Sodium Phosphate

gntlmn said:

I can hardly believe I'm reading about all you guys shamelessly doping with sodium phosphate. Wouldn't this be easy to detect with testing as a performance enhancing substance? Why is this not on the banned list? Is it expected to be in the near future? Why should athletes have to take chemicals to stay in competition with those of you who are doing this?

lots of things are performance enhancing, that aren't on the banned list just like phosphate isn't (on the banned list).

it isn't doping, so there's no need to be shamed about it.

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

lots of things are performance enhancing, that aren't on the banned list just like phosphate isn't (on the banned list).

it isn't doping, so there's no need to be shamed about it.

ric

it's not doping because it's not on the banned list? if it were added to the banned list, then you would say it's doping?

What does sodium phosphate do to your resting BP?

gntlmn said:

it's not doping because it's not on the banned list? if it were added to the banned list, then you would say it's doping?

What does sodium phosphate do to your resting BP?

in reverse order, no idea if SP does anything to your BP, never checked. the mechanism by which it may work (it needs to be further elucidated) may be beneficial to cardiac patients.

as i said there's many things that improve performance that are not on the banned list. some of them you're likely to use yourself, e.g., food, carbohydrates, water, caffeine, training. and before you suggest that these are either real foods or needed (e.g. training), phosphates and phosphorous is present in huge quantities throughout our food and drinks, is a needed chemical for normal body functioning and is eaten/consumed every day.

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

in reverse order, no idea if SP does anything to your BP, never checked. the mechanism by which it may work (it needs to be further elucidated) may be beneficial to cardiac patients.

as i said there's many things that improve performance that are not on the banned list. some of them you're likely to use yourself, e.g., food, carbohydrates, water, caffeine, training. and before you suggest that these are either real foods or needed (e.g. training), phosphates and phosphorous is present in huge quantities throughout our food and drinks, is a needed chemical for normal body functioning and is eaten/consumed every day.

ric

I guess that makes it all the more remarkable that this sodium phosphate will be a performance enhancer because if they are both electrolytes, they will separate to their ions in solution. Why would ingestion in combined form be an advantage? Is it the quantities? Are the doses higher than these huge quantities we are already consuming?

gntlmn said:

I guess that makes it all the more remarkable that this sodium phosphate will be a performance enhancer because if they are both electrolytes, they will separate to their ions in solution. Why would ingestion in combined form be an advantage? Is it the quantities? Are the doses higher than these huge quantities we are already consuming?

all i can say is that they don't dissolve into solution very much. can't answer the other bit, not sure there is an answer. there only appears to be a benefit with tribasic SP. other types of SP or P don't appear to have any effect (or may even be detrimental).

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

all i can say is that they don't dissolve into solution very much. can't answer the other bit, not sure there is an answer. there only appears to be a benefit with tribasic SP. other types of SP or P don't appear to have any effect (or may even be detrimental).

ric

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.

gntlmn said:

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

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

Quoted post said:

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.

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

taking NSAIDs prior to exercise can cause potentially serious kidney problems

Quoted post said:

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.

mono is an extremely common infection

Quoted post said:

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.

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

Quoted post said:

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.

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

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

NUFCrichard said:

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

dorkpants said:

what company supplies it in AUS?

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.

sigmaaldrich.com.ausigmaaldrich.com.auOpen ↗

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

nswis.com.ausplash.aspOpen ↗

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

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

NUFCrichard said:

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

ric_stern/RST said:

In our study (and most others) we (they) use 1 gram four times a day for four days (other studies have loaded for five days), taken after food, and with the phosphate dissolved in a cold drink (e.g., cordial/squash).

Ric

How many people were in this study?

fearby said:

How many people were in this study?

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

ric

And you think that trial is adequately powered?

fearby said:

And you think that trial is adequately powered?

yes, similar to any other study in exercise physiology

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.

fearby said:

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

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.

fearby said:

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