Thursday, September 21, 2017

Olympia 2017 Breakdown: How Phil Heath Won And Flex Wheeler Lost | Straight Facts by Jerry Brainum



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycnRO6G1kOg


The Mr. Olympia 2017 is over and now we need to wait an entire year before the next rousing mega event. But in the aftermath of this year's Olympia weekend there has been an incredible response to Phil Heath's narrow victory of Big Ramy. Many believing for the first time that Phil was the obvious loser. Jerry Brainum watched the entire live stream broadcast over the weekend and decided to give us his comprehensive breakdown of the entire event. He goes into every Men's Open and Classic Physique competitor and, most importantly, explains the real reason why Phil Heath ended up winning. He also goes into detail about Flex Wheeler's return to the stage and why he didn't make it into the top 6. This is the most detailed analysis of the Olympia 2017 you'll find anywhere on the web. Take it in and get some real insight into one of the biggest competitions of the year. Check it out above!

 

Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com

 

                            Please share this article on facebook


Monday, May 22, 2017

CUTTING EDGE: BACK TALK/CHIROPRACTIC CONTROVERSIES AND ISSUES OF BODYBUILDERS BY JERRY BRAINUM : The original article was archived from 1994

The chiropractic professions,like Rodney Dangerfield and Aretha Franklin, Longs for respect.While the popularity of chiropractic continues to grow ( of the estimated 80% of people with back problems,
two-thirds opt for chiropractic treatment), the road to official recognition has been long and arduous. Mainstream medical doctors have criticized chiropractic education, and have until recently branded the entire profession " quackery."

The word "chiropractic" is derived from the Greek words, cheir, meaning hand, and Praktikos, meaning practics, which is suitable since a large part of chiropractic therapy involves spinal manipulations. Although the founding of the profession is credited to a former Iowa grocer named Daniel David Palmer in 1895, ancient writings and paintings show that techniques of body manipulation date back to early civilizations, including Babylon, Assyria, China, Greece, Rome and Egypt.

Palmer, a self-described "magnetic healer," restored the hearing of a deaf janitor by adjusting the janitor's spine. Based on this, Palmer hypothesized that the basic cause of most afflictions involved interference with nerve flow, or "innate intelligence," caused by misaligned spinal bones, or vertebrae. Specifically, this out-of-place vertebrae was termed a "subluxation". This theory is also what raises the ire of the orthodox medical establishment, who contend that such mystical subluxations simply don't exist. In 1973, a noted anatomist from Yale University tested Palmer's subluxation theory by collecting the spines of three adults and three infants within 3-6 hours after they died. Though he applied tons of twisting force to these spines by using special instruments, he was unable to cause the nerve compression attributed to subluxations.

Opponents of chiropractic have used studies such as this to brand chiropractic a "pseudoscience," despite subjective reports of patients who've been helped by chiropractic treatment. Such criticism lead to the filing of a 1976 antitrust lawsuit by five chiropractors. On September 25, 1987, federal district judge Susan Getzendanner found the American Medical Association and other medical organizations named in the suit were guilty of conspiracy in restraint of trade against the chiropractic profession, and had unlawfully deprived chiropractors of associating with medical doctors. The judge further decreed that calling chiropractors "unscientific cultists" eroded the credibility of chiropractors to the public.

Besides having to deal with what they call "allopaths," or orthodox medical doctors, chiropractors engage in internecine warfare. Three main chiropractic organizations currently exist. By far the largest of the three is the American Chiropractic Association, who espouses what's called "mixers" in chiropractic parlance. Mixers use a variety of therapies besides traditional manipulations. These include heat, acupuncture, ultrasound, message, hydrotherapy, and advice on nutrition and exercise.

The International Chiropractic Association, comprises "straights," or those chiropractors that follow the dictum of D.D.Palmer, and use only spinal adjustments to treat patients.

