It sounds like if UCI put it on the banned list, the test would be for excessive levels of tribasic phosphate, whatever that means.

I remember this guy when I was in high school who swam for the same AAU team off season that I did who told me how he had set his best times when he was sick. He was the best swimmer in his event/stroke, and he came down with the flu or a cold or something. He didn't want to miss a big meet. So he took like 6 aspirins just to be able to swim without missing the meet. He attributed his best times to the aspirins, an unexpected consequence.

I suppose if I had an inclination to take anything remotely construed as a doping substance, I would have done it then. I just never had the urge. A while later, this same guy came down with mononucleosis and missed quite a few meets. I don't know if he would have otherwise contracted this, but it did seem like more than a coincidence at the time.

I don't know if this SP causes any side effects, but I wouldn't be surprised if it makes one more prone to sickness of some sort considering the enormous boost it gives a rider beyond his normal capability. I wouldn't be inclined to try it. But I grant that there is a wide gray area in what is considered doping and what is not. I choose to stay away from the gray area.

not sure how you'd test for it when it's present in some foods

training with the flu and some other infections can be potentially fatal

taking NSAIDs prior to exercise can cause potentially serious kidney problems

mono is an extremely common infection


it doesn't cause sickness, in the sense that you mean. it does occasionally cause GI problems

it's not a grey area at all for this substance. as i said before it's common to many foods and a required nutrient. there's a lot of phosphorous for e.g., in cola drinks.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

I may be wrong but I would have thought that sodium phosphate loading would increase the amount of work the muscles can do by increasing the regeneration rate of ATP and Creatine Phosphate. This would allow the muscles to work at a higher rate and thus increase our speed.
Rich

i believe you maybe thinking of creatine phosphate. although, many years ago it was speculated that SP may increase ATP, the mechanisms which phosphate increase performance by are different to this


ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Sigma-Aldrich at Castle Hill in Sydney used to stock the product. Don't know if they still do. I did a quick product search using the molecular formula with no results. The product number S4770 indicated by another poster revealed a non tribasic product.

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com.au/

If you do happen to find the product you will find that Sigma will only sell to persons who can prove they are in the game, ie., industrial chemists, approved research organisations, etc.,

You may also check with the NSW Institute of Sport

http://www.nswis.com.au/Online/splash.asp

A year or so ago, their sports scientists were calling for volunteers amongst competitive cyclists to participate in the testing of sodium phosphate.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

From what I can see I was wrong about the increased turn over of ATP and Creatine Phosphate. It seems that the Sodium phosphate increases the Pi in the blood plasma which after a few days increases the 2,3 bisphosphoglycerate levels inside red blood cells. This increases the haemogloboins P50, allowing the oxygens to be released faster than in non-phosphate loaded individuals increasing VO2 Max.
Rich

that's one 'possible' explanation. this is the most common suggestion, but may not be correct. there's other evidence that it effects cardiac physiology, but there would need to be further research on this

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

How many people were in this study?

seven, using a randomised, placeblo, double-blind, crossover protocol.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

And you think that trial is adequately powered?

__________________

yes, similar to any other study in exercise physiology

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

I would say to people to think twice before using a substance that has not been adequately shown to improve performance.Even more so if they have to fork out money to do so.

__________________

while there is limited data available on phosphate loading there is a body of evidence, including ours which is in press i believe, showing significant improvements using established protocols for detection of a significant effect.

For e.g., Cade at al 1984, Krieder et al 1991, Kreider et al 1992, Stewart et al 1990, Bremner et al 2002 (showed increase in 2,3-BPG with phos loading), Folland et al 2000.

there's evidence that phosphate loading works, and when a specific type is used there is always a significant effect. as regards pricing, it's so cheap as to not actually be a concern. when i purchased the phosphate for out study in 98, it was something like UK£30 for a lifetimes supply. it may have gone up since then, but it's still got to be damn cheap!

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

You mention "significant" improvement - what is your p value and what are your confidence intervals?Its one thing to say 'significant' and another to show statistical significance.

I think that unless a study which has enough power to show a significant difference at whatever p value you choose is done all that you can say about this stuff is that it may produce the effect the makers claim it does or it alternatively may not.

__________________

yes, of course it was statistically significant, i wouldn't have said so otherwise. you'll have to wait for the research to be published in a peer reviewed journal for the actual results.

the makers don't claim any effect in this field, and nor i would guess would they be overly interested (as you only require a very small amount, and it's dirt cheap, i.e., they wouldn't make any money on it!).

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com