Does anyone actually take supplements anymore?

[www.BrinkZone.com]

The companies know that their products don't work, I'm pretty sure of that.

Know they don't work is not the same as don't care if they actually work or not, or work as well or better then a cheaper alternative.

The big ones must make extensive tests anyway at least to make sure the products won't do any harm.

Funny! Wrong, but funny! 

For my definition of "effective", see "P1" in my thread
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=236639.0

would be interested in your input.

I'm unclear what I was looking at. Anything a single person does to track an effect on their own may be interesting for that person, but it's an n =1 subjective observation and a long way from objective data. Think true double blind placebo studies with large enough n numbers to be worth a damn and well run. Plenty of "double blind placebo" studies are not worth the paper they are printed on, much less the other junk that passes for "research" out there...

If interested in some of the inside dirt on the supp industry and such, I do go into a some detail on that in a recent interview. A snippet:

"I get called into a meeting with the owner of the company and he shows me what they are working on. He asks what I think about it, so I tell him the truth, which is, the research does not support the claims they plan on making about this product and it’s generally worthless. The owner gets a “gee, this guy is really naive” look on his face and says to me:

“Will, what we do is throw sh&% against the wall and see what sticks. We can worry about the rest later.”

Cont:

http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?aid=135&acatid=3

[wavelength]

Know they don't work is not the same as don't care if they actually work or not, or work as well or better then a cheaper alternative.
Funny! Wrong, but funny! 

It's not the same, I agree. My point was that they must know by now in any case. I'm not saying, they would not want to put out anything that works (which is probably still true for some of them), I'm saying, there isn't anything. I'm only talking for bodybuilding purpose, though.

I'm unclear what I was looking at. Anything a single person does to track an effect on their own may be interesting for that person, but it's an n =1 subjective observation and a long way from objective data. Think true double blind placebo studies with large enough n numbers to be worth a damn and well run. Plenty of "double blind placebo" studies are not worth the paper they are printed on, much less the other junk that passes for "research" out there...

You asked for my definition of effectiveness (= enhancement factor in my article) in terms of bodybuilding. This is described in P1 of my article and the formulas above (and has nothing to do with how many people are involved in a certain study, for more people -> average, see P2):

----
Bulk: gaining body weight at a certain rate [W = pounds gained / week] with a certain ratio of muscle vs. fat [R = pounds muscle / pounds fat] gained at the end of the bulk.
Cut: losing body weight at a certain rate [W = pounds lost / week] with a certain ratio of fat vs. muscle [R = pounds fat / pounds muscle] lost at the end of the cut.
...
The person could e.g. perform a cut with a certain supplement and write down R1, then a bulk and then the exact same cut but without the supplement and write down R2. The enhancement factor of the method can be calculated as E = (R1 - R2) / R2. If e.g. R1 = 5 (meaning that for 5lbs of fat loss, 1lb of muscle was lost) and R2 = 4, E would be 25%.
----

If interested in some of the inside dirt on the supp industry and such, I do go into a some detail on that in a recent interview. A snippet:

"I get called into a meeting with the owner of the company and he shows me what they are working on. He asks what I think about it, so I tell him the truth, which is, the research does not support the claims they plan on making about this product and it’s generally worthless. The owner gets a “gee, this guy is really naive” look on his face and says to me:

“Will, what we do is throw sh&% against the wall and see what sticks. We can worry about the rest later.”

Cont:

http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?aid=135&acatid=3

I can believe that that's how it starts. But as soon as a product catches on, they would be stupid to not at least test for potential dangers.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

It's not the same, I agree. My point was that they must know by now in any case. I'm not saying, they would not want to put out anything that works (which is probably still true for some of them), I'm saying, there isn't anything. I'm only talking for bodybuilding purpose, though.

I'm saying there are other supps worth taking for bbing purposes, some with direct effects and some with indirect effects.

The enhancement factor of the method can be calculated as E = (R1 - R2) / R2. If e.g. R1 = 5 (meaning that for 5lbs of fat loss, 1lb of muscle was lost) and R2 = 4, E would be 25%.

All of which is n=1 subjective (by scientists standards) observation where the person attempts to control all the variables, which does not allow for large scale conclusions. What is your background in research methodology in the biological sciences?

