Yet ANOTHER Study Debunking "fasted cardio"

dbmata

This is why we can't have nice things.

LolBroScience

In cuz Alan

Kalikel

herrspoons wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

Really? Calling people names is the baby and actual, basic scientific thinking is the bath water?

Not sure what you mean by this. You seem to be taking this personally. It really isn't about you, it's about the process of what drives theory.

If one study was it...if we, as humans, said, "There's a study and that's that! Anyone who dares to disagree is an idiot!"...we wouldn't know very much.

Well, yes. I covered this with replication and correlation. Still not sure what your point is.

Science is curious. Science is industrious. Science is open to new ideas. Where dogma says "That's that!", Science says, "Maybe..." and "What if..."

Again covered by my post.

Sometimes, everyone is agreement. All the doctors and scientists and smartest guys say X. Science, in it's essence, says, "But maybe, just maybe, it's Y." Sometimes, the guy who walks into the conference of smart guys and says, "But you're wrong!" and drinks his test tube - sometimes that guy is right.

The same guy with his test tube will have developed a hypothesis, tested it, provided evidence if statistical difference, and then published or shown this to his peers. He doesn't just turn up with a novel potion.

You seem to be confusing science with magic here.

Do we have to go with what the doctors and scientists figure out? Yeah. We have to proceed with the knowledge that currently exists. It's the best we can do.

And?

If your thing is telling people they're stupid and wrong for thinking what they think and doing what they do, then that's what you need to do. Don't use "Science" as your reason that things are impossible, though.

So what are we supposed to use? Astrology? If someone makes a statement which they back up with outdated, incomplete, or cherry picked 'science' then we have every right to challenge them.

Twenty years ago, Pluto was a planet. Everyone knew it. Science had determined it. It was as factual as facts get. The some astronomer did whatever the hell astronomers do and Bam, children need a new pneumonic.

Science never stops wondering if it's wrong.

I know. Buy it does it in a controlled and replicable manner

I'm not sure, other than an emotional outpouring of the points I and others have already made, what you're trying to say here.

I repeat the question: in what way is refraining from name-calling "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"?

heybales

SideSteel wrote: »

Schoenfeld just posted this on facebook -- this is commentary/thoughts on the study: http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/my-new-study-on-fasted-cardio-and-fat-loss-take-home-points/

This - for accepted known limitations, some valid times for use potentially, and even some comments as to the age thing someone brought up (as if avg 21 and 23 really makes a difference) because they did body comp pair matching.

Adzak's comment too about how many grams of fat actually burned during the workout either direction just looking at acute figures is added to by the study reference of changes to all day fat burn.

It would have been interesting in the study to look at acute changes though from start to finish. Like were there some improvements in mobilizing fat between the groups like 30 min into workout, at start and at end of study? Purely for the endurance aspect of sparing muscle glucose by using fat earlier in the session.

daybehavior

herrspoons wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

herrspoons wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

Really? Calling people names is the baby and actual, basic scientific thinking is the bath water?

Not sure what you mean by this. You seem to be taking this personally. It really isn't about you, it's about the process of what drives theory.

If one study was it...if we, as humans, said, "There's a study and that's that! Anyone who dares to disagree is an idiot!"...we wouldn't know very much.

Well, yes. I covered this with replication and correlation. Still not sure what your point is.

Science is curious. Science is industrious. Science is open to new ideas. Where dogma says "That's that!", Science says, "Maybe..." and "What if..."

Again covered by my post.

Sometimes, everyone is agreement. All the doctors and scientists and smartest guys say X. Science, in it's essence, says, "But maybe, just maybe, it's Y." Sometimes, the guy who walks into the conference of smart guys and says, "But you're wrong!" and drinks his test tube - sometimes that guy is right.

The same guy with his test tube will have developed a hypothesis, tested it, provided evidence if statistical difference, and then published or shown this to his peers. He doesn't just turn up with a novel potion.

You seem to be confusing science with magic here.

Do we have to go with what the doctors and scientists figure out? Yeah. We have to proceed with the knowledge that currently exists. It's the best we can do.

And?

If your thing is telling people they're stupid and wrong for thinking what they think and doing what they do, then that's what you need to do. Don't use "Science" as your reason that things are impossible, though.

So what are we supposed to use? Astrology? If someone makes a statement which they back up with outdated, incomplete, or cherry picked 'science' then we have every right to challenge them.

Twenty years ago, Pluto was a planet. Everyone knew it. Science had determined it. It was as factual as facts get. The some astronomer did whatever the hell astronomers do and Bam, children need a new pneumonic.

Science never stops wondering if it's wrong.

I know. Buy it does it in a controlled and replicable manner

I'm not sure, other than an emotional outpouring of the points I and others have already made, what you're trying to say here.

I repeat the question: in what way is refraining from name-calling "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"?

*facepalm*

Can we make it a triple?



