Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Nutrition, Products & Supplements Info => Topic started by: loco on October 01, 2008, 06:15:31 AM
-
by David Mendosa
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Almost everyone says that organic, cold pressed, extra virgin olive oil is best for salads and for cooking. But almost everyone is wrong.
Of course, you could do a lot worse. Some oils are high in trans fats. Some may be contaminated with pesticides. Some knowledgeable people even have serious doubts about canola oil.
"Canola oil is a poisonous substance, an industrial oil that does not belong in the body," write Sally Fallow and Mary G. Enig, PhD, in "The Great Con-ola."
The problem with olive oil is that it has an unfavorable omega 6 to omega 3 ratio. It has about 12 or 13 times as much omega 6 fats as omega 3.
High oleic sunflower oil has an even worse omega 6 to omega 3 ratio -- 19 to 1 (regular sunflower oil is 200 to 1), according to a valuable table in Susan Allport's book The Queen of Fats: Why Omega-3s Were Removed from the Western Diet and What We Can Do to Replace Them. Corn and palm oil each have a 46 to 1 ratio.
Two of the better oils, walnut and soybean, have 5 to 1 and 7 to 1 ratios respectively. The worst are safflower oil, which has no omega 3 at all, and cottonseed oil, 259 to 1.
With all the publicity about the importance of omega 3 oils for our health, we are eating more fatty fish like sardines and salmon and taking fish oil or krill oil capsules. That helps to improve our omega 6 to omega 3 ratio. But it leaves out the other side of the equation -- the need almost all of us have to reduce how much omega 6 oil we use.
Whether we have diabetes or enjoy perfect health, we can do our bodies a great favor when we concentrate on reducing our omega 6 intake. We can reduce our risk of heart disease and certain forms of cancer. A lower omega 6 to omega 3 ratio also reduces inflammation.
By reducing and eventually eliminating junk food from our diet we can improve that ratio the most. But even a so-called healthy diet is out of balance.
"The ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 in the typical American today stands at more than 10 to 1," writes Michael Pollan in his book, In Defense of Food. "Before the widespread introduction of seed oils at the turn of the last century, the ratio was closer to 3 to 1."
Our paleolithic ancestors may have had an even closer ratio. "The ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 fats in Paleo diets was about 2 to 1," writes Loren Cordain in his book, The Paleo Diet.
Professor Cordain writes that, "For the Paleo Diet, you should try to achieve an overall balance of dietary fats from all foods, in which the omega 6 to omega 3 fat ratio is less than about 3 to 1, preferably closer to 2 to 1."
"The best way to do this is to eat fish and seafood regularly and to use good kinds of oils," he continues. "Flaxseed oil is, hands down, the best oil for you. It contains a very low omega 6 to omega 3 ratio of 0.24."
Certainly, flaxseed oil is the best oil for salad dressing. I like my own flaxseed vinaigrette dressing better than any store-bought dressing I ever found. It's absolutely worth the extra two to three minutes it takes.
For starters, I use a garlic press to mash a clove of garlic. Then I add a little salt, a dollop of Grey Poupon Dijon mustard, and rub them together with a spoon. I use a double splash of the best vinegar that I can find. My current favorite is B.R. Cohn's Raspberry Champagne Vinegar, which some Whole Foods stores carry. Then, I add a double splash of flaxseed oil and mix them up. While the traditional proportion of oil to vinegar is 3 to 1, I have come to prefer a ratio of about 1 to 1. Finally, I add some freshly ground pepper. Wonderful!
But flaxseed oil isn't perfect. The better known problem is that it quickly goes rancid. That's why stores usually sell it from refrigerated cases.
The second problem tripped me up. I baked my fish with it. Bad idea. Several websites wised me up.
So, what's the best oil to use in cooking?
After flaxseed oil, the oil with the best omega 6 to omega 3 ratio is perilla oil. Until I read about it in Professor Cordain's book, I had never heard of it.
"Perilla oil (made from the Asian Beefsteak plant) has a healthful omega 6 to omega 3 ratio of 0.27," he writes. "But is rarely found in the United States except for stores specializing in Korean and Chinese foods. Get if if you can."
I can't. My local Asian store is currently out of perilla oil. The only Internet sources that I've found sell it in capsule form.
If I ever find perilla oil, I wonder how much I'll like its taste. "In parts of Asia, perilla oil is used as an edible oil that is valued more for its medicinal benefit than its flavor," Wikipedia says.
Meanwhile, I cook with a great tasting oil that I discovered thanks to Regina Wilshire's "Weight of the Evidence" blog. She has a great post about how much omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are in a food or oil.
That brought macadamia nut oil to my attention. While it has little omega 3 or omega 6 oil, its ratio is just fine -- 1 to 1. I now use it on fish when I bake it.
http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/17/41190/oils
-
Our paleo-ancestors' life expectancy wasn't nearly what ours is today.
-
Translation: we still have no fockin' clue about anything.
Nutrition Science. ::)
180 degrees every year.
Tasty fats are good fats, how about that for a theory?
-
Translation: we still have no fockin' clue about anything.
Nutrition Science. ::)
180 degrees every year.
Tasty fats are good fats, how about that for a theory?
Not true. Your implying that fat=fat. Nope.
Omega-3 is very different than omega-6. Omega 6 is very different than omega-9. omega 9 is very different ffrom saturates, and saturates are very different from trans-fats.
The omega-3's DHA, EPA, and ALA all have different effects.
The omega-6 GLA is extremely different than the omega-6 AA.
Omega-9 monounsturates are different than omega-9 polyunsaturates.
-
Not true. Your implying that fat=fat. Nope.
Omega-3 is very different than omega-6. Omega 6 is very different than omega-9. omega 9 is very different ffrom saturates, and saturates are very different from trans-fats.
The omega-3's DHA, EPA, and ALA all have different effects.
The omega-6 GLA is extremely different than the omega-6 AA.
Omega-9 monounsturates are different than omega-9 polyunsaturates.
That was not my point. My point was that a better method in determining what is healthy for me is what tastes better rather than what nutrition science says it is. At least the former is pretty consistent while the latter changes every year. Plus the advantage of eating what tasted good is - well, it tastes good. :)
-
My point was that a better method in determining what is healthy for me is what tastes better rather than what nutrition science says it is.
No.
You can have your own nutritional theories and ideas but please dont post inaccurate things and represent them as valid.
-
Fish oil and coconut oil.
:)
-
Nutrition Science. ::)
180 degrees every year.
lol! so true :D
-
Fish oil and coconut oil.
:)
The author agrees that fish oil is the best, but not so good for salads and cooking. He says Flaxseed is best for salads, but not so good for cooking. Perilla oil and macadamia nut oil are best for cooking. He bases this mainly on the Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio.
-
The author agrees that fish oil is the best, but not so good for salads and cooking. He says Flaxseed is best for salads, but not so good for cooking. Perilla oil and macadamia nut oil are best for cooking. He bases this mainly on the Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio.
im sorry, u know what i forgot mac nut oil, which is awesome for cooking or anything else ( it taste pretty good ). Also evoo is great.
So updated list
fish oil
mac nut oil
evoo
coconut oil......
There u go, if u took those oils on a regular basis, you'd have all your ends covered :)
-
im sorry, u know what i forgot mac nut oil, which is awesome for cooking or anything else ( it taste pretty good ). Also evoo is great.
So updated list
fish oil
mac nut oil
evoo
coconut oil......
There u go, if u took those oils on a regular basis, you'd have all your ends covered :)
Thanks! I'm going to give macadamia nut oil a try.
You might disagree, but David Mendosa says evoo(Extra Virgin Olive Oil) is not the best, not bad, but not the best.
"The problem with olive oil is that it has an unfavorable omega 6 to omega 3 ratio. It has about 12 or 13 times as much omega 6 fats as omega 3."
