# Rules



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 1, 2016)

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 (Dec 1, 2016)

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 (Dec 1, 2016)

Sticky. Nice Zilla


----------



## ECKSRATED (Dec 1, 2016)

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


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 1, 2016)

ECKSRATED said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2016)

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 (Dec 1, 2016)

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 (Dec 1, 2016)

snake said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2016)

snake said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2016)

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 (Dec 1, 2016)

Joliver said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2016)

MrRippedZilla said:


> "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 (Dec 2, 2016)

ECKSRATED said:


> 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. 



ECKSRATED said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2016)

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 (Dec 2, 2016)

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 (Dec 2, 2016)

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 (Dec 2, 2016)

snake said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2016)

snake said:


> 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!!!!



Bro Bundy said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2016)

PillarofBalance said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2016)

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?


----------



## Seeker (Dec 2, 2016)

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 (Dec 2, 2016)

snake said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2016)

Bro Bundy said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2016)

Seeker said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2016)

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 (Dec 2, 2016)

This is   a good thread ..Its a honor to learn from you fuks


----------



## Mind2muscle (Dec 2, 2016)

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.


----------



## BigGameHunter (Dec 2, 2016)

MrRippedZilla said:


> my rules really shouldn't be that controversial.



I didn't think they were...its new and different that's all...do your thing Rip.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 2, 2016)

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 (Dec 2, 2016)

No one said research or science is stupid. He pretty much said experience is stupid.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 2, 2016)

ECKSRATED said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2016)

ECKSRATED said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2016)

MrRippedZilla said:


> 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


So can we make a sub forum called "my experience" ?


----------



## ECKSRATED (Dec 2, 2016)

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.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 2, 2016)

ECKSRATED said:


> So can we make a sub forum called "my experience" ?



Dude, it's called a log.

Welcome to UG, post up, make some friends and share with us...


----------



## ECKSRATED (Dec 2, 2016)

MrRippedZilla said:


> Dude, it's called a log.
> 
> Welcome to UG, post up, make some friends and share with us...



Dude, it was a joke. 

Don't be a smartass Bill Nye.


----------



## snake (Dec 2, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2016)

ECKSRATED said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2016)

snake said:


> 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.


----------



## stonetag (Dec 2, 2016)

How about them Raiders?


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 2, 2016)

snake said:


> 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.



All wrong no, but being closed minded means you are potentially leaving gains on the table or could have avoided injury etc...

Talking about proving a negative which isn't possible but, I think you get my point. In case you don't- what you did worked to get you what you got. What if you could have gotted more tho?


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 2, 2016)

ECKSRATED said:


> So can we make a sub forum called "my experience" ?



Hahaha hahaha that's basically the rest of the forum.  We will need a sub-forum under it tho 

My experience forum
        With trannies 
        In gay porn
        In prison 

And so on


----------



## Tren4Life (Dec 2, 2016)

PillarofBalance said:


> Hahaha hahaha that's basically the rest of the forum.  We will need a sub-forum under it tho
> 
> My experience forum
> With trannies
> ...




dibs on the prison forum


----------



## Bro Bundy (Dec 2, 2016)

PillarofBalance said:


> Hahaha hahaha that's basically the rest of the forum.  We will need a sub-forum under it tho
> 
> My experience forum
> With trannies
> ...



Im a expert in those topics


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Dec 2, 2016)

I'm going to wear a lab coat and a monocle every time I read a thread in this section.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Dec 2, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> I'm going to wear a lab coat and a monocle every time I read a thread in this section.



Don't forget your pocket protector and 3pc suit


----------



## snake (Dec 2, 2016)

PillarofBalance said:


> All wrong no, but being closed minded means you are potentially leaving gains on the table or could have avoided injury etc...
> 
> Talking about proving a negative which isn't possible but, I think you get my point. In case you don't- what you did worked to get you what you got. What if you could have gotted more tho?



There's a better chance that had I done it differently, I would have gotten less. There's also a good chance that had I done it any other way, I wouldn't be doing it now.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Dec 2, 2016)

snake said:


> There's a better chance that had I done it differently, I would have gotten less. There's also a good chance that had I done it any other way, I wouldn't be doing it now.



Exactly.  There is no evidence to suggest either way.  But if there is evidence why dismiss it?


----------



## ToolSteel (Dec 2, 2016)

snake said:


> There's a better chance that had I done it differently, I would have gotten less. There's also a good chance that had I done it any other way, I wouldn't be doing it now.


What he's saying is that the changes you made based on experience helped. 
But perhaps using scientific data on top of experience, you could have been 1, 5, even 10% better off than where you are now.


