All I care about are results and not evidence or science

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. Quote Originally Posted by anoopbal View Post
    Yep let's stick with this topic . Blood letting was done for low back pain, fever and every known illness because we thought every disease was due to an imbalance of four humors. It didn't have an aorta of science. It is not such "catching up". It is a classic example and often quoted as one of the gross medical mistakes we made in the past.

    So it is clearly not science "catching up". And it is a good example, how sometimes results aren't that clear to see. If it were, people would have stopped it after a few years. It went on for 2000 years! Why is that?


    What do you mean by'evidence-based results' here?



    I think I know where you are going. Nobody is ever waiting for a study before they use it.If it were true, no cancer patient would ever be treated bcos we donít know much about cancer though we spent billions on it, not even 20%.

    All we know is lifting weights will increase muscle size. We don't know what volume, frequency, timing of protein frequency of protein intake and all those questions will give us optimal results. We are trying to find the optimal training protocol and not what "works".



    Did you read the article that was linked Texaslifter? And let's keep the discussion civil. i would be more than happy to elaborate my veiws if I am not coming across clear.
    Blood letting has been done for reasons ranging from spiritual cleansing to emptying the body of toxic blood, a school of thought blood cleansing machines decended from.

    I'd rather stick to the bodybuilding topic though. There is not a conclusive, irrefutable answer for best practice but there certainly are research based indications.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    Blood letting has been done for reasons ranging from spiritual cleansing to emptying the body of toxic blood, a school of thought blood cleansing machines decended from.

    I'd rather stick to the bodybuilding topic though. There is not a conclusive, irrefutable answer for best practice but there certainly are research based indications.
    The difference between blood letting and blood cleansing machines is one is based on science and other on NO science.

    I hope you read the article. Yep we are not sure about anything. Research just helps to quantify our uncertanities better.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post

    The context of the forum is training science. Forgive me for assuming the topic would be about the importance of science in strength and hypertrophy contexts. Gravity was used as an example of evidence based knowledge. Unless you care to elaborate, cigarettes don't compare to the law of gravity existing prior to an official definition either. Gravity absolutely pulls things to the earth, this is not an opinion.

    I'm afraid I still don't understand the point of your thread. Science is evidence based knowledge. And as an aside, much of science is refuted, revised or tossed completely as new knowledge is realized through testing new hypotheses pulled from observations anyways.

    More relevent to my previous commments of science often simply validating known results (gravity), and lending greater efficacy to application in some cases, consider the practice of bloodletting. The old school practice of slicing a vein and bleeding on the floor is obsolete, although blood cleaning through hemodialysis and hemopurifier machines is certainly an effective evolution of such practices, an example of science catching up to preconcieved notions and lending greater efficacy to basically understood practices.

    In the context of this discussion forum (strength and hypertrophy), I'm saying that evidence based results don't require specific scientific studies to legitimize them. Are you arguing that or agreeing with me through an oppositional tone?

    A lifter will severely limit strength and hypertrohpy tools by waiting for legitimization of every tried and true aspect of bodybuilding training. In fact, I don't think we could conclusively say that any bodybuilding protocols are irrefutably effective at building muscle, yet we sure do have a lot of muscular people walking around and always have.

    And I realize what the title of your thread is but again, what point are you making? What was the intent of your original post?
    Agreed. Everyone's different, I see great gains and never bench more then 135. Also I do I weight for all my workouts

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Pypp View Post
    Agreed. Everyone's different
    i LOVE and hate that statement at the same time. if we truly were all different than why are we all homo sapiens? if we truly all different than why do scientists, doctors, researchers, etc, only study one type of anatomy. if we all have the same anatomy and therefore have the same physiology. therefore the mechanisms for exercise are the same.

    now you may ask, how come people get different results. well there are many reasons. not all the variables are the same. and i dont mean we have different mechanisms involved with stimulation and adaptation. what i mean is did both people perform at the exact same intensity level. the exact same volume. the exact same frequency. did they have the exact same work capacity, the exact same recovery abilities, the exact same hormonal levels, the exact same hormone sensitivity levels. probably not. and i know there are other variables that can change the results. and yet, we are still all the same when it comes to the mechanisms of stimulation and adaptation.