But macadamia nut oil "While it has little omega 3 or omega 6 oil, its ratio is just fine -- 1 to 1"
-
Not true. Your implying that fat=fat. Nope.
Omega-3 is very different than omega-6. Omega 6 is very different than omega-9. omega 9 is very different ffrom saturates, and saturates are very different from trans-fats.
The omega-3's DHA, EPA, and ALA all have different effects.
The omega-6 GLA is extremely different than the omega-6 AA.
Omega-9 monounsturates are different than omega-9 polyunsaturates.
Who here was the "Fats" guru and then resigned.
-
by David Mendosa
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Almost everyone says that organic, cold pressed, extra virgin olive oil is best for salads and for cooking. But almost everyone is wrong.
Of course, you could do a lot worse. Some oils are high in trans fats. Some may be contaminated with pesticides. Some knowledgeable people even have serious doubts about canola oil.
As the guy who introduced flax oil to the bbing world, I am a big fan of flax oil. However, this person over states its benefits, and makes many factual mistakes regarding the other fats. Yes, most people eats far too much n-6 lipids and not enough n-3 lipids. No new news there, but olive oil is beneficial (plenty of data to support that) and saturated fats have their place too. It's also possible to eat too much n-3 fats if you were to follow this guys hysteria over other fats. Two, the issue is as much about processed fats, trans fats, etc as it is about the n-6/n-3 ratios. Yes, canola is highly processed junk oil and should generally be avoid as a high % of cals in a person's diet, but calling it a "poison" is stretching it a bit.... ::)
-
Thanks! I'm going to give macadamia nut oil a try.
You might disagree, but David Mendosa says evoo(Extra Virgin Olive Oil) is not the best, not bad, but not the best.
"The problem with olive oil is that it has an unfavorable omega 6 to omega 3 ratio. It has about 12 or 13 times as much omega 6 fats as omega 3."
But macadamia nut oil "While it has little omega 3 or omega 6 oil, its ratio is just fine -- 1 to 1"
no i totally agree with you, olive oil isnt the best option. But mac nut oil is really hard to find. So most people "have" to go with evoo, which is alright and will do the job just fine. Just dont cook with it, the heat fucks it up. just throw it on your veggies or food when it comes off the stove.
And about the ratio's, u dont have to be so anal about everything, just make sure your getting all your bases covered, that your getting a good amount of omega 3's and your heart healthy monounsaturated fats like mac nut oil or olive oil everyday, dont really worry about omega 6's cos ur going to get plenty of those through your normal diet ( eggs, meats, grains, are all packed with omega 6's )
Hope that helps :)
-
As the guy who introduced flax oil to the bbing world, I am a big fan of flax oil. However, this person over states its benefits, and makes many factual mistakes regarding the other fats. Yes, most people eats far too much n-6 lipids and not enough n-3 lipids. No new news there, but olive oil is beneficial (plenty of data to support that) and saturated fats have their place too. It's also possible to eat too much n-3 fats if you were to follow this guys hysteria over other fats. Two, the issue is as much about processed fats, trans fats, etc as it is about the n-6/n-3 ratios. Yes, canola is highly processed junk oil and should generally be avoid as a high % of cals in a person's diet, but calling it a "poison" is stretching it a bit.... ::)
Thanks Brink! Yeah, I know even saturaged fats have their place in bodybuilding. Mendosa is a diabetic and a lot of his info. is mostly for diabetics. I respect the guy because he is always researching this stuff, but I don't take what he says as the gospel. I believe he was the first one to post the GI table on the Internet back in the 90s, but I could be wrong. I apreaciate your feedback.
-
no i totally agree with you, olive oil isnt the best option. But mac nut oil is really hard to find. So most people "have" to go with evoo, which is alright and will do the job just fine. Just dont cook with it, the heat fucks it up. just throw it on your veggies or food when it comes off the stove.
And about the ratio's, u dont have to be so anal about everything, just make sure your getting all your bases covered, that your getting a good amount of omega 3's and your heart healthy monounsaturated fats like mac nut oil or olive oil everyday, dont really worry about omega 6's cos ur going to get plenty of those through your normal diet ( eggs, meats, grains, are all packed with omega 6's )
Hope that helps :)
It helps! Thanks!
-
Thanks Brink! Yeah, I know even saturaged fats have their place in bodybuilding.
In a healthy diet period. Studies also suggest it's not just total fat that keeps T levels up, but saturated fats play an essential role there. My advice has always been to follow my one third rule: 3d n-3 rich oils (flax, fish, etc), 3d mono unsaturated rich oils (olive), and final 3d as saturated, with total fat being approx 30% of cals.
Mendosa is a diabetic and a lot of his info. is mostly for diabetics. I respect the guy because he is always researching this stuff, but I don't take what he says as the gospel. I believe he was the first one to post the GI table on the Internet back in the 90s, but I could be wrong. I apreaciate your feedback.
I think you're right about the GI thing, but not sure either. He's well known for having extensive GI info up a long time ago, that's for sure.
-
It helps! Thanks!
;D
-
No.
You can have your own nutritional theories and ideas but please dont post inaccurate things and represent them as valid.
What is your definition of "inaccurate" and "valid"?
Science is only the attempt of describing a very small aspect of the world.
You may subscribe to the current nutritional theories or not.
None of it is "accurate" or "valid" in a holistic sense.
Not even in the scientifc sense, with theories going against each other all the time.
-
What is your definition of "inaccurate" and "valid"?
Science is only the attempt of describing a very small aspect of the world.
You may subscribe to the current nutritional theories or not.
None of it is "accurate" or "valid" in a holistic sense.
Not even in the scientifc sense, with theories going against each other all the time.
It is inaccurate to say "a better way to determine what oil is healthy is based on how good it tastes"
taste does not = health
in fact alot of times its quite the opposite.. :D
-
It is inaccurate to say "a better way to determine what oil is healthy is based on how good it tastes"
taste does not = health
in fact alot of times its quite the opposite.. :D
To me personally, it is always quite the opposite. :'(
-
It is inaccurate to say "a better way to determine what oil is healthy is based on how good it tastes"
taste does not = health
in fact alot of times its quite the opposite.. :D
How is that inaccurate? If you compare it to the nutritional theories of the last century, even of the last few decades, you will find both theories that match that method and theories that don't.
What I think is unhealthy is a low variety of foods and eating things you hate. I love olives, poppy seeds, sesame seeds, flax seeds, nuts, fish, but also burgers, cheese, eggs, fries, etc. So that's what I eat in terms of fats.
If you rely on nutrition science alone, you could as well flip a coin.
Science always only describes certain aspects of a human beeing. It doesn't explain anything.
Moreover, in case of nutrition science, even this restricted description changes every year.
-
How is that inaccurate? If you compare it to the nutritional theories of the last century, even of the last few decades, you will find both theories that match that method and theories that don't.
What I think is unhealthy is a low variety of foods and eating things you hate. I love olives, poppy seeds, sesame seeds, flax seeds, nuts, fish, but also burgers, cheese, eggs, fries, etc. So that's what I eat in terms of fats.
If you rely on nutrition science alone, you could as well flip a coin.
Science always only describes certain aspects of a human beeing. It doesn't explain anything.
Moreover, in case of nutrition science, even this restricted description changes every year.
I do love coffee. I have been drinking it since I was five years old. For years I was told that coffee would stain my teeth and that it was bad for my health. Neither one of those bad things has happened yet, and now I see all these new studies coming out praising the health benefits from drinking lots of coffee. I guess it is good that that I never stopped drinking it.
-
I do love coffee. I have been drinking it since I was five years old. For years I was told that coffee would stain my teeth and that it was bad for my health. Neither one of those bad things has happened yet, and now I see all these new studies coming out praising the health benefits from drinking lots of coffee. I guess it is good that that I never stopped drinking it.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I was taught that coffee ruins my nervous system, red wine is a cell poison which will kill me, spinach was the healthiest thing on earth, butter and egg yolks will give me a heart attack, etc. It changes every year, completely unreliable.
