Ashwagandha thread

cannot be recommended due to its thyroid effects.

also interested in this.
there are some studies that it increases test. and might also be handy for stress managing

>>42541569
?

>>42541525
i took some. powder form and put it in a glass of milk. Tastes awful.

>>42541656
okay? did you notice any effects?

>>42541656
top kek

put it in capsules

>>42541525
https://examine.com/supplements/ashwagandha/Studies show it works and its not expensive.

>>42541667
nothing noticeable after half a month. don't really know what it does. my gf bought it and said it's for stress or whatever. but I am already a pretty calm guy.

Its good stuff, take 2 before bed
Used to make me calmer but seems to have stopped working lately as I'm on clen

>bought a box of it
>I don't know if I'll have an alergic reaction to it
>want to try it but considering asking a doctor if I should

halp

>>42541845
>>I don't know if I'll have an alergic reaction to it
why the fuck would you?

>>42541853
loving motherly indoctrination about never tried foods.
I'm probably just fucking with myself though, I realize it. Probably going to take some tomorrow night.

What does this do? Saw it before but didnt bother to ask

>>42541845
How do you manage to leave the house while being this much a puss?

>>42541876
Damn. Helicopter mom from hell?

>>42541845
If you're considering asking a doctor you might as well get an allergy test while you're at it.

>>42541584
https://examine.com/supplements/ashwagandha/#summary12-4
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16355578

>>42541525

800mg powder in gelcaps
1 per day, in the evening after workout & eating

also relevant is 5000-10000 IU of D3, and zinc/magnesium 1x/day.

combined daily with above (but not all in the same sitting) it basically destroyed my job stress over the first few weeks I took it. If everything else is reasonably well off this will turn it up a notch or two

>>42543292
>https://examine.com/supplements/ashwagandha/#summary12-4

cited paper is based off of a sample size of n=1

>>42543390
All the other papers point to an amelioration of *hypo*thyroidism and an *increase of serum concentrations of thyroid hormones* in mice and humans, perfectly in line with that paper. Caveat emptor

>>42543366
>falling for the vitamin D jew
>D3 is better than D2
first off, no. you don't need vitamin d all year round unless you're a scandi or a melanin-enriched too far from the tropics. second, d3 is absorbed exactly as much as d2, can't be bothered to find again that paper. thirdly, any vitamin hyper-dosing is a scam and at best won't produce any benefit besides placebo (at worst, it will be counter-productive)

>>42543498

It's the toxicity bit that gets me.
Replicate that, and you'll have more than an edge case

>>42543567

They just happen to be D3; why take that in 1000 IU caps if I'm paying the same price per dose?

As for
> year round
I'll shoot back with
https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/tip-boost-performance-in-14-days-with-this-vitamin

Yes, it's T-Nipple, but fuck if I'm going to track down all the shit. Let's just say I'm not 20 anymore, I have a high stress active job, and when my healthplan offered a full blood screening including vitamin/minerals and test that I jumped.

The funny part of the screening was my lipids between work, exercise & diet I have borderline high cholesterol...except it's almost all the healthy kind that most people can't get enough.

Reading the actual papers is cool, but until you do the blood test you're just guessing. I'm lucky to have a really good GP and live in an area that's the perfect middle ground between too hippie and too brainwashed 600lb cartrider

Is this the next creatine?

File: 1501817358548.png (94KB, 195x189px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 195x189px

Seems to work for me. Tests said after 2 months, cortisol is reduced by 30%, and that means more test production. But I also pair it with meditation, so I'm not sure which is having more effect, or if they are compounding

File: 1493516824395.jpg (237KB, 780x960px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 780x960px

>>42543957
>TFW there is only one type of cholesterol and people still say good and bad cholesterol

I instantly know that you know nothing about cholesterol

>>42544084

Obviously people are referring to the different cholesterol-contaning particles.

File: 1498182339799.gif (498KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 500x281px

>>42544177
doubt it, they literally think that the lipoproteins are the cholesterol, people are stupid.

There is no such thing as bad and good lipoproteins either, what a retarded way of talking about biology, they each have a function and plaque is only formed to heal tears, inflammation, infection etc of the arterial wall

all people who think low cholesterol is good should die, and they will. People with high cholesterol live longer

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11502313
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170412105837.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3442317/

just lmao at low cholesterol cucks

>>42544249

>they literally think that the lipoproteins are the cholesterol, people are stupid.

