Various performance supplements are being openly advertised nowadays, eg by podcasts and some athletes, aimed at age-groupers.
There’s nothing wrong with advocating for some magnesium or powdered greens to keep you at full health, but then we had THC creams, ketones, and now ‘plasma-boosting tree bark extract’ and a low-paperwork online pharmacy?
How can anyone want to be publicly associated with things like this? Doping is only defined by a list of tested substances, and that list means very little if there’s no testing of age groupers. What’s different here?
Various performance supplements are being openly advertised nowadays, eg by podcasts and some athletes, aimed at age-groupers.
There’s nothing wrong with advocating for some magnesium or powdered greens to keep you at full health, but then we had THC creams, ketones, and now **‘plasma-boosting tree bark extract’ **and a low-paperwork online pharmacy?
How can anyone want to be publicly associated with things like this? Doping is only defined by a list of tested substances, and that list means very little if there’s no testing of age groupers. What’s different here?
Tree bark? This is the first time I hear about this, so I had to google this thing.
Just watched KB’s latest video, which was in-part an unscientific advert for pinus pinaster. (The whole video was pretty unscientific, though I guess you can’t expect them to give away too much data. However, revealing a financial interest in the product you’re touting might be nice.)
That said, it looks like the active ingredient (extract from the bark of a French pine species) has some research to back it, going back several decades. For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3203267/. I’d be open to trying it. For me, the distinction between an illegal performance enhancing drug and a legal performance enhancing substance should be based on safety, availability to all athletes (and this includes being available at a reasonable price), and research to support efficacy and negligible health risks.