Ya I understand that sometimes interpreting studies can be tough and I don’t expect people to fully understand all the ins and outs (I mean I’m not even saying I fully do, it’s not my area I’d expertise). I’ve felt like I’ve wanted to write up some things because I feel like I’m pulling my hair out with how some people talk about studies on here.
The bigger issue is that criticism though. No one ever asks about all these obscure studies these companies post that barely seem relevant just have some key words in the abstract and people eat it up, but ya let’s all get in a tizzy over some studies in actual humans on PeptiStrong.
Sorry to rant it’s just a little annoying.
Agreed.
I've seen companies post and quote excerpts from studies on here that if you actually look at the study in context, what they're saying that it says is not what it's saying at all and/or they conveniently leave out side effects, standardizations, or other things that they don't want people to know. And I've seen companies on here post excerpts or abstracts on studies to try to hype up an ingredient and then not use even anywhere near the effective dosage of the ingredient in the product.
Yet I rarely, if ever, see people point those things out. It's like because its being touted as magical fantasy land BS, people want to believe that they can gain or lose 30 lbs. in a month so badly that its like they just want to blindly believe it.
It baffles me why the ingredients with the most legit, well designed studies are the ones that get nit picked, whereas the ones from some obscure journal by a researcher that has never been involved in another study and results have never been replicated seem to always get oo's and ahh's and get a free pass.
Maybe its because they're generally the ones that present the whole study, or the ones that provide the most realistic real world feedback. And there's a huge difference between real world results and fantasy land results.
An example about an ingredient that has nothing to do with this thread - Cordyceps is a great ingredient, don't get me wrong, but people will tout some obscure study on Cordyceps from a journal no one has ever heard of, but then the same people will be critical and nit pick a study on PEAK02. For those that don't know - the reason that I use this example as significant, is that one of the studies on PEAK02 was done at UNC Chapel Hill on athletes there, a college known for its athletic program. It's not a knock at Cordyceps, but its crazy to nit pick the one done on athletes at a major NCAA university but then hype the one done on some obscure mountain hillside on a village population type of thing. Just like most other things in todays world, there are levels to studies and context is important.
My issue is never people asking questions - if the questions are legitimate.
But sometimes, questions aren't meant to be legitimate questions - they're meant to derail a thread or cause confusion. Like in the case of this thread, until there was a question comparing it to protein, it didn't seem that other people were confused and comparing it to protein.
And I completely understand people not understanding the studies.
That's why like in the case of Pepti-Plex, I provided a very detailed and explanatory write up and then provided a link to the Price Plow article on PeptiStrong, which I thought they did a great job with, and I also posted a link (after someone else did, thank you) to a podcast from a gentleman at Nuritas explaining PeptiStrong very in depth.
That's also why I write the way I do and present things the way that I do. I understand why a lot of companies like to present things as super sciencey because that impresses a lot of people and some people thing product or ingredient xyz must be great so they run buy it. But I prefer to present things in a way to where I break the science down to where the average person can understand it.