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.
Is anyone confused?
Options
FitFamilyGuy
Posts: 73 Member
in Debate Club
Information is great but it really amazes me just how much information and debate complicates some very simple concepts about fitness.
Cardio, Muscle, Burn Fat, Weight Loss, Keto, Atkens, High Carb, Calories In Calories Out, Low Carb, Low Fat, HITT, Low Intensity cardio, Steroids, High Intensity cardio, Sugar, Supplements, Protein, Macros, Micros, Weights, Body Weight, Fitness Gadgets, Functional Training, Food Points... Wow!
No kidding people fail to burn fat and keep a lean healthy weight. Wow!
Do we not have pretty good real world examples of what does and does not work for most people?... there are always exceptions and people do vary but in 2019, can't we point to examples of real world strategies that tend to result in lean, fit people from easy to follow principles?
Cardio, Muscle, Burn Fat, Weight Loss, Keto, Atkens, High Carb, Calories In Calories Out, Low Carb, Low Fat, HITT, Low Intensity cardio, Steroids, High Intensity cardio, Sugar, Supplements, Protein, Macros, Micros, Weights, Body Weight, Fitness Gadgets, Functional Training, Food Points... Wow!
No kidding people fail to burn fat and keep a lean healthy weight. Wow!
Do we not have pretty good real world examples of what does and does not work for most people?... there are always exceptions and people do vary but in 2019, can't we point to examples of real world strategies that tend to result in lean, fit people from easy to follow principles?
7
Replies
-
In reality, it's pretty simple. Understand your calories in vs. calories out, set a target calorie goal based on your personal goals (lose, gain, maintain, etc). Build an exercise routine that focuses on strength training and cardio. There really is no need for most people to overcomplicate it.
BUT, there is A LOT of MONEY to be made from overcomplicating things for people. That's why you see so much of it. "My product/diet/lifestyle blog/app/whatever is the only thing that will work for you" is a pretty effective way to market, and it takes advantage of a lot of people who are looking for a quick fix to their struggles.20 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Information is great but it really amazes me just how much information and debate complicates some very simple concepts about fitness.
Cardio, Muscle, Burn Fat, Weight Loss, Keto, Atkens, High Carb, Calories In Calories Out, Low Carb, Low Fat, HITT, Low Intensity cardio, Steroids, High Intensity cardio, Sugar, Supplements, Protein, Macros, Micros, Weights, Body Weight, Fitness Gadgets, Functional Training, Food Points... Wow!
No kidding people fail to burn fat and keep a lean healthy weight. Wow!
Do we not have pretty good real world examples of what does and does not work for most people?... there are always exceptions and people do vary but in 2019, can't we point to examples of real world strategies that tend to result in lean, fit people from easy to follow principles?
Problem is that people don't want easy to follow. They want easy to do. Big difference.
There is a simple answer to what works for ALL people. Calories in vs. calories out. Easier to say than it is to do. Hence the reason for every single diet fad ever created.17 -
In reality, it's pretty simple. Understand your calories in vs. calories out, set a target calorie goal based on your personal goals (lose, gain, maintain, etc). Build an exercise routine that focuses on strength training and cardio. There really is no need for most people to overcomplicate it.
BUT, there is A LOT of MONEY to be made from overcomplicating things for people. That's why you see so much of it. "My product/diet/lifestyle blog/app/whatever is the only thing that will work for you" is a pretty effective way to market, and it takes advantage of a lot of people who are looking for a quick fix to their struggles.
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
Unless you are already lean and fit, and trying to get leaner, fitter, or training for a specialized athletic goal, it doesn't need to be complicated (even then, it probably doesn't need to be).
Eat at a deficit if you need to lose weight, a surplus if you need to gain. Get a reasonable amount of protein, fat, and fiber for health. At least become more active in whatever way you want, but it's a good idea to do cardio for your heart and lungs, strength training for your muscle and joints, and some flexibility and stretching is important too.
