Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

newest muscletech breakthrough

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hell no one has ran the product, all we know is X and Y Claims. so until we see actual evidence we are all skeptical
The claims are bold, and better than some enhanced lifters which makes it very lingering. but until anyone runs it that we see and if the results dont match than KISS just lost a big ass pissing match due to a sheet of paper with stuff written on it
 
Kissdookie refuses to accept anything lass then then all time great status from this brotastic supplement. Watch him become a rep shortly
 
[video=youtube;bU6m5UqLx9M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU6m5UqLx9M[/video]
 
Jiigzz said:
My statement was a joke; i've just literally never seen anyone so defensive over one study lol.

I'm going to read the FT now. The whole thing. Again.
Click to expand...

Just watch my video, bro. :D
 
The Solution said:
Hell no one has ran the product, all we know is X and Y Claims. so until we see actual evidence we are all skeptical
The claims are bold, and better than some enhanced lifters which makes it very lingering. but until anyone runs it that we see and if the results dont match than KISS just lost a big ass pissing match due to a sheet of paper with stuff written on it
Click to expand...

CLAIMS vs the RESULTS of a specific study is apples and oranges. I was never claiming anything here or being for or against MT. I am speaking entirely within the context of the study itself. There's no claims in the study. The study provides a model and what happened in that model. Skepticism for the results of other trainees and other programs I can care less about. My point from the beginning is that just saying "I don't believe it. The study was rigged." based entirely on nothing more than "Company X funded it thus the data must not be legit" simply is nonsensical.

If one thinks the study is rigged, point out how so in a plausible way other than a throwaway such as "it was funded by a company so it must then be rigged." The study is public, tear it apart and find the flaws, if you can't find any then what sense is there going around implying it's a bunk.

For goodness sakes, in this thread you have USPRep making a comment that boiled down to "these subjects grew, so the HMB is anabolic." Anybody whom has looked into HMB would immediately understand that HMB is mainly a anti-catabolic. So how I've been singled out as a person defending a product or defending product claims is beyond me because from the get go I've been defending the study. Study results =/= claims. The data is the data, what claims are there in data that has already occurred and recorded?

What exactly is so hard about differentiating the study vs. claims for a product? Folks can trash MT and the product all day and night, I don't care, but seriously, insinuating that the study itself was bunk and then pointing to a blog post from Ergo Log as ones way of substantiating ones claim that the study is bunk makes no sense.
 
kissdadookie said:
CLAIMS vs the RESULTS of a specific study is apples and oranges. I was never claiming anything here or being for or against MT. I am speaking entirely within the context of the study itself. There's no claims in the study. The study provides a model and what happened in that model. Skepticism for the results of other trainees and other programs I can care less about. My point from the beginning is that just saying "I don't believe it. The study was rigged." based entirely on nothing more than "Company X funded it thus the data must not be legit" simply is nonsensical.

If one thinks the study is rigged, point out how so in a plausible way other than a throwaway such as "it was funded by a company so it must then be rigged." The study is public, tear it apart and find the flaws, if you can't find any then what sense is there going around implying it's a bunk.

For goodness sakes, in this thread you have USPRep making a comment that boiled down to "these subjects grew, so the HMB is anabolic." Anybody whom has looked into HMB would immediately understand that HMB is mainly a anti-catabolic. So how I've been singled out as a person defending a product or defending product claims is beyond me because from the get go I've been defending the study. Study results =/= claims. The data is the data, what claims are there in data that has already occurred and recorded?

What exactly is so hard about differentiating the study vs. claims for a product? Folks can trash MT and the product all day and night, I don't care, but seriously, insinuating that the study itself was bunk and then pointing to a blog post from Ergo Log as ones way of substantiating ones claim that the study is bunk makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Dude.
I never stated you! i said nobody has ran a log on it, and nobody has tested it, so all we know its a study.
You need to take a chill pill with your 2 long page responses. i
good god, if you place 100% Trust in a sheet of paper on results that happen in the real world you need to open your eyes up.
Tons of people do totally against what studies say and make great results through diet and training alone.
A supplement study is not the end of the world or going to make or break someones performance, physique, or progress.

You need to take a step back from the keyboard with your internet research and how much love you got for MT Studies my man. Spend a lil more time taking a nap or hitting the weights :) Its just a document with what some random people got off a product, its not the life or death of the supplement industry my man. Relax. Take a deep breaht. Everything is going to be ok.

Dont let your life get so crazy and dont get so wound up over a sheet of paper. Its going to be ok
 
kissdadookie said:
The problem here is that not a single person which has posted implying that the study was bogus or that the results at least were bogus, has provided any substantial backing to what they are implying. Do you not remember the PM/comment/whatever you sent me on the other board? The reasoning behind your pessimism was essentially that the results looked too good to be true.

If the results looks too good to be true, then look into the details of the study that yielded the results. Find the flaws in the details, however, thus far, it's the same ole same ole "I just don't believe it" reasoning. Stating things like "Oh, XYZ company funded the study. The researchers were shills. Etc." simply makes no sense when one is unable to pick apart gross errors or misinformation in the details of the research.

Yeah, it's basically me against a bunch of people that have been poo pooing a study which they never bothered to look into in depth in the first place.



I am totally with you on that. Even Wilson stated that LBM included water weight and glycogen, not just new muscle tissue.
Click to expand...



