HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Nazarov: 99% of enforcers use steroids

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-27-2006, 09:54 AM
  #101
brazidee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Country: United States
Posts: 253
vCash: 500
If the NHL or any other sport (baseball, etc.) was serious about stopping this, they would require that all contracts include a clause saying that if the athlete tests positive they will be forced to repay their last year's salary and be banned for life from the league. That would raise the penalty bar high enough to deter the unwanted behavior. As things stand today the rewards are still too high and the penalties to small to stop pro athletes from turning to performance enhancing drugs. Right now their options are play dirty and get a potential multi-million dollar contract with the slight chance of getting caught and not playing again or play clean with the chance of not making the NHL and only getting $50K per year. Many players are motivated by the almighty dollar and if any sport is serious, they need to go after what is motivating the players to stop the behavior.


Last edited by brazidee: 07-27-2006 at 10:08 AM. Reason: z
brazidee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2006, 10:30 AM
  #102
cbjgirl
Just thinking
 
cbjgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: about last summer.
Country: United States
Posts: 3,227
vCash: 500
Chelios, Pucknut, and Pepper...

All three of you seem to know something about steroids, etc. However, there appears to be some disagreement about what steroids actually do.

For those of us that are science minded, have no personal experience in the field, and actually are interested in how it works, could you post some links to some reputable websites.

Thanks.

cbjgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2006, 03:29 PM
  #103
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Again, it's completely obvious to everyone that you have ZERO experience with weight & muscle training.

One of the most important things creatine gives you is the improved recovery rate.

Look it up.

The fact that you have zero clue about the effects of creatine makes me wonder if your story about studying the subject is complete bogus.
Wow. Talk about denial. Do you even know what creatine is? I`m not going to get into the biochemical processes that occur when you take creatine because this is simply not the place. If you want to know how it works and what it does PM me and I will tell you. Otherwise just admit you are over your head and give up.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2006, 03:37 PM
  #104
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbjgirl View Post
Chelios, Pucknut, and Pepper...

All three of you seem to know something about steroids, etc. However, there appears to be some disagreement about what steroids actually do.

For those of us that are science minded, have no personal experience in the field, and actually are interested in how it works, could you post some links to some reputable websites.

Thanks.

I am going mainly by what I have learned in lectures, textbooks and our own university websites (which I think you need to be a student to use). The best place to read about these types of things are through academic Journals (two good ones are the International Journal of Sport Physiology and performance and the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism) . If you can`t get your hands on any, then try finding university websites on the subject. Whatever you do don`t go to supplement company websites for information.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2006, 06:00 AM
  #105
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Wow. Talk about denial. Do you even know what creatine is? I`m not going to get into the biochemical processes that occur when you take creatine because this is simply not the place. If you want to know how it works and what it does PM me and I will tell you. Otherwise just admit you are over your head and give up.


For the love of god, how much you want to embarass yourself here?

Here's a link:

http://www.theministryoffitness.com/...y/faq/faq1.htm

Research shows Creatine to be effective in improving training intensity and recovery.

Does this mean I will be able to lift more or run faster? Indirectly, YES! Directly, POSSIBLY! Creatine does not make YOU stronger or faster, YOU make YOU faster or stronger. Creatine allows you to train at a higher intensity level and to recover faster.

Maybe you could now admit that you have been sleeping during your classes and that you have zero knowledge of muscle training?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2006, 06:31 AM
  #106
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post


For the love of god, how much you want to embarass yourself here?

Here's a link:

http://www.theministryoffitness.com/...y/faq/faq1.htm

Research shows Creatine to be effective in improving training intensity and recovery.

Does this mean I will be able to lift more or run faster? Indirectly, YES! Directly, POSSIBLY! Creatine does not make YOU stronger or faster, YOU make YOU faster or stronger. Creatine allows you to train at a higher intensity level and to recover faster.

Maybe you could now admit that you have been sleeping during your classes and that you have zero knowledge of muscle training?

