 yrs, 178.9 ± 3.4 cm, 86.1 ± 13.0 kg, 18.1 ± 6.4 % body fat) were randomly assigned to ingest either a corn oil placebo (P: n=16) or AA (n=15). All subjects ingested a total of four capsules each day by ingesting one 0.25 gram capsule every four hours for a total daily dose of 1 gram•d-1 and were given a supplemental protein powder in order attain a protein intake of 2 g•kg-1•d-1. Each subject completed two upper-body and two lower-body workouts each week in a split-body fashion. Total training volumes were calculated from training logs. Body mass, body composition using DEXA, bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM), leg press 1RM and Wingate anaerobic capacity tests were completed at 0, 25 and 50 days. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and are presented as mean ± SD changes from baseline after 50-days. No significant differences (p>0.05) between groups were noted for training volume. Training significantly increased body mass (p<0.01), DEXA lean mass (p<0.001), bench press 1RM (p<0.001), leg press 1RM (p<0.001), Wingate average power (p<0.001) and Wingate total work (p<0.001) indicating that the subjects experienced positive training adaptations. No significant group x time interaction effects were observed among groups in changes in body mass (AA: 1.6 ± 2.3; P: 1.0 ± 2.1 kg, p=0.45), DEXA lean mass (AA: 1.2 ± 1.6; P: 1.0 ± 1.9 kg, p=0.71), or leg press 1RM (AA: 25.0 ± 24.7; P: 22.7 ± 34.0 kg, p=0.83). Statistical trends were seen in bench press 1RM (AA: 11.0 ± 6.2; P: 8.0 ± 8.0 kg, p=0.20), Wingate average power (AA: 37.9 ± 10.0; P: 17.0 ± 24.0 W, p=0.16), and Wingate total work (AA: 1292 ± 1206; P: 510 ± 1249 J, p=0.087). A significant group x time interaction effect was observed in Wingate relative peak power (AA: 1.2 ± 0.5; P: -0.2 ± 0.2 W•kg-1, p=0.015). In conclusion, AA supplementation during resistance-training promoted significant increases in relative peak power with other performance related variables approaching significance. These findings provide some preliminary evidence to support the use of AA as an ergogenic aid. More research is needed to explore the effects of AA supplementation on training adaptations.

Proceedings of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) Conference June 15-17, 2006

[w_llewellyn]

This is the Tampa study. It has been published in abstract form by the National Strength and Conditioning Association. Yes, full paper is pending, but this is considered published data, as there was a peer review process.

[amir85]

Originally Posted by w_llewellyn

I just want to add that while most sports nutrition companies put the bulk of their disposable budget into marketing, my company has given grants to Benedictine University, Baylor University, and now the University of Tampa (working in conjunction with Auburn University) specifically to study this ingredient. I'd hardly say that I'm putting the onus on the public to just believe me; "try it, it works". I've put my money where my mouth is to prove it works. I came here expecting an intelligent conversation on this research.
BTW; since it has come up, X-Factor sells for about $40 most sites, not $90.

I would like to add a few additional points:

• Recommended maximum dose (most "anabolic dosage") based on Molecular Nutrition's website is 6 capsules per day for. Each bottle contains 100 caps so a 50-days regiment costs 3x$90=$270
• The only published study (http://www.jissn.com/content/4/1/21) has the following in its discussion section:
  

  The major findings from this study were that AA supplementation significantly increased anaerobic peak power by 8.5% at day 50 (P < 0.05) and attenuated the increases in circulating IL-6 levels that were seen in the PLA group (AA: 138.0 ± 83.1 pg·ml-1, PLA: 172.6 ± 90.5 pg·ml-1, P < 0.05) on day 25 of the study. Statistical trends were also found for PGE2 increases (98.5 ± 217 vs. PLA: -73.8 ± 273 pg·ml-1, P = 0.06) in the AA group. These findings suggest that AA supplementation may increase prostaglandin levels in the blood and provide a potential ergogenic value for athletes engaged in high-intensity exercise. Additionally, that subjects engaged in intense training may be able to tolerate training with less inflammation as indicated by lower IL-6 levels. However, no significant differences were seen between groups in changes in body composition, circulating anabolic hormones, and/or intramuscular markers of muscle hypertrophy. These findings do not support claims that AA supplementation during resistance training stimulates muscle hypertrophy leading to greater gains in strength and/or muscle mass.

