Is p-bol going to be good?

[lovehasrisen]

Originally Posted by Hank!

Pre Order?!

piitb x5 ?

[bigla2004]

Originally Posted by Truth Speaker

All the ingredients are at our facility however I must personally oversee every single batch run to ensure each batch is manufactured to specification without error and now I will not return to the states until mid July so that is when the first batches will be run.

This is awesome

[JornT]

Just wanted to let you know that the P-bol write up is on bb.com again and you might want to do something about that:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...5402751&page=3

Will P-bol be better than other pump products? By a mile! But for what I expect from a TL product, I'm not blown away by the formula either

So I hope this is an old write up of an old version or that Bane can convince me otherwise.

[bigla2004]

It is possible that is not the final version, but I am unsure. What about that left you unimpressed, for curiosities sake

[JornT]

Originally Posted by bigla2004

It is possible that is not the final version, but I am unsure. What about that left you unimpressed, for curiosities sake

I can tell you, but that would mean I have to talk about the ingredients. I thought TL didn't want the ingredients leaked out?

[Merciless]

Originally Posted by JornT

I can tell you, but that would mean I have to talk about the ingredients. I thought TL didn't want the ingredients leaked out?

too late for that, lol

and personally I think Pump-bol's ingredients look awesome.. what else did you expect?

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by JornT

I can tell you, but that would mean I have to talk about the ingredients. I thought TL didn't want the ingredients leaked out?

What did you expect? I can't personally imagine another formula better at increasing NO.

If you want we can throw some grape seed extract and some GPLC in there

[Merciless]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

What did you expect? I can't personally imagine another formula better at increasing NO.

If you want we can throw some grape seed extract and some GPLC in there

How about some Superdrol?

[JornT]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

What did you expect? I can't personally imagine another formula better at increasing NO.

If you want we can throw some grape seed extract and some GPLC in there

It wil be very effective to increase NO, no doubt. But it is 'just' nitrate + nitrat enhancers + some fatigue fighting compounds.

Pretty much like what C-bol is. I really liked C-bol because of its innovation. P-bol just seems more of the same to me. It has vit C again (which is also in E-bol) and folic acid (the high dose folic acid is the reason why I haven't tried C-bol yet)

Arginine nitrate is in the formula, because arginine reduces nitrate tolerance. However, citrulline is more effective at increasing plasma and muscle concentration of arginine itself. Since malic acid is in the formula, a high dose of citruline malate would seem to be a better choice (8g has recently shown to have benefits during resistance training.

I don't like reversatol, because it could have negative effects on the AR (we don't know enough on its pharmokinetics) and it may have a negative influence on muscle fiber phenotype (although NO itself may aswell).

I don't like glycerol either, it increases bodyweight which is often a disadvantage.

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by JornT

It wil be very effective to increase NO, no doubt. But it is 'just' nitrate + nitrat enhancers + some fatigue fighting compounds.

Pretty much like what C-bol is. I really liked C-bol because of its innovation. P-bol just seems more of the same to me. It has vit C again (which is also in E-bol) and folic acid (the high dose folic acid is the reason why I haven't tried C-bol yet)

Arginine nitrate is in the formula, because arginine reduces nitrate tolerance. However, citrulline is more effective at increasing plasma and muscle concentration of arginine itself. Since malic acid is in the formula, a high dose of citruline malate would seem to be a better choice (8g has recently shown to have benefits during resistance training.

I don't like reversatol, because it could have negative effects on the AR (we don't know enough on its pharmokinetics) and it may have a negative influence on muscle fiber phenotype (although NO itself may aswell).

I don't like glycerol either, it increases bodyweight which is often a disadvantage.

I am a huge fan of glycerol for its effects on strength and intracellular water retention. I don't understand what you would not like about it?

The pharmacokinetics of this arginine nitrate product will be different than that of other arginine forms. In addition, arginine levels were not found to be effective at preventing nitrate tolerance, but rather the supplemented L-arginine itself. I wouldn't change it out for anything.

I believe we will be coming out with a citrulline nitate product in the future.

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by JornT

It has vit C again (which is also in E-bol) and folic acid (the high dose folic acid is the reason why I haven't tried C-bol yet)

What is wrong with a higher dose of folic acid? Negative effects at this dose do not occur unless consumed over a VERY long period of time. In addition, you have to take into consideration the dose along with nitrates and a physically active individual.

