Athletic Suppliments, yay or nay?

[vault3rb0y]

Ill just say it. All the supplements, to me, are a means of gaining an advantage based on direct performance enhancing results. Thats why any substance that you take for the pure reason of getting better performances, is cheating to me. Call me a radical, i just dont like the idea, even if its the safest thing in the world. I'd like to see what i can do myself without the help of this junk. If i want protien, i eat chicken. But i dont eat certain foods with the idea in mind "this single thing will make me stronger". Of course it will, and i believe a balanced diet is the only true and fair way to see performance results. But whatever, you guys go ahead and take this crap all you want. I just know that the line between what performance enhancing substance should be allowed and what shouldnt is pretty much invisible.

[apsully]

A. None of these supplements are "crap". They are highly researched chemical compounds designed to act as a training aids for atheletes.

B. How can you call it cheating if you still have to work your butt off to see results.


Its not magic muscle/speed juice. Supplements just help you build muscle and recover faster.

Don't get me wrong, you're totally entitled to your opinion, but if you see taking supplements during the off season as cheating, well, that's your loss.

Good topic, whoever the original starter was, but I'm gonna stop talking to avoid getting into an argument.

[Barto]

Ill just say it. All the supplements, to me, are a means of gaining an advantage based on direct performance enhancing results. Thats why any substance that you take for the pure reason of getting better performances, is cheating to me. Call me a radical, i just dont like the idea, even if its the safest thing in the world. I'd like to see what i can do myself without the help of this junk. If i want protien, i eat chicken. But i dont eat certain foods with the idea in mind "this single thing will make me stronger". Of course it will, and i believe a balanced diet is the only true and fair way to see performance results. But whatever, you guys go ahead and take this crap all you want. I just know that the line between what performance enhancing substance should be allowed and what shouldnt is pretty much invisible.

Are you a vegetarian?

If not, do you only eat "organicaly" raised beef or fish or poultry?

Do you drink fortified milk or orange juice?

Did your mother allow the doctor to give you childhood vacinations?

Have you ever taken a vitamin pill?

Have you ever been given an antibiotic to fight infection?

Do you allow others to hunt and gather your food for you?

If the answer is "yes" to any of these questions, then by your own definition of "CHEATING" you are a cheat.

In the real grown up world the definition of cheating is whatever the governing body of your sport says it is. IAAF says supplements are not cheating in Track and Field; therefore, supplements are not cheating in Track and Field. If you don't like it, find another sport. But don't try to tell everyone else how morally superior you are because you "just said no" to creatine.

[VTechVaulter]

I don't mean to argue with vtech, but it's quite debatable as to whether or not you should load with creatine monohydrate.

Most people do actually complete a oen week loading phase (20 grams a day. 5g 4x per day). BUT even if you do pee most of that out, and I'm not saying you do, it's not a big deal, because you can find straight creatine mono very cheap. I bought a bottle for 24$ and I used it for about 1 month. I still have OVER HALF the bottle left and that was after doing a loading phase as well as keeping up the 10 grams per day maintenance.

Also, from experience I can tell you that what vtech said about using half the dose, no loading cycle and still getting the same benefit... it's true. HOWEVER, doing it that way causes you to wait about 2 weeks, or it did for me at least, to see significant results.

Last thing I promise. Also as vtech said, take ANY and EVERY creatine supplement with grape juice. There's a chemical in grape seed that acts as a pretty potent enzyme and the juice itself contains, as vtech said, a LOT of natural sugar, which creatine needs for transport.

haha.. feel free to argue man. thats the whole idea. I am by no means an expert, these are just the beliefs i follow from my own collection of thoughts and questions ive gained over the years. Thanks for sharing

[vault3rb0y]

Are you a vegetarian?

If not, do you only eat "organicaly" raised beef or fish or poultry?

Do you drink fortified milk or orange juice?

Did your mother allow the doctor to give you childhood vacinations?

Have you ever taken a vitamin pill?

Have you ever been given an antibiotic to fight infection?

Do you allow others to hunt and gather your food for you?

If the answer is "yes" to any of these questions, then by your own definition of "CHEATING" you are a cheat.

