Re: Scrawny guys, weightlifting, and colostrum

[Guest guest]

Hi Betsy,

When I first started working out, it was around the same time I

coincidentally started taking Immune Tree colostrum for my eczema (which didn't

work). I

was taking two teaspoons a day at first, then I cut down when I was running out

to one teaspoon after a workout and one tsp before bed, so I was taking one

tsp four days a week and two tsp 3 days a week (I was working out 3 days a

week).

Right now I'm using Jarrow, which seems to be the highest quality and most

cost-effective (I get it from iherb.com). I use two capsules (1 gram) after a

workout, and four capsules (2 grams) before bed.

The colostrum will help build muscle and will also help preserve muscle and

burn fat for fuel. I'm considering starting off the day with a capsule to

maximize the fat-burning potential of my undereating phase on the WD.

Lifting weights, for guys anyway, is usually followed by a significant growth

spurt within the first couple of months, and then the muscle becomes harder

to put on. If he eats enough food and takes the colostrum he might be able to

continue putting on a pound a week after his initial growth spurt.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Transfer Factor has colostrum plus other immune modulators in it. Have you ever

considered taking it instead of the colostrum?

Jafa

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

Hi Betsy,

When I first started working out, it was around the same time I

coincidentally started taking Immune Tree colostrum for my eczema (which didn't

work). I

was taking two teaspoons a day at first, then I cut down when I was running out

to one teaspoon after a workout and one tsp before bed, so I was taking one

tsp four days a week and two tsp 3 days a week (I was working out 3 days a

week).

Right now I'm using Jarrow, which seems to be the highest quality and most

cost-effective (I get it from iherb.com). I use two capsules (1 gram) after a

workout, and four capsules (2 grams) before bed.

The colostrum will help build muscle and will also help preserve muscle and

burn fat for fuel. I'm considering starting off the day with a capsule to

maximize the fat-burning potential of my undereating phase on the WD.

Lifting weights, for guys anyway, is usually followed by a significant growth

spurt within the first couple of months, and then the muscle becomes harder

to put on. If he eats enough food and takes the colostrum he might be able to

continue putting on a pound a week after his initial growth spurt.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Speaking of colostrum, has anyone ever used Cytolog (a colostrum

derivative)? Lots of info at www.cytolog.com

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/14/03 8:38:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> I'm curious - why do you say that the Jarrow is higher quality than the

> immune-tree?

If I remember correctly, Jarrow is 100% grass-fed, while Immune Tree is

pastured and fed grain also, but don't quote me on that. What I know I remember

correctly is that Jarrow is from the first 12 hours and IT is from the first 24.

I dont' know if that makes a difference.

What I do know, is that Jarrow is at least as high quality, but far cheaper.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/14/03 4:47:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jafasum@... writes:

> Transfer Factor has colostrum plus other immune modulators in it. Have you

> ever considered taking it instead of the colostrum?

Jafa,

Right now I'm not taking colostrum for the immune factors but forth the

growth factors, so that's kind of a side benefit. I'm not familiar with

Transfer

Factor, but since my purpose is the growth factors, I think colostrum would be

more potent in that regard.

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:31:06 EST

Subject: Re: Scrawny guys, weightlifting, and colostrum

....

Right now I'm using Jarrow, which seems to be the highest quality and most

cost-effective (I get it from iherb.com). I use two capsules (1 gram) after

a

workout, and four capsules (2 grams) before bed.

....

I'm curious - why do you say that the Jarrow is higher quality than the

immune-tree?

[Guest guest]

Immune-Tree is from the first 12 hours, and it is from " organic, grass-fed "

cows. At least according to the Radiant Life catalog.

How do you " know " that Jarrow is at least as high quality, especially if you

don't know if the above factors make a difference?

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:01:41 EST

Subject: Re: Scrawny guys, weightlifting, and colostrum

In a message dated 11/14/03 8:38:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> I'm curious - why do you say that the Jarrow is higher quality than the

> immune-tree?

