PDA

View Full Version : Supplements while deployed


CaseyJones
04-06-2010, 12:33
This is a little more specific than just the general topic of supplements. I'm currently overseas and am taking the basic lifting supplements that I usually do when I'm home (Creatine, Whey, Glutamine, Vitrix, etc). I ordered a prohormone stack called Trifecta by LG Sciences. If you're familiar with it, it contains Methyl 1-D, Methyl Masterdrol, and Formadrol for a PCT. I was wondering if anyone is familiar with this stack, or has any advice on it. I know its usually meant for the joe back home, and I don't know if it will take too much of a toll on my body out here, rolling out everyday and such. Also, I've had a bad experience with a NO booster while in high school last year, that led to me blacking out and choking myself with a 315 bench. Should I maybe take the 1-D and not the masterdrol? Thanks to everyone who helps me out with this, it's much appreciated.

spherojon
04-06-2010, 13:31
I do not think that Creatine is the best idea, it causes dehydration. If you are looking towards SF, they don't allow creatine (I don't think they allow any supplements) at SFAS, and from reading on the forums, it seems to me that bodybuilding does not allow for endurance on long rucks, and that you do not curl your rucksack. As for NO booster, that is a bad bad idea for your heart. Since I do not know your level of lifting, my suggestion would be to read into nutrient timing (PM if you cant find the information). One of the best performance post work out drinks that I have used, and many others is called MHP Dark Matter (http://www.maxperformance.com/mhp/myweb.php?hls=1336&id=67).

Methyl 1-d is a testosterone and contains a Prohormone which was banned by the FDA in 2005."Recent studies have concluded that DHEA does not effectively increase testosterone levels and doesn’t produce significant changes in lean body mass, performance or muscle strength. That’s not good for a product claiming the only legal prohormone as its main ingredient."-http://www.supplementcritic.com/methyl-1-d-reviews/
Methyl Masterdrol is an anabolic steroid, and if you just got out of high school, you do not need anabolic steroids or testosterone boosters.

Again, I am not a doctor, but use at your own risk.

If I was you (which you say you are interested in becoming an QP), I would drop the testosterone boosters and creatine. I would read heavily into nutrient timing and pick up Get Selected! for Special Forces. But that's my 2 cents.

The Reaper
04-06-2010, 15:28
If you want to be SF, I would stop taking all of that crap while deployed, and work on conditioning yourself the old-fashioned way.

If you keep taking it till you get to SFAS, and see how you feel after several days into it.

But that is just my .02.

TR

Surgicalcric
04-06-2010, 15:39
If you want to be SF, I would stop taking all of that crap while deployed, and work on conditioning yourself the old-fashioned way.

If you keep taking it till you get to SFAS, and see how you feel after several days into it.

Well said Sir.

CJ:

You need to drop all those test enhancing supplements. Condition/train your mind and body. Working out is for guys whose lives revolve around looks; training is for guys whose lives depend on their fitness level.

You need to be strong, tough, and have good overall endurance/work capacity. We dont care how big you are or what you curl.

Google: Bodybuilding-The Worst Thing That Ever Happened To Athletes -Nathan Cragg

x SF med
04-06-2010, 16:04
I'm with TR and Crip on this one. Eat right, drink lots of water and train for endurance and strength. Many supplements have side effects you don't want in the field - dehydration as mentioned, crash, and any hormone based supplement can have other physical and psychological effects... there is enough stress on a deployment, or even just in a training mission, why compound it.

Take the supplement crash now, and train through it, you will thank yourself, and your team mates will be able to rely on you in the field.

SF_BHT
04-06-2010, 16:48
The only suplements that you need are just what the other QP's said. Get off the artificial stuff and do the old fashioned thing and train.

99meters
04-07-2010, 01:29
Also, I've had a bad experience with a NO booster while in high school last year, that led to me blacking out and choking myself with a 315 bench.

Assuming you got 1 rep out before you started to choke yourself with the weight...... a 315 bench is pretty good for a HS kid. You are ahead of the game in regards to absolute strength, work on something else. I would go with Surgicalcric's suggestion of work capacity/endurance (you don't need your listed supps for that).

CaseyJones
04-10-2010, 08:57
Thanks to all the QPs and everyone for their input .. Alot of it has to do with the fact that my resources here aren't stellar when it comes to improving endurance .. no where to really run or ruck .. so I was set on bulking up and then cutting once i came home again, but it sounds like that may be counterproductive to my overall goal ..

SF-TX
04-10-2010, 09:15
Alot of it has to do with the fact that my resources here aren't stellar when it comes to improving endurance .. no where to really run or ruck ..

