Insulin Does Not Increase Muscle Protein Synthesis Rate

HuckingFuge

Member
And everybody and there mother used to smoke before the research told us it can cause cancer. Nobody used airbags or seatbelts until the stupid research told them they could help save lives. Nobody was taking an antibiotic when they got infections until that stupid research told us it could kill the bacteria. So what exactly is your point about AI use then vs now? That we know better now? Bc that's clearly evident to most.

The research doesn't say protein is bad for kidneys. The research says those with kidney issues can be better off with a reduced protein intake and then some idiot took that to mean protein is bad for the kidneys. So instead of blaming the messenger who is at fault you discount the message which is your right to do so but had the human race done that enough times throughout history we'd still be living with the Black Death in midevil times, not driving cars to go down the street to the corner store.....

Nowhere am I saying you're stupid. I have not said that once anywhere. What I am saying is you're too biased and myopic to see the difference between research being applied correctly and research being applied incorrectly.

Relying on bro science aka anecdotes aka glorified story time is the joke. In the absence of more compelling and objective evidence it can have a place to be discussed but it proves nothing in the end whether you care to admit that or not.


lol everyone knew smoking was bad for you. we didn't need research to tell people that. smoking didn't become big until after WW1 and WW2.

I never said you said I was stupid.

I just see the medical field going backwards instead of forward like it should be. like cancer research. that is the biggest fucking joke of them all. no one wants to touch PEDS or anything that will actually benefit your health. no money in healthy people, but loads of money in keeping people sick.

the seat belt safety is a joke too. you have a 60/40 chance of living with a seat belt on, just a hair above 50%.
 

Dr JIM

Member
Oh I don't care if you believe or don't believe that which I post Huck.

But if you believe credible criticism is in your best interest then perhaps you would benefit by posting ANY evidence that refutes what I've said in this thread alone.

But you don't have any do you, so feel free to believe what you like, completely void of substance or evidence.

Some things never change!

Who is "they" are giving it (cholesterol drugs) to Huck?

Bc once again you need to better define your criticisms fella.

Best to read my post on that subject again HUCK, bc I qualified which patients were benefiting the most by chole drugs and the RESEARCH clearly shows that.

But your rant obviously has NOTHING to do with the research Huck, and that is some doctors overprescribing Chole drugs or Big Pharma pushing their sales.

The latter has nothing to do with the former and are mute with respect to the evidence based data supporting Cholesterol lowering drugs in SELECT patients.

It's just another one of your apples to oranges comparisons which make you appear ignorant and overtly misinformed, as are MANY bro scientists, IME.
 

HuckingFuge

Member
Oh I don't care if you believe or don't believe that which I post Huck.

But if you believe credible criticism is in your best interest then perhaps you would benefit by posting ANY evidence that refutes what I've said in this thread alone.

But you don't have any do you, so feel free to believe what you like, completely void of substance or evidence.

Some things never change!

Who is "they" are giving it (cholesterol drugs) to Huck?

Bc once again you need to better define your criticisms fella.

Best to read my post on that subject again HUCK, bc I qualified which patients were benefiting the most by chole drugs and the RESEARCH clearly shows that.

But your rant obviously has NOTHING to do with the research Huck, and that is some doctors overprescribing Chole drugs or Big Pharma pushing their sales.

The latter has nothing to do with the former and are mute with respect to the evidence based data supporting Cholesterol lowering drugs in SELECT patients.

It's just another one of your apples to oranges comparisons which make you appear ignorant and overtly misinformed, as are MANY bro scientists, IME.



when do you prescribe cholesterol drugs?
 

Dr JIM

Member
Are you looking for steadfast rules? Well that's like asking when do I treat HTN?

The best answer it depends upon a variety of factors, but I will add those with an LDL of greater than 190-200 are considered high risk for ASCVD!
 

Dr JIM

Member
lol everyone knew smoking was bad for you. we didn't need research to tell people that. smoking didn't become big until after WW1 and WW2.

I never said you said I was stupid.

I just see the medical field going backwards instead of forward like it should be. like cancer research. that is the biggest fucking joke of them all. no one wants to touch PEDS or anything that will actually benefit your health. no money in healthy people, but loads of money in keeping people sick.

the seat belt safety is a joke too. you have a 60/40 chance of living with a seat belt on, just a hair above 50%.

Are you serious HUCK damn you have no idea what your talking about.

Hey DOC I'm feeling really good today but I want to come by for a check up, LMAO!

Oh yea I hear that non-complaint all the time.

Ever tried to get a "healthy" person into a Drs office, it's like pulling teeth. Place the blame where it belongs fella.

COL work in a level I trauma ED and the number one reason people even make it to a level I center is bc they wore a seatbelt!

