Looking for other pro science people on here
Replies
-
Anecdotes from the many people in fitness who mindlessly follow decades old regimens that had no peer reviewed scientific support to substantiate them.MrsVelapanur wrote: »@ninerbuff - would you please explain what broscience is? Thanks!
As John and Auddii mentioned, things like eating multiple meals, drinking a gallon of water a day, post meal shakes to repair muscles, etc.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I'm a social scientist *sobs* by education and a know-it-all by personal preference
Seriously I don't even have an 'ology (Economicsology anyone?). I'm not worthy.
But my job involves a lot of spreadsheets at times and I'm capable of using google scholar, understanding the socratic method and I love a good nerd
so c'n I play if I promise to act impressed with the real scientists0 -
Just poppin' in this AM because this thread is my happy place...even the grammar is better!
CICO always works (first law of Thermodynamics). A person who does not lose weight at 1000 calories a day is (somehow) not burning 1000 calories a day, for whatever reason (or it's PEBKAC)
The most common trouble stems from the difficulty balancing that equation, for instance when your hormones or history compel you to take actions that cause you to exceed or underachieve your intake or output.
At that point you are leaving the cut and dry field of physics and are moving into the areas of Biochem and Psychology. Tricky business - they have many more variables, and are much harder to measure!0 -
I'm a registered nutritionist, so I really am pro science stuff. I can't stand all these detoxes, juice cleanses, etc. They are a bunch of balogna that don't even work.0
-
shadowfax_c11 wrote: »
Aside from my "real job" in science, I have been a professional trainer,and hoof care provider, in the horse world for over 20 years. My area of expertise is working with troubled horses that are difficult and at times dangerous to handle and work on. Most of the time I use pressure and release but have found that some individuals respond extremely well to food rewards. One in particular would not allow anyone to touch him but his owners, making it extremely difficult and dangerous for his past farriers to work on his feet. Using food rewards and a great deal of patience we went from him taking 2.5 hours to allow me to handle all four of his feet briefly, to him willingly lifting his foot and holding it for me before I even touch him. It now takes an average of 15 minutes to do a full trim. He has been cut back gradually from a reward for every tiny try to a reward for a willing and compliant attitude through an entire cycle. Again something like intermittent rewards.
I think this might be a subject worth exploring for people but not real sure how it might apply in this particular model. Monkeys and horses don't have quite the same reasoning power that people do but I do notice a lot of threads where people want to be rewarded for their efforts. Personally for me the reward is seeing my goals being achieved. But that might be the martial artist in me. Being able to find satisfaction in the process of doing the thing rather than expecting the satisfaction to come at it's completion. I see weight management like I see my aikido training. it will never be finished ,at least not while I exist on this plane.
Thanks for responding. Those horses are lucky to have you!
I saw the greatest application of behavioral science to dieting in the antecedents, the "A" of the "ABC" of antecedent-behavior-consequence. Humans do have a greater intellect, and the rewards of weight loss, improved appearance, and improved fitness are certainly delayed rewards, in contrast to the immediate food reward that can be given to animals. I was thinking of how the environment is set up for the learner to make the right choices. In the case of training the horses through positive reinforcement, maybe you position yourself and the horse in such as way as to make him more likely to lift a foot toward you, or you train when he is just hungry enough that the expectation of food is a good motivator, but he is not so hungry that he is frantic about getting the food. That would be setting the stage for success.
