89 replies to this topic

[Edgar]

I appreciate you pointing that out, Hebbeh. My phraseology was drawn from my track and field experience decades ago, and it's clearly outdated.

So we are talking about the "burn." It's my understanding that this is caused by pH change in the muscles due to excess hydrogen ions. If I understand it correctly, as production of lactate increases, so does the presence of H+, even if this is not a direct chemical result:

Specifically, lactate is an anion, and its production causes a reduction in the amount of cations such as Na+ minus anions, and thus causes an increase in [H+] to maintain electroneutrality. Increasing partial pressure of CO2, PCO2, also causes an increase in [H+]. During exercise, the intramuscular lactate concentration and PCO2 increase, causing an increase in [H+], and, thus, a decrease in pH.

→ source (external link)

Back to my original observation: The onset of this effect is felt sooner during exercise, and ramps up in a far more gradual manner. I'm interested in hearing from others whether they feel this happen too.

[Turnbuckle]

Cissus quadrangularis, maybe

All right, I tried Cissus for 3 days at 5-7 grams of raw powder per day and it did improve the situation. Good stuff, it seemed. However, the joint pains I'd experienced while taking resveratrol soon returned. And when I looked it up, lo, resveratrol has been found in Cissus.

[Hebbeh]

How about cissus extract? Also I love the aerobic stamina aspect of resveratrol but it eventually gave me some joint issues also. I believe, at least my n=1, that it's due to suppressed estrogen via res effect on aromatase. When I added 50mg of DHEA which readily aromatases to estrogen, the joint issues went away. Of course, YMMV.

[smithx]

I took cissus extract for 2 months and didn't notice anything.

[Hebbeh]

I took cissus extract for 2 months and didn't notice anything.

What condition were you treating with the cissus?

[Junk Master]

Have you tried Graston?

http://www.grastontechnique.com/

[smithx]

I took cissus extract for 2 months and didn't notice anything.

What condition were you treating with the cissus?

I was hoping it would help repair connective tissue damage.

But I didn't notice any other effects either.

[cytg]

We now have several reports of increased strength manifested in more reps with greater weight, occuring very shortly after beginning C60 supplementation.

A putative mechanism of C60 action is improving mitochondrial function by limiting ROS damage by virtue of its anti-oxidant effect when it takes up residence in the mitochondrial membrane. This may happen, but I do not believe it would account for the gain in strength being reported: first, lifting is not an aerobic activity. It can be accomplished with fast-twitch muscles that have few if any mitochondria, and it occurs rapidly enough that (aerobic) mitochondrial function shouldn't be involved. Second, strength depends on size and number of muscle fibers. I do not think these could increase significantly in the short time in which gains were reported.

This could be a placebo effect, but the degree of improvement reported casts doubt on that to my mind.

There is a training effect seen in cycling, where greater strength is achieved through training, enabling muscle fibers to fire together, so it is possible to deliver more power by recruiting the muscle fibers more efficiently. I suppose it is possible C60 is improving the coordination between fibers without increasing their number or individual strength, though I do not know of a mechanism to explain such an effect.

Any other insights into what may be going on here?

Been lifting for 20 years, and well versed in the mechanics and associated litterature.

- First off, if the strength increase occurs within days after starting supplementation, we are very likely NOT talking hypertrophy, ie.fiber growth. (ie. not an androgen vector)
- Do subjects put on weight in the same period of time as strength goes up? This could mean that subjects are retaining water, and could perhaps function like creatin supp.
- If there is no weight gain, that pretty much leaves neural adaptation. That means that subjects are getting better at utilizing motorunits, better firing(neurons; bigger charge, multiple charges) or better flow of calcium ions (or something else in this area).

Thats my guesses ... for what its worth.

[cytg]

first, lifting is not an aerobic activity. It can be accomplished with fast-twitch muscles that have few if any mitochondria, and it occurs rapidly enough that (aerobic) mitochondrial function shouldn't be involved.

While it can be accomplished with only one type of muscle fiber, don't you think all muscle fibers would be involved to some degree, and so improving even one of them would improve the results overall? And even if they could be isolated, I really doubt that anyone reporting results on fullerenes has lifted weights in such a way as do this.