• Molecular Nutrition has been already making profits from selling arachidonic acid supplement prior to these studies. Hence if Mr. William's claim is true then he is using a portion of profits on unproven supplements to fund the research
• University of Tampa's unpublished research isn't even peer reviewed (very crucial step)
• Also if Mr. William's claim of funding of University of Tampa's unpublished research study is true then the rule of thumbs says any research study funded by supplement companies must be taken with a grain of salt

[w_llewellyn]

Originally Posted by amir85

I would like to add a few additional points:
[*]Also if Mr. William's claim of funding of University of Tampa's unpublished research study is true then the rule of thumbs says any research study funded by supplement companies must be taken with a grain of salt[/list]

Again, the data has been peer reviewed, but feel free to wait for the final paper; I'm not trying to force you to accept the results if you don't want to.

BTW, company funded research is how most studies get done in sports nutrition. It is perfectly ethical for a University to accept and run such project, and to do so without bias. The money is given as a grant, and the findings are published regardless of the outcome. Most academics would be highly offended at this statement.

[Destiny23]

Glad I searched this. Been going back and forth on trying this supplement.

[w_llewellyn]

Greetings Lyle. Ha, I just found this old thread and figured I'd update everyone. Hopefully you will find this new data on arachidonic acid interesting. There have been 4 exercise studies on ARA published now, and all 4 have found significant findings with regard to either body composition changes, performance (strength/power) improvements, or markers of anabolism.

1) Tampa study has since been peer-reviewed and published in PLOS ONE. Here is a link to the full text. Again, significant increase in LBM, strength, and power with 8 weeks of arachidonic acid (X-FACTOR) supplementation.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0155153

"Lean body mass (2.9%, p<0.0005), upper-body strength (8.7%, p<0.0001), and peak power (12.7%, p<0.0001) increased only in the ARA group. [...]
Our findings suggest that ARA supplementation can positively augment strength-training induced adaptations in resistance-trained males. However, chronic studies at the molecular level are required to further elucidate how ARA combined with strength training affect muscle adaptation."

2) This study was just published in January 2018. It found arachidonic acid supplementation to increase myogenin and MyoD. Further, after extensive review of circulating and muscle immune and inflammatory markers, it found no risk of increased inflammation, and in fact a modest reduction in some markers.

http://www.plefa.com/article/S0952-3...231-4/fulltext

"In muscle, ARA supplementation increased mRNA expression of the myogenic regulatory factors; MyoD and myogenin, but had no effect on a range of immune cell markers or inflammatory cytokines. These data show that dietary ARA supplementation can rapidly and safely modulate plasma and muscle fatty acid profile and promote myogenic gene expression in resistance trained men, without a risk of increasing basal systemic or intramuscular inflammation."

3) This paper was published in February 2018. It found arachidonic acid supplementation to increase ribosome biogenesis (protein translational capacity) and satellite cell counts.

https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/1...r_pub%3Dpubmed

"“In contrast to placebo, expression of 45S pre-rRNA was increased at 48 h post exercise in the ARA group, by all three independent primer sets (5’ETS, ITS+5.8S, ITS+28S)… Moreover, ARA supplementation increased muscle UBF protein levels suggesting that ARA supplementation may enhance ribosome biogenesis via increased expression of components of the pre-initiation complex (PIC), leading to increased capacity for Polymerase I activity.”

"“Satellite cells play an important role in repair of damaged muscle, tissue remodeling and may be regulate extreme muscle hypertrophy. In the present study, the number of cells in muscle staining positive for the satellite cell marker NCAM was increased hours after exercise in both groups. However, there was a tendency for a greater percentage increase in NCAM+ cells in the ARA group (84%) compared with placebo (16%). NCAM mRNA expression also tended to increase to a greater extent in the ARA group than placebo at 2 hours after exercise. Additionally, mRNA expression of the satellite cell marker PAX7 was greater in the ARA group compared with placebo at 48 hours after exercise. “