The Truth About "Scientific Studies" On Muscle Mass and Fat Loss Supplements

Let's not forget those "scientific studies" posted by an "independent" board of certified chemists. Several years ago, one of those "scientific panels" wrote a report stating Dibencozide (Vitamin B-12) provides similar anabolic (muscle building) power as steroids (which convinced me to try it!). Needless to say, it was another creative way to help me waste money! Other such "scientifically compiled information" in advertisements today mirror my Dibencozide example. DON'T FALL FOR IT! My local news (remember, everybody trusts them) once promoted a positive HMB study, yet look at how popular HMB is today? Not quite the "hot" bodybuilding supplement that the advertising suggested many months ago! DON'T FALL FOR IT! I can imagine hundreds of bodybuilders running out to their local health store and picking up 5 bottles of a supplement that the NEWS claims to be effective. If you have enough money and power, a "scientific study" will say anything you darn well want. I don't know if you've ever read articles in bodybuilding magazines hyping a yet-to-be-released supplement as being the GREATEST LEGAL MUSCLE BUILDING AGENT TO EVER HIT THE SHELVES, but if you have, remember this -- if I pay you thousands to advertise in your magazine, then I can easily pass some future product information to you before it hits the public, and you'll be sure to make it sound really important BEFORE I ever start advertising the new product (hence, the magazine is advertising under the guise of being an "impartial observer"). For example, I advertise in magazine X, and I tell magazine X that supplement Z is HOT, and is currently in development stages. Magazine X writes articles hyping supplement Z before it ever hits the stores, thus, people are greatly anticipating its release (guaranteeing monster sales when the substance is finally available). We trust the magazine, because the "supplement report" is presented as if it's an impartial review from one of the "experienced" writers. Yet, it's just product hype under the "unbiased truth" umbrella. Both the magazine and the supplement company make money on us suckers. In addition, most muscle building magazines are simply a multi-page advertisement for products that the magazine company itself sells! They will have their writers speak highly of a supplement, acting as an unbiased observer, when in fact these writers are working for the company that produces the product! Trust me, this is what's happening, and it's not going to change!

Remember this important lesson -- if a "clinical study" used in an advertisement says "this supplement provided 30 pounds of new muscle mass," or "our product shed 20 pounds of body fat," and you try the product for yourself, but find it has no impact whatsoever on your body, who is correct, YOUR REAL WORLD LACK OF RESULTS, or the "clinical study" that is used as part of a supplement advertisement? The answer is obvious!

If you aren't convinced that so called "scientific studies" can actually produce the very opposite of what practical reality indicates, take this as proof -- a pamphlet distributed by a well known and respected drug store (CVS) entitled "Steroids -- No winners. Only losers" releases under the subtitle "Steroids Don't Work" the following INCORRECT discovery -- "They may make an athlete feel "big" temporarily. But look at the actual medical evidence. The 1991 Physician's Desk Reference, standard guide to prescription medicines, includes the warning: ANABOLIC STEROIDS DO NOT ENHANCE ATHLETIC ABILITY. Controlled research among male athletes given steroids has generally found little evidence of enhanced strength or performance". Do you believe the "controlled" research that indicates steroids are worthless in strength gains or performance enhancement that this pamphlet indicates? I hope not, because it's FALSE. So, why believe those supplement studies conducted by THE VERY SUPPLEMENT INDUSTRY ITSELF indicating "steroid" like equivalency of the latest, greatest powdered find? If you are to believe the CVS pamphlet, all of those supplement providers claiming steroid equivalency are actually comparing themselves to a dangerous, but USELESS, illegal drug. WE ALL KNOW STEROIDS WORK AS EVIDENCED BY THE PHYSIQUES OF THOSE WHO USE THEM, YET WE CHOOSE TO AVOID THE DRUG DUE TO ITS POTENTIAL DANGERS, yet an informational brochure containing the name of a very respected pharmacy, in addition to the Physician's Desk Reference, a guide used by medical doctors to prescribe drugs, is propagating a study that OBVIOUSLY DIFFERS WITH WHAT OUR VISUAL REALITY HAS PROVEN DECADES AGO! I totally agree with CVS' goal in administering such information (as the pamphlet continues to explain the extreme dangers of the drug and tries to influence young adults to abstain from use), yet in the beginning of an otherwise worthwhile informational venture comes to light the most asinine study in existence today (though on par with similar supplement "research"), which to the young attentive teen, totally eliminates all credibility associated with the remaining paragraphs warning of side effects and dangers, since the pamphlet begins with FALSE INFORMATION. WHY, WHEN ONE CAN REJECT SUCH A FLAGRANTLY FLAWED STATEMENT DUE TO OBVIOUS VISUAL EVIDENCE PROVING THE VERY CONTRARY (steroids work), DO WE BELIEVE SUPPLEMENT PROVIDERS WHO ARE RELEASING OUTLANDISH CLAIMS WITH THE SOLE INTENTION OF SELLING THEIR NEWEST PRODUCT? It makes NO sense, yet we (this includes me) have all fallen for the heavy advertising and quoting of such blatantly FALSE "studies". Any time a supplement provider points to a "scientific study" that verifies potency, please recall the above steroid "research" which has "proven the drug ineffective in enhancing strength or performance" -- it's laughable, and is NO DIFFERENT from the supplement company "research" that "proves" the potential effects of the newest testosterone booster..THE STUDIES ARE MERELY UNETHICALLY TAINTED ADVERTISING TOOLS!