We have a new Mr Olympia in town and his name is Phil Heath!
Showing posts with label Muscular Development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muscular Development. Show all posts
Sunday, 18 September 2011
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
Lee Priest... no competition but still
For a guy moaning about a lack of finances he's not been slacking off - check it out:
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Friday, 18 June 2010
Friday, 7 May 2010
Kai Greene: Overkill
He may have been some kind of lazy bum before making his name and there's that grapefruit thing to consider but on the plus side he's become the thinking mans bodybuilder. Add to that that it's a Mike Pulcinella effort (good camera work then) and I can see why Kai Greene's Overkill Volume 1 may, as the blurb has it, been described as 'The best bodybuilding film since Pumping Iron'.
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Next Muscular Development cover June 2010
Thanks to IB (of MT) here's June's (mind you I had May's arrive last week and we're still in April but...).
Monday, 22 March 2010
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Well that's embaressing
The latest issue of the UK edition of Flex has Jay Cutler on the cover and a 'a how he came back to tip top condition' article inside. Unfortunately he has been signed, as of last month, with Muscular Development. Can I say 'foot in mouth'? LOL
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
April 2010 magazines
Quick mention for the last/latest issue of Body Fitness as it had a at least 6, if not 8, page forearm training article for da grip boyz. Buy it. Also coming soon are...
Friday, 22 January 2010
Monday, 11 January 2010
They must think we're morons!
So I'm reading an 'article' (in fact more of an ad really) in a well known glossy BB magazine. It's supposed to be a Q&A/Report. This months was on their 'hardcore' version of a very well-known and best selling Creatine loading product.
Now they quote 4 references to give it the air of a well researched and sourced statement. The article, written and published in late '09, quotes from published research dated 1996, 2000, 2001 2004 . So far so ok.
Now it has to be said, so you know where I am coming from, that the 'hardcore' version of their standard product contains 10g of Creatine, per serving, sourced from Mono (great), Creatine Pyrovate (?) and Creatine Phosphate. There's a bunch of other stuff, mostly well known, much of which is said to drive or help load Creatine well. It includes 77g (per serving) of Glucose.
My issue, such as it is, is that they quote from the references as follows:
1. One study (1996) they refer to used 5g (standard dose for most) and 93g of simple carbs. They say they used this as there starting point. It's arguable that this was the same as it was before they went and called the new product 'hardcore'. The mention the glucose tolerance test (for diabetics) uses 75g. Neither 93 not 75 are 77... I'm confused. Is the 77g used so they can claim, as many do (so they aren't the only ones making such claims) that theirs is a 'unique formula'. In other words not identical to another one.
2. They themselves say that they chose 10g as 'it's double what others use'. Not that it's better, just that it's more. They confusingly further add that it's 'a mega dose of the most validated form of Creatine'. Err no. The most validated is mono. You're using 3 different forms and only one is mono and the combined total is 10g. The mentioned purity etc I take no issue with at all. That's all good.
3. In another study (2000) which used mono and mono plus carbs etc it was as claimed) 26 times more potent. Err ok... but that it was the core formula of their product which did the trick. Let me see if I get this: it was mono and glucose/dextrose which was the super duper stuff and the mono was, unless I'm mistaken, at the 5g etc level. So no other form of Creatine and that which was used was at half the dose in the product as it is now. So why add two other types and why double the dose regardless of form?
Maybe it's just me but I can't see what makes the new version better than the old one, other than the name. Nor can I see why anyone would wish to quote from 4 references none of which offer a direct comparison to what's actually being sold. That they, as they do with other products in their line (esp protein and their fat burning products) use the words 'core formula' means that what was researched and found to work has been altered or added to but is by no means better. Doubling of the dose of Creatine, using three forms, altering (if just a tad) the carb ratio and then throwing in all the bells and whistles... why? The articles don't actually back up the need.
So tell me then, how is it hardcore?
The one thing this company HAS done previously and COULD DO again to back up their formula is to sponsor independent research into whether or not it's worthwhile doing what they did. Perhaps this has happened and it showed that what was done was no better than before?