I have no problem with the results, just problems with methodology. The diet and training was about as well controlled as you can realistically make. You think a guy as smart as Dr. Wilson would know or consider the length of time for supercompensation considering he developed a decent overreaching cycle. If he wanted to run it 12 weeks then the overreach should have been compiled weeks 6-8 not 9-10. I doubt this was something he would manipulate on purpose as he seems like an honest person.

Diet controlled check
Training controlled check
Follow-up not sufficient

The fact that he states most gains were made after the overreach further provides evidence for the follow-up being insufficient in length. Give the placebo two more weeks for the supercompensatory effect and it may be possible that the results would not have been statistically significant.
 
Neuron actually made an interesting point on BB.com. In another study, the authors equated bioavailability to the % of compound that made it into PORTAL CIRCULATION. No reputable scientist in the world would make this error. Hell, not even a student working under a PI would make the error of calculating bioavailability from portal circulation. Such a basic oversight, presumably in an effort to demonstrate significant results, calls into question many of the other conclusions made.
 
To me that makes neurons point mute, its comparing apple and oranges and really has no effect on this study, attacking the authors is meh. When it comes to results endpoints matter more than %s etc. I care more about if it works, not how it works or if they used improper methods for measuring bioavailability. Just give me did the subjects improve xyz v placebo
 
Data was mixed on it, this is hmb fa not ca. And the first to used trained subjects in a blinded study. The only problem I have with this study is the follow up period.
 
kissdadookie said:
I really don't understand where your pessimism (to put it kindly) is coming from. Seriously. The data is the data. Wilson has been incredibly open about the work. It's a very well designed and executed study. Do you have any studies of your own that comes anywhere close to this study design and execution? I mean, it honestly feels like you have a bone to pick here but I don't know exactly what's behind it driving all this.

Why do you not just go and ask Dr. Wilson? Aren't you located in Florida? Wilson has posted on the other board that anybody who wishes to visit his lab is more or less welcome to go and visit and even train there.
Click to expand...
Congradulations bro you are off my ignore list! I know that just made your day. But yeah the first sentence in this post, Everyone else is saying the opposite about you. If HMB-FA was a person you would want to blow it non stop.
 
How do we know the HMBFA group wasn't doing roids under the table?
 
mr.cooper69 said:
Neuron actually made an interesting point on BB.com. In another study, the authors equated bioavailability to the % of compound that made it into PORTAL CIRCULATION. No reputable scientist in the world would make this error. Hell, not even a student working under a PI would make the error of calculating bioavailability from portal circulation. Such a basic oversight, presumably in an effort to demonstrate significant results, calls into question many of the other conclusions made.
Click to expand...
Hey man, If dookieboy reads your post he might just snap and try to kill you, Call me if you need back up u have a loose cannon on your hands
 
bolt10 said:
v=662050020509918&set=vb.394941760554080&type=3&theater</a>
Click to expand...
Thanks but it says content unavailable, did MT police have it taken down or did dookieboy contract a cyber hit on your web page for daring to question the study results?
 
fightnews said:
Thanks but it says content unavailable, did MT police have it taken down or did dookieboy contract a cyber hit on your web page for daring to question the study results?
Click to expand...

I alerted one of the reps I was making a video as well as emailing Jacob Wilson. I wanted to ensure I didn't overlook or misrepresent anything.

This should work:

Invalid Link Removed
 
fightnews said:
Thanks but it says content unavailable, did MT police have it taken down or did dookieboy contract a cyber hit on your web page for daring to question the study results?
Click to expand...

^ Coming from the person who's nut hugging Biotest because they sent you a tub of Plazma and Mag-10. smh.

bdcc said:
I alerted one of the reps I was making a video as well as emailing Jacob Wilson. I wanted to ensure I didn't overlook or misrepresent anything.

This should work:

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

I saw your YouTube video on the subject. It was quite good and one of the earlier videos I saw in regards to the recent study.
 
At least I've actually used the products I'm recomending though
 
fightnews said:
At least I've actually used the products I'm recomending though
Click to expand...

LOL. You obviously don't know me. I actually recommend things that I have used for a length of time. Lulz.

Btw, if your comment is in regards to Clear Muscle, let's be clear, I have not recommended not slammed the product. I've just been replying to posts that have essentially been ignoring what has been shown in the myriad of studies done with HMB. I honestly don't know how Clear Muscle will work on typical consumers since there's no real data on HMB-FA on that population so I don't have an opinion in that regards for or against. What the study demonstrated is a model for which HMB-FA does work. Within that context, it appears to be very effective, outside of that context however, is anybody's guess.

This would apply with most supplements tbh. If you are not in a scenario in which a supplement would help, the supplement would most likely do little to nothing. Including creatine, BA, etc.
 
I thought we kept a little more of an open mind here at AM...

Why are people still fighting over this? Lol. Wait a f**king month and see for yourselves

EDIT: and by that I mean if it works or doesn't. Wasn't trying to imply that I know this will translate to as good of RL results as the study (or that it won't) -just that when real people begin using it you can base your decision off that rather than fuse over a study
 
Im curious to try thier new product clear muscle, but suggested to take is 2caps 3x a day. One bottle is 84caps. Oh my how many botle clear muscle do they suggest to see the effect?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top