IIRC, actually no, i cannot find the study right now, but it has been shown that top athletes (power athletes) has an ability to only switch on the fast fiber types, ie. type IIb.
That suggests that when excerting power at 80%+, utilizing the slow type I will in fact contribute with a net negative.

[Junk Master]

I've noticed a little swelling in my hands, but I don't feel that creatine water retention. I haven't gained any weight, but I'm limiting carbs and doing a short test run with intermittent fasting.

Also don't think my strength gains have continued at anything close to the rate experienced after my first few doses of c60/OO.

I do continue to feel I recover from long runs and strenuous lifting sessions a day or so faster than before. More like my early thirties rather than 45.

Still have a sense of increased vitality and I believe I'm losing some grey at the temples, though not enough to make a definitive claim.

[maxwatt]

...[snip]

Any other insights into what may be going on here?

Been lifting for 20 years, and well versed in the mechanics and associated litterature.

- First off, if the strength increase occurs within days after starting supplementation, we are very likely NOT talking hypertrophy, ie.fiber growth. (ie. not an androgen vector)
- Do subjects put on weight in the same period of time as strength goes up? This could mean that subjects are retaining water, and could perhaps function like creatin supp.
- If there is no weight gain, that pretty much leaves neural adaptation. That means that subjects are getting better at utilizing motorunits, better firing(neurons; bigger charge, multiple charges) or better flow of calcium ions (or something else in this area).

Thats my guesses ... for what its worth.

Looks like a pretty good guess to me.

[mitomutant]

We now have several reports of increased strength manifested in more reps with greater weight, occuring very shortly after beginning C60 supplementation.

A putative mechanism of C60 action is improving mitochondrial function by limiting ROS damage by virtue of its anti-oxidant effect when it takes up residence in the mitochondrial membrane. This may happen, but I do not believe it would account for the gain in strength being reported: first, lifting is not an aerobic activity. It can be accomplished with fast-twitch muscles that have few if any mitochondria, and it occurs rapidly enough that (aerobic) mitochondrial function shouldn't be involved. Second, strength depends on size and number of muscle fibers. I do not think these could increase significantly in the short time in which gains were reported.

This could be a placebo effect, but the degree of improvement reported casts doubt on that to my mind.

There is a training effect seen in cycling, where greater strength is achieved through training, enabling muscle fibers to fire together, so it is possible to deliver more power by recruiting the muscle fibers more efficiently. I suppose it is possible C60 is improving the coordination between fibers without increasing their number or individual strength, though I do not know of a mechanism to explain such an effect.

Any other insights into what may be going on here?

Been lifting for 20 years, and well versed in the mechanics and associated litterature.

- First off, if the strength increase occurs within days after starting supplementation, we are very likely NOT talking hypertrophy, ie.fiber growth. (ie. not an androgen vector)
- Do subjects put on weight in the same period of time as strength goes up? This could mean that subjects are retaining water, and could perhaps function like creatin supp.
- If there is no weight gain, that pretty much leaves neural adaptation. That means that subjects are getting better at utilizing motorunits, better firing(neurons; bigger charge, multiple charges) or better flow of calcium ions (or something else in this area).

Thats my guesses ... for what its worth.

+1

[niner]

The DMSO discussion that was happening here was good, and deserved its own thread. I split it out into DMSO For Injuries, in the Supplements forum. Please direct further DMSO posts to that thread.

[keflex]

I'd like to find out if anyone who's been administering C60oo has continued strength training? Hearing about the negative effect that antioxidants have on muscle growth and contractile ability, I'm concerned that C60 may interfere with my personal fitness goals (more mass, more strength).

In my opinion, because there are already studies on the negative effect that mega doses of antioxidants have on strength training (more specifically, strength increases), keeping records of strength gains/losses/plateaus over time may be useful in determining whether or not C60 acts as a super ROS scavenger.

Would this actually be useful, or am I just talking out of my rear end?

