Evaluation of the effects of two doses of alpha glycerylphosphorylcholine on physical and psychomotor performance

Abstract Background Recent studies have suggested that alpha glycerylphosphorylcholine (A-GPC) may be an effective ergogenic aid. The present study was designed to assess the efficacy of two doses of A-GPC in comparison to placebo and caffeine for increasing countermovement jump performance, isometric strength, and psychomotor function. Methods Forty-eight healthy, college aged males volunteered for the present study and underwent baseline assessment of countermovement jump (CMJ), isometric mid thigh pull (IMTP), upper body isometric strength test (UBIST), and psychomotor vigilance (PVT). Following this assessment participants were randomly assigned to groups consisting of 500 mg A-GPC, 250 mg A-GPC, 200 mg Caffeine or Placebo taken daily. Blood samples were collected 1 h and 2 h post initial dose to quantify serum free choline and thyroid stimulating hormone then subjects returned after 7 days of supplementation to repeat CMJ, IMTP, UBIST and PVT. Results No differences were noted between groups for IMTP, UBIST or PVT performance. Serum free choline was found to be elevated in the two A-GPC groups as compared to placebo (132% and 59% respectively). Serum TSH was found to be significantly depressed in the 500 mg A-GPC group compared to other treatments (p < 0.04). Group differences were noted for maximum velocity and maximum mechanical power on the CMJ (p < 0.05) with the 250 mg A-GPC group demonstrating the greatest improvements in result. Conclusions Based upon this evidence, and previous evidence regarding A-GPC, it should be considered as an emerging ergogenic supplement

The case of GWAS of obesity: does body weight control play by the rules?

As yet, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have not added much to our understanding of the mechanisms of body weight control and of the etiology of obesity. This shortcoming is widely attributed to the complexity of the issues. The appeal of this explanation notwithstanding, we surmise that (i) an oversimplification of the phenotype (namely by the use of crude anthropometric traits) and (ii) a lack of sound concepts of body weight control and, thus, a lack of a clear research focus have impeded better insights most. The idea of searching for polygenetic mechanisms underlying common forms of obesity was born out of the impressive findings made for monogenetic forms of extreme obesity. In the case of common obesity, however, observational studies on normal weight and overweight subjects never provided any strong evidence for a tight internal control of body weight. In addition, empirical studies of weight changes in normal weight and overweight subjects revealed an intra-individual variance that was similar to inter-individual variance suggesting the absence of tight control of body weight. Not least, this lack of coerciveness is reflected by the present obesity epidemic. Finally, data on detailed body composition highlight that body weight is too heterogeneous a phenotype to be controlled as a single entity. In summary GWAS of obesity using crude anthropometric traits have likely been misled by popular heritability estimates that may have been inflated in the first place. To facilitate more robust and useful insights into the mechanisms of internal control of human body weight and, consequently, the genetic basis of obesity, we argue in favor of a broad discussion between scientists from the areas of integrative physiologic and of genomics. This discussion should aim at better conceived studies employing biologically more meaningful phenotypes based on in depth body composition analysis. To advance the scientific community—including the editors of our top journals—needs a re-launch of future GWAS of obesity