Posted by Animal on March 07, 1997 at 00:29:35:
In Reply to: Animal--Let's try this again--It ain't over yet!!!!!!! posted by Unique on March 06, 1997 at 23:19:50:
: First, I am not and never was pissed at you. I am really a very even tempered person that takes most
: things in stride (even the HMB didn't really anger me--just hyperbolizing the situation). Anyway you're
: cool with me and always have been even though YOUR WRONG about the PPA!
: I don't see how you can continue arguing your point when it's such basic biochemistry! Medline has plenty
: of studies comparing the various ephedrine (including PPA) alkaloids with each other in terms of effect, potency,
: etc. The results: PPA is the strongest of the alkaloids with ephedrine right behind it. PPA is the most
: thermogenic of the bunch and this too is shown in Medline studies. I will say this once more that none of the
: ephedrine alkaloids have intrinsic adrenergic potential. All of them stimulate the adrenal glands to varying extents
: to produce more adrenaline and noradrenaline. Cardiotoxic--yes, some but really no more than ephedrine. PPA is not
: intrinsically cardiotoxic but again is so because of its stimulated increase of adrenaline and a concomitant stimulation
: of the beta-1 and beta-2 receptors in the heart. Man, this is basic stuff, how can you argue this? Have you even tried
: PPA? Someone please come to my defense who has substituted PPA for ephedrine in the normal stack. Please set the record
: straight that they have the same basic effect. Think about it--if this stuff is so bad why is the FDA targeting ephedrine
: and not PPA (I realize that ephedrine is safe and should be left alone). Believe me, PPA is quite safe and VERY effective.
: Keep up the fight
: Unique
I knew you'd come up with that! We think too much alike, on some stuff. Anyhow, below is the most recent post trying to find if PPA increases weight loss. I know that the molecules are very close, but I wouldn't give somebody meth instead amph even though they are as close as PPA is to eph. Hell psuedoephedrine is only one OH from methamphetamine and you would never want to mix them up. I'm talking on the receptor level, I know that it is hard for most people to fathom that one OH group could be that much difference between clearing up your sinuses and keeping you awake for days, but it is. It's these small differences in these phenylamines that make a world of difference. And to me it looks like PPA (without the CH3) is as far away from eph as psuedo is to meth. That's just my molecular theory and it really has nothing to do with pharmacology. I'm looking at how these different molecules do or don't work on the receptors. Ever read Phenylethylamines I have known and loved by Shulgin (I think) that's the same thing. One molecule and you're in for a whole different trip. We're splitting straws and I see your point in that they are so close it works but I just haven't seen anybody say they've tried this as long as we've been discussing it. I even tried PPA and wasn't impressed, but if people come forward and say it works that's great.
93142691
Authors
Alger S. Larson K. Boyce VL. Seagle H. Fontvieille AM. Ferraro RT.
Rising R. Ravussin E.
Title
Effect of phenylpropanolamine on energy expenditure and weight loss in
overweight women.
Source
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 57(2):120-6, 1993 Feb.
Abstract
The effect of phenylpropanolamine (PPA), a noncatecholamine
sympathomimetic weight-loss agent, on energy expenditure (EE) and
substrate oxidation was measured in a respiratory chamber in 24 overweight
women after 4 d of treatment (PPA or placebo) during weight maintenance
and after 7 wk of treatment on a hypoenergetic diet (70% of measured
baseline 24-h EE). Twelve women (37 +/- 2 y, 74 +/- 6 kg, 33 +/- 1% body
fat) were randomly assigned to the PPA group [75 mg osmotic release oral
system (OROS)-PPA/d] and 12 (mean +/- SEM: 38 +/- 2 y, 79 +/- 1 kg, 37 +/-
1% body fat) to the placebo group. Baseline measurements of 24-h EE (7849
+/- 226 vs 7834 +/- 142 kJ/d), basal metabolic rate (BMR) and 24-h
respiratory quotient (RQ) were comparable between PPA and placebo groups.
After 4 d of treatment, there was no significant effect of PPA on 24-h EE,
BMR, and 24-h RQ compared with placebo. Over the 7-wk diet period,
however, the PPA group (n = 8) had greater weight loss than the placebo
group (n = 10): -5.0 +/- 0.5 vs -3.0 +/- 0.4 kg (P < 0.05). The changes in
24-h EE and 24-h RQ over the 7 wk were not different between the groups.
We conclude that weight loss is enhanced by OROS-PPA, but this change was
not explained by changes in 24-h EE or 24-h RQ. The small number of
subjects may have hindered detection of subtle differences in energy
metabolism.