Are any of those things SPECIFICALLY designed to improve my performance, and am i taking them for that pure reason? NO i am taking them to increase my overall health level. My own definition of cheating, if you bothered to read, is:

any substance that you take for the pure reason of getting better performances, is cheating to me

Now call me a hypocrit and whatever you want because i stick to foods i can get on shelfs and dont have supplement labels on them designed to change my body so i can perform better. If i want to perform better, i hit the weight room and eat right, and if my body wants to get faster and stronger it will. Now there is a ton of ambuguity with what should be allowed and what shouldnt... starting with anabolic steroids and HGH, the worst kind of performance enhancers. But then lets say Amino Acids or extremely strong creatines are next. Then the stuff like protien powders, and then just protien. So i know theres a lot of areas we dont know where to draw the lines with, but when you start relying on the next strongest supplement to get better, thats not healthy. I see it all the time, kids start with protien powders, then creatine powders, then whatever other "stronger" powders are out there, and work there way up the ladder until they are doing stuff they have no reason to be doing. When you start relying on supplements to increase your performance, theres a problem. Now im not saying creatine is terrible, but i do think a lot of inexperienced and uneducated athletes use it as a transition supplement. If you want to support that kind of attitude and moral standpoint, the idea that just because something is legal you should use it, go for it. But dont put down my morals for doing things the right way.

[VTechVaulter]

[quote="vault3rb0y" But dont put down my morals for doing things the right way.[/quote]

careful man. its okay to have your own set of beliefs but when you start calling others the wrong way, you will run into some resistance.

couple other questions for conversation

its been proven that some peoples bodies produce more creatine than others, or for that matter HGH. why is it fair that some people have that advantage?

how about advil? advil helps me perform better, because it keeps my knee from sw, but that cant be found in any food.

plus, i can personally promise you at least 6 vaulters in that 6.0m club were taking some form of supplements, from proteins to vitamins, to creatine. are they all cheaters? did they do it wrong?

also creatine doesn't make you stronger, it simply allows you to recover and work harder/smarter.

oh and what about gatorade, thats designed as performance enhancing. energy bars? diet shakes/meal replacement? as you said many fine lines

again im not trying to get you going here. i applaud you for sticking to your beliefs. and if everybody felt the exact same way, id be curious to see how much different the record books would be.

[SlickVT]

Vault3rboy... I take supplements. Are you saying I am doing things the wrong way?

I think you will find that lots of elite athletes take supplements. You should probably talk to them and let them know they are doing the wrong thing. I'm sure they will listen.

If you want to look at it in your "right" point of view, at what point do you say it has crossed the line. If you eat chicken for protein, is eating three chicken breasts instead of two doing things the wrong way, because that is more than you really need, and could possibly make you stronger, right?

Be careful what you type. You can believe anything you want, but don't call people wrong for thinking different. It doesn't go over very well.

[vault3rb0y]

When i said i was doing things the right way, i was referring to getting physically better without relying on supplements. I should have cleared it up, but the only "wrong" way(s) i see are when someone relys on "the next best supplement" to get better. Thats wrong, and i hope we can agree, that simply moving up to harder and harder substances is not the right way to improve. Certainly some people with hormone deficencies have a right to balance that out with the help and discression of a doctor, and there will be special circumstances when supplements are needed if your doctor says so. And you are right, some peoples bodies naturally perform better. THey are taller, stronger, and faster from god given abilities. I just say lets keep it that way. Like you said there are a lot of fine lines, and to be honest creatine is on a fine line for me. I would take protien powders if i felt they would help me get better, but frankly i think tuna and chicken taste better. Creatine, on the other hand, i believe is something you can find in some foods, but not much of it. Thats what makes it so controversial, and normally i wouldnt care so much, i just see sooo many kids move from creatine to harder powders and supplements. Just the same way weed is a transition drug for many, i feel creatine is a transition for athletes. I dont think you guys are bad people for using supplements, its allowed for a reason and i think you have a right to use it. I also just think that kids my age who dont know anything about supplements might take creatine and end up taking other stuff as well, and when they read about how great they are to use during the off-season, they might end up hurting themselves down the road.