By far the smallest and newest chiropractic organization is the National Association of Chiropractic Medicine, founded in 1984. This group espouses ideas considered heretical by the other two organizations. For one, the NACH completely disavows the existence of subluxations, the actual basis of the entire profession. Instead, these maverick chiropractors prefer a mere scientific approach based on provable therapy.

Typical of the views of these iconoclasts was that expressed by one of the organization's founders, chiropracter Daniel Futch. Futch, who practices in Madison, Wisconsin, was originally trained as an X-ray technician. He told a writer from American Health magazine last year (3) that the full body x-rays routinely taken by most chiropractors has "limited diagnostic value," and also exposes the bone marrow to large doses of radiation.

Concerning subluxations, Futch said like the legendary Unicorn, "it sounds great, but nobody's ever really found one." He says that what chiropractors refer to as subluxations are nothing more than commonly misaligned vertebrae that show up on anyone's X-ray. He says such common misalignments only cause pain when diseases such as arthritis are present, and there's no evidence that they cause nerve impingement. Futch also says that if chiropractic adjustments will help pain, they'll work quickly. He finds the idea of regular chiropractic treatments for "maintenance" ludicrous. The main benefit of chiropractic, asserts Futch, is a rapid relief of both acute and chronic back pain.

One item beyond argument, however, is the extent of back pain. Recorded cases of back pain have increased 169 percent since 1970, or 14-times faster than the population growth. More than 30 million Americans suffer from back pain. The cost of treating back pain is estimated to range between $14 billion to $18 billion annually, with $6 billion for occupational back pain.

But recent studies over the past few years have shown that chiropractic can be an effective modality for conditions such as acute lower back pain. For example, a 1990 British study compared chiropractic with hospital-based treatment that included physical therapy and traction. The study, which involved 741 patients between the ages of 18 and 65, concluded that "For patients with low back pain in whom manipulation is not contraindicated, chiropractic almost certainly confers worthwhile, long-term benefit in comparison to hospital outpatient management in those with chronic or severe pain."4

Another study, published in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics in March/April, 1992, analyzed 23 clinical trails to conclude that spinal manipulation is consistently better than an array of comparative low back pain treatments. According to the chief author of the study, Robert Anderson, the average patient receiving spinal manipulation is better off than 54% to 85% of patients receiving comparison treatment. Anderson, of the San Francisco Spine Institute in Daly City, not only holds a doctor of chiropractic degree, but also an MD and PhD.

When an interdisciplinary panel from the Rand think tank in Santa Monica, California reviewed 67 articles and 9 books published between 1955 and 1989, they concluded that data from 22 controlled studies supported using manipulation to treat acute lower back pain in patients showing no signs of nerve root involvement.5  The lead researcher in the Rand Study, Dr.Paul Shekelle, a physician, later commented that he didn't "for a second believe in subluxations," but was convinced that spinal manipulation does work--although he couldn't explain exactly why.

According to Scott Haldman, MD, PhD, DC, an associate clinical professor at the University of California, Irvine, and adjunct professor at Los Angeles Chiropractic College, manipulation may offer pain relief through relaxing muscles. Or it may stimulate nerve receptors around joints, increasing pain tolerance. He notes that a recent study found that manipulation stimulates the release of pain-killing beta-endorphin into the blood. Another theory holds that manipulation increases spinal motion, which unlocks fixed joints that can cause pain. Thus, restoring mobility will offset pain.


Still more evidence comes from a study done at an HMO in Washington State and reported in the March, 1989 issue of the Western Journal of Medicine. Researchers in the study found that chiropractic patients were three-times as likely as patients of family physicians to report that they were satisfied with the care they received for lower back pain (66% versus 22% ). The patients said that medical doctors who treated them for acute lower back pain didn't adequately discuss their diagnosis, and displayed less compassion and understanding compared with chiropractors.


