.gif "IP Gear")
alfresco
Featured Member / Kilo Klub Member
Staff member
Super Moderators
Moderator
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Board Supporter
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
- Messages
- 4,944
Below, this is from The Economist, ‘letter to the editor’ I posted this not too long ago. Perhaps you did not read it or thought it insignificant but that is really a mute point now as this thread has drifted so far off course (not usual) it is about indistinguishable from your original post that was essentially noticing the differences between waists; same person, BUT different poses, not equatable (which is an opinion that I still hold to this day) but did not take the cold plunge into the Photoshopping pool as it would have started a shitstorm, and driven your thread even further off track . . . I still suspect it might have ‘shopped’ but the stage will tell all with Photoshopping being fully accepted, perhaps even encouraged in the various threads regarding female anatomy here which unavoidably leads to unrealistic expectations but would lead to another shitstorm so I will let sleeping dogs lie.
The letter . . .
Peer Pressure
I suspect you have not examined the evidence behind your statement that the quality-assurance system of scientific journals “generally works well” (“Handsome prints”, February 5th). Peer review is the main assurance system for science journals, but remarkably, until about 40 years ago, nobody had studied the process.
When studies did begin researchers found little or no evidence of effectiveness. They did find that peer review is slow, expensive, inefficient, poor at detecting errors or fraud, prone to bias and something of a lottery. It is also anti-innovation, in that truly original studies that win Nobel prizes are often rejected. We know too that journals are filled with statistical errors and studies where the conclusions are not supported by the methods and data. Drummond Rennie, one of the pioneers of peer-review research, summed up the evidence by saying, “If peer review were a drug it would not be allowed onto the market.” Paradoxically peer review, which is at the heart of science, is faith-based, not evidence-based.
Richard Smith
Former editor
British Medical Journal
I met Drummond Rennie (referenced above) thru my uncle a while back when he was, and I think still is, a professor at UCSF but gradually stoped seeing him at my uncle’s parties. We were not close friends but were friendly. He did make an interesting observation when we first met; he asked me if I lifted weights. I said yes. He asked me if I took steroids. I said no. He then asked me if I knew anybody who did. I said no again. Which was true at the time. (I was so lame then that I probably did not even know how to spell steroid.)
He launched into a huge triad on the problems with scientific studies and how poorly they are executed, largely not reproducible, incorrectly documented, it’s. especially in the field of endocrinology, re., and in this case anabolic steroids. There are so many variables it is almost impossible be reach a conclusion that is unquestionable and could not be substantiated. It was clear to him that they worked but the results were inconstant which, again, making it so hard to study. Plus getting money to study bodybuilding pharmacology is very difficult when the are sexy, more important studies to be made, like curing cancer with anabolic steroids and bodybuilding being not even a pimple on life’s ass.
Having flogged a dead horse to death, now is a good time to answe your question and your answer is no, and I have not read all of them for the reasons stated above.
It helps create a nice look but the fatigue I get from it outweighs all of the benefits. As it's already been posted it helps create a certain look and is indirectly "anabolic". So whilst it may help people get bigger and look better I wouldn't consider it anabolic as in directly muscle building. Although I wouldn't debate someone on this because if you look up the definition "anabolic" HGH definitely should be included. People often think anabolic solely means muscle building but it can mean multiple things including bone growth. No one can't say that it also can't help you grow even if that is just from water retention alone. Now sure will it directly promote muscle growth... not really... but arguing over this is a bit silly in many ways because it does help you grow through a variety of pathways.