If I remember correctly, Jarrow is 100% grass-fed, while Immune Tree is

pastured and fed grain also, but don't quote me on that. What I know I

remember

correctly is that Jarrow is from the first 12 hours and IT is from the first

24.

I dont' know if that makes a difference.

What I do know, is that Jarrow is at least as high quality, but far cheaper.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/15/03 1:10:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> How do you " know " that Jarrow is at least as high quality, especially if

> you

> don't know if the above factors make a difference?

I'm not sure what you're saying. If Jarrow's is collected in a shorter time

than Immune Tree, obviously it is at least as high-quality as Immune Tree.

What I don't know is whether or not that makes it BETTER or not. But if

something is the SAME quality and, say, half the price, than it is twice as

cost-effective. Immune Tree is not 100% grass-fed, which I know from reading

the side

of the container it comes in. It is pastured however.

Iherb.com contains descriptions of several paragraphs of each colostrum

product. IIRC Jarrow is 100% grass-fed.

Another thing that impresses me about Jarrow is they list the assay amounts

of immunoglobulins and growth factors, and I haven't seen any other colostrum

product to do so. I'd think this means it is probably more potent, but can't

compare cause no one else lists it. But at least it's respectable that they

are trying to provide maximum information.

I'm not saying Immune Tree is not high-quality. It SEEMS Jarrow is higher

quality, but I at least have no reason to think it's LOWER quality, and

therefore I'm going to go with it because it's cheaper.

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:12:56 EST

Subject: Re: Scrawny guys, weightlifting, and colostrum

>

> In a message dated 11/15/03 1:10:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> How do you " know " that Jarrow is at least as high quality, especially if

>> you

>> don't know if the above factors make a difference?

>

> I'm not sure what you're saying. If Jarrow's is collected in a shorter time

> than Immune Tree, obviously it is at least as high-quality as Immune Tree.

> What I don't know is whether or not that makes it BETTER or not. But if

> something is the SAME quality and, say, half the price, than it is twice as

> cost-effective. Immune Tree is not 100% grass-fed, which I know from reading

> the side

> of the container it comes in. It is pastured however.

>

Well, forgive me, but I don't quite understand the distinction you're making

between something being 'higher quality' and 'better'.

You are taking 2 paramters - the time within which the colostrum is

collected, and whether the cows are grass fed, and implying that the quality

of the colostrum depends solely on these two factors, regardless of what

other processing may or may not be done on the product. But then you also

seem to be saying that even though these two parameters completely determine

the quality of the product, you are not sure whether they determine whether

one product is better than the other, so you do seem to admit that other

factors may be involved in what I would call the quality of the product...

I am really not interested in this to argue with you about the logic of your

statements! I just spent a bunch of $ on the large size of Immune-Tree, and

if the Jarrow is really just as good for considerably less money, then in

the future I'll certainly choose it.

One difference in the processing may be the following. I notice that the

Immune-Tree is recommended in the Weston A. Price shopping guide that I

have, and that in N.T. it is stated that a colostrum should not be

" defatted " . I don't see anything in the Jarrow literature that claims that

their colostrum is not defatted, while the Immune-Tree is not defatted.

I found a more extensive analysis of the Immune-Tree colostrum at

http://www.pennysaved.net/colostrumanaly.htm. I can't say I am qualified to

read this in comparison to the Jarrow info and derive a conclusion that I'm

really confident about. However, here is another difference I see

immediately. The Jarrow claims 35% immunoglobulins while the Immune-Tree has

22.11%. That is a big difference. Here is what is claimed on the Immune-Tree

analysis site:

" Total Immunoglobulins - Many widely marketed brands of colostrum have an

immunoglobulin count ranging from 25% to 40% and for the most part these

products are filtered or standardized. Some " high Ig " products (Ig =

immunoglobulins) contain 30%. Immune-Tree¹s Natural Strength colostrum is

all " Natural " meaning our colostrum has not been filtered, standardized or

manipulated in any way and this we think far exceeds either filtering or

standardizing because this is what Mother Nature intended. A RID test does

not measure biological activity of any component identified in the RID

test. "

I also admit that I am more suspicious of Jarrow, since they are one of the

big manufacturers of vitamins and supplements. It also seems like the

Immune-Tree is organic, while Jarrow is not.

