Supplement Performance
By Anssi H. Manninen, MHS
Ergogenic Aids
Separating Facts from Hypocritical Nonsense
Warning: These statements have not been evaluated by the hypocritical AntiErgogenic Camp. This article is intended to diagnose, treat, cure and prevent
anti-ergogenic idiotism.
Understanding Ergogenic Aids
The word “ergogenic” is derived from the Greek words “ergo” (meaning
work) and “gen” (production of), and is usually defined as “to increase potential
for work output.” In sports, various ergogenic aids, or ergogenics, have been
used for their ability to boost performance. Listed below are major categories of
ergogenics:
1. Biomechanical ergogenics (e.g., lightweight racing shoes) are designed
to increase energy efficiency.
2. Psychological ergogenics (e.g., hypnosis) are designed to enhance
psychological processes during sport performance.
3. Physiological ergogenics (e.g., blood doping) are designed to augment
natural physiological processes to increase physical performance.
4. Pharmacological ergogenics (e.g., anabolic steroids) are drugs designed
to influence physiological or psychological processes to increase sport
performance.
5. Nutritional ergogenics (e.g., creatine) refers to dietary manipulations to
improve athletic performance.
Legislation regarding nutritional ergogenic products is minimal in most
countries, allowing unsupported claims to flourish. However, some nutritional
ergogenics offer scientifically documented advantages to the athlete. Some
products work by producing a direct ergogenic effect (e.g., creatine, caffeine,
bicarbonate). Other products can be used by athletes to meet their nutritional
goals (e.g., meal replacements) and as an indirect outcome, these allow them
to achieve optimal performance.
This article examines the latest findings on nutritional ergogenics.
However, first I will say something about the ethical nonsense surrounding
ergogenics in general.
Hypocritical Anti-Ergogenic Camp
The anti-ergogenic propaganda is usually based on the belief that these
substances are dangerous to the health of athletes. While it’s true that all
pharmacological and most physiological ergogenics have associated hazards,
not a single one of them is as hazardous as smoking or excessive drinking.
Recently, President Bush stated, “The use of performance-enhancing drugs like
steroids in baseball, football and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the
wrong message— that there are shortcuts to accomplishment and that
performance is more important than character.”
However, according to Dr. Jay Coakley, a leading sports sociologist at
the University of Colorado, “Most athletes do not use performance-enhancing
substances because they lack character, intelligence, or sanity... nor do they
use them because they are victims of biased and coercive rules… Tougher
rules and increased testing have not and will not be effective.” (See his
excellent textbook Sport in Society: Issues & Controversies).
It doesn’t make sense to control athletes in ways other people are not
controlled. For example, when a 50-year-old man takes growth hormone or
testosterone to maintain strength so he can perform a job, why shouldn’t his 30year-old son do the same thing in the NFL? When a question like this is asked,
it remains difficult to define substance abuse in sports.
The anti-doping zealots feel all ergogenics (including legal products such
as creatine) should be banned from sports simply because they allow athletes
to perform beyond “natural” abilities and give then an “unfair advantage” over
opponents. However, what is natural about all the biomechanical,
psychological, environmental and technological methods of manipulating
athletes’ bodies in today’s high-performance sports? Also, it would be utterly
ridiculous to argue that the chemically enhanced professional bodybuilder can
perform beyond natural abilities, as there is no such thing as a natural
professional bodybuilder. In reality, an ergogenic-free strength-power athlete
gives unfair advantage to his opponents!
We pay for sporting events and thus we are entitled to an athlete’s very
best. Certainly, we don’t want to watch pathetic athletes who could have done
way better if only they had used the ergogenics. As suggested by Dr. Sidney
Gendin, a retired professor of philosophy of law from Eastern Michigan
University, let’s ban athletes who don’t use ergogenics! Talk of ergogenic
performance as unnatural is as ridiculous as complaining about Nike shoes. I
was recently “informed” that as a trained sports medicine expert, I should
support the anti-ergogenic camp. Hmm… who the heck am I to tell Andy Athlete
that he should go to the Olympics unarmed? Or who are you to tell your friend
he should not drink a cup of coffee to combat fatigue? In my view, the ethical
discussion surrounding ergogenic aids is nothing but hypocritical bullshit.
Indeed, ethics is about as subjective as it gets.
