Rules

[MrRippedZilla]

I'm sure if you've spent any reasonable amount of time on the boards you'll know that scientific debates can go from educational to childish nonsense in a flash so in order for us all to benefit from this place, here are a few ground rules...

Do:
- Share as much data as you wish. "Data" refers to published, peer-reviewed, scientific literature. Preferably in humans.

- Discuss the data as much as you wish. We're looking for the strengths/weaknesses as well as the take home points.

- Feel free to request papers that you may not be able to access freely and I, as well as others, will do our best to find them for you. I do suggest you save this for PMs though so that we don't clog up the forum unnecessarily.


Do not:
- Rely on strawman arguments to defend your opinion.
This is when someone "accidentally" or purposely misrepresents someone's argument and leads to counterpoints against assertions that weren't made in the first place. Pay attention to the points being discussed.

- Appeal to authority to support your view.
This is when someone defends there opinion because a local guru, or a doctor, or whoever, has the same view. A person might have all the credentials in the world but it does NOT mean that they are incapable of being wrong - doctors are a very good example of this.

- Appeal to popularity.
If everyone believes something to be true, that does not make it true - the earth is flat is a good example of how shitty an approach this is.

- Make black or white statements.
This usually involves folks assuming that there are only 2 extreme options on opposite ends of the scale with no middle ground - the debates around "clean eating" is a good example of this.

- Appeal to unscientific literature.
I don't want to see a bunch of blog posts & youtube videos instead of research from pubmed being used to support an opinion.

- Cherry-pick the research.
This is my biggest pet peeve and involves citing data that support your opinion while conveniently ignoring that which doesn't. It's bullshit so please cut it out.

- Appeal to aesthetics.
"I'm shredded therefore I know more about fat loss than you" or "He's an IFBB pro so he must know more about muscle hypertrophy than you" - classic desperate arguments made by people with no objective data to support them, no thanks.

- Appeal to experience.
The good old "it works for me" stuff isn't going to fly here. That's not to say anecdotal experiences are completely devoid of value, just that they are less valuable than scientific research and certainly won't do you much good in a scientific debate.

- Resort to ad hominem/personal attacks.

- Dismiss scientific research.
If your not interested in what the data has to say then by all means don't post in this forum. I often here people dismiss science because every study as an opposing study but this is down to your inability to critically review the data and spot the differences - something we are here to help with.


By following these rules, I'm sure this place can become an incredibly valuable educational resource for all of us and that's what this lifestyle is all about - learn, apply, progress

 

[PillarofBalance]

Good start. I would also remind people that studies don't really "prove." They suggest, demonstrate or provide evidence of. Especially when you are only citing a single resource.

Basically be open minded about being wrong.

 

[TrickWilliams]

Sticky. Nice Zilla

 

[ECKSRATED]

It works for me is just another option for the topic at hand. Just like anything its not the only option.

 

[MrRippedZilla]

It works for me is just another option for the topic at hand. Just like anything its not the only option.

"It works for me" is problematic because, if you know what your taking, then the experiment is flawed by expectation bias from the start. My point being that, in the face of scientific evidence, it doesn't have much value to an observer trying to make a decision about something.

Of course if there is no scientific evidence about the subject at hand (AAS, peptides and so on may fall into this category) and it's not possible to logically determine an answer, then personal experience does have some value. Basically this (top is most valuable, bottom is least):

 

[snake]

I would like to submit my bullshit as a scientific study and myself as an expert. Zilla, I love you man but you're going to take all the fun out of it with theses "Rules" There's just too much entertainment to be lost.


Did someone piss in someones cornflakes and I missed it?

 

[stonetag]

Being a biologist myself, albeit in the fish world, I still, and always will believe in" the scientific method". I guess bringing up climate change, and the theory of evolution is best saved for another thread...lol. Dig your post zilla.

 

[DocDePanda187123]

I would like to submit my bullshit as a scientific study and myself as an expert. Zilla, I love you man but you're going to take all the fun out of it with theses "Rules" There's just too much entertainment to be lost.


Did someone piss in someones cornflakes and I missed it?

I think the cornflakes were left unmolested but Zilla is posting in advance of what normally happens following these kinds of topics.

 

[MrRippedZilla]

I would like to submit my bullshit as a scientific study and myself as an expert. Zilla, I love you man but you're going to take all the fun out of it with theses "Rules" There's just too much entertainment to be lost.


Did someone piss in someones cornflakes and I missed it?

What Doc said - preemptive action against the usual behavior when things get nerdy

I'm all for entertainment & fun man (I wouldn't be a member here if I wasn't) but education has always come first for me. Considering this sub-forum is called "Studies and other scientific data", I don't think my rules were that harsh.

 

[Joliver]

I noticed that there were no rules about fightin' in here.