-
What is the best oil for taking a dump? ???
-
What is the best oil for taking a dump? ???
10w30
-
How is that inaccurate? If you compare it to the nutritional theories of the last century, even of the last few decades, you will find both theories that match that method and theories that don't.
What I think is unhealthy is a low variety of foods and eating things you hate. I love olives, poppy seeds, sesame seeds, flax seeds, nuts, fish, but also burgers, cheese, eggs, fries, etc. So that's what I eat in terms of fats.
If you rely on nutrition science alone, you could as well flip a coin.
Science always only describes certain aspects of a human beeing. It doesn't explain anything.
Moreover, in case of nutrition science, even this restricted description changes every year.
dude you're taking flim flam philosophy and applying it to one of the harder sciences there is, biochemistry.
foods higher in fat and sugar and usually more pallatable. "Nutrition science" does not change every year. For example we know a low GI diet works well for people with diabetes because they have hyperglycemia due to poor insulin response, this fact never changes and it cannot be determined using taste, and is accurate and precise.
science explains alot, where are you getting your definition from?
-
dude you're taking flim flam philosophy and applying it to one of the harder sciences there is, biochemistry.
foods higher in fat and sugar and usually more pallatable. "Nutrition science" does not change every year. For example we know a low GI diet works well for people with diabetes because they have hyperglycemia due to poor insulin response, this fact never changes and it cannot be determined using taste, and is accurate and precise.
science explains alot, where are you getting your definition from?
I don't want to turn this into a philosophic discussion but by definition, natural science does not "explain" anything. It makes restricted models of the world and then produces theories within those restricted models. The theories do not explain reality, they just try to match the measurable scientific aspects of the world - which are applicable to that particular model of reality - as close as possible. The restrictions and explanatory power of sciences are by definition a non-scientific issues, hence the "flim-flam" philosophy.
That being said, my point was not that e.g. biochemistry is garbage science or an "easy" science. My point is that - especially in "nutritional science" (English is not my mother language, so maybe there's a better term) - most of the time, scientific findings about certain scientific aspects (which may in fact be already well established in scientific theories) are ineligibly extrapolated to holistic statements e.g. about health, life-extension, or bodybuilding. What changes every year are those extrapolations. That's why I demand emperical evidence regarding the actual proclaimed outcome of a specific method, rather than statements derived from random combinations of theories about certain aspects.
-
I don't want to turn this into a philosophic discussion but by definition, natural science does not "explain" anything. It makes restricted models of the world and then produces theories within those restricted models. The theories do not explain reality, they just try to match the measurable scientific aspects of the world - which are applicable to that particular model of reality - as close as possible. The restrictions and explanatory power of sciences are by definition a non-scientific issues, hence the "flim-flam" philosophy.
That being said, my point was not that e.g. biochemistry is garbage science or an "easy" science. My point is that - especially in "nutritional science" (English is not my mother language, so maybe there's a better term) - most of the time, scientific findings about certain scientific aspects (which may in fact be already well established in scientific theories) are ineligibly extrapolated to holistic statements e.g. about health, life-extension, or bodybuilding. What changes every year are those extrapolations. That's why I demand emperical evidence regarding the actual proclaimed outcome of a specific method, rather than statements derived from random combinations of theories about certain aspects.
"I don't want to turn this into a philosophic discussion but by definition, natural science does not "explain" anything. It makes restricted models of the world and then produces theories within those restricted models. The theories do not explain reality, they just try to match the measurable scientific aspects of the world - which are applicable to that particular model of reality - as close as possible. The restrictions and explanatory power of sciences are by definition a non-scientific issues, hence the "flim-flam" philosophy."
wrong, science explains reality, it is our best tool to measure truth. If you base it on some presumptions which in my estimation are correct because i have never seen them falsified. That this is reality, there is no other reality. Science measures how the world works, theories are collections of facts about the world which describe reality. They are reality. Science describes how questions.
"That being said, my point was not that e.g. biochemistry is garbage science or an "easy" science. My point is that - especially in "nutritional science" (English is not my mother language, so maybe there's a better term) - most of the time, scientific findings about certain scientific aspects (which may in fact be already well established in scientific theories) are ineligibly extrapolated to holistic statements e.g. about health, life-extension, or bodybuilding. What changes every year are those extrapolations. That's why I demand emperical evidence regarding the actual proclaimed outcome of a specific method, rather than statements derived from random combinations of theories about certain aspects."
give me some examples,axioms,analogies, anything to support your clearly false statement.
"That's why I demand emperical evidence regarding the actual proclaimed outcome of a specific method, rather than statements derived from random combinations of theories about certain aspects."
its called the double blind methodology. I see its pointless to argue with you just like will brink did, as you are making up false definitions of what you expect, yet you have no knowledge on the matter.
-
wrong, science explains reality, it is our best tool to measure truth. If you base it on some presumptions which in my estimation are correct because i have never seen them falsified. That this is reality, there is no other reality. Science measures how the world works, theories are collections of facts about the world which describe reality. They are reality. Science describes how questions.
Your definition of science (natural science that is) is completely wrong. Please show me where you get that definition from. Only philosophy can say anything substantial about reality. Science by definition only operates on models of reality. A model again by definition is a reduction of reality. Science is not a tool to measure truth. It's only a tool to predict measurable scientific aspects of the world. Even scientific positivists like e.g. Stephen Hawking agree with me 100% on that one. But as I said, that was not the main point. We should not turn this into a philosophic discussion. We already tried that once: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.0)
Your last post in that thread wasn't that conclusive: :D
this is a huge clusterfuck of pseudo-intellect (this thread).
give me some examples,axioms,analogies, anything to support your clearly false statement.
Example: The claim that supplement A helps me with my bodybuilding goals, because it raises my testosterone. It may very well be that supplement A really raises my testosterone silghtly, but the only thing that matters in the end is if the ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain is improved at a certain rate of weigh gain.
its called the double blind methodology. I see its pointless to argue with you just like will brink did, as you are making up false definitions of what you expect, yet you have no knowledge on the matter.
I politely asked him to name me the supplements for which such studies have been performed, but not regarding specific scientific aspects (like e.g. testosterone levels) but the promised outcome - an increase in the ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain at a certain rate of weight gain. I also politely ask you, where are these studies?
I don't know why you are so aggressive. It's not my fault that not one single supplement I ever tested (as objectively as possible for a single person) did anything for me. What other conclusions can I come to?
-
Your definition of science (natural science that is) is completely wrong. Please show me where you get that definition from. Only philosophy can say anything substantial about reality. Science by definition only operates on models of reality. A model again by definition is a reduction of reality. Science is not a tool to measure truth. It's only a tool to predict measurable scientific aspects of the world. Even scientific positivists like e.g. Stephen Hawking agree with me 100% on that one. But as I said, that was not the main point. We should not turn this into a philosophic discussion. We already tried that once: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.0)
Your last post in that thread wasn't that conclusive: :D
Example: The claim that supplement A helps me with my bodybuilding goals, because it raises my testosterone. It may very well be that supplement A really raises my testosterone silghtly, but the only thing that matters in the end is if the ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain is improved at a certain rate of weigh gain.
I politely asked him to name me the supplements for which such studies have been performed, but not regarding specific scientific aspects (like e.g. testosterone levels) but the promised outcome - an increase in the ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain at a certain rate of weight gain. I also politely ask you, where are these studies?
I don't know why you are so aggressive. It's not my fault that not one single supplement I ever tested (as objectively as possible for a single person) did anything for me. What other conclusions can I come to?
i am aggressive because ive been dealing with idiots all day and i deal with them in my daily life. They are the people who require pampering, cant think for themselves and perpetuate misinformation and downright lies.
