Important New Study

**Rickson** · 03-26-2003, 04:25 PM

I have recently conducted a new study and come to the conclusion that most of the studies conducted are useless. There seems to be a trend on a lot of the boards where people with no practical experience spend hours trying to find obscure studies in the attempt to look like they know what they are talking about. While I have been guilty of this myself and do believe that some studies can be useful I think there are a few things people should remember.

1. Most studies are not done with bodybuilders in mind and so often we are just taking information about a group or animal and trying to apply it to what we do. The lifestyle we lead, the dosages we use, and the training we conduct make most studies useless.

2. For almost any study out there I can find another that contradicts it. Very few people look at a complete study, the reason the study was conducted, the controls used in the study, or who funded the study. These are all important when looking at the validity of any conclusions reached.

3. People often take bits of a study and twist it to support whatever new theory they are trying to support. I have seen this from some of the supposed new Guru's out there and everytime I see one of there rehashed theories I know I am going to have to read it for the next six months everytime a debate comes up.

4. There is no substitute for practical experience. So many of us react so differently to the drugs we do and the training we conduct that it is very hard to make a generalization. Until someone tries it we simply don't know whether they will like dbol better then anadrol , or get deca dick, or hold lots of water on test. This is not an exact science and safe experimentation is a must to find what works for you.

I am very thankful to people like Dan Duchaine who could take a study and find practical applications for Bodybuilders. However, Dan was the first to admit, that he made many more mistaken assumptions then he ever did correct ones. He always tried his theories and after experience would then determine whether it worked or not. Personally, I will take advice from the guy who has been living this lifestyle for a long time over the guy who has run one cycle and read some studies from a google search.

**painintheazz** · 03-26-2003, 04:28 PM

OMG bro, I was just about to bitch about this, I have read so many great diet theory tests and all of them have been done with females on some stupid diet and no training. WTF, all research projects should have to be approved by AR first. Happy to see someone venting on this.

Pain

**nj_** · 03-26-2003, 04:29 PM

An excellent post, Rickson.

**painintheazz** · 03-26-2003, 04:31 PM

Bro, here is case in point this would have been a great study except it was done with female only comsuming 1000cals a day. errr.

A study was conducted to investigate the effect of feeding frequency
on the rate and composition of weight loss and 24 h energy metabolism
in moderately obese women on a 1000 kcal/day diet. During four
consecutive weeks fourteen female adults (age 20-58 years, BMI
25.4-34.9 kg/m2) restricted their food intake to 1000 kcal/day. Seven
subjects consumed the diet in two meals daily (gorging pattern), the
others consumed the diet in three to five meals (nibbling pattern).
Body mass and body composition, obtained by deuterium dilution, were
measured at the start of the experiment and after two and four weeks
of dieting. Sleeping metabolic rate (SMR) was measured at the same
time intervals using a respiration chamber. At the end of the
experiment 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) and diet-induced
thermogenesis (DIT) were assessed by a 36 h stay in the respiration
chamber. There was no significant effect of the feeding frequency on
the rate of weight loss, fat mass loss or fat-free mass loss.
Furthermore, fat mass and fat-free mass contributed equally to weight
loss in subjects on both gorging and nibbling diet. Feeding frequency
had no significant effect on SMR after two or four weeks of dieting.
The decrease in SMR after four weeks was significantly greater in
subjects on the nibbling diet. 24 h EE and DIT were not significantly
different between the two feeding regimens.

***Pheedno*** · 03-26-2003, 04:44 PM

Bumped. I think we all tend to do some of the above at some point in time. Just goes to show personal experience is supreme for yourself, everything else is pure speculation.

**palme** · 03-26-2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Pheedno
Bumped. I think we all tend to do some of the above at some point in time. Just goes to show personal experience is supreme for yourself, everything else is pure speculation.

Your so right bro.

Good post Rickson.

**monstercojones** · 03-26-2003, 04:49 PM

bump. this is good info for vets and newbies alike.

**BigGreen** · 03-26-2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by painintheazz
OMG bro, I was just about to bitch about this, I have read so many great diet theory tests and all of them have been done with females on some stupid diet and no training. WTF, all research projects should have to be approved by AR first. Happy to see someone venting on this.

Pain

I apologized for my mistake...what more do you want from me? Do you want to see me thrown across the sacrificial AR alter and offered up to the gods of fast-twitch fibers as a favorable sacrifice to appease their benevolence? Am I not still a man? If pricked, do I not bleed? I ask you, do i not bleed??? Well you can't get blood from a stone my friend, you can't get blood from a stone.

I'm sure that wasn't directed at me, but i needed to have a little fun with that, since I was jumping to conclusions on a theory later revealed to have most of its empirical evidence in female non-trainers with Pain just recently. I still, however, have some very serious tendencies to believe that the overall crux of the matter still holds, based on other, more anecdotal evidence.

