Ya I can’t name one person that likes Gil. Maybe in real life he’s different. But as far as how he comes across on the internet, can’t think of one person that enjoys his personality/ the way he interacts with others/ the way he delivers information
You basically summed up my thoughts tho. First off, I’m not gonna put too many of my eggs in any study done on rats. We’re not rats lol. Plus I don’t ever trust the dosage conversions that they use in these rat studies. I don’t think it’s possible to properly convert a dosage given to a rat, to a similar dosage given to a human. And vice versa. Doesn’t seem like they ever get the weight conversions correct, between a human and a rat, and even if they did get that perfect, I just don’t trust that the same dosage, per kg of bodyweight, would effect both a rat and a human the same.
and I just don’t put any weight really into studies assessing the cardiovascular effects of using a nandrolone solo protocol. Due to what u mentioned. The fact that nandrolone alone, in therapeutic dosages, will not produce enough E2 to give the cardiovascular protection that healthy E2 levels offer. So between this low E2 issue, not knowing if the dosage conversion per kg of body weight matches up properly or not, and the fact that the study was done on rats, and not humans, basically makes it a completely useless study to extrapolate any applicable data from, imo
the fact that people like Gil pedal data from crap studies like this like it’s gospel, strictly because it’s a “study” drives me nuts! Because most people think that as long as the info is coming from a study, it has to be 100% accurate, and not debatable. So when people pedal data from crap studies like this, and it then gets repeated by others, it eventually just becomes “common knowledge” on the subject, and then it becomes a matter of needing solid data to refute ”facts” that are complete bullsh*t to begin with.
Same thing happens with diet all the time. Red meat and pastured egg yolks are two of the healthiest foods a human can consume. But since most people have been taught that they are two of the worst offenders, when it comes to the cardiovascular system, most of their lives, it becomes a matter of someone needing proof, nowadays, to convince anyone otherwise, when the people saying that they are both bad for us, and will give someone a cardiovascular event in not time if they regularly consume them, should be the ones that have to prove why they’re actually as bad as they say they are.
basically I’m not gonna believe that something is the case until I see a solid study done on it, that’s not corrupt or flawed. Until I see that study showing that nandrolone, in therapeutic dosages (1mg-100mg/ week for a male) used along with another compound that allows for the person to have E2 levels in a healthy range, can harm the cardiovascular system, I’m not gonna believe that it does, just because of what other people have extrapolated from flawed studies.