Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Members Blogs
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nationalist
Health
The Bio Hacking Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tiger" data-source="post: 131538" data-attributes="member: 353"><p>Fishy, you began this exchange by calling what <strong>Professor Andrew Huberman</strong>—a tenured neuroscientist at <em>Stanford</em> —was saying about creatine <em>“probably bullshit.”</em></p><p></p><p>That was your opening move: dismissive, zero citations, and a puffed-up anecdote about your gym days.</p><p></p><p>Now, several peer-reviewed studies and a bit of pushback later, you’ve pivoted to a lecture on academic standards, the finer points of Raven’s Matrices, and a sudden reverence for nuance and experimental design. Cute, but wrong.</p><p></p><p>Let’s set the record straight:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Reproducibility</strong> absolutely <em>does</em> mean what I think it does—it refers to the successful repetition of results across independent studies. And guess what? The cognitive benefits of creatine have been <strong>replicated</strong> across <em>dozens</em> of experiments over two decades—across different populations, using different testing models. That’s not just “one old paper,” that’s a <strong>body of literature</strong>.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The idea that “old = invalid” is undergraduate-tier thinking. Foundational studies are cited not because of their age but because they hold up under scrutiny. The Rae et al. study (2003) you’re hand-waving away has been cited <strong>hundreds of times</strong> and <strong>corroborated in</strong> subsequent trials, like:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Avgerinos et al., 2018</strong> – meta-analysis, positive cognitive effects across age groups.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>McMorris et al., 2007 & 2010</strong> – benefits to working memory and reaction time under stress and sleep deprivation.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Allen et al., 2012</strong> – confirmed creatine’s role in enhancing oxygen utilization in the brain.</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">As for RPM and your foray into the autism spectrum—yes, pattern recognition is one subset of intelligence. No, the presence of outliers doesn’t invalidate the average findings. Studies control for this. If you’ve got a <strong>statistical critique</strong>, cite it. Otherwise, you’re just scattering red herrings like confetti.</li> </ol><p>As for the "<em>take it up with the Academy" line</em>? - You don’t get to lean on the authority of institutions <strong>after dismissing one of the top neuroscientists in the world as a snake oil peddler</strong>. Either science matters, or it doesn’t. Pick a lane.</p><p></p><p>What you are doing is simply a lot of armchair contrarianism dressed up in half-digested pop science. But underneath the gloss, the reality remains unchanged:</p><p></p><p><strong>Creatine is one of the most well-researched, safe, and <em>cognitively beneficial</em> supplements available today</strong>, with data to back it far beyond your dated locker room anecdotes.</p><p></p><p>Thanks for the bro-science TED Talk, though.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tiger, post: 131538, member: 353"] Fishy, you began this exchange by calling what [B]Professor Andrew Huberman[/B]—a tenured neuroscientist at [I]Stanford[/I] —was saying about creatine [I]“probably bullshit.”[/I] That was your opening move: dismissive, zero citations, and a puffed-up anecdote about your gym days. Now, several peer-reviewed studies and a bit of pushback later, you’ve pivoted to a lecture on academic standards, the finer points of Raven’s Matrices, and a sudden reverence for nuance and experimental design. Cute, but wrong. Let’s set the record straight: [LIST=1] [*][B]Reproducibility[/B] absolutely [I]does[/I] mean what I think it does—it refers to the successful repetition of results across independent studies. And guess what? The cognitive benefits of creatine have been [B]replicated[/B] across [I]dozens[/I] of experiments over two decades—across different populations, using different testing models. That’s not just “one old paper,” that’s a [B]body of literature[/B]. [*]The idea that “old = invalid” is undergraduate-tier thinking. Foundational studies are cited not because of their age but because they hold up under scrutiny. The Rae et al. study (2003) you’re hand-waving away has been cited [B]hundreds of times[/B] and [B]corroborated in[/B] subsequent trials, like: [LIST] [*][B]Avgerinos et al., 2018[/B] – meta-analysis, positive cognitive effects across age groups. [*][B]McMorris et al., 2007 & 2010[/B] – benefits to working memory and reaction time under stress and sleep deprivation. [*][B]Allen et al., 2012[/B] – confirmed creatine’s role in enhancing oxygen utilization in the brain. [/LIST] [*]As for RPM and your foray into the autism spectrum—yes, pattern recognition is one subset of intelligence. No, the presence of outliers doesn’t invalidate the average findings. Studies control for this. If you’ve got a [B]statistical critique[/B], cite it. Otherwise, you’re just scattering red herrings like confetti. [/LIST] As for the "[I]take it up with the Academy" line[/I]? - You don’t get to lean on the authority of institutions [B]after dismissing one of the top neuroscientists in the world as a snake oil peddler[/B]. Either science matters, or it doesn’t. Pick a lane. What you are doing is simply a lot of armchair contrarianism dressed up in half-digested pop science. But underneath the gloss, the reality remains unchanged: [B]Creatine is one of the most well-researched, safe, and [I]cognitively beneficial[/I] supplements available today[/B], with data to back it far beyond your dated locker room anecdotes. Thanks for the bro-science TED Talk, though. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Does Doxxie know his real father.
Post reply
Latest Threads
Is Irish Literature inherently Left-Wing?
Started by céline
Today at 1:58 PM
Replies: 0
Ireland
Ideas to broaden the appeal of Sarsfields and get it noticed.
Started by Anderson
Thursday at 5:52 PM
Replies: 14
Public Chat and Announcements
The Tiger Challenge
Started by AN2
Wednesday at 2:03 PM
Replies: 53
Public Chat and Announcements
B
THE EFFECT ON IRELAND OF THE IMPENDING COLLAPSE OF THE UK ECONOMY.
Started by BIG FAT HOOR
Tuesday at 6:41 PM
Replies: 50
Economy
Do you feel the change?
Started by Anderson
Monday at 4:41 PM
Replies: 3
Nationalist Politics
Popular Threads
Ukraine.
Started by Declan
Feb 21, 2022
Replies: 15K
World at War
US Politics.
Started by jpc
Nov 7, 2022
Replies: 6K
USA
Mass Migration to Ireland & Europe
Started by Anderson
Feb 26, 2023
Replies: 5K
Nationalist Politics
C
🦠 Covid 19 Vaccine Thread 💉
Started by Charlene
Sep 14, 2021
Replies: 3K
Health
General Chat in The Marcus Lounge.
Started by Declan
Dec 30, 2024
Replies: 3K
Public Chat and Announcements
The Climate Change scam
Started by Anderson
Jul 29, 2022
Replies: 2K
Climate Change
Forums
Nationalist
Health
The Bio Hacking Thread
Top
Bottom