Professional Diet

Posted on Tuesday, 2nd February 2010 by admin

Xenadrine Ultra comes from the larger line known as Xenadrine. Xenadrine has had many rumors spread, mostly on the hardcore side. For example, some have suggested that the marines actually use Xenadrine products in their boot camps to promote greater fat burning and fitness levels. But for anybody who has ever actually been to bootcamp, you would know that the rations, though high in fat, combined with the workout regimen, will provide those results all on its own. It has nothing to do with any pills, and the marines have not officially endorsed any diet pills.

This being said, there is another part to the Xenadrine history. Xenadrine products are so often known for being rich in caffeine and other stimulants, and ultimately speaking, they are known for causing a greater number of side effects than the average. This being said, they are also known for using enough to cause side effects, but ironically not enough to actually promote weight loss results! So does Xenadrine Ultra prove itself the exception to these rules?

They do use some good ingredients. For example, they use the combination of damiana, guarana, and yerba mate. This basically means that you could ideally speaking slow the rate of gastric emptying, staying full for longer and therefore eating less. So obviously enough, you could get results. The problem is that while they have not really disclosed the amounts used in the clinical study, Xenadrine Ultra does not use a significant amount of these ingredients anyway, combining them all into a small proprietary blend. So it would be virtually impossible to get the right amounts.

This being said, they also use caffeine. And caffeine has been known to be a potent thermogenic fat burner if used correctly. This is an ingredient that Xenadrine products, true to form, have also been known for using in general terms. But this in mind, the simple fact is that again, they don’t actually use the right amounts. Caffeine would require at least 400mg, and we can guarantee that they don’t actually use that.

With all of this in mind, the rest of their ingredients are for the most part amino acids. Amino acids have been known to feed muscles, therefore nourishing them. But there is a significant difference between feeding muscles and actually building them. Amino acids do not actually build the muscles and therefore do not actually promote weight loss results.

With all of this in mind, the simple fact is that Xenadrine Ultra does not actually give you the effects or benefits that you are looking for. It does not have the right ingredients, it does not have the right amounts, and all in all, Xenadrine Ultra does not give you what you really should be looking for. Unfortunately, it is just like other Xenadrine products and it will cause side effects rather than actual benefits.

Related information

• No Related Posts

Comments (0)

Posted on Tuesday, 2nd February 2010 by admin

Meaty meal in the making

 Wine is a time-honored component of the healthy Mediterranean diet and, traditionally, is consumed with meals.

For science and food geeks, Bix at the Fanatic Cook blog has a post outlining how red wine consumption with meals might be healthy: it reduces blood levels of cytotoxic lipid peroxidation products like malondialdehyde.

By no means is Fanatic Cook always this esoteric.  Check out some of the other topics there.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Comments (0)

Posted on Monday, 1st February 2010 by admin

GBN Plazmosis has been used in a number of different settings. They claim that GBN Plazmosis will finally help you to effectively get the pump and solid muscle building results that you are looking for without all the hassle. They claim that GBN Plazmosis will finally increase solid lean muscle mass, replenish electrolytes, and give you a superior creatine formula for maximum strength gains in general. Apparently, this will finally help you with everything you need to get real and lasting success.

So how does it work? They talk about serving professional bodybuilders, and apparently that gives them credibility. But basically speaking they claim that it will help in every genre of fitness, and this pre workout supplement will give your muscles more energy, more pump in general, and you will be able to dramatically increase hydration, electrolyte replenishment, and various other benefits for athletic performance and endurance.

GBN Plazmosis does use some interesting ingredients. They do for example use a number of amino acids. Amino acids do not necessarily build muscle so much as they do feed muscle. So frankly speaking, every good formula does actually need these. It’s just a question of the amounts. And while they put too much emphasis we think on these amino acids, they don’t even use the amounts that would be needed to compliment other ingredients in general. So obviously it wouldn’t work out as well as one might like to think.

This being said, they also have the nitric oxide precursor known as citrulline malate as well as creatine. The ultimate result is that both of these provide the muscles with greater energy levels. The difference is that creatine does it by pushing water around the muscles, and citrulline malate actually does it without all the side effects in general. But again, they don’t have the properly needed amounts of these.

