Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below Mr. Las Vegas
New member
I have been preaching logic and common sense for years, but most humans do not understand it.
For Open Minded Thinkers Only
- Thread starter Nelson Montana
- Start date
brotheriron
New member
What is safer to trust, personal experience or scientific study?
Thats the question to be answered. Thats why i find it difficult to belive some of nelsons advice. Nelson often relies on science without experience.
Bro
Thats the question to be answered. Thats why i find it difficult to belive some of nelsons advice. Nelson often relies on science without experience.
Bro
Lift Chief
New member
Well done FS.
Wow. This is the first chance I had to check on this and there's quite a response.
I'm running short on time but there are some interesting points I'd like to address.
In some cases, the people who agree are those who I feel are guilty of drawing the exact conclusion that I parodied. (Another example of reading superficially?)
It may be apparent to some that this thread was in response to the "cardio on an empty stomach thread." By the time that one was done, jboldman was arguing with me over a point that I never even made. Thus is the evolution of too many threads.
JA (who I asked not to participate in this thread, but he did anyway,) posted something on another board that in part,concured with my original stance even though he adamantly argued against it here. Why would someone do that? Because they're trend followers. Whatever position is popular at any particular time or place is the one they'll adopt.
A few others here chose to parrot the old accusation that I reject all studies or that I claim whatever I say is gospel, which is completely untrue, but again, it's been said so much, it's accepted thinking. Adolf Hitler said, "Tell a lie big enough and long enough, and it will become the truth. What great fortune for leaders that the masses don't think." Freighteningly poignant. (Now watch, I'll be accused of being a Nazi)
On to FS's very astute comments.
There is one very big flaw in what he said, if I'm reading it correctly. He states;
"We have all experienced otherwise, and experience is proof."
Aah, now we start to get into four dimentional thinking. This is what seperates the men from the boys. (And agin, JA, stay out.) I offer this question to you FS...
How do we know if one's experience is accurate?
Just like RIO's funny spider analogy, many people draw conclusions based on their "experience" but the information is cross sensed. Here's an example:"I took creatine and got a cold. Therefore it is my experience that creatine gave me a cold." It is VERY difficult to sway someone from believing this isn't so. They took creatine They know that for a fact. That didn't have a cold prior to taking it. Then they did. Personal experience. Proof.
But of course, it's an erroneous perception.
I recently got a letter from someone who read my first book and he said he could have bought a car with the money he would have saved on supplements had he read my book first. One example he gave was that he gained 12 pounds while using Biotests Mag 10. Of course, according to Biotests recommendations he added 1000 calories a day to his diet. Duh. But there are thousands of people who will believe it's the Mag 10. There experience tells them so.
You also say; "What a study does, Nelson, is isolate the variables."
Okay, condesending tone aside, this is exactly what I was saying the studies in question did NOT do. And I explained why. But but that time, too many people were shouting down everything and anything that was said.
You then say, it wouldn't matter if people did better on a Tuesday than a Wednesday because we know that isn't a factor. But what if someone made it a factor? How do you prove working out on a Tuesday isn't better than working out on a Wednesday? Well,logic. Not another study. But god forbid if someone showed another study conducted on a Tuesday. They'll ride you out of town on a rail.
Thus is mob mentality. And we see that A LOT on this board and it's even worse on some of the other BB boards. Sometimes I think bodybuilders are the most myopic, annoying people on the planet. (Well, some of them, at least).
You then summerize by asking for a study showing my position. But as demonstated, the studies you showed were invalid since they were not conducted in an accurate manner. I had no studies (none readily available at least) but I offered logical retort. That's when the villagers began lighting the torches.
I realize this is a very heady discussion and in the end, it's essentially sophistry. The pragmatic part of me says; IF, the theory of burning fat on an empty stomach has any validity at all, arguable as it may be, the amount would be so slight it wouldn't be worth cosidering unless you really enjoy running first thing in the morning on an empty stomach. I'd rather eat glass.
All in all, it seems ridiculous that such a conversation would ellicit the level of hatred it inspired some people. Yes. Hatred. It's been demonstrated in all its ugliess many times over. And that's another thing to consider. When one person antagonizes with lies and another refutes the claims, they are not mutually guilty of bickering. People should see that. But they don't. All they want to know is, who's winning? Because nobody wants to be on the losing side.
To quote the most horrible man who ever lived once again: "History is written by the victors."
Everyone says they want the truth. Everyone believes they tell it. Many are willing to espouse it -- as long as it's the popular trend. But the reality is, it's a lot tougher standing up for it when the majority says it's wrong. It's tougher still to realize you never had it in the first place. And that too, is what seperates the men from the boys.
I'm running short on time but there are some interesting points I'd like to address.
