Nutrition is not a belief system...
Replies
-
This is an ad. You have to start thinking of the motivation of the writer before you go off and believe anything online. This person wants your money. Keep that in mind. I tend to trust studies and authorities on health who are not trying to get me to spend on them.
But do you disagree with any of the non-advertising points the author made?
I really think OP was just happy to see a mainstream nutrition post that suggested people stop "believing" in every new thing that comes down the pike and look at the preponderance of actual scientific evidence that has accumulated over time. Considering the 2 billion posts here about ACV and green tea and superfoods and detoxes and waist trainers etc that people learn about through blog posts like this one, it's nice to see someone trying to sell science <shrug>
I think the problem is how dismissive the author is of anything that doesn't fit his particular model. He doesn't have a monopoly on nutrition science, there is no monopoly, there are a thousand different studies by a thousand different people that say a thousand different things. There's nothing about his particular system that makes it anymore rigorously "scientific" than what most companies are selling. Atkins, Keto, IF, or any other you can think up. Pick up any of the "pop" nutrition books he dismissed outright, you'll find them filled with references to scientific studies. Being backed up by "actual scientific evidence that has accumulated over time" is hardly a unique or meaningful claim.
This article discussing doing research and basing one's understanding of nutrition on real scientific research instead of merely accepting extravagant claims, feelings, beliefs or convincing sales pitches from people with abs.
He does not posit his own thoughts on how people should eat. Nor does he dismiss any other nutritional philosophies outside of a few obviously flawed extremes (strictly carnivorous diets, 600 cal limits, etc.). He does illustrate the difference between understanding research and believing baseless claims by offering an example of two different claims ("eating honey boosts metabolism" vs "creatine improves strength performance"), one for which there is no research and one for which there is plenty.
So I don't know what you're referring to when you claim he's dismissive of ideas that don't fit his model considering that we don't even know from this article what his model is.
It seems more like you're reaching and trying to find any reason you can to dismiss his premise that nutritional philosophies should be based on real research rather than a belief system. Why is that? Do you subscribe to nutritional beliefs that are not backed by scientific research?11 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »It seems more like you're reaching and trying to find any reason you can to dismiss his premise that nutritional philosophies should be based on real research rather than a belief system. Why is that? Do you subscribe to nutritional beliefs that are not backed by scientific research?
Fair question...0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »It seems more like you're reaching and trying to find any reason you can to dismiss his premise that nutritional philosophies should be based on real research rather than a belief system. Why is that? Do you subscribe to nutritional beliefs that are not backed by scientific research?
Fair question...
page 2....
pp is most likely a low carber, which may be a factor here, (I could be wrong, but I did think it was interesting).
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10592316/which-has-worked-better-for-you-watching-calories-fat-or-keto#latest
edited for further thoughts1 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »It seems more like you're reaching and trying to find any reason you can to dismiss his premise that nutritional philosophies should be based on real research rather than a belief system. Why is that? Do you subscribe to nutritional beliefs that are not backed by scientific research?
Fair question...
page 2....
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10592316/which-has-worked-better-for-you-watching-calories-fat-or-keto#latest
and there it is...
ok3 -
you guys kill me. off the charts obtuseness9
-
Okay article.
The problem with science is the conflicting studies. Over and over you see one study that proves something and then another that disproves it. There is very little fact out there beyond people need calories, protein and some fats from quality foods full of micronutrients.
I did find it sort of funny how he went on about sexy, splashy diet programs that are out to make a buck, but then finished with advertising for Precision Nutrition. Bit ironic.
Science doesn't prove things. Maths does - they get to set their own rules, so they get to prove things. Science isn't so lucky. Science gets given rules by the real world, and establishes and tests hypotheses to try and figure out what they are. It can only ever be as good as the measuring equipment they're using. Biological systems are incredibly complex, with huge amount of inputs and processes that we just can't get a handle on.
It's also worth bearing in mind that statistics are tricky. For instance, you can't prove something, only say it holds with a certain level of confidence. That is, a certain probability that you are wrong. And then you get this:
https://www.xkcd.com/882/
I wish statistics was taught in schools
and it should be mandatory for anyone calling themselves a journalist. I see so much sloppy work in statistics in the news and it really winds me up. 4 -
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »
I'm rejecting it because his entire pitch is "pay me because I know science and nobody else does," which is nonsense. It's not nonsense because he doesn't know science, it's nonsense because everybody else makes the exact same claim.
