Stacker 2 blackburn fat burner
Hello I just bought the stacker 2 blackburn.
It is marked take 2 capsules before breakfast, same for lunch and the same for dinner. But BEFORE that is to say half an hour, an hour or 10 min? please help me!
At the same time if you have already tested the product, let me know your testimonials, it interests me.
thank you in advance
guarana, caffeine ….. take it before the evening meal?
a lot of people will not be able to sleep with its
after level results I do not know. There is already caffeine so it will work but for the rest I don’t know
Caffeine (in reasonable doses) helps burn fat during exercise:
Effects of caffeine on the body
It has been proven that 200 to 300 mg of caffeine (i.e. one to two cups of coffee, see next chapter depending on the preparation of the coffee) before a session of endurance sports (running, cycling, cross-country skiing, etc.) cause the body to burn more fat and less glycogen (the carbohydrate reserve stored in the muscles).
Obviously, this increases performance while facilitating weight loss.
However, beware of abuse! In high doses, more than three cups a day, coffee can cause heartburn, diarrhea and painful contractures of the gallbladder, nervousness and insomnia, heart palpitations and increased blood pressure.
It is also accused of being responsible for the formation of breast cysts, a benign but very unpleasant condition. In addition, the abuse of caffeine leads to a loss of water-soluble vitamins (B and C), as well as calcium, potassium and zinc with urine, and poor intestinal absorption of iron (the same vitamins and minerals that athletes have an increased need) therefore a too low level of ferritin in the body
Therefore, excessive coffee consumption weakens nerves, lowers the immune system and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and anemia.
And, too much dehydrated coffee …
thank you very much, but that doesn’t answer my questions!
thank you very much, but that doesn’t answer my questions!
In the hour before a workout, otherwise, it’s totally useless …
okay. so why they put to take 6 capsules per day. 2 before each main meal?
okay. so why they put to take 6 capsules per day. 2 before each main meal?
+ take it, + it pays them
after reading several very mixed reviews on this product, I wanted to test to be able to form my own opinion, and I can tell you that it was not conclusive at all!
I took two capsules the evening before my meal (very first take) result: stomach ache, insomnia, burning throat and nausea.
in short I said to myself this is the first take, my body is not used to it, I will start again tomorrow.
two capsules before breakfast, results: 10 minutes later, stomach ache not possible, nausea, palpitations, tremors and heatstroke.
I am 20 years old, I exercise regularly, and I am in very good health with no heart problems or other problems. I just have a little stomach to lose.
My conclusion, if this product makes you lose weight it is because it has such side effects that it is impossible to keep what you have eaten after taking capsules.
I hope this little experience can enlighten you on this product. even though we our bodies react in different ways.
if you have other safe ” fat burners ”, do not hesitate to tell me about your experiences.
Hi, I am very familiar with this kind of product. Unless you are a body builder of 100kg or more, it is important not that you take more than 2 pills per day.
Sports days: 1 in the morning 1 before training
Day off: 1 in the morning 1 at snack time (only if you support it otherwise you stay at one)
Based on my own experience.
What you can also do is take CLA at the same time as your fat burner, it’s completely painless, you can follow their dosage in peace. The only detail is that the CLA does not bear fruit until after 2 months of daily intake.
This is an interesting subject
Indeed, we must be wary and not take anything. Fat burners are extremely loaded with stimulants, it is essential to follow the recommendations for use and do not hesitate to consult a doctor before use.
I am rather amazed at the feedback I read on Black Burn. There is no such thing as “take only 1 capsule per day”, it all depends on the dosage of the product. Likewise, the blow of “have a tea after your workout” it will be also effective “is a simple habit. Of course it will work but nothing comparable with a correct and adapted use of a fat burner. Otherwise everyone would be. sex at will!
Being in the world of bodybuilding and bodybuilding for almost ten years and a graduate in physiology, I was able to test several products of this type to make up my mind. It is necessary to study the composition of the product before use in order to avoid taking unnecessary elements. To put it simply and answer what-else71, I got my best results (healthy lifestyle and quality training combined of course) with Adipokill from Scitec Nutrition, as surprising as it may seem. In addition, it seems that this product has just changed its name to an unpronounceable name:
I had also added a carnitine to facilitate the clearance of persistent fats, but thereon no specific product.
Hoping to have been able to enlighten you from my experience.
A doctor will not advise taking this type of product, which is often ineffective, especially since many contain components that can make anti-doping control positive in athletes …
Doping: doctors, beware of your duty to provide information!
By Michaël Jaskierowicz, Lawyer.
The Court of Cassation has just issued a strict judgment for doctors with regard to their duty to inform (Cass. 1st civ., November 28, 2012, appeal n ° 11-26516). A stop all the more interesting as it concerns professional sport and doping. In view of the circumstances noted by the Court of Cassation itself in its judgment, the solution adopted appears severe.
In this case, a professional cyclist had consulted a general practitioner on June 30, 2008 because of a hemorrhoidal crisis. The doctor had prescribed him a drug containing a substance prohibited during certain competitions.
However, the rider was to participate in the Tour de France, which started that year on July 5, a few days after the consultation. This runner was tested positive for doping products during this edition of the Grande Boucle and was dismissed by the team that employed him.
The runner was looking for the doctor’s responsibility.