> Iherb.com contains descriptions of several paragraphs of each colostrum

> product. IIRC Jarrow is 100% grass-fed.

>

> Another thing that impresses me about Jarrow is they list the assay amounts

> of immunoglobulins and growth factors, and I haven't seen any other colostrum

> product to do so. I'd think this means it is probably more potent, but can't

> compare cause no one else lists it. But at least it's respectable that they

> are trying to provide maximum information.

>

> I'm not saying Immune Tree is not high-quality. It SEEMS Jarrow is higher

> quality, but I at least have no reason to think it's LOWER quality, and

> therefore I'm going to go with it because it's cheaper.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/15/03 1:55:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >>How do you " know " that Jarrow is at least as high quality, especially if

> >>you

> >>don't know if the above factors make a difference?

> >

> >I'm not sure what you're saying. If Jarrow's is collected in a shorter

> time

> >than Immune Tree, obviously it is at least as high-quality as Immune Tree.

> >What I don't know is whether or not that makes it BETTER or not. But if

> >something is the SAME quality and, say, half the price, than it is twice as

> >cost-effective. Immune Tree is not 100% grass-fed, which I know from

> reading

> >the side

> >of the container it comes in. It is pastured however.

> >

>

> Well, forgive me, but I don't quite understand the distinction you're making

> between something being 'higher quality' and 'better'.

Hi,

If you look at what I wrote that you quoted above, you will see I made no

such distinction, and used " high quality, " not the comparative " higher quality. "

> You are taking 2 paramters - the time within which the colostrum is

> collected, and whether the cows are grass fed, and implying that the quality

> of the colostrum depends solely on these two factors, regardless of what

> other processing may or may not be done on the product.

No I'm not, I'm simply only explicitly comparing those. I consider it also a

sign of quality that Jarrow is not pasteurized and is low-temperature

freeze-dried. I imagine soil fertility would be incredibly important, but have

no

way of evaluating the soil fertility of either product.

But then you also

> seem to be saying that even though these two parameters completely

> determine

> the quality of the product, you are not sure whether they determine whether

> one product is better than the other, so you do seem to admit that other

> factors may be involved in what I would call the quality of the product...

I never made any statement that remotely implied those were the only factors

that are determinative in the quality, I readily admit that there are other

such factors, but more importantly, what I'm actually saying is that for the

specific variable of time of colostrum collecting, I don't know if the quality

or

purity declines between 12 and 24 hours or if it remains constant. As to the

grass-fed variable, I assume that that DOES make a difference in the product,

but said that I didn't remember the exact details on the feeding patterns.

> I am really not interested in this to argue with you about the logic of

> your

> statements! I just spent a bunch of $ on the large size of Immune-Tree, and

> if the Jarrow is really just as good for considerably less money, then in

> the future I'll certainly choose it.

I've spent money on both. I have no reason whatsoever to think that Jarrow

is less quality, and I got it for a bit less money than I payed for Immune

Tree.

> One difference in the processing may be the following. I notice that the

> Immune-Tree is recommended in the Weston A. Price shopping guide that I

> have, and that in N.T. it is stated that a colostrum should not be

> " defatted " . I don't see anything in the Jarrow literature that claims that

> their colostrum is not defatted, while the Immune-Tree is not defatted.

Jarrow claims that the reason their immunoglobulin count exceeds a minimum of

35% is because it is from the first milking. I don't know if they mean they

take it before the calves get some, but if I remember correctly on the

iherb.com description it said that they didn't.