The rest is noise, majoring in the minors. If any of it makes it easier for you to eat at the right calorie level or be more active, awesome. If not, don't worry about it. Pretty much anyone who insists you have to micro-manage something to lose weight or be healthy is either trying to sell you something, or is someone who bought into something and now needs to believe it's the Holy Grail so they feel like it was worth it.15 -
Yes, you can, but unfortunately a lot of people are looking for the easy quick fix way to do it and this is where pseudo-science comes in and muddies the waters.6
-
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.7 -
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
You sound logical and it sounds like you have a good approach.
Question, What would be some examples of confusing "language"?
I totally agree that Simple over complex is a very good frame of mind to be in!
Basically I agree with your thinking although I would say that popular trends and topics that get the most attention (lots of peer reviews) are not necessarily the simplest and best strategy. I think this is where a lot of confusion comes in. But I hear your challenge about how to "vet" ideas.
This is a big reason I have taken a lifelong passion and approach of trying and experiencing real results on myself. My results mean more to me than a study with a lot of variables that suggests what I should experience.3 -
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
This is very true. 50 years ago, if you wanted to publish drivel - you had to get a publisher or a magazine to agree to publish your drivel then you had to get someone to actually pick it up and read it. Now you just need a free Wordpress account, the right font choice, proper spelling and some good graphics and it looks like your drivel is coming from the WHO. But some info is good. So how is your average person going to know? What I’m reading makes sense. It might be entirely garbage, but it makes sense and this blog as 2 million followers so it must be right. Right?
And a lot of what’s out there is drivel. And also a lot of what’s out there is a “fit” person talking about what they did to achieve that. Nevermind that simply achieving results doesn’t mean that one has taken the most direct path. If I wake up and pray to the sun god every morning before I do my workout-are my results because I prayed to the sun god? That’s where studies are helpful. Just because someone has done something doesn’t mean it was necessary, helpful or that the same person couldn’t have achieved more by doing something different.4 -
Supplements mostly. My trainer 35 years ago was adamant that I take nothing but protein powder and "eat until I'm satisfied, not a bite more" her words, and Metrobolin Gold was the protein powder I used. We were beginning to get flooded with supplements at that time and really, no one knew what the effects were, but they were often loaded with terms referencing muscle fiber growth/metabolism (so popular now) boosters/testosterone boosters etc. I can't even pronounce half of what I saw, and still see today lol.FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
You sound logical and it sounds like you have a good approach.
Question, What would be some examples of confusing "language"?
I totally agree that Simple over complex is a very good frame of mind to be in!
Basically I agree with your thinking although I would say that popular trends and topics that get the most attention (lots of peer reviews) are not necessarily the simplest and best strategy. I think this is where a lot of confusion comes in. But I hear your challenge about how to "vet" ideas.
This is a big reason I have taken a lifelong passion and approach of trying and experiencing real results on myself. My results mean more to me than a study with a lot of variables that suggests what I should experience.
edit: Addition
I meant to also state that while we couldn't go online then to attempt to vet what we saw, today we can and there is just an argument for ...anything. That's where the confusion today comes in - I cannot differentiate between truth and falsehoods in any number of ""Scientific"" studies.1 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
This is very true. 50 years ago, if you wanted to publish drivel - you had to get a publisher or a magazine to agree to publish your drivel then you had to get someone to actually pick it up and read it. Now you just need a free Wordpress account, the right font choice, proper spelling and some good graphics and it looks like your drivel is coming from the WHO. But some info is good. So how is your average person going to know? What I’m reading makes sense. It might be entirely garbage, but it makes sense and this blog as 2 million followers so it must be right. Right?
And a lot of what’s out there is drivel. And also a lot of what’s out there is a “fit” person talking about what they did to achieve that. Nevermind that simply achieving results doesn’t mean that one has taken the most direct path. If I wake up and pray to the sun god every morning before I do my workout-are my results because I prayed to the sun god? That’s where studies are helpful. Just because someone has done something doesn’t mean it was necessary, helpful or that the same person couldn’t have achieved more by doing something different.
