NO2 fucking works!!

[WalkingBeast]

Thanks WB

Anytime brother!!

 

[d3track]

I ordered some of the nighttime diarginine malate from Legal Gear. AAKG is outdated as there is a new chemical that supposedly works 2:1. If anafit would come out with something I wouldn't have to experiment

citrum malate?

or however its spelled
i like just buying bulk AAKG
i just felt that i had more blood flow, ready to hit the weights

supposedly combining the two is supposed to be pretty good

 

[gjohnson5]

citrum malate?

or however its spelled
i like just buying bulk AAKG
i just felt that i had more blood flow, ready to hit the weights

supposedly combining the two is supposed to be pretty good

Yeah you read my creatine ethyl ester thread. I was going to combine that with this nighttime formula for legal gear
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/legal/pm.html

The name of the chemical is diarginine malate. It's basically more experimenting like I am doing with the vpx cex (creatine ethyl ester)
Vpx cex already has an NO2 component in it called creatine alpha-ketoglutarate which does work. So this should increase the NO2 signifigantly taking it 3 times a day. I also like the serving sizes. Cex is 3grams and this is 1 tablespoon. Much better then 8 pills a day with the AAKG I think

 

[therobber]

anybody stack no2 with creatine?

 

[gjohnson5]

anybody stack no2 with creatine?

I seem to be somewhat successful in cutting while using vpx cex (creatine ethyl ester) and diarginine malate (no2)

Let me explain more thouroughly. Creatine ethyl ester hci is supposed to give you muscles a boost without the bloat of regular creatine. vpx cex has an no2 componenet called creatine ketogularate. The new no2 chemical is called diarginine malate. Legal Gear has a product called coldfusion that's an no2 chemical. It tastes bad in my opinion. Anyway, I've been using diet pills + cardio + a deit with carbs mostly cut out in order to drop 20 pounds (still 240). I've taken the idea from the peanut butter diet and used good fats to increase the calories and to supply some energy just so I don't go into srarvation. I have been able to do this and not lose very little in terms of pressing strength in the gym. My stamina is down though. So if you were on a bulking cycle or whatever you'd probably see improvements in the gym.

 

[Diamond J]

I took MRI's NO2, 2 caps a day 3 times a day on an empty stomach, and did it religiously for a month. There was definately some extra pump the first week or so.. but that was really the only noticable gain I saw. I have heard of others getting very nice gains from it... so I guess it depends on the person. Personally I would not spend alot of money on it again, but if I found some really cheap I might throw down a few caps a day and see if small amounts helped over a longer period.

 

[Majestic 12]

I'm using MBI's Nitric Oxide. I've had great results from it. They use a "2:1" ratio that's suppose to better saturate the muscle cells. Anyways I've gained 10lbs and my strength is up. You really feel it after 3-4 days.

 

[sawastea]

From: http://www.health-strategy.com/cont...ils.php/id/1238


Health Strategy Consulting Interviews

Another Opinion
November 18, 2004

The press release that was issued by MRI, announcing the results of its studies on NO2® at Baylor University, is emblematic of the selective reporting of sponsored research that often embodies “science by press release” campaigns orchestrated by dietary supplement companies. Several points merit consideration:

1. The results of the studies were in fact presented in large part at the first annual meeting of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, in Las Vegas this past June, published as conference abstracts in the inaugural issue of Sports Nutrition Review Journal (www.sportsnutritionsociety.org)

2. The studies FAILED to show NO2 to be superior to placebo in relation to key outcomes that had been aggressively marketed as benefits a user would enjoy from the product: muscle mass gain, weight (total body mass) gain, fat loss, and self-assessed muscle pump, muscle hardness, and sexual function/performance/desire. Additionally, eight other muscular performance assessments (including muscular endurance and peak aerobic capacity) were performed where again NO2 did no better than placebo. No mention of the product’s “failure” in these consumer-relevant areas/marketing “buttons” was made in the release, and likely will also be excluded from any advertisements describing the results of the studies

3. Duplicitously, the “About NO2®” section makes the statement “NO2 induces vasodilation and creates dramatic increases in lean muscle mass...”, two claims that were not borne out by the Baylor studies. Additionally, the NO2 website still states “Creates dramatic increases in muscle size and strength” and “Generates virtual permanent muscle pump” [emphasis added]

4. The study that compared (single dose) extended-released (ER) vs. non-extended-released [sic] compositions indeed did reveal a limited difference from a pharmacokinetic perspective but one could argue with equal authority that the non-extended-released composition may also exert similar, selective enhancements of muscular performance. Because the study that examined the chronic dosing (8 weeks) with NO2 was compared against an inert placebo, the research made no attempt to quantify the efficacy of the rapid release composition relative to the ER. Had the rapid release composition been the comparator (instead of inert placebo) and displayed similar, limited efficacy, this would have likely further undermined the marketshare of NO2, as its US patent application is limited to claims centered upon controlled (extended) release compositions of NO2’s active ingredient