I'm sure there's plenty of scientific evidence for everything he believes, and everything in the article.
If he just pitched "we have a system, we have evidence, let use help you" he'd be fine. But he doesn't. He goes farther, trying to stake a claim to "one true science" which is absurd.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
I'm rejecting it because his entire pitch is "pay me because I know science and nobody else does," which is nonsense. It's not nonsense because he doesn't know science, it's nonsense because everybody else makes the exact same claim.
I'm sure there's plenty of scientific evidence for everything he believes, and everything in the article.
Could you give an example of this because I did not get that from the article...6 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »It seems more like you're reaching and trying to find any reason you can to dismiss his premise that nutritional philosophies should be based on real research rather than a belief system. Why is that? Do you subscribe to nutritional beliefs that are not backed by scientific research?
Fair question...
page 2....
pp is most likely a low carber, which may be a factor here, (I could be wrong, but I did think it was interesting).
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10592316/which-has-worked-better-for-you-watching-calories-fat-or-keto#latest
edited for further thoughts
Aha. Yup. Asserting that stances on nutrition should be built on solid scientific research rather than hopes, feels and magical claims would certainly be offensive to faithful believers in the church of ketology. Good catch.7 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
I'm rejecting it because his entire pitch is "pay me because I know science and nobody else does," which is nonsense. It's not nonsense because he doesn't know science, it's nonsense because everybody else makes the exact same claim.
I'm sure there's plenty of scientific evidence for everything he believes, and everything in the article.
If he just pitched "we have a system, we have evidence, let use help you" he'd be fine. But he doesn't. He goes farther, trying to stake a claim to "one true science" which is absurd.
That's not at all what the article is about. Yes, he does make a sales pitch at the end but the article itself does not claim that no one else knows science like you claim it does.
The entire point of the article is that you should base your thoughts about nutrition on scientific evidence rather than on what you want to be true or what the guy with and says.
He never claims that he's the only one who knows how to do this. He never claims that certain nutritional philosophies don't adhere to this.
He never even says that many of the grand claims about keto are based on wishful thinking.
All he says is "do your research and let science be your guide."
It's pretty obtuse for you to keep claiming that he's rejecting other people's theories or that he's the only one who can science.3 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Okay article.
The problem with science is the conflicting studies. Over and over you see one study that proves something and then another that disproves it. There is very little fact out there beyond people need calories, protein and some fats from quality foods full of micronutrients.
I did find it sort of funny how he went on about sexy, splashy diet programs that are out to make a buck, but then finished with advertising for Precision Nutrition. Bit ironic.
Science doesn't prove things. Maths does - they get to set their own rules, so they get to prove things. Science isn't so lucky. Science gets given rules by the real world, and establishes and tests hypotheses to try and figure out what they are. It can only ever be as good as the measuring equipment they're using. Biological systems are incredibly complex, with huge amount of inputs and processes that we just can't get a handle on.
It's also worth bearing in mind that statistics are tricky. For instance, you can't prove something, only say it holds with a certain level of confidence. That is, a certain probability that you are wrong. And then you get this:
https://www.xkcd.com/882/
I wish statistics was taught in schools and it should be mandatory for anyone calling themselves a journalist. I see so much sloppy work in statistics in the news and it really winds me up.
Yes. You could say that the math, based upon the science, proves things.
But I have seen conflicting studies and meta analysis done that say opposite things because the results were different, and not because the stats were done in different manners.5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
I'm rejecting it because his entire pitch is "pay me because I know science and nobody else does," which is nonsense. It's not nonsense because he doesn't know science, it's nonsense because everybody else makes the exact same claim.
I'm sure there's plenty of scientific evidence for everything he believes, and everything in the article.
If he just pitched "we have a system, we have evidence, let use help you" he'd be fine. But he doesn't. He goes farther, trying to stake a claim to "one true science" which is absurd.
Maybe I'm mistaken but weren't you looking for a BCAA recommendation in another thread and didn't know that a better protein powder would provide it without additional supplementation? Despite being shown research that BCAA are largely a wast of time? Or am I mistaken?3 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Okay article.
The problem with science is the conflicting studies. Over and over you see one study that proves something and then another that disproves it. There is very little fact out there beyond people need calories, protein and some fats from quality foods full of micronutrients.
