Is p-bol going to be good?

[bigla2004]

Originally Posted by DaCookie

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

No idea. It should kick some serious ass though

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by JornT

Yes, that is one hypothesis.

I think this may be the case after skimming the full text. I have a ton to say on this issue and in critique of the results and parameters. Maybe we can discuss this in the science section? I think this is a very useful discussion when it comes to MANY compounds, nonetheless.

Originally Posted by JornT

The trail was randomized.

Yes, but that still points to my argument on there being confounding variables and already having or getting a legion during this long ~10 year study.

I should also mention it is very interesting that this is in Norway where there are no folic acid fortified foods. I wonder if the results would be different in America where general folic acid consumption is higher and we are more "adapted" to a higher consumption amount?

Originally Posted by JornT

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

I was just answering what you said.

Originally Posted by JornT

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.

Having low levels and cancer w/r to folic acid has it's place in this discussion, especially when the study you point to in question may have some flaws (which is expected) and limited applicability to the lifestyle of someone who would be taking p-bol.

Originally Posted by JornT

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

Depending on what type of minerals you consume, it's pretty difficult and I can assure you we have this taken care of with our electrolyte blend. You don't even know the type of glycerol added yet! (which is VERY important).

I should also point out that there are other reasons glycerol was added to the formula. Increasing plasma volume will also help to eliminate the headaches and other possible negative side effects from the nitrates. I, personally, think its induction to this formula is ingenious.

Originally Posted by JornT

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''.

Ehhh, not when we are talking about completely different compounds. I don't know what more you want? Arginine itself was shown to decrease nitrate tolerance. I will commend you for the citrulline idea though as I think its a great idea, but to be honest, even if citrulline did work in decreasing nitrate tolerance, I cannot see arginine and citrulline NOT performing comparably.

I should reiterate that dose dependence is a major issue here (how much was arginase risen when citrulline malate was added vs. arginine per gram of each). Arginine nitrate is cheaper too.

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by DaCookie

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

I'm pretty sure it won't be since it's an add-on to p-bol.

[JornT]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

I think this may be the case after skimming the full text. I have a ton to say on this issue and in critique of the results and parameters. Maybe we can discuss this in the science section? I think this is a very useful discussion when it comes to MANY compounds, nonetheless.

Feel free to start a topic there.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Yes, but that still points to my argument on there being confounding variables and already having or getting a legion during this long ~10 year study.

How does randomization points to confounding? The goal of randomization is to prevent confounding. I also don't understand what point you're trying to make with the lesion part?

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

I should also mention it is very interesting that this is in Norway where there are no folic acid fortified foods. I wonder if the results would be different in America where general folic acid consumption is higher and we are more "adapted" to a higher consumption amount?

How does one adapt to higher amounts? If that was the case, there would be no dose effect of the substance on disease.

The effect of folic acid is hypothesis to have a U shape. With low levels resulting in increased cancer risk, moderate levels a lower cancer risk and high levels an increased risk. The further right you are on this spectrum (having high consumption prior to supplementation), the more fucked you are.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

I was just answering what you said.

I wasn't talking to you, and it didn't need an answer.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Having low levels and cancer w/r to folic acid has it's place in this discussion, especially when the study you point to in question may have some flaws (which is expected) and limited applicability to the lifestyle of someone who would be taking p-bol.

Feel free to make your argument here or in the science section. BTW, I'm from the netherlands where there is no folic acid fortification (guess what the reason is?). P-bol is only marketed for the US? But like I said above, it's probably even worse for those people.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Depending on what type of minerals you consume, it's pretty difficult and I can assure you we have this taken care of with our electrolyte blend. You don't even know the type of glycerol added yet! (which is VERY important).