From there, they do have a number of electrolytes. Electrolytes replenish stores and sources that your body needs and are actually lost in the process of sweating and workouts in general. The problem is that they don’t actually promote lean muscle building effects on their own, and unfortunately, it seems that realistically speaking, this is their strongest set of ingredients.

They do have other ingredients such as pomegranate. But obviously enough, pomegranate is not really related to weight loss, muscle building, or workouts in general. It has vitamins and antioxidants sure. But that is a far cry to say the least from actual weight loss, from pre workout, from muscle building, from anything that they talk about.

We would not suggest using GBN Plazmosis. It will not help you to achieve any greater results or benefits, and you would be considerably better off using something else. GBN Plazmosis is just another waste of time and money, and there are without question far better options out there for your needs.

Related information

• No Related Posts

Comments (0)

Posted on Friday, 29th January 2010 by admin

Researchers in the U.K. suggest that a hemoglobin A1c of 7.5% may be optimal in terms of longevity for type 2 diabetics treated with drugs, according to a study published recently in The Lancet.

Hemoglobin A1c (HgbA1c) is a blood test widely used as a gauge of blood sugar control, reflecting average blood sugars over the previous three months.  The American Diabetes Association recommends a HgbA1c goal of 7% or less.  The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommends 6.5% or less.  Dr. Richard K. Bernstein, a diabetologist and himself a type 1 diabetic, recommends HgbA1c’s as near normal as possible (about 5%). 

Many physicians believe that keeping blood sugar levels as close to normal as possible—often referred to as “tight control”— will help prevent certain diabetes complications such as blindness, kidney failure, and nerve damage.  We have good supportive evidence.

We assume tight control would also help prevent premature death from heart attacks and strokes, too.  Several recent studies—the ACCORD and ADVANCE trials—call this into question, however.  The ACCORD trial, for example, achieved near-normal glucose control with multiple medication options, yet found that the effort was linked to increased death rates from cardiovascular disease and from any cause (all-cause mortality).

The scariest thing about tight control is hypoglycemia, which can kill you quickly, for example,  if you’re operating dangerous machinery (e.g., driving), scuba-diving, or rock-climbing.

U.K. researchers recently reviewed records of diabetics treated either with 1) two oral medications (usually metformin and a sulfonylurea), or 2) a regimen containing insulin.  Each group had over 20,000 subjects.  They found that risk of death for those with an average HgbA1c of 6.4% (the lowest blood sugar levels in this study) was 52% higher than those with HgbA1c of 7.5%.  Those with the highest blood sugar levels over time—HgbA1c over 10% if I recall correctly—had the highest risk of death.  In general, those taking insulin had higher rates of death than those on pills.

It’s extremely difficult to interpret studies like this.  There are myriad ways to treat diabetes.  We have 10 classes of drugs for treatment of diabetes: this study looked at three.  There are at least three types of “diabetic diet” in common use: low-fat/high-carb, low-carb, and just regular eating, which depends on where you live.  Exercise, too, plays a role in treatment and longevity. 

With all these variables, should we put much stock in a study that looks at longevity from the perspective of just two therapeutic regimens?  How well would a football team do with just two plays in its play-book?

You’d think we would have a definite answer to the “tight versus loose control” issue by 2010.  We don’t.  It’s still very appealing to me to think that, if done right, tight control would yield the better outcomes.  Problem is, we don’t always know what’s right. 

One thing is clear: Having a HgbA1c of 7.5% is better than 10% in terms of health and longevity. 

But is 7.5% really better than 6.5 or 5.5 or 5.0% for a particular individual on a particular treatment program?  Probably not.  That’s why the ADA and AACE emphasize that treatment programs be tailored to the individual patient.        

Maybe controlling blood sugar levels is like controlling high blood pressure.  The ideal may be 120/80, but you gain very little, if any, by reducing high blood pressure below 140/90 (130/85 for diabetics).  HgbA1c of 5.0% may be ideal, but not necessary.

Currie, Craig, et al.  Survival as a function of HgA1c in people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study.  The Lancet, January 27, 2010.  Early online publication   doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61969-3

Dluhy, Robert and McMahon, Graham.  Intensive glycemic control in the ACCORD and ADVANCE trials.  New England Journal of Medicine, 358 (2008):2630-2633.

Comments (0)