World Anti-Doping Code 2003 proudly claims the “Roles and
Responsibilities of Athlete Support Personnel [are]… to be knowledgeable of
and comply with all anti-doping policies and rules adopted pursuant to the Code
and which are applicable to them or the Athletes whom they support.” Further,
“To use their influence on Athlete values and behavior to foster anti-doping
attitudes.” As I’m apparently some kind of “Athlete Support Person,” the antidoping zealots are giving me orders and assignments, but last time I checked,
they didn’t pay my bills. To use my influence to foster anti-ergogenic attitudes?
Okay, here is my message: Use ergogenics or go home. Enough of hypocritical
whining!
General Motors and Coca-Cola combined are spending nearly $2 billion
dollars to sponsor Olympic sports between 1998 and 2008. Obviously, they
want to promote the belief that enjoyment and pleasure in people’s everyday
lives depend on their products. The fact that drinking Coca-Cola and other
sugar-containing drinks increases the risk of obesity, heart disease and
diabetes no longer mattered to the hypocritical sports officials. Money talks,
bullshit walks!
Current Drug Testing Programs Suck
Contrary to popular belief supported by the International Olympic
Committee (IOC) and the World Anti-Doping Agency, doping testing is very
controversial, at least scientifically speaking. For example, there are no
scientifically valid methods for detecting the use of testosterone, growth
hormone, EPO, etc. It was the philosophy of the IOC that no competitor should
be accused or convicted of doping unless the test results are absolutely certain,
i.e., “innocent until proven guilty.” Today, however, the philosophy is “guilty until
proven innocent!”
When the IOC people are told that current testing programs suck donkey
balls, they call for better tests— 100 percent effective and accurate. Ain’t gonna
happen. If the IOC would spend the money required for the relatively effective
testing, they will have no money left to sponsor events! The reality is that the
peer-reviewed scientific data for many doping tests are not available in quantity
sufficient to withstand legal challenge.
Dr. Sergei Portugalov, who was responsible for the ergogenic
preparation of several Soviet national teams over a 15-year period, told the
Sportekspress Zhurnal, a leading Russian sport monthly, “Basically, the
question of a drug test’s results has no meaning whatsoever… If a test is
negative it only means that the pharmacological preparation was done correctly.
If it is positive, then the coach is an idiot.” Even the anti-ergogenic zealot David
Cowan of the Drugs Control Centre at King’s College in London admits, “We
may only be catching 10 percent of those using the [testosterone].” However, I
believe they may be catching less than one percent.
As pointed out by Drs. Angela Schneider and Robert Butcher in Doping
in Elite Sport (Human Kinetics, 2001), the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
argued that in seeking permission for random, unannounced out-of-competition
doping testing, the government would be breaking its own rules established in
the Privacy Act and in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). The
publication titled “Drug Testing and Privacy” published by the Privacy
Commissioner states: “Random mandatory drug testing of athletes would be
found to violate sections 7 or 8, or both, of the Charter. On almost all counts,
random mandatory testing of athletes would fail to measure up. Thus, not only
would such a program fail to comply with the Charter, it would, if conducted by
Sport Canada, be a violation of the Privacy Act.”
Recently, inadvertent doping through dietary supplement use has
emerged as a concern for athletes who participate in competitions governed by
an anti-doping code. Indeed, some studies have reported the undeclared
presence of banned ingredients such as prohormones in the bargain basement
brands (but certainly not in the major brands.
Although sports supplements have been publicly blamed for a number of
cases of positive nandrolone tests, it should be noted that “norsteroids have
been known for decades as not only xenobiotics [chemical compounds that are
foreign to a living organism], but also obligatory endogenous [produced within
body] intermediates in the biosynthesis of estrogens from androgens in all
species, man included” (Eur J Appl Physiol, 2004;92:1-12). Of course, the antiergogenic camp didn’t remember to tell this fact to the mainstream media.
Alternatively, they don’t have clue.
MD = No Bullshit!
The leading sports psychologists feel the key here is to be informative
and accurate regarding both the positive and negative effects of various
ergogenics. And that’s exactly what we do: Muscular Development provides
only scientifically based, no-bullshit information on ergogenics in bodybuilding
and other sports.
