- This topic has 59 voices and 180 replies.
-
Posts
-
I don't think it's a scam. marketing strategy? Absolutely. Lol he has me and everyone else posting about wanting it. I'm sure it will be available to the general public shortly!
I wouldn’t be surprised if no one here, (his most dedicated followers) go a copy.It just looks like a cheap scam and quick money ploy.If he can produce actual scientific studies that are not on rat or for diabetics I'll be surprised.
Did you write that same sentence on the Lyle McDonald forums?
Are you stocking me?I wanted to make sure it was real and not Bro-science.
I wouldn’t be surprised if no one here, (his most dedicated followers) go a copy.It just looks like a cheap scam and quick money ploy.If he can produce actual scientific studies that are not on rat or for diabetics I'll be surprised.
Did you write that same sentence on the Lyle McDonald forums?
Are you stocking me?I wanted to make sure it was real and not Bro-science.
Stocking? No squire. I was googling around yesterday to see if anyone had a breakdown of the information. Your post in the Lyle Mcdonald forums came up.
scam^^ nomarketing ploy possibly, but regardless itll work, cant get mad at a man trying to make his living right?
Exactly. All the more power to him.It will come out an as ebook eventually. This "teaser" is a brilliant move on his part, tells me Kiefer has some awfully good people advising him.CNS is already working for me, have invested in CBL as well. All that matters is that this stuff works.
I'm a bit disappointed in Kiefer for doing this. It's just unprofessional.Oh and by the way, there is nothing wrong citing studies that use animal and diabetic subjects. The rats are used because the experiments are too dangerous for humans and diabetic studies led to the discovery of GLUT4 translocation from exercise.
is the ace k in the gum even a significant amount to worry about it? especially if your cutting a 4mg piece in half i would think its not too big a concern right?
is the ace k in the gum even a significant amount to worry about it? especially if your cutting a 4mg piece in half i would think its not too big a concern right?
Don't worry about it.
i dont lol i just saw and see people worrying about minuscule amounts all the time
A lot of people here worry about things that don't matter. Don't be one of them.
i wont lol, seems like a lot of people make it harder than it needs to be, i did notice that all other good nicotine info has been taken off the site though, and the nicotine video has some corny music playing over the other audio lol
I'm a bit disappointed in Kiefer for doing this. It's just unprofessional.Oh and by the way, there is nothing wrong citing studies that use animal and diabetic subjects. The rats are used because the experiments are too dangerous for humans and diabetic studies led to the discovery of GLUT4 translocation from exercise.
I understand what your saying BUT, rats are not human and rat physiology is not even close to human. So if your relying on rat studies you might as well throw them out their useless.Also, studies on diabetics only go so far when you try and use them on someone that is not diabetic, so if your not diabetic your taking a chance on just spinning your wheels because it might not work because diabetics metabolisms are broken, you want studies on healthy people not sick people.
I'm a bit disappointed in Kiefer for doing this. It's just unprofessional.Oh and by the way, there is nothing wrong citing studies that use animal and diabetic subjects. The rats are used because the experiments are too dangerous for humans and diabetic studies led to the discovery of GLUT4 translocation from exercise.
I understand what your saying BUT, rats are not human and rat physiology is not even close to human. So if your relying on rat studies you might as well throw them out their useless.Also, studies on diabetics only go so far when you try and use them on someone that is not diabetic, so if your not diabetic your taking a chance on just spinning your wheels because it might not work because diabetics metabolisms are broken, you want studies on healthy people not sick people.
I think ibob's point is that of course we WANT studies done on people like us, but those studies generally aren't done. So therefore, we use what we can to make educated extrapolations for the human body.It's just like I might WANT to drive an Aston Martin everyday, but it's not possible, so instead I drive my F150. May not do the exact same things, but I'm hoping that it'll still serve the same basic functions.You're saying you might as well throw out the studies done on rats because the're useless, but you're asking for human trials that likely don't exist because of safety precautions. So you're essentially saying lets just ignore the topic all together.
I'm a bit disappointed in Kiefer for doing this. It's just unprofessional.Oh and by the way, there is nothing wrong citing studies that use animal and diabetic subjects. The rats are used because the experiments are too dangerous for humans and diabetic studies led to the discovery of GLUT4 translocation from exercise.
I understand what your saying BUT, rats are not human and rat physiology is not even close to human. So if your relying on rat studies you might as well throw them out their useless.Also, studies on diabetics only go so far when you try and use them on someone that is not diabetic, so if your not diabetic your taking a chance on just spinning your wheels because it might not work because diabetics metabolisms are broken, you want studies on healthy people not sick people.
I think ibob's point is that of course we WANT studies done on people like us, but those studies generally aren't done. So therefore, we use what we can to make educated extrapolations for the human body.It's just like I might WANT to drive an Aston Martin everyday, but it's not possible, so instead I drive my F150. May not do the exact same things, but I'm hoping that it'll still serve the same basic functions.You're saying you might as well throw out the studies done on rats because their useless, but you're asking for human trials that likely don't exist because of safety precautions. So you're essentially saying lets just ignore the topic all together.
Exactly. Whenever you are designing an experiment you are always using a model of a system because it is impossible to replicate the system entirely. Animal models are not useless and you can draw conclusions and derive applications for human use. What is required is for the researcher to understand when it's appropriate to draw those conclusions. Also, unless you read the entire study, not just the abstract, you have no right to criticize Kiefers interpretation of the results.
I'm on board to try this for the month of September. Just bought some Nicotine on Amazon. September will be my 6th month on CNS so I should be able to get a good gauge on how effective it is since I have 5 months of experience on the diet.
Does anyone know if there is any/much difference in nicotine absorption between a 2mg gum or a 2mg lozenge? Or is is just a matter of personal preference of how to ingest it? This is an interesting study seemingly pointing to lozenges over gum:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hbrc/tobacco/pubs/Nicotine%20absorption%20from%20replacement%20products_51.pdf
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.