The Riom Court of Appeal dismissed his claims. The Court of Cassation will partially overturn this judgment. If the solution adopted will probably not have too heavy an impact for the doctor involved in this case (given that the cassation intervenes on the question concerning the non-pecuniary damage), the fact remains that it is open to criticism.
Two distinct aspects were examined by the Court of Cassation:
On the material damage suffered by the rider due to his dismissal
The Court of Appeal ruled that the doctor had committed a fault by not informing the cyclist of the effects and contraindications of the prescribed drug, which had the consequence of excluding him from the Tour de France 2008 for use of products. doping substances prohibited.
However, the Court of Appeal considered that there was no causal link between the fault and the damage suffered as a result of the dismissal against the rider.
The runner disputed this analysis; according to him, his dismissal and the resulting damage had only occurred because of his exclusion from the Tour.
The Court of Cassation does not follow the rider and affirms on the contrary that the Court of Appeal was able to validly deduce that his material damage resulted exclusively from his own fault since it appeared from the file that:
1. the rider had been dismissed by his team for serious misconduct due to non-compliance with the contractual obligations arising from both its employment contract and the rules of good conduct ratified by all the riders, which consisted in particular of informing the team doctor and the manager if he wishes to be followed by a personal doctor as well as to inform the doctor in charge of any medication prescribed by the personal doctor
2. the runner had adopted an unfair behavior by ignoring the instructions received on the dangers of doping and the strict preventive measures incorporated in the operating rules of his team, by consulting the doctor pursued in suspicious conditions, and by obtaining, by the effect of a clandestine consultation, the prescription of a contraindicated product at a time when his participation in the Tour de France 2008 risked being compromised by his health problems
Despite the cloudy conditions of the consultation noted by the Court of Cassation, this one will be strict on the duty of information of the doctor:
On the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the runner because of the failure by the doctor of his duty of information
In the present case, the Court of Appeal considered that the doctor had committed a fault by administering treatment with Heptaminol without sufficient verification of the runner’s situation, even though the latter had informed him of his professional sporting activity. The doctor did not in fact justify having communicated to him the medical information concerning the effects and contraindications of this drug.
However, the Court of Appeal had rejected the runner’s claim for compensation for the non-pecuniary damage he claimed to have suffered on the grounds that he was a seasoned runner, well informed of the consequences of his acts and of the risks incurred in doping. , and that he could not therefore seriously maintain that the failure to respect the doctor’s duty to inform him would have caused him any compensable damage.
The Cour de cassation quashed the appeal judgment on this point in the visa of article L.1111-2 of the public health code, and by stating:
“Whereas every person has the right to be informed, prior to the investigations, treatments or preventive actions proposed, of the risks inherent in these, and that his consent must be obtained by the practitioner, except in the case where his condition makes necessary a therapeutic intervention to which she is not in a position to consent, so that the failure to respect the duty of information which results from it, causes to the one to which the information was legally due, a prejudice, that the judge does not can leave without repair ”.
Certainly, the doctor, hearing the words “I am a professional cyclist” should have made certain checks, especially since doping scandals regularly come into the news of this sport. He should also have communicated certain information on the characteristics of the prescribed product to his patient.
In this context, it is difficult, legally, not to accept the fault. However, the Court of Appeal, visibly embarrassed at having to award compensation for the breach of the duty to inform, in view of the circumstances of the case, tried to find a way not to award it. When the Court of Appeal mentions the absence of compensable damage, it aims in a way, half-heartedly, to reduce the intensity of the doctor’s duty to inform in this case.
The Court of Cassation chose a stricter attitude, legally colder one would be tempted to say, by explaining that as soon as there was a breach of the duty of information, and therefore a fault, this fault must necessarily lead to compensation.
But all the same: the conditions of the consultation denounced by the runner’s team, the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation (see above), as well as the professional, seasoned, well-informed profile of this runner should not- they not be taken into account?
The solution is all the more stringent since the doctor in question was a… general practitioner! However, one can seriously wonder in the specific case of doping, which of the two was the best informed:
1. to my right, a professional cyclist with several years of competition behind him, subject to very strict controls, practicing a sport confronted, in spite of himself, with regular doping scandals, and having a doctor on his team – who should in principle be informed of any medication prescribed by the personal doctor (see above)
2. on my left, a general practitioner, not necessarily required to regularly treat professional athletes, a priori not trained in the specific problems of professional sport and doping, and which, a priori again, has no reason to know the list of prohibited products for each sports federation and each competition.
Obviously, this is not to deny that the doctor is the health professional and that in front of him is a patient who must receive specific information adapted to his case. This is not to deny either that the doctor should have carried out certain research and checks to provide the necessary information to his patient.
However, we believe that in view of all the elements noted by the Court of Cassation in its judgment, the solution appears severe.
Doctors, be careful!
A doctor, even a general practitioner, will therefore be well advised to explore the situation of his patient as much as possible, in particular when the latter informs him that he is a professional athlete. As such, he must in particular inform himself about the competitions that he is called to play, their date, as well as the list of products considered as prohibited.
The consultation may be much longer than for an ordinary patient and professional athletes should not be surprised to see a lot of paper to sign during their next medical consultations!
I strongly advise you not to take black burn g teste palpitation head which turns tremendously tremendously g freaked out !!