An earlier study by the same researchers found that MDs were generally more frustrated than chiropractors about treating back pain, and less confident in their ability to forestall recurrences. One author of the study, Daniel C. Chefkin, PhD, said that chiropractors appeared more confident and reassuring about back pain



"There is a physical contact, snapping and popping, "said Chefkin. "In many cases, there is almost miraculous relief from pain. Patients generally come away satisfied. I'd say that 80 percent of people who see chiropractors have positive things to say about it, whereas it's probably the reverse with medical doctors."

But what about economic considerations, which is certainly important in today's climate of rising health care costs. Statistics show that national spending for chiropractic therapy rose from $1.19 billion in 1980 to $4.2 billion in 1988. The percentage of Americans going to chiropractors increased from 4% in 1980 to 7% in 1990.

A study by Myron Stano, PhD, professor of economics and management at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, looked at the comparative costs of treating back pain. He reported his results in the June, 1993 issue of the Journal of Medical and Physiological Therapeutics. Stano's retrospective study of 395, 641 patients over two years found that patients using medical services other than chiropractic paid more than chiropractic patients, mainly due to increased hospitalizations.

Another study in Texas found that medical claims for sacroiliac joint sprain cost 30% more than chiropractic claims for the same diagnosis during the same time period. The average cost for claims was $914 for medical claims, $643 for chiropractic.

Most recently, a team of Canadian health economists strongly recommended chiropractic as being the most cost-effective treatment for back pain. The study was based on an international review of medical literature, plus interviews with researchers, practitioners, and patients. The principal researcher in the study, Pran Manga, said that many conventional medical therapies are of questionable validity or are clearly inadequate. Some are even unsafe, and could cause complications, he added.

Chiropractors are hopeful that studies such as those cited here will gain them newfound respect and recognition. Limitations of chiropractic do exist, however. Several studies report that chiropractic manipulation isn't suitable for children. Others warn against cervical manipulation, or "neck cracking," which has resulted in a few cases of paralysis and stroke onset. And one of the main complaints that medical doctors raise against chiropractors is excessive taking of X rays.

While the animosity between medical doctors and chiropractors has simmered over the last few years, the public faith in chiropractic remains undaunted. Chiropractic ranks just behind medicine and dentistry as the largest health care profession in America. Americans spend nearly $2 1/2 billion each year for chiropractic care. Over 30 U.S. hospitals now employ staff chiropractors, and the country now has over 45,000 practicing chiropractors, The 14 accredited American chiropractic colleges produce 3,000 new chiropractors each year, who are licensed to practice in all 50 states.

Many medical plans now accept the legitimacy of chiropractic therapy, and the average DC earns $179,500 a year, with a net of $74,000. even a few medical doctors are grudgingly admitting that chiropractic may not be so bad after all. At a symposium on back manipulation conducted by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons recently, almost a third of the attending surgeons revealed that they referred patients to chiropractors for spinal manipulation.

It seems clear that for many cases of uncomplicated back and musculoskeletal pain, the hands on approach of chiropractic may be just what the doctor should have ordered.

REFERENCES

1. Crelin E. A scientific test of the chiropractic theory.
American Scientist 61:574-580, 1973

2. Getzandanner S. Memorandum opinion and order in Wilk et al v. AMA et al. 671 F Supp 1465, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, September 25, 1987.

3. Fultz O. Chiropractic: What can it do for you? American Health, April, 1992, pp.41-43.

4. Meade TW, et al. Low back pain of mechanical origin:randomized comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment. British Medical Journal 300:1431-1437, 1990.

