I don’t respond great , I notice it, but I couldn’t look like any of those guys if I had a 45 gallon drum of gear.
Redacted
- Thread starter fangedparabolan
- Start date
I was the first person to callout this idiot. Took a bit of heat for it, but I said time would prove me right 
You want a cookie or something?I was the first person to callout this idiot. Took a bit of heat for it, but I said time would prove me right
With all due respect,I was the first person to callout this idiot. Took a bit of heat for it, but I said time would prove me right
he got called out plenty, not sure you were the first, what heat you took or what time proved but I have a question.
I won't state my stance anymore succinctly than I did back in post #5 which was complemented/completed excellently by @Slartibartfast in #7. Suffice to say I get and expected the negativity and there is a good chance I know why you used the word idiot. I ain't at all mad at anyone for being upset it coulda hit me that way too.
My question is, let's put Tren dosage aside for a sec, do you have any issues with the Safe Practices or Harm Reduction information he provided? Love to hear any if you do.
My 2 cents-
Personally I find the content excellent and I copied it into a word document right away. IME I find it to be one of the most comprehensive pieces I have seen on the subject with just the right amount of depth. A fantastic jumping off point for anyone with an interest in the subject. Overdone? He certainly comes outta the gate strong but it welcomes one to either dip a toe or dive in as deep as they want. Plus there is plenty of "hmm, I never considered that too much" for just about everyone no matter how far they are along in their own self education. Probably a nice lil dose of "I never knew that" as well. Of course there is room for discussion and debate too but I've yet to poke at anything that I found to be flat out wrong.
Regardless of that Monster dosage for me personally his approach is way too much work but if I was 40 years younger and still had Mr O ambitions (wasn't close) I can see it. For now as I focus more on health I'll be taking a peek, including it in my researching when I have an interest in something in particular and vetting it like I would any other source of info.
Just saying
Well with all due respect, I was the first to call him out about things that had nothing to do with harm reduction or safe practices or even Tren dosage (although I did bring up the dosage issue as well).
Idiot from day one
What happened i didnt read every thing but did he turn out to be full of shit or a troll?Well with all due respect, I was the first to call him out about things that had nothing to do with harm reduction or safe practices or even Tren dosage (although I did bring up the dosage issue as well).
Idiot from day one
The name dropping just proves that you are a very important man, and we should be in awe of your presence.
Yes.
Thats a stupid question.
Who wouldn’t want a cookie?
yeah I'm not arguing with you I was just saying I wasn't sure about those three things, I'm not keeping score, nothing in particular stuck out for me is all.Well with all due respect, I was the first to call him out about things that had nothing to do with harm reduction or safe practices or even Tren dosage (although I did bring up the dosage issue as well).
Idiot from day one
I only asked what you think about the info because I'm personally invested in focusing on the substance over the source, for me right now the questions of sanity, morality, honesty, idiocy etc are a separate issue. I'm all ears if you or anyone else wants to point out something controversial, seems likely that someone who is not a fan would be more likely to have a critical eye.
I agree man I dont know anything about the guy but his info is intriguing.
Sometimes you just need to separate the art from the artist.
If properly executed, the data will be useful.
I mean, you guys still enjoy Mel Gibson movies right?
If properly executed, the data will be useful.
I mean, you guys still enjoy Mel Gibson movies right?
Flat out wrong individual mechanisms, no.
Except the entire approach has a fundamental flaw, which I've mentioned before. So I wasnt going to bother stating it again.
But the OP mentions being trained in complexity theory and this kind of reductionism, while producing mechanistically fascinating theories, is in opposition to complex systems analysis.
Reductionist measurement is useful for understanding components, but component level optimization does not necessarily translate into system level optimization even in something as relatively simple as a high performance race car.
Your body is not a collection of independent dials. It is a coupled, dynamic system with feedback, feed-forward, adaptation, and anticipatory cascades. "optimal" setting for one variable is not necessarily the most stable configuration for the whole system.
In industrial instrumentation and control, you can have an "all in the green" control panel while having reduced your safety buffer if you got there by forcing parameters or configuration changes, and be seconds away from disaster from a relatively small perturbation that would otherwise have been inconsequential.
TMI for example, they took actions intended to correct an individual parameter (reduce indicated pressurizer level) that that ultimately worsened the underlying condition.
The human body is vastly more complex than a feed water system.
On top of that, even granting that any given biomarker shift is beneficial, much of the evidence for preventive interventions is only visible at a population level.
Many primary prevention interventions have absolute risk reductions that are tiny.
They are meaningful at a population level benefit,
But a 1 or 2% population level risk reduction, proves nothing about a meaningful benefit to any an otherwise healthy individual, let alone the idea that you're fully protected.
