Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Anyone fail on a bio hacking diet?
Replies
-
Can't say I've really heard of this before, but my general opinion - show me the data.
This sounds much more like broscience than real science. There are real metabolic pathways here, and some aspects are at least plausible, but a) the body is extremely complicated, with longer term feedback loops that often introduce second-order effects to oppose the first-order effects, and b) even if this approach did produce better results, how MUCH better? A 1% improvement? A 10% improvement? A 100% improvement? My personal guess is that even 1% overstates the magnitude of these effects - the body is a very efficient machine and it's well adapted by evolution to not waste its fat reserves.
There's a very real cost associated with restrictive dieting (and tight control over macros and nutrient timing is certainly one type of restriction), I think it's a fair question to ask if the benefit is high enough to be worth that cost. For that matter, it's fair to ask if the benefit even exists at all.
I just took a look at the carb nite solution homepage. I got about as far as the anecdote about how the diet came about before I quit reading - it was basically the textbook definition of a post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.13 -
williams969 wrote: »dragon_girl26 wrote: »What the heck is a bio-hacking diet?
Well, if you peek at the link zyxst posted, apparently it's where you track down and kill wild cows with your bare hands and eat it raw, slathered in Kerrygold butter. Then punching yourself in the gut while ripping legs off live chickens.
One of those reads that I'm left thinking, "not sure if serious or just seriously disturbed."
Well in that case, I'm all in. I mean, I loves me some Kerrygold butter.2 -
The book "low carbohydrate performance" removes the broscience statements as it backs up each claim with its own research studies on large groups of people, but for just the ketogenic approach. Mostly tested on obese people would be the fault but there is quite a bit on endurance athletes. Yea as you dig deeper into that world youll find theres a lot of research that goes into it through a doctor and his patients in phoenix. Everyone is right to say show me the science but that is a whole lot to type at once. Going off of girth measurements, and 7 site calipers and pictures of me being aggressively fat 4 months ago. Lets say if i get on stage in 2 months continuing to progressively smash more and more donuts can you guys agree to allow my personal success to be held above the standard of broscience?0
-
hamilton8560 wrote: »Going off of girth measurements, and 7 site calipers and pictures of me being aggressively fat 4 months ago. Lets say if i get on stage in 2 months continuing to progressively smash more and more donuts can you guys agree to allow my personal success to be held above the standard of broscience?
With what control group? I don't doubt you can do impressive things in half a year of hard work. My question is on whether this specific approach was any better or worse than other approaches. There are thousands of approaches you could take to be successful - one person's anecdote, no matter how successful, can't answer the question of whether the approach leads to greater success, because we have no way of knowing where you would have been 2 months from now if you'd done a different approach instead.6 -
How does a diet get noticed? By the success of its participants so if were looking for a control group, here's one. Keep looking and you will find many more. Also on the macro energy side refer to the ATP production rates from oxidization of each macro per molecule, simple enough thats not theory.1
-
hamilton8560 wrote: »Going off of girth measurements, and 7 site calipers and pictures of me being aggressively fat 4 months ago. Lets say if i get on stage in 2 months continuing to progressively smash more and more donuts can you guys agree to allow my personal success to be held above the standard of broscience?
I'm sorry but from looking at your photograph, I think its safe to say you were not "aggressively fat". You've bulked and went on to cut with a broscience diet, no-one is doubting your success merely the methods on which you claim to have lost this so called aggressive fat.
4 -
It's the epitome of a science based diet. I cant just display hundreds of pages of endocrine system data. You can pick up multiple textbooks and find a large amount of contradicting data, so science eventually has to become anecdotal from whats available because there are multiple possibilities, not engaging in this data and being close minded is one option.0
-
I am super confused. You want people to try "bio hacking" but wont define what it is? Why do you keep bringing up keto as if someone else is mentioning it?
Are we talking about manipulating carbs? I had no idea that it (and apparently heavy compound lifts aka "power moves") were considered "bio hacking". I started cycling my carbs when I wanted to keep eating at an overall deficit, but was frustrated with plateauing on strength. I consider it similar to a bulk/cut cycle, just compressed into the space of a week. Personally, I've been happy with it.0 -
Yea that makes sense. Its manipulating hormones for a desired response. Applications for women however are different; because your hormones are so different from ours. For example women have a resistence to the catabolic hormone adrenaline. This hormone allows us to activate more motor units or percentage of muscle fibers. It grants more strength but also more muscle damage. So if i was using this idealogy in a program for a woman training at an advanced level. I would consider a higher frequency overload than a man would be able to apply. This is based off of the bayesian body building method since people are source hounding me. Carbs are just a fuel tank averaging between 300-500 grams on people between their central nervous system, liver and muscle in the storage form glycogen. You found out cycling was more effective because ure simply refilling the tank rather than just constantly overflowing. The depletion comes from any exercise. Does that make sense?0
-
hamilton8560 wrote: »It's the epitome of a science based diet. I cant just display hundreds of pages of endocrine system data. You can pick up multiple textbooks and find a large amount of contradicting data, so science eventually has to become anecdotal from whats available because there are multiple possibilities, not engaging in this data and being close minded is one option.