This is a bodybuilding website, not a scientific one.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2006, 06:42 AM
  #107
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,522
vCash: 500
I`m literally just out the door on the way to work, but here is one quote from Dr. William O. Roberts at the University of Minnesota :

"Creatine is a protein molecule that is stored in muscle. It provides a fast and simple means of generating the phosphocreatine (ATP) energy supply for muscle contraction. For activities lasting 10 seconds or less, ATP is the energy source for the muscle. It has been shown that muscular fatigue is related to phosphocreatine depletion in muscle, and that creatine supplementation can enhance the levels of both creatine and phosphocreatine in skeletal muscle ...

Muscle creatine is used to regenerate the energy source in the muscle for short burst activities generally lasting less then 10 seconds. Knowing that increasing muscle creatine can increase the available energy for short bursts of intense activity, it would be reasonable to assume and research has shown that it benefits athletes in weightlifting, gymnastics, football, hockey, field events and sprinting"

http://scn1301.babson.edu/Creatine%20and%20Athletes.doc

That is how it works Pepper. Creatine and phosphocreatine have nothing to do with recovery.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2006, 06:46 AM
  #108
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
This is a bodybuilding website, not a scientific one.
So bodybuilding is not based on science??

Just give it up man, you keep quoting your theoretical course material but you have zero knowledge of the practical uses of creatine in bodybuilding.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2006, 06:54 AM
  #109
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
That is how it works Pepper. Creatine and phosphocreatine have nothing to do with recovery.
Seriously, just give it up. You have dug yourself in a deep hole and you just keep digging it further. Here's one 'scientific' article for you:

Depending on your level of training and experience,
you can actually start feeling the benefits of research grade
creatine the very first day, including better quality workouts and
recovery
.


By Daniel Gastelu, M.S., MFS, Director of Nutritional Sciences of the
International Sports Sciences Association (ISSA), author, trainer of
fitness trainers, and sports nutrition and dietary supplement
industry expert.


http://www.trulyhuge.com/news/tips63jc.htm

And remember YOUR claim:

Creatine and phosphocreatine have nothing to do with recovery

So it's safe to say that your claim is utter & total BS and factually proven wrong. Case closed.

EDIT: few more links & quotes:

http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/...-creatine.html
Alfredo Franco-Obregon PhD, Proffessor, Switzerland
Creatine not only helps sustain a high-intensity burst for longer, it speeds recovery enabling you to repeat those bursts sooner.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodybuilding_supplement
A number of scientific studies have proven that creatine can increase strength [1], energy [2], and muscle mass in addition to reducing recovery time

http://www.pponline.co.uk/catalog/pr...roducts_id=243
Creatine not only helps sustain a high-intensity burst for longer, it speeds recovery enabling you to repeat those bursts sooner.


Last edited by Pepper: 07-28-2006 at 07:05 AM.
Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2006, 11:08 PM
  #110
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Seriously, just give it up. You have dug yourself in a deep hole and you just keep digging it further. Here's one 'scientific' article for you:

Depending on your level of training and experience,
you can actually start feeling the benefits of research grade
creatine the very first day, including better quality workouts and
recovery
.


By Daniel Gastelu, M.S., MFS, Director of Nutritional Sciences of the
International Sports Sciences Association (ISSA), author, trainer of
fitness trainers, and sports nutrition and dietary supplement
industry expert.


http://www.trulyhuge.com/news/tips63jc.htm

And remember YOUR claim:

Creatine and phosphocreatine have nothing to do with recovery

So it's safe to say that your claim is utter & total BS and factually proven wrong. Case closed.

EDIT: few more links & quotes:

http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/...-creatine.html
Alfredo Franco-Obregon PhD, Proffessor, Switzerland
Creatine not only helps sustain a high-intensity burst for longer, it speeds recovery enabling you to repeat those bursts sooner.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodybuilding_supplement
A number of scientific studies have proven that creatine can increase strength [1], energy [2], and muscle mass in addition to reducing recovery time

http://www.pponline.co.uk/catalog/pr...roducts_id=243
Creatine not only helps sustain a high-intensity burst for longer, it speeds recovery enabling you to repeat those bursts sooner.