Nobody thinks that. Everyone, whether it be /fit/ posters or world renowned cardiologists would refer to it as "cholesterol" or specifically "LDL or HDL cholesterol" with the understanding being that these are cholesterol-containing lipoproteins.

>all people who think low cholesterol is good should die, and they will. People with high cholesterol live longer

Take the time to understand the nuances of statistics before taking something like that at face value.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/711853

>>42544399
>face value

so following thousands of people for 20 years and studying their mortality and cholesterol levels is bad science???

HMMMMMMMMM really makes me think

just admit it, you have been fooled by big pharma like every statin cuck has

>>42544427

It's not bad science on its own, but science has to be interpreted. The point of gathering data is analyzing the data to get a better understanding of it. To take the data at face value and not attempt to understand it defeats the purpose of science.

File: 1495723648906.jpg (13KB, 167x175px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 167x175px

>>42544439
you're literally saying nothing, just like a coca-cola science spokesperson or a politician, completely ignoring what has been shown

time and time again, when populations are observed for a years and years, monitoring mortality and cholesterol levels, those with the highest live the longest and experience lower levels of neurological disease as well

cholesterol is repeairing inflammation in the arteries caused by smoking, heat, bacteria/viruses, glycation, high omega 6 intake etc

and good job linking to something that requires a subscription, newfag

File: 1496797167682.jpg (14KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 225x225px

>>42544439
Here's something that may tickle ya dick

>Results We identified 19 cohort studies including 30 cohorts with a total of 68094 elderly people, where all-cause mortality was recorded in 28 cohorts and CV mortality in 9 cohorts. Inverse association between all-cause mortality and LDL-C was seen in 16 cohorts (in 14 with statistical significance) representing 92% of the number of participants, where this association was recorded. In the rest, no association was found. In two cohorts, CV mortality was highest in the lowest LDL-C quartile and with statistical significance; in seven cohorts, no association was found.

>Conclusions High LDL-C is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (ie, that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401

File: 1f9ea2a67ecb578b52f6482c858d0d9ff573a0f768fa105664127dd0a74b2e42.jpg (61KB, 673x1024px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 673x1024px

yeah thought so

>low cholesterol cucks BTFO

>>42544482
>>42544534

Read the linked medscape article >>42544399

Low cholesterol correlates with things like cancer, rapid weight loss associated with illness and lack of appetite especially in older age. There's no reason to think that having low cholesterol leads to health problems.

In the BMJ paper, the main author who has written a lot of books that deny the role of cholesterol in heart disease, gets disingenuous with what his study is looking at.

>risk decreased with increasing age and became minimal after the age of 80years. Since atherosclerosis and CVD are mainly diseases of the elderly, the cholesterol hypothesis predicts that the association between CV mortality and TC should be at least as strong in the elderly as in young people

What he ignores is that atherosclerosis develops over several decades and is affected by cholesterol levels during those decades, while cholesterol is known to drop significantly in elderly people. If you ignore everyone else and look at just the oldest people, you have no chance of finding an association because you're not looking at the period during which the atherosclerosis was developing, you're only looking at the end when cholesterol levels abruptly change and can't represent the lifelong levels that would have caused the disease.

Like I said, you can't take information at face value.

File: 1492861756781.png (58KB, 500x498px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x498px

>>42544641
you are a fucking retard
the hawaii study followed the patients for 20 years, plenty of time for atherosclerosis to develop, and those with the HIGHEST AT THE START lived the longest

JUST LMAOOOOO AT YOU BTFOOOOO
>tries this hard to bring his viewpoint into reality with mental gymnastics

>>42544666

Here's the full text of the Hawaii study

http://www.onespiritmedicine.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/studies/cholesterol_and_all_cause_mortality_in_elderly_people_from_the.pdf

Read the Discussion section to see how the authors interpreted their findings.

"
>The reasons for these results are not clear. Perhaps they indicate a selective mortality; those individuals who are susceptible to biological effects of high serum cholesterol die before they reach age 75 years. The individuals who are left would be a select group with lower cholesterol and whose genetic makeup or other factors protect them from the effects of higher cholesterol concentrations. To some degree Honolulu Heart Program data support this hypothesis—there are few individuals with truly high concentrations of cholesterol remaining in this population.
>revious data on concentration of cholesterol
from this population show that the distribution of
cholesterol has shifted towards the left as the cohort ages
>Iribarren and
colleagues
20
suggested that a decline in serum cholesterol
might occur over a decade before diagnosis of disease, and
such long-term morbidity could be attributable to chronic
subclinical infections with hepatitis B, or to chronic
respiratory disease resulting in repeated respiratory
infections. These disorders could increase concentration
of proinflammatory cytokines that cause hypo- cholesterolaemia. 21"

It's a complex topic, especially when you're looking specifically at old people.