Why dont you look the studies up yourself? ever hear of pubmed, it will have the answers you seek.
so if i show you a study where subjects lost fat taking a supplement moreso then people not taking the supplement you will be satisfied, or the same for muscle growth.
my post in the thread was meant for the pseudo-philosophical tangents people where getting on who clearly do not have any substantial grip on teachings, i also think philosophy and questions about the meta-physical are pointless. Science shows us how the universe operates. How can thinking teach us about reality, who is to say your not crazy, or deluded, or that some of us are? Your personal thought and reality doesnt make it real, however, things that can be repeated regardless of the tool of measurment or person are as close to reality as one can get.
However, i agree, lets no clutter this thread with our pointless philosophical debates.
-
science can explain EVERYTHING. watch the science channell. i love that channell. its so interesting. although im no where near smart enough to do the kind of research and stuff those scientists do, i am smart enough to know how cool it is ! ;D
-
i am aggressive because ive been dealing with idiots all day and i deal with them in my daily life. They are the people who require pampering, cant think for themselves and perpetuate misinformation and downright lies.
Why dont you look the studies up yourself? ever hear of pubmed, it will have the answers you seek.
so if i show you a study where subjects lost fat taking a supplement moreso then people not taking the supplement you will be satisfied, or the same for muscle growth.
Let's get two things out of the way:
1. You are much more educated in the specific field of science we are talking about than me. That's not my point.
2. You do not have to dig up studies for me, I was just asking, you can always tell me to fuck off.
First I should clarify that what I mean by supplements are not prescription drugs and also not pro-hormones/steroids that are or were OTC at one point.
What I would like to see is a study which shows that when all other factors (including the rate of weight loss resp. weight gain as controlled by caloric intake) are kept constant, the supplement would raise the ratio of muscle gain vs. fat gain at the mentioned rate of weight gain (bulk), resp. raise the ratio of fat loss vs. muscle loss at the mentioned rate of weight loss (cut). Because that's what I would define as the purpose of bodybuilding, maximizing those ratios. If the supplement adds a substantial amount of macros to the diet, those macros would have to be replaced with regular food for participants who do not take the supp, of course.
All the supps I have tried (in my case of course only as an emperical experiment on one person and knowing if the supp was taken or not), have failed this test.
my post in the thread was meant for the pseudo-philosophical tangents people where getting on who clearly do not have any substantial grip on teachings, i also think philosophy and questions about the meta-physical are pointless. Science shows us how the universe operates. How can thinking teach us about reality, who is to say your not crazy, or deluded, or that some of us are? Your personal thought and reality doesnt make it real, however, things that can be repeated regardless of the tool of measurment or person are as close to reality as one can get.
However, i agree, lets no clutter this thread with our pointless philosophical debates.
The answer to your questions can pretty much all be found in the mentioned thread. What you wrote above already is a (pseudo-)philosophic disquisition, and therefore (although false) still serves one purpose: contradicting itself. Again, if you don't believe me, I can dig up some quotes from Stephen Hawking, clearly one of the poster boys of scientific positivism, who however still agrees with me on those points. Or I can dig up quotes from people who really understand the nature of sciences, the great philosophers.
-
science can explain EVERYTHING. watch the science channell. i love that channell. its so interesting. although im no where near smart enough to do the kind of research and stuff those scientists do, i am smart enough to know how cool it is ! ;D
It's cool, no doubt about it.
However, scientific positivism can easily be proven wrong.
Major OT alert, BTW. ;D
-
It's cool, no doubt about it.
However, scientific positivism can easily be proven wrong.
Major OT alert, BTW. ;D
Is the coffee induced morning dump part of your routine as well?
-
Is the coffee induced morning dump part of your routine as well?
You seem to have quite a fixation with taking a dump. :D
Unlike the typical Viennese, I don't drink coffee.
-
The answer to your questions can pretty much all be found in the mentioned thread. What you wrote above already is a (pseudo-)philosophic disquisition, and therefore (although false) still serves one purpose: contradicting itself. Again, if you don't believe me, I can dig up some quotes from Stephen Hawking, clearly one of the poster boys of scientific positivism, who however still agrees with me on those points. Or I can dig up quotes from people who really understand the nature of sciences, the great philosophers.
i wont respond to the first part of the post as its pointless to argue with you, if you have questions, post them and ill try and provide evidence, im not going to continue arguing inane points in this forum.
secondly, i know actual philosophers and i cant understand a word they say, many are quite brillant so either way i will avoid this debate in this forum. Perhaps i will bump the thread you have posted to continue our discussion.
-
i wont respond to the first part of the post as its pointless to argue with you, if you have questions, post them and ill try and provide evidence, im not going to continue arguing inane points in this forum.
That's fine of course. But I think my question has already been formulated. I just did not mention any particular supplement, since I don't think such studies (as I have specified) exist for any of them. Except maybe for creatin, as Will has mentioned.
secondly, i know actual philosophers and i cant understand a word they say, many are quite brillant so either way i will avoid this debate in this forum. Perhaps i will bump the thread you have posted to continue our discussion.
Same here, they are crazy people. :D
-
That's fine of course. But I think my question has already been formulated. I just did not mention any particular supplement, since I don't think such studies (as I have specified) exist for any of them. Except maybe for creatin, as Will has mentioned.
Same here, they are crazy people. :D
im sorry but if you would like to learn i can tell you about many studies which have scientific evidence. I just not willing to argue about any of the mechanisms or methodologies unless you have a working knowledge of said things.
studies exist for many fat loss agents, many aminos and much more.I know i said i wouldnt respond but im in a better mood now after dealing with idiots all day irl.
-
im sorry but if you would like to learn i can tell you about many studies which have scientific evidence. I just not willing to argue about any of the mechanisms or methodologies unless you have a working knowledge of said things.
studies exist for many fat loss agents, many aminos and much more.I know i said i wouldnt respond but im in a better mood now after dealing with idiots all day irl.
I understand, but I was asking for a specific type of study. Or is there something completely wrong with the way I formulated it? If so, can you explain to me what it is in a few sentences? You can maybe shorten the answer by assuming that I'm extremely intelligent. :D
-
I understand, but I was asking for a specific type of study. Or is there something completely wrong with the way I formulated it? If so, can you explain to me what it is in a few sentences? You can maybe shorten the answer by assuming that I'm extremely intelligent. :D
the type of study you requested has been done however usually only one variable is studied ie the independent variable in order to increase the power of the study and avoid extraneous variables. So there are studies on ephedrine and fat loss for example, or creatine and muscular strength and size. There are also studies showing things like increases in GH, and other hormonal milieu that would be beneficial for bodybuilding. What you have defined is the end goal and you are ignoring the steps in order to loss weight or gain muscle, there are things that enhance these criteria and that is what is studied, because muscle gain is not very informative. How was muscle gained? why? how can we manipulate these things? are there other variables? what all these questions and more are, are simply facts that we have collected in order to make more advanced studies and realize the ramifications of things like increased GH, or testosterone, we know what effects increasing these hormones will have. So if a supplement increases testosterone it can reasonably be inferred it will increase muscle mass, strength and libido things that are known to be associated with increased testosterone.
so in short, the type of study you asked for does exist, as do the studies i outlined. There are also case studies, longitudinal,retrospective, cohort etc.. studies which further enhance a supplements case.
Also, i dont mean to come off like a prick because you seem like a nice dude, and i didnt mean you have to ask me questions etc.. like i know everything, will brink for example is someone with more knowledge then me and i would defer to his expertise in alot of circumstances. I was just alluding to the fact tht you have expressed that you lack knowledge in the field, and i would rather be helpful if possible rather then combative. All i ask is that you at least have an open mind and the willingness to change your opinions if falsified, as i would. I dont want to conduct arguments where either side are unmovable, and the community of this board can learn nothing from a debate. On this board i want factual, rational info so people can make informed opinions and ask less questions, so people like princess who have pretty much modded this board solo dont have to answer the same questions over and over or mod excessively.