Yes! Thank you
0 -
Supplements mostly. My trainer 35 years ago was adamant that I take nothing but protein powder and "eat until I'm satisfied, not a bite more" her words, and Metrobolin Gold was the protein powder I used. We were beginning to get flooded with supplements at that time and really, no one knew what the effects were, but they were often loaded with terms referencing muscle fiber growth/metabolism (so popular now) boosters/testosterone boosters etc. I can't even pronounce half of what I saw, and still see today lol.FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
You sound logical and it sounds like you have a good approach.
Question, What would be some examples of confusing "language"?
I totally agree that Simple over complex is a very good frame of mind to be in!
Basically I agree with your thinking although I would say that popular trends and topics that get the most attention (lots of peer reviews) are not necessarily the simplest and best strategy. I think this is where a lot of confusion comes in. But I hear your challenge about how to "vet" ideas.
This is a big reason I have taken a lifelong passion and approach of trying and experiencing real results on myself. My results mean more to me than a study with a lot of variables that suggests what I should experience.
edit: Addition
I meant to also state that while we couldn't go online then to attempt to vet what we saw, today we can and there is just an argument for ...anything. That's where the confusion today comes in - I cannot differentiate between truth and falsehoods in any number of ""Scientific"" studies.
Again you make a lot of sense. I've never been overly sold on supplements. Protein as a "supplement" to diet makes sense to me. A multivitamin for general health makes sense but I totally agree about the noise of various products.1 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
This is very true. 50 years ago, if you wanted to publish drivel - you had to get a publisher or a magazine to agree to publish your drivel then you had to get someone to actually pick it up and read it. Now you just need a free Wordpress account, the right font choice, proper spelling and some good graphics and it looks like your drivel is coming from the WHO. But some info is good. So how is your average person going to know? What I’m reading makes sense. It might be entirely garbage, but it makes sense and this blog as 2 million followers so it must be right. Right?
And a lot of what’s out there is drivel. And also a lot of what’s out there is a “fit” person talking about what they did to achieve that. Nevermind that simply achieving results doesn’t mean that one has taken the most direct path. If I wake up and pray to the sun god every morning before I do my workout-are my results because I prayed to the sun god? That’s where studies are helpful. Just because someone has done something doesn’t mean it was necessary, helpful or that the same person couldn’t have achieved more by doing something different.
This makes sense Phirrgus.
Ideally the average person can use best judgement to decipher between relevant and irrelevant pointers from a fit person. Having someone explain how they achieved success in a way you want to achieve success is often considered invaluable. Nothing is perfect as a lot of studies have so many variables including short durations, small samples, bias, limited control over the accuracy of the data, the type of subjects used etc.
For Example:
A study about "exercise" and "metabolism" that studies a group of marathon runners likely doesn't provide much insight to a guy like me whose primary form of "exercise" is weights.
Or
Some people argue about tiny details in a study that may have a fraction of importance on the end goal and then that study really confuses people about what they should do.
Or
Sometimes studies rely on people self reporting what they did, ate or how much rest they had.
These kinds of thing seems very common and it is likely just as confusing, if not more confusing than the fit person explaining their process to get the way they are.
But even the "fit guy" has a lot of problems as drugs is often hidden. This seems more common than most people realize. Hopefully the "fit guy" can provide enough information to address the drugs concern (if it is a concern for that person). But then again, magazines constantly misrepresent results from a natural or drugs perspective.
Tough go. Keeping it simple has worked for me.1 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Information is great but it really amazes me just how much information and debate complicates some very simple concepts about fitness.
Cardio, Muscle, Burn Fat, Weight Loss, Keto, Atkens, High Carb, Calories In Calories Out, Low Carb, Low Fat, HITT, Low Intensity cardio, Steroids, High Intensity cardio, Sugar, Supplements, Protein, Macros, Micros, Weights, Body Weight, Fitness Gadgets, Functional Training, Food Points... Wow!
No kidding people fail to burn fat and keep a lean healthy weight. Wow!
Do we not have pretty good real world examples of what does and does not work for most people?... there are always exceptions and people do vary but in 2019, can't we point to examples of real world strategies that tend to result in lean, fit people from easy to follow principles?