I don't think the size of the company has anything to do with anything

whatsoever, since the cows are pastured and the colostrum is freeze dried rather

than pasteurized and powdered, etc. So obviously the size of the actual farming

operations are small enough not to interfere with correct processing. I don't

see any reason to believe Jarrow's colostrum is defatted, whatever that

means, but you can ask them if you're concerned.

I don't know what difference organic makes if the cows are pastured. Pasture

usually isn't sprayed. Lots of the highest-quality pasturing farmers in my

area are not certified organic.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/16/03 12:48:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >>>>How do you " know " that Jarrow is at least as high quality, especially

> if

> >>>>you

> >>>>don't know if the above factors make a difference?

> >>>

> >>>I'm not sure what you're saying. If Jarrow's is collected in a shorter

> >>time

> >>>than Immune Tree, obviously it is at least as high-quality as Immune

> Tree.

> >>>What I don't know is whether or not that makes it BETTER or not. But if

> >>>something is the SAME quality and, say, half the price, than it is twice

> as

> >>>cost-effective. Immune Tree is not 100% grass-fed, which I know from

> >>reading

> >>>the side

> >>>of the container it comes in. It is pastured however.

> >>>

> >>

> >>Well, forgive me, but I don't quite understand the distinction you're

> making

> >>between something being 'higher quality' and 'better'.

> >

> >Hi,

> >

> >If you look at what I wrote that you quoted above, you will see I made no

> >such distinction, and used " high quality, " not the comparative " higher

> >quality. "

> >

>

> When I reread it I get the same interpretation, except that you do seem to

> allow for the possibility that they are exactly the same quality. But if

> that's not what you meant, ok.

Re-reading it for the fourth time, I don't see how you can possibly retain

your initial interpretation. I didn't once use the term " higher quality " which

you " quote " me as using, so I don't see how you can understand me as

contrasting the term " higher quality " (which I didn't use) and " better. "

Obviously if

I used both those terms and distinguished them this would be reasonable, but I

used " high quality " and I used " better " and distinguished them by the

descriptive form of the former and the comparative form of the latter. In other

words I'm equating " high quality " and " good " and using them interchangably, and

am

simply making the appropriate distinction between simple descriptive,

comparative, and superlative (not used here).

So I could have said " it is at least as GOOD as Immune Tree but I dont' know

if that makes it HIGHER QUALITY or not " or I could have said " it is at least

as HIGH QUALITY but I don't know if that makes it HIGHER QUALITY or not " or I

could have said " it is at least as GOOD but I don't know if that makes it

BETTER or not. " Equating " good " and " high quality, " all four are essentially

saying the same thing.

> My instinct is that the Immune-Tree is better, but I don't think we're

> going

> to get any further.

I don't really care if Immune Tree is better or not, I mostly care if Immune

Tree is better enough that it compensates for the extra money. So if it's 5%

better and 100% more expensive, then Jarrow is the better option.

But no, we're not going to get any further if we resort to instincts, because

I don't regard instinct as very valuable in determining the quality of a

product.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/16/03 4:05:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> whatever.

Are you responding to perceived sarcasm or something? I was trying to

straighten out and clarify my use of language so it would come across as I meant

it...

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:31:44 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Scrawny guys, weightlifting, and colostrum

>

>

> In a message dated 11/15/03 1:55:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>>>> How do you " know " that Jarrow is at least as high quality, especially if

>>>> you

>>>> don't know if the above factors make a difference?

>>>

>>> I'm not sure what you're saying. If Jarrow's is collected in a shorter

>> time

>>> than Immune Tree, obviously it is at least as high-quality as Immune Tree.

>>> What I don't know is whether or not that makes it BETTER or not. But if

>>> something is the SAME quality and, say, half the price, than it is twice as

>>> cost-effective. Immune Tree is not 100% grass-fed, which I know from

>> reading

>>> the side

>>> of the container it comes in. It is pastured however.

