Most relevant in this section: I DON'T TRUST ANYBODY WHO ONLY QUOTES FROM PUBMED!!

**kingofmasters** · 09-26-2004, 06:30 PM

There is a development that concerns me and botheres !!:

I DON'T TRUST ANYBODY WHO ONLY QUOTES FROM PUBMED!!
(that seems to be the new fashion; especially if it is an extract seeing that mostly means you don't have acces to PUBMED; also most don't know what they are talking about and usually parrot somebody are even worse COPY the whole **** article to make them look smart).
It also is unfair seeing most people don't understand it or just skim it (Hell knows I do since it mostly contains bullsh*t, irrelevant numbers and like I said is only an extract meaning the person doesn't have authorisation to use PubMed).

So summarized:
1) Most of them actually don't have acces to Pubmed
2) Most of them don't know what they are talking about!
3) Not fair to people who can't understand it
4) Maybe its relevant --> But people still are likely to skim it missing important points
5) numbers don't mean anything unless the Diagrams/statistics are included (I really love the people who foolishly just quote the N=100, 8 positive etc.
in their articles since they just unmasked themselves!! )
6) Parotting
7) Invite for people to steal other peoples ideas/articles
8) Makes threads unnecessary long and boring...

Do what I do:

1) Explain the whole thing in simple terms (so it reaches the majority)
2) You can criticise the articles or say what you doubt
3) Explain how it is relevant to common thought and supplements the popular ideas or actually contradicts them
(like when I said that thing about taking proteins right after work-out unless using insuline is a bad idea; while it is the most followed pattern for years in
Working-Out routines).
4) Put the sources (Not the whole **** articles!!) with it
5) Optionally: Put that anybody who needs the whole article can contact you!

Greets
Kingofmasters

**not2bigyet** · 09-26-2004, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by kingofmasters

3) Not fair to people who can't understand it

You have obviously shown time and time again your extensive understanding of medical research. I think this statement should not only refer to the reader but also the plagerist in a lot of cases...

**Bigbear812000** · 09-26-2004, 06:50 PM

Chill bro.

**MotoLifter** · 09-26-2004, 06:53 PM

What is being plagerized? all the medical studies people post? or just posts in general? I'm lost.

**kingofmasters** · 09-26-2004, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by MotoLifter

What is being plagerized? all the medical studies people post? or just posts in general? I'm lost.

well look at other boards where they steal entire posts and theories from for instance this board and hide it under the many researches
(which when altered a bit by lay-out for instance make people believe it's a completely new post, even when not altered just because it is long and looks complicated people assume it is the truth!)

Greets
Kingofmasters

**MotoLifter** · 09-26-2004, 07:04 PM

ahhhh...I see what your saying.

**longhornDr** · 09-26-2004, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by kingofmasters

There is a development that concerns me and botheres !!:

I DON'T TRUST ANYBODY WHO ONLY QUOTES FROM PUBMED!!
(that seems to be the new fashion; especially if it is an extract seeing that mostly means you don't have acces to PUBMED; also most don't know what they are talking about and usually parrot somebody are even worse COPY the whole **** article to make them look smart).
It also is unfair seeing most people don't understand it or just skim it (Hell knows I do since it mostly contains bullsh*t, irrelevant numbers and like I said is only an extract meaning the person doesn't have authorisation to use PubMed).

So summarized:
1) Most of them actually don't have acces to Pubmed
2) Most of them don't know what they are talking about!

Not sure what you mean by this, as PUBmed is the public medical literature database intended for use by the general public. It can be used by anyone and requires no "authorization".

**DoctaBig** · 09-26-2004, 09:12 PM

WTF... so we talk people into doing research and then people like you come around and chastize them for it. I think your post is completely pointless. Dont put people down for doing what they can, at least they're trying to advance the sport....Who are you to tell them to stop or how they should go about showing what they found???

**kingofmasters** · 09-26-2004, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by longhornDr

Not sure what you mean by this, as PUBmed is the public medical literature database intended for use by the general public. It can be used by anyone and requires no "authorization".

