Salazar, Farah, talk about use of L-carnitine, a legal supplement with 11% performance gains

Lawyers are not interesting in pure definitions. Fuzzy definitions allow for greater billings.

Salazar buying over $5000 worth of L-carnitine is shady.

WADA having fuzzy rules is shady.

The two shadies are about to have a head on collision.

Researched wrote:

Your reports are dated from 1998-2004. The first peer-reviewed research is from 2011, and significantly more current.

You think the reviews I linked, and also the original journal articles that they refer to, are not peer-reviewed?

So you really are that clueless.

Steve Magness has run a 4:01 mile. If he improved his performance by 9% that would mean he was capable of running a 3:41 mile. I have a hard time believing anything close to this type of improvement would be possible especially given that L-Carnitine is so widely available and is an ingredient in many other supplements. I think some people on here may be watching too much Dr. Oz.

The 9% is not a straight time improvement. Think aerobic ability.

NutraMet will be making exactly $0.00 from this article as far as I can tell because they are no longer in business.

Real Research wrote:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060373/

"The Carnitine group increased work output 11% from baseline in the performance trial, while Control showed no change."

This is a hard-core research paper, peer reviewed by hard-core researchers.

In this study, there were 7 subjects in the control group and 7 subjects in the group receiving L-carnitine. These are pretty small sample sizes, so the influence of even 1 or 2 subjects can be big enough to cause a statistically significant change (in one direction or the other) without a real effect of the supplement. Someone may just have a bad day, or happen to be extra fit, and we get an effect. Some points about this study:

1) There was no performance enhancement after 12 weeks of supplementation. Actually, the data shows that the carnitine group did slightly worse and the control group slightly better than at week 0, although these differences were too small to be statistically significant. What physiological mechanism would explain that taking the supplement daily for 3 months would not make a difference, but suddenly 3 more months would? Seems like random fluctuation. The authors do not provide any possible explanation for this in their paper. What if they had continued for another 12 weeks - maybe they would, again, be back to baseline?

2) There is no mention about how the subjects trained. This is a huge flaw! For recreational athletes, even a small increase in training volume and/or intensity will cause a significant change in fitness during 6 months. If there's no control for training, no conclusions can be made about the effects of their nutrition or supplementation. They don't even show self-reported training data in the paper.

Someone is running scared.

Never pretend your are a qualified peer reviewer in a field that is not your specialty. If you think you are qualified write a grant proposal, and hope you get some money to conduct a contradictory study.

"up to" 11%.

Of course 0% is "up to" 11%.

Running Scared wrote:

Never pretend your are a qualified peer reviewer in a field that is not your specialty. If you think you are qualified write a grant proposal, and hope you get some money to conduct a contradictory study.

I don't find carnitine interesting enough to conduct yet another study about it. I have far more interesting topics in my mind. The speculated effects of carnitine has IMO been studied quite extensively - it may help in some diseases, but does nothing for the healthy and active. That's why there's no need to ban it.

Of course, you're free to spend your money on any kind of fads and placebos you wish.

are you serious!

If you havent heard of L-Carnitine before now you are not an athlete and you should frankly give up any type of sport you total looser!!!!

This has been around for absolute years since the 90s as a a fat burner for the exact reasons stated in the review, that is just simply a newer review!

Seriously, you guys talk so much about wanting to run faster balh blah blah but do about as much research into the sport as a fat kid playing xbox!

Letsrun is like a hotbed of idiots talking shit but doing naff all to actually improve

Mileage mileage milage.... thats why youre shit!

Study the damn sport, biomechanics and nutrition! maybe then you wouldnt be accusing people of drugging up cos they take a suplement 'that you havent heard of'!

so what is and is not dope? wrote:

4.3.1.1.....so food then?

will athletes be forced to go on a "no carb, no fat, no protein" diet to comply with WADA?

if WADA wrote:

4.3.1 A substance or method shall be considered for inclusion on the Prohibited List if WADA determines that the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria

You did realise it's (at least) two of the three? So, if a product enhances performance, it also has to harm or, roughly, confer an unfair advantage (or both).

How much of a dbag is Magness stating it improved his performance 9% and out of courtesy refrained from racing for 9 months. Really, Steve? You retired after high school and were with NOP as a COACH, not an Athlete. What, worried you couldn't win The Woodlands Turkey Trot legally? Give me a break. Drama king never ended...

All of this supplement nonsense is simply a smokescreen. The more that Salazar leads the public into focusing on supplements, the less everyone focuses on the more serious stuff.

All of this supplement nonsense is simply a smokescreen. The more that Salazar leads the public into focusing on supplements, the less everyone focuses on the more serious stuff.

Intravenous injections are acceptable up to 50ml in a 6 hr period and as long as the substance isn't banned. This is the loophole Salazar is applying.

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada_medical_info_iv_infusions_4.0_en.pdf

Intravenous infusions and/or injections of more than 50 mL per 6 hour period are prohibited except for those legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions, surgical procedures or clinical investigations (1).

Infusions or injections of 50 mL or less per a 6-hour period are permitted unless the infused/injected substance is on the Prohibited List.

I don't know who you're trying to reply to, but you make no sense.

No effect wrote:

I don't know who you're trying to reply to, but you make no sense.

The mods deleted the other thread, (which is pretty dumb. If they thought it was a double topic, then merge the posts here.)

The last part of the discussion in that thread was a poster saying injections of any supplement is illegal. The above poster was continuing that conversation. (The original claim is not true. The only methods outright banned are gene doping, transfusions, oxygen uptake manipulation and vascular/blood manipulation. Infusions over 50ml/6hr. are also banned.)

AJ2000 wrote:

are you serious!

If you havent heard of L-Carnitine before now you are not an athlete and you should frankly give up any type of sport you total looser!!!!

This has been around for absolute years since the 90s as a a fat burner for the exact reasons stated in the review, that is just simply a newer review!

Seriously, you guys talk so much about wanting to run faster balh blah blah but do about as much research into the sport as a fat kid playing xbox!

Letsrun is like a hotbed of idiots talking shit but doing naff all to actually improve

Mileage mileage milage.... thats why youre shit!

Study the damn sport, biomechanics and nutrition! maybe then you wouldnt be accusing people of drugging up cos they take a suplement 'that you havent heard of'!

Exactly.

An introductory course that covers metabolic pathways would tell you ALL you needed to know about carnitine. But ok, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're an idiot with a business degree who knows nothing about biochemistry...well, you should at least be interested enough in your sport to know about one of the most common legal performance supplements in the past 10 years. I swear, some of you people have less biochemistry knowledge than a slightly retarded obese 16 year old GNC employee.

That "11%" figure is laughably under-powered. Estimating means and SD from their figure tells us it has about ~25% power. Standard experimental design calls for 80%. No health-related conclusions should be drawn from those results.