The Best Oils

[Necrosis]

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?

[www.BrinkZone.com]

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...

[Necrosis]

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.

[Necrosis]

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...

LMAO... im sure par or justin could straighten that out for you.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

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.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

LMAO... im sure par or justin could straighten that out for you.

Yes, but I have to remember to ask, and I keep forgetting. Lame I know!

[wavelength]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[wavelength]

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]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[wavelength]

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.

[wavelength]

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.

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".

[wavelength]

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?

[www.BrinkZone.com]

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?

[wavelength]

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.

[Bluto]

the best oils are the one you actually use and not just put on a shelf

good luck

[www.BrinkZone.com]

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. 

[wavelength]

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. 

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.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

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.

[wavelength]

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)?

[www.BrinkZone.com]

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

[wavelength]

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?

[www.BrinkZone.com]

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.

[wavelength]

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.