S
Superior1
Guest
In this world of either deteriorating health or the desire for muscles and lower body fat, greed has found it's way into the supplement market. We see hyped up advertising for weight loss supplements where you can pop a pill and no need for exercise and a special diet. These have always disgusted me. I even fell for a few early in my training years.
Up until I really grasped what is entailed in an overall training regimen, I found myself quite disappointed when the supplements I was taking didn't build huge muscles that they had advertised. I quickly learned that was hard to do on a 2500 calorie diet, and a poor diet at that. But most newbies and young, inexperienced trainees still think this way. They have the same thoughts for supplements and for gear. They think they are magical when they are not, as we all here know or should know.
The literature and studies backing these claims all sound feasable. But many times the world of science doesn't match up with the pragmatic use/result. Whether this is from these companies using studies done on Llama living in the Himalayans, or by studies on human examples that were less than healthy adults. You really have to read the fine lines of these studies in most cases.
Every so often there comes a supplement that produces positive results for many individuals. Even when you look at the studies they claim, it makes sense they work. But there is usually other studies downplaying, and in some cases flat out denying these claims for practical use in healthy individuals.
Let's take Glutamine for example. Glutamine is the most abundant Amino Acid in skeletal muscle. So it would make common sense to supplement with L-Glutamine in order to saturate and maximize, or even maintain the levels that are required for optimal performance within the muscle building mechanism. The studies seem to be a cut and dry case of why it's effective. Yes many are on burn victims. But in contrast to this, you have the anti-advocates claiming that L-Glutamine has been proven in studies to never make it past the splanchnic bed (intestinal wall). And you know what? They are correct!! Or at least they are partially.
But as in any scientific study, When researchers and scientists set up these studies they set them up in a way to look for a set outcome, a one way or the other hypothesis. This type of 'control' is generally where scientific studies get definitive answers, but it is also where they can miss an important area of practicality. Which in the long run, is all us health conscience and bodybuilders really care about.
Let's look a bit further.
Firstly the anti-glutamine study in red, states the claims that Glutamine is only 'half useful' or at least only half making available to the skeletal muscle.
(*)To study the fate of enterally delivered nonessential amino acids, glutamine and glutamate, 14 healthy adults were infused in the postabsorptive state with [2-15N]glutamine and [15N]glutamate for 7 h by intravenous (iv) and nasogastric (ng) tube routes. The amount of enterally delivered tracer that was sequestered by the splanchnic bed on the first pass was 54 +/- 4 and 88 +/- 2% for the [2-15N]glutamine and [15N]glutamate tracers, respectively. Only 46 and 12% of the ng glutamine and glutamate tracers entered systemic blood, respectively. The relative amount of 15N transferred from glutamate to glutamine, the transaminating amino acids leucine, isoleucine, valine, and alanine, and to proline was significantly higher when the [15N]glutamate was infused by the ng vs. iv route. The same was also true for [2-15N]glutamine, which presumably transferred 15N after it was converted to glutamate. Thus we conclude that the splanchnic bed sequesters over one-half of the glutamine and almost all of the glutamate delivered to it in the postabsorptive state. There is production of transaminating amino acids in the splanchnic bed, and the splanchnic bed produces simultaneously both glutamine from glutamate and glutamate from glutamine.
The above study does state that only half of Glutamine makes it through the splanchic bed. Which is essentially the liver/ gut mechanism, and never makes it to the actual blood stream for delivery to skeletal muscle. So their claims are for the most part valid.
However, it's dependant on what the argument really is. If it's one of "Is glutamine fully absorbed and utilized to a great degree 'directly' by the barrier beyond this splanchic bed, i.e. blood stream/muscle cells" There are in fact studies that suggest that enteral glutamine extraction is for oxidation and that only a minor portion is used for gluconeogenesis. Which gluconeogenesis (essentially the biosynthesis of glucose from non carb sources) the effect that bodybuilders desire.
If this is in fact the argument then there is certainly a valid point to be made for the anti-Glutamine advocates. However there is always two sides to a story. It seems that the anabolic/anti-catabolic benefits doesn't come from Glutamine in a simple singular pathway of consuming it, then it following a direct single pathway and thus breaking down into smaller sub-structures for use by the skeletal tissue. If it was the argument, there could be no debate. But there is a two way street here.
When the intestines is in a state of need it will utilize the skeletal muscle stores of glutamine under normal conditions. I would have to guess that it's the easiest route for the intestine to take since it's sitting there ready to be 'turned over' anyway. However this is IMO dependant on other factors. Mostly relating to nitrogen levels from factors outside of the simple presence of glutamine.