Did you not think I would read the links you provided? Let me begin by saying that yes, bodybuilding is based on science. Unfortunately, if you want to back up your claims as to what creatine does, bodybuilding sites are not exactly proof. Lets take a look at the first link you provided (which comes from "Trulyhuge.com", which we all know is a power house in the area of supplement research). In this 2000 word essay by an "expert", he mentions recovery a grand total of.... 1 time. Wow, this must be true. This also comes from the same article:

"These and other top sports scientists reviewed creatine
and concluded the following about the effectiveness of creatine:
- Promotes greater gains in increasing FFM (Fat Free Mass, which
includes muscle mass).
- Increases muscle fiber size; hypertrophy.
- Increases muscle mass.
- Increases myosin.
- Improves maximal strength.
- Improves maximal power.
- Improves single-effort sprint performance.
- Improves worked performed during repetitive sprint performance.
- Improving performance during exercise of high to maximal
intensity."

Funny, not a mention of recovery anywhere. And yet Pepper, who is an expert, had this to say about creatine:

Quote:
Creatine is used to allow better recovery from training
Not a mention of any of the conclusions about creatine`s effectiveness listed above. If you really did know anything about creatine you think you would have at least mentioned one of the 9 conclusions reached by the the experts in the article that you provided.

One down, 3 to go. Now to the second article provided by Pepper. Again another short essay with another fleeting mention about recovery. According to the same article the three ways creatine bursts performance are:
"1. Providing an instant source of energy

2. Mopping up some of the fatigue-causing acid that builds up during high-intensity exercise

3. Directly stimulating muscle proteins to contract"

No mention of recovery.

Third article. Honestly wikipedia Pepper? Your using wikipedia to back up your arguments? Lets just skip that one, for your sake.

Final article... I honestly laughed out loud when I read this Pepper. It is the exact same crappy article as the second link you provided. Come on Pepper, you didn`t actually read these links did you? Or did you just put "recovery" and "creatine" in google and post anything that popped up. Something tells me it was the latter.

Look Pepper, I have had enough of embarassing you, although I would be lying if I said I didn`t enjoy it a little. I do have a degree in this area and I read scientific journals in this area regularly. I have not come across any scientific evidence that found creatine significantly helps recovery. If you want to go find a scientific study that proves otherwise, go right ahead, I freely admit that I have not read all the studies on the subject (though I have read enough to know what the major benefits of creatine are, and to know that recovery is not one of them). But if you want to prove me wrong wikipedia and body building sites aren`t going to cut it.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2006, 11:57 PM
  #111
Flyers12FROM21*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Millville, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 105
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Flyers12FROM21* Send a message via MSN to Flyers12FROM21*
ok...look...

Every sport usues some kind of performance enhancing drug

The NHL isnt in the spotlight because it's not as popular.

The guy who is 2nd all time on the HR list uses em'...ITS A DRUG SCANDAL

Football players using them, im surprised there isnt more

NHL players, no one cares if they use it...Nazarov is just trying to some plublicity because, since he's the 'first' to come out and say it, then he must write a book on it

sure they use it, but to the extent that they break records, no, thats probally the main reason

Flyers12FROM21* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2006, 12:31 AM
  #112
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
He doesn't have to prove anything. Pay attention to words "believes" and "up to".
He absolutely does have to backup his claim. Without any substantial evidence, his claim means nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
He can't be proven wrong and he can't prove himself right because NHL doesn't allow him to test the players.
Who says the NHL has to allow Pound to run their anti-doping program? The NHL is its own league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
If NHL is so gung-ho about Pound being wrong, why don't they allow him to make say 3 random tests to each player during off and on-season? If NHL is so sure about Pound being wrong, they shouldn't have any problem doing this right?
Because Pound made the claim. Why should the NHL trouble themselves with it when Dick Pound brings nothing to the table but blind words?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
You're so god damn naive Van. When you get older you'll see things more clearly.
Screw off. I'm a grown man and I earn my own living.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
So?? That changes absolutely nothing.
When it is prescribed by a doctor, it means Theodore has a legitimate reason to use it. That test result was not even supposed to be made public.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
lmao, a bitter guy who has made millions in the NHL??

sorry but that's just plain ridiculous.
Why do some think money means everything to some players? First of all, Nazarov never made more than roughly $600k per season. Secondly, rich man or not, if how he plays the game has him unwanted where he wants to play, he will be pissed off.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Steroid problem doesn't affect the role of an enforcer in anyway, you're just using this to support your anti-enforcers crusade.
You misunderstand. The nature of the game today (less hooking, holding and fighting, more speed and scoring) has less room for enforcers. If it's mainly enforcers who may have taken steroids, it's not a problem that is bound to grow.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Again, pure ignorant speculation from your part. More stamina - longer shifts - more icetime - more chances to bury the puck. More strength - harder shots.
More stamina - possibly.
Longer shifts and more icetime - that's a coaching decision, not a steroid factor.
More chances - that's a skill issue, not a steroids issue.
Harder shots - still gotta be accurate.

