ORIGINAL: Kris
Most people who recommend glut recommend it at 20 grams daily or more.
Where are these people and why are they wasting their money?
Unfortunately, they are all over the internet.
ORIGINAL: Kris
I personally can afford to supplement with Glutamine and therefore choose to do so. It will cost me about $110 per year (to my best estimate) to supplement with 8-10 g per day. Is this worth the gains for most people? Probably not. But again, I can afford it and if it helps my body maintain my current muscle while helping me fight of carbohydrates, I' ll take it.
What is affordable, is relative. In other words, if you take it in lieu of something else, that is more effective/productive and don' t take the latter, for financial reasons, than it is not affordable.
For exmaple, fish oil is proven to be far more effective at body composition (i.e. reducing fat while retaining muscle) at high doses, and a better value.
ORIGINAL: Kris
Again, glutamine is not the most important supplement to be taking, but I consider it a must have... just my opinion.
Its the " must have" part that we differ on.
ORIGINAL: Kris
No offense taken. I do, I have a packet full of information on my desk. Your website currently does not contain enough information on those products though. The average consumer would have no idea of what you are selling.
These are not products for the " average consumer" as I assume you use the phrase.
ORIGINAL: Kris
I understand. Many of the people I recommend glutamine to are not satisfied with their results. You need to understand what glutamine does. Glutamine will not help you grow new muscle and become stronger. So if you take glutamine and don' t notice those results... then don' t blame glutamine. Glutamine will, however, help you maintain your current muscle tissue.
You talk a lot about maintaining. Which in general I do not understand. If you meant in the context of a hypocaloric state, that I would understand. But you never mention dieting anywhere. Why are you so concerned about losing muscle?
ORIGINAL: Kris
I agree that you can only compare prices if you compare what the product does. I was unaware that you were referring to glutamine as expensive meaning results per cost per serving. In that case then yes, glutamine can be viewed as more expensive.
This is all I have meant. Expensive in relation to results yielded.
BTW, creatine, in raw form, is typically cheaper than glutamine. It is the ridiculously prices " delivery systems" that make it expensive.
ORIGINAL: Kris
but wait. Most Creatine supplements on the market contain glutamine (2-5g) per serving. Same goes with protein supplements and meal replacements. I ask this question then. If glutamine is so un-important... then why do companies put glutamine in their products and not even advertise it has glutamine in it (except on the product label)?
You know better than to make this argument. Companies do irrational non-profit maximizing things all the time. That is why we have Chapter 11.
I can also turn this around on you. If glut was so good, why DON' T they advertise it?
ORIGINAL: Kris
Some examples of creatine products that contain glutamine on the label but not advertised as containing glutamine:
Creatine Xtreme by Champion Nutrition (500mg)
CreActive by MRM (5g)
Creavescent by GEN (2g)
Not exactly leading brands.
ORIGINAL: Kris
So if glutamine is useless, then why are these companies adding it to their products? 99.9% of companies out there make products to make money. If it costs them money to add glutamine and doesn' t have any effect, then doesn' t it make sense for them not to include glutamine in their products (and thereby increase their profit margins)? That' s something to think about.
Aside from my comments above, someone once made the claim that there is a synergistic effect between the two. Whether the company actually believes this is true, if the market believes it, couldn' t a rational profit-maximizing compant use this to its advantage?
ORIGINAL: Kris
I agree that many people have said they received no benefit from supplementing with glutamine. I have to argue though, these people usually expect results from products. They want to feel something and see something within weeks. Glutamine does nothing like that. It' s different from creatine and ephedra type supplements. You can' t feel that your on it (and therefore many people say it does nothing). It does work though.
I have used it for sufficiently long periods, at sufficiently high doses, and believe it has had no effect on bady composition whatsoever. Of course, I can say the same thing about creatine, as I am a non-responder there too.
ORIGINAL: Kris
Do I see results because of it? Nope. But I wonder if I didn' t take it, would my physique be different? I believe it would!
What gives you this belief? Have you compared results to similar cycles where training and caloric intake was comparable? I have tried nearly every workout plan, and nearly every diet. I am not bragging just pointing out that I have a basis of comparison. Do you? I am not challenging just asking, as you may very well.
ORIGINAL: Kris
Not every study is done to prove if something works.
Yes, of course studies show that something does or does not work under a given condition. Regardless, something is not disproved under specific conditions and then extrapolated on, or at least it is not done in the scientific community (as opposed to the marketing community).
ORIGINAL: Kris
There are plenty of counter studies out there. Look at creatine for example. When that became a big deal there were literally hundreds of studies published about how creatine was useless. Things like " a 6 ounce steak has more creatine then your body can absorb. So supplementing with creatine is therefor useless."
That isn' t a study, that is an illogical extrapolation.
ORIGINAL: Kris
" Prove which does not exist?" I' m not asking for that. I' m asking for a reference to a study that proves glutamine is useless for bodybuilding. Prove what you are saying. Back it up with some facts.
Again, this is not how it works. Just because you can show that in certain conditions glut has certain effects does not mean that it is anabolic, and therefore someone would need to disprove this. How do I know? Example, you cited the study that showed elevated GH levels. If that was true, then SHOULDN' T we see hypertrophy and fat loss concommittently? We SHOULD -- but we don' t, you agree to this above. So how can I explain with certainly how this works? I can' t. I can only guess, that either the GH response is so short lived that it has no effect. There could be a thousand other reasons as well.
ORIGINAL: Kris
If I sit here and ramble off 5 reasons how glutamine is effective and you say it' s not... then who wins that discussion? explain why it is not. Get into the chemistry of glutamine and how it reacts with the body. Give me some examples of how it is not beneficial for bodybuilding. Basically, prove to me that it is useless... don' t just tell me it is. (if you say this can' t be done, then explain why in a previous post you explained why hGH supplements could not work).
Using previous posts against me eh? Not fair. Though this is quite a different animal.
Bottom line is I don' t " know" why it doesn' t work effectively. It could be that glut is not very orally active. It could be that when tested its used in a different format. It could be that in normal individuals, plenty of glutamine is produced by the body (it is not an EAA). It could be that in normal individuals, plenty of glutamine is contained in food and traditional protein supplements.
Again, it could be any number of reasons. I do know:
(1) No evidence links glutamine to hypertrophy.
(2) Real world feedback is not overwhelming such that I am convinced absent scientific evidence.
(3) Personal use, on various occassion, establishes that for me, glut is not worth the money.
BTW, I do not pay for supplements (any) and I still do not supplement with glutamine. Wouldn' t a muscle maximizing bodybuilder use a free product that was even minimally helpful. :)
Just having fun, which, by the way, this exchange has been.