The problem with science
Replies
-
Some good points here.... and a lot of snarkiness (to be expected). Not going to argue the points because everyone is entitled to their opinion and we are, of course, all at different stages on this journey. Would certainly be interesting to see photos of the bodies on threads like this though. Not that having a great physique is necessarily a guarantee of anything but it's certainly interesting to see the physiques behind the opinions. In the fitness world there seems to be a baffling inverse correlation behind having a great physique and training "scientifically". After all these years, I admit that I still can't figure out exactly why... although I have some ideas.
Yes- direct correlation. I had to sign a release in college acknowledging that my molecular bio degree would make me "bafflingly" fat. Luckily, I'm a grad school dropout, so then I got hotter- through no effort; it happened the moment I quit. Also, nobody makes passes at people with glasses.
Good God.21 -
Some good points here.... and a lot of snarkiness (to be expected). Not going to argue the points because everyone is entitled to their opinion and we are, of course, all at different stages on this journey. Would certainly be interesting to see photos of the bodies on threads like this though. Not that having a great physique is necessarily a guarantee of anything but it's certainly interesting to see the physiques behind the opinions. In the fitness world there seems to be a baffling inverse correlation behind having a great physique and training "scientifically". After all these years, I admit that I still can't figure out exactly why... although I have some ideas.
I support CICO (to include eating "junk food" as it fits your goals). I support science. Here are some pictures of my physique, including a picture from when I joined MFP in 2011.
And you are a record hold in what... power lifting?
Yep! World record in powerlifting for deadlift. Would have set another this year for a different weight class if it wasn't for getting a new job.10 -
Some good points here.... and a lot of snarkiness (to be expected). Not going to argue the points because everyone is entitled to their opinion and we are, of course, all at different stages on this journey.
Everyones entitled to their own opinion but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. Thats what Science as a philosophy is about.
The problem is not with science, its with the opinions given about scientific findings by the media which is what actually reaches the general public.11 -
So we need to post pictures of ourselves (before and after) to prove what exactly?
0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Some good points here.... and a lot of snarkiness (to be expected). Not going to argue the points because everyone is entitled to their opinion and we are, of course, all at different stages on this journey. Would certainly be interesting to see photos of the bodies on threads like this though. Not that having a great physique is necessarily a guarantee of anything but it's certainly interesting to see the physiques behind the opinions. In the fitness world there seems to be a baffling inverse correlation behind having a great physique and training "scientifically". After all these years, I admit that I still can't figure out exactly why... although I have some ideas.
Everyones entitled to their own opinion but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. Thats what Science as a philosophy is about.
The problem is not with science, its with the opinions given about scientific findings by the media which is what actually reaches the general public.
I am with the mad scientist on this one. 2 -
Some good points here.... and a lot of snarkiness (to be expected). Not going to argue the points because everyone is entitled to their opinion and we are, of course, all at different stages on this journey. Would certainly be interesting to see photos of the bodies on threads like this though. Not that having a great physique is necessarily a guarantee of anything but it's certainly interesting to see the physiques behind the opinions. In the fitness world there seems to be a baffling inverse correlation behind having a great physique and training "scientifically". After all these years, I admit that I still can't figure out exactly why... although I have some ideas.
28 lbs down, using CICO alone. Also I walk a bit.
For the bolded.
14 -
In the fitness world there seems to be a baffling inverse correlation behind having a great physique and training "scientifically". After all these years, I admit that I still can't figure out exactly why... although I have some ideas.
So basically you are trolling then?3 -
And BTW, some of us have private pictures for a variety of reason. I already get enough threats, I don't need someone reverse imaging my photo to give them more ammo. The people I want to see my photo's have them.4
-
Also also, the best part of that picture is clearly my kid's art. "lines mummy? what lines??!!"9
-
-
Meh. I'm all for an excuse to show off:) even if it's delivered by creepers. Besides, there's only a million photos on the success stories page, and most porn is free so it's not like he needs US.4 -
When I have abs like yours my picture will be everywhere too
2 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »
When I have abs like yours my picture will be everywhere too
You'll get there! I look forward to when you reach it! 3 -
For the bolded.
What I'd add to that is that you don't have to believe it. The amazing thing about the scientific method is that you don't have to take anyone's word for granted. You can test it yourself. People are out there claiming the Earth is flat, when anyone can go buy a hobby rocket with a camera on it and see the curvature of the Earth for themselves. Question everything if you want to, science is there for you!
5 -
-
Science has added *so* much to the fitness / weight loss / physique world and I feel very grateful that there are people out there publishing some really high quality studies which help us to get results but science is not the be-all and end-all that some people on these forums suggest so I wanted to mention a few points that I think it’s worth keeping in mind:
For example:
1) Science has been described as "observing the world around you”. That’s the best definition I have found. Notice it doesn’t say “listening only to people who observed results in laboratories”
2) Studies, by definition, publish averages. For example: 15 subjects did x and got y result. In reality, perhaps 8 of the subjects got almost identical results, 4 got results which were close to the 8 and 3 got totally different results. Those 3 are *20%* of the test group…. and their results are completely hidden in the averages.
