Steroids - Nasal
Important Note:
Be Sure To See Why
Show-Tech TM
Is The Best Choice For
Alternative Bodybuilding Steroid Supplements Ever!
My otorhinolaryngologist (hereafter "doc") prescribed Flonase spray. He explained that it should reduce my nasal congestion and retard the growth of polyps. I followed his advice and used this product, but I never noticed any benefit from it. Then a correspondent told me that his doc told him that there is a problem with the delivery system (a hand-actuated pump spray, hereafter "spray") for Flonase -- the active ingredient (fluticasone propionate, a steroid) is not delivered far enough up the nose to be effective against the sort of inflammation and polyps that he and I have. I assume that this product is effective for the sorts of nasal allergies that many people have (so called "hay fever"), because it sells well. My correspondent told me that his doc prescribed the Rhinocort Nasal Inhaler for him and that it worked well. I asked my doc to write me a prescription for this product. He first gave me Rhinocort Aqua, a water-based product that delivers a metered dose of the drug by spray. I noticed no effect of this product. After explaining that I wanted to try a "puffer," I obtained a prescription for the Rhinocort Nasal Inhaler. This is an aerosol that delivers a metered dose of the steroid (budesonide).
Unlike the steroid sprays, the Rhinocort Inhaler did help me somewhat (but not enough to keep my sense of smell without also using a systemic steroid, Kenalog by injection), so I used it on a regular basis until it was discontinued by the manufacturer. On the 31st of August, 2002, I got a letter from my pharmacy advising me that the Rhinocort Nasal Inhaler would become unavailable in early 2003, and it was. The propellant (chlorofluorocarbons) used in nasal inhalers can cause depletion of ozone, and the U.S. FDA has ruled that using CFCs in metered-dose steroid human drugs for nasal inhalation can no longer be considered to be essential, and thus these products must be discontinued. Of course, pharmaceutical firms could change to a different propellant -- at least one alternative propellant has been developed by 3M Corp., which has licensed its new technology to drug maker Schering-Plough -- but 3M wants to recoup the costs of developing this new propellant, and some of the pharmaceutical firms do not want to pay big bucks for using it -- see Glaxo Wellcome vs 3M.
A correspondent from Singapore advised me that his doctor prescribed for him the Rhinocort Turbuhaler. Like the discontinued Rhinocort Inhaler I have used, this product delivers budesonide powder. It is used both for asthma and the treatment of nasal polyposis, but appears not to be available in the US. It is available in Canada.
After the Rhinocort Inhaler was discontinued, I switched to the Nasacort Inhaler. The steroid in Nasacort is Kenalog (triamcinolone acetonide), the same drug that gives me long-term relief when injected deep into muscle. Although the Nasacort inhaler did irritate my nose a bit (made it itch for a few minutes, stimulating sneezing), it was effective -- but it too was pulled off of the market. In June of 2003 I got a letter from my pharmacy advising me that the Nasacort Inhaler would no longer be available. Damn. I shifted back to Flonase, which may be better than nothing.
In June of 2004 correspondent Dale advised me that the Nasacort HFA Inhaler has been approved by the FDA. This new product uses hydrofluoroalkane (HFA), rather than chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to propel the dry steroid into the nasal chamber. I believe this is, in fact, the delivery system developed by 3M. I am hoping to be able to use this new product, if my health plan's drug Nazis will allow it. I wish budesonide (Rhinocort) would become available in an HFA inhaler.
Another of my correspondents, JY from South Africa, told me in May of 2002 that his physician had started him on a new product, Flixonase Nasules. The active ingredient is the same as in Flonase spray, but it is delivered as a nose drop rather than as a spray. A device called a "nasule" is used to deliver a metered dose of the drug. Each nasule contains 400 mcg of fluticasone propionate. JY administers this drug by hanging his head over the side of the bed and squeezing 200 mcg into one nostril and then the remaining 200 mcg into the other -- this is twice the dose you get with two sprays of Flonase. According to the manufacturer, this method of delivery places the drug well into the nasal cavity rather than just at the front of the nose like sprays do. Although Flonase spray did not help JY, he reported to me that Flixonase Nasules worked marvelously for him. JY told me that use of these nasules restored his sense of smell and that after using these nasules "I went to see the doc for a checkup and he said he can see parts of my sinuses he has never seen before (I've been going to this doc for about four years)." Regretfully this product is not available in the United States. When I search for it on the web, most of the pages on which I find it mentioned are "pharmacy benefit exclusion pages," that is, pages that list the drugs that the Health Insurance Nazis disallow.