If you want the full articles you have to have a entry-point!
(subscription, elsevier-membership, University-network etc.)

Originally Posted by longhornDr

WTF... so we talk people into doing research and then people like you come around and chastize them for it. I think your post is completely pointless. Dont put people down for doing what they can, at least they're trying to advance the sport....Who are you to tell them to stop or how they should go about showing what they found???

How are they advancing the sport by putting up complete garbage and potentially dangerous advice; Not to mention the many newbies who either parrot them or bring it in practice.
And Who I am? -->
Somebody who likes info based on facts rather then people abusing it!!

Greets
Kingofmasters

**DF2003** · 09-26-2004, 10:12 PM

well, if i find a read that is interesting and informative i copy and paste like a mofo so if thats what your talking about so what?

**MMC78** · 09-26-2004, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by kingofmasters

There is a development that concerns me and botheres !!:

I DON'T TRUST ANYBODY WHO ONLY QUOTES FROM PUBMED!!
(that seems to be the new fashion; especially if it is an extract seeing that mostly means you don't have acces to PUBMED; also most don't know what they are talking about and usually parrot somebody are even worse COPY the whole **** article to make them look smart).
It also is unfair seeing most people don't understand it or just skim it (Hell knows I do since it mostly contains bullsh*t, irrelevant numbers and like I said is only an extract meaning the person doesn't have authorisation to use PubMed).

So summarized:
1) Most of them actually don't have acces to Pubmed
2) Most of them don't know what they are talking about!
3) Not fair to people who can't understand it
4) Maybe its relevant --> But people still are likely to skim it missing important points
5) numbers don't mean anything unless the Diagrams/statistics are included (I really love the people who foolishly just quote the N=100, 8 positive etc.
in their articles since they just unmasked themselves!! )
6) Parotting
7) Invite for people to steal other peoples ideas/articles
8) Makes threads unnecessary long and boring...

Do what I do:

1) Explain the whole thing in simple terms (so it reaches the majority)
2) You can criticise the articles or say what you doubt
3) Explain how it is relevant to common thought and supplements the popular ideas or actually contradicts them
(like when I said that thing about taking proteins right after work-out unless using insuline is a bad idea; while it is the most followed pattern for years in
Working-Out routines).
4) Put the sources (Not the whole **** articles!!) with it
5) Optionally: Put that anybody who needs the whole article can contact you!

Greets
Kingofmasters

Agree completely. Excellent post.

**KGBnine** · 09-26-2004, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by kingofmasters

If you want the full articles you have to have a entry-point!
(subscription, elsevier-membership, University-network etc.)

How are they advancing the sport by putting up complete garbage and potentially dangerous advice; Not to mention the many newbies who either parrot them or bring it in practice.
And Who I am? -->
Somebody who likes info based on facts rather then people abusing it!!

Greets
Kingofmasters

Wll your point is contradicting. If you are talking about people who post things that are "completely garbage" and "potentially dangerous", then it should be deleted or edited (which a mod or vet will see and edit). But if they are posting useful info that is informative, then there is nothing wrong with that and you have no say-so in that.

**DoctaBig** · 09-27-2004, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by kingofmasters

How are they advancing the sport by putting up complete garbage and potentially dangerous advice; Not to mention the many newbies who either parrot them or bring it in practice.
And Who I am? -->
Somebody who likes info based on facts rather then people abusing it!!

Greets
Kingofmasters

Well then, if you want information based on what you consider factual then you should research the topic further....NOBODY should be taking anyone else's advice on here as gospel. If someone finds something thats interesting RESEARCH it yourself. Defiantly before you try it!!!!!!!

And....based on my level of medical research most of the current topics in medicine come from studies published on PUBMED, the studies are critiqued and retried and when proven become standard practices. The same holds true for the sport of bodybuilding.
.
.
.
.
.
LOL, tren is good stuff!!