Let me try to explain in simple terms, since you don't seem to understand the point herrspoons is making:

Just because one study in and of itself doesn't definitively prove anything doesn't mean it should be automatically discounted (*This* is throwing the baby out with the bathwater)*, especially if it lends weight to a more widely accepted unified theory. As Aragon stated, its all about finding "pieces of the puzzle".

*I have no idea why you keep talking about name-calling. Do you even understand this idiom?

Kalikel

herrspoons wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

herrspoons wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

Really? Calling people names is the baby and actual, basic scientific thinking is the bath water?

Not sure what you mean by this. You seem to be taking this personally. It really isn't about you, it's about the process of what drives theory.

If one study was it...if we, as humans, said, "There's a study and that's that! Anyone who dares to disagree is an idiot!"...we wouldn't know very much.

Well, yes. I covered this with replication and correlation. Still not sure what your point is.

Science is curious. Science is industrious. Science is open to new ideas. Where dogma says "That's that!", Science says, "Maybe..." and "What if..."

Again covered by my post.

Sometimes, everyone is agreement. All the doctors and scientists and smartest guys say X. Science, in it's essence, says, "But maybe, just maybe, it's Y." Sometimes, the guy who walks into the conference of smart guys and says, "But you're wrong!" and drinks his test tube - sometimes that guy is right.

The same guy with his test tube will have developed a hypothesis, tested it, provided evidence if statistical difference, and then published or shown this to his peers. He doesn't just turn up with a novel potion.

You seem to be confusing science with magic here.

Do we have to go with what the doctors and scientists figure out? Yeah. We have to proceed with the knowledge that currently exists. It's the best we can do.

And?

If your thing is telling people they're stupid and wrong for thinking what they think and doing what they do, then that's what you need to do. Don't use "Science" as your reason that things are impossible, though.

So what are we supposed to use? Astrology? If someone makes a statement which they back up with outdated, incomplete, or cherry picked 'science' then we have every right to challenge them.

Twenty years ago, Pluto was a planet. Everyone knew it. Science had determined it. It was as factual as facts get. The some astronomer did whatever the hell astronomers do and Bam, children need a new pneumonic.

Science never stops wondering if it's wrong.

I know. Buy it does it in a controlled and replicable manner

I'm not sure, other than an emotional outpouring of the points I and others have already made, what you're trying to say here.

I repeat the question: in what way is refraining from name-calling "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"?

*facepalm*

Not quite the well-reasoned, thoughtful, scientific kind of answer I was hoping for...but I guess that settles the matter.

Kalikel

daybehavior wrote: »

herrspoons wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

herrspoons wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

Really? Calling people names is the baby and actual, basic scientific thinking is the bath water?

Not sure what you mean by this. You seem to be taking this personally. It really isn't about you, it's about the process of what drives theory.

If one study was it...if we, as humans, said, "There's a study and that's that! Anyone who dares to disagree is an idiot!"...we wouldn't know very much.

Well, yes. I covered this with replication and correlation. Still not sure what your point is.

Science is curious. Science is industrious. Science is open to new ideas. Where dogma says "That's that!", Science says, "Maybe..." and "What if..."

Again covered by my post.

Sometimes, everyone is agreement. All the doctors and scientists and smartest guys say X. Science, in it's essence, says, "But maybe, just maybe, it's Y." Sometimes, the guy who walks into the conference of smart guys and says, "But you're wrong!" and drinks his test tube - sometimes that guy is right.

The same guy with his test tube will have developed a hypothesis, tested it, provided evidence if statistical difference, and then published or shown this to his peers. He doesn't just turn up with a novel potion.

You seem to be confusing science with magic here.

Do we have to go with what the doctors and scientists figure out? Yeah. We have to proceed with the knowledge that currently exists. It's the best we can do.

And?

If your thing is telling people they're stupid and wrong for thinking what they think and doing what they do, then that's what you need to do. Don't use "Science" as your reason that things are impossible, though.

So what are we supposed to use? Astrology? If someone makes a statement which they back up with outdated, incomplete, or cherry picked 'science' then we have every right to challenge them.

Twenty years ago, Pluto was a planet. Everyone knew it. Science had determined it. It was as factual as facts get. The some astronomer did whatever the hell astronomers do and Bam, children need a new pneumonic.

Science never stops wondering if it's wrong.

I know. Buy it does it in a controlled and replicable manner

I'm not sure, other than an emotional outpouring of the points I and others have already made, what you're trying to say here.

I repeat the question: in what way is refraining from name-calling "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"?

*facepalm*

Can we make it a triple?



Let me try to explain in simple terms, since you don't seem to understand the point herrspoons is making:

Just because one study in and of itself doesn't definitively prove anything doesn't mean it should be automatically discounted (*This* is throwing the baby out with the bathwater)*, especially if it lends weight to a more widely accepted unified theory. As Aragon stated, its all about finding "pieces of the puzzle".

*I have no idea why you keep talking about name-calling. Do you even understand this idiom?

Nope, that's not his point. I never suggested that. He was responding to what I said.