I'm just starting to get into the world of dietary supplements, so I've been doing a bunch of research about different products, and it seems like there's a ton of info all over the place.. I know there's a lot of hype and a lot of unsubstantiated claims, so I'm trying to see what works well and what doesn't.

Anyway, About 2 weeks ago or so, I started taking Hydroxycut for the purpose of cutting some fat and helping with muscle definition. I was already eating fairly healthy, but I made some additional changes to my diet to further support my goal. First, I stopped drinking milk with my meals, and substituted it with water. I've also increased my water intake in general. Second, I stopped eating sausage/bacon and eggs every morning for breakfast, and switched to a healthy cereal (like Total, or Raisin Bran, depending on what's available on the mess line). I'm still taking milk in my cereal, but that's the extend of my milk intake (to cut down on fat). Third, I cut out all junk food. Nothing out of the vending machines, no soda or sugar-filled drinks, no cake/pastries (they normally have them out during lunch and dinner), no cookies, etc.

Additionally, I'm lifting weights every day, focusing on a different muscle group each day. (Following a pretty established pattern of Legs, Shoulders, Back and Biceps, Chest and Triceps, (repeat).) I'm going to start working in cardio (probably 20+ mins running) either at the beginning or end of each work out (feel free to make suggestions on that), with the exception of Leg day.

I am already starting to see a difference in my stomach definition and it's got me pretty excited.

Anyway, I want to hear from you guys about what you do to stay healthy and fit (assuming you do anything :P). What kind of foods do you eat? What kind of workouts do you do? Are you taking any supplements, and if so what? and Why? Also, do you have any websites that you recommend with good reviews of supplements, work out plans, etc?

I'm also working on helping my wife try to lose weight as well. I have encouraged her to eat healthy, and she is currently doing 30-45 mins of cardio just about every day. I have suggested she take Hydroxycut (based on my own results) during the day to help her stay energized and to improve the impact of her cardio workout. I also suggested a product called SomniLean. This is a product designed to be taken at night. It's supposed to help you sleep soundly (something my wife has trouble with) while at the same time improving your metabolic rate, without stimulants. (It uses decaffeinated green tea leaf extract for this.) Anyway, if you guys have any suggestions for her please give them as well.

Maybe you should cut out the Hydroxycut as well?

I think 95% of supplements are probably as good as snake oil. That said, my podiatrist recommended a multivitamin, so I've started taking one of those just in case. I really don't think it can hurt with my bachelor's diet. When I asked her which brand she'd recommend, she said it really doesn't matter a whole lot and that she just takes Flintstones vitamins with her kids.

Not that the FDA is always right, but http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm152152.htm

I use Animal Pak as my nutritional supplement, BSN Cellmass for muscle mass and recovery, and Cytosport Muscle Milk for protein. I use Jack3d as a pre-workout stimulant every other day (high-intensity days) if I'm doing my crazy chest/shoulders/abs workout or running 12+ miles. I also drink a blueberry-banana shake (1 cup blueberries, 1 banana, milk, ice, honey, 1 scoop vanilla muscle milk) every day, and drink ****loads of water in the form of Rooibos tea.

Aesthetics, baby. I am toned like a Calvin Klein model and the ladies go gaga over my Apollo's belt. The supplements probably don't help too much, but it hasn't hurt, and I don't feel the need to be as strict with my breakfast-lunch-dinner diet.

Waiting for Antony's post

STAY ALPHA, BRO!



BE GENETICALLY DIFFERENT

fyi, that FDA Hydroxycut warning is from back in 2009 when it had ephedra in it. They have since changed their formula.. It's actually less effective now, but not dangerous as long as it is consumed in the appropriate dosage.

I'm pretty sure they changed the formula for Hydroxycut.

It used to be: Brindleberry, which causes liver failure. Cowplant, which makes sugar taste bad, and is probably the only ingredient that does anything. Bitter orange (ephedra before it was banned, same side effects,) a stimulant which causes stroke and heart disease. Chromium polynicotinate, which has statistically insignificant effects.

now it is: Lady's mantle, which causes liver failure. Wild olive, which hasn't been studied very well but probably does nothing. Cumin, which may cause liver cancer in large quantities. Wild mint extract, which hasn't been studied very well but probably does nothing. 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine, which they also call caffeine anhydrous, which is also known to most of us as "caffeine," is the key energy-boosting ingredient, and is probably the only ingredient that does anything.

so lol

lol. None of this means anything.