----------



## snake (Dec 2, 2016)

ToolSteel said:


> What he's saying is that the changes you made based on experience helped.
> But perhaps using scientific data on top of experience, you could have been 1, 5, even 10% better off than where you are now.



Alright, some of you guys know my numbers from back in the day. Who here can tell me that a 10 % increase in my squat while in the 198's is doable for me? Let's not forget, I was clean as the day is long.

Sorry Zilla, got off topic.


----------



## DieYoungStrong (Dec 2, 2016)

snake said:


> Alright, some of you guys know my numbers from back in the day. Who here can tell me that a 10 % increase in my squat while in the 198's is doable for me? Let's not forget, I was clean as the day is long.
> 
> Sorry Zilla, got off topic.



The days are rather short right now....


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Dec 2, 2016)

snake said:


> Alright, some of you guys know my numbers from back in the day. Who here can tell me that a 10 % increase in my squat while in the 198's is doable for me? Let's not forget, I was clean as the day is long.
> 
> Sorry Zilla, got off topic.



I'm kind of just letting you guys get all this out of your systems here. As long as it doesn't spread over to the other threads its all good


----------



## stonetag (Dec 2, 2016)

Bro Bundy said:


> Im a expert in those topics



Sheep stable fantasies......no.....sorry.


----------



## DF (Dec 2, 2016)

Schrodinger's cat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BigGameHunter (Dec 2, 2016)

DieYoungStrong said:


> I'm going to wear a lab coat and a monocle every time I read a thread in this section.



Dolby, Thomas Dolby MFs


----------



## Bro Bundy (Dec 3, 2016)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> 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.



Its a good point docd


----------



## Bro Bundy (Dec 3, 2016)

Im into it..My mind is open..I never said this is a bad idea..I think this is a great idea


----------



## BigSwolePump (May 18, 2017)

The problem is simply that you can find studies and theories that suggest both. Science is not absolute like math and physics. Your answer and data will depend on who conducted the study. POB said it best on the second post of the sticky here:



PillarofBalance said:


> 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.



IMO, talk to those who have first hand experience and learn from them vs 3rd and 4th hand information given in a "study"


----------



## Send0 (Apr 3, 2021)

MrRippedZilla said:


> *Do:*
> - 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.



I've been thinking of writing a few articles on peptides in my spare time, as I've  realized most people don't understand the pharmacology or pharmacokinetics of many of them (i.e. see the latest kisspeptin thread peptides forum), and I feel this is an area I can contribute back to the forum (analysis and presentation of scientific study data and literature).

My question is as follows; if there's a paper I need access to, then should I only PM you... or are there other people I should consider including on the request as well?


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Apr 3, 2021)

Send0 said:


> My question is as follows; if there's a paper I need access to, then should I only PM you... or are there other people I should consider including on the request as well?


You are entitled to PM whoever you choose of course. I'm simply not aware of anyone else on the board who has regular access to papers behind pay walls. 

If someone else does have this kind of access, and is willing to help you, then they should feel free to correct me here


----------



## CJ (Apr 3, 2021)

MrRippedZilla said:


> You are entitled to PM whoever you choose of course. I'm simply not aware of anyone else on the board who has regular access to papers behind pay walls.
> 
> If someone else does have this kind of access, and is willing to help you, then they should feel free to correct me here



Pay walls are a pain in the ass!!! 

Here's my research, you can't see it. :32 (18):


----------



## Send0 (Apr 3, 2021)

MrRippedZilla said:


> You are entitled to PM whoever you choose of course. I'm simply not aware of anyone else on the board who has regular access to papers behind pay walls.
> 
> If someone else does have this kind of access, and is willing to help you, then they should feel free to correct me here



Got it and thanks. Just wasn't sure if there was a small group of admins/mods who had access, or just yourself. Thanks for the response, I'm sure I'll pm you in the coming weeks.


----------



## GymTeddy (Apr 7, 2021)

All seems reasonable to me, and easy enough to comply with. Unfortunately someone is bound to be stubborn.


----------



## Jin (Apr 7, 2021)

GymTeddy said:


> All seems reasonable to me, and easy enough to comply with. Unfortunately someone is bound to be stubborn.



Yes, mostly the staff


----------



## Voyagersixone (Apr 11, 2021)

I love this. I do think there are some items that haven’t been studied quite enough that are only supported by anecdotal evidence -

This gets weird in the area of bro-science and definitely don’t support “it worked for me” when the facts aren’t supported — but I do think personal history and experience are something to be considered in tandem with the facts available.


----------