[Rodzilla]

curious about the folic acid comment as well. I didn't know there was an issue to begin with.

In any event, good to see you around again jornT

[JornT]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

I am a huge fan of glycerol for its effects on strength and intracellular water retention. I don't understand what you would not like about it?

Glycerol is a blood volumizer, it doesn't increase intracellular water retention. It actually decreases intracellular water if you don't drink enough.

Which effects on strength? AFAIK there is only a effect on endurance and those results are not consistent across the literature. Futhermore, the MOA is hyperhydration, which would have no benefit for resistance training at all.

What I don't like about it, is that it increases bodyweight, which can have negative influence on bodyweight exercise and running etc.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

The pharmacokinetics of this arginine nitrate product will be different than that of other arginine forms. In addition, arginine levels were not found to be effective at preventing nitrate tolerance, but rather the supplemented L-arginine itself. I wouldn't change it out for anything.

As far as I know, there are two hypotheses on the MOA of arginine on nitrate tolerance. The arginine-depletion hypothesis and the antioxidant properties of arginine. In both cases, the bigger increase in plasma levels of arginine after citrulline supplementation seems the better choice.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

What is wrong with a higher dose of folic acid? Negative effects at this dose do not occur unless consumed over a VERY long period of time. In addition, you have to take into consideration the dose along with nitrates and a physically active individual.

Supplemental folate is linked to increased cancer risk. Is it suicide to consume folate? Not at all. But for me, I don't like the risk-benefits ratio.

[bigla2004]

Interesting points and I'm curious to see Dr_P and Bane's comments on folic acid and the possibility of it being cancerous. This is something I've never heard of

[JornT]

Originally Posted by bigla2004

Interesting points and I'm curious to see Dr_P and Bane's comments on folic acid and the possibility of it being cancerous. This is something I've never heard of

The issue is very unclear at this point, but it appears that folate deficiency may promote initial stages of cancer, and high folic acid may enhance exsisting cancers.

There is a cohort in which 800mg folate was supplemented and it increased cancer risk, one of the inclusion criteria was no known existing cancer.

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by JornT

The issue is very unclear at this point, but it appears that folate deficiency may promote initial stages of cancer, and high folic acid may enhance exsisting cancers.

There is a cohort in which 800mg folate was supplemented and it increased cancer risk, one of the inclusion criteria was no known existing cancer.

Folic acid is very important in cell replication and DNA synthesis, etc. It obviously plays a role in those who either already have some sort of growth but in healthy individuals, not at all. There are numerous compounds AND vitmins that can exacerbate the growth of an already cancerous cell. It's really a moot issue at this point. Low levels probably cause cancer through the activation of other DNA replication pathways which are considerably more error prone.

Also you can't neglect the fact that folic acid prevents numerous diseases. It's a double edged sword as with most compounds consumed in the long run.

[DaCookie]

I thought there was going to be a stim and non-stim version of p-bol?

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by DaCookie

I thought there was going to be a stim and non-stim version of p-bol?

There is. There will be a stim add on called clear-bol.

[JornT]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Folic acid is very important in cell replication and DNA synthesis, etc. It obviously plays a role in those who either already have some sort of growth but in healthy individuals, not at all.

Originally Posted by JornT

There is a cohort in which 800mg folate was supplemented and it increased cancer risk, one of the inclusion criteria was no known existing cancer.

The people in that cohort had no known exsisting cancer. If they had some sort of lesion that could no be diagnosed, you are just as likely to have such a lesion as the people in the study.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

There are numerous compounds AND vitmins that can exacerbate the growth of an already cancerous cell.

The danger of other compounds changes nothing about the risk assessment of folic acid.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Low levels probably cause cancer through the activation of other DNA replication pathways which are considerably more error prone.

Also you can't neglect the fact that folic acid prevents numerous diseases. It's a double edged sword as with most compounds consumed in the long run.

You are talking about effects of low levels of folic acid. I'm talking about having high levels vs adequate levels.

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by JornT

Glycerol is a blood volumizer, it doesn't increase intracellular water retention. It actually decreases intracellular water if you don't drink enough.

Which effects on strength? AFAIK there is only a effect on endurance and those results are not consistent across the literature. Futhermore, the MOA is hyperhydration, which would have no benefit for resistance training at all.

What I don't like about it, is that it increases bodyweight, which can have negative influence on bodyweight exercise and running etc.