Im not the most fluent writer, you write better then me and english is my first langauge :D
-
i am aggressive because ive been dealing with idiots all day and i deal with them in my daily life. They are the people who require pampering, cant think for themselves and perpetuate misinformation and downright lies.
Why dont you look the studies up yourself? ever hear of pubmed, it will have the answers you seek.
We see a lot of that here (and everywhere) too don't we ;)
usmokepole,
Could you eventually post a new topic with a brief lesson on how to effectively use pubmed as a research tool for the average Joe?
-
the type of study you requested has been done however usually only one variable is studied ie the independent variable in order to increase the power of the study and avoid extraneous variables. So there are studies on ephedrine and fat loss for example, or creatine and muscular strength and size. There are also studies showing things like increases in GH, and other hormonal milieu that would be beneficial for bodybuilding. What you have defined is the end goal and you are ignoring the steps in order to loss weight or gain muscle, there are things that enhance these criteria and that is what is studied, because muscle gain is not very informative. How was muscle gained? why? how can we manipulate these things? are there other variables? what all these questions and more are, are simply facts that we have collected in order to make more advanced studies and realize the ramifications of things like increased GH, or testosterone, we know what effects increasing these hormones will have. So if a supplement increases testosterone it can reasonably be inferred it will increase muscle mass, strength and libido things that are known to be associated with increased testosterone.
I understand that investigating certain aspects is benificial for scientific endeavours. But you will agree that for the customer it is completely irrelevant. What I criticize is exactly the extrapolation from certain measurable factors to statements like "increases lean muscle mass". If it really does, why not conduct a study, that shows exactly that? And if those deductions are correct, why are so many people (me included) frustrated with supps simply because in reality they don't do anything for the purpose of bodybuilding, which in short is - increase of lean muscle mass?
Even if we stay within the scientific positivistic world view, where everything could be explained through science, it is very well possible that even if a certain supplement raises e.g. testosterone, certain other factors come into play, where theories are not yet conclusive (or simply those factors are not even known yet) which in the end inhibit the claimed output.
so in short, the type of study you asked for does exist, as do the studies i outlined. There are also case studies, longitudinal,retrospective, cohort etc.. studies which further enhance a supplements case.
As I said, I'm not interested in studies that investigate certain aspects. You claim that studies which are at least similar to what I have formulated exist e.g. for creatine and ephedrine. I will try to find those studies.
Also, i dont mean to come off like a prick because you seem like a nice dude, and i didnt mean you have to ask me questions etc.. like i know everything, will brink for example is someone with more knowledge then me and i would defer to his expertise in alot of circumstances. I was just alluding to the fact tht you have expressed that you lack knowledge in the field, and i would rather be helpful if possible rather then combative. All i ask is that you at least have an open mind and the willingness to change your opinions if falsified, as i would. I dont want to conduct arguments where either side are unmovable, and the community of this board can learn nothing from a debate. On this board i want factual, rational info so people can make informed opinions and ask less questions, so people like princess who have pretty much modded this board solo dont have to answer the same questions over and over or mod excessively.
I fully understand.
Im not the most fluent writer, you write better then me and english is my first langauge :D
Thank's a lot, that's a huge compliment. :)
That's the main reason I'm posting on forums, to improve my English.
Hence my sometimes flowery, long winded language. 8)
-
the type of study you requested has been done however usually only one variable is studied ie the independent variable in order to increase the power of the study and avoid extraneous variables. So there are studies on ephedrine and fat loss for example, or creatine and muscular strength and size. There are also studies showing things like increases in GH, and other hormonal milieu that would be beneficial for bodybuilding. What you have defined is the end goal and you are ignoring the steps in order to loss weight or gain muscle, there are things that enhance these criteria and that is what is studied, because muscle gain is not very informative. How was muscle gained? why? how can we manipulate these things? are there other variables? what all these questions and more are, are simply facts that we have collected in order to make more advanced studies and realize the ramifications of things like increased GH, or testosterone, we know what effects increasing these hormones will have. So if a supplement increases testosterone it can reasonably be inferred it will increase muscle mass, strength and libido things that are known to be associated with increased testosterone.
so in short, the type of study you asked for does exist, as do the studies i outlined. There are also case studies, longitudinal,retrospective, cohort etc.. studies which further enhance a supplements case.
Also, i dont mean to come off like a prick because you seem like a nice dude, and i didnt mean you have to ask me questions etc.. like i know everything, will brink for example is someone with more knowledge then me and i would defer to his expertise in alot of circumstances. I was just alluding to the fact tht you have expressed that you lack knowledge in the field, and i would rather be helpful if possible rather then combative. All i ask is that you at least have an open mind and the willingness to change your opinions if falsified, as i would. I dont want to conduct arguments where either side are unmovable, and the community of this board can learn nothing from a debate. On this board i want factual, rational info so people can make informed opinions and ask less questions, so people like princess who have pretty much modded this board solo dont have to answer the same questions over and over or mod excessively.
Im not the most fluent writer, you write better then me and english is my first langauge :D
You make your point well in the above, and I agree with all of it. I also made essentially the same points to him, and he essentially ignore it in favor of his own invented "formula" which he has convinced himself is anything beyond what I said it was: n = 1 personal observation. As I said, nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not objective research. His position appears to be, lacking what he has defined as acceptable research (yet lacking any background in the biological sciences and or actually reading the data that exists) his attempts to "research" supplements on his own using his own methodology is supposed to convince anyone beyond himself that X supplements have no value to bbers and other strength athletes. I can accept that what he's done had proven to him, the supps he tested didn't work him in the way he's defined success, and that's all.
Beyond that's it's mental masturbation and pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo combined with comments of what constitutes "truth" and other non related stuff that has no bearing on the issues at hand, which are:
What supplements actually "work"?
How do we define "work"?
Is there data to support that definition?
How good is that data?
Does the data that exists mirror what the "real world" says, such as his personal n=1 experiments conclude?
If no data exists and or that data that does exist is crap, now what? :o
-
You make your point well in the above, and I agree with all of it. I also made essentially the same points to him, and he essentially ignore it in favor of his own invented "formula" which he has convinced himself is anything beyond what I said it was: n = 1 personal observation. As I said, nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not objective research. His position appears to be, lacking what he has defined as acceptable research (yet lacking any background in the biological sciences and or actually reading the data that exists) his attempts to "research" supplements on his own using his own methodology is supposed to convince anyone beyond himself that X supplements have no value to bbers and other strength athletes. I can accept that what he's done had proven to him, the supps he tested didn't work him in the way he's defined success, and that's all.
If you read my posts you will clearly see that none of this is true. I don't understand why you ignore 90% of what I wrote. I understand that you are a busy man, so am I. But if you choose to take the time and post here you should at least know what you are responding to.
Beyond that's it's mental masturbation and pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo combined with comments of what constitutes "truth" and other non related stuff that has no bearing on the issues at hand, which are:
What supplements actually "work"?
How do we define "work"?
Is there data to support that definition?
How good is that data?
Does the data that exists mirror what the "real world" says, such as his personal n=1 experiments conclude?
If no data exists and or that data that does exist is crap, now what? :o
Can you please explain to me what you would call mental masturbation and pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo? I respect your expertise in a specific field of science but your comments clearly show that you have none whatsoever regarding the nature and restrictions of natural science in general. The philosophic part of the posts were clearly separated from the other parts.
Instead of trying to insult your conversation partners in areas you have absolutely no knowledge of (philosophy and the classification/restrictions of sciences), why would you not instead keep your promise and present the studies you said you would in this post (I have already answered the question requested in the quote):
I will attempt to answer that question if you answer the question I asked before, you did not answer: What is your background for understanding the methodology of research in the biological sciences?
