Talk:Bodybuilding supplement

message: There is no research showing protein supplements working to grow muscle.
This article looks like one giant ad.   Very biased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to dig a little deeper then because there is alot of research that shows that the ingestion of amino acids through protein supplements augments muscle hypertrophy and retention of lean muscle mass. --Quartet 21:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then add some research that proves it. --Ericg33 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  this website says otherwise.
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/sportsnutrition/a/HighProteinDiet.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Nice! Ericg33  I don't think "About.com" qualifies as a reliable source, but either way the High Protein Diets and Sports Performance article you posted above doesn't even mention protein supplements and seems to be more about debunking high protein/high fat diets like the Atkins Diet than it does talking about protein and muscle hypertrophy. It also doesn't quote any studies and was written by a author who has a masters degree in psychology. Reliable source? I think not. --Yankees76 (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: This website helps.
http://www.muscleandstrength.com/expert-guides/protein-supplements  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.219.43 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No EVIDENCE 

message: This article seriously needs a re-write. There is much missing.
:How about some suggestions for changes then?  johnSLADE (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am of the view that AAS, hGH, PHs and Insulin should not come under the heading of bodybuilding supplements, primarily for the following reason - There are serious negative connotations surrounding anabolic steroids, particularly in the United States, and I strongly believe it would be implicit NPOV to lump together legitimate and relatively harmless "supplements" such as protein powder, creatine, glutamine etc with such medicines.... I would like to add however that the US's stance on these medicines is not typical of Europe or the rest of the world. Lastly prohormones are still available and are manufactured in mass quantities in China. StrengthCoach 13:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also there is evidence to suggest soy isoflavones have modest and limited effect on sex specific hormone levels. Pubmed is the place to dig this up. StrengthCoach 13:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on both points, including your comment on soy. My issue was the wording, as you said yourself it's "modest and limited effect on sex specific hormone levels" is a completely different ballpark to the statement "it (soy protein) has high estrogenic properties". The "information" on here is either exaggerated at best,  inaccurate, manufacturer hype (I was one for ten years I should know) or a complete urban legend. I may be wrong which is why this all should be referenced to erase all doubt. Prohormones again are covered under their own category so I see no need to include them here as well - a link will do perhaps stating that in rare countires they are legal - although banned by the IOC and every other sporting federation. If anyone else agrees with StrengthCoach and I please speak up so we can make amends StrengthCoach what about the other supplements listed = your thoughts? Glen Stollery 16:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would opt for a rewrite from scratch, excluding AAS/PH/hGH/insulin and other medicines - including various types of protein powders (Whey Protein Concentrate, Whey Protein Isolate, Whey Protein Hydrolosate, Casein and Egg White etc...), Meal Replacement Powders, Creatine, Glutamine, Multi vitamin, fish oil. IMHO these all have their place. The various OTC stimulants that are used for dieting purposes and pre-workout should probably also be included although im not personally familiar with them. StrengthCoach 17:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Nicely done, now re just need to rewrite the rest of it. I notice "Dr Cavell" has not got back to me with his alledged references yet? Looking forward to those, especially after not seeing them for over ten years in the sports nutrition industry! They'll be break-through! ;) Glen Stollery 10:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Cavell's logic for inclusion makes no sense. The article is about Supplements just because bodybuilders use steriods does not warrant their inclusion. Bodybuilders use tanning lotions too should we include those? Why include subjects that do not in any way fall into a category? Supplements are not steriods, steriods are not supplements so if you want to mention them then wouldn't it be more appropriate to link to the article on anabolic steroids (which by the way has no mention of dietary supplements funnily enough!) that way those interested in that subject can read about it there, and those wanting info on supplements will get just that.
Regarding my points on the various claims make about what each supplement does to the body, if you believe I am wrong them reference each study proving so. I am simply saying that all the information citing what each compound (claims it) does should be referenced (according to wiki guidelines this should have been done anyway). If they are referenced then the article is definitely sound (excluding all the topics covered that aren't supplements of course) Glen Stollery 09:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%. All I've had time to do is remove the grossly misleading and unsubstantiated statements but what's left is a pathetic line or two on half a dozen supplements and some "non" supplements. I can help rewrite over time of course Glen Stollery (My contributions) 18:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. I started today by removing some items that are clearly not supplements (food, steroids, insulin etc.) and rewrote the section regarding Nitric Oxide supplements. I'll do more later. Yankees76 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added thermos Glen Stollery (My contributions) 03:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote replace all info as links to pages on: [[anabolic steroid]]s, [[prohormone]]s, [[growth hormone|HGH]] and [[insulin]]? 