3) Science is just the latest opinion on a subject, albeit a hopefully very educated one. The "science" of weight loss is totally different today compared to 10 years ago. 10 years from now it will be completely different again. Don’t get *too” attached to the studies we have today
4) CICO is a great place to start for weight loss but it is definitely not an absolute. I work in the fitness industry and know professional physique athletes who dramatically *increase* their calories to get lean for a show. Now, for an average person with 30 lbs to lose this may or may not apply to them but some people need to eat more to lose bodyfat and some people need to eat less. (I recently came across a great article on this which I will try to find and post below.)
5) The main problem with CICO relates to hormones. I have seen a few snarky comments on this forum say things like “oh so your body is breaking the laws of physics is it??” when one poster says that they lose more fat on higher calories (which I have observed in myself and others many times). The thing is that the person making the comment definitely isn’t a physicist (and doesn’t really understand the laws of physics) and isn’t a physiologist either (so definitely doesn’t understand how the laws of physics relate the the trillions of processes taking place in the human body every second) so their comment is a case of “a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. The confusion with CICO relates to CO. The body is actually very good at down-regulating fat loss when calorie intake is reduced (if you don’t agree, see point 2. You are alive today because a few thousand generations of your ancestors survived on very little food for most of their lives. What often produces the result is the *change*. Moving from a long period of higher calories to reduced calories or moving from a long period of lower calories to high calories. So, when someone tells you they are losing more fat on higher calories, remember that you are not a physiologist; you are a weight loss forummer; and you don’t actually have enough experience to know if someone is absolutely wrong when they are observing their own body right in front of their eyes. It’s very important to keep our minds open in this field. I can guarantee that you will have a different opinion on this subject in 10 years so why assume you are 100% correct today.
Anyway, these are a few points I wanted to put out there in case someone finds them useful. I’ve been involved in the fitness / physique world for more than 20 years so I have seen a few things along the way and whilst the current trend towards science-based fitness is extremely positive, I personally feel that we mustn’t become a slave to it.
some people need to eat more to lose bodyfat and some people need to eat less.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but body fat isn't the same as body weight, right? People may gain or lose weight while losing fat, but CICO still applies.2 -
I just like to show off my wheels.
5 -
Cover up the 'Bama logo and you're good.1 -
Gurl, you mispelled SWAG
2 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Well, realistically, no one normal wants to have sex with someone's skin.
Hey now, speak for yourself
8 -
OneHundredToLose wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Well, realistically, no one normal wants to have sex with someone's skin.
Hey now, speak for yourself
3 -
-
Wetcoaster wrote: »
I can confirm scientifically that arguing with people online does not make me feel like a man of any size.8 -
I went from 28 BMI to abs. All thanks to science.
No pics for you.7 -
I just like to show off my wheels.
Your wheels are far too sexy and distracting, @psulemon
Staaaaahhhhp!stevencloser wrote: »I went from 28 BMI to abs. All thanks to science.
No pics for you.
I are disappoint @stevencloser *sigh*3 -
stevencloser wrote: »I went from 28 BMI to abs. All thanks to science.
No pics for you.
I am depressingly naive. I have thought this whole time that you just superimposed a picture of a mouse on your face after coating yourself in oil and taking a selfie 1 -
Oh no, that's Jeff Seid. With a mouse superimposed.
I did actually make a pic of actually me with a mouse head superimposed to post here but why should I prove myself to someone who doesn't know what science even is trying to talk about what is wrong with it?6 -
5) The main problem with CICO relates to hormones. I have seen a few snarky comments on this forum say things like “oh so your body is breaking the laws of physics is it??” when one poster says that they lose more fat on higher calories (which I have observed in myself and others many times). The thing is that the person making the comment definitely isn’t a physicist (and doesn’t really understand the laws of physics) and isn’t a physiologist either (so definitely doesn’t understand how the laws of physics relate the the trillions of processes taking place in the human body every second) so their comment is a case of “a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. The confusion with CICO relates to CO. The body is actually very good at down-regulating fat loss when calorie intake is reduced (if you don’t agree, see point 2. You are alive today because a few thousand generations of your ancestors survived on very little food for most of their lives. What often produces the result is the *change*. Moving from a long period of higher calories to reduced calories or moving from a long period of lower calories to high calories. So, when someone tells you they are losing more fat on higher calories, remember that you are not a physiologist; you are a weight loss forummer; and you don’t actually have enough experience to know if someone is absolutely wrong when they are observing their own body right in front of their eyes. It’s very important to keep our minds open in this field. I can guarantee that you will have a different opinion on this subject in 10 years so why assume you are 100% correct today.
The funny thing is that even though a lot of what you said here is not true, still not a single bit of it violates CICO. If you are losing weight on higher CI, that means your CO is also higher. Whether you attribute it to harder workouts from more energy, or some hormonal/metabolistic nonsense you heard on Dr. Oz, you're still talking about calories in vs. calories out. 2 -
stevencloser wrote: »I went from 28 BMI to abs. All thanks to science.
No pics for you.
Yeah but look what happened to your head! Gotta ask yourself...was it all worth it?10
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