At least that would be productive. If you are interested I can then explain all the complicated philosophic "mumbo jumbo" to you. This way it's a win-win situation.
-
If you read my posts you will clearly see that none of this is true. I don't understand why you ignore 90% of what I wrote. I understand that you are a busy man, so am I. But if you choose to take the time and post here you should at least know what you are responding to.
Can you please explain to me what you would call mental masturbation and pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo? I respect your expertise in a specific field of science but your comments clearly show that you have none whatsoever regarding the nature and restrictions of natural science in general. The philosophic part of the posts were clearly separated from the other parts.
Instead of trying to insult your conversation partners in areas you have absolutely no knowledge of (philosophy and the classification/restrictions of sciences), why would you not instead keep your promise and present the studies you said you would in this post (I have already answered the question requested in the quote):
At least that would be productive. If you are interested I can then explain all the complicated philosophic "mumbo jumbo" to you. This way it's a win-win situation.
do you have any education in philosophy? just curious, actual degrees, masters of phd.
-
If you read my posts you will clearly see that none of this is true.
Sorry, I simply don't agree and those same comments seem to be a theme in others responses to you also. You have some real blinders on there my friend.
Can you please explain to me what you would call mental masturbation and pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo? I respect your expertise in a specific field of science but your comments clearly show that you have none whatsoever regarding the nature and restrictions of natural science in general.
And there is the example you asked for....BTW, my degree was a major in....drum roll...."Natural Sciences" so I have a pretty good handle on its strengths and limitations.
You claimed some science background, but admit to having no background in the biological sciences or knowledge of the methodology used there. So what exactly is your science background?
The philosophic part of the posts were clearly separated from the other parts.
Ergo, mental masturbation and not relevant to the issue at hand. I don't mind answering questions and debating with people and such. What I will not do is repeat myself. I have already made my comments as to what I see are the limitations to your "research" in other threads, and you strike me as the kind of person that will deny, then simply keep asking the same questions over and over to wear the person down. Not going to work with me.
I said it once, will not keep repeating it. Carry on. ;)
-
do you have any education in philosophy? just curious, actual degrees, masters of phd.
No, but for philosophic child-play like that, you don't need too much insight.
It's pretty much simple logic.
-
do you have any education in philosophy? just curious, actual degrees, masters of phd.
I have asked him several times what his background was, and he's avoided that only to admit he has no background in the biological science or the research methodology used, yet claims a background in the sciences to which he has yet to explain. All of his comments so far, have lead me to believe he has no background in any of the hard science or his answers/comments would make more sense at it applies to the nutritional sciences he keeps commenting on. I don't care if your background is in physics, math, chem, or biology, you will generally understand very basic concepts he's clearly failed to "get" so I am dubious of his claim to any science background. Again, does not make him a bad person, just a person who should stop making claims about the nature of research in these areas, much less rejecting them as he continues to do.
-
No, but for philosophic child-play like that, you don't need too much insight.
It's pretty much simple logic.
i disagree, without philosophical training and being well read on the subject layman arguments are pointless. I have a friend for example who is quite the philosopher and is quite hard to understand and has an excellant grasp on philosophy as well as natural sciences. Will brink may know him from mind and muscle as he is a global moderator Ras. I say this because he is really my sole experience with someone with a vast knowledge of philosophy and our arguments are infantile in comparison, hence then reason i see no need to further argue things we are ill equipped to discuss.
WILL, how come you dont often post on MandM, im not a inner circle member but post on the site often. Just curious as to why you dont post there much?
-
I have asked him several times what his background was, and he's avoided that only to admit he has no background in the biological science or the research methodology used, yet claims a background in the sciences to which he has yet to explain. All of his comments so far, have lead me to believe he has no background in any of the hard science or his answers/comments would make more sense at it applies to the nutritional sciences he keeps commenting on. I don't care if your background is in physics, math, chem, or biology, you will generally understand very basic concepts he's clearly failed to "get" so I am dubious of his claim to any science background. Again, does not make him a bad person, just a person who should stop making claims about the nature of research in these areas, much less rejecting them as he continues to do.
yes i totally agree. While i have your attention, i have argued this point with Scottl on MandM about pyrrolizidine alkaloid content of borage oil as one of the reasons i avoid this source of gla, yet it is the best bang for your buck in terms of the o6 fatty acid. Does life extentsion or any other companies you may have worked with ensure undetectable levels of this hepatotoxic, or get the oil from the seed?
-
WILL, how come you dont often post on MandM, im not a inner circle member but post on the site often. Just curious as to why you dont post there much?
The truth is lame: I can't figure out my log in info, and can't request it 'cause I changed emails and have been too lazy to request it from the admin. Lame I know... :P
-
yes i totally agree. While i have your attention, i have argued this point with Scottl on MandM about pyrrolizidine alkaloid content of borage oil as one of the reasons i avoid this source of gla, yet it is the best bang for your buck in terms of the o6 fatty acid. Does life extentsion or any other companies you may have worked with ensure undetectable levels of this hepatotoxic, or get the oil from the seed? i ask this because i see you taking a omega3 with gla quite often in your video, i was wondering the source.
Also, if possible i would like you to become a contributor to the forum if at all possible since we have no real gurus per se. Its up to you but i think the memebers of the board would appreciate your contributions.
-
The truth is lame: I can't figure out my log in info, and can't request it 'cause I changed emails and have been too lazy to request it from the admin. Lame I know... :P
LMAO... im sure par or justin could straighten that out for you. ;D
-
yes i totally agree. While i have your attention, i have argued this point with Scottl on MandM about pyrrolizidine alkaloid content of borage oil as one of the reasons i avoid this source of gla, yet it is the best bang for your buck in terms of the o6 fatty acid. Does life extentsion or any other companies you may have worked with ensure undetectable levels of this hepatotoxic, or get the oil from the seed?
Wish I had a great answer for you, but the LEF is generally good about answering such questions. I believe modern molecular distillation processes can remove it, but I would ask the LEF about their sources, if levels are tested for, and if so, what they are. Unlike most supp companies, they don't tend to run away from such questions.
-
LMAO... im sure par or justin could straighten that out for you. ;D
Yes, but I have to remember to ask, and I keep forgetting. Lame I know!
-
Sorry, I simply don't agree and those same comments seem to be a theme in others responses to you also. You have some real blinders on there my friend.
Please read your previous post and then compare it to what I posted on those issues. You will see that you are wrong. I e.g. already said a few times that the significance of my experiments cannot be compared to a valid scientific study. That seems to be the argument you keep pondering on. We have already agreed on that a long time ago.
And there is the example you asked for....BTW, my degree was a major in....drum roll...."Natural Sciences"
I don't understand that comment. You having a degree in natural science does not make you an expert in the classification and restriction of sciences (meaning natural science, philosophy, theology, etc.). The reductionistic world view of many scientists clearly demonstrates that.
You claimed some science background, but admit to having no background in the biological sciences or knowledge of the methodology used there. So what exactly is your science background?
It's beside the point but I have a Master in computer science. This is a branch of electrical engineering where also e.g. theoretical physics is taught. This however also does not make me an expert in the aforementioned field.
Ergo, mental masturbation and not relevant to the issue at hand.
I agree that it's not relevant as long as we are operating within the restricted scientific world view, which, in the conversation between you and me, has been the case up to now.
Generally however, calling philosophy mental masturbation is not exactly attestation of a great mind.
I don't mind answering questions and debating with people and such. What I will not do is repeat myself. I have already made my comments as to what I see are the limitations to your "research" in other threads, and you stroke me as the kind of person that will deny, then simply keep asking the same questions over and over to wear the person down. Not going to work with me.
