How to be a message board "guru"...

imprezivr6 said:
I find "bro-science" also changes based on popularity, or post count. Someone with a low post count can post a proposed cycle, and be ran off the board, yet a "vet" can post the same cycle and the same people are saying "hell ya, awesome cycle" lol



This is my exact feeling..
Click to expand...

This is because most individuals will attribute time on the board, or A board to experience ... Usually, and I did say usually, someone who has been on the board for years, or has been known to be on a few boards for years, "knows what they are doing", or they are pretty good with the smoke and mirrors, fooling people into thinking that they know.

So, that being said, very few would challenge a "vet's" decision to run any cycle, because, they feel that they have "been in the game" long enough and know the possible risk...

It's like a college all star telling a 30 year old Micheal Jordan how to play defense, you may have some pointers, but you find it useless to drag them out.
 
jambarino said:
imprezivr6 said:
I find "bro-science" also changes based on popularity, or post count. Someone with a low post count can post a proposed cycle, and be ran off the board, yet a "vet" can post the same cycle and the same people are saying "hell ya, awesome cycle" lol


completely agree.i find it funny how if ur 22 yrs old and have run three epistane cycles ur all the sudden a "vet" and know every thing about prohormones and steroids and pct.not trying to call out names cuz i dont want to hijack the thread but a certain someone who is only 22 goes around various message boards and preaches to everybody about any cycle they lay out like he wrote the book on AAS and prohormones yet a year and a half ago he couldnt post in the anabolics section.its irritating asking for advice sometimes cuz u got all these 6'0 170 pound prohormone guru's and E-thugs that want to chime in and flame you asking for legit advice.there have been only a few to give me constructive advice and try to help.sometimes i dont even want to ask questions cuz i know i'll get bulls**t responses from people usually younger,smaller and weaker than me and have only ran an hdrol cycle. i mean if u were in a gym and wanted workout advice on how to get bigger and stronger would you go up to a personal trainer who is younger than you and is 5'10 160 or would you walk up to ronnie coleman and ask him.
Click to expand...

What you typed does hold some truth! I have not seen it on here, as much, or very little, but I have seen it on BB in the masses!
Click to expand...
 
Trauma1 said:
Exactly. A cumulative effect of many different drugs (this also includes drugs outside androgen compounds and via different routes of delivery) can cause an increased workload on the body to metabolize it, and then excrete it. This workload can play a factor in many different body systems in general, and can even influence the efficiacy of other systems. The significance or degree of that can vary between the compounds that are involved - to the the individual themselves.

I agree that our applied knowledge, education, and personal experiences can help to validate some things for us on an individual basis. However, ancedotal experiences just aren't going to demonstrate much at all in terms of demonstrating actual safety either way. Blood work is considered by many to be objective information to support a hypothesis (and it can be in a controlled and fully disclosed environment/setting), however, as i said before, there are so many unknown variables that can play a factor into the equation (mainly in this particular setting), that it's in all honesty a moot aspect all together in terms of support.

The liver is most certainly a very resilient organ, and the only organ in the human body capable of actual tissue regeneration (but it can be beaten into submission.) The "broscience" in regard to actual hepatic function and potential toxic stress is seriously laughable at times, but that whole issue can and will be drastically different on an individual basis.

I'm not here to rain on the parade though - just offering another view point. I'd be a hypocrite to say that i haven't stacked compounds in the past; because i most certainly have done that. This doesn't mean that i necessarily support that methodology either, but we're all adults here and can make informed decisions based on the information at hand. Being a man of medicine myself - i tend to err on the side of caution more often than not when there isn't at least some type of meaningful evidence to support safety.

I've finally had the opportunity to start reading your book, seth. Looks like a good read my friend. :)

I have a quick off topic question though - do you plan to make a more in- depth book in terms of the content in the future?
Click to expand...

Difference of opinion -- especially qualified opinions is what advances our knowledge. Scientific pursuits are, by there nature, contentious and that is what I am arguing for. As imprevizr pointed out, I am not arguing for the opposite points as a default position but rather arguing against a default position and the false sense of security that they bring. As far as erring on the side of caution you might be familiar with the "ALARA" (as low as reasonably acceptable) or "ALARM" (as low as reasonably manageable) concepts that are taught in certain medical/scientific circle. That has always been my approach, the lowest dose for the shortest duration that produces the maximal positive effect with the fewest side effects (and therefore the lowest need for accessory meds).

Thanks for the comments on the book. I would really like to either bring out an "advanced" supplement of simply update this text with more advanced knowledge but it is largely going to depend on how well it sells.
 
sethroberts said:
Difference of opinion -- especially qualified opinions is what advances our knowledge. Scientific pursuits are, by there nature, contentious and that is what I am arguing for. As imprevizr pointed out, I am not arguing for the opposite points as a default position but rather arguing against a default position and the false sense of security that they bring. As far as erring on the side of caution you might be familiar with the "ALARA" (as low as reasonably acceptable) or "ALARM" (as low as reasonably manageable) concepts that are taught in certain medical/scientific circle. That has always been my approach, the lowest dose for the shortest duration that produces the maximal positive effect with the fewest side effects (and therefore the lowest need for accessory meds).

Thanks for the comments on the book. I would really like to either bring out an "advanced" supplement of simply update this text with more advanced knowledge but it is largely going to depend on how well it sells.
Click to expand...

I actually almost brought up the "ALARA" acronym in my last posting. :) I understand the arguement to avoid a default concept in general; to that i can agree for certain. There is no doubt in my mind that they can demonstrate a false sense of security. I may have took what you said out of context initially. Either way, a good conversation and information evolved from it.

You seem to really know your stuff from a chemistry standpoint, seth; i respect that very much, and still have a great deal to learn in that regard myself. My specific backround in medicine is strong in terms of pathophysiology, diagnostic interpretation, and emergency medicine management. I'm working on my ARNP (Nurse Practitoner) as we speak. :) I'm sure i'll have MANY papers to write in the coming times, so i hope to dedicate some of them to topics that would help benefit this industry; even if only in small ways.

Wouldn't you just love to see some of these egotistical self- appointed "Guru's" across the boards in the flesh, who typically personify an "internet intelligence" hold the same type of intelligent and in-depth conversations without google or the internet as their safeguard? Oh - it'd be some good times. :D

If and when you do make that advanced book, i'd love to read it my friend.
 
This thread is getting pretty awesome. lol. It is hard though because some points can be argued in both ways, and each party could be right. With alot of everything depending on each individual persons reaction to these things.

But I dont know, thats just what it seems to me.

This thread should be a sticky!
 
imprezivr6 said:
....
I find "bro-science" also changes based on popularity, or post count. Someone with a low post count can post a proposed cycle, and be ran off the board, yet a "vet" can post the same cycle and the same people are saying "hell ya, awesome cycle" lol
..,..
Click to expand...

Well said! :thumbsup:

iphone.gif
 
repmks said:
no... i just dont think it is right to generalize everything about steroids into rules. especially the ones you set. even though you probably did it in a half sarcastic joking way.
Click to expand...
this thread clearly went over your head.
 
Last edited:
Mulletsoldier said:
Agreed. This becomes especially problematic when people accord more consideration to the "stars" beside someone's name than the content of the post.
Click to expand...

^^^NEGGED!!!

repmks said:
no... i just dont think it is right to generalize everything about steroids into rules. especially the ones you set. even though you probably did it in a half sarcastic joking way.
Click to expand...

It was all sarcasm :nervous:...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top