5. Shekelle PG, et al. The appropriateness of spinal manipulation for low-back pain. Part 1: project overview and literature review. Santa Monica, Calif., Rand Corp, 1991



Please share this article on facebook





©,2017 Jerry Brainum. Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited

Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com

 

                            Please share this article on facebook

 

Thursday, April 13, 2017

DHT From Test Not So Evil After All? by Jerry Brainum

In bodybuilding, hormones seem to be classified as either “good” or “bad.” Testosterone and growth hormone are considered good hormones because of their anabolic effects in muscle, along with their ability to aid bodyfat loss. Insulin is also conditionally anabolic, in that it blunts muscle-breakdown effects. Even so, it’s in a gray area in that it is also the most “fattening” of all hormones. Recent research, which I discussed previously in this column, found that elevated insulin alone can boost bodyfat production.

The category of “bad” hormones includes dihydrotestosterone and estrogen, both of which can be produced in the body from testosterone. With DHT the process occurs by way of two 5-alpha reductase enzymes. With estrogen, whenever free testosterone encounters the ubiquitous enzyme aromatase, it is converted into estrogen.

DHT and estrogen have earned their bad reputations among bodybuilders because of certain effects. With estrogen the problems include an increase in subcutaneous bodyfat—fat stores just under the skin—as well as the development of male breast tissue, or gynecomastia, also known by the more pejorative term “bitch tits.” DHT is linked to male-pattern baldness, acne and prostate enlargement.

Since these effects are not in the least desirable, bodybuilders and other athletes who use large doses of certain drugs also take drugs to offset the possible side effects linked to the excess production of DHT and estrogen from testosterone. Finesteride, trade names Propecia and Proscar, is used to counter the effects of DHT. It works by blocking the enzyme 5-AR, which converts testosterone into DHT. For estrogen the common drug remedies include tamoxifen citrate, trade name Nolvadex, and any of the various direct aromatase-inhibiting drugs, such as anastrozole, trade name Arimidex.

In truth, however, to say that either of these hormones is “bad,” would be a gross misnomer. Both do important things in the body. The graphic effects of a lack of DHT are evident in the guevedoces of the Dominican Republic. Guevedoces translates into “penis at 12,” which is exactly what happens to the Dominican boys. They are born with a defect in that they don’t produce 5-AR. Because DHT is required for the development of male sex organs, they appear female at birth, but at about age 12, with the onset of puberty, a sudden release of testosterone (which is unaffected by the defect) causes them to sprout male genitalia practically overnight. In addition, their muscles become more prominent, their voices deepen, and their brains become masculinized. As they grow, they appear to be normal men, although they have scant beard growth, never get acne or a receding hairline and have small prostate glands.

All of the effects shown by the guevedoces are caused by a lack of DHT, which is required for normal development of male sex organs and is involved in acne, male-pattern baldness and prostate problems. At this point, it would seem that past birth, assuming that all genitalia are normal, DHT doesn’t offer much benefit but does produce some notable health problems. Still, that’s not the whole story.

As noted, DHT is produced from testosterone by the actions of two primary 5-AR enzymes. The type 1 enzyme is present in the skin’s sebaceous glands (which produce oil that leads to acne) and in the liver, muscles and brain. It is responsible for one-third of circulating DHT. The type 2 enzyme produces two-thirds of circulating DHT and is found in the prostate gland, seminal vesicles, epididymis, hair follicles and liver. A third type of the enzyme shows up in prostate cancer.

An average of 5 percent of circulating testosterone is converted each day into DHT through the actions of 5-AR. DHT is a more potent androgen than is testosterone, with a five-times-more-potent binding affinity to the androgen receptor. The androgenic effect of DHT is also at least three times greater than that of testosterone, leading some to say that DHT is far more potent than testosterone. Indeed, in many organs of the body, such as the prostate gland, testosterone acts more like a pro-hormone, which is converted into DHT, with DHT being the active hormone.

While DHT is the primary androgen in most tissues and organs of the body, it isn’t in muscle. In fact, DHT is deactivated in muscle and so has no anabolic effects. The primary androgen in muscle is testosterone. Yet, many types of anabolic steroid drugs are based on the DHT structure and do show definite anabolic effects in muscle. How is that possible? The drug versions are structurally modified to resist breakdown. DHT-based steroids are popular because they offer a few advantages. Due to their DHT structure, they are not subject to conversion to estrogen by way of aromatase. As a result, DHT-based steroids are often called “cutting drugs,” since their use causes little or no water retention. On the other hand, their structure also makes them prone to produce DHT side effects, such as acne and hair loss.