So if Glutamine is ingested via the oral route, during the process it attempts to pass through this liver/gut barrier, It is being utilized by the gut which does infact make great use of the glutamine. The intestines soak up and use glutamine to a great degree. Which I think anyone will agree with. When glutatemine is supplemented, it in turn leaves Skeletal tissue free to hold more easily it's stores of Glutamine, due to the intestines now having available glutamine from the orally ingested side. This aids in saturation of the muscle 'fibers' giving users this fuller look and feel that it realized with supplementation, it's not so much due to the direct biosynthesis but by the sparing effect. It's a point that is hard to argue once that study below is reviewed and one that if looked at on the terms of a simpler one way street would seem easy to argue. But that's not the action taking place here at all. This excerpt below in blue backs this up.
Supplemental L-glutamine's possible immunomodulatory role may be accounted for in a number of ways. L-glutamine appears to play a major role in protecting the integrity of the gastrointestinal tract and, in particular, the large intestine. During catabolic states, the integrity of the intestinal mucosa may be compromised with consequent increased intestinal permeability and translocation of Gram-negative bacteria from the large intestine into the body. The demand for L-glutamine by the intestine, as well as by cells such as lymphocytes, appears to be much greater than that supplied by skeletal muscle, the major storage tissue for L-glutamine. L-glutamine is the preferred respiratory fuel for enterocytes, colonocytes and lymphocytes. Therefore, supplying supplemental L-glutamine under these conditions may do a number of things. For one, it may reverse the catabolic state by sparing skeletal muscle L-glutamine. It also may inhibit translocation of Gram-negative bacteria from the large intestine. L-glutamine helps maintain secretory IgA, which functions primarily by preventing the attachment of bacteria to mucosal cells.
It would be correct to say that the "glut isn't getting past the gut" According to the above theory, it says it doesn't have too. It is taking the task of what the skeletal muscle would have to take on if supplemental forms of glutamine either via oral, tube feed or IV were not readily available.
There is obviously stores of glutamine being stored beyond this barrier that some claim can't be passed through with oral glutamine. And the reason that glutamine is typically used via IV is because the intestines and muscle can use it via this route easier. But it can also use it via the oral route but only by sparing the glutamine already hanging out on the systemic blood/skeletal muscle side.
But all of the above pretty much says it doesn't really matter. That is if we are talking about "Does glutamine really have anabolic/anti-catabolic properties in an orally ingested form" Which I think is all us muscle heads really care about.... But if we are going to touch on the point that glut doesn't easily pass through the gut then I abate my point. Because it's irrelevant to our primary cause of enhancing the appearance and potential for growth of the muscle tissue, since a direct action on muscle is not the mechanism that makes glutamine effective for us.
REFERENCES:
(*) Am J Physiol. 1993 Jun;264(6 Pt 1):E848-54.
Up until I really grasped what is entailed in an overall training regimen, I found myself quite disappointed when the supplements I was taking didn't build huge muscles that they had advertised. I quickly learned that was hard to do on a 2500 calorie diet, and a poor diet at that. But most newbies and young, inexperienced trainees still think this way. They have the same thoughts for supplements and for gear. They think they are magical when they are not, as we all here know or should know.
The literature and studies backing these claims all sound feasable. But many times the world of science doesn't match up with the pragmatic use/result. Whether this is from these companies using studies done on Llama living in the Himalayans, or by studies on human examples that were less than healthy adults. You really have to read the fine lines of these studies in most cases.
Every so often there comes a supplement that produces positive results for many individuals. Even when you look at the studies they claim, it makes sense they work. But there is usually other studies downplaying, and in some cases flat out denying these claims for practical use in healthy individuals.
Let's take Glutamine for example. Glutamine is the most abundant Amino Acid in skeletal muscle. So it would make common sense to supplement with L-Glutamine in order to saturate and maximize, or even maintain the levels that are required for optimal performance within the muscle building mechanism. The studies seem to be a cut and dry case of why it's effective. Yes many are on burn victims. But in contrast to this, you have the anti-advocates claiming that L-Glutamine has been proven in studies to never make it past the splanchnic bed (intestinal wall). And you know what? They are correct!! Or at least they are partially.
But as in any scientific study, When researchers and scientists set up these studies they set them up in a way to look for a set outcome, a one way or the other hypothesis. This type of 'control' is generally where scientific studies get definitive answers, but it is also where they can miss an important area of practicality. Which in the long run, is all us health conscience and bodybuilders really care about.
Let's look a bit further.
Firstly the anti-glutamine study in red, states the claims that Glutamine is only 'half useful' or at least only half making available to the skeletal muscle.