The one thing which stands out for me is this idea that having said references somehow backs up what you're saying. That's the way they are used - either to prove or disprove a theory. But here and in the article they don't help at all. Bizarre. That's what prompted the title's question. Perhaps we weren't meant to ask?
Now they quote 4 references to give it the air of a well researched and sourced statement. The article, written and published in late '09, quotes from published research dated 1996, 2000, 2001 2004 . So far so ok.
Now it has to be said, so you know where I am coming from, that the 'hardcore' version of their standard product contains 10g of Creatine, per serving, sourced from Mono (great), Creatine Pyrovate (?) and Creatine Phosphate. There's a bunch of other stuff, mostly well known, much of which is said to drive or help load Creatine well. It includes 77g (per serving) of Glucose.
My issue, such as it is, is that they quote from the references as follows:
1. One study (1996) they refer to used 5g (standard dose for most) and 93g of simple carbs. They say they used this as there starting point. It's arguable that this was the same as it was before they went and called the new product 'hardcore'. The mention the glucose tolerance test (for diabetics) uses 75g. Neither 93 not 75 are 77... I'm confused. Is the 77g used so they can claim, as many do (so they aren't the only ones making such claims) that theirs is a 'unique formula'. In other words not identical to another one.
2. They themselves say that they chose 10g as 'it's double what others use'. Not that it's better, just that it's more. They confusingly further add that it's 'a mega dose of the most validated form of Creatine'. Err no. The most validated is mono. You're using 3 different forms and only one is mono and the combined total is 10g. The mentioned purity etc I take no issue with at all. That's all good.
3. In another study (2000) which used mono and mono plus carbs etc it was as claimed) 26 times more potent. Err ok... but that it was the core formula of their product which did the trick. Let me see if I get this: it was mono and glucose/dextrose which was the super duper stuff and the mono was, unless I'm mistaken, at the 5g etc level. So no other form of Creatine and that which was used was at half the dose in the product as it is now. So why add two other types and why double the dose regardless of form?
Maybe it's just me but I can't see what makes the new version better than the old one, other than the name. Nor can I see why anyone would wish to quote from 4 references none of which offer a direct comparison to what's actually being sold. That they, as they do with other products in their line (esp protein and their fat burning products) use the words 'core formula' means that what was researched and found to work has been altered or added to but is by no means better. Doubling of the dose of Creatine, using three forms, altering (if just a tad) the carb ratio and then throwing in all the bells and whistles... why? The articles don't actually back up the need.
So tell me then, how is it hardcore?
The one thing this company HAS done previously and COULD DO again to back up their formula is to sponsor independent research into whether or not it's worthwhile doing what they did. Perhaps this has happened and it showed that what was done was no better than before?
The one thing which stands out for me is this idea that having said references somehow backs up what you're saying. That's the way they are used - either to prove or disprove a theory. But here and in the article they don't help at all. Bizarre. That's what prompted the title's question. Perhaps we weren't meant to ask?
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Now that's a tricep
MD keeps knocking out the last minute videos to keep the heat on. Today's is Victor Martinez's arm workout one week out. Check out the depth of tricep in this screen grab. Video here
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Sunday, 13 September 2009
Gustavo Badell wins over all
In a blinding return to previous form (only metioned this week on RX Muscle's radio show) Gustavo pulled pass Troy Alves and Hidetada Yamagishi to win the pro division of the Atlantic City 2009 event
In the 202 Class James 'Flex' Lewis's gamble of one show, one chance to qualify paid of as he is now on his way to the Olympia. Well done.
Friday, 11 September 2009
Must be a slow news day
So I'm still waiting on some results (pull yer fingers out FFS!!), the Olympia is in 2 weeks and as yet no sign of the 'look at me a few weeks out photos' (other than those I posted).
So that might explain why Flexonline are having a pose off comparison between one athlete not competing and one which is. Hopefully in a few days it'll all heat up.
As for today... Kai Greene has renewed his Muscle Meds contract (hopefully for more wedge). Thus far that's it.
So that might explain why Flexonline are having a pose off comparison between one athlete not competing and one which is. Hopefully in a few days it'll all heat up.
As for today... Kai Greene has renewed his Muscle Meds contract (hopefully for more wedge). Thus far that's it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