Awesome thread tho, I love hearing about how well the placebo effect works on people.

Anyway, Animal Cuts is next on my list.

From what I've heard, Hydroxycut isn't very good. I've used GNC's X25 in the past and I had good results with that.

I use Serious Mass as a weight gainer, but you don't want anything like that if you're just trying to cut fat. You want less calories. You could use some whey I suppose. It doesn't really matter what kind, and anyone who tells you different is an idiot with some bizarre brand loyalty. Just try to take in around 200g of protein a day while only eating about 1500 calories. It's tricky, but it's possible.

Also, avoid JACK3D at all costs. You are in the military, and JACK3D will cause you to test false positive for meth. It's also apparently extremely bad for you, and you can look forward to it being banned outright in America in about 6 months (it's already banned in the Military, all pro sports, the olympics, and pretty much every legitimiate fitness show). So avoid it. If you want some kind of pre-workout, just use some concentrated creatine or nitric oxide. N.O. is really expensive, and I've never used it before, but I hear really good things. I use Con Cret before workouts and it's good ****.

Basically, you should stop taking hydroxycut because it's just an upper. Taking speed as a dietary supplement is a bad idea. There are things you can take that will give you a bunch of energy, but in healthy natural ways. Get some multi-vitamin packs from GNC or an equivalent. I used the GNC Mega Men Extreme Althelete and it was pretty good stuff. It's just a ton of vitamin B, a niacin pill, a creatine, and a fat burner. The fat burner is pretty much pure caffeine, so I didn't take it, because I don't do any caffeine.

Now, as far as your diet is concerned. Don't try to cut out milk entirely. Just switch to 2%, which you're probably drinking already. You're correct to cut out soda and junk food. The next time you want a snack, eat something like wheat pasta with a fat free dressing on it. Cut out white bread in favor of wheat. You'll get used to it in no time and eventually you'll wonder why you ever ate white bread. You're correct to drink a ton of water, but you should already know that, being in the military.

As far as your workout regimen goes, you're definitely on the right track. Focus on muscle groups each day. If you want, I can post an outstanding 4 day split that I've been using for a few months. It's a great workout and gives each muscle group plenty of recovery time, with two cardio days, and a complete day off on Sunday. If you just want to stick with your own thing, very well, but I do have one big sticking point. Do 3 sets of 8-12 reps. If it isn't almost impossible by the time you get to 12, you don't have enough weight on there. You will need a spotter, and you should always have a workout buddy anyway so you stay motivated.

And lastly, in regard to what ragna said. He is essentially wrong on every level from the philosophical standpoint of why it's good to work out. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't make any difference what anyone else thinks of your workout results aside from yourself. Basing the success ratio off of how many comments you get from people and **** like that is the fastest way to failure. You have to maintain a constant ideal of what you're doing is to better yourself, and every day counts toward that goal. No matter how ****ty it is and how sore you are, or how much you just want to say **** it and play WoW or something, you gotta spend that hour or two in the gym getting it on. Use your wife as a workout buddy, even if you're on deployment. Married couples have a way of keeping each other honest about this kind of ****, but as the man you're at a disadvantage, because a man telling a woman she needs to work out will almost always piss her off. So good luck with that.

In closing, I hope I've been a help to you. Good luck with this, and I hope you get the results you're looking for. Always consult your corpsman before you start taking any supplement. He'll let you know if it's going to make you pop on a piss test, too. Most of them won't, but certain ones (like JACK3D) are a quick and easy way to make people think you're a /really/ big fan of Breaking Bad.

Jon`C, can you explain why the product claim quote doesn't "mean anything."

Particularly because you chalk up any perceived advantages to placebo effect, but the study uses a cross section of people that don't know whether they're getting the product or not.

If any of this did anything it would cost $1000 a bottle and doctors would prescribe it. But they don't, because the FDA won't approve it, because the manufacturers don't do any studies, because the manufacturers know it does absolutely nothing except for potentially-fatal side effects.

You want to lose weight? Eat less and exercise more. At least there are studies that show it works, unlike Bull**** X-Treme Pro.

The quote contains no information about their research methodology. It contains no information about their sample sizes or sampling method. It doesn't report confidence intervals or confidence level, so it's impossible to know if the results are statistically significant even if the study is well-designed. They probably used the arithmetic mean to calculate the averages of ratios. They either didn't hire a statistician or they did, but they threw out his work because it makes their product look bad. So they're either stupid or dishonest.