I will also argue that if a guy like Wayne Gretzky would have been on steroids, his career would have likely lasted around 10 years instead of 20 years. His body would have broken down way before he retired when he did. Look at Barry Bonds now. Other than the odd homerun, he's useless.

BCCHL inactive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2006, 03:36 AM
  #113
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
He absolutely does have to backup his claim. Without any substantial evidence, his claim means nothing.
He doesn't have to back up anything, especially not when NHL doesn't allow him to prove his claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
Who says the NHL has to allow Pound to run their anti-doping program? The NHL is its own league.
Who says Pound has to run the anti-doping system? Get an independent 3rd party testers to test the players randomly like 3 times during off-season and during the season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
Because Pound made the claim. Why should the NHL trouble themselves with it when Dick Pound brings nothing to the table but blind words?
And NHL made the claim Pound is wrong - when is NHL going to back up their words?? [/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
When it is prescribed by a doctor, it means Theodore has a legitimate reason to use it. That test result was not even supposed to be made public.
Jesus you're naive - just because doctor prescribes something doesn't mean it makes it legal to use it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
Why do some think money means everything to some players? First of all, Nazarov never made more than roughly $600k per season. Secondly, rich man or not, if how he plays the game has him unwanted where he wants to play, he will be pissed off.
So he burns every chance to play in the league again just because he's bitter about not getting a contract this year?? Yeah right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
You misunderstand. The nature of the game today (less hooking, holding and fighting, more speed and scoring) has less room for enforcers. If it's mainly enforcers who may have taken steroids, it's not a problem that is bound to grow.
No - YOU misunderstand it. The role of enforcers has not changed any way, the requirements for the job are just much higher meaning less current enforcers qualify. Those enforcers who are good skaters have even more value than before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
More stamina - possibly.
Longer shifts and more icetime - that's a coaching decision, not a steroid factor.
More chances - that's a skill issue, not a steroids issue.
Harder shots - still gotta be accurate.
If Gretzky could play 60mins every game, he would have done that. So the longer he can play, the more icetime he's going to get. More icetime -> more chances -> more goals.

Strength doesn't affect accuracy. I don't believe you're even trying to argue this that stereoids wouldn't have made any difference with Gretzky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
I will also argue that if a guy like Wayne Gretzky would have been on steroids, his career would have likely lasted around 10 years instead of 20 years. His body would have broken down way before he retired when he did. Look at Barry Bonds now. Other than the odd homerun, he's useless.
That's only speculation, nobody said you have to do as much stereoids as Bonds did.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2006, 04:00 AM
  #114
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Look Pepper, I have had enough of embarassing you, although I would be lying if I said I didn`t enjoy it a little. I do have a degree in this area and I read scientific journals in this area regularly.
Sorry dude, I think it's painfully obvious to everyone in this thread that you were caught out not knowing the practical uses of creatine. You may quote your theoretical course material as much as you want but as my links proved (there were professors, Ph.Ds etc as the sources in those) creatine DOES affect recovery as well. You fail to understand the basics of muscle growth (musclefibers are damaged in training and then they repair themselves in rest, creatine allows the fibers to repair themselves faster thus helping recovery AND muscle growth)

Here's how creatine works:

Also, research has shown that creatine increases the activity of myogenic cells. These cells, sometimes called satellite cells, are myogenic stem cells that make hypertrophy of adult skeletal muscle possible. These stem cells are simply generic or non-specific cells that have the ability to transform themselves into new muscle cells when they are instructed to. Following proliferation (reproduction) and subsequent differentiation (to become a specific type of cell), these satellite cells will fuse with one another or with the adjacent damaged muscle fiber, thereby increasing myonuclei numbers necessary for fiber growth and repair.

So why don't you just admit that you weren't aware of all effects of creatine and we can stop this right now?