Although MD certainly does not condone any form of illegal ergogenic
use, it’s crystal clear that the “scare tactics” don’t work. For example, Dr. Linn
Goldberg and colleagues performed a randomized, controlled study to assess
an approach that stressed only the negative effects of anabolic steroids. After
the intervention, no change in knowledge, attitudes or intentions was observed.
In fact, there was a trend toward increased desire to use anabolic steroids
among those who received this bullshit scare approach!
Consequently, hypocritical bullshitting is not our way to do business. For
example, if the ingestion of Deca increases muscle hypertrophy, we will report it
as such. Similarly, if ephedra triggers high blood pressure in some athletes, we
will report it as such. Probably the most ridiculous pseudoscientific horror
stories about ergogenics come form the university “textbook” called
Understanding Nutrition (Wadsworth, 2002), which proudly claims that the side
effects of anabolic steroid use include dizziness, drowsiness, mouth and tongue
soreness, breathing difficulty, nausea, vomiting, bloody diarrhea, kidney stones,
blood clots, septic shock, permanent shrinkage of testes, excessive and painful
erections, delayed recovery times, seizure-like movements, cramps, tremors,
fatigue, etc.
Just wondering why the heck most elite athletes use anabolic steroids if
they cause “delayed recovery times” and “fatigue.” Maybe it has something to
do with these “excessive erections.” Seriously, anyone who claims with a
straight face that anabolic steroids cause tongue soreness lacks basic
knowledge of human biology. Do these well meaning yet misinformed authors
really believe their utterly ridiculous scare tactics actually decrease abuse of
anabolic steroids? Whatever the case, I have one tip for these authors: Read
the related scientific studies and report them as such, or shut up.
Amazingly, this “textbook” also tells us that “protein supplements are
expensive, less completely digested than protein-rich foods, and when used as
replacements for such foods, are often downright dangerous.” Of course, that’s
nothing but a bunch of pseudoscientific bullshit. Unfortunately, the
propagandists don’t give a crap about the facts.
The recent New Scientist editorial soundly titled “Sport, Lies and
Steroids” stated: “This magazine believes that people should be given credible
and accurate information about drugs, not propaganda fostered by drug
peddlers or people who oppose their use. That applies to supposed
performance-enhancing drugs as much as it does to Prozac and Ecstasy.
Ignorance is no answer.” We certainly agree.
OK, now it’s time to discuss the latest findings on nutritional ergogenics.
However, you certainly won’t find scare tactics!
Protein Review
The purpose of a recent review by Dr. Jay Hoffman and Michael Falvo
was to analyze different types of protein (J Sports Sci & Med, 2004;3:118-130).
As pointed out by the authors, there is some evidence suggesting that a high
animal protein diet can cause greater muscle growth than a high vegetable
protein diet. Further, the authors compared different types of whey protein and
suggested that whey protein isolates “often contain proteins that have become
denatured due to the manufacturing process… compared to whey isolates,
whey concentrate typically contains more biologically active components and
proteins that make them a very attractive supplement for the athlete.” However,
I have to disagree with this contention. For example, cross-flow microfiltered
(CFM) whey isolate has the highest level of undenatured protein available
(about 99 percent).
Finally, the authors concluded that high protein intake has no adverse
effects. In fact, the reduced bodyweight associated with high-protein diets is
protective against diseases.
Post-Exercise Carb-Protein Drinks
A paper by Dr. John Ivy summarized the effects of post-workout carb and
protein supplementation on glycogen and muscle protein synthesis (J Sports
Sci & Med, 2004;3:131-138). There is evidence showing that muscle glycogen
synthesis is most rapid if high glycemic carbs are consumed immediately
following exercise. Also, activation of muscle protein synthesis by amino acids
is also most responsive immediately following exercise. So, you need to take in
both carbs and proteins immediately after resistance exercise.
Antioxidants May Lessen Muscle Functional Deficits
Dr. A. Shafaf and co-workers at the University of Limerick in Ireland
examined the effectiveness of vitamins C and E on symptoms of muscle
damage (Eur J Appl Physiol, 2004, Aug. 7, Epub ahead of print). Twelve male
volunteers were randomly assigned to either treatment or control groups. The
treatment group received 500 milligrams of vitamin C and 1,200 international
units (IU) of alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E) daily and the control group received
glucose placebo for 37 days.
