As a wise mine once saidOriginally Posted by JAD
"Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day"
As a wise mine once said
"Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day"
Whether you think you can or you can't, you're probably right.
90 seconds? Ooooh, to be 21 again.
--Jason--
I was trying to give @LOKNLOD the benefit of the doubt. Some guys don’t get better with age.90 seconds? Ooooh, to be 21 again.
Last edited by RevolverRob; 01-16-2019 at 08:25 PM.
Yeah, they don't do anything
I bet they work, it’s that the groups and people that using the product are going to great length for imperceptible c changes. At 96mph a batter has to be accurate within about .00055 seconds, that's about how long it takes the ball to move one inch. If I can take a pro ball player, stimulate his brain and give him .0001 improvement in perception and reaction times, I've given him a massive improvement in performance. I don’t know what the actual results would be but anything less than those folks at the bounds of human performance will get any meaningful results.
We often get off track worrying about what top level performers do to get a microscopic edge on the competition, when we should looking at what he did when he was at our level.
Whether you think you can or you can't, you're probably right.
I have some magnetic copper wellness bracelets to sell here. And some glasses. Mods, hook me up as a vendor.
I bet they 100% don't even remotely do jack shit, personally. It's a pretty safe bet.
Last edited by Peally; 01-16-2019 at 10:17 PM.
Semper Gumby, Always Flexible
I just woke up and am uncaffeinated, but briefly, the principal reason I am skeptical is that most of the peer-reviewed studies they have on their website are all a little weak. Sure, there are a lot of them, some of them are even in good journals + were done out of decent universities. It's also worth mentioning that brain stimulation (principally, deep brain stimulation) as a concept does see clinical use, so I do believe that the basic principles behind tDCS may have merit.
However, generally speaking, there is a huge false positive bias in biomedical literature. As an example, one of the the studies they cite (Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Modulates Neuronal Activity and Learning in Pilot Training) is essentially negative but is published as if it were a positive result.
In another test, they authors report a 23% difference in tCDS vs placebo, but numerically this amounts to 12.61 (± 4.65 min) and 10.21 (± 3.47) min respectively. Those numbers in parenthesis are standard deviations, which can be interpreted as 2/3rds of participants in each group had scores between 7.96-17.26min (tCDS) and 6.74-13.68 min, respectively. When your standard deviation is almost twice your purported numerical improvement (4.65min vs 2.40 min) I think you need to be cautious about how powerful of an effect this really is.
So, long story short, I agree basically that you might be right in that this produces tiny effects that are important only to the most elite competitors. However, given the relative volume and quantity of the evidence for this, I don't think this can be stated with total confidence. If you have the money and are curious, sure, why not - I just wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Are they from the shock therapy lab of a Scientologist?
Believe it or not, electroconvulsive therapy actually does work very well for severe refractory depression, among other things. Dr Sherwin Nuland did a very moving TED talk on his personal experiences with depression & ECT
Reply With Quote