    a chemist friend put it the best that i have heard on how we appear different. i hope i do him some justice. like the mechanisms in the body the interaction between chemicals are precise and exact. you can mathematically define what comes out of what goes in. what you do need to take into account are the impurities or other chemicals that can effect the results but mat not be known at the start of the equation.

    to apply this to the previously mentioned mechanisms we also need to take into account the varying levels of the chemicals involved. they can vary in different people therefore appear to give different results. the results are different but not on a mechanical level. the interaction and specific result still worked. it worked precisely at the level of the chemicals involved.
    you can call me "ozzie" for short.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by asooneyeonig View Post

    i LOVE and hate that statement at the same time. if we truly were all different than why are we all homo sapiens? if we truly all different than why do scientists, doctors, researchers, etc, only study one type of anatomy. if we all have the same anatomy and therefore have the same physiology. therefore the mechanisms for exercise are the same.

    now you may ask, how come people get different results. well there are many reasons. not all the variables are the same. and i dont mean we have different mechanisms involved with stimulation and adaptation. what i mean is did both people perform at the exact same intensity level. the exact same volume. the exact same frequency. did they have the exact same work capacity, the exact same recovery abilities, the exact same hormonal levels, the exact same hormone sensitivity levels. probably not. and i know there are other variables that can change the results. and yet, we are still all the same when it comes to the mechanisms of stimulation and adaptation.

    a chemist friend put it the best that i have heard on how we appear different. i hope i do him some justice. like the mechanisms in the body the interaction between chemicals are precise and exact. you can mathematically define what comes out of what goes in. what you do need to take into account are the impurities or other chemicals that can effect the results but mat not be known at the start of the equation.

    to apply this to the previously mentioned mechanisms we also need to take into account the varying levels of the chemicals involved. they can vary in different people therefore appear to give different results. the results are different but not on a mechanical level. the interaction and specific result still worked. it worked precisely at the level of the chemicals involved.
    Aka eat clen and tren hard

    Just messing that was a good post man. Almost poetic in the way you wrote it lol

  6. Quote Originally Posted by Pypp View Post

    Aka eat clen and tren hard

    Just messing that was a good post man. Almost poetic in the way you wrote it lol
    Didn't even need to edit...also what's "clean"?
    >SNS-Glycophase<
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Rep

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Pypp View Post
    Aka eat clen and tren hard

    Just messing that was a good post man. Almost poetic in the way you wrote it lol
    that statement has had a large impact on my search for better training. from one perspective we are all different. from another we are all the same. i want to know why. i think of it as a hobby anymore, thankfully. that way it doesnt consume my life.
    you can call me "ozzie" for short.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by asooneyeonig View Post
    that statement has had a large impact on my search for better training. from one perspective we are all different. from another we are all the same. i want to know why. i think of it as a hobby anymore, thankfully. that way it doesnt consume my life.
    Good question bro

    I would say for most biological process the response or the direction of the response is same, the only thing that changes is the magnitude of the response. For example, everyone will add muscles if they weight train. But the response will be different. Some will grow more and some will not. This is the same reason why smoking was considered okay and good oneday. some died soon, but while some lived till their 80's with no problem. The is called the random variation in biological phenomenon. Most of the follow a normal distribution or abell curve where the majority fall in the middle of the curve.

    And the only way ( there are other reasons) to eliminate/minimize this random variation is what? A well-conducted randomized clinical trial. There are other reasons to do a study. And this is why billions are spent on research.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Are raw eggs ok? Not if you don't care about the protein!
    By MentalNomad in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-08-2009, 02:49 PM
  2. Replies: 98
    Last Post: 08-30-2006, 09:53 PM
  3. not seeing results and rounding week 6
    By UberPooper1 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-19-2005, 09:35 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-26-2005, 11:37 PM
  5. Are we the only ones that care about civilians?
    By bigbadboss101 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-25-2003, 03:23 PM
Log in
Log in