We know what gets you from point A to point B and that's a road called CI < CO. However, there are different lanes in the road and not all of the lanes are nice and smooth. One of the lanes may be called Keto, another Clean Eating, etc. Depending on the lane you choose, you're gonna have a smooth or a bumpy ride, but as long as you stay on the road and don't exit, you'll get from point A to point B and that's what matters.
When you think of it that way, who really cares what lane somebody else chooses for themselves? All you can do is point out the smooth lanes and advise against the bumpy lanes.
5 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
This is very true. 50 years ago, if you wanted to publish drivel - you had to get a publisher or a magazine to agree to publish your drivel then you had to get someone to actually pick it up and read it. Now you just need a free Wordpress account, the right font choice, proper spelling and some good graphics and it looks like your drivel is coming from the WHO. But some info is good. So how is your average person going to know? What I’m reading makes sense. It might be entirely garbage, but it makes sense and this blog as 2 million followers so it must be right. Right?
And a lot of what’s out there is drivel. And also a lot of what’s out there is a “fit” person talking about what they did to achieve that. Nevermind that simply achieving results doesn’t mean that one has taken the most direct path. If I wake up and pray to the sun god every morning before I do my workout-are my results because I prayed to the sun god? That’s where studies are helpful. Just because someone has done something doesn’t mean it was necessary, helpful or that the same person couldn’t have achieved more by doing something different.
This makes sense Phirrgus.
Ideally the average person can use best judgement to decipher between relevant and irrelevant pointers from a fit person. Having someone explain how they achieved success in a way you want to achieve success is often considered invaluable. Nothing is perfect as a lot of studies have so many variables including short durations, small samples, bias, limited control over the accuracy of the data, the type of subjects used etc.
For Example:
A study about "exercise" and "metabolism" that studies a group of marathon runners likely doesn't provide much insight to a guy like me whose primary form of "exercise" is weights.
Or
Some people argue about tiny details in a study that may have a fraction of importance on the end goal and then that study really confuses people about what they should do.
Or
Sometimes studies rely on people self reporting what they did, ate or how much rest they had.
These kinds of thing seems very common and it is likely just as confusing, if not more confusing than the fit person explaining their process to get the way they are.
But even the "fit guy" has a lot of problems as drugs is often hidden. This seems more common than most people realize. Hopefully the "fit guy" can provide enough information to address the drugs concern (if it is a concern for that person). But then again, magazines constantly misrepresent results from a natural or drugs perspective.
Tough go. Keeping it simple has worked for me.
So, are you saying you think that individual anecdote is more valuable than scientific studies?4 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
This is very true. 50 years ago, if you wanted to publish drivel - you had to get a publisher or a magazine to agree to publish your drivel then you had to get someone to actually pick it up and read it. Now you just need a free Wordpress account, the right font choice, proper spelling and some good graphics and it looks like your drivel is coming from the WHO. But some info is good. So how is your average person going to know? What I’m reading makes sense. It might be entirely garbage, but it makes sense and this blog as 2 million followers so it must be right. Right?
And a lot of what’s out there is drivel. And also a lot of what’s out there is a “fit” person talking about what they did to achieve that. Nevermind that simply achieving results doesn’t mean that one has taken the most direct path. If I wake up and pray to the sun god every morning before I do my workout-are my results because I prayed to the sun god? That’s where studies are helpful. Just because someone has done something doesn’t mean it was necessary, helpful or that the same person couldn’t have achieved more by doing something different.
This makes sense Phirrgus.
Ideally the average person can use best judgement to decipher between relevant and irrelevant pointers from a fit person. Having someone explain how they achieved success in a way you want to achieve success is often considered invaluable. Nothing is perfect as a lot of studies have so many variables including short durations, small samples, bias, limited control over the accuracy of the data, the type of subjects used etc.
For Example:
A study about "exercise" and "metabolism" that studies a group of marathon runners likely doesn't provide much insight to a guy like me whose primary form of "exercise" is weights.
Or
Some people argue about tiny details in a study that may have a fraction of importance on the end goal and then that study really confuses people about what they should do.
Or
Sometimes studies rely on people self reporting what they did, ate or how much rest they had.
These kinds of thing seems very common and it is likely just as confusing, if not more confusing than the fit person explaining their process to get the way they are.