For humans trying to lose weight, thinking about when and why we overeat, and then making environmental changes to make the correct food choices more likely, can be helpful. It was for me. I think the most important factor for me was having good meals ready that involved no last minute time or work. I cook a couple of large pieces of salmon now about once a week, serve dinner to others and myself, then put the extra away in 6 oz portions in freezer containers. When my husband or my husband and kids (depending on who is home) eat more fattening meals or meat, both of which I will cook for them, I can thaw a piece of salmon and eat it either with salad or with frozen steam-in-the-bag vegetables, which I also keep in the house. Before I had my own meals ready, I had intended not to eat the more fattening food, but, at the last minute, tired and with other things going on, I wouldn't bother to make myself a better meal. A couple of other things that helped me were getting more sleep and buying things that come already portioned, such as the small cups of yogurt instead of a larger container, or cheese slices instead of a wedge, as I am much less likely to exceed the prefigured portion. There is some application of this principle of achieving behavior through manipulating the environment in politics and business, with opt out rather than opt in designs. Even without obscurity and with a clear and easy place to make the choice, people are less likely to opt out than to opt in, so making the desired choice the default option makes people more likely to make that choice.
I do believe that the truths of obesity and weight loss are in the biologic sciences, but there are so many confounding variables, and there is so much that we don't yet know, that it is difficult to get really reliable scientific results, and I think that's why so many studies contradict one another. Take obesity - general obesity seems to be different from abdominal obesity, and obese but healthy seems to be different from obese and affected by the extra weight. We know that genetics play a role in obesity, but we also know that genes have variable penetrance and expression. We know that hormones play a role and can affect the studies. We have our own known endogenous hormonal pathways to consider, but what of the increase in endocrine disruptors in the environment - how do we figure that in? Even studies of what to eat can be affected by how the foods are categorized: is oatmeal just oatmeal, or should it be separated into types - do steel cut oats have a lower glycemic index than instant oats? The list of factors that make it hard to get reliable, reproducible results goes on and on. Add to that the problem with working with humans, who aren't laboratory animals. Most of the studies with huge numbers rely on a lot of self reporting, and the best controlled studies are often short term and with fewer subjects. The truth is in the science, but we are a long way off from much of the definitive knowledge we seek. I look forward to following the science with the rest of you, as we try to figure it all out!
0 -
Sorry - Shadowfax ends with the smile - somehow I messed up where the quote should have ended.0
-
This is my favorite thread, to date.0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »Look for people with jailbars over their avatar.0
-
I'm a registered nutritionist, so I really am pro science stuff. I can't stand all these detoxes, juice cleanses, etc. They are a bunch of balogna that don't even work.
Wow good to see there are Nutritionists out there that don't recommend detoxing. 90% go straight to the "cut out wheat" and "you need to detox" approach without hesitation! In fact it seems to be the only thing they recommend here in Australia but what is really dangerous here is there are no rules about who can call themselves 'nutritionist' you don't even need qualifications or you can get one for $49 and you get a pretty certificate and bam your certified!
0 -
Sorry - Shadowfax ends with the smile - somehow I messed up where the quote should have ended.
Got it. Great post! I agree with pretty much everything you said.
Yes with animals it is really a case of setting them up for success. So at first you put them into a position where they will almost immediately do a "correct" action unintentionally. In the case of the horse I mentioned the first "task" for him was to allow me to place my hand on his left shoulder for a moment. The key was to reward the exact instant he allowed the contact and then to break it myself before he did. This progressed to other parts of the body and down the leg to the foot. Then it went from allowing contact to allowing contact and thinking about picking up the foot. It takes a lot of sensitivity to find this moment but you can find it if you are quiet, relaxed and focused. Martial arts training is helpful in this aspect.
Most animals, once they figure out that there is something they are supposed to do in order to get the reward and shortly they will set about trying many different things to find the correct answer.
Many of our monkeys work for their daily water. So they are not given water in the home cage but receive it as they work. They are never deprived to the point of being frantic for the reward but they are set up to be a little thirsty so that they have motivation when they go to work. A very few work in a similar fashion for their daily food.
For the general public this model really won't work since as you noted people are not in a lab environment where every aspect of their life is documented and controlled.
0 -
Count me in!0
-
Science as is so often used here is an epistemological construct where people believe that by calling upon it they have referenced some immutable Truth that applies to all people and all situations. I abhor this seagull cackle of me-too head-nodding where people do not look at evidence-based something or other and do not allow for arguments that are some times contradictory.