message: This article is a distaster! I'm sorry if I'm repeating what has been written before, but instead of just talking about it I'm going to start removing items and rewriting others. Please feel free to argue your points here if you disagree with any of my revisions or replacements. Yankees76 18:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%. All I've had time to do is remove the grossly misleading and unsubstantiated statements but what's left is a pathetic line or two on half a dozen supplements and some "non" supplements. I can help rewrite over time of course Glen Stollery (My contributions) 18:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. I started today by removing some items that are clearly not supplements (food, steroids, insulin etc.) and rewrote the section regarding Nitric Oxide supplements. I'll do more later. Yankees76 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added thermos Glen Stollery (My contributions) 03:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for Some Serious Revisions

message: This article has come LIGHT YEARS from  it's form when I added the NPOV. Vast improvement! Glen Stollery (My contributions) 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree! Still light on the info, but it's coming along and so far it's avoided any misinformed edits. Keep up the great work! Yankees76 05:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed NPOV 

message: Makes sense, that's a tiny "article"! §τοʟĿ€ʀγŤč 12:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Protein powder]] 

message: I've removed the short list of unverified "popular supplements". I also removed the spam links to company websites. I'm questioning whether this page is even the place to list all the brands in the first place - considering few if any even are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page. It only uglies up the page, and will eventually lead to giant list as editors try to list every brand under the sun. I'm strongly suggesting we remove that section. Thoughts? Yankees76 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only noticed the section until you removed it. Good call, although pasting bb.com's top 5 list could be interesting, or perhaps note of what kind they are (protein, creatine, fat burners etc) - the top 5 have remained there for quite some time. Just maybe... Jack Daw 16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes sense to mention "historically significant" manufacturers, if that doesn't sound too hyperbolic.  Such as mentioning that Met-Rx were the first company to release a meal replacement powder, although it wasn't originally intended to be used by bodybuilders.  Stuff like that basically.  If sources can be found, maybe it should be noted that some people stack their own supplements using the basic ingredients from bulk retailers rather than buying proprietary supplements - increasingly so in my experience although that's obviously original research without a reference to back it up.  - 85.210.31.129 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example and Brands 

message: These supplements are used by lots of different athletes, not just bodybuilders. Runners, bicyclists, fighters and countless other athletes have supplemented.
A better name would perhaps be Athletic Supplements
:Seconded.  Perhaps "Nutritional Supplements" or "Food Supplements", although I guess it's debatable as to how drugs used by athletes would fit under this heading, although I do believe they should be included in this article; so maybe something like uh... "Nutritional Supplements and Performance Enhancing Supplements" with a clear distinction between the two to appease those that don't like to see them lumped together?  It's also worth noting that the range of supplement users is even broader that athletes.  Elderly or unwell people take meal replacement powders, amino acids and such.  Many people who don't technically qualify as athletes take multivitamins, thermogenics, fish oil, etc to improve general health, or as part of a weight loss regime. - 85.210.31.129 16:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opposed. There is already a dietary supplement article for some of the products and markets mentioned above. I don't think the scope of this particular article is intended to cover supplements used by runners, bicyclists and elderly individuals, but instead intended to cover supplements marketed to and consumed by bodybuilders. Yankees76 18:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also opposed. While other athletes may use supplements, I think the supplements on this page are bodybuilding supplements in particular because they focus on increasing anabolism and muscle mass, and improving short bouts of hard work, like weightlifting. They aren't performance enhancers per se. Thermogenics have their own article, other types of supplements could have their own. Brad T. Cordeiro 18:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Supplements and dietary regimens used by endurance athletes differ greatly from those used by strength trainers/bodybuilders. This article doesn't need to be everything to everybody, it has a narrow scope and nothing is wrong with that. Feel free to create "Endurance Athletics Supplements", etc to cover the other areas. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be renamed 

