On Fri, 19 May 2000 08:03:35 CDT, Justin Hasselman
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>It's hard to find a study that proves, one way or another, that insulin does
>or does not build muscle.  Many of these studies involve unmotivated
>trainees anyway.  But, when you take a bunch of bodybuilders (I'm talking
>about the freeeeks, not the naturals) and their lives revolve 100% around
>getting muscular, this group will always find out what
>methods/chemicals/drugs that build the most muscle b/c they are completely
>obsessed with achieving a certain physique.

This implies that the difference between proof and anecdote, or proof and
conventional wisdom is trivial.

For example, one of my biggest pet peeves is when people use populations to
prove a nutritional point "We know the mediterranean diet is best, because of
the positive health statistics of mediterranean people."   Aargh!

Anyone who has been to the mediterranean knows that the psychological way of
life there is entirely different from Munich, London, or Chicago - and that is
only one of many other factors, starting with weather and going on and on.

Similarly, we don't know that these bodybuilders wouldn't have results from
other factors, without the insulin.  Or maybe it is even some seemingly
"inactive" substance in the insulin delivery system.  And, of course, there is
always the placebo effect.... which seems more likely when you use the words
"unmotivated trainees" as if insulin should only increase protein uptake in
those who are motivated...


--
Cheers,

Ken
[log in to unmask]