Men's Health Magazine, BS!
Tom Hanc
issues ago they had something like "8 great myths", and one of them is
that Ginkgo provides any benefits (other than to people with
established neurodegenerative conditions). The gist of it is that they
hardcore dissed it because of a recent study that showed no memory
improvement. So what's my beef? The study lasted 6 weeks. So what
you say. To my knowledge, almost all (if not all) of the prior
research on both animals and humans demonstrated significant benefits
after SEVERAL MONTHS of use. The purported benefits are two-fold:
decreased free radical damage in the brain (provided by the Flavone
Glycosides) and increased peripheral blood flow (provided by the
Terpene Lactones). You don't need a PhD to know that both of these
particular effects are unlikely to provide measurable benefits in the
short run. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can take a very long time for
(significant) free radical damage to become apparent (at least on the
large scale. I'm sure it can be measured on the small scale rather
quickly); we are talking about memory here! Also, I'm curious if the
Ginkgo used in this study was controlled for its active ingredients.
Finally, I would add that these same researchers would dismiss a study
showing that lowcarb diets pose little/no health consequences if it
only lasted six weeks. They need to make up their minds.
PS---I'm NOT saying the Ginkgo is magic. I AM saying that it shouldn't
be so harshly dismissed based on this particular study.
Throckmorton
as editor a few years ago.
Tom Hanc
> "Men's Health" has been nothing but bullshit since David Zinczenko took over
> as editor a few years ago.
I should point out that I do NOT look to Men's Health for my
nutrition/training advice, although truthfully, it's not ALL terrible.
But when you get a gift subscription, hey...
PS---I'm still going to send a letter/email regarding the ridiculous
evaluation of Ginkgo.
-Tom
Darryl Licke
It seems like with each issue many of the movements that I learn about on
the net or lifting schemes end up in their pages. Of course that very well
could mean I'm just as behind as they are. But diet wise they are pretty
much dead on. Its much less-Cosmopolitan than you think.
And in regards to the article...look it up on medline. See if it exists.
They always give enough information to find the articles that are
published....just look it up.
"Tom Hanc" <summer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:389f9678.03061...@posting.google.com...
Phil
> I disagree. I think in the past year its become much more legit and factual.
> It seems like with each issue many of the movements that I learn about on
> the net or lifting schemes end up in their pages. Of course that very well
> could mean I'm just as behind as they are. But diet wise they are pretty
> much dead on. Its much less-Cosmopolitan than you think.
>
> And in regards to the article...look it up on medline. See if it exists.
> They always give enough information to find the articles that are
> published....just look it up.
>
My biggest problem with MH is all the advertisements for diet pills,
super suplements, and other miracle crap. I just have a hard time
seeing them as a completely legitimate mag when they allow so much
crap in it.
But I have found many useful things in it, including some great diet
tips, so it isn't worthless. I like their "eat this not that" guides
to some of the not so good food most of us eat more often than we
should and their "a man, a can, a plan" recipes, along with other
simple but useful food advice.
Lyle McDonald
>
> "Darryl Licke" <darylick@rcn[SPAM].com> wrote in message news:<bc98ed$n0f$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > I disagree. I think in the past year its become much more legit and factual.
> > It seems like with each issue many of the movements that I learn about on
> > the net or lifting schemes end up in their pages. Of course that very well
> > could mean I'm just as behind as they are. But diet wise they are pretty
> > much dead on. Its much less-Cosmopolitan than you think.
> >
> > And in regards to the article...look it up on medline. See if it exists.
> > They always give enough information to find the articles that are
> > published....just look it up.
> >
>
> My biggest problem with MH is all the advertisements for diet pills,
> super suplements, and other miracle crap. I just have a hard time
> seeing them as a completely legitimate mag when they allow so much
> crap in it.
Do you find ALL magazines with the possible exception of Consumer
Reports to be equally illegitimate. Cuz every time I look at just
about any magazine, most of what I see is ads for crap (1). And
compared to bodybuilding comic books, MH and its ilk is relatively ad
free. You can't even tell when the articles stop and the ads begin in
the muscle rags.
Lyle
1. I'm not sure but I beleive that magazines make a good portion of
their income from selling this, so-called, 'ad-space'. Perhaps someone
with more business acumen can be more informative.
Tom Hanc
I actually agree with you Darryl, the magazine HAS gotten much better
with it's info, particularly WRT nutrition. But honestly, how much NEW
information do you learn? There are only so many times that reading
"eat this and that and don't eat this and that" can help you. Of
course this is not specific to Men's Health, but just about EVERY
fitness magazine. They pretty much reprint the same articles over and
over (with different wording). So the editorials can be entertaining
(or inspirational), you might learn a small helpful tip here and
there, and finally, you could find a small nugget of new research
(that, as I point out here, shouldn't be accepted at face value). But
I'm getting off track since I'm not the one who dissed the magazine on
the whole in the first place. As for the Ginkgo study, I will look it
up, but my point still stands regardless; based on previous studies
and the proposed mechanism of action of the herb, a 6 week study is
next to useless (except maybe to save someone $20 because they thought
they could pop Ginkgo for a month before a test or some other quick
fix situation).
-Tom
Phil
> Phil wrote:
> > >
> >
> > My biggest problem with MH is all the advertisements for diet pills,
> > super suplements, and other miracle crap. I just have a hard time
> > seeing them as a completely legitimate mag when they allow so much
> > crap in it.
>
> Do you find ALL magazines with the possible exception of Consumer
> Reports to be equally illegitimate. Cuz every time I look at just
> about any magazine, most of what I see is ads for crap (1). And
> compared to bodybuilding comic books, MH and its ilk is relatively ad
> free. You can't even tell when the articles stop and the ads begin in
> the muscle rags.
>
> Lyle
> 1. I'm not sure but I beleive that magazines make a good portion of
> their income from selling this, so-called, 'ad-space'. Perhaps someone
> with more business acumen can be more informative.
Perhaps you only look at bodybuilding magazines and comic books. I do
not see much of this at all in the car, handyman, biking, or other
magazines I read. There's a difference between advertising and
advertising products that so blatently go against your magazine's
values and advice.
I'm not slamming ads in general or the amount of them. MH is not bad
in that respect, and not a bad magazine overall. But some of the more
prominant ads are about like advertising pyramid schemes in Money
magazine. At least in my opinion.
Seth Breidbart
Lyle McDonald <lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>1. I'm not sure but I beleive that magazines make a good portion of
>their income from selling this, so-called, 'ad-space'. Perhaps someone
>with more business acumen can be more informative.
Essentially all of it. The main reason that they charge for the
magazine is that advertisers believe that people who pay for it are
more likely to read it (and see their ads).
Seth
--
The only difference between this place and hell is that a lot of the people
I would like to meet are in hell and I don't see so many here. -- Bryce Lane
Ron Ritzman
>PS---I'm NOT saying the Ginkgo is magic. I AM saying that it shouldn't
>be so harshly dismissed based on this particular study.
Maybe they're dismissing it because it's a "supplement" and we all
know that supplements automatically don't work. 10,000 retarded sock
puppets can't be wrong.
--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address