Like I stated in that first post, I'm just commenting on that write up and that I hoped that Bane (or anyone else) could convince me otherwise. If you used some fancy glycerol with unique hydrating properties, than that changes things ofcourse. The same with that it might prevent headaches.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Ehhh, not when we are talking about completely different compounds. I don't know what more you want? Arginine itself was shown to decrease nitrate tolerance. I will commend you for the citrulline idea though as I think its a great idea, but to be honest, even if citrulline did work in decreasing nitrate tolerance, I cannot see arginine and citrulline NOT performing comparably.

I should reiterate that dose dependence is a major issue here (how much was arginase risen when citrulline malate was added vs. arginine per gram of each). Arginine nitrate is cheaper too.

Entirely different compounds? Citrulline increases plasma ARGININE. How is citrulline a completely different substance?

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by JornT

How does randomization points to confounding? The goal of randomization is to prevent confounding. I also don't understand what point you're trying to make with the lesion part?

That's the issue. The study was done with OLDER individuals (who are more prone to developing legions at any given time than a younger person) AND in the Netherlands with no folic acid fortification of foods. In addition, the methods of testing may have thrown off the results which we discussed above. There is plenty of room for confounding variables.

Taken as a whole, I think we can both agree that folic acid may cause problems if you ALREADY have cancer. This study was done over the course of 10 years and NO ONE will be taking c-bol for 10 years straight (it is meant to be cycled and at thermolife we advocate the cycling of all supplements). If you have cancer, don't take folic acid. If you are older or are in a risk group for cancer, don't take folic acid.

Originally Posted by JornT

How does one adapt to higher amounts? If that was the case, there would be no dose effect of the substance on disease.

The effect of folic acid is hypothesis to have a U shape. With low levels resulting in increased cancer risk, moderate levels a lower cancer risk and high levels an increased risk. The further right you are on this spectrum (having high consumption prior to supplementation), the more fucked you are.

You are only fucked if YOU ALREADY have cancer.

Who knows what a previous higher amount of consumption means...it's an idea.

I should also point out that if they did this exact same study using high protein diets instead of folic acid, the results would be similar.

Originally Posted by JornT

I wasn't talking to you, and it didn't need an answer.

Well, you got one and it's pertinent to the conversation. i.e. U-shaped curve.

Originally Posted by JornT

Like I stated in that first post, I'm just commenting on that write up and that I hoped that Bane (or anyone else) could convince me otherwise. If you used some fancy glycerol with unique hydrating properties, than that changes things ofcourse. The same with that it might prevent headaches.

I don't quite understand what you need to be convinced of? It increases plasma volume (which is beneficial to the formula as a whole) and I'm telling you now that the addition will help with cell volumization and the "pump" effect. It certainly has its place in P-BOL. This is a pump product, and glycerol does that.

Originally Posted by JornT

Entirely different compounds? Citrulline increases plasma ARGININE. How is citrulline a completely different substance?

Citrulline does not = arginine when taken orally. You of all people should know that oral arginine has very different effects than just increasing plasma arginine levels.

Again, think about what I said above. PRICE. Gram for Gram effectiveness of each compound alone and how/if they will provide comparable results.

[JornT]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

That's the issue. The study was done with OLDER individuals (who are more prone to developing legions at any given time than a younger person) AND in the Netherlands with no folic acid fortification of foods. In addition, the methods of testing may have thrown off the results which we discussed above. There is plenty of room for confounding variables.

No, you are confusing things. The study was done in Denmark (who don't have folic acid fortification). I am from the Netherlands (we don't have folic acid fortification either). America has fortification. Now imagine that U shaped dose response curve. Supplementation with folic acid would be beneficial if you are in the left part (aka low intake). Because then you would shift a little bit to the right, and reach levels that result in a lower cancer risk. However, that scenario does not reflect America, where there is fortification. Because of the fortification the people would already be in the moderate or even higher intake levels, and any shift to the right by additional supplementation would result in increased cancer risk.

If supplementation would be benefical, it would be in countries with no fortification and are on that left side of the curve. Yet in in such a country (Denmark), the supplement increased cancer risk.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Taken as a whole, I think we can both agree that folic acid may cause problems if you ALREADY have cancer.