I did find it sort of funny how he went on about sexy, splashy diet programs that are out to make a buck, but then finished with advertising for Precision Nutrition. Bit ironic.
Science doesn't prove things. Maths does - they get to set their own rules, so they get to prove things. Science isn't so lucky. Science gets given rules by the real world, and establishes and tests hypotheses to try and figure out what they are. It can only ever be as good as the measuring equipment they're using. Biological systems are incredibly complex, with huge amount of inputs and processes that we just can't get a handle on.
It's also worth bearing in mind that statistics are tricky. For instance, you can't prove something, only say it holds with a certain level of confidence. That is, a certain probability that you are wrong. And then you get this:
https://www.xkcd.com/882/
I wish statistics was taught in schools and it should be mandatory for anyone calling themselves a journalist. I see so much sloppy work in statistics in the news and it really winds me up.
Yes. You could say that the math, based upon the science, proves things.
But I have seen conflicting studies and meta analysis done that say opposite things because the results were different, and not because the stats were done in different manners.
Sometime this can be the case. Particularly when one is looking to confirm their own preformed biases.5 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Okay article.
The problem with science is the conflicting studies. Over and over you see one study that proves something and then another that disproves it. There is very little fact out there beyond people need calories, protein and some fats from quality foods full of micronutrients.
I did find it sort of funny how he went on about sexy, splashy diet programs that are out to make a buck, but then finished with advertising for Precision Nutrition. Bit ironic.
Science doesn't prove things. Maths does - they get to set their own rules, so they get to prove things. Science isn't so lucky. Science gets given rules by the real world, and establishes and tests hypotheses to try and figure out what they are. It can only ever be as good as the measuring equipment they're using. Biological systems are incredibly complex, with huge amount of inputs and processes that we just can't get a handle on.
It's also worth bearing in mind that statistics are tricky. For instance, you can't prove something, only say it holds with a certain level of confidence. That is, a certain probability that you are wrong. And then you get this:
https://www.xkcd.com/882/
I wish statistics was taught in schools and it should be mandatory for anyone calling themselves a journalist. I see so much sloppy work in statistics in the news and it really winds me up.
Yes. You could say that the math, based upon the science, proves things.
But I have seen conflicting studies and meta analysis done that say opposite things because the results were different, and not because the stats were done in different manners.
Sometime this can be the case. Particularly when one is looking to confirm their own preformed biases.
It seemed to me the article itself addressed the issue of conflicting studies quite handily anyway.
Cherry picking isn't how you dismiss the validity of verifying things with research.3 -
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/10/the_healthiest_diet_proven_by_science.html
This article posits that the healthiest diet is no diet. That's turned out to be the most effective methodology for me when it come to eating."Science has not identified the healthiest way to eat. In fact, it has come as close as possible (because you can't prove a negative) to confirming that there is no such thing as the healthiest diet. To the contrary, science has established quite definitively that humans are able to thrive equally well on a variety of diets. Adaptability is the hallmark of man as eater. For us, many diets are good while none is perfect."
This is backed up by the data collected at the National Weight Control Registry.
"We have also started to learn about how the weight loss was accomplished: 45% of registry participants lost the weight on their own and the other 55% lost weight with the help of some type of program." http://nwcr.ws/research/default.htm0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
I'm rejecting it because his entire pitch is "pay me because I know science and nobody else does," which is nonsense. It's not nonsense because he doesn't know science, it's nonsense because everybody else makes the exact same claim.
I'm sure there's plenty of scientific evidence for everything he believes, and everything in the article.
If he just pitched "we have a system, we have evidence, let use help you" he'd be fine. But he doesn't. He goes farther, trying to stake a claim to "one true science" which is absurd.
Maybe I'm mistaken but weren't you looking for a BCAA recommendation in another thread and didn't know that a better protein powder would provide it without additional supplementation? Despite being shown research that BCAA are largely a wast of time? Or am I mistaken?
No. Somebody else asked for BCAA recommendations, I shared my experience with a post-workout supplement that includes BCAAs among other things.
My diet advice is always to cut calories by whatever method works best for you. If trying to be full keto gets your calories great. If you can do it unguided with out paying attention to macros, more power too you.
