Examine is awesome

ohh so its this website that compiles studies and comes to conclusions about certain chemicals/compounds?!
 
Exactly and it's free, you can buy extra stuff on there but you can find studies about anything from vitamin c to laxogenin
 
It is a useful tool! It's like Wikipedia, except it doesn't allow for public editing. Very cool site, but I think they need to simplify content a touch to make it easier for the general consumer to pick-a-part
 
Between Examine, suppversity and ergo-log youve got your layman bases pretty well covered.
 
Jiigzz said:
It is a useful tool! It's like Wikipedia, except it doesn't allow for public editing. Very cool site, but I think they need to simplify content a touch to make it easier for the general consumer to pick-a-part
Click to expand...

I disagree, respectfully, there are plenty of information sites written to the lowest common denominator. I actually like that it is a step up from layman's terms.
 
BCseacow83 said:
I disagree, respectfully, there are plenty of information sites written to the lowest common denominator. I actually like that it is a step up from layman's terms.
Click to expand...
To educate the masses, you need to first reach the masses.

Make something to hard to grasp and they'll lose people. But yeah, to each their own
 
Jiigzz said:
To educate the masses, you need to first reach the masses.

Make something to hard to grasp and they'll lose people. But yeah, to each their own
Click to expand...

I think the summaries are pretty easy to understand and so is the chart/graph/table with the research results. For those that want more you scroll down and they really get into the details. This is not meant to be directed at you but I am just getting tired of the constant lowering of the bar/standards in order to not leave people behind, Sink or swim is my opinion. People want everything and they want it all to be easy and it just does not work that way.
 
And that's one thing I like about examine is it helped me get used to reading study results because tbh I struggled with it for a bit lol
 
BCseacow83 said:
I think the summaries are pretty easy to understand and so is the chart/graph/table with the research results. For those that want more you scroll down and they really get into the details. This is not meant to be directed at you but I am just getting tired of the constant lowering of the bar/standards in order to not leave people behind, Sink or swim is my opinion. People want everything and they want it all to be easy and it just does not work that way.
Click to expand...
Not everyone has the time to research this for themselves. They have other things to read, or study, or research etc.

It's not about lowering the bar, its about educating the masses in a way that they can understand.

Same things applies to other sciences or math principles as well. You don't have to know the intrinsic details of everything, nor should that be the only way info is presented.
 
I think it's a useful tool and provides data in a range of formats to suit a range of audiences. Probably one of the more comprehensive resources out there.
 
Jiigzz said:
Not everyone has the time to research this for themselves. They have other things to read, or study, or research etc.

It's not about lowering the bar, its about educating the masses in a way that they can understand.

Same things applies to other sciences or math principles as well. You don't have to know the intrinsic details of everything, nor should that be the only way info is presented.
Click to expand...

My point is there is absolutely ZERO shortage of simple to understand supplement articles out there on the web. It is nice to have a couple that go into more detail. I just got done going to school and working full-time and still had the time to dig into something if it was important to me. Most people spend on average 4 hours a day on their phone. You add that to TV time and I call BS on MOST people not having time to really inform themselves on something as important as what they put into their bodies.

I AM NOT advocating for everything on the web be written like a thesis paper, but examine is far from hard to understand.
 
BCseacow83 said:
My point is there is absolutely ZERO shortage of simple to understand supplement articles out there on the web. It is nice to have a couple that go into more detail. I just got done going to school and working full-time and still had the time to dig into something if it was important to me. Most people spend on average 4 hours a day on their phone. You add that to TV time and I call BS on MOST people not having time to really inform themselves on something as important as what they put into their bodies.

I AM NOT advocating for everything on the web be written like a thesis paper, but examine is far from hard to understand.
Click to expand...
We'll agree to disagree
 
Jiigzz said:
We'll agree to disagree
Click to expand...


Sounds good I almost always agree with your posts as far as I can remember. I just never considered examine hard to understand but science has always come easy to me. I also just get frustrated in general as we have never had more information at our finger tips and in general I feel like the average person is less capable today than 50 years ago.
 
BCseacow83 said:
My point is there is absolutely ZERO shortage of simple to understand supplement articles out there on the web. It is nice to have a couple that go into more detail. I just got done going to school and working full-time and still had the time to dig into something if it was important to me. Most people spend on average 4 hours a day on their phone. You add that to TV time and I call BS on MOST people not having time to really inform themselves on something as important as what they put into their bodies.

