Talk:Bodybuilding supplement

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Achau17 (article contribs).

Protein Supplementation Controversy

I added information regarding this aspect of protein supplementation. Such ideas absolutely need to be entertained given the fact that the information was clearly biased in favor of protein supplementation. --TTile (talk) 3:43, 03 May 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The Consumer Reports article was terribly flawed. They are not peer-reviewed prior to publishing. The methodology was not explained. Their data analysis was obviously flawed. The significant sources of dangerous metals were not in the protein powders, but in the meal replacement or weight gainer ones that are heavily fortified and were actually even in those cases comparable to any number of other "whole meal" or high nutrient "whole food" processed stuffs, not to mention plenty of other non-processed foods. And the Chocolate ones were the worst. Cocoa is high in heavy metals and bromides. That's no surprise. Consumer Reports is not a scientific or academic source. They are not journalists. They have no business being cited on wikipedia unless the article includes all necessary information and can be verified by third parties. In fact, even if they had, their anaysis of their suspicious data was still wrong. Go read the article yourself and look at the data. Deleted. -Reticuli 66.178.144.112 (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, if you want to talk about soy protein islolates, the single instance of shadey research that got their "heart healthy" label, and the DuPont connection, then let's certainly discuss that. Because there's no shortage of facts and reputable references to go to for that. You want to talk about metals? Let's add to that concentrated pestacides. SPI is practically in all processed food, now. -Reticuli 66.178.144.112 (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Add my vote on this article being horribly biased. Seriously, it read more like something a supplement salesman would write than a reference article. Not sure what we can do about it without triggering an edit war but what we have here is not ideal for sure gathima (talk)

No EVIDENCE

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)

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)

Then add some research that proves it. --Ericg33 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Cribb P, Williams A, Stathis C, Carey M, Hayes A. Effects of whey isolate, creatine, and resistance training on muscle hypertrophy. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2007;39(2):298–307.

Paul J Cribb, Andrew D Williams, Chris G Stathis, Michael F Carey, Alan Hayes 1Exercise Metabolism Unit, Center for Ageing, Rehabilitation, Exercise and Sport and the School of Biomedical Sciences, Victoria University, Victoria, AUSTRALIA; and 2School of Human Life Sciences, University of Tasmania, Launceston, AUSTRALIA. Effects of whey isolate, creatine, and resistance training on muscle hypertrophy Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007 Feb ;39 (2):298-307

Tipton K, Elliott T, Cree M, Wolf S, Sanford A, Wolfe R. Ingestion of casein and whey proteins result in muscle anabolism after resistance exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2004;36(12): 2073-2081.

Ewan Ha et al,. Functional properties of whey, whey components, and essential amino acids: mechanisms underlying health benefits for active people J.Nutr Biochem 14(2003), 251-258

Burke D, Chilibeck P, Davison K, Candow D, Farthing J, Smith-Palmer T. The effect of whey protein supplementation with and without creatine monohydrate combined with resistance training on lean tissue mass and muscle strength. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism. 2001;11(3):349-364.

Butterfield G (1991). Amino acids and high protein diets. In Lamb D, Williams M (editors), Perspectives in exercise science and sports medicine, Vol. 4; Ergogenics, enhancement of performance in exercise and sport (pages 87-122). Indianapolis, Indiana: Brown & Benchmark

Kreider RB, Miriel V, Bertun E (1993). Amino acid supplementation and exercise performance: proposed ergogenic value. Sports Medicine 16, 190-209

Roy BD, Tarnopolsky MA (1998). Influence of differing macronutrient intakes on muscle glycogen resynthesis after resistance exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology 84, 890-96

thanks for coming out. --Quartet 21:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Rewrite

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)

I agree - the article is a disgrace to Wiki. Where do I start:

• Soy Protein: The statement "It should be noted that soy protein is not a recommended protein for bodybuilding purposes, being that it has high estrogenic properties." should be removed. Soy is not a complete protein certainly but I would like to see studies proving it's "high estrogenic properties". Besides the article already states Soy is recommended for vegetarians (vegans would actually be more accurate as many vegetarians choose to use whey protein) and in their case they have little alternative.

Read this: Why Does Soy Suck?

