Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
.jpg "Research Chemical Sciences")
.png "Research Chemical Sciences")
40BP and notatrase,
No, I'm most definitely NOT against studies, as I stated more than once in the other thread. What I think we need is a more critical eye, both when pasting in these studies, and when reading them.
For example, the 3 or 4 studies our German friend posted were all rat studies, except, I believe, for one human study, and they ALL dealt w/ subjects who had experimentally induced zinc deficiencies. Some were not even in vivo. We can really draw NO conclusions from those studies about using zinc as an anti-aromatase!
And yet, partly based on these studies, we are encouraging high-dose zinc therapy when there IS evidence that that may be harmful? Remember the original post, which was very enthusiastic.
Remember Chrysin? A great aromatase inhibitor, at least in vitro. But in vivo, it was a complete bust. Many ppl (including yours truly) spent their $$ on it. Fortunately, no toxicity was forthcoming.
So to answer both of ya'lls comments: it's great to post studies or abstracts to support our standpoints. The problem here, is that this was, if you will, a bait and switch. The studies were NOT related to his views about zinc use for juicers, they only SEEMED to be, at least with a cursory read. Further examination revealed otherwise. I'm ENcouraging a critical eye, rather than DIScouraging anything. I'm just not going to let illogic slide if I see it, and I don't think any of us should. The last thing I want to be is the abstract police
It's easy to read a lot into an abstract or paper, especially if we have a position to support. But if I see leaps of logic on this board, I'm going to call people on it, even at the risk of seeming like a killjoy.
My purpose is enhanced knowledge for us all.
No, I'm most definitely NOT against studies, as I stated more than once in the other thread. What I think we need is a more critical eye, both when pasting in these studies, and when reading them.
For example, the 3 or 4 studies our German friend posted were all rat studies, except, I believe, for one human study, and they ALL dealt w/ subjects who had experimentally induced zinc deficiencies. Some were not even in vivo. We can really draw NO conclusions from those studies about using zinc as an anti-aromatase!
And yet, partly based on these studies, we are encouraging high-dose zinc therapy when there IS evidence that that may be harmful? Remember the original post, which was very enthusiastic.
Remember Chrysin? A great aromatase inhibitor, at least in vitro. But in vivo, it was a complete bust. Many ppl (including yours truly) spent their $$ on it. Fortunately, no toxicity was forthcoming.
So to answer both of ya'lls comments: it's great to post studies or abstracts to support our standpoints. The problem here, is that this was, if you will, a bait and switch. The studies were NOT related to his views about zinc use for juicers, they only SEEMED to be, at least with a cursory read. Further examination revealed otherwise. I'm ENcouraging a critical eye, rather than DIScouraging anything. I'm just not going to let illogic slide if I see it, and I don't think any of us should. The last thing I want to be is the abstract police
It's easy to read a lot into an abstract or paper, especially if we have a position to support. But if I see leaps of logic on this board, I'm going to call people on it, even at the risk of seeming like a killjoy.
My purpose is enhanced knowledge for us all.
Last edited:
