Originally posted by: alkemyst
Many true powerlifters and bodybuilders have shown what 'medicine' says works/doesn't work is quite different in their experiments. The main problem with 'scientific research' is other they can't quite get the exact type of subjects they need and try to extrapolate the data to it. It doesn't always hold true...the first seven years of my education was deep in biological science and chemistry esp focusing on what could help my performance in the gym.
My triglycerides were off the chart, but I was in perfect health. It wasn't until I started going to a D.O. that specialized in sports medicine and weight lifters that I was really getting proper advice/treatment for injury and my health.
MAYBE the findings of research are not generalizable to this population - but maybe they are. And if they aren't, what makes these people so different? Do they have some type of strange, off the charts biochemistry? I'm willing to bet that if there are differences, they aren't going to be different to the point that XYZ supplement "only" works on this tiny, tiny population. There ARE studies out there, although few in number, done on this population.
Bodybuilders' claims may be true, but that's all anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence x1000 doesn't mean anything - it's a logical fallacy. Also tie that in with the fact many of them have vested financial interests in saying XYZ product "works." If I say that dancing under a full moon cures cancer and my cancer vanishes, it doesn't mean that I'm right. Just the same, some claim that 2g/lb bodyweight in protein is necessary, but I'm betting it's something else - the caloric surplus, the increased availability of carbohydrate for exercise, something. But the protein is definitely not "OMFG anabolic."