For example, I'm generally unsupportive of detoxes and the bandwagon 'in-the-name-of-science' people will baaa-baaa their way to beat down any discussion or talk about any detox or cleanse as completely useless and unnecessary.
A scientist will look at this and say, what evidence is there to their harm, or to their positive effect? And while generally I would not recommend them - I certainly DO read about them and DO consider the psychological value, the self sense that some people pay to them.
In other cases, there is published evidence of value for some health markers.
For example, one might consider that these short term cleanses might demonstrate the same value, vis a vis insulin, as calorie restriction for the period. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25912765)
Or sometimes VLCD make sense.
Or CICO, being the first order equation, may be highly influenced by second order factors such as metabolic disease, macro breakdown, satiety, etc.
If you aren't first and foremost self-critical you are not using science.0 -
Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!0 -
great thread, thanks OP this is exactly what I needed to. All here are welcome to add me. I am a Physics Teacher, so energy is essential to much of what I preach on a day to day basis. CICO is pretty simple and effective and unfortunately gets clouded with so much other crap that people get frustrated and get lost along the way.
0 -
summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
Sigh. No science there.
The WHO is a fantastic organisation and no, they ARE NOT SAYING THAT red meat is as carcinogenic as asbestos. Nope. That is some blog you got there, but not science.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
Sigh. No science there.
The WHO is a fantastic organisation and no, they ARE NOT SAYING THAT red meat is as carcinogenic as asbestos. Nope. That is some blog you got there, but not science.
Sorry no that is just a report I found when I googled it as an example, it's all over the news this morning here in Australia and there are doctors and other health professionals reporting on it.......I've been trying to find where it's come from. Ive been on the WHO web site for over an hour and I can't find a thing about it anywhere. I'm just trying to find where these reports are coming from but it is being reported as The World Health Organization has changed its recommendations and red meat is now listed with cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic as our top carcinogenics! They must have got it from somewhere.......0 -
Ohh, thank you for starting this!0
-
summerkissed wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
Sigh. No science there.
The WHO is a fantastic organisation and no, they ARE NOT SAYING THAT red meat is as carcinogenic as asbestos. Nope. That is some blog you got there, but not science.
Sorry no that is just a report I found when I googled it as an example, it's all over the news this morning here in Australia and there are doctors and other health professionals reporting on it.......I've been trying to find where it's come from. Ive been on the WHO web site for over an hour and I can't find a thing about it anywhere. I'm just trying to find where these reports are coming from but it is being reported as The World Health Organization has changed its recommendations and red meat is now listed with cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic as our top carcinogenics! They must have got it from somewhere.......
It's the Daily Fail.
Look, meat in excessive quantities has been shown to have an epidemiological link to cancer (particularly processed meats) however it is not and cannot be the equivalent carcinogenic effect as asbestos. Now are the case rates equivalent? Are the number of cases appearing the same? Well, you can go research that if you like - hint - it isn't on the WHO website.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
Sigh. No science there.
The WHO is a fantastic organisation and no, they ARE NOT SAYING THAT red meat is as carcinogenic as asbestos. Nope. That is some blog you got there, but not science.
Sorry no that is just a report I found when I googled it as an example, it's all over the news this morning here in Australia and there are doctors and other health professionals reporting on it.......I've been trying to find where it's come from. Ive been on the WHO web site for over an hour and I can't find a thing about it anywhere. I'm just trying to find where these reports are coming from but it is being reported as The World Health Organization has changed its recommendations and red meat is now listed with cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic as our top carcinogenics! They must have got it from somewhere.......
It's the Daily Fail.
Look, meat in excessive quantities has been shown to have an epidemiological link to cancer (particularly processed meats) however it is not and cannot be the equivalent carcinogenic effect as asbestos. Now are the case rates equivalent? Are the number of cases appearing the same? Well, you can go research that if you like - hint - it isn't on the WHO website.
Don't think you quite get the point of putting this up on here......I'm looking for the report that is being used for this and the science behind it!