Yes, however:

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

This study was done over the course of 10 years and NO ONE will be taking c-bol for 10 years straight (it is meant to be cycled and at thermolife we advocate the cycling of all supplements). If you have cancer, don't take folic acid. If you are older or are in a risk group for cancer, don't take folic acid.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

You are only fucked if YOU ALREADY have cancer.

I think this is the third time I'm going to say that PEOPLE WITH KNOWN CANCER WHERE EXCLUDED from the study. This doesn't mean that the didn't have some lesion, which could explain the increased cancer risk by the MOA we just agreed on. However, if that was the case, those lesions COULD NOT BE DIAGNOSED. So it's impossible to know if you have such a lession and likewise it is impossible to know if you are healthy (and folic acid is okay for you). In addition, it possible that folic acid is carcinogenic and not just a lesion promoter.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Well, you got one and it's pertinent to the conversation. i.e. U-shaped curve.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

I don't quite understand what you need to be convinced of? It increases plasma volume (which is beneficial to the formula as a whole) and I'm telling you now that the addition will help with cell volumization and the "pump" effect. It certainly has its place in P-BOL. This is a pump product, and glycerol does that.

You make claims, nothing more.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Citrulline does not = arginine when taken orally. You of all people should know that oral arginine has very different effects than just increasing plasma arginine levels.

PLZ eleborate on how arginine is supposed to reduce nitrate tolerance with a MOA that citrulline could not.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Again, think about what I said above. PRICE. Gram for Gram effectiveness of each compound alone and how/if they will provide comparable results.

Citrulline might cost more but it increases plasma arginine better and has other benefits. If you want to play the price game, than I'm going to argue that creatine monohydrate is a better buy than pump-bol.

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by JornT

No, you are confusing things. The study was done in Denmark (who don't have folic acid fortification). I am from the Netherlands (we don't have folic acid fortification either). America has fortification. Now imagine that U shaped dose response curve. Supplementation with folic acid would be beneficial if you are in the left part (aka low intake). Because then you would shift a little bit to the right, and reach levels that result in a lower cancer risk. However, that scenario does not reflect America, where there is fortification. Because of the fortification the people would already be in the moderate or even higher intake levels, and any shift to the right by additional supplementation would result in increased cancer risk.

If supplementation would be benefical, it would be in countries with no fortification and are on that left side of the curve. Yet in in such a country (Denmark), the supplement increased cancer risk.



Yes, however:





I think this is the third time I'm going to say that PEOPLE WITH KNOWN CANCER WHERE EXCLUDED from the study. This doesn't mean that the didn't have some lesion, which could explain the increased cancer risk by the MOA we just agreed on. However, if that was the case, those lesions COULD NOT BE DIAGNOSED. So it's impossible to know if you have such a lession and likewise it is impossible to know if you are healthy (and folic acid is okay for you). In addition, it possible that folic acid is carcinogenic and not just a lesion promoter.



I have no idea what you're trying to say.



You make claims, nothing more.

Haha, I'm not so sure we are going to agree on this. I think we only disagree on what the study implies for real world application.

Don't you think that if folic acid were carcinogenic, those who ate diets high is greens (which contain high levels of folate) would have a significantly higher cancer rate (which is opposite)? Wouldn't the entire animal kingdom that relies on vegetation to eat be overrun with cancer (which again, is opposite)? Evolutionarily, it doesn't make sense.

In addition, I should reiterate that if this study were performed with high protein diets, casein supplementation, etc, the results would be comparable. Nonetheless, there is much we don't know about folic acid supplementation and I would love to see some more data on the issue. I just think it's extremely premature to assert folic acid is carcinogenic in the least at this point in time...and given how folate works (its a source of carbon in the synthesis of nucleotides that are essential for DNA replication and repair) its almost common sense to me that it would not be smart to take if you had cancer, but in no way can I see it being carcinogenic.