But even the "fit guy" has a lot of problems as drugs is often hidden. This seems more common than most people realize. Hopefully the "fit guy" can provide enough information to address the drugs concern (if it is a concern for that person). But then again, magazines constantly misrepresent results from a natural or drugs perspective.
Tough go. Keeping it simple has worked for me.
So, are you saying you think that individual anecdote is more valuable than scientific studies?
To add to your thought, the reason I believe science should trump individual anecdotes is because people are often attributing their success to things other than what brought them the success. A good example is keto/low carb. I have seen many people in these forums suggest that simply cutting carbs is in itself enough to lose weight. So if "Bob" does keto and loses 50 pounds, he can tell everyone that keto is the key to weight loss, when the truth is the weight was lost as a direct result of a caloric deficit. Keto may have made it easier for "Bob" to adhere to a deficit, but it wasn't the absence of carbs that provided the weight loss, it was the absence of extra calories. Science has proved CICO and is much more reliable in this situation then "Bob's" personal anecdotes.12 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
This is very true. 50 years ago, if you wanted to publish drivel - you had to get a publisher or a magazine to agree to publish your drivel then you had to get someone to actually pick it up and read it. Now you just need a free Wordpress account, the right font choice, proper spelling and some good graphics and it looks like your drivel is coming from the WHO. But some info is good. So how is your average person going to know? What I’m reading makes sense. It might be entirely garbage, but it makes sense and this blog as 2 million followers so it must be right. Right?
And a lot of what’s out there is drivel. And also a lot of what’s out there is a “fit” person talking about what they did to achieve that. Nevermind that simply achieving results doesn’t mean that one has taken the most direct path. If I wake up and pray to the sun god every morning before I do my workout-are my results because I prayed to the sun god? That’s where studies are helpful. Just because someone has done something doesn’t mean it was necessary, helpful or that the same person couldn’t have achieved more by doing something different.
This makes sense Phirrgus.
Ideally the average person can use best judgement to decipher between relevant and irrelevant pointers from a fit person. Having someone explain how they achieved success in a way you want to achieve success is often considered invaluable. Nothing is perfect as a lot of studies have so many variables including short durations, small samples, bias, limited control over the accuracy of the data, the type of subjects used etc.
For Example:
A study about "exercise" and "metabolism" that studies a group of marathon runners likely doesn't provide much insight to a guy like me whose primary form of "exercise" is weights.
Or
Some people argue about tiny details in a study that may have a fraction of importance on the end goal and then that study really confuses people about what they should do.
Or
Sometimes studies rely on people self reporting what they did, ate or how much rest they had.
These kinds of thing seems very common and it is likely just as confusing, if not more confusing than the fit person explaining their process to get the way they are.
But even the "fit guy" has a lot of problems as drugs is often hidden. This seems more common than most people realize. Hopefully the "fit guy" can provide enough information to address the drugs concern (if it is a concern for that person). But then again, magazines constantly misrepresent results from a natural or drugs perspective.
Tough go. Keeping it simple has worked for me.
So, are you saying you think that individual anecdote is more valuable than scientific studies?
To add to your thought, the reason I believe science should trump individual anecdotes is because people are often attributing their success to things other than what brought them the success. A good example is keto/low carb. I have seen many people in these forums suggest that simply cutting carbs is in itself enough to lose weight. So if "Bob" does keto and loses 50 pounds, he can tell everyone that keto is the key to weight loss, when the truth is the weight was lost as a direct result of a caloric deficit. Keto may have made it easier for "Bob" to adhere to a deficit, but it wasn't the absence of carbs that provided the weight loss, it was the absence of extra calories. Science has proved CICO and is much more reliable in this situation then "Bob's" personal anecdotes.
To bring this full circle, "Bob's" confusion on the mechanisms underlying his weight loss adds to the confusion in the general public.4 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
This is very true. 50 years ago, if you wanted to publish drivel - you had to get a publisher or a magazine to agree to publish your drivel then you had to get someone to actually pick it up and read it. Now you just need a free Wordpress account, the right font choice, proper spelling and some good graphics and it looks like your drivel is coming from the WHO. But some info is good. So how is your average person going to know? What I’m reading makes sense. It might be entirely garbage, but it makes sense and this blog as 2 million followers so it must be right. Right?