Will, honestly, please read the posts you are referring to. Either you simply haven't read them at all or a large part has erased itself from your memory. We already were at a point where you promised to come up with concrete studies. All you think which must first be settled has been settled already.
-
wavelength
no one is an expert in theology, nor would i classify it as a subject worthy of study. the reductionist, materialistic worldview of science is the correct paradigm, provide evidence otherwise.
-
i disagree, without philosophical training and being well read on the subject layman arguments are pointless. I have a friend for example who is quite the philosopher and is quite hard to understand and has an excellant grasp on philosophy as well as natural sciences. Will brink may know him from mind and muscle as he is a global moderator Ras. I say this because he is really my sole experience with someone with a vast knowledge of philosophy and our arguments are infantile in comparison, hence then reason i see no need to further argue things we are ill equipped to discuss.
I agree, the arguments we have are infantile in the scope of philosophy.
I also know philosophers who have a degree.
Some of them are smart, some have no clue at all.
"Philosophic training" (as taught in Uni) is nothing else than reading books, writing papers and having discussions.
It doesn't make you smart necessarily.
-
wavelength
no one is an expert in theology, nor would i classify it as a subject worthy of study. the reductionist, materialistic worldview of science is the correct paradigm, provide evidence otherwise.
There are well accepted classifications of science. In english, "Science" often refers to "Natural Science" alone. In most other languages, that's not the case and philosophy / theology are also classified as "Science".
Evidence is provided in the aforementioned thread. This is a topic which belongs there.
-
There are well accepted classifications of science. In english, "Science" often refers to "Natural Science" alone. In most other languages, that's not the case and philosophy / theology are also classified as "Science".
Evidence is provided in the aforementioned thread. This is a topic which belongs there.
theology studies nothing usefull and theism as a whole is the study of something that cannot be studied adequetely by definition. It rests on false premises and is useless in any stretch of the imagination imo.
im afraid i wont be able to conduct rational inquisition here as im pretty krunk on clonazepam right now. :D
-
I have asked him several times what his background was, and he's avoided that only to admit he has no background in the biological science or the research methodology used, yet claims a background in the sciences to which he has yet to explain. All of his comments so far, have lead me to believe he has no background in any of the hard science or his answers/comments would make more sense at it applies to the nutritional sciences he keeps commenting on. I don't care if your background is in physics, math, chem, or biology, you will generally understand very basic concepts he's clearly failed to "get" so I am dubious of his claim to any science background. Again, does not make him a bad person, just a person who should stop making claims about the nature of research in these areas, much less rejecting them as he continues to do.
I gave my answer. Now you can tell me what there is to "get" I didn't.
So funny when scientists think their little restricted world is so complicated and complex.
Philosophy in complexity is an ocean to the drop of water called natural science.
-
theology studies nothing usefull and theism as a whole is the study of something that cannot be studied adequetely by definition. It rests on false premises and is useless in any stretch of the imagination imo.
im afraid i wont be able to conduct rational inquisition here as im pretty krunk on clonazepam right now. :D
Fine, but I can only remind you again that in our last conversation on this topic this was your last comment:
this is a huge clusterfuck of pseudo-intellect (this thread).
All arguments you bring here and many more have been delt with in this thread.
You will agree that the topic doesn't belong in a thread called "The Best Oils". :D
-
I keep forgetting. Lame I know!
I think you named the problem right there.
Fortunally, in a forum, posts can be re-read.
Don't you take supplements for better memory?
-
I think you named the problem right there.
Fortunally, in a forum, posts can be re-read.
Don't you take supplements for better memory?
No, but I will if you will increase your dose of meds for that wicked case of ADHD and OCD you clearly suffer from. Now, avoid my posts and I will avoid yours, and we can go about our merry way. Ok sport? ::)
-
No, but I will if you will increase your dose of meds for that wicked case of ADHD and OCD you clearly suffer from. Now, avoid my posts and I will avoid yours, and we can go about our merry way. Ok sport? ::)
Will, it was not my intention to insult you. If I have I apologize.
However, I have answered all your questions, so it is not my fault if the conversation comes to an end.
-
the best oils are the one you actually use and not just put on a shelf
good luck
-
I already said a few times that the significance of my experiments cannot be compared to a valid scientific study.
Then what's the freakin' problem??? Your hang up appears to be that there is a lack of research that has looked specifically at the end points most important to bbers: the actual altering of bodycomp. Again, I agree with you. There is a lack of such studies.
In light of that lack of studies, you have embarked on an attempt to control as many variables as you can to see what a supplement does for you. You conclude from you're own personal experiments that supplements are essentially worthless.
All fine with me. Then however, and what appears to be really annoying to everyone on this forum so far, is you make sweeping statements about research methodologies you have zero background for, and make statements and comments that simply have no bearing on the issue and or make it clear you are out of your element/knowledge base to make.
I have already said all this, and yet, am saying it again. :-X
-
Then what's the freakin' problem??? Your hang up appears to be that there is a lack of research that has looked specifically at the end points most important to bbers: the actual altering of bodycomp. Again, I agree with you. There is a lack of such studies.
This is the first time you answered the question, you said you would only answer after I reveal my scientific background to you. Thanks a lot for your answer. To your knowledge, are there any supplements at all, for which such studies have been performed?
In light of that lack of studies, you have embarked on an attempt to control as many variables as you can to see what a supplement does for you. You conclude from you're own personal experiments that supplements are essentially worthless.
That's of course only my theory, not a scientifically correct conclusion. As I said, we already agreed on that.
All fine with me. Then however, and what appears to be really annoying to everyone on this forum so far, is you make sweeping statements about research methodologies you have zero background for, and make statements and comments that simply have no bearing on the issue and or make it clear you are out of your element/knowledge base to make.
Could you please point out to me what exactly you mean by those sweeping statement I made? I'm always willing to learn if I get the chance.
I have already said all this, and yet, am saying it again. :-X
Not to be a dick, but please show me where you have. What you have answered in the first paragraph was exactly the question I had. Thanks again.
-
This is the first time you answered the question, you said you would only answer after I reveal my scientific background to you. Thanks a lot for your answer. To your knowledge, are there any supplements at all, for which such studies have been performed?
There have been studies with creatine on LBM and strength, studies on EC and fat loss with preservation of LBM under low cal conditions, studies with green tea extracts on fat loss and increases rates of beta ox, and others that find changes in strength, LBM, BF, or performance. They do exist. But it's not black and white, it works on a continuum. There are studies that find X supp resulted in X increase in LBM, but that does not mean much as the study may have been poorly conducted, may have poor statistical strength, etc, etc., as mentioned by many people besides myself in response to your questions.
There are plenty of studies that find exactly what you are talking about that are not worth the paper they are printed on, so it's one part of the equation. BTW, I cover pretty much all the supps out there and the data that exists in my ebook Bodybuilding Revealed (do Google search) if that really interests you, but I am not going to do your homework for you here on this forum. I am always looking for the research that is well done and looks at the end points that matter most to bbers, but that does not mean other research looking at other endpoints is worthless, only that it's one piece of the puzzle.
-
There have been studies with creatine on LBM and strength, studies on EC and fat loss with preservation of LBM under low cal conditions, studies with green tea extracts on fat loss and increases rates of beta ox, and others that find changes in strength, LBM, BF, or performance. They do exist. But it's not black and white, it works on a continuum. There are studies that find X supp resulted in X increase in LBM, but that does not mean much as the study may have been poorly conducted, may have poor statistical strength, etc, etc., as mentioned by many people besides myself in response to your questions.
There are plenty of studies that find exactly what you are talking about that are not worth the paper they are printed on, so it's one part of the equation. BTW, I cover pretty much all the supps out there and the data that exists in my ebook Bodybuilding Revealed (do Google search) if that really interests you, but I am not going to do your homework for you here on this forum. I am always looking for the research that is well done and looks at the end points that matter most to bbers, but that does not mean other research looking at other endpoints is worthless, only that it's one piece of the puzzle.