[zorba990]

I'd like to find out if anyone who's been administering C60oo has continued strength training? Hearing about the negative effect that antioxidants have on muscle growth and contractile ability, I'm concerned that C60 may interfere with my personal fitness goals (more mass, more strength).

In my opinion, because there are already studies on the negative effect that mega doses of antioxidants have on strength training (more specifically, strength increases), keeping records of strength gains/losses/plateaus over time may be useful in determining whether or not C60 acts as a super ROS scavenger.

Would this actually be useful, or am I just talking out of my rear end?

Depends on your age: http://www.ergo-log....thathletes.html
In my case I started high dose C and E when every workout was producing DOMS without adaptation. 2-4g C and 1600IU-2400IU E and no more problems, back to slow steady progress.

[Krell]

I'd like to find out if anyone who's been administering C60oo has continued strength training? Hearing about the negative effect that antioxidants have on muscle growth and contractile ability, I'm concerned that C60 may interfere with my personal fitness goals (more mass, more strength).

I have been taking c60&oo since June and I regularly lift weights. I initially made 500mloo/400mgC60 and I finished that batch off in about 4 months. That first batch dose averaged about 500ml/120days ~ 4mloo/day~3mgC60/day, but I did not take it every day, most often as few table spoons once a week. Now I have made an new 800mgC60/1Loo batch with my $25 eBay stirrer and I am taking it every day at a dose of about ~4mloo ~ 3mgC60. I am hoping the daily dose will have more effect.

I am 67yo, 6'1", 185lb. My weight lifting goal for the last few years has been to bench press my weight 10x. But for many months I have been stuck on a puny 3x. I only lift 1 or 2 times a week since I am lazy and my recovery period is longer than a 20something. On off days I might do some squats or dips or chin-ups, etc. The c60 does not seem to have made any significant difference, either in endurance or strength, over time, so far. So that is one data point for you.

More important, my 3x per week tennis game has not improved from C60! My serve still lags Federer's.

[tintinet]

As I've remarked several times in various C60 OO threads, doses from 1.5 to 9 mg/day have had no dramatic effect on my weight training.

[niner]

I had a dramatic effect, but not on strength. It was on the number of reps until onset of muscle fatigue, which increased dramatically. I do not, however, feel any stronger. I think the only way that you'll see the effect is if you have a trained muscle and know the number of reps where fatigue sets in. If you aren't working to the point of fatigue, you won't see it Whether or not the ability to do more reps would lead to strength gains or not is an open question. A paper was posted early in this thread describing the role of ROS in muscle fatigue, which is certainly consistent with the known ability of C60 to de-activate ROS, e.g. by the dismutation of superoxide.

[Krell]

I had a dramatic effect, but not on strength. It was on the number of reps until onset of muscle fatigue, which increased dramatically. I do not, however, feel any stronger. I think the only way that you'll see the effect is if you have a trained muscle and know the number of reps where fatigue sets in. If you aren't working to the point of fatigue, you won't see it Whether or not the ability to do more reps would lead to strength gains or not is an open question. A paper was posted early in this thread describing the role of ROS in muscle fatigue, which is certainly consistent with the known ability of C60 to de-activate ROS, e.g. by the dismutation of superoxide.

I don't think I am seeing any increased "number of reps" effect. Here is how I do my bench presses:
1) warm up,
2) try to lift 185lb and find I am stuck at 3 reps +/-1 before onset of muscle fatigue,
3) try to lift 155lb and find I am stuck at 7 reps +/-1 before onset of muscle fatigue.
I have been stuck at this level for more than a year, and dosing ~3mgC60/day since June has not changed anything for me.

[Junk Master]

Krell, not sure why you haven't experienced any strength increase with the c60/00 but I can offer you some simple advice about your lifting routine. You need to think of lifting weights in the context of adaptive response. Most people make the mistake of doing too much after a preliminary period where their gains are mostly proprioceptive. You aren't necessarily doing too much, but you aren't varying your routine, thus the stress. If you keep doing the same routine beyond an initial period of acclimation you'll quickly reach a genetic/epigenetic plateau.

Try two weeks of three sets of pushups twice a week to failure before returning to your routine.