But it's ok I have found what I'm looking for I just received an email......stay tuned the Health Report isn't on The WHO yet because it gets released to public later today....there are 170 known top causes (including cigarettes etc) processed meats are thought to be going to be included in that top 170, red meat will most likely be put in with the probable cause.......but stay tuned this one could be an interesting read today!0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Science as is so often used here is an epistemological construct where people believe that by calling upon it they have referenced some immutable Truth that applies to all people and all situations. I abhor this seagull cackle of me-too head-nodding where people do not look at evidence-based something or other and do not allow for arguments that are some times contradictory.
For example, I'm generally unsupportive of detoxes and the bandwagon 'in-the-name-of-science' people will baaa-baaa their way to beat down any discussion or talk about any detox or cleanse as completely useless and unnecessary.
A scientist will look at this and say, what evidence is there to their harm, or to their positive effect? And while generally I would not recommend them - I certainly DO read about them and DO consider the psychological value, the self sense that some people pay to them.
In other cases, there is published evidence of value for some health markers.
For example, one might consider that these short term cleanses might demonstrate the same value, vis a vis insulin, as calorie restriction for the period. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25912765)
Or sometimes VLCD make sense.
Or CICO, being the first order equation, may be highly influenced by second order factors such as metabolic disease, macro breakdown, satiety, etc.
If you aren't first and foremost self-critical you are not using science.
And yet, your representation is an oversimplification of most of those cases.
Detoxes are often part of an MLM (which isn't a scientific issues, but an ethical one), and saying they have psychological value doesn't justify them - any number of actions can have placebo effect, and most scientific and medical associations consider it unethical to give people a treatment purely for placebo effect purposes.
Most people that argue against VLCD's are in the context of self-administered ones. Given that a VLCD crosses not just what makes scientific sense, but ethics because of the potential for self harm and even death, it never make sense to allow someone to VLCD without medical supervision. Both MFP and most posters are okay with VLCD's under medical supervision, with the caveat that they are never a necessity.
It is all best viewed in a Bayesian sense - sure, there are disease out there that affect metabolism, but given common inaccuracies in other areas, assuming someone has a self diagnosed one just isn't probable. Many frequent posters in favor of the established science have, in a sense, become expert systems in applying a methodology. Yes, it becomes a rote recital, but it works far more than the likely hood that we have a rare metabolic disorder. Indeed, many make claims that they fail to lose weight on calorie counts that would defy any capacity for a variance in metabolism, as metabolism has floors on it far more than ceilings.0 -
Yes! Sometimes, it's really hard to tell what's real and what's pseudoscience (at least for me). Feel free to add me.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Science as is so often used here is an epistemological construct where people believe that by calling upon it they have referenced some immutable Truth that applies to all people and all situations. I abhor this seagull cackle of me-too head-nodding where people do not look at evidence-based something or other and do not allow for arguments that are some times contradictory.
For example, I'm generally unsupportive of detoxes and the bandwagon 'in-the-name-of-science' people will baaa-baaa their way to beat down any discussion or talk about any detox or cleanse as completely useless and unnecessary.
A scientist will look at this and say, what evidence is there to their harm, or to their positive effect? And while generally I would not recommend them - I certainly DO read about them and DO consider the psychological value, the self sense that some people pay to them.
In other cases, there is published evidence of value for some health markers.
For example, one might consider that these short term cleanses might demonstrate the same value, vis a vis insulin, as calorie restriction for the period. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25912765)
Or sometimes VLCD make sense.
Or CICO, being the first order equation, may be highly influenced by second order factors such as metabolic disease, macro breakdown, satiety, etc.
If you aren't first and foremost self-critical you are not using science.
And yet, your representation is an oversimplification of most of those cases.
Detoxes are often part of an MLM (which isn't a scientific issues, but an ethical one), and saying they have psychological value doesn't justify them - any number of actions can have placebo effect, and most scientific and medical associations consider it unethical to give people a treatment purely for placebo effect purposes.