Thanks a lot for that answer. I did a lot of research on the net back in the day, when I tried a lot of supps. Unfortunally, none of them kept their promise. Just out of curiosity, have you experimented on yourself with supps in the way I did (trying with and without, focusing on bb)?
-
Thanks a lot for that answer. I did a lot of research on the net back in the day, when I tried a lot of supps. Unfortunally, none of them kept their promise. Just out of curiosity, have you experimented on yourself with supps in the way I did (trying with and without, focusing on bb)?
Not exactly, in that I don't at this point in my life focus on a single supp and my only interest is not changes in bodycomp per se. Most of the supps I take, as you could see from my vid, are health related, and such. If I do add in a new supp, I do my best to keep the variables the same if possible, but again, many supps I take I know I wont "feel" per se. Some thoughts from my article "The KISS System for success:
"Adding too many variables makes things more difficult, especially when trying to figure out why something is working or why it’s not. Variables are an essential part of science. We don’t need to go into great depth on this topic, so don’t worry. I do, however, want people to appreciate how variables affect the outcome of their successes or failures in bodybuilding or fitness related endeavors.
So what is a variable? According to one of my textbooks:
“Scientists use an experiment to search for cause and effect relationships in nature. In other words, they design an experiment so that changes to one item cause something else to vary in a predictable way. These changing quantities are called variables…”
There are different types of variables (e.g., confounding, independent, dependent, controlled, etc.) but we are not going to worry about that right now. So how does this all apply to the KISS approach? The more complicated you make your approach to your goals of gaining muscle or losing fat, the more variables you have to control for. That is, for every new bit of complexity you add, you have to be able to account for it in terms of the results, or lack thereof, you experience.
Confused? Here’s a simple example:
Last week you changed your diet, added in three new supplements, and changed your routine, then three weeks later you notice you have made no improvements (i.e. you didn’t lose any fat, or you didn’t gain any muscle, or whatever). Why? It’s impossible to know! You added too many variables into the equation and now you’re unsure what went wrong - which means you won’t be able to make appropriate changes to correct it. Conversely, let’s say you did lose fat or gain muscle with the changes. Great, but do you know which of the changes you made resulted the positive outcome you experienced so you can reproduce it? No, no you don’t.
So, Lesson #1 is: never change more then one or two variables at a time so you can track what worked - and what did not work - from the changes you made. Most people find writing it down in a note book or online journal is the best way to keep track of their progress. When you write it down, you can see the effects that changes in your diet, training, or supplementation have on your body composition, strength, etc.
KISS and those ugly variables
On my forums, it’s not uncommon for someone to post a question like “I added supplement X, Y, and Z to my supplement intake, added an extra day per week in the gym, and reduced my calories by X. Why am I not seeing progress?” My response is “…too many unknown variables to answer that question” which translates into “how the hell should I know?”
Why do people make so many changes at once? I suspect it’s due to the “I want it now” syndrome. Making permanent changes to your performance, physique, and health, takes patience, planning, and a willingness to take things one step at a time and assess what is working and what’s not working in the overall plan.
Clearly, the KISS approach fails to be effective as more variables are added to a program. It also fails to be KISS. How can you keep it simple if it ain’t simple to begin with?! The more complicated the program, the more variables there are to keep track of – which makes success far less likely. This basic idea was appreciated and understood by history’s greatest minds. For example:
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Albert Einstein
Cont:
http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?acatid=3&aid=95
-
Not exactly, in that I don't at this point in my life focus on a single supp and my only interest is not changes in bodycomp per se. Most of the supps I take, as you could see from my vid, are health related, and such. If I do add in a new supp, I do my best to keep the variables the same if possible, but again, many supps I take I know I wont "feel" per se. Some thoughts from my article "The KISS System for success:
...
Interesting. In the beginning, I did it like that, only with one supp at a time. Later I ditched more of them at a time. Would you agree that if we can assume that none of the supps has a negative effect (alone or in combination with the others), and I find out at the end that it made no difference if I took the N supps or not, that I can say that none of them worked for me?
-
Interesting. In the beginning, I did it like that, only with one supp at a time. Later I ditched more of them at a time. Would you agree that if we can assume that none of the supps has a negative effect (alone or in combination with the others), and I find out at the end that it made no difference if I took the N supps or not, that I can say that none of them worked for me?
From a practical point of view, sure. From a scientific/objective perspective, it's unknown. Dose, duration, known and unknown variables controlled, expectation bias, etc, are all factored, and why one person dosing themselves, no matter how controlled they think they are, can never be seen as a study or as valid science. You could have used 10th the needed dose for half the time needed of X supplement, had a low grade infection you didn't know about, ate 3d less calories you thought ('cause the calculator you used was broken and you didn't know it, or the scale you used was of by 20% and you didn't know it, etc) and all manner of other issues. Having said all that, I have used supplements that the data suggests "worked" that I found didn't do a thing for me. For example, to date, I don't seem to get much from beta alanine, yet there are now a good number of solid studies in humans showing improvements in performance.
-
From a practical point of view, sure. From a scientific/objective perspective, it's unknown. Dose, duration, known and unknown variables controlled, expectation bias, etc, are all factored, and why one person dosing themselves, no matter how controlled they think they are, can never be seen as a study or as valid science. You could have used 10th the needed dose for half the time needed of X supplement, had a low grade infection you didn't know about, ate 3d less calories you thought ('cause the calculator you used was broken and you didn't know it, or the scale you used was of by 20% and you didn't know it, etc) and all manner of other issues. Having said all that, I have used supplements that the data suggests "worked" that I found didn't do a thing for me. For example, to date, I don't seem to get much from beta alanine, yet there are now a good number of solid studies in humans showing improvements in performance.
Of course, we have established that it's not vaild science in any case.
Thanks a lot for your answers. Giving my history with supps, I think I'm done with them for now.
Maybe I'll try again when more decisive studies are available.
-
Of course, we have established that it's not vaild science in any case.
Thanks a lot for your answers. Giving my history with supps, I think I'm done with them for now.
Maybe I'll try again when more decisive studies are available.
Your not even aware of what studies exist and i doubt you actively search pubmed for new studies. Unless this is something you are going to start doing?
-
We see a lot of that here (and everywhere) too don't we ;)
usmokepole,
Could you eventually post a new topic with a brief lesson on how to effectively use pubmed as a research tool for the average Joe?
yes i can do this no problem. I'll do it over the next couple days. :D
-
Your not even aware of what studies exist and i doubt you actively search pubmed for new studies. Unless this is something you are going to start doing?
I won't at this point. I have done my research in the past. Maybe I will again in the future.
For now, I have played the guinea pig long enough. Maybe I would be more willing if at least one single supplement would have shown any effect on me.
-
I won't at this point. I have done my research in the past. Maybe I will again in the future.
For now, I have played the guinea pig long enough. Maybe I would be more willing if at least one single supplement would have shown any effect on me.
sure try caffeine, you should notice and effect pretty quickly.
try geranamine in AMP, quite the stimulant in my books. Surely caffeine or ephedrine have shown effects. What about belladonna have you tried that, i bet you would notice effects from that :D ;D
-
sure try caffeine, you should notice and effect pretty quickly.
try geranamine in AMP, quite the stimulant in my books. Surely caffeine or ephedrine have shown effects. What about belladonna have you tried that, i bet you would notice effects from that :D ;D
That's a bit of a cheap shot. In my posts you can see that I said I agree that E, C, and A have an effect, just like e.g. cardio. The question was not if there are supps which have any effect at all, the question was, do they have the effects desired for bodybuilding. I never tried E, but C and A did not improve the ratio of fat loss vs. muscle loss at the same rate of weight loss (than without them) for me.