**iron4life79** · 03-26-2003, 05:14 PM

this is one of the best studies i've seen so far ...........on ANY board.

while i appreciate scientific knowledge as much as the next guy, its the ones who try to make a study fit the need, so to speak. the facts will always speak for themselves, and in this case, i agree that the big thing to remember is a lot of the work done is done IN A NON-BODYBUILDING ENVIRONMENT. to me the bottom line will ALWAYS be hands on, and personal experiences.

nice post rickson, you're always making us think a little more about what we're doing, and what we're involved in here.

peace IFL79

**painintheazz** · 03-26-2003, 06:28 PM

Green that wasn't directed at you in anyway, I like the PM you sent me I will get to it tonight I promise, I have read it a few times and it looks pretty good. I was just being general.

Pain

**daem** · 03-26-2003, 06:38 PM

i definitely agree...im certain if we all had the means/funding to conduct research on ourselves and other bros like us that we would have completely different results shown in some of these tests...i totally agree with ifl here too about studies being a bit biased when it comes to accomplishing their goals

**Lift Chief** · 03-26-2003, 06:40 PM

I totally agree- I'm glad you brought this up. Nice--

**Doc M** · 03-26-2003, 06:44 PM

Rickson,

That was one of the best posts I have read on this board. Very well thought out and so very true. I see this happen a lot on here. It's not that guys want to give out or post incorrect information, they are just mislead by what is floating around on the internet.

Reading an article or a study does not equate to a true understanding of the subject matter. I get frustrated from a medical standpoint because I know from firsthand experinece how flawed many studies inherently are from beginning to end. If I ever learned anything useful from medical school it was the fact for every theory or school of thought, there was another theory and school of thought in direct contradiction of the initial one.

My experience has taught me some valuable lessons and one is that not all things apply to all people. What affects you may not affect me at all. I am a Medical Doctor, not a steroid expert and that is why I rarely post on people's cycle's. Now, if it's a medical issue, I know I can give a definitive answer. Steroids and doses are a whole other world. The point is, we shouldn't be so quick to hand out information to other's unless we are very certain that it is accurate. When you are dealing with the things that we are dealing with here, it could have grave circumstances.

Anyway, hell of a post!! I hope everyone here gets a chance to read it!!

Doc M

***JohnnyB*** · 03-26-2003, 07:04 PM

I don't like animal studies. Even though studies aren't done with the bodybuilder in mind, some are do on males. If a study shows that 15mg of anavar improves protein synthesis in healthy males, we can use that information because we are males. We don't know if one of those healthy males, is(was) a collage student, that body-builds and is looking for a free cycle. We are males first then bodybuilders, even if a study is not done with us in mind, we can still use the information in it. At least we'll have a base to start from.

I remember reading a thread where a Bro posted he used 20mg of anavar. Other said no way you needed 40-50mg ed for it to work. Well it worked for him, he didn't have a study to prove it, but he know what worked for him. Since then I found 2 studies that showed not only would it work at 20mg, but it works at 15mg ed.

I think studies are a good source of information. If you don't understand some of the words like me, there are online medical dictionaries available, I use them all the time. Sometimes people experiences aren't the best basis of information for all of us. The anavar thread that I mentioned, is a good example.

We all have opinions, sometimes good, sometimes bad, but we still have them. This is the internet, we can say what ever we want, good or bad. With all information it's up to us to check it out and see if it's right for us. Just one more opinion

JohnnyB

**Iron horse** · 03-26-2003, 07:33 PM

I think what rickson said was on "the tip of our tounges" for a while, he hit the it right on the tip fo the ice berg.

nice post. couldnt agree more,

people always say drol is stronger, then i did drol, didnt get close to my dbol gains!

**Sigmund Froid** · 03-26-2003, 07:37 PM

Rickson, you are certainly one of the most knowledgable and respected members of this board - and for good reason. However, I feel I must offer my honest criticism on those points. I assume that is what you'd prefer anyway. Here goes:

On the whole, I think it is great that you are destroying the blind faith so many people have in so many faulty studies. Nevertheless, I think some clarification is in order.

>>1. Most studies are not done with bodybuilders in mind and so often we are just taking information about a group or animal and trying to apply it to what we do. The lifestyle we lead, the dosages we use, and the training we conduct make most studies useless.

I wouldn't say that most studies are useless. Afterall, if you administer antibiotics to an infected animal, it will heal the animal - the same applies to humans. If you inject supraphysiological doses of steroids to animals, they will grow - the same with humans. Of course, not ALL animal studies can apply to humans. However, they are often good for getting an indication and general understanding of particular drugs. Also, I agree 100% that it is important to distinguish between trained athletes/bodybuilders and some average, out of shape, lazy guy. Our bodies will respond differently to stimulus. We all remember how they gave women Boron and they saw an increase in testosterone . The increase was sounded spectacular. The truth, however, is that the women were Boron deficient, and the supplementation restored them to normal levels. A 1,000,000,000,000% increase is meaningless if it only brings you back to a normal range. Zinc would produce similar effects in a state of deficiency. Study design must ALWAYS be considered. People should not just blindly post a study because it agrees with their perspectives. They should post it, and explain briefly why the study design is applicable to bodybuilders. They should then follow it up with a brief criticism because ALL studies can be criticized, refined, and perfected.

