Picking my battles
. But I reckon I joined your army when I posted and I'm a good soldier.
Keep in mind, guys, that in terms of immunodepression, these studies are either not talking about heavy weight work or they are disucssions that don't really define what they mean in the absracts (on a few I couldn't get the full text). They're talking more about endurance work. I suspect that the mechanism is much the same but really people can only make their own conclusions on this but I think there is enough evidence to say that glutamine is not supported as the key to controlling immunodepression post exercise.
Most of the earlier studies that gave people the idea that glutamine worked were more studies just proposing that glutamine was a factor in the immune changes they saw.
BTW, I glanced over Scivation's response to what Slayer posted on the other board. Thank God I don't have to deal with that, lol. It talked about glutamine and the immune response. So they propose, as others have, that glutamine has no effect on the post-exercise immunodepression because it is being "borrowed" from other places like your muscles. But what they don't seem to want to realize is that the immuno depression is there regardless after exercise. They're saying that if you don't take glutamine, it will be borrowed from your muscles and you'll go catabolic.
So the question is if glutamine is that important. Well it's circular logic isn't it? If glutamine supplementation was so important then the studies would back it up more often. You can't say, well, glutamine won't build more muscle but it will keep you from going catabolic. Shit, it seems to me that something that keeps you from going catabolic...and I mean something that without which you WILL go catabolic...in the long run that thing should lead to more gains, right?