But hey, if you want to continue this, please give me a link to a credible article which states creatine DOES NOT affect recovery. The burden of proof is on you now, there so many sources that support my claim that you have to prove them wrong. And NO, the number of times the word 'recovery' is mentioned is not enough.

So in short, give me a link that proves that creatine doesn't affect recovery.

EDIT: Good link how creatine and muscle recovery works. Read it and maybe you'll learn something new.

http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pub.../ch10_5_2.html

EDIT2: Here's a great link for you, this will make you weep:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...ournalCode=tjp
All training regimes were found to increase the proportion of satellite cells, but significantly greater enhancements were observed with creatine supplementation at week 4 (compared to STR-CON) and at week 8 (compared to STR-PRO and STR-CON) (P< 0.01–0.05).


Last edited by Pepper: 07-29-2006 at 04:28 AM.
Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2006, 04:33 AM
  #115
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
He doesn't have to back up anything, especially not when NHL doesn't allow him to prove his claims.
How is the NHL "not allowing" Dick Pound to back himself up? We're still waiting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Who says Pound has to run the anti-doping system? Get an independent 3rd party testers to test the players randomly like 3 times during off-season and during the season.
Like I've said, NHL players are not amateurs. They are professionals playing in an independent league. Off-season testing is ridiculous. These guys have families and take vacations just like you and me. I know I would be pissed off having the league I play for dictating my off-season whereabouts. Like them or not, there is a reason that NHL players have a union.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
And NHL made the claim Pound is wrong - when is NHL going to back up their words??
Why should they? They didn't take the first shot. The NHL will treat Dick Pound's claim seriously when Dick Pound makes an actual effort to back himself up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Jesus you're naive - just because doctor prescribes something doesn't mean it makes it legal to use it.
Actually, it does. Again, that test result was not supposed to be public knowledge.


Until Dick Pound can back himself up, he can **** off. The NHL isn't the only target of Dick Pound's baseless claims. Just ask Lance Armstrong.

BCCHL inactive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2006, 04:52 AM
  #116
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
How is the NHL "not allowing" Dick Pound to back himself up? We're still waiting.
NHL doesn't allow any credible organisation to properly test the players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
Like I've said, NHL players are not amateurs. They are professionals playing in an independent league. Off-season testing is ridiculous. These guys have families and take vacations just like you and me. I know I would be pissed off having the league I play for dictating my off-season whereabouts. Like them or not, there is a reason that NHL players have a union.
lol, funny how major soccer leagues allow WADA testing.

WADA doesn't dictate your off-season whereabouts, get your facts straight. The testers come to you, they don't force you to fly anywhere to make the test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
Why should they? They didn't take the first shot. The NHL will treat Dick Pound's claim seriously when Dick Pound makes an actual effort to back himself up.
He has made the effort but NHL keeps rejecting it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
Actually, it does. Again, that test result was not supposed to be public knowledge.
Huh?? All failed doping tests come to public. Why wasn't it supposed to become public?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Van View Post
Until Dick Pound can back himself up, he can **** off. The NHL isn't the only target of Dick Pound's baseless claims. Just ask Lance Armstrong.


Just because Armstrong didn't get caught doesn't mean he has been clean.

Greg Lemond: "Everybody says that. But neither had David Millar tested positive and he now admits he took EPO," LeMond told Le Monde daily.

Sure, innocent until proven guilty. There are huge question marks over Armstrong though.

There are numerous examples of succesfull athletes who were never caught in testing but got caught in some other way (BALCO for example).

Btw, how ironic is that the only 2 doping cases in NHL were found in WADA-testing when NHL tests didn't find anything? Open your eyes VAn.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2006, 10:24 AM
  #117
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Sorry dude, I think it's painfully obvious to everyone in this thread that you were caught out not knowing the practical uses of creatine. You may quote your theoretical course material as much as you want but as my links proved (there were professors, Ph.Ds etc as the sources in those) creatine DOES affect recovery as well. You fail to understand the basics of muscle growth (musclefibers are damaged in training and then they repair themselves in rest, creatine allows the fibers to repair themselves faster thus helping recovery AND muscle growth)
Wow, you really just don`t give up. I think its painfully obvious to everyone reading this that you are nothing more than a gym rat who readily believes everything he hears and reads with respect to supplements without any scientific backing (but I must admit, you are very good at googling crappy references for yourself). And, no, actually there were no Ph.D.s, and no professors in the links provided. Judging from the last few exchanges we have had, I now know for a fact that I know the basics of muscle growth much much better than you (the offer is still out there for the free tutorial, just PM me).

