thanks for playing? seriously? i'm ruled out here by your horrid studies.
study 1's abstract proves nothing and ppl on both sides of this argument know that. HOW was fat free mass maintained? How? this abstract gives very little detail as to how that effort was maintained.
study 2, has the same effect as it states nothing on how it maintained lean mass. They are OBESE patients, so show the facts.
study 3, and this study seems to only show that there is no difference between consuming ephedrine on an empty stomach doesn't show much if any better result. Which it should be noted that I did not indicate that this should be consumed with a decent meal in the morning. I contested with consuming this on an empty stomach.
SO, thanks for playing, have a good weekend. STOP POSTING CRAP!
You know at this point there is
no point in continuing further with you and I will plainly tell you why.
What got me upset and talking the way I did in the first place was your lack of ability to take someones knowledge at face value cause it undermines your own reasoning (completely unbacked by scientific studies as you have yet to even provide an inkling of truth to your argument just as no one else on that side has yet to produce anything either.... its just not there cause its not factual)
So I went out of my way to google for YOU cause you cant stand to take a second and double check for yourself before popping off and throwing out what insults and broscience comments others already inaccurately made regarding a different portion of the ephedrine topic (wasnt even regarding catabolism, if you read thoroughly enough you know this and also know that I enlightened him as well regarding the subject)....
Even with this proof you refuse to believe, you refuse to look truth in the face and say your wrong cause that proof isnt detailed enough. Its an Abstract on a published study bud. Its a summary of the entire thing. they dont make outlandish claims that arent substantiated through a thorough study looking into certain markers and making scientific resolutions regarding their findings which is then also stated in the final conclusion. Why would it be that it says one thing in the full study but then shortened and manipulated to look as though its something else??? Its a published study that took time and money and proves that very point stated in their Abstract... dont tell me not just one but 3 (and more not quoted) all did the same thing, coming to the same conclusion then misrepresenting their findings in their abstract to prove a point regarding an over the counter medication, not like its even big pharma trying to sell poison here...???? its just not happening....
Thats why I refuse to continue with you now. Your going to bark and holler and make bulleted remarks numbered and lettered to try and look official but it wont change the fact that when someone presented you with new knowledge, you denied it. When you asked for proof (in so many words calling it broscience) and it was given, you denied it again saying it was smoke and mirrors... Im am not going to be poked and prodded into multiple bouts back and forth to get no where with someone who refuses to admit their wrong or at least provide substantial evidence otherwise, on par with that already against your view point.
If you want the complete study, you go pay for it and tear it apart, in the mean time I am just sad that you are so hardened against learning anything new that you completely shut this info out coming from someone who has done extensive background research (yes on scientific articles and "broscience" ones alike) regarding the MOA of these compounds and their interactions with other parts of the body...
Like I said though Im done.... argue your fruitless argument with someone else.