Do they save lives? In an airplane crash exceeds the forces almost always exceed human tolerances prob NOT, but in an MVA, you better believe they do and I'd love for you to post any evidence to the contrary.

Shit Huck where do you come up with this nonsense, and that's what it is.

Ever wonder why the mortality from an MCA is at least TEN TIMES higher than that of an MVA, and the morbidity is similarity astronomical in the former.
 

Voltrader

Member
I hope you don't mind but I plan on using Volscience in real life from now on. That ones just too good to pass up hahaha.
I thought you might like Volscience the only problem is it is really only based on me so it only applies to me and when I need to know something I can't find out I ask a professional aka a Dr. At least one versed in AAS.
 
I thought you might like Volscience the only problem is it is really only based on me so it only applies to me and when I need to know something I can't find out I ask a professional aka a Dr. At least one versed in AAS.

I honestly don't even care. When someone says anything now.....Volscience says you're full of shit brah! Hahahaha. I love it.
 
lol everyone knew smoking was bad for you. we didn't need research to tell people that. smoking didn't become big until after WW1 and WW2.

I said smoking causing cancer, not it being bad for you. Again, no matter what the public "knows" they cannot prove cause and effect plain and simple.

I never said you said I was stupid.

My apologies in that case.

I just see the medical field going backwards instead of forward like it should be. like cancer research. that is the biggest fucking joke of them all. no one wants to touch PEDS or anything that will actually benefit your health. no money in healthy people, but loads of money in keeping people sick.

If your beef is with the medical field than why are your posts about the research itself and not the field of medicine? PEDs don't benefit your health. Therapeutic administration of testosterone or other compounds to treat a deficiency is benefiting one's health. Shooting up 600mg of deca and tren bc you want to get your swole on is not benefiting your health in the slightest. Let's not play games here, what we do is far from 'healthy'.

the seat belt safety is a joke too. you have a 60/40 chance of living with a seat belt on, just a hair above 50%.

It's a good thing seat belts do more ban just save lives. You ever seen someone who went from 80 to 0 in the blink of an eye and catapult out of their front windshield bc they weren't wearing a seatbelt? I have and while the dude didn't die even without the seatbelt, I'm sure he wasnt too happy about his face looking like puréed crab rangoon and the numerous broken bones, internal bleeding, severed finger, etc which the seatbelt more ban likely would've helped avoid.
 

HuckingFuge

Member
I said smoking causing cancer, not it being bad for you. Again, no matter what the public "knows" they cannot prove cause and effect plain and simple.



My apologies in that case.



If your beef is with the medical field than why are your posts about the research itself and not the field of medicine? PEDs don't benefit your health. Therapeutic administration of testosterone or other compounds to treat a deficiency is benefiting one's health. Shooting up 600mg of deca and tren bc you want to get your swole on is not benefiting your health in the slightest. Let's not play games here, what we do is far from 'healthy'.



It's a good thing seat belts do more ban just save lives. You ever seen someone who went from 80 to 0 in the blink of an eye and catapult out of their front windshield bc they weren't wearing a seatbelt? I have and while the dude didn't die even without the seatbelt, I'm sure he wasnt too happy about his face looking like puréed crab rangoon and the numerous broken bones, internal bleeding, severed finger, etc which the seatbelt more ban likely would've helped avoid.




show me the proof PEDS are unhealthy. I'm not seeing anyone dieing from PEDS.

I didn't come up with the 60/40 chance of living with or with out a seat belt. that is the statistic. seat belt doesn't guarantee living after a crash or having a livable life after a crash, not wearing a seat belt doesn't guarantee death or bodily injury.
 

HuckingFuge

Member
Are you serious HUCK damn you have no idea what your talking about.

Hey DOC I'm feeling really good today but I want to come by for a check up, LMAO!

Oh yea I hear that non-complaint all the time.

Ever tried to get a "healthy" person into a Drs office, it's like pulling teeth. Place the blame where it belongs fella.

COL work in a level I trauma ED and the number one reason people even make it to a level I center is bc they wore a seatbelt!

Do they save lives? In an airplane crash exceeds the forces almost always exceed human tolerances prob NOT, but in an MVA, you better believe they do and I'd love for you to post any evidence to the contrary.

Shit Huck where do you come up with this nonsense, and that's what it is.

Ever wonder why the mortality from an MCA is at least TEN TIMES higher than that of an MVA, and the morbidity is similarity astronomical in the former.



you didn't answer my question.
 
show me the proof PEDS are unhealthy. I'm not seeing anyone dieing from PEDS.