Quote:
Here's how creatine works:

Also, research has shown that creatine increases the activity of myogenic cells. These cells, sometimes called satellite cells, are myogenic stem cells that make hypertrophy of adult skeletal muscle possible. These stem cells are simply generic or non-specific cells that have the ability to transform themselves into new muscle cells when they are instructed to. Following proliferation (reproduction) and subsequent differentiation (to become a specific type of cell), these satellite cells will fuse with one another or with the adjacent damaged muscle fiber, thereby increasing myonuclei numbers necessary for fiber growth and repair.

So why don't you just admit that you weren't aware of all effects of creatine and we can stop this right now?
It would be nice to provide a link Pepper so I can at least see the context in which this quote was written, but at least now I see a bit of your logic, but the fact remains that the link between creatine and muscle recovery is at best indirect. Satellite cells or myogenic cells are activated by muscle injury, not directly by creatine. Because of all the things I have already discussed, creatine will lead to harder more intense workouts which will then lead to more muscle damage. This increase in muscle damage will increase satellite cell activation, so indirectly creatine does affect the activity of satellite cells. Unfortunately for you Pepper, the increase in satellite cell activation simlply counteracts the increase in muscle damage, it does not actually improve rate of recovery. Sorry buddy.

Quote:
But hey, if you want to continue this, please give me a link to a credible article which states creatine DOES NOT affect recovery. The burden of proof is on you now, there so many sources that support my claim that you have to prove them wrong. And NO, the number of times the word 'recovery' is mentioned is not enough.

So in short, give me a link that proves that creatine doesn't affect recovery.
Taking a page out of Dick Pound`s book are we Pepper? This whole argument began when you said that creatine was used mainly to help with recovery, which is a load of crap. I corrected you and explained how/why creatine works, something which was said first and foremost in every single link you provided, and its up to me to show proof that recovery isn`t affected? What a load of crap. You show me a credible scientific study that shows recovery significantly increases due to creatine because, just like Dick Pound (back me up her Van), the onus is on you to show proof. Oh, and yeah the number of times recovery appears is a pretty good indication of how insignificant this topic is when it comes to creatine. Its pretty hard to talk about recovery of muscles without saying the word "recovery", and when it only appears once in a long article even you have to admit it can`t be very important.

Quote:
EDIT: Good link how creatine and muscle recovery works. Read it and maybe you'll learn something new.

http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pub.../ch10_5_2.html
My dear god Pepper, if you want to have an intelligent argument you are going to have to start reading the sites you put up as proof. I actually agree with you, this is a pretty good site about creatine and muscle recovery, unfortunately for you it says absolutely nothing about how creatine affects recovery

Quote:
EDIT2: Here's a great link for you, this will make you weep:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...ournalCode=tjp
All training regimes were found to increase the proportion of satellite cells, but significantly greater enhancements were observed with creatine supplementation at week 4 (compared to STR-CON) and at week 8 (compared to STR-PRO and STR-CON) (P< 0.010.05).
Why don`t we continute that exact same quite Pepper?:

...At week 16, satellite cell number was no longer elevated in STR-CRE, while it remained elevated in STR-PRO and STR-CON

See my response to the first quote, this seems to simply further my point. All training increases satellite cell number, the results of this study simply reitterate that point. The higher elevation in the creatine group in the early weeks simply reflects the fact that creatine works extremely well early and leads to more muscle damage.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2006, 10:31 AM
  #118
DentonFreeman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 776
vCash: 500
Not to get in between the baby fight going on here, but aren't certain forms of creatine (if not all of it) an NHL approved substance? A friend of mine's dad works for a pharmaceutical company and has been talking about how creatine isn't banned in most professional sports.

I don't feel like reading through all the clutter to look for a certain link so if there's a link to the NHL banned substances list that'd be appreciated.

DentonFreeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2006, 12:23 PM
  #119
SammyTheBull
Registered User
 
SammyTheBull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Well, this post makes me feel a little better knowing that you really don`t know as much as you pretend to on the subject of supplements. Creatine has nothing to do with the recovery from training. Creatine increases the Creatine Phosphate system, which basically delays the production of lactic acid allowing you to lift more before your muscles become exhausted. The added work will lead to more muscle gains. Nothing to do with recovery. I guess the authors, that you seem to know so well, failed to explain how creatine works.
Google is your friend.


SammyTheBull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2006, 11:10 AM
  #120
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Chelios, remember your claim "Creatine and phosphocreatine have nothing to do with recovery"

That is 100% utter BS proved by every single source I've posted here.

Creatine allows the musclefibers to repair them faster - which is means faster recovery.

I've shown you numerous links to both bodybuilding & scientific sources which say the same. Now I ask you to show a source which says creatine doesn't affect recovery.

Your method of argumenting is counting the number of times the word 'recovery' is mentioned and I really don't bother with arguments like that.

Satellite cells or myogenic cells are activated by muscle injury, not directly by creatine.

And I never claimed that either. When musclefiber is damaged in training, creatine allows the fibers to repair faster. That means faster recovery. If you argue this is not the case, then we can stop this right now because it's an exercise of futility.

So let's remember your original claim:

Creatine and phosphocreatine have nothing to do with recovery

Do you still claim that or not?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2006, 12:24 PM
  #121
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Chelios, remember your claim "Creatine and phosphocreatine have nothing to do with recovery"

That is 100% utter BS proved by every single source I've posted here.

Creatine allows the musclefibers to repair them faster - which is means faster recovery.

I've shown you numerous links to both bodybuilding & scientific sources which say the same. Now I ask you to show a source which says creatine doesn't affect recovery.
You have not produced one shred of scientific information that says that creatine improves recovery and until you do I don`t have to show anything. The closest thing you found was a study that found creatine increases the amount of satellite cells. This does not prove that creatine affects recovery (which is why the authers never mentioned anything about recovery in their abstract). Again, creatine allows for more intense workouts, more intense workouts lead to more muscle damage, and more muscle damage activate more satellite cells. This does not improve recovery because, even though you have activated more satellite cells, you have also destroyed more muscle, so the two balance eachother out and recovery time is not affected. One of the reasons I am so confident about what creatine does and does not do, is that I know exactly what it does at a biochemical level to affect the muscle cells. If you know wo much about muscle physiology, please explain to me how creatine can possibly aid in recovery (which is something that no site you provided has done).

Quote:
Your method of argumenting is counting the number of times the word 'recovery' is mentioned and I really don't bother with arguments like that.
Its pretty simple. When a long article specifically on creatine only mentions recovery once (without saying how it affects it or backing it up with any scientific research) it doesn`t exactly prove your point does it?

Quote:
Satellite cells or myogenic cells are activated by muscle injury, not directly by creatine.

And I never claimed that either.
Pepper you are in over your head. Look in an excercise physiology tect book and it will tell you that satellite cells are activated by muscle injury. Its really pretty basic.

Quote:
When musclefiber is damaged in training, creatine allows the fibers to repair faster. That means faster recovery. If you argue this is not the case, then we can stop this right now because it's an exercise of futility.
You can say this all day Pepper, but without any scientific proof, or even any process by which this would actually occur it means about as much as me saying creatine will make you lose your hair. Again, there is simply no way that I could actually see creatine having any affect on recovery from a physiological point of view. But go ahead and try to prove me wrong if you`d like.

Quote:
So let's remember your original claim:

Creatine and phosphocreatine have nothing to do with recovery

Do you still claim that or not?

Yes I still claim that.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2006, 01:46 PM
  #122
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Scientific studies:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psycho...Supplement.htm
The increased levels of creatine allowed for a faster recovery time for the muscles and in turn more endurance

http://wwwchem.csustan.edu/chem4400/...0sangalang.htm
The assumption of a reduced dependency on anaerobic glycolysis concurs with a study that found creatine supplementation may reduce recovery time due to the shorter amount of anaerobic glycolysis (Silverman, 1997).

But we agree to disagree, I have seen zero evidence that suggest that creatine doesn't help recovery and your claim that creatine doesn't have ANYTHING to do with recovery is wrong IMHO.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.