I did find mention of Flixonase nasules in the Primary Care Journal Watch (1999, May), issue 32, page 3. Here it said "Another formulation of fluticasone - it is now available in a new drop formulation specifically designed for the treatment of nasal polyps. The company claims that by using Nasules(tm) a controlled dose of steroid is delivered into the nasal cavity, unlike sprays which mainly deposit the drug at the front of the nose. In the promotional material the company cite a placebo-controlled study which showed that the active drug was associated with a statistically significant increase in morning peak nasal inspiratory flow over a 12-week period. The contents of one nasule (400mcg fluticasone) should be instilled once or twice daily: which means that it costs between £13.48 and £26.96 to treat one patient for a month."
In the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (2005, 115, 1017-1023) A. A. C. Aukema, P. G. M. Mulder, and W. J. Fokkens reported "Treatment of nasal polyposis and chronic rhinosinusitis with fluticasone propionate nasal drops reduces need for sinus surgery." In other words, these nasules were effective in providing relief and reducing the need for sinus surgery. I found manufacturer's information at the UK site for GSK.
Another correspondent, ER from the UK, told me that her doc advised that a spray formulation was of little use and put her on fluticasone nasules. She added that another alternative was the use of betamethasone nose drops, which are available in the UK. Of course, these too are not available in the USA. Another of my correspondents told me that her doctor put her on dexamethasone drops that were designed for use in the eyes or ears. She reported that this treatment was successful in restoring her sense of smell.
A correspondent from Pennsylvania told me that his doc had modified a nasal inhaler so that it could be fitted with a canister of Flovent 110. Flovent 110 is designed to be used for oral inhalation (for asthma), not nasal inhalation. It delivers a metered dose of 110 mcg of fluticasone. The propellants used in this inhaler are chlorofluorocarbon propellants (trichlorofluoromethane and dichlorodifluoromethane), like those in the nasal inhalers that have been phased out. I wrote the doctor asking for details or a reference, but he never replied.
A member of the Smell Disorders Group at Yahoo got her ENT to prescribe an asthma inhaler which she then adapted for nasal use. See her post and the beclomethasone inhaler that she used.
Several correspondents also noted that the effect of any of the nasal steroids waned with time, but if they switched to a different nasal steroid then it would be effective for a while.
In the Spring of 2003 a new subscriber to the anosmia group at Yahoo reported that the steroid nasal sprays Flonase and Nasonex did not help her, but that the Nasacort Inhaler did restore her sense of smell. She then lamented that the Nasacort Inhaler was no longer available in Canada, pulled from the shelves because it contains CFC's. She is trying the Rhinocort Turbohaler now, which she said delivers the powdery drug by the power of one's inhalation, with no propellant, CFC or otherwise.
About The New
"CreaBlast™" Creatine
You Will Be Stronger.
High Grade Creatine Is Here
As you may know Sharp Labs Inc. who is one of the leaders in alternative supplement research and development has finally released their mega potent high grade own creatine formula. Folks please browse our site and see why we think our creatine will outperform any other creatine product out there. There is so much nonsense talked about in this modern day creatine world and the bottom line is this!
CREATINE IS
BASICALLY ALL THE SAME
All Creatines Are Yes Pretty Much The Same Except For The Grade Of The Strain. Some Companies Mix Other Ingredients To Try To Be Unique And Others Try Liquid Formulas But The Bottom Line Is You Are Paying For The Potency Of Your Supplement, Well You Should Be!
CREATINE DOES COME
IN SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT GRADES
There Are Many Grades Of Creatine On The Market. We Could Easily Make Our CreBlast With Cheaper Grade Creatine And Sell It For $10-$15 Per Bottle And That Is A Fact. We Can Send You Proof!
THE HIGHER THE STRAIN
THE MORE EFFECTIVE THE CREATINE
Our Creatine Is Made By Our Own Private Manufacturer And With Sharp Labs Being Their Leading Supplement Formulation Team You Should Know You Are Getting Top Grade In Any One Of Our Supplements!