message: The entire section is a bunch of unreferenced baloney. I mean, take a look it again. Read the first half of the paragraph, and then the sentenced that I've bolded below:
They should be called No NO supplements. Besides, even if NO supplements contained "NO" - they claims as to what it does are not cited at all. Yankees76 not sure of your opinion here (and if you disagree of course readd) but I'd prefer it wasnt done until verifiable references are found.
Thanks, Glen 21:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL - I beleive I wrote most of that section earlier in the year. I disagree that the NO section should be removed based strictly on that fact that 95% of supplements marketed as NO boosters probably don't work. Nitric Oxide does have all of the properties listed above (signaling molecule that plays a vital role in causing the relaxation of the smooth muscle tissue that makes up the walls of blood vessels, promotes active hyperemia, etc.) I think a rewrite stating the effects of NO in the body is a good start, while also saying that there is a distinct difference between what NO does naturally in the body and what Nitric Oxide boosting supplements actually acheive once ingested. I'd be 100% in favor of removing it ALL if NO supplements weren't selling like they are. I'll leave it out pending a rewrite. Yankees76 14:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the section recently added for "Estrogen Blockers" for the same reasons above. There is at least a couple NO supplements that sell very well, "estrogen blockers" are a dead and unproven category, with little to no reliable sources to warrant their inclusion. Yankees76 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed NO section 

message: "Increasing the intake of protein in the diet allows muscles to repair themselves and grow more effectively."  Increasing?  If you are already eating enough proteins there is no benefit from eating more proteins, except you become likelier to get colon cancer.  This article should mention the fact that you can eat all the proteins you want, that wont necessarily make there muscles bigger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.220.45.151 (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless babble 

message: :Image:Metrx.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Metrx.jpg

message: :Image:Phosphagen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Phosphagen.jpg

message: I do not feel qualified to add meaningfully to the content, and am therefore very reluctant to criticize those who have taken the time to contribute.  However, it is quite apparent that this page still does not meet the standards displayed in other Wikipedia subjects.  It is obvious that commercial interests and belief statements are the foundation for a lot of the data (I am not saying that the contributors have an agenda, simply that the information they are using is clearly industry derived).  This area is fraught with contradiction and misleading information so I will watch developments with interest.  Referencing to peer reviewed studies would be helpful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.164.74 (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a Comment 

message: At WikiProject Food and Drink I've started the thread Food additives etc. ==> need merging. in hopes that some of the pages:
*Food supplements, 
*Food additive, 
*Food fortification, 
*Dietary supplement, 
*Food processing,  
*Bodybuilding supplement, 
*Nutraceutical, and 
*Nutrification (aka food enrichment)
can be merged/eliminated.  I hope that that thread will be a central place to discuss this somewhat messy situation.  I'll be adding this comment to each of the articles' Talk pages. --Hordaland (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food additives etc. ==> need merging. 

message: In the list of common sources for protein powder it says that soy contains phytoestrogens that act like estrogen, and it provides a broken link reference. While it is true that soy contains phytoestrogens, whether or not this is detrimental is controversial (see soybean), and this seems fairly irrelevant to bodybuilding supplements. In addition, negative health aspects of whey, eggs, and casein could also be mentioned but are not. I do not think this meets Wikipedia's neutrality standards, so I am going to remove the negative soy information (which isn't even properly referenced). --n-k, 11:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's not totally solid, yet, but the data is getting worse for them.  Soy supplements contain highly conscentrated amounts of phytoestrogens, aluminum, and pestacide.  You can't get away from it.  Baby formulas containing them are now by prescription-only in several countries (unless your baby will die from milk, you can't get them) and even dedicated vegans are starting to move away from soy supplements to traditional whole soy and fermented ones.  The newest data does not look good for soy supplements, yet they have become ubiquitious in processed food.  Enter DuPont!  What negative aspects of whey, eggs, and casein?  Casein is a mild direct inflammatory.  So is sex.  Both increase growth factors and neither is considered unhealthy, outside of the fringey China Study.  And I'm not sure what you mean about whey or eggs, two of the most nutritious things on earth, being unhealthy.  But yeah, it shouldn't be overstated.  The reference that they're in there without stating they definitely act like estrogen seems sufficient.  -Reticuli 66.178.144.112 (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soy phytoestrogen 

message: But says nothing about plain old Weight Gainer powdered drink mixes that somebody might take for health reason not related to body building. BillyTFried (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Redirected from Weight gainer) 

message: This section seems quite unproffesional: "Instead of low-fat fish, try salmon, trout, or mackerel... You can also take fish oils in supplement form."
:This section reads more like an advice column than an objective analysis of fatty acids' use in body building. --Anonymous user 67.174.180.174 (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted most of text. References needed for EFAs and bodybuilding, or else what is left of section should be deleted, too. David notMD (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essential Fatty Acids Section 

message: Unfortunately, the article seems to be basically an enhanced list, rather than the normal Wikipedia article.  Thus I can find any place to put the basic information in this New York Times article: "When the Gym Isn’t Enough".  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 20:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of the article 

