Jones was on the Juice

the second comment notes that the two control groups had a baseline difference of over 50% in free testosterone, virtually assuring a non-effect in a small randomized sample.

[url]http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1030571[/url]

 

ripped fuel today is different from ripped fuel in 2000. there was ripped fuel testosterone booster, regular ripped fuel (which had ephedra if i remember correctly), ripped fuel extreme and nor andro ripped fuel. this can all be looked up.

honestly, i just read what a typed and it's ridiculous. we're getting way off point but i think ripped fuel could cause a positive test.

 

yes, and continues in saying that the effect of resistance training in an untrained male will cause a natural anabolic response, which is true, as compound exercises promote a more anabolic environment in your body, and hormone balances adjust. so the 50% is not really able to be accurately attributed to either or given the length of the study. this does put some question into the results, but the conclusions made in the summary of the trial are definitely taking that into account, it is after all a clinical study. there are others which confirm the negligible effect, and some which mark a slight increase.....but still those increases are not spraphysiological levels, and unlikely to produce a failed test to epitest ratio.

 

You`re right about the products, i remember them too, but the old test booster version had dehydroepiandrosterone....which affects dhea, which affects hormones, including testosterone, but again, this is enhancing your natural functions....not synthetically enhancing them to suprphysiological levels

 

it's actually spelled supraphysiological. at some point we're going to have to move on with our lives.

 

At some point, your gonna have to quit ducking questions :deal

 

If you read the entire study in question, it qualifies any face value discrepancies noted adequately. The executive summary does provide logical conclusions when the entire study is read. The estradiol conversion rate of andro would eventually suppress or reduce any test conversion that does occur, and that which does occur as shown in some other studies doesn't raise test to the hundreds of percent above norm, as would be needed to induce a failure on the test to epitest ratio. So thats all i will say regarding the one article questioned and the others in circulation. The most recent and credible studies on the subject (and therer are a few now) question andro's ability to heavily alter serum testosterone, if at all, which is most definitely required for a failed test to epitest ratio......a couple hundred percent increase would be necessary to fail that test....which is what was officially reported, with no substance noted. logic dictates that andro being the culprit with all the literature out there, and no positive identification quoted is highly unlikely. Take some andro, then take some real testosterone......there is no comparison, and andro does little except possibly give a bump similar to taking herbal test boosters, and possibly placebo effect, while giving estrogen side effects. I lack the energy to debate this anymore. Thanks to all for making it interesting.