• Egg protein: should be removed as the choice for those who are lactose intolerant - ionic exchange whey protein isolate is over 99% lactose free anyway.
• Meal Replacements: "There is controversy over certain products that, in order to increase the calorie count and reduce costs, include a large amount of simple sugars." Huh? Reference to alleged controversy? I was in the dietary supplement industry a decade (I am no longer involved now in any capacity) and have never once heard anyone debate the merits of large amounts of simple sugars. (simple sugar is also an outdated term - high glycemic is the correct usage - the two are not the same)
• Anabolic steriods: They cannot be sold as supplements legally so why is this even in an article on supplements? It's like adding Ducati to an article on the bicycle. Should be removed.
• Prohormones: Now no longer legally sold as supplements anywhere in the world and thus irrelevant
• HGH: Again, see steriods above. Totally irrelevant. Delete
• Glutamine: "Research has shown glutamine helps the body increase HGH production, and has benefits for the Gastrointestinal Tract." HGH production? Reference please or delete
• Glutamine: "Others argue that gluatamine also causes a larger insulin response (see insulin section for effects)." Total rubbish and has spelling errors. Reference or delete
• BCAAs "are metabolized in the muscles (rather than the liver)"?? Huh? Reference please?This is nonsense
• Creatine: "However, a number of people argue this is purely due to water retention" DELETE! This is total rubbish and urban legend! reference or delete (and quickly!)

Reference #13 in this section (Creatine Studies, Possible Adverse Effects of Creatine Supplementation) is a link to a supplement retailer and contains no primary evidence, only a small abstract of each article. This seems highly biased since the source is a creatine seller and does not acknowledge any primary evidence supporting claims that creatine can be damaging/ineffective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socraticlogician (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was equally disturbed for the same reasons, however can you find clinical trials that demonstrate negative outcomes from the use of creatine? --203.26.177.2 (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Insulin Again, like steriods and HGH it cannot be sold as supplements legally so why is this even in an article on supplements? DELETE
• Natural Testosterone Boosters the word 'may cause an increase' or more correctly 'are used in the hope of increasing the body's natural testosterone levels' The article makes it sound like these compunds conclusively work and there is not one single medically published research study demonstrating this in humans. ZMA should also be removed, it was developed by Victor Conte of Balco labs (of the steriod THG doping fame). It is literally just a zinc and magnesium supplement and has been widely dismissed as a scam (most major companies have dropped it from their lines such as EAS and Biotest Labs for example)
• Nitric Oxide this should be removed completely or totally rewritten as this supplement would barely account for 1% of 1% of total bodybuilding supplement sales - it's does not merit a specific mention

All in all the article needs a total rewrite as it makes far too many claims about each products effectiveness with some like creatine, BCAAs and Glutamine containing total fabrication. Glen Stollery 04:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

how about discussing the side effects of all the supplements to make this article more two sided

The article is about "bodybuilding supplements", so why then should you not talk about steroids and hormone precursers simply because they are illegal?? What sense does that make? News flash, just because they are illegal does not discourage people from using them. I will go through the article again and address ALL of your points, most of which are incorrect. You will get your references, but have you not researched these things yourself??Cavell 01:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Cavell

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)

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)

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)

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)

I just rewrote the creatine section. I recently did a paper on creatine so I used my conclusions with appropriate citations. 70.33.75.96Madcat033

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)

Vote replace all info as links to pages on: anabolic steroids, prohormones, HGH and insulin?

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)

Same applies to prohormones, HGH and insulin - why not just point to their specific pages where the data is far more concise? Glen Stollery 11:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As no one has been able to provide any info to back up the claims made in this article I lave either removed them until referenced or put "manufacturers claim xxx may..." so it did not read as a proven fact. Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 00:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Time for Some Serious Revisions

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)

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)

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)

Added thermos Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 03:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed NPOV

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)

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)

DHT and Estrogen reason to criminalize?

Their use remains quite controversial and side effects are not uncommon. They are the precursors of testosterone, but some can also convert further into to DHT and estrogen. This is one of the many reasons they have become illegal in the United States and many European countries. To date most prohormone products have not been thoroughly studied, and the health effects of prolonged use are mostly unknown.

