Interesting for sure.
2 Likes
I would love to read the systematic review of this methodology.
I had not heard of this approach before regarding healing.
Please share, if possible?!
@Aude_Aliquid_Dignu As I said before, this PED stuff is off the grid. Literally nobody expects verified science for this. That said, an educated opinion is good enough for me. This is black and white thinking rearing it’s head again.
And before you go off thinking my methodology is flawed, I would like to remind you again that I pointed out evidence that you yourself provided directly refuting the thing you were promoting.
Now please kindly hop off my thread. Your sarcastic responses are neither wanted nor add anything of substance to the discussion.
1 Like
You’ve been a little testy lately?
Are you crossing over to a cranky old man?
@Poppy I don’t appreciate being questioned on science by people who don’t know anything about science. He was also obviously trolling after he was asked to knock it off. It was not a sincere question. If it was, it would have gotten a more polite answer. I would be more than happy to educate if he were willing to learn, but he’s doing his best to waste my time at this point. He isn’t actually interested in doing anything but validating the erroneous conclusions he’s already reached by reading random internet garbage. He thinks he’s smart and he’s trying to make me look dumb by asking asinine questions.
I don’t take kindly to trolls. He can fuck off and waste someone else’s time. I have less than zero patience for his kind.
1 Like
AND I think you’re getting cranky as you aging!
1 Like
The explanation for insulin driving Increased IGF-1 levels makes perfect sense. A common practice in this industry to put on muscle is to bulk so to speak as the increased food intake drives muscle growth. I would image the increased food intake results in higher insulin levels and in turn increased IGF-1. It would make sense the increased IGF-1 would drive the increased muscle mass.
1 Like
Not trying to troll or offend, just to engage in a topic you seem interested in and learn what you are willing to share!
Questioning things is how one learns man. That’s what science is
2 Likes
@Aude_Aliquid_Dignu if that is truly the case then I apologize.
As I explained before, we know how these compounds act in the body — these effects are well known and can be found in any college level biology/endocrinology textbook (textbooks are a top tier source). If you’d like more reliable information on what insulin is and what it breaks down into and acts in the body, I would suggest you start there.
Although meta analyses on these topics exist, they are probably old because the science on this stuff is settled and has been for decades. We can draw some reasonable conclusions based on this settled science and create a healing protocol based on that.
Something really important to keep in mind in all of this is that there aren’t studies on these compounds that focus on human performance — that is outside the scope of medical study. Stuff like insulin was originally studied and formulated to treat a specific condition — in this case, diabetes. So if you’re looking for direct information that studies and collates data for human performance, data is gonna be really thin on the ground. The best we can do in these cases is rely on what we know about how these compounds behave and how they can be used to get jacked.
Insulin is a great example though because when the original short acting insulins were introduced, the average diabetic simply couldn’t afford them. You know who could? Rich people and Hollywood celebrities used it to get jacked and thin. This is because they understood how the compounds acted in the body and how they could be used to manipulate their endocrinology to accomplish what they wanted. What we’re doing here is no different.
How is this different from LLLT? We don’t even have a theory of operation for it. We don’t know the basics of how it works or how it’s supposed to. Some studies have shown results, sure, but we can’t reproduce a lot of them, quite a lot are badly designed, nor can we articulate with any confidence it’s mechanism of action. The science is far from settled. Hence, the bar is much higher for newer, less settled therapies — they need to prove they are at least as good as the standard of care or offer some advantage over the standard of care. Right now, it is extremely doubtful that they do based on available information.
So, yes. I would call it ‘woo’ until it’s definitively proven otherwise. When they’re writing textbooks about it, I’ll happily admit I was incorrect. Because that’s how science works — we can change our minds based on new information. 
1 Like
Apology accepted.
3 Likes
FIN
This log is over! I’ve (somewhat) successfully completed my maintenance and am heading into my next cut. You can find my next log here: Geek’s Show Me the Money Cut/Maintain.
Thanks for following along, fit friends! I’ll see you on the other side!
3 Likes