Rules

Seeker

Veteran
SI Founding Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
8,859
Reaction score
10,718
Points
333
I knew reading these rules was gonna create some of these disagreements. I also thought the rules left out an important factor which is this. Both practical experience and research are great to use, but for telling us different things. This is where I feel the rules fall short.
 

DocDePanda187123

fitasfuk50's Operating System
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
8,074
Reaction score
5,825
Points
283
No one shoot me but didn't the Physician’s Desk Reference at one time say that steroids did not help to improve athletic performance, build muscle or increase strength? A few more facts; flies were created from cow poop and you could get rid of a sickness through blood letting.

I do like the idea of having a place where things can stay analytical but for my money; I'm taking X's advice on bench. If he tells me I can hit 450 by eating SOS pads, there won't be a clean pot in the house.

So you have never added new training methods to your programming? You've never stopped doing something that you thought worked at first but really didn't? You've never modified your training at any point?
 

DocDePanda187123

fitasfuk50's Operating System
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
8,074
Reaction score
5,825
Points
283
Pob I got a question..Our first cycles we learned alot from get somes thread which was all his personal experience..How would a science study help in learning about how to run a good first cycle?

GetSome was a great asset to the board but even his first cycle thread has several mistakes in it.

As to your question of how a study would help a first cycle:

It was a study that told everyone that estradiol is raised in response to an increase in test or another aromatizimg compound. It was a study that showed how much test the average body produces and what's needed to go supraphysiological. If you're asking for a scientific study to write you out the perfect first cycle it'll never happen bc of the ethical restrictions researchers are operating under.
 

MrRippedZilla

Retired
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
1,706
Reaction score
3,522
Points
153
I knew reading these rules was gonna create some of these disagreements. I also thought the rules left out an important factor which is this. Both practical experience and research are great to use, but for telling us different things. This is where I feel the rules fall short.

I've edited the rules to take this into account and make it clear that I'm NOT saying practical experiences are completely devoid of value, just that in this specific scenario - debating scientific data - it isn't going to do you much good.

I've actually participated in live scientific debates and trust me, bringing up anecdotal experiences to defend a point in the face of opposing scientific research only leads to lols. It's embarrassing.
Considering this forum is pretty much trying to replicate a similar platform, my rules really shouldn't be that controversial.
 

ECKSRATED

UG BENCH KING
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
8,629
Reaction score
9,007
Points
283
In the end it all comes down to what works for that person. Bodybuilding, powerlifting, dieting, AAS and everything else that goes along with it effects everyone differently.

Every case tests a number of people and verryyyy rarely if ever do u see 100% of the people responding the same way to whatever is being tested/studied.
 

Bro Bundy

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
18,886
Reaction score
15,871
Points
383
This is a good thread ..Its a honor to learn from you fuks
 

Mind2muscle

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
500
Points
83
Because of my background I have a lot of faith in the scientific method in proving/disproving hypotheses and theories. I also believe experience can go a long way. I think it's safe to say that we should be able to take data from both the science of lifting and experience as well.
 

PillarofBalance

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
20,402
Reaction score
18,204
Points
0
I think there is something being misunderstood here.

You know how the older juice heads would run a cycle and use nolva as a pct if anything but not clomid? Why do you think that changed?

Remember how the ones who never came off would switch test esters every 10 or 12 weeks because of some shit about receptors? Why do you think that changed?

How about lifting in the 8 to 12 rep range for hypertrophy?

How about not taking caber while using 19-nors because you don't need it if you control e2?

The idea that everything we do is based solely on experience and that research is less valuable is straight up stupid. Think back about when you started lifting or when you started cycling. Think about the mistakes we all made. Think about how many of us were misled by bioscience bullshit in flex magazine or "that big guy in the gym."

What if you could start over. But knew to only pay attention or at least pay attention first to the evidence based claims? It's possible that so many mistakes from trial and error could be avoided.

You guys should keep a more open mind. I'm actually a little surprised about this.
 

ECKSRATED

UG BENCH KING
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
8,629
Reaction score
9,007
Points
283
No one said research or science is stupid. He pretty much said experience is stupid.
 

PillarofBalance

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
20,402
Reaction score
18,204
Points
0
No one said research or science is stupid. He pretty much said experience is stupid.

No he said is has no place in an argument about published research. In a scientific discussion it simply isn't a valid argument.

Every trainer worth their salt knows experience is valuable.
 

MrRippedZilla

Retired
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
1,706
Reaction score
3,522
Points
153
No one said research or science is stupid. He pretty much said experience is stupid.

No I said it's less valuable than scientific research, which it is.

I can go on & on about how science is superior to personal experience and the fact that experience only becomes more valuable in the absence of scientific research but the bottom line stays the same.

If you and others genuinely find experience to be more valuable then that's a shame but I can accept it - like I said earlier, I'm not going to waste time persuading anyone to be more open minded.

Just be forewarned that this entire sub-forum will be a waste of time for you guys since appeals to experience, as I stated in the rules, will be pointless here.

On the bright side, this is just 1 corner of the board - you still have plenty of room elsewhere to share your experiences so that others can learn from it :)
 

ECKSRATED

UG BENCH KING
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
8,629
Reaction score
9,007
Points
283
And I have nothing against science. Nothing at all. I actually enjoy reading your posts zilla and find them very interesting. I believe in science but I also believe in experiences that resulted in success.
 

snake

Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
12,307
Reaction score
19,752
Points
383
So you have never added new training methods to your programming? You've never stopped doing something that you thought worked at first but really didn't? You've never modified your training at any point?

I don't and have never followed a "Method". My workout came from some early basic understanding that was handed down to me. I tweaked it for a few years and ran with it. Once I hit my 20's I cut the number of times I hit a body part.

This may surprise most people but for the most part; I do the same workout I have always done for roughly the last 15+ year. Only real difference it putting in or talking out DL if I'm going to compete.

I'm sure someone can provide some science that says what I'm doing is all wrong. But then I can provide some numbers that proves differently. Like I think Seeker said, we need both and only a fool would not respect that.
 

ToolSteel

KingOfSquat
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
5,229
Reaction score
5,653
Points
283
And I have nothing against science. Nothing at all. I actually enjoy reading your posts zilla and find them very interesting. I believe in science but I also believe in experiences that resulted in success.
I think the only small thing you're missing here is that there IS science to support your experience relating to bench.
This is a good thing.
 

DocDePanda187123

fitasfuk50's Operating System
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
8,074
Reaction score
5,825
Points
283
I don't and have never followed a "Method". My workout came from some early basic understanding that was handed down to me. I tweaked it for a few years and ran with it. Once I hit my 20's I cut the number of times I hit a body part.

This may surprise most people but for the most part; I do the same workout I have always done for roughly the last 15+ year. Only real difference it putting in or talking out DL if I'm going to compete.

I'm sure someone can provide some science that says what I'm doing is all wrong. But then I can provide some numbers that proves differently. Like I think Seeker said, we need both and only a fool would not respect that.

I wasn't going to suggest science proves you wrong. I'm going in another direction. Snakeypoo.

You stated that at one point the scientific community didn't think steroids increased muscle mass or strength and that blood letting could cure certain diseases. The point is, much like you have tweaked and continue to tweak your training as you learn more with experience so does science. You can't expect science to not change unless you also expect your experiences to never change your current training.

Science has indeed shown steroids increase muscle mass. Studies done in the past have told using leeches to cure many ailments is stupid. You must take the collective information and critically analyze it to form a logical opinion. You can't isolate one study out if many.
 

New Threads

Top