To the person following the above, yes, people should attempt as best as possible to repeat exactly what they did before to track the effects of any additions/subtractions to a program, but it's not objective data anyone should rely on to say X has Y effects on people.

I can believe that that's how it starts. But as soon as a product catches on, they would be stupid to not at least test for potential dangers.

They don't, nor are they really equipped for such things.  Nuff said there. Read my interview for more thoughts on the issue.

[boonstack]

brinkzone, calm the fuck down.

people either take supplements and benefit, or they dont. thats it.

95% is all bullshit. 5% maybe is worth something

[JOCKTHEGLIDE]

so your saying your the REAL WILL BRINK???  I read some of your articles as a kid man.....

[www.BrinkZone.com]

so your saying your the REAL WILL BRINK???

Yes sir. 

I read some of your articles as a kid man.....

I guess that makes me old. Bummer....

[www.BrinkZone.com]

brinkzone, calm the fuck down.

[wavelength]

I'm saying there are other supps worth taking for bbing purposes, some with direct effects and some with indirect effects.

Depends on your definition of BB purpose, of course. For mine (only taking into account the ratio of muscle vs. fat), I believe there aren't any with significant effects. That's at least what my P1 has shown. And as long as there are no scientific emperical studies as you have defined them, I'll stick to my P1.

All of which is n=1 subjective (by scientists standards) observation where the person attempts to control all the variables, which does not allow for large scale conclusions. What is your background in research methodology in the biological sciences?

To the person following the above, yes, people should attempt as best as possible to repeat exactly what they did before to track the effects of any additions/subtractions to a program, but it's not objective data anyone should rely on to say X has Y effects on people.

Again, my answer to your original question is independent of the number of participants and also independent of the details of the study (e.g. double blind placebo vs. the simple form I have layed out). I was only talking about the formula E=(R1-R2)/R2. I agree that for scientifc purpose, e.g. double blind placebo with a large number of people would be more suited. However, I feel that the study I have layed out (P1 resp. P2) is much easier to perform and would provide the same results (E always 0). I did P1 on a lot of supplements and E was always 0. If the specifics of the study (as you have mentioned) would have a significant effect on the outcome, there should be at least one E <> 0. But you are right, that I can only say for sure that supplements don't work for me, since n=1.

They don't, nor are they really equipped for such things.  Nuff said there. Read my interview for more thoughts on the issue.

Even worse in that case.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

Depends on your definition of BB purpose, of course. For mine (only taking into account the ratio of muscle vs. fat), I believe there aren't any with significant effects. That's at least what my P1 has shown. And as long as there are no scientific emperical studies as you have defined them, I'll stick to my P1.

Which is essentially what I do and recommend others do: attempt to keep all variables the same when adding/subtracting a supplement to see if it appears to be of any value. That's still not research, it's simply well controlled personal experimentation. Nothing wrong with it, as long as one does not call it objective research, 'cause it aint. I have trained hundreds, and gotten feedback from tens of thousands of supplement users at this point in my line of work, and I still never forget the differences between subjective experience vs objective data.

[barrettaswine]

As a bodybuilder from the 70's, we did quite well on multi's. Maybe some digestive enzymes and always one gram of vitamin c with your evening meal for recovery and growth. Before you guys flame-on, yeah d-bol was plentiful and cheap. But only the guys who trained like madmen actually grew. Stop looking for miracles in a bottle or jug! Train hard,eat good food. rest and grow.

[wavelength]

Which is essentially what I do and recommend others do: attempt to keep all variables the same when adding/subtracting a supplement to see if it appears to be of any value. That's still not research, it's simply well controlled personal experimentation. Nothing wrong with it, as long as one does not call it objective research, 'cause it aint. I have trained hundreds, and gotten feedback from tens of thousands of supplement users at this point in my line of work, and I still never forget the differences between subjective experience vs objective data.

I will make a few tweaks in my article, thanks for your input.

My main point is that if a large number of people use this method, and on each supplement they try, the effect is 0 (or very close to it) for the vast majority of them, the results cannot be too far from results derived from objective research. Only if the average E was significantly above zero and/or would vary alot between participants, an objective study would have to follow, to determine the exact avarage value of E. Or in other words: the layed out method is sufficient to show that a certain supplement does not work at all (if in fact it doesn't) but insufficient to show to what extend it works (if in fact it does).