Science isn't wrong. The scientific method is fine, it's interpretations of the data that may be wrong but it gets closer to the truth the more research we do.
-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
Butter infographic
Science isn't wrong. The scientific method is fine, it's interpretations of the data that may be wrong but it gets closer to the truth the more research we do.
steveP
Well-known member
I have to agree. There's nothing in sugar free soda/energy drinks that isn't in sups or protein powder to flavour them. The whole sweeteners being bad had been debunked or just isn't understood by the general public.
If there ever was a magic diet pill, diet sodas are as close as you'll get. Carbonated flavoured water with zero calories vs regular soda with 400 odd calories a bottle of nearly all sugar. It's a no-brainer, but people don't take advantage of it.
WoodyAllen
Well-known member
Come on mate. You trippin'. Those diet energy drinks are a rip off.
Come buy my pre workout. It has lots of flavouring, fizzing stuff and caffeine, plus a whack of beta alanine to make you "feel" it working. Give it a name like Animal Rage or Extreme Pumper or Bezerker Beast Mode and you are good to go. Oh, and put the word "New" on it somewhere.
Gonna order my Ferrari now.
Who is buying diet energy drinks as a investment?
I like the taste and virtually zero calories, that's all.
Goosey
.
If you need a stimulant to workout you need to rethink what you're doing here.
i can understand a shot of coffee early morning prior to a workout.
but I really believe you'll get much better results going in to a workout feeling calm and peaceful rather than fuckin "jacked and wired" ffs
the feeling of calm after a workout is what we want 24/7
i can understand a shot of coffee early morning prior to a workout.
but I really believe you'll get much better results going in to a workout feeling calm and peaceful rather than fuckin "jacked and wired" ffs
the feeling of calm after a workout is what we want 24/7
steveP
Well-known member
I don't think people are having them as a pre workout, but as an alternative to just plain water all day. I'll have them maybe twice a week. $5 for 2 isn't breaking the bank.
Jungnaut
YOLO Kunce
Exactly... I used to look forward to the max gurn effect everytime I trained until I realised it didn't help me at all but hindered my performance. Being wired as hell does not help you think about improving form, it just makes you go longer like an energiser bunny but with noodle dick. So if you are doing crossfit then max gurn PWO would be on the money.
I still take it if I am feeling like shit and actually need a pick me up. Or when the crave for the gurn gets a bit too much yolo
Goosey
.
chocchillimango
Well-known member
this. every session.
chocchillimango
Well-known member
A couple of things:
1. "Science" is not one thing and scientific disciplines and good methods don't get things wrong. People get things wrong.
2. The studies and analysis that lead to the lipid hypothesis and conclusions was flawed. In part, many studies were poorly designed - that is the fault of researchers (people) incorrectly applying scientific methods to their research. In many studies of that era regarding this topic, their methods may not have been wrong but they asked the wrong questions (ie tested the wrong hypothesis). In some instances, it was just people misapplying their disciplines by doing everything to prove an hypothesis that they believed to be correct. That is an abuse of scientific methodology. Secondly, the analysis was often completely flawed. Conclusions were drawn that, had they been fairly scrutinised, would highlight total incompetence on the part of researchers (not understanding analytic methodologies, applying the wrong methodologies for the problem at hand, or willful abuse of the results to prove the outcome they may have been seeking).
All up, there was insufficient scrutiny at the time, which was scandalous.
No wonder people seem to believe that there were secret big food agendas going on at the time. I rather think that there may have been a stunning level of incompetence at the very least .. including the FDA in the US and similar bodies around the world.
Not much different to what happens now so often.
FFS everyone wants to be a freaking scientist these days and yet all the crap that is spouted as good science around the internet is mostly just crap, leaving most people with an even worse understanding of what constitutes scientific research.
Having said all that ... research is a continually evolving thing. Understanding of the world around us improves as our capability to study it improves - better methods, new discoveries, better technology.
So just because our understanding may change doesn't mean that the discoveries of the past were all crap because they were proven to be insufficient. Sometimes it's just that we didn't have the means to uncover what we can learn today. The same will apply in the future.
Our understanding of how cholesterol functions is a classic example of this.
The work of Professor Krauss in California (physicist) and his team has been a godsend for enabling medical researchers to investigate LDL and HDL and triglycerides much more comprehensively. This has helped turn our understanding of cholesterol and what is meant by "good" and "bad" on its head. the technologies they've developed and applied to the measurement of cholesterol particles did not exist before.