message: The first sentence, "Bodybuilding supplements are steriod supplements used for bodybuilding."
First of all, I have no knowledge about the word "steriod". The author, probably meant "steroid".
Second, many bodybuilding suplements are not steroids, nether prescription drugs, nor even over-the-counter drugs.
Actualy, the term "bodybuilding supplements" is usualy used to describe non-drug substances.
This article is of very low quality. It need very, very, very much improvement. (signiture: mv_Cristi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.95.26 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The word steroid was introduced only yesterday (presumably vandalism).  I have reverted to a former, more accurate wording.  Deli nk (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the knowledge but do not have the patience and time to improove this article. Hoever, I can provide information with links in this talk page. If enyone is intrested in reading that information and improoving the article, just reply. (I did not provided it yet because it takes me time and patience even to post such metainformation) Mv Cristi (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first sentence is wrong!!! 

message: I suggest creating a page about the doping substances used in bodybuilding and sports and adding it to the See also part to make it clear the difference and also to inform. I can also provide links to such information. Mv Cristi (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an entirely different article and doesn't fit into the scope of this particular article on supplements. There is already a number of articles related to steroids and anabolic steroids, if that' what you're looking for.--Quartet 14:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doping page 

message: Does anyone have reliable sources for such a section. I found that supplementation with GABA in 5 grams per day increased the HGH level by 600% but the claim is old and had no citation (GABA is used by the brain and is heavily promoted as an "anxyolitic", but it cannot cross the blood brain barrier) (I also asked on Talk:Gamma-Aminobutyric acid). Also l-arginie/l-ornitine supplementation is said to increase HGH. Is it true and, if yes, significantly?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.44.111 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Grouth Hormone boosters 

message: I seem to remember HMB (beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid) being very popular at some time around the year 2000.  Should it be mentioned as a fad of days gone by, or is it still popular? Gronky (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: HMB is in the article as a section and refs 32-37. David notMD (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently improved to Good Article status. David notMD (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do people still take HMB? 

message: It's a bit old-school, and is too cheap to get much hype, but it was the only thing going during a certain time, and many bodybuilders still swear by it. Gronky (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add a section on Pre-Workout supplements before either HMB or Dessicated Liver supplements. Mainly because like Protein, BCAAs, Meal Replacements etc., they're a category as opposed to a single ingredient commodity item, and secondly because of their current popularity. Based on top selling products at Bodybuilding.com, 7 out of the top 50 sellers on that site are in the pre-workout category. Plus with recent press surrounding 1,3-dimethylamylamine there are quite a few reliable sources for information on them. beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid does have it's own Wikipedia article though, and could be mentioned in this one. Overall I think this article needs some major clean up and attention as it's quite out dated and contains alot of unsourced "bro science". --Yankees76 Talk 16:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about dessicated liver? 

message: The Dietary supplement article has some overlap with the Bodybuilding article. Recently, I took it upon myself to downgrade the Dietary supplement article from B-class to C-class because in my opinion so much of it was incomplete, incoherent, off-topic, under-referenced, etc. I have since been editing the article. Anyone else wants to get involved - great. I have no intention of "owning" the DS article. At some point the collective changes may warrant upgrading to B-class. I do not intend to make that decision, as I am too close to the topic. David notMD (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dietary supplement article downgraded from B- to C-class 

message: The following sentence "Update to proprietary blends which suggested they may be more beneficial but there is contradictory evidence this is factual." along with the corresponding backlink was removed.
This was not intended as a promotional link.
The backlinked page in question has a very big writeup on how misleading proprietary blends are to backup the additional text which was added. I would have used a study instead but you can't quote a study on whether or not proprietary blends are valuable because there has never been a scientific case study nor will there ever be. However, in the associated article it is clearly broken down as to the significant problems with proprietary blends.
I don't care if the backlink is removed, however the text I inserted should stay because it is very factual and very relevant. Proprietary blends are nothing but misleading and it should be pointed out there is controversy within the supplement industry. That controversy being many products promote them but any nutritionist will tell you it's nonsense and they are just hiding what's in the product.
Robertclarkmtfs (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Content must be verifiable by published reliable sources (see WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS specifically for health-related topics). If no such sources exist, the information is only based on personal knowledge or opinion (or on unreliable sources), and should not be added. So-called "original research" is generally not allowed to create new content. GermanJoe (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence and reference removed