Claims that baseline risk is higher for any particular unstudied population due to any particular parameter is at best speculation. benefit is simply unknown.
Then the idea of stacking many marginal interventions in a system that doesn't obviously sum those effects (and assuming only those effects) and calling the result "optimization." Establishes claims far beyond the evidence.
If even engineered systems whose feedback loops we deliberately engineer can behave unexpectedly when multiple interacting variables are manipulated.... I can't see why we should expect the same strategy to work reliably in a vastly more complicated biological system where we don't even fully understand many the mechanisms,
nor their secondary 'side effects' we continue to discover.
Let alone the cascade of combinations.
Medicine is genuinely good at acute care, correcting a critical parameter that's dominating the system with fast feedback and a short time horizon. Its comparatively poor at chronic optimization, where the intervention operates on time constants of months to years, feedback is slow and noisy, even when trying to optimize a minimal number of parameters.
This isn't surprising, it's exactly what is predicted from complexity theory once you leave the immediate feedback time frame where the acute problem and it's response is relatively obvious.
And the op is manipulating numerous coupled variables at once rather than one dominant failure mode.
Endless tweaking of a complex system is not inherently benign either. In any higher dimensional system, there are vastly more possible combinations of interacting states than there are stable configurations.
My own conclusion is almost the opposite of the ops optimization mindset.
I respect the enormous amount of evolved/created system level integration we don't fully understand, and I'm reluctant to perturb multiple variables simultaneously.
It's a fascinating subject, and I applaud the op for his diligence at naming and looking into how the trees are growing, but hope he doesn't get lost in the forest.
I'm all for self experimentation, but I'm unsure of how this has value with so many interventions done at the same time.
But who knows, maybe we'll have the world's first X-Man.
In the words of Sorbate:
‘Keep it simple stupid’
Too many things doesn’t mean ‘mores betters’
I have found out very unscientificly that more added in usually makes no difference or makes things worse because things then compete.
You want to make sausage, 5 ingredients is all you need. Yes you can add more, but eventually the flavours overlap and you don’t taste it, it just becomes more expensive. Could I make it with 15, and add in different binders that have different effects, sure. Doesn’t mean I’d get a better outcome.n
Have a hot tub, you can add a billion different chemicals to try to make things perfect every hour, but all you need it keep your chlorine a bit high and every time you get out, throw in 1 tablespoon of non chlorinated oxidizer. So many people add algaecide, shock every week, foam away, spa brite and so on.
Truthfully I’d be more worried about screwing my body up taking too many things.
You get unwanted sides, time to get off or do trt. Not time to add on a bunch of other chemicals to cover things up.
another angle in which this attempt at risk mitigation isn’t a one size fits all is the assumption that every one of these meds is 100% side effect free themselves and are only positive. everyone is going to react differently to the gear, then to the 100 pharmaceuticals added on top. that’s not even considering the possible drug interactions that could take place. polypharmacy is still a problem in healthcare with 100000s of controlled studies, let alone someone taking UGL gear, non-FDA approved drugs, getting prescription meds potentially from dark market sources and using their individual response/anecdote as proof.
Lol, Lee Priest telling the story of how he was so shitface wasted that he got his wife to fuck him in his ass with a wine bottle!!
Yeh, im sure he isnt worried about telling everyone what he took steroids wise if hes telling those kinda stories without giving any fucks whatsoever.
Really fantastic post, thank you. I couldn't agree more and couldn't have explained it that well. It's most of what was behind why I said it was way too much work. I think I usually have a good awareness of that issue but I glossed over it this time seeing a few singular things that caught my attention and ignoring the global view, the point(s) you raised deserve a lot more weight.
@Sorbate and @Trenbolone&Cheese great posts too, appreciated.
T&C - Myself I'm a polypharmacy advocate, and I include supps under that umbrella, timely as your post and the others here are for the last month or so I've been spending a lot of time looking at the interactions and contraindications among all the stuff I take. I have some background in that and it's still easy to get carried away and quite a chore to sort it all back out once you do.
yup lool Lee aint lying about nothing
Almost exactly how I've looked at it. Viewed from an engineering and/ or technical / diagnostic view it makes zero sense. Especially the fact it hinges on shotgunning a laundry list of compounds and supplements on one person for a one time experiment. Many of these variables are unproven or lack enough data themselves.
I made a whole thread on my stance which critiques this side of it amongst other things so I won't go over it all again.
This level of complexity might bamboozle others into thinking this guy knows his stuff, but it won't do it for me, sorry. How anyone could take this experiment seriously is beyond me and quite easily more disturbing than the experiment itself now that I've had time to let it sink in.