Hope I’m not breaking one of Slowman’s rules by bagging on a company that is marketing to triathletes. And now for the disclaimer: I have never tried Epovar, Have never laid eyes on a bottle of Epovar, hadn’t even heard of Epovar until I looked at page 20 of the new Triathlete Magazine. But come on, I don’t have to try it to know that they’re full of shit. They are claiming an 82% improvement in VO2 Max. 82%, did I read that right, was that a typo, should it have read 8.2%? That would have been somewhat believable, but 82%???
It’s been quite some time since my last Exercise Physiology class but if memory serves me correct in an untrained individual VO2 max can increase up to 20%. Someone who is already on a solid training program will not see the same gains. Now the only way I can imagine that they saw an 82% improvement, is that all the subjects were near death, on life support at the time of the pre-test. Then there’s a miraculous recovery, and after months and months of rehab relearning first how to stand, then wobble/walk and finally run the subjects then begin a vigorous training program while taking Epovar. After 12 weeks of vigorous training there’s a post-test and voila massive (82%) improvement in Vo2 Max. That’s the only possible explanation i can come up with. Again, it’s been 5 years or so since my last ex. phys class, so maybe I’m missing out on some new landmark studies concerning Vo2 Max. I kinda doubt it.
If you notice, like with most of these “studies,” they never publish the margin of error. A real study graph would show the bar graph with error bars at the top and bottom of the range. So it is probably like 82% with an error range of 200%, so basically, the study is worthless. Anytime the “gains” are that large, it is obviously bogus. But the advertising must work, because why else would the do it…
impossible. No way that a Pro cyclist would even increase his VO2max by 8.2% from a legal supplement. 8.2% increase in VO2max is huge in a well trained athlete. But why measure VO2max as an indicator? Why didn’t they measure something of more importance? Sustainable Power over a given course, or VO2 measurement during that sustained effort would be more important to predict true racing improvement.
The reason they did what they did: MARKETING.
edit: maybe the subjects were initially overweight. Reducing their body weight while at the same time training them can manipulate the numbers tremendously.
I’d look carefully at the wording again, and probably at the actual test data, if possible. Marketing often manipulates the numbers to sound large. The 82% number is probably a true value (though the test protocol itself may leave room to question the measurement)…but 82% is probably an increase in some part of the equation RELATED to VO2 Max…but NOT 82% increase in the VO2 Max value itself. Of course you put 82% in ad copy and hide the truth in deceptive wording and voila, a casual reader sees 82% increase in VO2 Max…
For example…say a “study” was done that showed a non-user had a 1% increase in VO2 max over said period of time and a user had a 1.82% increase in VO2 max over said period of time. Do a little math and all of the sudden, the user has “an 82% gain in VO2 Max”…just leave out all the silly details and you’ve got great ad copy…why wouldn’t I want to be able to claim an 82% gain…even if it makes no sense in the context of my wording…
Does something like that equate to “truth in advertising”? I don’t think any of us think it does. But hey…it sells product to the sheep.
“In a double-blind randomized study, 23 competitive triathletes competing in an event consisting of a 500-meter swim, a 20-km bicycle race, and a 5-km run using EPOVARTM or placebo
Here were the amazing results for EPOVAR group:
Increased Vo2Max 82% Dramatically reduced performance times for all users (faster finishes) 31% increase in serum glucose concentrations 104% improvement in serum insulin concentrations 10% improvement in venous O2 partial pressure 8% improvement in blood proton concentration 1.79nL improvement in blood leukocyte counts Lowered serum cortisone levels CK catalytic concentration lowered 18%”
Of course there is no reference for said study. Obvious questions are: When was the pre-test and post-test? How long was the training period? As Rappstar stated: what was the standard error? I don’t know, many obvious questions that would absolutely destroy these claims. But that’s not what really pisses me off about this. What really pisses me off is that Triathlete Magazine allowed this ad to run as printed. This is a clear case of a company blatantly lying to gain new customers. This goes far beyond “clever marketing”. It’s an out and out lie. They know that most triathletes have no understanding of physiology. Most have heard the term Vo2 max and know that “higher is better”, but have no understanding beyond that. Shame on FIZOGEN (the manufacturer) and also shame on Triathlete Magazine for putting advertising dollars ahead of integrity and the well-being of it’s readership.
“On the significance of magnesium in extreme physical stress. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 1998 Sep;12 Suppl 2:197-202. Golf SW, Bender S, Gruttner J. Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Pathobiochemistry, University Medical School, Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany.”
I googled around and found this reference listed as their study. Does anybody have access to Medline and can further crack this nut?
I myself find merely the name of the supplement to be, er, interesting, being that it has “EPO” in it and the connection is made to increased aerobic performance. Also, and this is incredbly ballsy, the manufacturer of EPOVAR calls themselves FIZOGEN. Again the “linkage” to epo’s American producer Amgen!
My bad, I didn’t realize that extremely fine print at the bottom of the page was a reference for these stats. I did find it odd that they were talking about a study on magnesium, yet the ad copy didn’t state magnesium anywhere. Anyhoo, got the abstract off Pubmed. Interestingly not one mention of Vo2Max in this abstract. Also no mention of EPOVAR, the tested supplement was Mg Orotate, which is a primary ingredient in EPOVAR. Here’s another kicker, the cost of EPOVAR $89.95 per bottle (60 servings).
On the significance of magnesium in extreme physical stress.
Golf SW, Bender S, Gruttner J.
Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Pathobiochemistry, University Medical School, Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany.
In a double-blind randomized study, 23 competitive triathletes competing in an event consisting of a 500-meter swim, a 20-km bicycle race, and a 5-km run were studied after 4-week supplementation with placebo or 17 mmol/d Mg orotate. The tests were carried out without a break. Blood was collected before and after the test, and between the different events for assaying energy stress and membrane metabolism. Swimming, cycling, and running times decreased in the Mg-orotate group compared with the controls. Serum glucose concentration increased 87% during the test in the control group and 118% in the Mg-orotate group, while serum insulin increased 39% in the controls and decreased 65% in the Mg-orotate group. Venous O2 partial pressure increased 126% during the test in the controls and increased 208% in the Mg-orotate group. Venous CO2 partial pressure after the bicycle race decreased 66% (significantly) in the Mg-orotate group compared with 74% in the controls. Blood proton concentration decreased to 90% in the Mg-orotate group (significantly) compared with 98% in the controls. Blood leukocyte count increased from 5.92/nL to 11.0/nL in the controls and from 5.81/nL to 9.10/nL in the Mg-orotate group, a significant difference. Serum cortisol was lower in the Mg-orotate group before and after the test compared with the controls. CK catalytic concentration after the test was elevated 140% in the controls compared with 122% Mg-orotate group. The stress-induced modifications of energy and hormone metabolism described in this study indicate altered glucose utilization after Mg-Orotate supplementation and a reduced stress response without affecting competitive potential.