Big energy change up from saying its for losers and that you used it against rick once because you were tired of him and wanted to avoid a fight but felt unsatisfied and thus dont use it *
I personally use it when after evidence is provided the other party just pulls an ostrich instead of leveling a valid counter argument and just hides behind their feelings because said person isnt one you can have a discussion with. Provide me systematic reviews and meta analysis or if your a coach stacks or client case studies ill happily engange respectfully.
Like what am i supposed to do you rejected harvard and UBC in favour of feelings and then bring up the egg example....which is the mark of the uneducated in nutrition and cholesterol/heart health "studies said eggs were bad"
Anyone educated in research methods would simply have looked into it and reached the consensus of the community proper: eggs are a neutral food and depend entirely on your surrounding dietary context and genetics. A MINORITY can't touch em at all. A minority can eat unlimited, and the vast majority can have around 1 a day given their dietary context and be fine.
Pro egg studies are mostly paid off by big egg
Eggs are bad tends to be population dependent i.e. americans eating SAD. Where the saturated fat content is already high and eggs tip it.
But given your shrugging off of the harvard and ubc data ofc i give you a laughing emoji because you won't change your opinion on eggs even if i provided an up to date meta analysis on the literature.
People don't like nuance. They want good or bad to justify their bad habbits or a prioi emotional beliefs
This post is good illustration of the point I was making earlier.
You characterize yourself as the evidence driven, nuanced, mature while dismissing people who disagree with you as emotional, uneducated, unreasonable, trolls, or hiding behind their feelings.
The irony is that these posts contains the kinds of reasoning you're criticizing in others.
You invoke Harvard, UBC, systematic reviews and meta analyses as authorities, while simultaneously making unsupported claims about industry funding and other people's motives.
None of that means you're wrong about the underlying science. It demonstrates that being knowledgeable about a subject doesn't make you immune to the same reasoning errors you're identifying in other people.
The confidence with which you make these judgments is considerably less well supported than the specific scientific claims you're making.
I think that's fundamentally why you're running into pushback... the evidence you've presented doesn't justify the level of confidence you're expressing.
As an intelligent guy, imagine you've just recently walked into a room of long term forum members who have earned their reputation and the respect of their peers through years of posts demonstrating a cogent and comprehensive understanding of a wide range of subjects, and their willingness and ability to engage respectfully with others.
You start speaking with great confidence, belittling valid concerns and expecting others to give you that same level of consideration and respect immediately because you post a collection of various scientific consensus studies on average populations that, in your mind, when summed together will support your untested hypothetical framework of harm reduction in otherwise healthy PED users.
When the studies you've posted aren't even about that cohort.
You're relying heavily on extrapolation of mechanisms of action that, in many cases, have failed to predict the actual clinical outcome.
You said earlier that you have an education in complex systems analysis. Yet from what you've posted, you're repeatedly demonstrating the very reductionism and a priori bias you're criticizing in others.
"People don't like nuance. They want good or bad to justify their bad habits or a priori emotional beliefs."
Kinda like trying to convince yourself that you can safely do a butt load of tren if you take a long stack of drugs and supplements?
There is a substantial body of evidence showing that as the number of medications (and potential expected and unexpected interactions) increases, the risks increase as well.
Individual compounds have characterized effects, but whether you can confidently predict the behaviour and risk of the entire combination? Not by simply adding those individual effects together.
So why don't you post the studies that demonstrate that you actually can, or how this isn't a concern in your approach with your stack?
I'm sure you must have read Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows, and know the distinction between understanding individual elements and understanding the behaviour of the system as a whole.
Anyway, I am enjoying your posts of various studies on lesser known metabolic pathways.
Biochemistry has barely scratched the surface.
It's your epistemic positioning that I think could use some attention.
Cheers.
like victim's