And a lot of what’s out there is drivel. And also a lot of what’s out there is a “fit” person talking about what they did to achieve that. Nevermind that simply achieving results doesn’t mean that one has taken the most direct path. If I wake up and pray to the sun god every morning before I do my workout-are my results because I prayed to the sun god? That’s where studies are helpful. Just because someone has done something doesn’t mean it was necessary, helpful or that the same person couldn’t have achieved more by doing something different.
This makes sense Phirrgus.
Ideally the average person can use best judgement to decipher between relevant and irrelevant pointers from a fit person. Having someone explain how they achieved success in a way you want to achieve success is often considered invaluable. Nothing is perfect as a lot of studies have so many variables including short durations, small samples, bias, limited control over the accuracy of the data, the type of subjects used etc.
For Example:
A study about "exercise" and "metabolism" that studies a group of marathon runners likely doesn't provide much insight to a guy like me whose primary form of "exercise" is weights.
Or
Some people argue about tiny details in a study that may have a fraction of importance on the end goal and then that study really confuses people about what they should do.
Or
Sometimes studies rely on people self reporting what they did, ate or how much rest they had.
These kinds of thing seems very common and it is likely just as confusing, if not more confusing than the fit person explaining their process to get the way they are.
But even the "fit guy" has a lot of problems as drugs is often hidden. This seems more common than most people realize. Hopefully the "fit guy" can provide enough information to address the drugs concern (if it is a concern for that person). But then again, magazines constantly misrepresent results from a natural or drugs perspective.
Tough go. Keeping it simple has worked for me.
So, are you saying you think that individual anecdote is more valuable than scientific studies?
No I am not.
I agree that people can get cause and effect wrong including the "fit guy". I agree that people can have bias. We are all human just like the scientist conducting a study.
I enjoy reading about facts, data, science and theories that others are trying. I try many of them too! I learn from others and I learn from my mistakes. Learning isn't one dimensional.
However, my personal experience, my passion, my research and my personal real world results based on my personal actions do mean more to me than a study that tells me what "should happen" to me.
If I wanted to learn how to play in the NHL, personally, I would be way more interested in learning from Sidney Crosby and asking how he got there than I would be from a commentator who did not play in the NHL but does get paid full time to watch and study the game.
I would rather learn about SEO from someone who built up a site and is getting huge traffic from search than I would someone who studies SEO and offers a course on it.
Both approaches have flaws but I do trust my results over others theories and tests. If I had the chance to talk to someone who achieved what I wanted to achieve, I would be thrilled and I would place a huge amount of value on that. If I see something about a test finding I would be intrigued and likely want to learn more and verify its accuracy the best that I can.
3 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
This is very true. 50 years ago, if you wanted to publish drivel - you had to get a publisher or a magazine to agree to publish your drivel then you had to get someone to actually pick it up and read it. Now you just need a free Wordpress account, the right font choice, proper spelling and some good graphics and it looks like your drivel is coming from the WHO. But some info is good. So how is your average person going to know? What I’m reading makes sense. It might be entirely garbage, but it makes sense and this blog as 2 million followers so it must be right. Right?
And a lot of what’s out there is drivel. And also a lot of what’s out there is a “fit” person talking about what they did to achieve that. Nevermind that simply achieving results doesn’t mean that one has taken the most direct path. If I wake up and pray to the sun god every morning before I do my workout-are my results because I prayed to the sun god? That’s where studies are helpful. Just because someone has done something doesn’t mean it was necessary, helpful or that the same person couldn’t have achieved more by doing something different.
This makes sense Phirrgus.
Ideally the average person can use best judgement to decipher between relevant and irrelevant pointers from a fit person. Having someone explain how they achieved success in a way you want to achieve success is often considered invaluable. Nothing is perfect as a lot of studies have so many variables including short durations, small samples, bias, limited control over the accuracy of the data, the type of subjects used etc.