Do jumping jacks, jump rope, aerobics or anything else that keeps your heart rate elevated for a sustained period of time. You are only limited by your creativity in accomplishing your goal.

orion5
04-10-2010, 09:35
Casey,

Are you currently in Weston, CT?? I've been through there before - used to live in CT ages ago. You have the Devil's Den Preserve right out your back door - 20 miles of trails that connect up to the 70+ miles of the Saugatuck Valley Trails System. I just took a quick look at the topo map, and while it's certainly not hiking in Colorado, there are several hundred feet of elevation changes around the Saugatuck Reservoir.

:munchin:munchin

o5

SF-TX
04-10-2010, 09:37
Orion5,

This is what Casey wrote in his first post on this thread.;)

I'm currently overseas...

orion5
04-10-2010, 09:38
My bad....

Razor
04-15-2010, 12:19
Alot of it has to do with the fact that my resources here aren't stellar when it comes to improving endurance .. no where to really run or ruck...

The 8-count Body Builder...start position...move!

Dominus_Potior
04-16-2010, 05:18
Thanks to all the QPs and everyone for their input .. Alot of it has to do with the fact that my resources here aren't stellar when it comes to improving endurance .. no where to really run or ruck .. so I was set on bulking up and then cutting once i came home again, but it sounds like that may be counterproductive to my overall goal ..

I am currently in a place where almost no one can do or does PT. But I had to find a way to get in shape. I ordered one of those Ultimate Sandbags and modified the workouts on the SORB site to include some treadmill running. Hell I took a flight to another FOB to take a PT test and scored 30 points higher than a month ago. With a little creativity as stated above there really is no excuse.

I can say from personal experience that taking supps in order to prepare for anything that will require cardio respiratory and muscle endurance is a waste of money, and will not benefit you half as much as simply drinking water while working out and refueling and stretching afterwards.

abc_123
04-16-2010, 07:07
My bad....

Don't worry about it. You were just having a "blonde" moment.

ZonieDiver
04-16-2010, 10:01
Back "in the day," the only supplements we even thought of taking were salt tablets. We took two, and then "drove on"! :D

CaseyJones
04-21-2010, 14:18
well I decided now isn't the best time to take the prohormone stack .. it already puts too much of a strain on the body as it is, then add sitting in the turret for 10hrs in 100 degree weather or climbing some ridiculous mountain? It would probably end disasterously for me. Thanks to everyone for their input, it's greatly appreciated

500 Proof
10-17-2010, 13:08
Well said Sir.

CJ:

You need to drop all those test enhancing supplements. Condition/train your mind and body. Working out is for guys whose lives revolve around looks; training is for guys whose lives depend on their fitness level.

You need to be strong, tough, and have good overall endurance/work capacity. We dont care how big you are or what you curl.

Google: Bodybuilding-The Worst Thing That Ever Happened To Athletes -Nathan Cragg

It was a good article, but unless I'm mistaken, it's criticism of 'training to failure' would also apply to many SF physical conditioning methods?

In the past, I have wondered if training to failure conditions your neurology and nervous system to reach failure more quickly.

Any thoughts?

Surgicalcric
10-17-2010, 13:42
It was a good article, but unless I'm mistaken, it's criticism of 'training to failure' would also apply to many SF physical conditioning methods?

In the past, I have wondered if training to failure conditions your neurology and nervous system to reach failure more quickly.

Any thoughts?

You are mistaken...

What the author is referring to is training a specific lift to failure, ie: preacher curls, close grip bench, tricep extensions, etc. Different training goals, different methods more often than not.

Failure training for us is as much about training the mind as it is the body...

Crip

500 Proof
10-17-2010, 16:25
You are mistaken...

What the author is referring to is training a specific lift to failure, ie: preacher curls, close grip bench, tricep extensions, etc. Different training goals, different methods more often than not.

Failure training for us is as much about training the mind as it is the body...

Crip

I don't think I'm mistaken. Training a specific muscle group to failure, whether it be a small group or a large one, causes sarcoplasmic muscle growth, which the author of the article pointed out, is not something ideal for an athlete.

The author also pointed out that training these muscle groups to failure might result in programming the nervous system to failure. It seems that his theory was relavent to more than just isolated exercises, and that it would hold true to the entire nervous system, whether you're targeting small individual muscle groups or or not.

I'll agree that doing repetitions to failure is an excellent way to 'train the mind', but it might not be the best method for maximizing athletic potential.

500 Proof
10-17-2010, 16:36
Another interesting subject is the difference between short high intensity exercises and long drawn out endurance training.