As I’ve discussed previously in this column, recent research suggests that DHT can be produced directly in muscle from circulating androgens, such as DHEA, during exercise. So far that effect has only been confirmed in animals doing endurance exercise. There is as yet no definitive evidence that it also occurs in exercising humans, although the apparatus for producing DHT directly in muscle does exist in humans.

DHT’s good points include its effects on fat loss. Similarly to testosterone, DHT at normal levels appears to blunt fat deposition, especially in the midsection. Pluripotent cells are a type of stem cell that can convert to either fat or muscle. Both testosterone and DHT drive them to convert into muscle; however, excess amounts of DHT have a reverse effect, promoting fat accretion, especially the dangerous visceral, or deep-lying, abdominal fat, which is linked to insulin resistance, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Most obese men have higher levels of DHT in their visceral fat-stores.

The same holds true for cardiovascular disease. Normal levels of DHT provide a protective effect—it tends to help prevent the abnormal clot formation in arteries that is a direct cause of heart attacks and stroke. Recent research shows that DHT also blocks the formation of “foam cells,” fat-laden macrophages—a type of immune cell—that are linked to atherosclerosis. Larger doses of DHT also blunt the growth of smooth muscle in arterial linings, which is also a harbinger of cardiovascular disease.

Once again, though, only the dose determines the poison. While small or normal levels of DHT do not affect the release of aldosterone, a steroid hormone produced in the kidneys that is associated with high blood pressure and sodium retention when elevated, greater amounts of DHT do promote aldosterone release, which increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Studies show that black men have higher plasma levels of DHT, which some think may explain the higher rate of prostate cancer in that population. A recent study suggests that the primary cause of ventricular hypertrophy, or enlarged heart, is an excess of DHT. Such a condition predisposes a person to heart failure, eventually.

Some people suggest that reducing DHT via the use of 5-AR–blocking drugs, such as finesteride or dutasteride, can adversely affect workouts because DHT metabolites in the brain act as neurosteroids, meaning that they affect brain activity. In this case the DHT-based neurosteroids affect the areas of the brain linked to aggressive behavior, which, while it’s not particularly beneficial in most facets of life, can be an advantage in the gym, spurring more intense training.

Indeed, the medical literature, as well as the empirical evidence offered by athletes, suggests that using anabolic steroids tends to produce “a feeling of well-being.” It turns out that the effect is real and is produced by a DHT neurosteroid called 3-alpha-androstanediol. Such substances interact with GABA receptors in the brain, which provide a calming effect. Of course, that doesn’t explain the suggested aggressive effect induced by DHT neurosteroids. In that case the neurosteroids, when produced in abundance, may exert a paradoxical effect, working in areas of the brain more associated with aggression.

More likely, however, the source of aggression in those using high-dose-steroid regimens comes from a suppression of serotonin, a calming neurotransmitter in the brain. Since the nutritional precursor of serotonin is the amino acid L-tryptophan, steroid users who experience excess feelings of aggression should consider supplementing their diets with extra L-tryptophan. Fish oil also helps boost serotonin in the brain.

More problematic is that suppression of 5-AR enzymes, which in turn reduces DHT production throughout the body, also reduces neurosteroids that are linked to enhanced cognitive performance. In short, these DHT neurosteroids make your brain work better, producing better memory as well as clearer thinking. DHT -neurosteroids are important for the maintenance of cells in the hippocampus, which is thought to be the main memory area of the brain. They are also linked to lowered feelings of anxiety and reduced pain sensations.