Most people that argue against VLCD's are in the context of self-administered ones. Given that a VLCD crosses not just what makes scientific sense, but ethics because of the potential for self harm and even death, it never make sense to allow someone to VLCD without medical supervision. Both MFP and most posters are okay with VLCD's under medical supervision, with the caveat that they are never a necessity.
It is all best viewed in a Bayesian sense - sure, there are disease out there that affect metabolism, but given common inaccuracies in other areas, assuming someone has a self diagnosed one just isn't probable. Many frequent posters in favor of the established science have, in a sense, become expert systems in applying a methodology. Yes, it becomes a rote recital, but it works far more than the likely hood that we have a rare metabolic disorder. Indeed, many make claims that they fail to lose weight on calorie counts that would defy any capacity for a variance in metabolism, as metabolism has floors on it far more than ceilings.
Yep, my post was an oversimplification or more precisely a counter simplification. I wouldn't say you are one of the people bleeting a thoughtless echo of truth - I've seen you dig in thoughtfully - although sometimes you seem to argue for arguments sake.
As to the ethics of placebo? Please. First, I'm not prescribing anything, let along detox/cleanse. Second, in terms of weight loss - a low cal detox or cleanse for a short period is anything but a placebo - fasting for this time does show clinically significant results - people lose weight. Not a placebo. Is it an effective strategy? I don't think so - in the absence of learning how to manage calorie intake AND habits it isn't likely to be successful. But it isn't a weight loss placebo. It's a mealy-mouthed argument to question my ethics.
Short term VLCDs (<4 weeks) to reach sports or event weight have little to no risk of self harm or death. I've yet to see a scientific report that demonstrates this. And while I obviously don't recommend them (the site has a policy) many of us old timers have tried variants of protein sparing rapid weight loss diets. It's an LCD to VLCD.
We don't yet live in a society where it's even about "allowing someone to VLCD" - one can provide the risks concerning them - from metabolic issues, to gallstones, to depression, etc...
As to medical necessity under supervision? Who are you to say? That is really a clinical decision. In cases of significant comorbidity - and difficulties in adherence otherwise they make clinical sense
But feel free to show me evidence of large risks for short diets - I haven't found it. What I have found is that there is some evidence that short term rapid loss is more effective long term (for example, greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y and other studies support or contradict...)
Rare diseases? Are you really calling PCOS, diabetes, hypothyroidism, metabolic syndrome, depression, mobility handicaps rare diseases in the overweight population on this site?
Indeed some people make those claims that they can't lose at calories count that suggest something magical is going on. And yes, it makes sense to first confirm method and adhesion (and gasp, weight loss is possible without counting too). I'm in no way arguing that "cico doesn't work" so please don't place me in that camp. However reducing weight loss to a linear conservation of energy equation is outright silly and scientifically obtuse. Yet some people here do it constantly. Because science! Equations! Where does satiety, hunger signaling or a variety of other factors that effect long term adherence enter into that equation. Because the science of habit and the influence of the invisible mind are so much more difficult to quantify some people seem to ignore them.0 -
I'm a hospitalist and think I would qualify. I do occasionally raise a glass to the flying spaghetti monster.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Science as is so often used here is an epistemological construct where people believe that by calling upon it they have referenced some immutable Truth that applies to all people and all situations. I abhor this seagull cackle of me-too head-nodding where people do not look at evidence-based something or other and do not allow for arguments that are some times contradictory.
For example, I'm generally unsupportive of detoxes and the bandwagon 'in-the-name-of-science' people will baaa-baaa their way to beat down any discussion or talk about any detox or cleanse as completely useless and unnecessary.
A scientist will look at this and say, what evidence is there to their harm, or to their positive effect? And while generally I would not recommend them - I certainly DO read about them and DO consider the psychological value, the self sense that some people pay to them.
In other cases, there is published evidence of value for some health markers.