I am pleased. Two things I know: 1) e-fighting, and 3) how to count to 2.

 

[John Ziegler]

I noticed that there were no rules about fightin' in here.

I am pleased. Two things I know: 1) e-fighting, and 3) how to count to 2.

Fascinating

View attachment 3482

 

[ECKSRATED]

"It works for me" is problematic because, if you know what your taking, then the experiment is flawed by expectation bias from the start. My point being that, in the face of scientific evidence, it doesn't have much value to an observer trying to make a decision about something.

Of course if there is no scientific evidence about the subject at hand (AAS, peptides and so on may fall into this category) and it's not possible to logically determine an answer, then personal experience does have some value. Basically this (top is most valuable, bottom is least):

View attachment 3479

So if someone wanted to increase their bench and I suggested the same way that I increased my bench over the years with great success its not valid because there's no scientific study behind it??? No. Like I said its another option at hand for the topic.

I guess I won't be coming into this sub forum because I prefer tried and true ways over some scientist telling me how to do something who has never done anything even remotely similar in his life.

 

[MrRippedZilla]

So if someone wanted to increase their bench and I suggested the same way that I increased my bench over the years with great success its not valid because there's no scientific study behind it??? No. Like I said its another option at hand for the topic.

Wrong.
It can only become less valuable if there is direct scientific evidence refuting it and even then, it depends on the quality of the data (a poorly controlled, severely limited, isolated study is not as valuable as a string of randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, statistically strong trials - stuff that I'll be going through throughout this forum).
If there is no data whatsoever on your method of increasing the bench then there is no validating/invalidating your method through science so we move down the hierarchy of knowledge.

Going back to the rules, when I say no "appealing to experience" I mean you cannot dismiss the validity of scientific data simply because something did/didn't work for you.
Example: I show you data indicating that DNP is anti-catabolic and you dismiss it because you feel that you lost a tonne of muscle, or I show you data indicating that casein pre-bed isn't going to make you an anabolic machine but you feel that it works for you and therefore the data must be wrong.
The point being that in a straight up shoot out to determine the more valuable resource of information between the scientific method vs anecdotal experiences, the scientific method wins. At the same time, anecdotal data in the ABSENCE of anything of greater value, is perfectly acceptable.

I guess I won't be coming into this sub forum because I prefer tried and true ways over some scientist telling me how to do something who has never done anything even remotely similar in his life.

The scientific method involves experimenting with things to determine what happens - it's not based on what some random scientist believes is going to happen (that would be classified as an hypothesis only). So it is actually a "tried and true way" with much better variable controllable then you'll ever get in reality with anecdotal experiences.

Having said all that, if you still place great value on trial & error than on science, then this forum will be a waste of time for you. I can't, and don't have the desire, to make you or anyone else open minded enough to consider it.

 

[snake]

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.

 

[Bro Bundy]

I dont agree ..Ill take a personal experience from someone whos been there and done that more then any science study..Take eckx for example ..No study will give u better explanations on how to bench then him..Same with gear you can have every study known to man but unless u pinned before u really cant know what its like..I think your very smart zilla and i like having u here alot..Your great for a board but imo experience is king..What I do agree with is putting in the time to study before u get the experience..Its a fukkin tight rope mate!

 

[Lilo]

I'm not one to usually express my views, but it's difficult to resist a thread where people disagree on what to disagree about.

 

[MrRippedZilla]

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.

I suspect that's the main reason some bbers ignore science now - deep routed distrust that stems from the decades of bullshit published by the scientific community regarding AAS, its dangers, etc. That's also why its so important to be able to critically analyze information and separate the crap from the gems.

Listen, I'm well aware that scientific research isn't perfect and probably never will be. Hell, I've been relentlessly bashing the peer-review process (what you have to go through to get published) elsewhere for months now. In fact, I'm going to be posting some of the bullcrap science as well as the good stuff so people can see the differences.
However, when it comes to actually acquiring knowledge about a topic, scientific research is and always will be superior to gym gossip.

 

[PillarofBalance]

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.

Strawman!!!!

I dont agree ..Ill take a personal experience from someone whos been there and done that more then any science study..Take eckx for example ..No study will give u better explanations on how to bench then him..Same with gear you can have every study known to man but unless u pinned before u really cant know what its like..I think your very smart zilla and i like having u here alot..Your great for a board but imo experience is king..What I do agree with is putting in the time to study before u get the experience..Its a fukkin tight rope mate!

Yeah so there actually is plenty of valid science behind why he is able to bench the way he does. It's not magic.

 

[Bro Bundy]

Strawman!!!!



Yeah so there actually is plenty of valid science behind why he is able to bench the way he does. It's not magic.

I know it has alot to do with his body structure ..More I think about it both are equally important (science and experience)..

 

[Bro Bundy]

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?