I AM NOT advocating for everything on the web be written like a thesis paper, but examine is far from hard to understand.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying. Take nootropics for example; I've seen a ton of blogs and websites dedicated to nootropics "simplify" things to such a degree that the information isn't really even accurate anymore. The articles make no distinction between a double blind placebo controlled study and a study where the ingredient was injected into rats, and no distinction between a study on subjects with dementia and a study in university students (where effects in one population can not always be inherently extrapolated to the other). To the average person reading something like this, it often paints a false picture of what to expect from ingredients/supplements, and makes determining if an ingredient/supplement is or will be effective really difficult. The good thing about examine is that, like some people already said, they try to make things easy to read and at least get a basic understanding of, and they separate the human studies from the animal studies, and have some pretty convenient "rating systems" for effectiveness and support/consensus. It may be a little more complex than what a lot of people are used to, but I think it can still be very useful and approachable for newer people to the supplement/research world, especially if you can sit down with them for a few minutes and explain the basic layout and how to use it. Teach a man to fish, you know.
 
BCseacow83 said:
Sounds good I almost always agree with your posts as far as I can remember. I just never considered examine hard to understand but science has always come easy to me. I also just get frustrated in general as we have never had more information at our finger tips and in general I feel like the average person is less capable today than 50 years ago.
Click to expand...
I fully understand where you are coming from. FWIW I don't mean to make it too simple, like what you see on websites like livestrong or whatever, but I mean make the science easier to understand.

What I mean is to give the science, but then provide an explanation for it. E.g. "X ingredient stimulates AMPK through X pathway", and then explain what that means. Sometimes I feel as though they just state the facts but not the implications of activating a certain pathway.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I get what you're saying. Take nootropics for example; I've seen a ton of blogs and websites dedicated to nootropics "simplify" things to such a degree that the information isn't really even accurate anymore. The articles make no distinction between a double blind placebo controlled study and a study where the ingredient was injected into rats, and no distinction between a study on subjects with dementia and a study in university students (where effects in one population can not always be inherently extrapolated to the other). To the average person reading something like this, it often paints a false picture of what to expect from ingredients/supplements, and makes determining if an ingredient/supplement is or will be effective really difficult. The good thing about examine is that, like some people already said, they try to make things easy to read and at least get a basic understanding of, and they separate the human studies from the animal studies, and have some pretty convenient "rating systems" for effectiveness and support/consensus. It may be a little more complex than what a lot of people are used to, but I think it can still be very useful and approachable for newer people to the supplement/research world, especially if you can sit down with them for a few minutes and explain the basic layout and how to use it. Teach a man to fish, you know.
Click to expand...
If it's no longer accurate, then that's not the type of simplication I'm talking about, lol.
 
Just to give you an idea of what I mean, here's a snippet from the choline article:

In the striatum and cortex the protein content of the vesicular acetylcholine transporter appears to be increased with supplemental CDP-Choline (325mg/kg), which also appears to apply to Alpha-GPC when controlled for choline content (although alpha-GPC affected more brain regions overall).[68][69] This has been noted in a living system, where aged rats given 100-500mg/kg CDP-Choline daily for 7 months experienced a 6-17% increase in muscarinic acetylcholine receptor concentration (whereas control experienced a decline) although affinity of the receptor was not modified.[70]

like, what does that even mean? You know. What is the outcome of this? Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Just things like that etc.

edit: thinking about it, the authors prob never intend to explain the outcomes in each section, but rather just outlay the facts. I.e. X dose increases serum concentrations by X amount and that's all you need to know. Fair enough.
 
Jiigzz said:
I fully understand where you are coming from. FWIW I don't mean to make it too simple, like what you see on websites like livestrong or whatever, but I mean make the science easier to understand.

What I mean is to give the science, but then provide an explanation for it. E.g. "X ingredient stimulates AMPK through X pathway", and then explain what that means. Sometimes I feel as though they just state the facts but not the implications of activating a certain pathway.
Click to expand...

Ok, I am completely on board with that. See I want the detail of AMPK being activated. Now explaining what that could lead to would be additional information and I would happy with that. When I hit something I don't know I would then open another tab and search it. To have it right there would be great.
 
I like going:

Examine first for the overview and Blue Box opinions, then Google by typing Suppversity + Name Of Compound/Molecule for both the study details and his Layman breakdown - finally using his bibliography to read the actual PubMed etc... stuff. I rarely read Ergolog for some reason.
 
Great discussion in here folks. After thinking it over my final position, for now lol, is that I want the highly technical information and then if they add additional information to allow a greater number of people to understand that is great. Everyone gets what they are looking for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top