In some cases, the people who agree are those who I feel are guilty of drawing the exact conclusion that I parodied. (Another example of reading superficially?)
It may be apparent to some that this thread was in response to the "cardio on an empty stomach thread." By the time that one was done, jboldman was arguing with me over a point that I never even made. Thus is the evolution of too many threads.
JA (who I asked not to participate in this thread, but he did anyway,) posted something on another board that in part,concured with my original stance even though he adamantly argued against it here. Why would someone do that? Because they're trend followers. Whatever position is popular at any particular time or place is the one they'll adopt.
A few others here chose to parrot the old accusation that I reject all studies or that I claim whatever I say is gospel, which is completely untrue, but again, it's been said so much, it's accepted thinking. Adolf Hitler said, "Tell a lie big enough and long enough, and it will become the truth. What great fortune for leaders that the masses don't think." Freighteningly poignant. (Now watch, I'll be accused of being a Nazi)
On to FS's very astute comments.
There is one very big flaw in what he said, if I'm reading it correctly. He states;
"We have all experienced otherwise, and experience is proof."
Aah, now we start to get into four dimentional thinking. This is what seperates the men from the boys. (And agin, JA, stay out.) I offer this question to you FS...
How do we know if one's experience is accurate?
Just like RIO's funny spider analogy, many people draw conclusions based on their "experience" but the information is cross sensed. Here's an example:"I took creatine and got a cold. Therefore it is my experience that creatine gave me a cold." It is VERY difficult to sway someone from believing this isn't so. They took creatine They know that for a fact. That didn't have a cold prior to taking it. Then they did. Personal experience. Proof.
But of course, it's an erroneous perception.
I recently got a letter from someone who read my first book and he said he could have bought a car with the money he would have saved on supplements had he read my book first. One example he gave was that he gained 12 pounds while using Biotests Mag 10. Of course, according to Biotests recommendations he added 1000 calories a day to his diet. Duh. But there are thousands of people who will believe it's the Mag 10. There experience tells them so.
You also say; "What a study does, Nelson, is isolate the variables."
Okay, condesending tone aside, this is exactly what I was saying the studies in question did NOT do. And I explained why. But but that time, too many people were shouting down everything and anything that was said.
You then say, it wouldn't matter if people did better on a Tuesday than a Wednesday because we know that isn't a factor. But what if someone made it a factor? How do you prove working out on a Tuesday isn't better than working out on a Wednesday? Well,logic. Not another study. But god forbid if someone showed another study conducted on a Tuesday. They'll ride you out of town on a rail.
Thus is mob mentality. And we see that A LOT on this board and it's even worse on some of the other BB boards. Sometimes I think bodybuilders are the most myopic, annoying people on the planet. (Well, some of them, at least).
You then summerize by asking for a study showing my position. But as demonstated, the studies you showed were invalid since they were not conducted in an accurate manner. I had no studies (none readily available at least) but I offered logical retort. That's when the villagers began lighting the torches.
I realize this is a very heady discussion and in the end, it's essentially sophistry. The pragmatic part of me says; IF, the theory of burning fat on an empty stomach has any validity at all, arguable as it may be, the amount would be so slight it wouldn't be worth cosidering unless you really enjoy running first thing in the morning on an empty stomach. I'd rather eat glass.
All in all, it seems ridiculous that such a conversation would ellicit the level of hatred it inspired some people. Yes. Hatred. It's been demonstrated in all its ugliess many times over. And that's another thing to consider. When one person antagonizes with lies and another refutes the claims, they are not mutually guilty of bickering. People should see that. But they don't. All they want to know is, who's winning? Because nobody wants to be on the losing side.
To quote the most horrible man who ever lived once again: "History is written by the victors."
Everyone says they want the truth. Everyone believes they tell it. Many are willing to espouse it -- as long as it's the popular trend. But the reality is, it's a lot tougher standing up for it when the majority says it's wrong. It's tougher still to realize you never had it in the first place. And that too, is what seperates the men from the boys.
brotheriron
New member
I agree nelson, it takes more to stand up alone than to follow the masses. I was shot down when i suggested my 2g+ per week test courses, over 8iu Gh etc, just as you are with your "alternative" approach to AS.
But thats what makes the elite. Being different. Not following the mob. otherwise we'd all be the same. And thats something i never want to be
Bro
But thats what makes the elite. Being different. Not following the mob. otherwise we'd all be the same. And thats something i never want to be
Bro
Silent Method
New member
Indeed. Go back and read my message to you.Nelson Montana said:
I have not seen the thread nor the information that you reference. However, I must ask, did you read the entire study, or just some posted abstract?Nelson Montana said:
This is the heart of so much of your writing that it deserved a reprinting. Argument for argument sake...round and round we go.Nelson Montana said:
Similar threads
