BigLarry Posted June 12, 2018 Report Share Posted June 12, 2018 Maybe it is too late for this at this stage of the game but seeing still there are new folks joining the game figured it might be of help somehow. There are old nutrition companies around along with the new ones offering 160Q products but there has always been this question as to which one is of better quality if actually any, so I went ahead and test some of the most known ones. and here are the results in a table. Note: - All the tests were done on one fighter. - Tests were done with Reduce Energy Loss Supplements. - Cardio was at 12 throughout the whole test. Conclusion: - Apparently any product over 159Q has more or less the same effect. - The product quality differences are so little that can easily be overlooked, we can consider all of them the same quality wise. - 170S Super Energy Drink seems not to be that super, I knew it was broken but I thought it was fixed, well it has n't. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2018 Report Share Posted June 12, 2018 Can the results be considered accurate without stamina levels being the same for each test ?? Its great to see someone put the effort in to find out but not sure its fair to each company Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsquirrel Posted June 12, 2018 Report Share Posted June 12, 2018 Big for the science. What order did you test them in? Same as in the table? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigLarry Posted June 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2018 Can the results be considered accurate without stamina levels being the same for each test ?? Its great to see someone put the effort in to find out but not sure its fair to each company I don't see any inaccuracy in the test, same fighter over a period of 2 to 3 weeks with same cardio value at 12 throughout the whole test, and thanks to remind me, just added it to the note. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigLarry Posted June 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2018 Big for the science. What order did you test them in? Same as in the table? yeah more or less, I did n't sort them out in the table, tried to have them back to back but well sometimes forgot to change the supp so had to go for next training session. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2018 Report Share Posted June 12, 2018 I don't see any inaccuracy in the test, same fighter over a period of 2 to 3 weeks with same cardio value at 12 throughout the whole test, and thanks to remind me, just added it to the note. Using the same fighter is half the battle but if he has different stamina levels for each test then you dont get 100% accuracy, you should have tested each product on full stamina and it would have produced clear results Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigLarry Posted June 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2018 Using the same fighter is half the battle but if he has different stamina levels for each test then you dont get 100% accuracy, you should have tested each product on full stamina and it would have produced clear resultsYou mean energy level, but why do you think energy level affects the amount of energy loss?I think it does not affect it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsquirrel Posted June 12, 2018 Report Share Posted June 12, 2018 He is talking about the Conditioning physical stat which could have impact on this since any training will increase it if only ever so slightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f2fkoh Posted June 12, 2018 Report Share Posted June 12, 2018 Zenith's reduced energy loss is just straight up cocaine, with a little bit of tree bark for color. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsquirrel Posted June 12, 2018 Report Share Posted June 12, 2018 Zenith's reduced energy loss is just straight up cocaine, with a little bit of tree bark for color. That is why my guy has been doing so well since you sponsored him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigLarry Posted June 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2018 He is talking about the Conditioning physical stat which could have impact on this since any training will increase it if only ever so slightly. And that s why I explained before that cardio was at 12 throughout the whole test, that potential incremental change of cardio does not affect the test at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWonder Posted June 12, 2018 Report Share Posted June 12, 2018 Thank you for sharing this it will be usefull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjrfin Posted June 13, 2018 Report Share Posted June 13, 2018 And that s why I explained before that cardio was at 12 throughout the whole test, that potential incremental change of cardio does not affect the test at all. You do know that 12 can be anything between 110 and 119.95, right ? All 12's aren't equal. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigLarry Posted June 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2018 You do know that 12 can be anything between 110 and 119.95, right ? All 12's aren't equal. If I had n't known that I would n't have done this test at all, that s why I call it incremental change. A fighter's caonditioning won't go up from 110 to 119 while training only Striking Defense or Agility for 2 weeks. Just think how mathematics and calculations might work, you would realize that even gaining 10 points out of 150 in cardio will not effect this test so much that you can call it unreliable, let alone when cardio stays almost the same. (There s inspect element in browsers to check that out in skill snapshot) Look at those results, some of them were done 2 or 3 days apart, how much cardio could change in 3 days to affect the result? but if anyone thinks it works any differently, they can go ahead and test the same products and prove it wrong. I'd be very happy to see and accept that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2018 Report Share Posted June 13, 2018 Any differences of any kind makes this unreliable and anyone with common sense can see that, you have varying stamina levels for each product and the potential for cardio gains from test 1-12.......sorry you wasted all that time and cant admit any fault in your methods 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigLarry Posted June 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2018 Any differences of any kind makes this unreliable and anyone with common sense can see that, you have varying stamina levels for each product and the potential for cardio gains from test 1-12.......sorry you wasted all that time and cant admit any fault in your methods Not any common sense, your common sense, don't generalize please. Also not an difference of any kind make this test unreliable otherwise all the tests in the world were considered unreliable, there is a reason why in tests (+- incremental changes) exist. But you are entitled to your own opinion. So lets leave that up to people's common sense and mathematical skills to analyze. Thanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2018 Report Share Posted June 13, 2018 You seem to be confusing the words "opinion" and "fact" just to make your test seem accurate, the one and only difference thats acceptable is the product you are testing..........your results are null and void so just accept it and run the test properly 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigLarry Posted June 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2018 You seem to be confusing the words "opinion" and "fact" just to make your test seem accurate, the one and only difference thats acceptable is the product you are testing..........your results are null and void so just accept it and run the test properly Today millions of people still think world is flat it s a 'fact' for them, it s an 'opinion' for others, so lets not go there man. you think and believe it s different, go ahead and test them yourself and comeback with results. otherwise leave it up to folks please. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsquirrel Posted June 13, 2018 Report Share Posted June 13, 2018 Fact is there is an effect from different stamina levels, but my common sense says it is small enough to be negligible as BigLarry says. Just because a test is not perfect it is not worthless, just need to be aware of what margin of error you have in your results. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2018 Report Share Posted June 13, 2018 Today millions of people still think world is flat it s a 'fact' for them, it s an 'opinion' for others, so lets not go there man. you think and believe it s different, go ahead and test them yourself and comeback with results. otherwise leave it up to folks please. What the hell has a bunch of retards thinking the world is flat got to do with this ?? Sometimes in life trying to show your intelligence has the complete opposite effect 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigLarry Posted June 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2018 Fact is there is an effect from different stamina levels, but my common sense says it is small enough to be negligible as BigLarry says. Just because a test is not perfect it is not worthless, just need to be aware of what margin of error you have in your results. I could n't have said it better, exactly my point man, I never said it s perfect, I even chose my wordings in a conclusion in a way to show that there s a marginal error it can be even seen in the test results, but it s so small that can be neglected. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigLarry Posted June 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2018 What the hell has a bunch of retards thinking the world is flat got to do with this ?? Sometimes in life trying to show your intelligence has the complete opposite effect read your own post about Opinion and Fact and you ll have your answer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2018 Report Share Posted June 13, 2018 I could n't have said it better, exactly my point man, I never said it s perfect, I even chose my wordings in a conclusion in a way to show that there s a marginal error it can be even seen in the test results, but it s so small that can be neglected. You said nothing about marginal error in your conclusion and are now just inventing things to back yourself up.........quit while youre behind 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigLarry Posted June 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2018 You said nothing about marginal error in your conclusion and are now just inventing things to back yourself up.........quit while youre behind behind what exactly? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2018 Report Share Posted June 13, 2018 behind what exactly? Normal cognitive function......the times......your friends education level Take your pick "scientist" 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.