Well, yeah. The placebo effect is sorta absent after you tell people they're taking a placebo.

Jon`C is generally correct on this. I have never heard of a fat-burning supplement that seemed like it was legitimately healthy and effective. There are plenty of things that will help you make your workouts more intense, but honestly, any kind of fat burner is going to be ultimately ineffective. Your core gains are going to come from changes in your diet and lifestyle.

If you're trying to put on weight, on the other hand, it's a different story. A great deal of people will never be able to do it without supplements or a thousand dollar a week diet. I personally cannot afford to subsist on a diet of nothing but chicken breasts and broccoli all day every day, whey protein and meal replacement shakes are pretty much the way to go for me.

I chugged an ensure once at the nursing home I work at, its like a meal in the space of a pop can, felt like I had a brick in my stomach until I **** my brains out because I had already eaten a large meal a half an hour before

Here's a healthy alternative:

e: f, b

Was it the stuff for feeding tubes? I tried it once, tastes so horrible.

When I got sick in boot camp and lost a bunch of weight, they made me drink tons of Ensure. I grew to kind of like it, actually.

Jon`C: how do "average weight loss with key ingredients was 20.94 lbs. vs. 1.70 lbs. with placebo in one 12-week study" and "16.50 lbs. vs. 1.73 lbs. in one 8-week study funded by the makers of Hydroxycut" not qualify as studies? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just wondering why you're claiming they don't work, while at the same time posting statistics that would argue that they do. In short, you're coming across as one of those people that's already made up their minds against the effectiveness of supplements and are going to disregard the validity of any information that would suggest that they might actually work (ie. Bobbert), presumably because they (you?) are only familiar with the marketing bull****, and don't like the "take and forget" mentality they portray on the surface. In reality, there are very few products that claim to work without requiring any change in lifestyle or diet, regardless of what the commercials make it seem like. They almost always specify that the product is designed to work along with a healthy diet and a regular workout regimen. Additionally, the majority of companies very specifically list their product's ingredients and some of them even include the purpose of those ingredients. When they don't, there's websites like Diet Spotlight, which whenever possible will break down the ingredients and provide explanations. Antony: 1. Thanks for the warnings about Jack3d and others. I am aware of what I'm allowed to take and what I'm not. 2. Not really worried about a pre-workout. I see them as unnecessary and a waste of money. 3. As to the Hydroxycut, I'm gonna finish off the bottle at least. Then try something else. To be honest though, I have seen some pretty noticeable effects, so I'm not too unimpressed with it. (btw, I'm taking Hydroxycut Hardcore, which is more specifically designed for weight lifters to cut, as opposed to just fat burning). 4. Don't really have a choice in the milk. Deployment and all. I'm having milk with cereal in the morning (we usually have either real 2% milk, or UHT milk, which sucks ass, but doesn't spoil). It seems to be working, so I'm not gonna change it up. Also, when it comes to water, I am pretty terrible and remember to drink water throughout the day, so I'm combating that by making sure to drink 2 glasses of water with each meal (and I'm eating 4 meals, so 8 glasses of water a day). I know that's not the best situation, but it's better than what I was doing, and it's an easy step for me to make. 5. Regarding food; first, I pretty much don't snack. Only option is junk food from the ship's store or from the vending machines, which I've cut out of my diet entirely. The inability to snack is partly why I'm eating 4 meals a day. Second, I haven't had white bread in probably 10 years, so no worries there. 6. As to the work out, thanks for the offer to show me a workout. I might take you up on it later, but for now I'm good. I'm working out with a couple buddies and they know what they're doing, so I rely on them for the routine. (I'll let their pictures speak to their qualifications). That being said, at their direction, I'm doing anywhere between 8-15 reps (starting higher with lower weight, working my way to lower reps with higher weight, each set) 7. Motivation isn't an issue for me. No need to worry about that. (And if ragna works out because he enjoys the attention from the ladies, who are we to judge? At least a portion of why I'm working out is to look good for my wife, another reason is to help to motivate her, and another part is so that I can be proud of what I look like in the mirror. But people can be motivated to do things for all kinds of different reasons. Who are we to judge them for the why?)

I'm a judgmental *******. If you haven't realized that yet, you clearly haven't been paying attention to my posts.

I already said why they don't work: the information they have given is literally meaningless. You'll have to study statistics if you want to understand why.