[Krell]

Krell, not sure why you haven't experienced any strength increase with the c60/00 but I can offer you some simple advice about your lifting routine. You need to think of lifting weights in the context of adaptive response. Most people make the mistake of doing too much after a preliminary period where their gains are mostly proprioceptive. You aren't necessarily doing too much, but you aren't varying your routine, thus the stress. If you keep doing the same routine beyond an initial period of acclimation you'll quickly reach a genetic/epigenetic plateau.

Try two weeks of three sets of pushups twice a week to failure before returning to your routine.

Thanks, will do.

[nowayout]

I suspect this thread is more a testament to the well-known strength of the power of suggestion (i.e., the placebo effect, especially when amplified by a crowd as it is here) than anything to do with C60.

Given its usefulness, it is indeed unfortunate that this effect cannot be harnessed without indulging in some amount of self-delusion.

Edited by viveutvivas, 23 October 2012 - 07:28 PM.

[Junk Master]

While claiming that an effect "isn't placebo," is akin to telling your therapist "I'm all better...really...." I can unequivocally say I feel more "energy" and am able to lift 5-7 more reps with 60 pound dumb bells when flat benching, do 10-15 more pushups, 4-6 more 45 pound dumb bell curls, 3-5 more strict pull ups when taking c60/oo versus being off for two weeks. I've gone through this cycle a couple times now.

I've also taken just about every hyped supplement out there since the early eighties-- anyone remember HMB?

The only others besides c60/oo I've felt anything from have been creatine, Agamatine, and D Aspartic Acid. The DAA effect quickly diminished and I had only planned to take it for two weeks anyway.

Now there have been food like supplements, whey, liver tabs, waxy maize etc that have enhanced recovery and gains but none that had anything close to a "drug-like" effect.

IMO Neither does c60/oo. But if you're looking for a drug-like effect, spend your money on drugs-- Exogenous Test and 2-3 i.u.s of HGH will do the trick.

[maxwatt]

I increased my leg extension from 110X12 to 130 to see how many reps I could do. (I have just been doing maintenance on weights.) 12 reps no problem, I could have done more, but the sensation was "Yes, I'm stronger, but it is also more stressful than the lighter weight." The muscles let me know I was pushing them though they performed. Similarly on the bike; I could push the pedals harder, more force in a bigger gear, but I also felt it was a stress, like I could easily injure myself, or rupture a tendon if I didn't hold back a little.

Using 1.6 to 1.8 mg daily for several weeks.

[Turnbuckle]

- If there is no weight gain, that pretty much leaves neural adaptation.

Not really. If the effect is the result of turning on mitochondrial genes that had been turned off, positive results could show up in just a few hours. And if the user didn't have a problem with his mitochondria, he might notice no effect at all.

[niner]

I posted the results of my muscle fatigue experiment here. See also the first post in that thread for additional info. If it's self-delusion, it was at least cognizant of pharmacokinetics. I ended up aggravating my biceps tendinitis, so while I'm now taking C60 again, I'll wait a while before I do a lot of reps on that particular exercise. If it's indeed self-delusion, then maybe it won't work a second time. We'll see.

Mitomutant found a good paper on the involvement of ROS in muscle fatigue, which is linked upthread, but here's the abstract:

Free Radical Biology and Medicine, Volume 44, Issue 2, 15 January 2008, 169-179

Free radicals and muscle fatigue: Of ROS, canaries, and the IOC

Michael B. Reid

Department of Physiology, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose Street, Room MS-509, Lexington, KY 40536-0298, USA

Skeletal muscle fibers continually generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) at a slow rate that increases during muscle contraction. This activity-dependent increase in ROS production contributes to fatigue of skeletal muscle during strenuous exercise. Existing data suggest that muscle-derived ROS primarily act on myofibrillar proteins to inhibit calcium sensitivity and depress force. Decrements in calcium sensitivity and force are acutely reversible by dithiothreitol, a thiol-selective reducing agent. These observations suggest that thiol modifications on one or more regulatory proteins are responsible for oxidant-induced losses during fatigue. More intense ROS exposure leads to losses in calcium regulation that mimic pathologic changes and are not reversible. Studies in humans, quadrupeds, and isolated muscle preparations indicate that antioxidant pretreatment can delay muscle fatigue. In humans, this phenomenon is best defined for N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a reduced thiol donor that supports glutathione resynthesis. NAC has been shown to inhibit fatigue in healthy adults during electrical muscle activation, inspiratory resistive loading, handgrip exercise, and intense cycling. These findings identify ROS as endogenous mediators of muscle fatigue and highlight the importance of future research to (a) define the cellular mechanism of ROS action and (b) develop antioxidants as novel therapeutic interventions for treating fatigue.

Edited by niner, 24 October 2012 - 09:02 PM.

[robosapiens]

Although with resistance excersise, we do use all types of muscle fibers in changing ratios, i.e we do not "only" use type II-b in heavy lifting, at the upper range of power, the efficiency of neural firing patterns/syncronization tends to dominate vs. metabolic or mechanical influences.

A useful test would be performing exersise at near maximal weights (%90+), and watching the results

[niner]

at the upper range of power, the efficiency of neural firing patterns/syncronization tends to dominate vs. metabolic or mechanical influences.

I read somewhere that this was the case in an untrained muscle, but that in a trained muscle, the onset of fatigue was dominated by metabolic influences. Or is that only the case at lower weights?

[Junk Master]

In "trained muscle" I believe the onset of fatigue is dominated by metabolic influences to a greater extent the longer the time under load. So, less for lower reps done explosively.

[nowayout]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19567927

nt J Sports Physiol Perform. 2009 Jun;4(2):244-53.
Placebo effects of caffeine on short-term resistance exercise to failure.

Duncan MJ, Lyons M, Hankey J.

Source

Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Derby, Derby, UK.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

This study examined the placebo effect of caffeine on number of repetitions (reps), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), blood pressure (BP), and peak heart rate (PHR) during resistance-training exercise with repetitions (reps) performed to volitional failure.
METHODS:

Following determination of 1-rep maximum in single-leg leg extension, 15 males performed reps to failure at 60% 1-RM in 3 conditions: control, perceived caffeine condition, and perceived placebo condition presented in a randomized order. Participants were informed they would ingest 250 mL of solution that contained either 3 mg.kg(-1) caffeine or 3 mg.kg(-1) placebo 1 h before each exercise trial. A deceptive protocol was employed and subjects consumed a placebo solution in both conditions. During each condition, total reps, RPE for the active muscle and overall body, and PHR were recorded.
RESULTS:

Subjects completed 2 more reps when they perceived they had ingested caffeine. RPE was significantly (P=.04) lower in the perceived caffeine and control conditions and RPE for the active muscle was significantly higher across all conditions compared with RPE for the overall body. No substantial differences were evident in PHR across conditions.
CONCLUSIONS:

Results of this study are similar to studies of actual caffeine ingestion. However, the perception of consuming a substance that purportedly enhances performance is sufficient enough to enable individuals to complete a greater number of reps to failure during short-term resistance exercise.

http://www.gundluth....6No1placebo.pdf

Placebo Effects on Exercise Performance
ABSTR ACT
Despite the routine use of placebo control in exercise intervention studies, there is inadequate information about the magnitude of the placebo effect and how it might respond during different types of exercise. This study was designed to evaluate the placebo effect in different populations and in different types of exercise. In a 3-part study the effect of purported nutritional ergogenic aids was measured in: (A) trained runners in a 5-km time trial, (B) physical education students during a high-intensity cycle sprint test, and © in clinically stable patients during a 6-minute walk test. In A, performance was improved by 83 seconds (6.5%), with a larger placebo effect in the slower runners. In B, there was no significant effect on peak or mean power output, or on the pattern of fatigue. In C, although there was no significant difference in the distance completed in the 6-minute walk test, there was a significant trend (P = .08) for patients to walk faster during the first minute of the test. The results suggest that the placebo effect may be of significant magnitude, particularly during more prolonged tasks, and may influence both athletes and patients.