>>42544641
jesus christ you must be mentally challenged

the author is stating that the findings go against the cholesterol hypothesis, learn how to read

Does Ashwagandha cause hair loss?

File: 1496932077393.jpg (73KB, 960x824px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 960x824px

>>42544745
>perhaps they indicate

that's very scientific isn't, who gives a fuck what their (((perhaps))) says which is all made up and not in the actual study at all, look at the results.

low cholesterol die more often from literally everything

>>42541525
I take 1 capsule of Jarrow KSM-66 Ashwagandha every morning. KSM-66 is a potent, standardized extract that in my experience works better than just root powder.

This stuff has honestly changed my life. Way more sociable, stress way down, energy up, libido up, ect.

Here's what most people miss: when you first take it you'll probably feel like you took a small dose of Xanax due to its GABA effects. This will wear off over time, don't chase this feeling. The true benefits come with long term daily use. Yes, there is a GABA effect but the long term anxiety reduction comes from reduced cortisol levels.

AMA

>>42544751

Obviously, and he's right, but the reason why it seems to go against the lipid hypothesis is something we already understand from other research, and doesn't negate the lipid hypothesis.

>>42544785

Again, taking data at face value is unscientific. What you're suggesting here is the same thing Fat Acceptance people suggest when they take studies at face value showing that people with a higher BMI live longer, ignoring that lower BMI can either be due to anything from a daily rigorous exercise routine to having a methamphetamine addiction. Face value interpretations do not give you an accurate picture.

>>42543366
Mr. Placebo is going wild over here

>>42544879

adding 20-60lbs to my lifts over the course of 10 weeks now?
I've had cycles that added less to my lifts

>>42541735
Page doesn't exist you scum fuck

>>42545122
https://examine.com/supplements/ashwagandha/
are you retarded and couldnt tell studies wasnt a part of the link?

File: 1502779711972.jpg (28KB, 492x419px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 492x419px

>>42544249
>they literally think that the lipoproteins are the cholesterol

No one thinks this you autistic cuckold.


Tried ashwaganha last year for about a month, no noticeable effect.

>>42545103
>I've had cycles that added less to my lifts

why did you cycle when you had no idea what you were doing and couldnt afford food?

>>42545152
>are you retarded and couldnt tell studies wasnt a part of the link?

you literally sent the link with "studies" BEING PART OF IT, you actual retard

>>42545152
>Puts studies in part of the link
>Doesn't even put a full stop, but a "/" at the end of the sentence
>Calls others retarded
Kys yourself right now you faggot

>>42545182
>>42545221
So whos dumber, me for accidentaly not hitting space bar.
or
you 2 for not realizing it even though you can see the S is capatilized?
Children when you grow up youll learn dont bite the hand that spoon feeds you. Now stfu you little niggers.

>>42545287
>Being this autistic
I know 100% you're a filthy neck beard who doesn't lift.

>>42545340
How am i autistic for forgetting to hit the space bar?

File: 1496505083719.jpg (90KB, 428x344px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 428x344px

>>42545340
HAHAHAAHAHAH

>>42544815
how long have you been taking it for, breh?

I'm taking the same dose and brand as you and haven't really felt any different. About 2 weeks in btw

>pajeet shills ITT

>>42545422
Few months in. Honestly if you don't feel anything you might not "need" it. Ashwagandha supposedly works by balancing your endocrine and other body systems, so it's possible that your body is already well balanced. I felt it very strongly, like a drug, the first time I took it.

>>42545451
Hey, Michael. Did you doing your work outs today? Today, I am did:

3x5 Groundshits
3x10 Drink cow pisses
4x6 Jerk off into river while some guy shits 2 feet away from me, so that the oil from his poostream is lubricating my penis

>>42541525
If you're wanting a supplement to reduce anxiety or some form of depression try n acetyl-cysteine. Worked wonders for me.

>>42541569
xplain

Umm so is ashwaganda good now or not?
Currently taking it with my keto diet and I'm feeling pretty actually, dunno if it's placebo but I feel less stressed and more confident