Keep in mind we are cycling C-BOL and not using it for periods of 10 years, and at that, we are in COMPLETELY different physiological states then the subjects used (we may allow and even require a higher daily folic acid intake than those who are older AND not working out). In the spirit of true randomization, I would loved to have seen data on a larger (younger) age spread of individuals.

Before I forget, as an aside, I would have liked to see different doses of folic acid used in the study (i.e. 200, 400, 800) to give us an idea of what this number is.

BACK TO P-BOL!

Originally Posted by JornT

PLZ eleborate on how arginine is supposed to reduce nitrate tolerance with a MOA that citrulline could not.

This is the point, we don't know know the MOA. Again, you know that arginine has plenty of other effects when ingested orally besides increasing plasma arginine levels and it probably has even more effects than we are currently aware of. It may the the arginine levels, it may not be.

Originally Posted by JornT

Citrulline might cost more but it increases plasma arginine better and has other benefits. If you want to play the price game, than I'm going to argue that creatine monohydrate is a better buy than pump-bol.

Again, I ask you, how much more does citrulline malate increase plasma arginine gram for gram than arginine itself?

If you think creatine monohydrate is a better buy than p-bol, then by all means use that instead.

[JornT]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Don't you think that if folic acid were carcinogenic, those who ate diets high is greens (which contain high levels of folate) would have a significantly higher cancer rate (which is opposite)? Wouldn't the entire animal kingdom that relies on vegetation to eat be overrun with cancer (which again, is opposite)? Evolutionarily, it doesn't make sense.

Diets high in green have a infinite other substances in them as well. Besides, animals don't die of cancer because they don't have medicine for other diseases and predation.

Both of those arguments are extremly poor from an evidence based perspective, I'm sure you know that.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

given how folate works (its a source of carbon in the synthesis of nucleotides that are essential for DNA replication and repair) its almost common sense to me that it would not be smart to take if you had cancer, but in no way can I see it being carcinogenic.

This is again a very poor argument from an evidence based view. You don't look at the MOA of a substance and then start speculating what the results on health will be. What you do is a trial, and measure the results. Once you have done that, you try to explain those results by a MOA.

Besides, folic acid has other roles than nucleotide synthesis, like methylation, which makes it possibly carcinogenic.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Keep in mind we are cycling C-BOL and not using it for periods of 10 years, and at that, we are in COMPLETELY different physiological states then the subjects used (we may allow and even require a higher daily folic acid intake than those who are older AND not working out). In the spirit of true randomization, I would loved to have seen data on a larger (younger) age spread of individuals.

Yeah C-bol will be cycled, but would you drink 6 glasses of alcohol each day for 50 days, and then don't drink for 50 days, repeat? For clarification, I haven't said that the folic acid in C-bol is oh so dangerous. But that I personally don't like the e risk-benefit ratio of high dose supplemental folic acid and that I was supprised to see it in P-bol again. The effects of folic on other age groups is guessing at this point.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

This is the point, we don't know know the MOA. Again, you know that arginine has plenty of other effects when ingested orally besides increasing plasma arginine levels and it probably has even more effects than we are currently aware of. It may the the arginine levels, it may not be.

What effects does oral arginine have that citrulline doesn't?

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Again, I ask you, how much more does citrulline malate increase plasma arginine gram for gram than arginine itself?

I don't know from the top of my head and I'm to lazy to look it up now because I don't think the exact number means that much. It raises plasma arginine levels higher than arginine itself + has performance benefits + it's not like the price is crazy high so differences will be relative marginal. But since you care about effectiveness per $ so much, could you explain why there is turk in E-bol which is much more expensive than edcy, and not likely more effectve in that same magnitude?

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by JornT

But that I personally don't like the e risk-benefit ratio of high dose supplemental folic acid and that I was supprised to see it in P-bol again.

That is fair. I am always an advocate of consumers educating themselves when it comes to supplementation and making their own decisions on whether a given supplement will benefit them.