USE CREATINE ALONE:ie. Not With Other Ingredients Mixed Into Your Creatine Capsule. This Does Not Mean Don't Use Any Other Supplements Just Use A Base Creatine Supplement For Your Supplement. Other Add In Ingredients Only Take Away From The Potency And Effectiveness And May Actually Break Down The Structure Of The Creatine!
YES ALL CREATINE IS IMPORTED
Sharp Labs Inc. Imports The Absolute Top Grade Creatine Available And Each Bottle Is Checked For Potency, Purity, Quality, And Utmost Freshness!
"CreaBlast™"
There is overwhelming evidence which shows that creatine supplementation does cause an increase in the amount of creatine phosphate in muscles. Harris et al (1992) conducted a study examining creatine content in the quadriceps femoris muscle in 17 subjects after supplementation of 5 g of creative monohydrate 4-6 times a day for two days. The results found a significant increase in the total creatine level in all subjects but the results were especially noticeable in those with the lowest muscle creatine store at the start of the study. To determine whether exercise could affect the amount of creatine absorbed by muscles, some of the participants followed a unique training program. During supplementation, they pedaled a bicycle ergometer for one hour each day while using only one leg to supply the pedaling force. With supplementation, the unexercised legs increased their creatine levels by about 25 percent, but the exercised legs increased their creatine levels by 37 percent. It is hypothesized that exercise increases the flow of blood to the muscles or changes the rate at which muscles absorb creative from the blood, thus improving the creatine loading effect. Another study conducted by Febbraio replicated the results obtained by Harris.
Several studies also show that creatine supplementation does cause an increase in muscle strength. Earnest et al (1995) conducted a study investigating the influence of creatine monohydrate supplementation on muscular power and strength in 10 experienced weight trained male subjects. Three series of high intensity, anaerobic type muscular workouts were used. The first series consisted of three consecutive 30 second Wingate bike tests, followed by five minuets of rest. Peak anaerobic power was defined as the greatest power achieved in a given five second work interval. Anaerobic work was defined as the total amount of work performed in a 30 second period. The second series used a one repetition maximum (lRM) free weight bench press as a test of muscular strength. The third series utilized complete lifting repetitions at 70% of the bench press IRM until fatigue. Fatigue was defined as the inability to complete one lifting repetition or the inability to maintain a lifting cadence of one second eccentric and one second concentric (lifting and lowering the weight). Total lifting volume was calculated as 70% of pre-test IRM multiplied by the number of complete lifting repetitions. Subjects received either a glucose placebo or creatine monohydrate supplement in a double blind fashion. (After 14 days of supplementation, each subject was re-tested on the Wingate bike tests. Re-testing for the weight lifting trials was done after 28 days of supplementation.
Within the creatine group, total anaerobic work from the Wingate tests was significantly higher during all post-test trials. The increases were 13% for series one, 18% for series two and 18% for series three. No changes were noted in the placebo group. Greater total anaerobic work resulted from the creatine subject's ability to achieve and maintain higher levels of anaerobic power consistently over- each five second time interval. Bench press IRM increased 6% in the creatine group. Total lifting volume was significantly higher within the creatine group, whether expressed in absolute terms (26%) or relative terms (29%). Increases in the total lifting volume were associated with the ability of the creatine group to perform 26% more lifting repetitions. The authors conclude that the ability of the creatine group to perform a greater total lifting volume demonstrates the effectiveness of creatine as an ergogenic aid.
In Hultman's study (cited in Anderson, 1974) these results were replicated. Each day, creatine was given in six separate doses of five grams a day. During the six-day period, five other Estonian runners of comparable ability received a glucose placebo instead. All runners were unaware of the actual composition of their supplements. Before and after the six-day supplementation, the athletes ran four 300-meter and (on a separate day) four 1000-meter intervals, with three minutes of rest between the 300-meter intervals and four minutes of rest between the 1000-meter intervals. Improvement on the final 300-meter interval (from pre-to-post supplementation) was more than twice as great for creatine users, and improvement was more than three times as great for creatine supplements in the final 1000-meter interval. Total time to run all four 1000-meter intervals improved from 770 to 757 seconds after creatine supplementation. In comparison, the placebo group actually slowed from 774 to 775 seconds.