Let's do a side-by-side comparison.

Hydroxycut, fake snake oil weight loss powder:



Raltegravir, antiretroviral drug for HIV treatment:


Which one is more believable? Hmm.

Jon`C, you can disregard the stuff you already addressed in that post (you guys posted a few times while I was responding). (ie, you explained why you don't believe those studies to be legitimate). maybe you're right, maybe you're not (there's no data either way). Either way, I definitely feel like there's a difference, so that's good enough for me. But I probably wouldn't waste the money if I wasn't on deployment making a bunch more money than I normally do. Also, I have no idea why my previous post came out in one big block of text. I swear there were line breaks.

And the difference between your two study "published results" is definitely clear. But I think if you consider the intended audience, one can pretty well justify the makers of Hydroxycut choosing to "dumb down" the text a bit without needing to believe that the studies are hogwash. (I'm not saying they are or aren't.)

No, Sarn. Their studies aren't legitimate. It's not a matter of belief. They aren't.

The burden of proof is on them to show that their product works. They have provided no evidence. You can't say "there's no evidence either way," because you cannot prove a negative. The only possible thing to conclude about Hydroxycut is "there is no evidence that they are right" which means "they are probably not right."


No, they didn't dumb down the text, they dumbed down their study. Again, if they had actually shown a genuine statistically significant improvement of that amount, they'd publish their full results somewhere. It would make Hydroxycut the gold standard weight loss drug, get it approved by the FDA, covered by health insurance, and completely pushing Orlistat out of the market. Except that didn't happen, because Hydroxycut doesn't do anything except destroy your heart and liver.

I was curious so I tried to find something that shows how well Hydroxycut works, but for some reason searching "hydroxycut confidence interval" on Google just gives me a bunch of articles about heart failure (p < 0.05.)

And this is really what it comes down to.


You want to know how well a drug works. The problem is, you can't prove it. It's a problem with logic.

What do you want to prove? "If the drug works, then I get cured." I take it, and I get better. Obvious.

What's wrong with this question? Easy: what happens if someone gets cured even though they didn't take the drug? What if it's like the cold, and everybody always gets better eventually? It means every cold drug works. What if the drug doesn't work at all? You can't use this question to say anything about the drug.

You have "if D, then C." You're trying to get "If C, then D." This is called affirming the consequent, a formal fallacy.

What you need to do is disprove this: "I took the drug and I did not get cured." In other words, they need to disprove what I'm saying: that Hydroxycut doesn't work. Any other evidence is logically, scientifically, and statistically nonsense.

As someone who has worked in the clinical trials field for past few years, I'm sorry to say, but you don't know what you're talking about. You can prove that a drug works better than no drug (or other drug, if you're testing against that), and that's pretty much the bottom line. It takes some years and some millions of dollars, too.. Don't know anything about the steroids mentioned in this thread, though...

But hell, that's why they invented randomization. Or am I misinterpreting what you're trying to say?

Who said anything about steroids?

Hydro-cut Jon'C mentioned, sorry if they ain't steroids. I basically only read his last reply on clinical trials, hope that doesn't leave me at a disadvantage.

No, you can't.

You have an alternative hypothesis, "this drug works better than no drug." You do not, and cannot prove this hypothesis.

You disprove your null hypothesis, "this drug doesn't work better than no drug."

These things are very different.

Let's take a Phase 3 clinical study. Let's say we've got 60 sites all over the world. Obviously, most of the sites are blinded (as in, they don't know if they're giving patients placebos / different drugs). Let's say the study lasts 2 years. We see that 75% of the people who were given the actual medicine have had their symptoms alleviated and are doing way better than 70% of the people who were given placebo. Now, did you just prove that the drug works better than no drug, or disproved that it doesn't work better than no drug?

You haven't proven anything yet. What's the probability that you could have randomly chosen a sample that showed the same or better results given that the drug and the placebo are equally effective?

You mean sample of people? Then you look at other people. And then some more. And if OVERALL the results are better, then the drug is more effective than the placebo. Then you get FDA to approve it if it's safe based on the research data that you've collected. Hell, even after that, in Japan it's now mandatory to do Post Marketing Studies for years and years and years after the drug hits the market, Phase 4 if you will. So not sure where you're getting at, sir.

You're telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about when you don't even know what "(p < 0.05)" means?

Dude, not cool. I was looking forward to a good debate.

Mmmmmmmmmkay then, if you say so.