Originally Posted by JornT

The effects of folic on other age groups is guessing at this point.

Definitely.

Originally Posted by JornT

What effects does oral arginine have that citrulline doesn't?

Don't play dumb lol. Insuline, GH, etc. The simple fact that oral arginine and IV arginine lead to significantly different effects tells us this.

Originally Posted by JornT

I don't know from the top of my head and I'm to lazy to look it up now because I don't think the exact number means that much.

I think the dose relationship would be critical for your argument.

Originally Posted by JornT

It raises plasma arginine levels higher than arginine itself + has performance benefits + it's not like the price is crazy high so differences will be relative marginal.

Well for one there is a significant difference in pricing AND you have to dose the citrulline much higher compared to the arginine, but don't get it twisted, that's not the reason we didn't use citrulline. We just don't know if it will decrease nitrate tolerance. Period. You can speculate all you want and you might possibly be right, but the fact is arginine has different effects than citrulline which may account for its effects on nitrate tolerance and even if you are right, there probably isn't even a difference in the end-goal... especially when considering the other compounds in P-BOL that help with nitrate tolerance.

In this regard, arginine was found to be completely effective at combating nitrate tolerance. Don't know how much better you can get. We are not talking about pumps here, or anabolism, or another issue where there is no limit w/r to effectiveness by increasing it.

Originally Posted by JornT

But since you care about effectiveness per $ so much, could you explain why there is turk in E-bol which is much more expensive than edcy, and not likely more effectve in that same magnitude?

Well, turk actually IS MUCH MUCH more effective than ecdysterone itself, especially when combined with ecdysterone.

[ThermoRep]

Also, we I believe we will be coming out with a citrulline nitrate product eventually so more power to you if you want to try that along with nitrates/p-bol.

[Rodzilla]

Damnit, I just want it to be out.

[JornT]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Don't play dumb lol. Insuline, GH, etc. The simple fact that oral arginine and IV arginine lead to significantly different effects tells us this.

I think the dose relationship would be critical for your argument.

Well for one there is a significant difference in pricing AND you have to dose the citrulline much higher compared to the arginine, but don't get it twisted, that's not the reason we didn't use citrulline. We just don't know if it will decrease nitrate tolerance. Period. You can speculate all you want and you might possibly be right, but the fact is arginine has different effects than citrulline which may account for its effects on nitrate tolerance and even if you are right, there probably isn't even a difference in the end-goal... especially when considering the other compounds in P-BOL that help with nitrate tolerance.

In this regard, arginine was found to be completely effective at combating nitrate tolerance. Don't know how much better you can get. We are not talking about pumps here, or anabolism, or another issue where there is no limit w/r to effectiveness by increasing it.

We are talking in circles.

Your main argument is that arginine has a proven effect in contrast to citrulline malate right? That is a fair argument, if you have that opinion consistently. Show me human data that T.Atlantus is effective in humans for example? I'm not saying that it isn't, just that you guys are making a leap of faith based on animal data. And there is nothing wrong with that, you have to do so in order to be innovative. But my point is that you have to choose, use evidence based ingredients or make some leaps of faiths. Heck you can do both if you want, but if you do, don't give me the 'yeah we go for the evidence based route' when it suits you in an argument.

Same thing with price. Can the costs of an ingredient play are role in a formulation? Ofcourse! But how important is that role with this product? Do you agree with me, that creatine monohydrate is the best buy in the sport supplement industry $ for $? That means that people who buy P-bol, are not people who are interested in buying the best buy $ for $, they are willing to pay extra for products that might have some additional benefits, even though the benefits are relatively much smaller than the additional price of the product. Do you think that those people care much about the slightly bigger price of citrulline compared to arginine? You also say you would need more of it? Why would you need more of it? For the same plasma arginine raise, you would need less. If you mean for the ergogenic effects, yes you need more, but than you actually get more.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Well, turk actually IS MUCH MUCH more effective than ecdysterone itself, especially when combined with ecdysterone.

