PubMed

There's a medical science article database called PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) that allows you to search dozens of medical journals. There are hundreds of articles on steroids, bodybuilding, and supplements. I've found many good articles here, and they might be of help to anyone looking for some scientific evidence to cut through the bull.

I think that you can read the abstracts for free, but if you want to read the articles, you need to either pay or access PubMed through a University library or other subscriber. The abtsracts are usually good enough, though.

If anyone wants a pdf of an article, I can email it to you.........don't take advantage of this, but if it's something you really want, I can do it for you. The abstracts are good, but the actual fulltext articles are so much more valuable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by remmy

There's a medical science article database called PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) that allows you to search dozens of medical journals. There are hundreds of articles on steroids, bodybuilding, and supplements. I've found many good articles here, and they might be of help to anyone looking for some scientific evidence to cut through the bull.

I think that you can read the abstracts for free, but if you want to read the articles, you need to either pay or access PubMed through a University library or other subscriber. The abtsracts are usually good enough, though.

---

that site has tons of sh*t, but it is hard to understand, i dont know must of the terminology

Yeah, the bodies of the articles are too technicle for nonscientists, but the article abstracts or descriptions are usually enough to get the gist.

Pubmed is wonderful!
BUT....
You have to remember that Pubmed is also full of crap!

not all researches are to be trusted, for every research that claims something you will find tons that will claim the other.
Especially researches about supplements are often sponsered by companies and often few are available per subject for objective comparison.
So...
I will get laughed at if I claimed that 95% of all supplements sold either
DONT WORK or NOT FOR THEIR INTENDED GOAL or even worse ARE DANGEROUS AND MAYBE CARCINOGEOUS.
(if they work it's either a placebo effect or the effect from dedicated cardio/work-out/diet)
Even when all these "researches" claim they do!

supplements which are the devil himself are:
Vanadyl Sulphate, Chromium picolinate, Cats claw etc.

Supplements that don't work (or not significantly or work only in theory!):
Myostatin-blockers, Chitosan, L-carnitine, Tryptophane etc.

Positive exceptions:
Yohimbine, Guggelsterones, Tribulus, Milkthistle etc.
(left "natural" supplements out of the equation; dietary products like Lecithine etc.)

Greets
Kingofmasters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingofmasters

Pubmed is wonderful!
BUT....
You have to remember that Pubmed is also full of crap!

not all researches are to be trusted, for every research that claims something you will find tons that will claim the other.
Especially researches about supplements are often sponsered by companies and often few are available per subject for objective comparison.
So...

---

I agree, and this is why abstracts are often misleading, as they are a summary of the researchers opinions of the data. If the data are favorable, they'll often include the numbers themselves. If the data are not favorable, the numbers won't be included, and the authors will use terms such as "statistically significant" (if of course it actually is stat significant), which, in a practical sense, is usually meaningless. Things like dosage and duration of administration, ages of subjects, results at time points other than the most dramatic results are all often excluded from abstracts, so you can't just draw a conclusion from an abstract alone