"one of the many reasons they have become illegal in the United States" is debatable. Something produces DHT and estrogen, and therefore that is sufficient to warrant making it illegal? "protecting people's health" might be an excuse too, if it weren't for the legal distribution of alcohol and cigarettes and the spread in obesity due to the high-sugar, high-carb, high-fat diet pumped by the media's advertising machine. The "reason" steroids are illegal is much up to debate; here in Canada it seems to be to atone for the national "shame" over Ben Jonson; but because prohormones or steroids might cause higher DHT or estrogen levels has no relationship to do with WHY they're illegal. With prohormones it's even siller - "look, they work! we'd better make them illegal". It's a sick attitude, but so prevalent and so ingrained that it's taken at face value.Skookum1 00:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Steroid use in Canada is not illegal [1], they're controlled substances. It is illegal to manufacture, import, export or sell these substances, but not illegal to use them.

In the United States however, steroids are a Schedule III substance, and even possession of any Schedule III substance is a federal offense punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a minimum fine of $1,000. They were designated as a Schedule III substance after Congressional hearings were held to determine the extent of use in professional and amateur sports, and a "silent epidemic" of high school steroid use. The main reason they were banned focused on legislative action far less to protect the public than to solve an athletic "cheating" problem. While the conversion of prohormones/Steroids DHT, estrogen and other side effects were secondary considerations to Congress, they have provided a seemingly valid public basis for the enforcement of the legislation. Yankees76 14:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging Protein powder

Makes sense, that's a tiny "article"! _{§τοʟĿ€ʀγ}^Ť_č 12:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There's a huge amount of information on protein powders that wikipedia should address. There are so many different varieties of protein powder - pea, soy, whey, casein, egg, beef, each of which can be concentrate, hydrolyzed (to varying degrees - with different avg. molecular weights, etc.), isolate (by at least three different methods)... In my opinion, the present article is too compressed. Betterthanfigs (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Betterthanfigs

Example and Brands

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)

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)

I've removed the brands list, mostly for the reasons I listed above. If you can make a good argument on why we need a list of potentially hundreds of brands, please do so. Other options could be explored as well. Thanks. Yankees76 17:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

This article should be renamed

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removed NO section

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:

“ Many studies show that nitric oxide (NO) acts as a signaling molecule that plays a vital role in causing the relaxation of the smooth muscle tissue that makes up the walls of blood vessels. NO freely crosses the endothelial cell membrane into the smooth muscle tissue of the blood vessels to facilitate vasodilation. Promoters argue this allows more blood and oxygen, and hence more nutrients to be delivered to muscle tissue, while increasing waste removal – aiding muscle growth. This is called active hyperemia. However, NO supplements do not actually contain nitric oxide but the amino acid arginine and other precursors such as citrulline, Pycnogenol, L-aspartic acid, and ginsenosides – which the body uses to synthesize NO. ”

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)

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)

I really think the NO section should be added in. Although NO supplements aren't the best selling, you must admit that there is significant marketing out there for them. For example, UFC events, which are extremely popular, are rife with ads for Xyience's NOX-CG3 product, which is a NO booster (and a very expensive one, at that.) With these products gaining steam, and the cost of many of them being very high in many cases, I think we should do our best to inform people about them. --Hesir 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Meaningless babble

"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).

Fixed 75.153.213.7 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Metrx.jpg

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phosphagen.jpg

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)

Just a Comment

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)

Food additives etc. ==> need merging.

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)

Soy phytoestrogen

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)

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)

(Redirected from Weight gainer)

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)

Essential Fatty Acids Section

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)

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)

Organization of the article

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)

The first sentence is wrong!!!

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)

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)

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)

Doping page

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)

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)

Changes

I'm rewriting and adding sections to this article. I really feel the quality needs to be improved and the article reads a bit like a pubic health pamphlet rather than an encyclopedia article. I would also like to add referenced sections regarding the boydbuilding industry, its marketing practises and changes in FDA law and public perception that have allowed it to thrive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernaut76 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Marketing practices of the bodybuilding industry would be outside the scope of this article, and might be better suited to it's own article, or as a sub section of the Marketing article. I doubt there will be enough reliable sources for this either way, as Advertising Age and other industry publications rarely, if ever mention supplement marketing; and most sources I've seen on the subject are self published opinion pieces. --Yankees76 ^Talk 15:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

