Creatine and Glutamine are no-gos. Below are two emails from an email conversation I had with a Doc (MD and MPH) from Naval Safety Center. (I specifically address these supps in my 2nd email)
Here's his info:
REMOVED
CDR,
I was reading an article on the Navy policy on supplements in your Summer 2001 issue and a thought occured to me. Why is there a GNC store on almost every base (including Naval Air Stations) if the Navy has a policy against supplementation?
v/r,
(GMAN1976)
(GMAN1976),
Your comments address a situation that has bugged me for many years! Although I can't provide you any definitive answer, I can tell you what I've learned as I've struggled with this (and some related) issues.
It seems that the problem boils down to a matter of civil liberties (believe it, or not) and rules of commerce, though there may be more to it than I am aware. Perhaps a bit of history will help illuminate the situation:
Several years ago, a Navy ship tried to ban tobacco products from the Ship's Store, but was told that it could not do so because tobacco products are not illegal, and so should be available to our personnel so long as they weren't otherwise addressed in Navy Instruction. Complaints were filed against the ship by tobacco lobbyists, some tobacco state senators/representatives, and the ACLU. The end result was that the ship was legally forced to resume sales of tobacco products. Of course, because there is federal law that addresses non-smokers' rights, they could still restrict the smokers to specific areas of the ship.
In the case of supplements, they, too (with a few exceptions) are not illegal in the US, and so supplement vendors have the right to sell the legal ones to military personnel, so long as the vendor wins a contract. This is why GNC can sell their products in our Navy Exchanges.
Regarding Navy Instructions, supplements are only addressed in a few instructions: The instructions that address Special Duty, which includes duty in aviation, submarines and as an astronaut. Those instructions specifically prohibit most forms of self-medication (including supplement use as currently interpreted), particularly when unsupervised by medical authority. So, while the law allows aircrew, submariners and astronauts to have access to supplements, Navy instruction prohibits them from actually using them. There is no such instruction that applies to general duty personnel... yet... but I know that it's in the works. Until we have something akin to the Navy policy and instructions regarding alcohol aboard ships (for example), there is no legal means of limiting sales and use of supplements among our general duty folks.
So, the bottom line is that while the Navy has stated a policy regarding supplement use, that is different from having an instruction, and we need an instruction.
Again: I am not an expert on this topic, but I am reasonably confident that my remarks are not far off the mark. I hope this helps clear up your question. Let me know if you have further questions.
Respectfully,
REMOVED
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CDR,
Thank you so much for your timely response, sir! That does indeed shed some light on the subject and definitely answers my question. Now for one more question, if I may.
Regarding supplementation (specifically among aviation personnel), I understand why the Navy prohibits the use of supplements like Thermogenics and other "fat burners" (due to heart/lung risk, high blood pressure, etc etc). Although, I do not understand why using supplements of naturally occuring substances (e.g. protein, creatine, L-glutamine, amino acids, multivitamins) would be prohibited. How could the Navy even test for such things? I have known many Naval aviators, submariners (I am a prior enlisted Sub guy), and other military members who have never experienced negative effects from these supplements specifically.
Thanks again for your help and answers!
V/r,
(GMAN1976)
(GMAN1976),
Wow... now you're really getting down into the weeds!
First of all, the term 'natural' as applied to supplements and such, has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. Why? Because many 'naturally occurring substances have significant biological activity (they wouldn't be useful, otherwise), and because 'natural' absolutely does not mean 'safe'. Furthermore, many of those 'natural' substances can have interactions with medically recognized products and with each other, and some of those interactions can be potentially deadly. In the case of Special Duty personnel, there are additional factors (extreme pressure differentials, hypoxia, etc.) that often alter how human physiology responds to a given substance... so that something that is relatively harmless at sea level may be very toxic at 4 atmospheres, for example. 'Natural' in this context is nothing more than a marketing ploy that tells you nothing about the effectiveness, safety or any other meaningful characteristic of the product. Think about it: The vast majority of substances that you and I think of as 'medications' were originally identified as 'natural' products... the primary difference is that the 'medications' are purer and more concentrated than the 'naturally occurring forms. Common examples of medications that originally were 'natural' range all the way from aspirin to digitalis (used to control the heart), to various cancer drugs (think of Tamoxifen)... and any of those can kill you! Even some of the most common and familiar of 'natural' substances can be deadly: You can kill yourself by drinking too much water, or by eating too much salt! And, oh by the way, many of the things that we think of as 'poisons' in their 'natural' form are used as 'medications' when used in their purer forms and in the correct dose (digitalis is again a good example).
So, 'natural', 'naturally occurring and the like are irrelevant terms (except to the marketers!).
Regarding most of the substances you've mentioned (protein, creatine, L-glutamine, amino acids, multivitamins), the risk associated with most of them is probably very low. In fact, some of these items are in fact authorized for aviation personnel, with nothing but a note on the flight physical... creatine is a bit different... it is in a higher risk category, and is not authorized. If you're interested in the official NAMI posture on supplements, there is a very good document on aviation policy (not Navy wide) you can read at the following link; it has information on lots of supplements:
http://www.nomi.med.navy.mil/NAMI/WaiverGuideTopics/pdfs/Waiver Guide - Supplements.pdf
Regarding Navy testing for supplements: I seriously doubt that the Navy tests for many of these (though I guess I wouldn't be surprised if they were testing for some of the 'natural' psychoactive compounds, and/or anabolic steroids). But the point isn't that these supplements are necessarily illegal... it's that they haven't been proven safe or that they have known risks associated with them. The Navy seeks to restrict supplement use as a means of minimizing risk to its personnel, equipment and operations.
At the risk of sounding like I'm pinging on you, your last comment clearly illustrates one of the most frustrating aspects of this discussion! You wrote that you know, "...military members who have never experienced negative effects from these supplements... ". Well, you probably know people who use tobacco, but haven't developed cancer or emphysema, or who don't use seat belts, but haven't been killed in a car accident. But does the fact that you know folks like that mean that tobacco use is safe, or that seat belts aren't a good idea??!!?? The point is that if the risk of something happening may be relatively small, but if the ramifications for the risk actually happening is large, then it's bad news if it happens even once (in other words: Once you develop lung cancer, it doesn't matter how many times you smoked without developing it!).
It's all about risk management!
Sorry to be so long-winded... it's a curse.
REMOVED
