What scientific research says
If I said there is an Absolutely LEGAL supplement that provides muscle-loss and weight-loss benefits superior to testosterone doping, would you believe me?
No? Well, that’s because you are still unaware of the recent HBB study of β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate by the Wilson and Lowry group of researchers, which clearly demonstrates that HMB is superior to testosterone enanthate from the famous BASHIN study (1996). Obviously, this is an incredible commercial manipulation of the sports supplement industry, as many of us have tried HMB (a metabolite of the amino acid leucine) and as beneficial as it is, I don’t think anyone made them get up in the morning doing Madelman.
In fact, comparison is completely impossible and allows you to understand to what extent research is capable. In any case, Wilson and Lowry’s group is known for publishing various controversial studies that have not been peer reviewed, all with incredible results and unconfirmed assumptions (e l peer review – it is a method used to validate written papers and funding requests to assess their quality, originality, feasibility, scientific rigor, etc. before publication) .
Study Graph – Study by Lowry et al., 2014 – where with 3g of HMB per day, subjects who trained for 12 weeks lost up to 5kg of fat and gained 7kg of muscle !!! The results were so manipulated that they even surpassed the results of the famous testosterone study by Bashin et al. (1996):
As if that weren’t enough, the same group has already published other bizarre results, where in 12 weeks they achieved an increase of almost 9 kg of muscle in trained subjects, supplementing them with 3 g HMB 3 g + 400 mg ATP. Apparently it failed the peer review (1).
It seems surprising that publications of this type are shared between Wilson and Lowry, as in another study of the standard ketogenic diet, trained subjects gained 4.3 kg of muscle in 10 weeks (2). like the other about arachidonic acid, which is apparently refuted by expert judgment (3)
This would not be a real problem if it only affected the “DREAMS” of inexperienced young people striving to easily gain 4-5 kg of muscle thanks to the latest fashionable ergogenic substance (although I am afraid that in life Nothing worthwhile is not easy and effortless .) In the end, everyone chooses how to clear their wallet, right?
The fact is that in recent decades Science has begun to replace religion in order to become the new “OPIOM OF PEOPLE” , as Karl already stated in 1844. Heinrich Marx.
“If there is research that proves this … it will be true!”
But Science has nothing to do with VERY, as I wrote in another article:
Research is a Science for Science tool that truly understands its value and significance. Outside of this context, they become a simple tool to manipulate the consumer and direct him to a particular product.
Research by LILesser et al. “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOURCE FINANCING AND FINANCING ON FOOD RELATED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES” (SUMMARY or what our beloved BLOGGER guarantees. In his work, he analyzed 206 MedLine publications about soft drinks, juices and milk published between 1999 and 2003. Of the 206 studies, more than half (111) were openly sponsored by the industry. In his work, Lessen shows how “ sponsors” influenced conclusions regarding the relationship between the analyzed products and their health effects. He classified the research results into 3 groups: Favorable, Neutral, Unfavorable.
|Lesser 2007||SPONSOR INDUSTRIALES||INSTITUTIONAL BODIES||SPONSOR CONTRACTS|