For example, one might consider that these short term cleanses might demonstrate the same value, vis a vis insulin, as calorie restriction for the period. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25912765)
Or sometimes VLCD make sense.
Or CICO, being the first order equation, may be highly influenced by second order factors such as metabolic disease, macro breakdown, satiety, etc.
If you aren't first and foremost self-critical you are not using science.
And yet, your representation is an oversimplification of most of those cases.
Detoxes are often part of an MLM (which isn't a scientific issues, but an ethical one), and saying they have psychological value doesn't justify them - any number of actions can have placebo effect, and most scientific and medical associations consider it unethical to give people a treatment purely for placebo effect purposes.
Most people that argue against VLCD's are in the context of self-administered ones. Given that a VLCD crosses not just what makes scientific sense, but ethics because of the potential for self harm and even death, it never make sense to allow someone to VLCD without medical supervision. Both MFP and most posters are okay with VLCD's under medical supervision, with the caveat that they are never a necessity.
It is all best viewed in a Bayesian sense - sure, there are disease out there that affect metabolism, but given common inaccuracies in other areas, assuming someone has a self diagnosed one just isn't probable. Many frequent posters in favor of the established science have, in a sense, become expert systems in applying a methodology. Yes, it becomes a rote recital, but it works far more than the likely hood that we have a rare metabolic disorder. Indeed, many make claims that they fail to lose weight on calorie counts that would defy any capacity for a variance in metabolism, as metabolism has floors on it far more than ceilings.
Yep, my post was an oversimplification or more precisely a counter simplification. I wouldn't say you are one of the people bleeting a thoughtless echo of truth - I've seen you dig in thoughtfully - although sometimes you seem to argue for arguments sake.
As to the ethics of placebo? Please. First, I'm not prescribing anything, let along detox/cleanse. Second, in terms of weight loss - a low cal detox or cleanse for a short period is anything but a placebo - fasting for this time does show clinically significant results - people lose weight. Not a placebo. Is it an effective strategy? I don't think so - in the absence of learning how to manage calorie intake AND habits it isn't likely to be successful. But it isn't a weight loss placebo. It's a mealy-mouthed argument to question my ethics.
Short term VLCDs (<4 weeks) to reach sports or event weight have little to no risk of self harm or death. I've yet to see a scientific report that demonstrates this. And while I obviously don't recommend them (the site has a policy) many of us old timers have tried variants of protein sparing rapid weight loss diets. It's an LCD to VLCD.
We don't yet live in a society where it's even about "allowing someone to VLCD" - one can provide the risks concerning them - from metabolic issues, to gallstones, to depression, etc...
As to medical necessity under supervision? Who are you to say? That is really a clinical decision. In cases of significant comorbidity - and difficulties in adherence otherwise they make clinical sense
But feel free to show me evidence of large risks for short diets - I haven't found it. What I have found is that there is some evidence that short term rapid loss is more effective long term (for example, greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y and other studies support or contradict...)
Rare diseases? Are you really calling PCOS, diabetes, hypothyroidism, metabolic syndrome, depression, mobility handicaps rare diseases in the overweight population on this site?
Indeed some people make those claims that they can't lose at calories count that suggest something magical is going on. And yes, it makes sense to first confirm method and adhesion (and gasp, weight loss is possible without counting too). I'm in no way arguing that "cico doesn't work" so please don't place me in that camp. However reducing weight loss to a linear conservation of energy equation is outright silly and scientifically obtuse. Yet some people here do it constantly. Because science! Equations! Where does satiety, hunger signaling or a variety of other factors that effect long term adherence enter into that equation. Because the science of habit and the influence of the invisible mind are so much more difficult to quantify some people seem to ignore them.
Misrepresentation. Obviously one can't significantly alter non-water weight in a non-placebo fashion. We both know that's beyond the capacity of the placebo effect. Most of the purported health effects of a cleanse or detox are placebo. Yes, I am aware that repeated fasting as a life-style decision may have cardiovascular benefits - hard to say as the studies I've seen involve religious fasting, particularly of Mormons who admittedly have huge confounds. They have very little do with the typical MFPer coming on looking to detox to jumpstart their metabolism.