Sorry bro but based on what you've posted there is no way you are the one doing any of the statistics work, results or predicting sample sizes. You would understand exactly what I'm talking about if you were qualified to do it. It's not a huge deal, that's why you have statisticians to consult, but while I'm sure your research may look a certain way to you, in your corner, what your study actually means is quite different.

Trials get even more fun when going up against an existing drug rather than placebo.

Say you have exactly 95% confidence (this is the p<0.05 that the outcome was chance) that an old drug is 25% better than placebo. And exactly 95% confidence that your new drug is 50% better than placebo. What you can't then say is that your 95% confident that your new drug is better than your old drug, because the difference between the two drugs isn't big enough to reach statistical significance.

In most cases, you need to test your new drug against either every competing drug, or run your vs-placebo trial to the point of ridiculously high confidence. Which very rarely happens. In fact, the kind of statistics I mentioned in the first paragraph is something even "academics" get wrong with alarming frequency (see Ben Goldacre's rant http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/what-if-academics-were-as-dumb-as-quacks-with-statistics/).

My favorite is when academics use one-tailed tests to make their confidence interval larger, even though they have no evidence a priori showing that the new thing is actually better.

No, it's not p<0.05. It's p<0.1. You can't do that ****.

You are right in saying that I am not a statistician, bro, I'll give you that. Let's take your p<0.05 where we disprove that our drug does not NOT have an effect (and that the effect we're getting is probably not by chance). Unqualified as I am, this should convince me that "you can't prove if a drug works, only disprove that it doesn't" how, exactly?

medical science and statistics rarely mix well...

but back on topic

The past 6-8months of 2011, while I was sitting on my arse finishing my thesis I did hardly any exercise. Luckily I've had a high metabolism for as long as I can remember and even though it is slowing down somewhat (whether that was due to the ~8 months of inactivity or getting older is hard to say), I only put on about 5-7kgs. Still it annoyed me and I lost some definition and muscle tone as well, I normally sit around 173cms/63kg at the mo.

So...as with Jon'C and a few others have been saying... I hardly changed my diet, instead I've just started playing footy for 1hr 30mins Tuesday, 1hr circuit training on Thursday (run by an ex-paratrooper...evil evil *******) and then 60+ laps in a 25m pool on Saturday. All of these activities I try to give it my all, footy especially with the guys I'm playing with is at a very fast pace, circuit training is just punishing and being an ex-county swimmer I know how to push myself swimming. This is the most important aspect of getting fit, I've seen and known so many people waltz into a gym month after month trying to lose weight, make no progress and complain about it. The thing is they don't try, you've gotta make yourself hurt doing the exercises, get some competitive thing going on, set distance/time goals on the stuff you do, raise the weights (or whatever) up a notch after 2-3 weeks, but do same or better yet, more reps.

I think in general, most people can eat reasonably "normal stuff" that covers 95% of their basic dietary needs, maybe I'm naive in that thinking, but eating healthy isn't exactly hard, nor does it mean just eating boring ****e. The bit people find hard is losing the weight, if I'm honest, I look down on these "quick-fix" supplements for losing weight (gaining weight is a different matter). I'm of the opinion that if you want lasting fitness and a healthy body you've gotta work for it, get the aches in your legs/back/arms the following morning and know that you are making progress the right way.

I can understand that for some people it's just not feasible to do it the "right way", but if that option is there, even if it means hard work for a good 4-6 months, long term it will be a heck of a lot better for you.

You are doing the right thing though Sarn, mixing in some exercise along with the supplements. I also don't know what stage you are coming from, you might need to lose the weight to exercise effectively, but once you get your metabolism up and running again, probably in a month or two, I'd kick those pills into touch.

The issue is philosophical.

Can you devise an experiment to prove that every crow on Earth is black? That General Relativity is correct? How would such an experiment work? What would it look like?

The statistical hypothesis testing you use in a practical study is essentially this idea. It's not possible to know for sure if there are no albino crows - we might have to check all of them - so instead we ask "all things being equal, given that I've checked x many crows, how likely is it that an albino crow exists?" Getting p<0.05 doesn't mean your hypothesis is correct, it just means that it maybe isn't worth your time to keep looking.

Basically. p is the probability that you will randomly choose a sample at least that "good" assuming that the null hypothesis is true. If you have p=0.05, and you repeated your study 20 times, you would expect one of those studies to fail to reject the null hypothesis.