Reference?

The graph here on my E-bol packing says otherwise.

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by JornT

We are talking in circles.

Your main argument is that arginine has a proven effect in contrast to citrulline malate right? That is a fair argument, if you have that opinion consistently.

Not really but ok.

Originally Posted by JornT

Show me human data that T.Atlantus is effective in humans for example? I'm not saying that it isn't, just that you guys are making a leap of faith based on animal data.

What does this have to do with anything? We did in-house tests on T. Alatus (measuring testosterone) before releasing it and the MOA is well-defined in rats.

Originally Posted by JornT

And there is nothing wrong with that, you have to do so in order to be innovative. But my point is that you have to choose, use evidence based ingredients or make some leaps of faiths. Heck you can do both if you want, but if you do, don't give me the 'yeah we go for the evidence based route' when it suits you in an argument.

That's not at all what I am saying. There is no study suggesting citrulline does this. You or I don't have the slightest clue if citrulline would help nitrate tolerance and if so, how it would fair in comparison to arginine. Please tell me how you can measure nitrate tolerance in-house without a lab? Maybe if this were the case, we could have tested it. We are not going to put out a product we don't know if it works or not. That's silly. There is a difference in innovation...and taking a risk. All of our products have studies and in-house tests that support their effects.

Originally Posted by JornT

Same thing with price. Can the costs of an ingredient play are role in a formulation? Ofcourse! But how important is that role with this product? Do you agree with me, that creatine monohydrate is the best buy in the sport supplement industry $ for $?

Lol, I know you want me to say yes, but actually I don't. I am sorry.

Originally Posted by JornT

That means that people who buy P-bol, are not people who are interested in buying the best buy $ for $, they are willing to pay extra for products that might have some additional benefits, even though the benefits are relatively much smaller than the additional price of the product. Do you think that those people care much about the slightly bigger price of citrulline compared to arginine? You also say you would need more of it? Why would you need more of it? For the same plasma arginine raise, you would need less. If you mean for the ergogenic effects, yes you need more, but than you actually get more.

Once again, we don't know if citrulline works for this purpose, and with regard to innovation, arginine nitrate has never been used before. We have citrulline nitrate patented so maybe it will be an option in the future. Who knows, we just have to take this one step at a time and see how P-BOL works first.

Originally Posted by JornT

Reference?

The graph here on my E-bol packing says otherwise.

No, the difference in the turk number and the ecdy number is significant. Also, 1+1=2....or 1.5....you'd have to ask Bane on that one. haha. That is why we use a spectrum extract.

[DaCookie]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Also, we I believe we will be coming out with a citrulline nitrate product eventually so more power to you if you want to try that along with nitrates/p-bol.

More interested in the p-bol, clear-bol and weight gainer.

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by DaCookie

More interested in the p-bol, clear-bol and weight gainer.

I'm excited for the gainer too.

[DaCookie]

I wanna know the carb source

And also the protein source, but not as much.I hope it will be micellar casein.

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by DaCookie

I wanna know the carb source

And also the protein source, but not as much.I hope it will be micellar casein.

Probably will be a blend just like vasolate with micellar casein being the first protein source.

[Rodzilla]

That's what I would suspect as well. I'm very curious what Bane has up his sleeves wrt carb sources.

[funkymonk]

Eta!!! I Wants It Pleeez!!

[bigla2004]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

I'm excited for the gainer too.

Hells yes. Not a lot of healthy gainers out there

[JornT]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Not really but ok.

Huh, so what is your argument than?

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

What does this have to do with anything? We did in-house tests on T. Alatus (measuring testosterone) before releasing it and the MOA is well-defined in rats.

The drawback of in house testing is that the results are in house. I haven't seen the results, so I just have to take your worth for it? The whole reason why I support TL is because of the transparency, no prop blends, see lab reports of HPLC, but that is something different than blind trust.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

That's not at all what I am saying. There is no study suggesting citrulline does this.