>>2. For almost any study out there I can find another that contradicts it. Very few people look at a complete study, the reason the study was conducted, the controls used in the study, or who funded the study. These are all important when looking at the validity of any conclusions reached.

This is true, but as I mentioned before, some studies are better designed and more closely reflect real life conditions than others. Double-blind, controlled studies (using a placebo) are a major plus. If you give someone a new drug and tell them it will make them happier, most people will take it and say they feel happy. They would feel that way even if there wasn't any drug in it. Of course, if you have a control group of people that take no drug and people that do take the drug and you notice a difference, then you have discovered something important. Without a control group, a study should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism, though it may warrant further research.

>>3. People often take bits of a study and twist it to support whatever new theory they are trying to support. I have seen this from some of the supposed new Guru's out there and everytime I see one of there rehashed theories I know I am going to have to read it for the next six months everytime a debate comes up.

Again, this goes back to the Boron example. I totally agree.

>>4. There is no substitute for practical experience. So many of us react so differently to the drugs we do and the training we conduct that it is very hard to make a generalization. Until someone tries it we simply don't know whether they will like dbol better then anadrol , or get deca dick, or hold lots of water on test. This is not an exact science and safe experimentation is a must to find what works for you.

This is the only point I can't say I quite agree with you on. The problem with this point is the same as #2. You just can't do a controlled study if you are using personal experience. Therefore, all the potential misunderstandings and misjudgements apply. Experience can lead you down a very wrong path. You might not like a drug because you had a bad experience because it wasn't pure, properly dosed, or what you thought it was.

Example 1:
You might decide that after doing a test & deca cycle and then trying a test & EQ cycle that you like test & EQ better. The problem is that you took an anti-estrogen during your test & deca cycle which inhibited your gains. You probably would have gotten the same results with the test & EQ if you added an anti-estrogen.

Example 2:
Your first cycle is test & winny, your second cycle is test & anadrol. You gain 30lbs on your first cycle, and on your second cycle you only gain 20lbs. Therefore, since the only difference is the Winny versus the Anadrol, you conclude (wrongly) that either A) winny is stronger *OR* B) you gain more with winny. The truth is that anadrol is stronger, and that you ALL people will gain more with anadrol. The reason you gained less is not because you changed drugs, but because you weigh more, and you gain more slowly the heavier you get (unless you increase a growth promoting factor like dosage or calorie intake). Your "virgin cycle" is not good because of low "tolerance." That doesn't exist (as Rickson has correctly pointed out a number of times). The truth is that it is easier to make dramatic gains when you are not very big. The heavier you get, the more mg/lb you need.

We tend to overlook the details sometimes. You are right that it is not an exact science, but I must stress that again. IT IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE. Yes, experience is useful, people do have subjective effects from different drugs. You are probably the most familiar with the unique qualities of your own body. Nevertheless, when experience contradicts a well-designed study, you should double check your experience. Ultimately it is a balance between experience (that doesn't jump to conclusions) and consideration of good science.

Good post bro,
-SF

**Lift Chief** · 03-26-2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Iron horse
I think what rickson said was on "the tip of our tounges" for a while, he hit the it right on the tip fo the ice berg.

nice post. couldnt agree more,

people always say drol is stronger, then i did drol, didnt get close to my dbol gains!

Most knowledgable bros would say that mg for mg dbol is stronger than drol.

**BigGreen** · 03-26-2003, 07:54 PM

Mr. Froid, excellent points as well. In my opinion, that is what makes this board great...whether it be global politics or aas usage, our members are generally tolerant of entertaining opinions and evaluating them critically and thoroughly ON THEIR MERIT. In such an environment, it is possible to have an actual, real life, intellectual discussion on the topic at hand, not a heated and emotional argument...argument and debate often being conflated but clearly being two entirely different matters altogether. It is posts such as these and the guys and girls that create and expand upon them that have me checking in here so often (not to mention the AR lounge kicks ass).

**dansteelman** · 03-26-2003, 08:04 PM

great stuff! BUMP

**Rickson** · 03-27-2003, 03:33 AM

I think I should clarify some of what I said. I was using a generalization and realize that there are many useful and well conducted studies. I also think there are those out there that can take a study and use it to our (bb) advantage. Especially in the field of medicines that are used for one thing and some great minds realize we can apply them to the bodybuilding community. Clomid is a perfect example. For those clarifying my points or showing a different view excellenct points as well.

**FedSki** · 03-27-2003, 07:37 AM

I've posted excerpts and links to studies before but my reason has always been to better inform and widen debate.

I was once accused of posting a study that did not relate to the discussion in hand but in that particular case I was trying to make a more general point (about heart problems) - which I believe was evident from my commentary. Sometimes study data doesn't directly relate to our own individual circumstances but we can often draw conclusions from the data and make better informed decisions because of the data.

I've always maintained that it is our individual responsibility to do our own research, consider our own experiences and the experiences of others before we form opinions or make (potentially damaging) choices.

Often, I prefer to err on the side of caution rather than jump in with both feet. If I was unecessarily cautious then I know I don't need to be next time around. Better to be that way inclined than dead IMO.

Great thread!