>his "advice" is not from a peer-reviewed paper
>2016
>believing the "peer reviewed" Jew myth.
Shig
>>36585895
Yeah, well my gains are peer reviewed. Stay studyin'.
you talk like someone with a peer-reviewed anus, m8
>>36585895
>thinking all the worth while advice is peer reviewed
>being this ignit'
But how many of those scientists even lift?
>His "peer-reviewed" paper hasn't been replicated
bait aside it's unbelievable some people really are that autistic and will prefer irrelevant and retarded studies rather than advice from people with experience. they never make gains until they start listening but it's just fascinating
>>36586374
>people really are that autistic and will prefer irrelevant and retarded studies rather than advice from people with experience
>bait aside
>>36585895
>implying the methodology doesn't predate the research
>implying science isn't playing catch up
>>36585895
When you seek info, you look for the highest quality of proof available, the highest being Systematic reviews compiling numerous Randomized Controlled Trials (being the second highest).
Not all RCT are done with the same rigor and peer reviews serve to tell which trials have a good methodology and which don't.
That being said if your study hasn't been peer reviewed does NOT mean it has bad methodology and the conclusions are not solid. That can only be said peer-reviewed papers where the reviewers find major and minor flaws.
Also, there are no randomized controlled trials saying that a parachute can save your life if you jump out of a plane, does that mean you won't use one?