And I'm not questioning your ethics. I'm sure outside of this discussion, you're almost as likely as anyone of the other pro science brigade to dissuade people. I hold you in higher esteem than that. I do, however, recall at least one specific instance of a person on this site (who had more issues with his advice than just this once) who tried to persuade someone to try to over exercise to lose weight in hopes they'd exercise enough to see some results and then start a habit. So it isn't out of the realm of possibilities that someone would unethically encourage it.
I'm pretty sure people have died trying to make weight for sports, more so from dehydration than their VLCD, but the VLCD weighs in on (sorry, bad pun) the risks of that dehydration. There's also an increased risk for eating disorder development in people that do sports that have a weigh-in. It isn't risk free. Redefining it as large risk then becomes moving the goal posts.
As for medical necessity, I already said done under medical supervision is acceptable. What I am to say is, I fail to see what health risk a person is at that losing the weight rapidly is going to have immediate positives in excess of a slower, equivalent weight loss.
Those diseases are red herring. None of them will significantly alter one's BMR, and only mobility ones are liable to significantly alter TDEE outside of choice. Yes, even hypothyroidism won't lower BMR to the extent people proclaim - it certainly requires medical treatment, but it isn't enough to cover the people who are 50 lb+ overweight and complain they can't lose on 1200 calories. Like I said, there is a very strong floor to the BMR and TDEE a person can have. Not just thermodynamics, but actual biological pathways that no one could develop out of, prevent metabolic rates from going below certain levels.
As for arguing for argument sake. Yeah, I engage in arguments easily on MFP, including on this one. I seem to recall someone that argued the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems just to make an argument for arguments sake, so I'm hardly alone in that respect on MFP.
Personally, I see the call of science as less epistemological talisman and more of a tribalistic shibboleth - people who advocate science are usually more willing to discuss the minutia with a less hard edge with people that already show the signs of science. I think we both would find there's a world of shades and differences you and I might discuss on these subjects than either of us would with someone who just showed up on MFP saying they need to detox their dead metabolism because bad carbs mean they can't lose weight on 200 calories a day. I think that's where the hard edges on science and advise happen.0 -
You know what? I ate a piece of bacon this morning. I also know beyond certainty that I'm going to die some day, hopefully later rather than sooner. Coincidence??0
-
summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
They should have said that nitrates cause cancer. You can get bacon without nitrates. The smoking process also produces carcinogens. Oh well.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
They should have said that nitrates cause cancer. You can get bacon without nitrates. The smoking process also produces carcinogens. Oh well.
But, but:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon/
Hell, they make nitrite supplements that supposedly improve your health.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
They should have said that nitrates cause cancer. You can get bacon without nitrates. The smoking process also produces carcinogens. Oh well.
But, but:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon/
Hell, they make nitrite supplements that supposedly improve your health.
I'll go with the stack of peer reviewed evidence on nitrates, nitrites, smoke, and browned meat. I wish that the WHO would be more specific about what it is in processed meats that contributes to cancer risk.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
They should have said that nitrates cause cancer. You can get bacon without nitrates. The smoking process also produces carcinogens. Oh well.
But, but:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon/
Hell, they make nitrite supplements that supposedly improve your health.
I'll go with the stack of peer reviewed evidence on nitrates, nitrites, smoke, and browned meat. I wish that the WHO would be more specific about what it is in processed meats that contributes to cancer risk.
Has this come about now though because of the LCHF movement where people are eating processed meats in massive amounts?? I'll still have my snags on the bbq, char grilled steak and bacon and eggs on Saturday mornings.....but I know heaps of people eating bacon, ham, sausages in huge amounts everyday with little to no carbs because they want to lose weight....Why does everything have to be to the extreme?0 -
Meh, we're getting a little off topic and there are bacon arguments elsewhere in the forums. We're here for science!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions