Talk:ECA stack

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I get the Ephedrine and Caffeine, I don't get the Aspirin? Did they just put that there for good luck or something? Sen (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The aspirin is supposedly to block potential ill effects of mixing caffeine, ephedrine, and working out. There's some incomprehensible broscience involved; shorter version: they say to take aspirin to prevent heart attacks, so it's a Really Good Idea to take one here too. According to its promoters though, caffeine enhances the thermogenic effects of ephedrine, and aspirin further enhances the thermogenic effects of the two in combination. No, I don't buy it either. Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I've asked on wp:Talk:ECA stack for at least a good, citable claim of a mechanism, even if the mechanism itself is bogus. Coupla days so far, tumbleweeds. The description I used in our article is from an older revision that was on Wikipedia. There's a pile of old papers listed on the Wikipedia talk page, but the guy who put them in failed to make any Wikipedia-ish sense of them (which, frankly, is not hard at all) and I'm not going to track down paper copies myself - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Bit late to the convo, but as an amateur strength trainer, I can tell you one limiting factor is blood pressure during squats and deadlift, since they use so much muscle the blood gets squeezed everywhere. Aspirin is a blood thinner, so it's possible people use it for that effect. CorruptUser (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


girlie talk[edit]

This article has so many childish non essential editorial comments that it cannot be treated with much respect. It seems to have been written by one lone adolescent evangelist who has concluded based on the research he has done that the world needs to be saved from eca. Please think about what you're trying to accomplish with this article, and how to do it. If you want to help educate people, just gather as many facts as you can, cite where you found them, and stick to that. Otherwise, you risk influencing readers towards thinking that people who are in the anti eca camp are typically uneducated, easily influenced, shallow thinking, over emotional, like to hear themselves talk, and so on.

This is what I mean... I would suggest you just delete these:

This has not, of course, stopped bodybuilders from using it for a moment. Tim Ferriss' magnum opus of broscience because, duh, it's speed and talking shite at a mile a minute It's probably safer than crystal meth, though.— Unsigned, by: Bypasser / talk / contribs

Cool story, bro - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In what way is this "girlie"? — Unsigned, by: RandomPerson / talk / contribs

This article admit it works but says it's fake. This undermines the whole rationalwiki project. You should cite the studies that show it is effective, including the one below that says it has good effects on the p-ratio, and probably mention that it's being banned has less to do with science and more to do with the fact that people make speed from it. Sad!71.94.59.109 (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Studies that show it works? What studies? Christopher (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
If you have studies that show an actual ECA stack works as advertised - and, for that matter, has a consistent formulation of the ECA stack - that would be a most useful thing - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Preferential fat targetting[edit]

Contra the article's assertion that "It does not preferentially target fat — you're just upping your metabolism and suppressing your appetite, as with any speed" there is actually clinical evidence of EC acting preferentially on fat stores (at least in obese subjects) -- "Weight-loss was not different in the groups, but the E + C group lost 4.5 kg more body fat and 2.8 kg less fat-free mass (FFM)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1619985 — Unsigned, by: 64.140.239.91 / talk / contribs

The study is a bit on the light side. 14 obese women is not necessarily a trend. But what it's saying is that a faster metabolic system can cause less fat to be stored in the first place, so when you have less fat intake (in a sense) you tend to burn more fat to begin with. I sound like I'm twisting words but about this the papers seem a bit light on supporting the position. Got any others? Zero (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I have nothing intelligent to add, just wanted to say this article made me recall fond memories of getting jacked up on ECA and doing warehouse work... Occasionaluse (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
"[W]eight loss at 12 weeks was 3.5 +/- 0.6 kg with C&E compared with 0.8 +/- 0.5 kg with placebo (p < 0.02). The percentage fat lost, shown by DXA, was 7.9 +/- 2.9% with C&E and 1.9 +/- 1.1% with placebo (p < 0.05)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15292480
"The treatment group lost significantly more body weight (-7.18 kg) and body fat (-5.33 kg) than the control group (-2.25 and -0.99 kg, respectively)" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16552410
"By last observation carried forward analysis, herbal vs placebo treatment decreased body weight (-5.3+/-5.0 vs. -2.6+/-3.2 kg, P<0.001), body fat (-4.3+/-3.3 vs. -2.7+/-2.8 kg, P=0.020) and LDL-cholesterol (-8+/-20 vs. 0+/-17 mg/dl, P=0.013), and increased HDL-cholesterol (+2.7+/-5.7 vs. -0.3+/-6.7 mg/dl, P=0.004)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12032741
"The decrease in relative body weight, BMI and body fat (measured by bioelectric impedance) was significantly (P<0.05) greater in the CE group (mean±s.d.; 14.4±10.5%, 2.9±1.9 kg/m2, 6.6±6.0 kg) than in the PL group (2.2±5.8%, 0.5±1.6 kg/m2, 0.5±2.7 kg)." http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v24/n12/full/0801433a.html
Of course there's always the confound of these studies being done on obese populations and how much carry-over their really is to already lean athletes. Excess body fat though is generally understood to be protein sparing, so if there is a significant effect on fat:lean mass vs. placebo in an obese population it at least suggests some carry over of that effect to other populations (even if the net weight loss effect were reduced). So not necessarily open-and-shut but not an entirely baseless assertion.
(And FWIW this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1318281 is supposed to be the primary study demonstrating that the E+C stack is particularly more effective than either alone would suggest. I don't have access to any more than that slim abstract though and haven't seen the rodent studies it mention either so I can't speak to how solid or shaky it might be.) — Unsigned, by: 64.140.239.91 / talk / contribs
Thank you, IP - anyone want to hit /r/scholar for paywalled stuff? - David Gerard (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hm...I think I'm convinced to reword this. Second opinion guys? Zero (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't show that it preferentially targets fat more than otherwise upping your metabolism - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hm...Okay. It'll be left as is, perhaps we could reuse some of these sources in the "Science Says" section at least to bolster the idea that EC does have some weight loss effects, but isn't that much different than any generic diet pill. Zero (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
+1 to more science in the "Science says" section - I've had a bugger of a time finding stuff that specifically addresses the stack rather than hypothesising David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice one! - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Reddit, lol[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/xxfitness/comments/41mul4/considering_eca_stack_and_increasing_protein/ FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)