ExRx.net

The info on the top is right, the stuff on the bottom was thought to be right, but turned out not to be. So the stuff you posted at the bottom is simply outdated information.

Thanks for clearing that up. Is there any other outdated information on the main ExRx website I should know about? I'm especially interested in the weight training and diet and nutrition sections.

There's really no contradiction, just a difference of opinion. The loading phase is optional. Ironmaiden thinks it's not needed. Both are proven to work, the loading phase just makes it work faster. The cycling off for 1-2 weeks was a precaution, just in case there were issues with long term use, but no issues have ever been shown so there is no need for it.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

So it's a little from column A and a little from column B? I understand both work, but which is optimal? Surely when both 'opinions' read as facts (at least that's how I read them) one has to be more current and correct. If one states "It is generally recommended to take at least 1-2 weeks off from creatine supplementation in order to maintain a proper response mechanism in the body" and the other states "creatines effect on the body never changes so no need to cycle its use" they seem to be mutually exclusive facts (i.e. both cannot be correct - though I understand the latter is more of an absolute)... Ironman (who is obviously very knowledgeable) stated the website information was outdated as opposed to the forum post by ironmaiden708. In my uneducated eyes, I take the last thing I was told as being the most correct since it should be the most recent. Especially when it comes from such a pool of knowledge.

It makes me wonder if the website should be updated? I've obtained knowledge from so many sources, but I always thought of the ExRx website as the most trustworthy. I take and use BCAA's, Creatine, HMB, Ginseng and ZMA based on and dosed according to this website. Is the information about those supplements outdated and therefore I'm not using them optimally?

I am glad I asked the question, otherwise I would've probably used the old regime of cycling. I don't load the creatine because the website said it wasn't necessary (and I get confused easily). I just want to be clear that I'm not trying to create and argument or put down this fantastic resource - it is a genuine thirst for knowledge. I know some might think it should be up to myself to try and determine the facts based on my own research, but to me that seems to be reinventing the wheel, and would require more effort than I am able to give, and I could not find a better answer than what I think this website and forum members can give. Thanks for your patience.

[/quote]Is there any proof or research evidence offered for this statement? (I have a very slow connection, and don't want to wait for the site to load so I can see for myself). I don't think so. Not even any logic for it.

"It is generally recommended" usually can be read, "I heard this somewhere and it sounded good to me". I've read a bit about creatine, and have never seen any evidence for cycling.

Beyond that, why should there be agreement between a statement by a member of the forum and the main site? There's no more reason that Ironmaiden should agree with something there than that I should or that you should. The site owner doesn't post in the forum. I don't have any idea if he reads it or not. If you have a suggestion for a change in the site, make it to him. His name is James, and there are links on the site for "contact us" or some such.

_________________
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan

The web site uses the wording "It is generally recommended..." and that's true. Whether it's been overtaken by new research, I can't say.

I'm sure the data on the web site is as accurate as possible on the day it was written, and was reviewed by professionals at the time. From time to time different sections have been rewritten but it would be a big job to review every bit of information out there and this is a free site so thake it as what it is. The information on the forum is not reviewed by professionals, at least not formally. It is written by amateurs, in some cases, very talented amateurs, but amateurs never the less. It includes opinions and interpretations that may not be consistant, and lack of a correction of information is not concurrance.

In my opinion, ExRx is one of the best free sites in the exercise field and this forum has some of the best commentators in the field. It's still not perfect so it requires a certain amount of disernment on the part of the reader as does any source of information.

Edit: Written while JungleDoc was posting. Sorry for the duplication.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

Well, I posted without realizing that there was another page with a bunch of comments that I hadn't seen yet, so I'm sorry, too for any duplication!

_________________
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan

The site does quote several studies, so you will have to read it for yourself, otherwise I would think I would have to copy it and its sources which would have to take me longer than you loading the site. You might already know of the studies the article refers to.

I didn't say there would have to be agreement between the site and the forum, only that since both statements seem to be mutually exclusive, they can't both be right. This isn't quantum physics where both answers, though different, can be true at the same time. I wasn't trying to start an argument about anything. If you read what I said, both sources seem to be very knowledgeable so I was wondering which was correct? (i.e. is the statement by Joel and Joshua Seedman more correct or the statement by ironmaiden708) That has been answered by Ironman. Anything further will just return me to a state of confusion.

It seemed like a logical and fair question, which led onto questions regarding the other supplements listed and the website. The statement 'It makes me wonder if the website should be updated? ' was simply me thinking out loud, not trying to start a movement or another discussion that would lead off topic and in hindsight I should have only responded to Ironman, but I was hoping if he didn't answer my follow-up question, someone would. As quoted below:

.

This is what I was referring to in my post above. Yes, some is certainly out of date. For anyone to definitely determine what that is would require a tremendous effort and the wisdom of Solomon.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

Thanks. I guess like everything, I'm meant to take it with a grain of salt. If everything on the website was correct, there would be no need for other websites or even much need for discussion.

I think I understand now. ExRx will still be my bible though, since it saves so much effort on my part.

The web site is going to be updated in various ways, including information and higher quality videos. The information on creatine was from the 90s and is still right IF you are going to cycle it. They didn't know if long term continuous use was safe then. We know that now though.

Make a new thread if you want to talk about this.