Dying from something and it being unhealthy are two separate issues. Something might not kill you but that doesn't make it healthy. PEDs increase BP, shutdown natural test production which itself is unhealthy or else TRT wouldn't be a medical option, cholesterol issues, kidney and liver issues, etc. But honestly the burden of proof is on you since you made he claim PEDs are healthy. Furthermore, I thought you were the one saying research is mostly bullshit. Are you now saying your accept research that proves you wrong bc that would be contradictory to what you've been saying in this thread from the beginning.

I didn't come up with the 60/40 chance of living with or with out a seat belt. that is the statistic. seat belt doesn't guarantee living after a crash or having a livable life after a crash, not wearing a seat belt doesn't guarantee death or bodily injury.

Where did I say seat belts guarantee you live after any accident or that your have a "liveable" life following an accident. I said seatbelts reduce the risk of injury and death.

So you seriously argue that a 50% chance of surviving a crash or reducing injuries from wearing a seat belt is a joke? What percentages would you think would make it less of a joke?

  1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Final regulatory impact analysis amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. Passenger car front seat occupant protection. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 1984. Publication no. DOT-HS-806-572. Available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/806572.pdf. Accessed September 8, 2014.
 

HuckingFuge

Member
Dying from something and it being unhealthy are two separate issues. Something might not kill you but that doesn't make it healthy. PEDs increase BP, shutdown natural test production which itself is unhealthy or else TRT wouldn't be a medical option, cholesterol issues, kidney and liver issues, etc. But honestly the burden of proof is on you since you made he claim PEDs are healthy. Furthermore, I thought you were the one saying research is mostly bullshit. Are you now saying your accept research that proves you wrong bc that would be contradictory to what you've been saying in this thread from the beginning.



Where did I say seat belts guarantee you live after any accident or that your have a "liveable" life following an accident. I said seatbelts reduce the risk of injury and death.

So you seriously argue that a 50% chance of surviving a crash or reducing injuries from wearing a seat belt is a joke? What percentages would you think would make it less of a joke?

  1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Final regulatory impact analysis amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. Passenger car front seat occupant protection. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 1984. Publication no. DOT-HS-806-572. Available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/806572.pdf. Accessed September 8, 2014.



people get those same health issues that have never touched PEDS. PEDS are not the problem.


I don't care if you believe I've research what I'm saying or not. I'm going to do to my body what ever I want. I'm sure you are going to do the same. I know I'll never take chemo or radiation therapy, cholesterol meds, BP meds, and I'm sure there is more just got my mind else were.
 
people get those same health issues that have never touched PEDS. PEDS are not the problem.

Bc there are numerous causative factors to many diseases. It's not just one thing. What do you say to the people who never had any health issues nor familial history of issues but do have them after running gear?


I don't care if you believe I've research what I'm saying or not. I'm going to do to my body what ever I want. I'm sure you are going to do the same. I know I'll never take chemo or radiation therapy, cholesterol meds, BP meds, and I'm sure there is more just got my mind else were.

Of course we are going to do what we want. You and I both and everyone else as well. That's not the point. The point is to educate so people can make INFORMED decisions regarding the potential benefits and consequences of their actions and avoid uninformed decisions. I'm all in favor of limiting governmental authority on what we can and cannot do to ourselves but I'm also for educating at the same time. I'm not trying to tell you what you have to take or not and I never will.
 

kawilt

Member
people get those same health issues that have never touched PEDS. PEDS are not the problem.


I don't care if you believe I've research what I'm saying or not. I'm going to do to my body what ever I want. I'm sure you are going to do the same. I know I'll never take chemo or radiation therapy, cholesterol meds, BP meds, and I'm sure there is more just got my mind else were.
HF...I agree in part with what your saying. But don't forget the adage "Never say never":)
 

HuckingFuge

Member
Bc there are numerous causative factors to many diseases. It's not just one thing. What do you say to the people who never had any health issues nor familial history of issues but do have them after running gear?




Of course we are going to do what we want. You and I both and everyone else as well. That's not the point. The point is to educate so people can make INFORMED decisions regarding the potential benefits and consequences of their actions and avoid uninformed decisions. I'm all in favor of limiting governmental authority on what we can and cannot do to ourselves but I'm also for educating at the same time. I'm not trying to tell you what you have to take or not and I never will.


that is my issue, too many lies being spread as fact from research that is flawed. how can we get informed when everyone has an agenda to push bad drugs on you? how do you know that the people that tried PEDS and had an issue wasn't going to have the issue anyway?
 

Dr JIM

Member
you didn't answer my question.

If your referring to me I did reply to your cholesterol question and was quite specific about the answer.

What do you believe a total cholesterol level of X is all that's necessary to determine whether HMG CoA drugs are indicated as therapy?
 
Last edited:

Sponsored Links

Latest posts

Top