MAGAZINE TAG:

Just thought I'd highlight this as well, I've done a bit of work on the opening paragraph and the history section, but I think the sections on individual supplements need a change in tone to make them sound less like a blog or magazine and more like an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernaut76 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Some good edits there, however adding "There is no scientific consensus in favor of the usefulness of many bodybuilding supplements and little or no evidence for the claims made for others. Some have potentially harmful side-effects" to the lead implies that this is expanded upon later in the article. See WP:LEAD It's not expanded on. Also that particular lead does not factor in all significant viewpoints on that particular area - as numerous studies have been conducted on bodybuilding supplements and/or their primary ingredients. I have no problem with the content being in the article, however the lead of any article serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects. There is no section on or even a mention of the "Efficacy of bodybuilding supplements" throughout the rest of the article - therefore it should not be in the lead of the article. Please also remember to stay on topic, as there is already a Dietary supplement article that fully covers DSHEA. Thanks! --Yankees76 ^Talk 15:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Yankee76 thanks for your feedback. Can't say I agree with you entirely. The bodybuilding supplement phenomenon is primarily a cultural and marketing phenomenon, and only tangentially related to advances in nutritional research and physiology. I don't think a small section here would be out of place. While data may be sparse, I have seen a few peer reviewed nutritional journal articles with information on the subject that would be very suitable. No I will not be sourcing the information from self-published pieces online, so don't worry about that.

Also re: the lead-in "There is no scientific consensus in favor of the usefulness of many bodybuilding supplements and little or no evidence for the claims made for others. Some have potentially harmful side-effects", was not not something I added, I merely added the italicised part. And yes I do plan on expanding on it in subsequent edits - you have to give me more time. Regarding the DSHEA I've added what I thought was relevant and probably won't be saying much more about this here. I think a section on efficacy would be good and plan to re-insert the lead in the summary around the same time that I add that section.

Sounds good, I'm looking forward to seeing the content. I'm planning on taking a Wikibreak for a couple weeks so no rush!--Yankees76 ^Talk 17:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reinserted the supplement truth external link, it appears to be one of the few non-commercial sites with scientific information on bodybuilding supplements, although admittedly there is a certain editorial tone and it would be preferable if this was more 'neutral'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernaut76 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Supplement Truth" doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. It's a low quality site with material of questionable quality (author, Eli Dubochet, can't even spell Synephrine correctly). See WP:LINKSTOAVOID - "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" This site is a personal site written by someone who is not a recognized authority, and who does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. There's no editorial oversight, and after going through some of the reviews, alot of POV and just plain incorrect or incomplete material. It has potential and if Dubochet becomes notable enough to get his own Wikipedia article, I'd say otherwise, but right now that site should not be linked in any article on this encyclopedia. --Yankees76 ^Talk 17:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with your slash and burn approach. Personally I think your energies should be directed more at improving this article, rather than pontificating. Way I see it this entire article reads like a 14 year old went through a muscle magazine and wrote it. Needs a drastic overhaul. Over and out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernaut76 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care what you think my "energies" should be spent doing. Your "energies" should be directed elsewhere if you're unable to collaborate with others without throwing a tantrum when your website gets removed.

Regarding that site, you're entitled to your opinion on it's quality or value as a source for some studies on certain ergogenic aids, however considering a number of other editors have removed this link as well, I stand by my rationale behind removing it. Also, it should be noted that your opinion of the quality of this article has nothing to do with what websites Wikipedia permits external links to. This isn't a link farm, it's an encyclopedia, and not everyone's soapbox gets a link.

So let me summarize: "Supplement Truth" is a personal website/blog, written and maintained by an obvious amateur (not a recognized expert, or a professional in the field of the article's topic), who is not notable or notable enough for his own Wikipedia article, and not a reliable source. Sorry, no external link. End of discussion.--Yankees76 ^Talk 20:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Human Grouth Hormone boosters

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)

Do people still take HMB?

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)

HMB is in the article as a section and refs 32-37. David notMD (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Recently improved to Good Article status. David notMD (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

What about dessicated liver?

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)

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)

Dietary supplement article downgraded from B- to C-class

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)

Sentence and reference removed

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)