Recently, 5-AR–blocking drugs, especially finesteride, have been linked to a loss of sexual performance. Indeed, some men claim to have lost all desire for sex, as well as any ability to engage in sex. While the side effects usually end when they stop taking the drug, this one is said to be permanent in some. The problem is that it doesn’t appear to affect all men who use finesteride—usually for purposes of halting male-pattern baldness—which suggests that other factors could be at work in those who do experience it. They could be low in testosterone itself, or it could be that the lack of sufficient DHT is adversely affecting certain neurosteroids in the brain. Indeed, it has been reported that finesteride does produce depression in some users. It turns out that 5-AR, besides converting testosterone into DHT, also converts progesterone into allopregnanolone, a lowering of which is known to bring on depression.

Finesteride lowers DHT by about 70 percent and lasts in the body about one day. Dutasteride, sold as Avodart for the treatment of enlarged prostate, blocks 90 percent of DHT and lasts for 10 weeks. Clearly, most men should think twice about using Avodart, since its nearly complete blockage of DHT can adversely affect mental function, training intensity and concentration, as well as sexual function. Recently, creatine has been shown to boost DHT naturally, but not to the point where it would cause problems.

Finally, in a recent study researchers gave male subjects a high dose of a DHT gel drug and monitored their prostate glands for any changes.1 As DHT is considered the primary cause of enlarged prostates, the authors were surprised to find that, although the drug boosted plasma levels of DHT seven times above normal, no changes occurred to the levels of DHT within the prostate. The same holds true for testosterone: No amount of exogenous testosterone will affect the amount produced in the prostate gland.

The above implies that both DHT and testosterone are wrongly accused of causing prostate cancer. On the other hand, a high-fat diet that led to increased amounts of oxidized low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol in the prostate, as well as increased insulin, was linked to a greater risk of prostate cancer. Strangely, the same study that found that effect also showed that both testosterone and DHT, if anything, exert protective effects against prostate cancer.

Editor’s note: Jerry Brainum has been an exercise and nutrition researcher and journalist for more than 40 years. He’s worked with pro bodybuilders as well as many Olympic and professional athletes. To get his new e-book, Natural Anabolics—Nutrients, Compounds and Supplements That Can Accelerate Muscle Growth Without Drugs, visit www.jerrybrainum.com  

1 Page, S.T., et al. (2011). Dihydrotestosterone administration does not increase intraprostatic androgen concentrations or alter prostate androgen action in men: a randomized-controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 96:430-37.


Please share this article on facebook




©,2017 Jerry Brainum. Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited

Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com

 

                            Please share this article on facebook

Monday, April 10, 2017

OSCAR DE LA HOYA SOLID GOLD : TRAINING & NUTRITION PROGRAM BY JERRY BRAINUM

 



 

Go >>>>>>>>>>>>to link for complete article www.jerrybrainum.blogspot.com

 

 

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Episode 185: Jerry Brainum on the best pre-workout supplements and the pros and cons of IGF-1 PODCAST

Click picture to go to podcast

 

 Click on picture above to go to podcast



Jerry Brainum returns to the LLA Show to discuss the following:
  • Jerry shares how his newsletter was inspired by a magazine he wrote for and was published by an editor of Penthouse
  • Jerry describes training lower body with Arnold Schwarzenegger and why it was always an issue for Jerry
  • Why should trainees take a look at citrulline, in terms of their training, as well as their pre-sexual performance
  • Jerry describes the benefits of beta-alanine, in regards to high intensity training and how it helps prolong performance
  • Why people who eat a lot of red meat are often creatine non responders. 
  • When is the best time to supplement with creatine and with what. 
  • Are beet powders better than actual beet juice, why should you add beets to your regimen, how much should you take, and when
  • Jerry shares more benefits to caffeine, pre-workout, as well as some cautions, in regards to caffeine powders
  • How can glutamine help, in terms of gut health
  • What are the pros, cons, and myths of IGF-1