[MightyMouse]

This article about Enhanced Athletes ran in the Post yesterday. I thought it was right along the lines of this discussion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... rint/style

Some day soon -- maybe today -- we're going to have to admit it.

We have a new norm in sports. Athletes routinely are enhanced. Many of their achievements are as dependent on technology as they are on talent, dedication and spirit. The way their competitions are set up, they have little choice.

The old rules are increasingly untenable. Especially the one that goes: Enhancement is indistinguishable from cheating.

This is not just about Barry Bonds, who may break the all-time home-run record this week. Nor is it just about the Tour de France and its ejected riders. It's about Tiger Woods's laser surgery to improve his eyesight. It's also about even the legitimate Olympians. The exotic training and nutrition and astonishing genetic endowments of some render them scarcely recognizable as the same kind of human you see on the Metro.

Is it inevitable that there soon will be two kinds of leagues in baseball, basketball or football -- the Naturals and the Enhanced?

Competitive bodybuilding is far down that road, already splitting into two kinds of organizations -- the untested (anything goes) and the tested, according to Steve Downs, chairman of the World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, which emphasizes the word "natural."

Even in his league, though, the competitors are enhanced, Downs acknowledges. His magazine, Natural Bodybuilding and Fitness, is packed with ads for products like "Ripped: Body Building's Strongest Fat Burner," "AB-FX Transdermal Muscle Defining Complex" and "Maximum Strength Diuretic Xpel Extreme Muscle Defining Formula."

"There are good substances and bad ones," Downs says. Separating these is a constant debate, with no bright lines, only shifting, uncertain ones. The list of prohibited substances issued in 2007 by the World Anti-Doping Agency, the leading organization that monitors doping in sport, runs to 11 tightly packed pages.

Downs likes performance-enhancing substances that can be found in nature, as opposed to those synthesized in a lab. These include amino acids that he says help the pituitary gland secrete human growth hormone. The argument is: Taking testosterone, bad. Taking herbs that he says have been studied in Bulgaria and Australia that help the body raise its own testosterone levels: good.

Substances that come from Scottish pine tree bark: good. Similar substances synthesized in a lab: bad. These products both involved the creation of androstenedione, or "andro," a precursor that requires a chemical change in the body in order to promote testosterone production. Home-run slugger Mark McGwire was pilloried for using it in the late '90s, even though at that time it was an over-the-counter product not on Major League Baseball's list of banned substances. Andro is now banned by baseball and the Food and Drug Administration.

Downs says he retains medical consultants to consider the safety of various enhancements. But in his league he is the final arbiter of what is "natural" and what is not. His degree is in athletic management.

"What it's all about is setting limits," he says.
...... Continued on the link

[vault3rb0y]

Very interesting debate. They hit it right on the head, that theres no way to distinguish what should be allowed and what shouldnt. They say if you find it in nature its ok, but there are exceptions. At the same time there are substances created from labs that will do less enhancing than things you find in nature. Obviously ive made myself clear about how i feel on this issue, but at least we can all agree this is a very touchy subject.

[newPVer]

All that I am partially familiar with is Creatine. I only take Centrum A-Zinc just for a little something in the morning. But one of my friends that plays football is on Creatine, and although its definitely working, he just hasnt been the same. He is always angry, and even started a fight with one of his best friends over nothing. I don't know if creatine increases testosterone, but if it did, i wouldnt be surprised. He also took it last summer, and did the same type of thing.

Immediately when he stopped using it beginning of school, his attitued in general had a full 180 degree shift. Back to his normal, nice self. Now its either a big coincidence, or it has to do with taking creatine, but when ever he is on it, he has some serious mood issues.

Thats all I wanna say, i don't care if you agree with me or not, but thats how I see it, and I'd rather just eat well, then take a bunch of supplements to help me. The risk isnt worth the outcome IMHO...

[powerplant42]

There is no doubt an enormous gray area here, both scientific and moral/ethical. I think when it comes down to it, it's each individual's choice to use any certain supplement, after weighing the risks and benefits. If you have made the conscious decision to use something that is legal in whatever it is you do, nobody should have the right to say that you're cheating.