I don't think anyone has asked you to display hundreds of pages of endocrine system data but at least one link to a scientific study would be nice. In my own personal opinion, I have a feeling others here may share the same view, is that the lack of knowledge or credible links online referencing this bio hack diet shows exactly what we all suspect and repeated multiple times, that its bro science. Anyone can compound lift, daily carb cycle and loose weight, whether this is actually bio hacking your body or simply lifting big in deficit?6 -
The compound lifts are irrelevant right now. Trying to determine whether high gylcemic carbohydrates are anabolic is where the debate should stay at. "Anyone can daily carb cycle and loose weight" So a sedentary individual can do that? What about a diabetic? If i were to say something like the recomended protein intake is1.4-1.7 per kg grams NSCA, 0.8 per kg RDA which is right? I mean theres two "qualified" sources right? Two very different numbers. So if i say im on CNS somewhat i dont want everyone assuming i endorse every statement that goes a long with it. its personally selected data from textbooks i had in school on hormones, and diet planning, jon keifer, stephen finney, keto gains, diabetic research on insulin online, and anywhere else its an obsession and a career. At no point do i feel like im creating something without considering the science behind it. Ill never say that i need to do something without understanding why it should work. So i dont understand this barrage of bro science.0
-
hamilton8560 wrote: »The compound lifts are irrelevant right now. Trying to determine whether high gylcemic carbohydrates are anabolic is where the debate should stay at. "Anyone can daily carb cycle and loose weight" So a sedentary individual can do that? What about a diabetic? If i were to say something like the recomended protein intake is1.4-1.7 per kg grams NSCA, 0.8 per kg RDA which is right? I mean theres two "qualified" sources right? Two very different numbers. So if i say im on CNS somewhat i dont want everyone assuming i endorse every statement that goes a long with it. its personally selected data from textbooks i had in school on hormones, and diet planning, jon keifer, stephen finney, keto gains, diabetic research on insulin online, and anywhere else its an obsession and a career. At no point do i feel like im creating something without considering the science behind it. Ill never say that i need to do something without understanding why it should work. So i dont understand this barrage of bro science.
I don't understand why you don't just post a link to back up your claims?2 -
OP, I don't think you understand how rambling and confusing your posts are, they don't even seem to have anything to do with each other.
I googled carb nite and got spammy "buy this book" sites and Men's Fitness articles. I googled bio hack diet and it didn't seem like it means anything specific.
You asked if anyone has failed on a bio hacking diet, but seem to be saying that it wold be too complicated to explain what it actually is to us. There are personal trainers, lab researchers, RDs, physicists, nurses and doctors here - why don't you give it a shot? Just boil it down to the basics and give us a link or two?8 -
Again ive taken the time to educate myself and im attempting to reach others on dieting ideas. Theres names in that last text who have a great deal of collective research on these studies and theres other ideas of where to get started so since you dont believe me you have a lot of reading to do, or live happily in the box. I know everyone wants information quick and easy but sorry to say theres no simple picture online that illustrates im credible in 5 seconds.0
-
hamilton8560 wrote: »The compound lifts are irrelevant right now. Trying to determine whether high gylcemic carbohydrates are anabolic is where the debate should stay at. "Anyone can daily carb cycle and loose weight" So a sedentary individual can do that? What about a diabetic? If i were to say something like the recomended protein intake is1.4-1.7 per kg grams NSCA, 0.8 per kg RDA which is right? I mean theres two "qualified" sources right? Two very different numbers. So if i say im on CNS somewhat i dont want everyone assuming i endorse every statement that goes a long with it. its personally selected data from textbooks i had in school on hormones, and diet planning, jon keifer, stephen finney, keto gains, diabetic research on insulin online, and anywhere else its an obsession and a career. At no point do i feel like im creating something without considering the science behind it. Ill never say that i need to do something without understanding why it should work. So i dont understand this barrage of bro science.
So it's something you "invented", but you won't tell anybody precisely what it is, but you want people to try it?
Seems legit.13 -
dragon_girl26 wrote: »williams969 wrote: »dragon_girl26 wrote: »What the heck is a bio-hacking diet?
Well, if you peek at the link zyxst posted, apparently it's where you track down and kill wild cows with your bare hands and eat it raw, slathered in Kerrygold butter. Then punching yourself in the gut while ripping legs off live chickens.
One of those reads that I'm left thinking, "not sure if serious or just seriously disturbed."
Well in that case, I'm all in. I mean, I loves me some Kerrygold butter.
Cool! And I like killing wild cows with my bare hands. The Kerrygold pastures are harder to find around here.4 -
hamilton8560 wrote: »Again ive taken the time to educate myself and im attempting to reach others on dieting ideas. Theres names in that last text who have a great deal of collective research on these studies and theres other ideas of where to get started so since you dont believe me you have a lot of reading to do, or live happily in the box. I know everyone wants information quick and easy but sorry to say theres no simple picture online that illustrates im credible in 5 seconds.
Bold..
You put this in the debate section so naturally we want to debate. So far it looks like a selling point to something that makes no sense. I will wait for the for information.0 -
/debate
AKA nothing to see here, move along5 -
hamilton8560 wrote: »Well its hard to debate something without content if you dont know what bio hacking is at all where do we start
I know generally what biohacking is and am not really a fan personally, but I'm sure it can work for individuals for whom it works! However, still not seeing what you want to debate, and there are many different ways to biohack and of course it all depends on goals.0 -
What have you attempted lemur?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions