On your hypertrophy hypothesis post
what is the little symbol at the beginning of most of the equations? It starts on the 3rd one down and continues at the very start

I'm good at math and have taken plenty of classes and have no idea. And I asked people that have taken Calc I & II and Physics I & II with all As and none of them had any idea what that symbol was.

∂?
partial deriv. symbol by de Condorcet. same as saying "change in" or using "delta"

Ohh, I wish you would have just used the symbol for delta then hahaha
appreciate it, now I can actually delve into the post

it's a very expressional hypothesis, it doesn't use anything concrete and relies on many weak arguments (inb4 lol weak argument- a weak argument in math actually means a very strong one, basis-wise).
but since 2 top experts so far managed only to nitpick at its variance that can be easily regulated in confidence levels, and that it doesn't use any data yet (that can also be amended), i'd say i have a pretty strong base to start developing them from.

if you (or anyone else) have a lot of articles/research studies that gauge hundreds to thousands of test subjects in terms of impact of intensity or frequency or volume on hypertrophic gains, let me know. i could use it to start changing the symbols into actual numerics and build a real thesis, afterwhich i could even divide it into algebraic sub-systems if the variance is too great (ppl who react to more intensity far more than those who react to frequency, for instace) and correlate each sub system to its own segment of test subjects.

it's a bit (ok a lot) of work, but it can turn global if done properly.

One thing that comes to mind (not sure if it completely fits), is this - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17326698
I used to have the entire paper bookmarked, and I can't find the entire thing now maybe you'll have better luck with that
and well this: http://training.fitness.com/weight-training/influence-frequency-intensity-volume-mode-muscle-hypertrophy-27267.html

has two summaries from the entire paper from I believe Lyle and Dr. Winnett

Here's an article though (not related to the above), just contributing
http://biologie.univ-mrs.fr/upload/p239/Art_4_TD_M1.pdf
I've been researching nootropics lately, so yeah.

Those are great. I need the actual data though, and that's in the paper studies themselves.

Alan didn't account for you not being dead set on those limits I'm sure lol.

what baffles me is him caring for variance. not just him either, mike zourdos said the same thing. it's easy to build statistical alpha confidence level of 95% and see the T-margin. if it's enormous, we can segment the groups and find a much smaller variance, which would lead to different coefficients on said equations. that's all.

but i get where they're both coming from. i just need a big enough test group to account for the variance. that'll take a few tens of thousands, but the studies are out there already. it's just piecing them together that's going to take time, and building a plausible distribution around them.

Creatine post-workout > pre-workout
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23919405

"Based on the magnitude inferences it appears that consuming creatine immediately post-workout is superior to pre-workout vis a vis body composition and strength."

However, the differences are probably not very noticable, I would assume.

Edit: yes, I am at school

This post was edited by tommyd323 on Dec 16 2013 12:39pm