Cy Wilson article

Jagin - Mode of action isn’t necessarily receptor specific. For example, creatine doesn’t have receptor sites. Best guess is that it works (and by works I mean FAST recovery) via it’s very strong anti-oxidant properties. Something specific within the muscle. The truth is, nobody knows the mode of action. Thus, the reluctancy to endorse it. If you can’t explain how it works (and that’s the next logical question after you assert it does work) you don’t look like such an expert. And that is what Brock, Delia and Cy are up against. Time and research will specify how. I’m just glad some people are bold enough to say it does work, screw the fact we don’t know how and go forward. The industry has swung TOO FAR toward letting research dictate what works and what doesn’t. I would’ve thought we would have reversed direction after OKG/HMB proved a flop in the real world but looked great on paper. What we have here is the reverse. Personally, I’ll take the opinion of a dozen seasoned lifters any day over a dozen scientific studies. I read once where dianabol didn’t look very promising in the literature. Funny though. You don’t see seasoned lifters debating it. They’ve got all the proof they need in the mirror, on the bar and in their journals. Same thing here, just to a lesser extent.