In Hultman's study (cited by Anderson, 1994) creatine supplementation was very important during the last interval of each workout. Creatine supplementers doubled their advantage during the final 300-meter interval and tripled their advantage in the closing 1000-meter sprint. This supports Hultman's hypothesis that creatine is likely to be most helpful when lactic acid levels are highest and fatigue is greatest. Hultman thus feels that creatine serves as a buffer lowering lactic acid muscle burn and delaying fatigue, thus allowing an athlete to perform longer workouts.
In contrast, Balsom at al (1993) investigated the influence of creatine supplementation on endurance exercise performance in the form of a 6 km run and showed that creatine supplementation does not enhance performance or increase peak oxygen uptake during prolonged continuous exercise. There was actually decreased performance in the creatine supplementation group, which may be attributed to the participants weight gain.
In support of Balsam et al (1993), Febbraio et al (1995) conclude that creatine supplementation "may not increase performance during exercise where a significant proportion of energy is derived form aerobic metabolism." This aerobic metabolism occurs during more prolonged, sustained exercise as opposed to anaerobic metabolism which occurs during fast, nonsustained muscle contractions. It is therefore more likely that if creatine supplementation has an effect it will only be seen during brief, anaerobic exercise such as sprinting or weight lifting.
As you may or may not know, creatine monohydrate will not fully dissolve in liquid. That's why you always get that gritty sand at the bottom of the glass. Look at it this way, if it falls like sand to the bottom of your glass what does it do in your stomach? Maybe that explains why so many complain of stomach discomfort when using regular creatine monohydrate.
New High Grade "CreaBlast" Creatine
With Sharp Labs Inc.'s endless strive for excellence in all phases of sports supplement science and manufacturing we have finally released our new high grade ultra pure new creatine supplement that incorporates state-of-the-art particle micronizing technology.
This technology sets a new standard for creatine monohydrate supplementation by actually producing creatine "micro-particles" that are 20 times smaller than regular creatine powder.
High grade micronized creatine has numerous advantages over regular creatine monohydrate.
Faster Absorption
"CreaBlast" Creatine's smaller particle size means quicker digestion and faster utilization.
Our capsules are packed with these tiny crea-particles and release superior performance.
More Efficient
20 times more total surface area for greater uptake into the bloodstream.
Greater Purity
Micronizing creatine produces a more pure creatine. By increasing the total processing steps and purification procedures, "CreaBlast" yields a finished product substantially more pure. Test it. We challenge you.
Mixes Easier and Better
"CreaBlast" Creatine has 20 times more surface area. Greater service area means easier, faster and more complete mixing.
No Stomach Upset
Regular creatine monohydrate sits in the gut longer. This causes discomfort to many users. CreaBlast Micronized Creatine goes into solution better and leaves the gut quicker causing no stomach upset.
Better Results
New "CreaBlast" Micron High grade Creatine offers 2000% more particle surface area for better utilization, better uptake, and faster results.
Drink Plenty of Liquids!
Creatine works by enhancing muscle cell hydration. It is very important to consume adequate fluids while taking creatine to see best results. A good rule of thumb is to drink an EXTRA 16 to 20 ounces of liquid for every 5 grams of creatine you take.
During your Loading Phase you should be drinking an EXTRA 64 to 80 ounces of liquid than you normally drink. During the maintenance phase you should drink an EXTRA 32 to 40 ounces.
Order "CreaBlast™" Now!
To See The Latest In Next Generation Bodybuilding Supplements And Safe Alternatives To Steroids Please Click Below To Learn More About "SHOW-TECH"™! SHOW-TECH™ Is One Of Our Most Exciting And Long Time Products To Help Men And Women Alike Achieve The Fullest Potential In Muscle Compostion And Definition Without The Dangers Of Harmful Steroids! Our Proven Cell Volumization Formula Works For Nothing Short Of Amazing Results With Muscle Growth Guaranteed To Everyone! Perfect For All Levels Of Bodybuilding From The Beginner To The Professional Bodybuilding Competitor! Superior Lean Mass Gains Now Without Those Illegal And Potentially Deadly Steroids!
Web Author: Sharp Labs Inc.™
SEE WHAT SHOW-TECH™ CAN DO FOR YOU!
Hardcore Bodybuilding Without Deadly Steroids! Buying Nasal Steroids And Bodybuilding Don't Mix!
Copyright2006 And Up - Sharp Labs Inc.
"ALL RIGHTS RESERVED"
|
