Arnold said:
My exact wording was "could be seen as being biased", that is NOT admitting they're biased
cool - either way you get that a <potentially> biased link is crap though, I'm sure. Even if there's likely to be bias, there'd be no reason for me to click and waste my time figuring it out y'know?
Arnold said:
I'm not on about piracetam, Cthultu is your man.
ya - thought you and I were on about "95% of supplements", and homeopathics, no? Well, on to them then!!
of your study on homeopathy, it, well, doesn't sway me in any way:
STUDY said:
CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.
So it shows, yeah, sometimes there can be benefit. However, we already know that simple sugar placebos can provide benefit. What we need, and *you* need to show, is that homeopathic remedies beat out sugar pill placebos in a respectable/controlled study, hell at least a couple of them. Not an analysis of some studies that doesn't even come to the conclusion they're better than sugar pills (the conclusion states the evidence is positive - that is *expected* even with sugar pills, show me how they out-perform sugar placebos and we're in business then).
Arnold said:
Now remind me where I said that there was science behind it?
End of the day mood supplements (this was the initial topic) can help if you need them.
(initial topic was meant as a sales tactic, imo of course, for nootropics on a daily regimen, *not* herbal end of day mood supplements, although they're fair game enough)
Your study shows kava kava works - I never said anything to the contrary. I'd also never talk shit about valerian, yohimbine, ephedrine, etc. What I'm arguing against is both homeopathy in general, and nootropics' benefits in normal, healthy adults. I know herbs are good and use some myself, that's *not* what the disagreement is about, I'm sorry about the confusion because you went and found studies showing boosts from herbs, but I never called that class as a whole out - while some herbs can be noots, not all are, and kava kava certainly is not.
Arnold said:
Which is a bit different then "95% dont' work", couldn't have summed it better then they have.
That study in no way, shape, or form disputed my "95% or more are garbage/don't work" claim.
First off, the majority of what they discussed weren't even true supplements anyways - they were amino acids and fatty acids, which are part of your normal intake (although if you were deficient, and corrected it through a supplementation, that would help you - but surely that's not your stance here, correcting a previous deficiency for gain..).
But either way that spoke *nothing* of percentages of supplements in total, and even the wording of it seemed quite 'unsure', I mean I'm seeing "Although evidence for the use of vitamins and amino acids as sole agents for psychiatric symptoms is not strong", "may have mood-stabilizing effects", "More research should be conducted on these", etc - that doesn't really refute my claim in the least (that most suck and are worthless), it basically just says there may be hope, at least for some of them.
In the future, if you guys are gonna throw a study to support a claim, plz highlight which part supported you so I don't gotta read a whole abstract of something that wasn't even that relevant..