I only accept the kind of emperical study I have layed out (focusing only on the purpose of bodybuilding as described), which is the one I did on myself and which has proven time and time again that supplements do absolutely nothing, at least not for me.
The examples you have mentioned all fall into the category of examining a few, still poorly understood scientifc aspects. With the current state of nutrition science this method must be dismissed as explained.
Feeling "jacked or stimulated" must also be dismissed as an indicator, it has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of bodybuilding. I don't deny the effects of ECA. In my experience however, just like cardio, the same or even better results (again in bodybuilding terms, meaning ratio of fat loss to muscle loss at a certain rate of weight loss) can be achieved with reduction of calories.
I can't say anything about clen and albuterol, though. Those are prescription drugs and should not be considered supplements IMO.
"I only accept the kind of emperical study I have layed out (focusing only on the purpose of bodybuilding as described), which is the one I did on myself and which has proven time and time again that supplements do absolutely nothing, at least not for me."
ok thats fine, but science disagrees with you. The double blind crossover rct is the gold standard of methodology, with cochrane reviews being highly respected. It exceeds your definition of evidence. If you want to know how well the study was designed or how the measures did, learn statistics. Look at the alpha level, the power, post hoc analysis, the tool used, anova, ancova etc.... all this has to be examined. I would think it ignorant to beleive you have devised another method of detecting truth then the scientific community at large.
"The examples you have mentioned all fall into the category of examining a few, still poorly understood scientifc aspects. With the current state of nutrition science this method must be dismissed as explained."
poorly understood? beta agonism, the adrenergic system, protein synthesis etc.. are understood quite well, if you are not well versed in the subject that is fine, but many people are.
"Feeling "jacked or stimulated" must also be dismissed as an indicator, it has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of bodybuilding. I don't deny the effects of ECA. In my experience however, just like cardio, the same or even better results (again in bodybuilding terms, meaning ratio of fat loss to muscle loss at a certain rate of weight loss) can be achieved with reduction of calories."
by jacked i meant stimulated and it does have something to do with bodybuilding. Sympathomimetics are known to increase strength via nor-adrenalin/adrenalin hence the stimulation from ephedrine has this property resulting in muscle gain over time. Also, beta agonsim is throughly established to have lipolytic effects, and ephedrine has been proven time and time again to result in non selective beta agonism. Both strength and fat loss are directly related to bodybuilding. Sure cardio causes fat loss, so does caloric restriction(in generalities) that does not mean that supplements wont help or are unescessary since cardios mechanism of action is different from ephedrines. You also have PPAR agonists like sesamin, things that increase fat oxidation like TTA, all applicable. I could go on with examples but surely your stance has no merit and its easily dismissed.