I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you limit everyone to methods that absolutely, positively cannot have an alternate explanation. For example if they have a stubborn problem and have things in a steady condition (not in the process of dieting down anyway, or bulking, but are holding steady) and while making no other changes, see that after adding one thing different, see major improvement where they had had a stubborn problem, hell with that. Quit it and never use it again because there could have been another explanation, after all.
MUCH better to instead, regardless of seeing NO improvement (if such be the case) have a salivary test result that showed an intended change occurring between those two samples (a single one before and a single one after.)
Or if seeing an improvment in physique that one is pretty sure from track record wouldn’t have happened otherwise given everything else being kept the same as much as reasonably possible, it’s so much better to go by a pair of salivary tests not showing a change and therefore giving up. Good thing you posted!
That is a much more practical and more efficacious way to find what works for a person.
Yes, let’s stop ever suggesting methods that have no “information/clinical data to mitigate probability.” You’re absolutely right. In fact, this entire forum should be deleted from the board.
I also stand in wonder at your dismissal of my post based on statistical concerns followed immediately by your recommendation that one should rely on taking a before test and an after test, sample size = 1, and make one’s conclusions based on that rather than on physique change or lack thereof. Much better and more valid!