(*)To study the fate of enterally delivered nonessential amino acids, glutamine and glutamate, 14 healthy adults were infused in the postabsorptive state with [2-15N]glutamine and [15N]glutamate for 7 h by intravenous (iv) and nasogastric (ng) tube routes. The amount of enterally delivered tracer that was sequestered by the splanchnic bed on the first pass was 54 +/- 4 and 88 +/- 2% for the [2-15N]glutamine and [15N]glutamate tracers, respectively. Only 46 and 12% of the ng glutamine and glutamate tracers entered systemic blood, respectively. The relative amount of 15N transferred from glutamate to glutamine, the transaminating amino acids leucine, isoleucine, valine, and alanine, and to proline was significantly higher when the [15N]glutamate was infused by the ng vs. iv route. The same was also true for [2-15N]glutamine, which presumably transferred 15N after it was converted to glutamate. Thus we conclude that the splanchnic bed sequesters over one-half of the glutamine and almost all of the glutamate delivered to it in the postabsorptive state. There is production of transaminating amino acids in the splanchnic bed, and the splanchnic bed produces simultaneously both glutamine from glutamate and glutamate from glutamine.
The above study does state that only half of Glutamine makes it through the splanchic bed. Which is essentially the liver/ gut mechanism, and never makes it to the actual blood stream for delivery to skeletal muscle. So their claims are for the most part valid.
However, it's dependant on what the argument really is. If it's one of "Is glutamine fully absorbed and utilized to a great degree 'directly' by the barrier beyond this splanchic bed, i.e. blood stream/muscle cells" There are in fact studies that suggest that enteral glutamine extraction is for oxidation and that only a minor portion is used for gluconeogenesis. Which gluconeogenesis (essentially the biosynthesis of glucose from non carb sources) the effect that bodybuilders desire.
If this is in fact the argument then there is certainly a valid point to be made for the anti-Glutamine advocates. However there is always two sides to a story. It seems that the anabolic/anti-catabolic benefits doesn't come from Glutamine in a simple singular pathway of consuming it, then it following a direct single pathway and thus breaking down into smaller sub-structures for use by the skeletal tissue. If it was the argument, there could be no debate. But there is a two way street here.
When the intestines is in a state of need it will utilize the skeletal muscle stores of glutamine under normal conditions. I would have to guess that it's the easiest route for the intestine to take since it's sitting there ready to be 'turned over' anyway. However this is IMO dependant on other factors. Mostly relating to nitrogen levels from factors outside of the simple presence of glutamine.
So if Glutamine is ingested via the oral route, during the process it attempts to pass through this liver/gut barrier, It is being utilized by the gut which does infact make great use of the glutamine. The intestines soak up and use glutamine to a great degree. Which I think anyone will agree with. When glutatemine is supplemented, it in turn leaves Skeletal tissue free to hold more easily it's stores of Glutamine, due to the intestines now having available glutamine from the orally ingested side. This aids in saturation of the muscle 'fibers' giving users this fuller look and feel that it realized with supplementation, it's not so much due to the direct biosynthesis but by the sparing effect. It's a point that is hard to argue once that study below is reviewed and one that if looked at on the terms of a simpler one way street would seem easy to argue. But that's not the action taking place here at all. This excerpt below in blue backs this up.
Supplemental L-glutamine's possible immunomodulatory role may be accounted for in a number of ways. L-glutamine appears to play a major role in protecting the integrity of the gastrointestinal tract and, in particular, the large intestine. During catabolic states, the integrity of the intestinal mucosa may be compromised with consequent increased intestinal permeability and translocation of Gram-negative bacteria from the large intestine into the body. The demand for L-glutamine by the intestine, as well as by cells such as lymphocytes, appears to be much greater than that supplied by skeletal muscle, the major storage tissue for L-glutamine. L-glutamine is the preferred respiratory fuel for enterocytes, colonocytes and lymphocytes. Therefore, supplying supplemental L-glutamine under these conditions may do a number of things. For one, it may reverse the catabolic state by sparing skeletal muscle L-glutamine. It also may inhibit translocation of Gram-negative bacteria from the large intestine. L-glutamine helps maintain secretory IgA, which functions primarily by preventing the attachment of bacteria to mucosal cells.
It would be correct to say that the "glut isn't getting past the gut" According to the above theory, it says it doesn't have too. It is taking the task of what the skeletal muscle would have to take on if supplemental forms of glutamine either via oral, tube feed or IV were not readily available.
There is obviously stores of glutamine being stored beyond this barrier that some claim can't be passed through with oral glutamine. And the reason that glutamine is typically used via IV is because the intestines and muscle can use it via this route easier. But it can also use it via the oral route but only by sparing the glutamine already hanging out on the systemic blood/skeletal muscle side.
But all of the above pretty much says it doesn't really matter. That is if we are talking about "Does glutamine really have anabolic/anti-catabolic properties in an orally ingested form" Which I think is all us muscle heads really care about.... But if we are going to touch on the point that glut doesn't easily pass through the gut then I abate my point. Because it's irrelevant to our primary cause of enhancing the appearance and potential for growth of the muscle tissue, since a direct action on muscle is not the mechanism that makes glutamine effective for us.
REFERENCES:
(*) Am J Physiol. 1993 Jun;264(6 Pt 1):E848-54.