>>>

>>

>> Well, forgive me, but I don't quite understand the distinction you're making

>> between something being 'higher quality' and 'better'.

>

> Hi,

>

> If you look at what I wrote that you quoted above, you will see I made no

> such distinction, and used " high quality, " not the comparative " higher

> quality. "

>

When I reread it I get the same interpretation, except that you do seem to

allow for the possibility that they are exactly the same quality. But if

that's not what you meant, ok.

My instinct is that the Immune-Tree is better, but I don't think we're going

to get any further.

[Guest guest]

whatever.

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 13:33:58 EST

Subject: Re: Scrawny guys, weightlifting, and colostrum

In a message dated 11/16/03 12:48:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >>>>How do you " know " that Jarrow is at least as high quality, especially

> if

> >>>>you

> >>>>don't know if the above factors make a difference?

> >>>

> >>>I'm not sure what you're saying. If Jarrow's is collected in a shorter

> >>time

> >>>than Immune Tree, obviously it is at least as high-quality as Immune

> Tree.

> >>>What I don't know is whether or not that makes it BETTER or not. But if

> >>>something is the SAME quality and, say, half the price, than it is twice

> as

> >>>cost-effective. Immune Tree is not 100% grass-fed, which I know from

> >>reading

> >>>the side

> >>>of the container it comes in. It is pastured however.

> >>>

> >>

> >>Well, forgive me, but I don't quite understand the distinction you're

> making

> >>between something being 'higher quality' and 'better'.

> >

> >Hi,

> >

> >If you look at what I wrote that you quoted above, you will see I made no

> >such distinction, and used " high quality, " not the comparative " higher

> >quality. "

> >

>

> When I reread it I get the same interpretation, except that you do seem to

> allow for the possibility that they are exactly the same quality. But if

> that's not what you meant, ok.

Re-reading it for the fourth time, I don't see how you can possibly retain

your initial interpretation. I didn't once use the term " higher quality "

which

you " quote " me as using, so I don't see how you can understand me as

contrasting the term " higher quality " (which I didn't use) and " better. "

Obviously if

I used both those terms and distinguished them this would be reasonable, but

I

used " high quality " and I used " better " and distinguished them by the

descriptive form of the former and the comparative form of the latter. In

other

words I'm equating " high quality " and " good " and using them interchangably,

and am

simply making the appropriate distinction between simple descriptive,

comparative, and superlative (not used here).

So I could have said " it is at least as GOOD as Immune Tree but I dont' know

if that makes it HIGHER QUALITY or not " or I could have said " it is at least

as HIGH QUALITY but I don't know if that makes it HIGHER QUALITY or not " or

I

could have said " it is at least as GOOD but I don't know if that makes it

BETTER or not. " Equating " good " and " high quality, " all four are

essentially

saying the same thing.

> My instinct is that the Immune-Tree is better, but I don't think we're

> going

> to get any further.

I don't really care if Immune Tree is better or not, I mostly care if Immune

Tree is better enough that it compensates for the extra money. So if it's

5%

better and 100% more expensive, then Jarrow is the better option.

But no, we're not going to get any further if we resort to instincts,

because

I don't regard instinct as very valuable in determining the quality of a

product.

Chris

[Guest guest]

No, I was just giving up out of frustration. I had already said that if you

meant something different than what I interpreted, that was fine. As for the

rest of it, I just don't think that it's worth haggling over. I'm just not

convinced that you addressed my points convincingly, but it really doesn't

matter, since I don't think we're getting anywhere.

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:13:29 EST

Subject: Re: Scrawny guys, weightlifting, and colostrum

In a message dated 11/16/03 4:05:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> whatever.

Are you responding to perceived sarcasm or something? I was trying to

straighten out and clarify my use of language so it would come across as I

meant

it...

Chris