After 30 days of treatment, volunteers performed 300 maximal eccentric
contractions of the knee extensor muscles of one leg. The results indicated that
eccentric contractile torque and work during the bout declined significantly in
both groups, but this decline was smaller in the vitamin-supplemented group.
Thus, although more research is needed, this study suggests that prior
supplementation with dietary antioxidants lessens muscle functional deficits
subsequent to eccentric muscle contraction. However, both groups experienced
similar muscle soreness and swelling after exercise.
Creatine is Safe
The aim of the recent study by Dr. H Schoder and colleagues was to
investigate the long-term effects of creatine monohydrate supplementation on
clinical parameters related to health. Eighteen professional basketball players of
the first Spanish Basketball League participated in this longitudinal study
published in the respected European Journal of Nutrition (2004 Aug. 11, Epub
ahead of print).
The subjects ingested five grams of creatine daily during three
competition seasons. Blood samples were collected five times during each of
the three official competition seasons of the first National Basketball League.
The authors concluded, “Supplementation with creatine did not alter clinical
indices related to hepatic [liver] or renal [kidney] pathology or muscle injury.” In
fact, the recent study by Dr. R. Santos and co-workers at the University of Sao
Paulo in Brazil revealed that creatine supplementation reduced cell damage
and inflammation after exhaustive intense exercise (Life Sci, 2004;75:19171924).
New Nutritional Ergogenics Book
Recently, Drs. Ira Wolinsky and Judy Driskell published a comprehensive
academic text on nutritional ergogenics (Nutritional Ergogenic Aids, CRC Press,
2004). This excellent reference discusses more than 20 nutritional ergogenics
and provides specific guidelines for safe use of the products most widely used.
The key take-home messages were the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Although arginine has been demonstrated to be valuable in specific
clinical applications, there is no solid evidence showing that it improves
body composition. Nevertheless, arginine does have beneficial functions
(hormone stimulation, immune regulation, nitric oxide synthesis, etc.).
Aspartate may have potential as an ergogenic under certain conditions,
but more research is clearly needed.
There is evidence that branched-chain amino acid (BCAA)
supplementation decreases muscle protein breakdown. Also, BCAAs
provided prior to and/or during prolonged exercise might inhibit the
decrease in blood glutamine levels, which in turn is linked to increased
incidence of sickness of athletes. Thus, it appears BCAAs may be of
benefit to serious gym rats, especially during a cutting diet.
Carnitine does not seem to provide an ergogenic or fat loss benefit.
However, carnitine salts improve performance in persons with heart
diseases.
Certainly, creatine can increase lean body mass, power, torque, strength
and repetitive, short-term anaerobic exercise performance. Suggestions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
that creatine at normal usage levels causes side effects are not
supported by scientific evidence. In fact, creatine has been studied as a
potential therapeutic agent in patients with arthritis, diabetes,
Huntington’s disease, etc.
Bicarbonate enhances short-term intense anaerobic exercise
performance.
HMB (beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate) has rather strong science
backing the augmentation of strength and fat-free mass gains associated
with resistance training. Also, the safety of HMB is well-documented. In
fact, health-related positive effects of consuming three grams of HMB per
day include decreasing bad cholesterol (LDL) and decreasing blood
pressure.
Ephedrine + caffeine burns extra lard like there’s no tomorrow.
Furthermore, E + C improves both anaerobic and aerobic performance.
However, one ought to be aware of the potential health risks.
Although glutamine plays a central role in maintaining a healthy immune
system, the immune system-enhancing effects of glutamine
supplementation for healthy individuals are yet to be realized. Glutamine
powders should not be added to hot beverages because heat can
destroy the amino acid.
CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) appears to improve body composition
during periods of caloric restriction.
Coenzyme Q10 appears to improve performance only in persons with
heart disease.
There is no evidence suggesting that myo-inositol or DMG improve
performance. However, there is growing literature that may support the
clinical and therapeutic uses of these substances.
7-keto DHEA may promote loss of body fat with retention of muscle mass
during periods of caloric restriction.
The beneficial effects of low dosages of pyruvate have not been
established.
Inadequate calcium intake blunts fat loss from caloric restriction.
In addition to its antioxidant properties, lipoic-acid has potent insulinmimetic properties.
Excluding ephedra and prohormones, nutritional ergogenics have an
extremely low potential for causing harm to consumers.