And there is no study that suggests that T. Alatus increases test in humans.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

All of our products have studies and in-house tests that support their effects.

In house testing has NO value for me what so ever. See above.

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Lol, I know you want me to say yes, but actually I don't. I am sorry.

OK, basd on the first creatine monohydrate I found at bb.com:
1000g costs $22
serving size is 3g, so 1000/3 is about 333. $22/333 = about $0,06

The size of a serving of C-bol (assmuming P-bol will something like that) is 300 caps for $40. serving size is 6 caps (lets say you only take 1 serving a day, needless to say, it becomes much worse at 2 servings a day) = 50 days. 40/50 = $.80 a day

0.80/0,06 = 13,333

In order for C-bol to be just as good buy $ for $, it has to result in 13,33333 times as much gains as creatine monohydrate with one serving a day.....lol do you really think that?

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

No, the difference in the turk number and the ecdy number is significant. Also, 1+1=2....or 1.5....you'd have to ask Bane on that one. haha. That is why we use a spectrum extract.

It is not the same multitude more effective as difference in price.

And you should have done your research before you made statements about it.

[DaCookie]

Originally Posted by ThermoRep

Probably will be a blend just like vasolate with micellar casein being the first protein source.

Nice to hear.Now you need to just get it into european supplyers fast cause the price on delivery cost from US to EU on weight gainers and protein powders is way too much.

I think if I was to just get a 10lb average weight gainer delivered to Ireland it would cost about its price to just deliver it.

[bigla2004]

Originally Posted by DaCookie

Nice to hear.Now you need to just get it into european supplyers fast cause the price on delivery cost from US to EU on weight gainers and protein powders is way too much.

I think if I was to just get a 10lb average weight gainer delivered to Ireland it would cost about its price to just deliver it.

Just move to the USA

[ThermoRep]

Originally Posted by JornT

The drawback of in house testing is that the results are in house. I haven't seen the results, so I just have to take your worth for it? The whole reason why I support TL is because of the transparency, no prop blends, see lab reports of HPLC, but that is something different than blind trust.


And there is no study that suggests that T. Alatus increases test in humans.

That's why we did in house tests to make sure. You don't have to see them, but the product works and that's all we care about. What happens if we include an ingredient we have no idea will work with no in house testing to ensure you will be getting a supplement that reflects the quality of the thermolife name? If it tanks, then we become no different then USPLabs (i.e. prime). Would you rather us not be sure a product we put out works?

If you are concerned with knowing the product works from a consumer stand point, there are multiple blood work panels done from forum users and Dr. P that you can find, reviews to look over, and our product guarantee to assure you will be satisfied.

Originally Posted by JornT

In house testing has NO value for me what so ever. See above.

For you, no. For us, yes. We need to be confident the product works

Originally Posted by JornT

OK, basd on the first creatine monohydrate I found at bb.com:
1000g costs $22
serving size is 3g, so 1000/3 is about 333. $22/333 = about $0,06

The size of a serving of C-bol (assmuming P-bol will something like that) is 300 caps for $40. serving size is 6 caps (lets say you only take 1 serving a day, needless to say, it becomes much worse at 2 servings a day) = 50 days. 40/50 = $.80 a day

0.80/0,06 = 13,333

In order for C-bol to be just as good buy $ for $, it has to result in 13,33333 times as much gains as creatine monohydrate with one serving a day.....lol do you really think that?

Creatine is not a vasodilator.

I am a non-responder to monohydrate.

If you want to compare the two, then they should have the same effects (granted at different intensities).

Originally Posted by JornT

It is not the same multitude more effective as difference in price.

And you should have done your research before you made statements about it.

I don't understand what you are saying above. Do you not agree that using multiple sterones at full doses yields optimal results?

If you are so concerned with P-BOL containing citrulline, then buy some and add it yourself.

[DaCookie]

Originally Posted by bigla2004

Just move to the USA