Unironically, I trust anecdotes more than any random nutrition study.

The more I personally know the person, or the more connectedness I have, the more his anecdote is worth listening to.

This study is a collection of mere 54 random anecdotes (!), random people of the street.

Anecdote of a random min-maxing turbo nerd on hackernews >= 54 random people from the street.

.

I support their anecdote. Any "supplements" that have significant effects are highly regulated and somewhat risky. Worrying about things that will make a 1-2% difference isn't worth the time, just workout one more rep.

> Just one more rep

It don't work like that.

The amount you can work out (at intensity) is limited by your recovery time.

Thus you take that "supplement" and can do one more rep, or go to gym extra time a week, especially if it comes to "regulated and risky" supplements, then you can do many, many more reps.

The point is, supplements will mostly only help you shore up deficiencies in your diet and generally won't do it as effectively as eating right. No matter how much supplementation you do, you can't out-run a bad diet.

I don't want to be rude, but your off-topic anecdote about my uninteresting and useless anecdote is also... uninteresting and useless.