What diet you chose isn't as important as choosing one that works and sticking with it. If a fad or gimmick keeps you motivated and gives you a framework for cutting calories, then it worked. If over paying some chucklehead with a made up certification keeps you on the path to success, you do you.2 -
I'm emphatically not a fan of the precisonnutrition site, especially since I saw a proponent of their methodologies here who discounted calorie counting as imprecise and advocated comparing portion sizes to hand size as the 'superior option'. The claim just defied logic and he'd argue it to death.
Still, the article makes a good point about the cargo cult-like behavior around certain diet fads.
The new celebrity diet with a million contradictory rules, sold in a bible or video series.
The defenders of the master cleanse and the military diet and the detox of the week.
The new converts taking a daily benediction of ACV.
The clean eating penitents.
The followers of TV gurus like Dr. Oz.
The converts from the latest vegan propaganda documentary on Netflix.
The megachurches of BeachBody and Advocare and Herbalife.
The true believers who capitalize "Way Of Eating" as if it's a catechism or state with absolute faith that walking a quarter mile a day was all the difference they needed.
Even CICO, for some, becomes a meaningless mantra...the answer to every dietary question that, while true, needs context for people who have been bombarded with half truths and outright lies from a multitude of sources. It's an answer that seems too simple and unsatisfying, but at the same time is difficult to actually do. So the diet industry continues to spin off new cults tailored for every susceptible person.
9 -
Even CICO, for some, becomes a meaningless mantra...the answer to every dietary question that, while true, needs context for people who have been bombarded with half truths and outright lies from a multitude of sources. It's an answer that seems too simple and unsatisfying, but at the same time is difficult to actually do. So the diet industry continues to spin off new cults tailored for every susceptible person.
Well said.0 -
I'm emphatically not a fan of the precisonnutrition site, especially since I saw a proponent of their methodologies here who discounted calorie counting as imprecise and advocated comparing portion sizes to hand size as the 'superior option'. The claim just defied logic and he'd argue it to death.
Don't blame the system for one misguided proponent. Personally, I do not agree with everything they say but that said, it is a fairly solid, well balanced, common sense approach to nutrition...1 -
The author is selling an approach to diet and nutrition. I'd say most of here think the author's approach makes sense.
That said, nutrition can be a belief system. See veganism.0 -
I found the article very informative but then again I eat high protein and tend to avoid vegeterribles.0
-
its basically an ad for that product. Anytime there is financial gain, the quality of a "scientific" article is *kitten*. Too many For-profit/company sponsored "scientist" out there. That's why we have so many conflicting articles.
1 -
juliogio420 wrote: »
its basically an ad for that product. Anytime there is financial gain, the quality of a "scientific" article is *kitten*. Too many For-profit/company sponsored "scientist" out there. That's why we have so many conflicting articles.
But does it take away from the message? Again, why throw the baby out with the bath water?1 -
juliogio420 wrote: »
its basically an ad for that product. Anytime there is financial gain, the quality of a "scientific" article is *kitten*. Too many For-profit/company sponsored "scientist" out there. That's why we have so many conflicting articles.
But does it take away from the message? Again, why throw the baby out with the bath water?
Losing battle on these boards. People are going to believe what they want. An article that's not actually touting a specific diet, but telling people to base things on the best available research is being flat out dismissed because they suggest they are able to help people avoid the myriad of non-sense, that exists in the diet & weight loss industry. Pathetic that anyone can argue against this.6 -
juliogio420 wrote: »
its basically an ad for that product. Anytime there is financial gain, the quality of a "scientific" article is *kitten*. Too many For-profit/company sponsored "scientist" out there. That's why we have so many conflicting articles.
But does it take away from the message? Again, why throw the baby out with the bath water?
Losing battle on these boards. People are going to believe what they want. An article that's not actually touting a specific diet, but telling people to base things on the best available research is being flat out dismissed because they suggest they are able to help people avoid the myriad of non-sense, that exists in the diet & weight loss industry. Pathetic that anyone can argue against this.
Well said...0 -
The author is selling an approach to diet and nutrition. I'd say most of here think the author's approach makes sense.
That said, nutrition can be a belief system. See veganism.
But then to the point of the article, the nutritional strategies/claims behind veganism shouldn't be a belief system.
Finding the eating/use of animal products unethical, yes, that's a belief system.
However, the claims that some vegans make (people aren't meant to eat meat...dairy isn't healthy...) are contrary to scientific research. Done according to the advice offered in the article, a vegan could more accurately say, "The eating of meat can be healthy but I find it unethical so I don't."4
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
- 424 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