Never been a fan of jogging for hours, definitely prefer sprinting. Ever noticed that olympic sprinters seem to be more healthy than marathon runners?

Surgicalcric
10-17-2010, 19:04
...The author also pointed out that training these muscle groups to failure might result in programming the nervous system to failure...

You really are missing his point.

...Knowing now how big a role the nervous system plays in strength, what do you suppose will happen if you always train to failure?

Always is the key work in what Nathan was trying to get across. What he is referring to throughout the article, with respect to failure, is muscle memory and how building this memory over time may cause the muscle to fail at a given level of performance. The easy answer is to keep the training varied enough so your muscles do not become accustomed to stopping at a certain point or being pushed to that point on a routine basis, ie: every 6 weeks, every 12 weeks, etc...

As for the bodybuilding aspects, since that is the topic of the article, there are two different methods of working to failure noted by the author in the article (though there are others): through high reps with low weight or moderate reps with heavy weight.

Bodybuilders use each of these differently. High weight and moderate reps, often lifting til they cant perform another rep (to failure) without assistance, to hypertrophy the muscle and induce growth. And low weight, yet high enough to keep the primary/secondary muscles engaged, with higher reps to make the muscle more defined. Both techniques are used at differing times within their workout schedule to meet their goals.

For most of us in SF/SOF, training to failure doesn't involve the hypertrophy of a muscle or muscle group, as noted in the article, but simply not being able to take another step, lift the sandbag over our head again, sit-up with a our ruck in our lap, etc... And we don't ALWAYS train to failure or train on a routine that always brings us to that point. It is sometimes the outcome, but rarely the destination.

As for running/runners, just like tactical athletes vs bodybuilders they each train with their respective goals in mind. Different strokes for different folks is the appropriate phrase I believe.

Dont confuse looking more muscular as with the sprinter with being in better condition...

Crip

500 Proof
10-21-2010, 14:57
Always is the key work in what Nathan was trying to get across. What he is referring to throughout the article, with respect to failure, is muscle memory and how building this memory over time may cause the muscle to fail at a given level of performance.

Making it your primary routine is what he seems to be criticizing.

As for running/runners, just like tactical athletes vs bodybuilders they each train with their respective goals in mind. Different strokes for different folks is the appropriate phrase I believe.

Dont confuse looking more muscular as with the sprinter with being in better condition...

Crip

Endurance athletes are subject to much higher levels of cortisol and other stress hormones throughout their exercises, which can remain elevated for hours afterward, even days.

The immune system is compromised and the body's general health declines until an adequate period of rest gives it time to recover.

High stress for extended lengths of time is unhealthy.

ZonieDiver
10-21-2010, 15:59
High stress for extended lengths of time is unhealthy.

So are bullets... but SF troops deal with them regularly! :munchin

500 Proof
10-21-2010, 16:08
So are bullets... but SF troops deal with them regularly! :munchin

I addressed his statement that marathon/endurance athletes were just as healthy as sprinters.

The Reaper
10-21-2010, 18:10
I addressed his statement that marathon/endurance athletes were just as healthy as sprinters.

Proof:

You are coming across as having a bit of an attitude.

Most of the QPs you are dealing with here are twice your age and are senior SF NCOs/Officers. When I was your age, I was in awe of these people. They are top 1% guys, and are heros. One thing you should quickly deduce from them is that whatever technique they used worked, as they are still here to talk about it. That is practical application versus theoretical, proven on a two-way range.

This is their site, not yours. If that many people are pissing you off, stop posting here.

There will be no further warnings. Enjoy your visit.

TR

GratefulCitizen
10-21-2010, 22:10
There is a theme in this and other threads about the intesity/volume of training and whether or not such training is beneficial.
It's not politically correct to say this, but not all people are endowed with equal levels of natural athleticism or health.

People who are naturally more athletic and/or healthy can withstand more severe training regimens than those who are less athletic and/or healthy.
It doesn't necessarily follow that just because someone survived a particular regimen that it was a good one for them or anyone else.

That being said, some severe training regimens may demonstrate whether or not a given individual possesses the natural aptitude for certain professions.

Not everyone gets to be an astronaut.

Richard
10-22-2010, 07:46
The Joe Alderman* Rule:

We aren't going to the gym in shorts and sneakers to do team PT - we do it year round, outside, in any kind of weather and in the clothing and equipment we're going to be fighting in. It's been my experience that our country doesn't expect us to fight any wars in any gyms.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

*Joe - RIP - was one of the finest examples of an SF soldier I ever knew.