First, it depends on what the glycerol is bound to. There is sodium and potassium glycerophosphate, glycerin, and glycerol monostearate, each of which effecting the movement of ions very differently.

When you increase extracellular water, you will inevitably increase intracellular water when properly hydrated. That is why it is key to consumer plenty of fluids along with glycerol or dehydration can occur.

Originally Posted by JornT

As far as I know, there are two hypotheses on the MOA of arginine on nitrate tolerance. The arginine-depletion hypothesis and the antioxidant properties of arginine. In both cases, the bigger increase in plasma levels of arginine after citrulline supplementation seems the better choice.



Supplemental folate is linked to increased cancer risk. Is it suicide to consume folate? Not at all. But for me, I don't like the risk-benefits ratio.

Let's see a study on the effects of citrulline on nitrate tolerance then? I don't think we can say citrulline would have a better effect YET, although it is an idea. I, and probably Bane, would rather go with what is more of a "sure shot"

Also, take dose dependence into account with raising arginine levels via different compounds. I'm not sure what we dose the arginine nitrate at yet.

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by JornT

The people in that cohort had no known exsisting cancer. If they had some sort of lesion that could no be diagnosed, you are just as likely to have such a lesion as the people in the study.

Whether or not the individuals had a legion prior to the study is irrelevant as long as the rate of cancer appearing in that group is normal in accordance with the population. What is the time-table on this and how many individuals were used? Do you have a link? It's kind of hard to discuss it without seeing the study.

As you say above, high folic acid levels ENHANCE already present cancers. Depending on how the study measured things, accelerated growth could greatly skew the results.

Originally Posted by JornT

The danger of other compounds changes nothing about the risk assessment of folic acid.

When the study is not in a completely controlled environment (which is practically impossible) with no other carcinogens it is.

Originally Posted by JornT

You are talking about effects of low levels of folic acid. I'm talking about having high levels vs adequate levels.

You mention folate deficiency above. Folate deficiency also increases cancer risk. It's a double-edged sword.

[bigla2004]

Well I'm definitely learning

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by bigla2004

Well I'm definitely learning

That's what it's all about.

Regardless of the conclusions of folic acid, there are many compounds used in products that exert similar or more extreme effects in cancer cells. i.e. orotic acid. For the most part, unless you already have cancer growing, its not an issue.

[JornT]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Whether or not the individuals had a legion prior to the study is irrelevant as long as the rate of cancer appearing in that group is normal in accordance with the population. What is the time-table on this and how many individuals were used? Do you have a link? It's kind of hard to discuss it without seeing the study.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...ct/302/19/2119

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

As you say above, high folic acid levels ENHANCE already present cancers. Depending on how the study measured things, accelerated growth could greatly skew the results.

Yes, that is one hypothesis. However it does not explain why people in the cohort above had an increased cancer risk, because known cancers where excluded. Unless most of those people who developed cancer had a pre cancerous lesion. However, those lessions could not be diagnosed and those people where considered healthy wrt cancer. You might think you are perfectly healthy as well but have such a lesion as well.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

When the study is not in a completely controlled environment (which is practically impossible) with no other carcinogens it is.

The trail was randomized.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

You mention folate deficiency above. Folate deficiency also increases cancer risk. It's a double-edged sword.

[/quote]

Someone asked more info on folic acid, so I talked about it some more. Ofcourse I mention something about folic acid deficiency then.

We on the other hand, are talking about whether supplementing with high levels of folic acid is a wise thing to do. It is only logical that you compare the supplement to a situation of adequate levels, because everything is usefull when you deficient of it by definition.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

First, it depends on what the glycerol is bound to. There is sodium and potassium glycerophosphate, glycerin, and glycerol monostearate, each of which effecting the movement of ions very differently.

When you increase extracellular water, you will inevitably increase intracellular water when properly hydrated. That is why it is key to consumer plenty of fluids along with glycerol or dehydration can occur.

You can increase plasma volume without a concurent increase in intracellular water.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Let's see a study on the effects of citrulline on nitrate tolerance then? I don't think we can say citrulline would have a better effect YET, although it is an idea. I, and probably Bane, would rather go with what is more of a "sure shot"

If you want to use this logic, I can go into almost any TL topic and mention one should not use it because there is no human data to support that it is effective and that people should go for something with what is more of a ''sure shot''.

[DaCookie]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

There is. There will be a stim add on called clear-bol.

What kinda price are we talking about for just the clear-bol?I hope its not expensive.