5. The self-aggrandizing statements of setting a “benchmark” and throwing “down the gauntlet” come after NO2 has been in distribution within GNC stores for almost two years, with nothing but testimonials, seminars, advertisements, and promotions to support “efficacy” until this study had been completed

6. The dose employed in the study—12 g of the supplement/day for 8 weeks—is 1.2-1.5 times that recommended on the label (based on body weight). Using the Suggested Retail Price, this would equate to greater than $200/eight weeks, a cost that seems prohibitive given the limited, single study positive results observed

7. The release makes the statement that Ed Byrd introduced creatine in 1993. Ed Byrd was my co-founder partner at EAS, where we co-introduced creatine in 1993 after I introduced to him the September 1992 Clinical Science research article describing the effects of oral creatine monohydrate supplementation. At EAS our credo was to present and publish all of the data that we obtained from the numerous university clinical studies that we sponsored. It is a deceptive disservice to the consumer to omit relevant findings from this first proof of concept study and creates yet another sizable target for both regulatory agencies and impassioned journalists/critics of the dietary supplement industry.

Anthony L. Almada, BSc, MSc

President and CSO
IMAGINutrition, Inc.

 

[obiwan9962]

thanks bud
i was trying to decipher everything posted here and kept getting lost
lol

From: http://www.health-strategy.com/cont...ils.php/id/1238


Health Strategy Consulting Interviews

Another Opinion
November 18, 2004

The press release that was issued by MRI, announcing the results of its studies on NO2® at Baylor University, is emblematic of the selective reporting of sponsored research that often embodies “science by press release” campaigns orchestrated by dietary supplement companies. Several points merit consideration:

1. The results of the studies were in fact presented in large part at the first annual meeting of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, in Las Vegas this past June, published as conference abstracts in the inaugural issue of Sports Nutrition Review Journal (www.sportsnutritionsociety.org)

2. The studies FAILED to show NO2 to be superior to placebo in relation to key outcomes that had been aggressively marketed as benefits a user would enjoy from the product: muscle mass gain, weight (total body mass) gain, fat loss, and self-assessed muscle pump, muscle hardness, and sexual function/performance/desire. Additionally, eight other muscular performance assessments (including muscular endurance and peak aerobic capacity) were performed where again NO2 did no better than placebo. No mention of the product’s “failure” in these consumer-relevant areas/marketing “buttons” was made in the release, and likely will also be excluded from any advertisements describing the results of the studies

3. Duplicitously, the “About NO2®” section makes the statement “NO2 induces vasodilation and creates dramatic increases in lean muscle mass...”, two claims that were not borne out by the Baylor studies. Additionally, the NO2 website still states “Creates dramatic increases in muscle size and strength” and “Generates virtual permanent muscle pump” [emphasis added]

4. The study that compared (single dose) extended-released (ER) vs. non-extended-released [sic] compositions indeed did reveal a limited difference from a pharmacokinetic perspective but one could argue with equal authority that the non-extended-released composition may also exert similar, selective enhancements of muscular performance. Because the study that examined the chronic dosing (8 weeks) with NO2 was compared against an inert placebo, the research made no attempt to quantify the efficacy of the rapid release composition relative to the ER. Had the rapid release composition been the comparator (instead of inert placebo) and displayed similar, limited efficacy, this would have likely further undermined the marketshare of NO2, as its US patent application is limited to claims centered upon controlled (extended) release compositions of NO2’s active ingredient

5. The self-aggrandizing statements of setting a “benchmark” and throwing “down the gauntlet” come after NO2 has been in distribution within GNC stores for almost two years, with nothing but testimonials, seminars, advertisements, and promotions to support “efficacy” until this study had been completed

6. The dose employed in the study—12 g of the supplement/day for 8 weeks—is 1.2-1.5 times that recommended on the label (based on body weight). Using the Suggested Retail Price, this would equate to greater than $200/eight weeks, a cost that seems prohibitive given the limited, single study positive results observed

7. The release makes the statement that Ed Byrd introduced creatine in 1993. Ed Byrd was my co-founder partner at EAS, where we co-introduced creatine in 1993 after I introduced to him the September 1992 Clinical Science research article describing the effects of oral creatine monohydrate supplementation. At EAS our credo was to present and publish all of the data that we obtained from the numerous university clinical studies that we sponsored. It is a deceptive disservice to the consumer to omit relevant findings from this first proof of concept study and creates yet another sizable target for both regulatory agencies and impassioned journalists/critics of the dietary supplement industry.

Anthony L. Almada, BSc, MSc

President and CSO
IMAGINutrition, Inc.

 

[OMEGA]

NO2

is liek glutamine

on paper it may not be too hot

yet the Anedecdotal Eveindence is too powerfull to ignore


for some they just work like no other......

and there is nothing science can do to interfere with that