For Example:
A study about "exercise" and "metabolism" that studies a group of marathon runners likely doesn't provide much insight to a guy like me whose primary form of "exercise" is weights.
Or
Some people argue about tiny details in a study that may have a fraction of importance on the end goal and then that study really confuses people about what they should do.
Or
Sometimes studies rely on people self reporting what they did, ate or how much rest they had.
These kinds of thing seems very common and it is likely just as confusing, if not more confusing than the fit person explaining their process to get the way they are.
But even the "fit guy" has a lot of problems as drugs is often hidden. This seems more common than most people realize. Hopefully the "fit guy" can provide enough information to address the drugs concern (if it is a concern for that person). But then again, magazines constantly misrepresent results from a natural or drugs perspective.
Tough go. Keeping it simple has worked for me.
Actually- the mere fact that “fit guy” appears fit doesn’t mean he has anything valuable to say.
He achieved results perhaps because of, but equally likely in spite of, his methods.
99% of what is out there is irrelevant nonsense to begin with.
99% of actual studies minimize the noise because no, “fit guy” didn’t get fit because he does IF Keto vegan gluten free whey protein bomb shakes within a 27 minute window after only working legs on the 7th Tuesday of each full blood moon.
Also-“fit guy”s results are irrelevant to me if my goals are about race times and idgaf what my BF% is or how “lean” I look. So even within the context of lifting, my goals are for race performance.
Fit guy’s anecdotal info is nearly useless. He achieved results in spite of what he was doing. He also achieved results that aren’t aligned to my goals. But the internet is full of fit guys sharing their “knowledge” and “expertise”
Years ago, we went out to dinner with my son to celebrate his getting his driver’s license. He insisted on driving himself. We all left at the same time. He got to the restaurant an hour after we did. It was a 7 minute drive (for us). He also needed to borrow money to get some gas because he used all of his on the drive there. Did he get there? Yep. Did he take the best route? I suppose that depends on your definition of best. The internet is FULL of my son giving directions to the restauarant.
Studies are the GPS. Maybe they don’t have every address on planet earth-but I’ll take my chances with that over my kid any day.
8 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
This is very true. 50 years ago, if you wanted to publish drivel - you had to get a publisher or a magazine to agree to publish your drivel then you had to get someone to actually pick it up and read it. Now you just need a free Wordpress account, the right font choice, proper spelling and some good graphics and it looks like your drivel is coming from the WHO. But some info is good. So how is your average person going to know? What I’m reading makes sense. It might be entirely garbage, but it makes sense and this blog as 2 million followers so it must be right. Right?
And a lot of what’s out there is drivel. And also a lot of what’s out there is a “fit” person talking about what they did to achieve that. Nevermind that simply achieving results doesn’t mean that one has taken the most direct path. If I wake up and pray to the sun god every morning before I do my workout-are my results because I prayed to the sun god? That’s where studies are helpful. Just because someone has done something doesn’t mean it was necessary, helpful or that the same person couldn’t have achieved more by doing something different.
This makes sense Phirrgus.
Ideally the average person can use best judgement to decipher between relevant and irrelevant pointers from a fit person. Having someone explain how they achieved success in a way you want to achieve success is often considered invaluable. Nothing is perfect as a lot of studies have so many variables including short durations, small samples, bias, limited control over the accuracy of the data, the type of subjects used etc.
For Example:
A study about "exercise" and "metabolism" that studies a group of marathon runners likely doesn't provide much insight to a guy like me whose primary form of "exercise" is weights.
Or
Some people argue about tiny details in a study that may have a fraction of importance on the end goal and then that study really confuses people about what they should do.
Or
Sometimes studies rely on people self reporting what they did, ate or how much rest they had.
These kinds of thing seems very common and it is likely just as confusing, if not more confusing than the fit person explaining their process to get the way they are.
But even the "fit guy" has a lot of problems as drugs is often hidden. This seems more common than most people realize. Hopefully the "fit guy" can provide enough information to address the drugs concern (if it is a concern for that person). But then again, magazines constantly misrepresent results from a natural or drugs perspective.
Tough go. Keeping it simple has worked for me.
So, are you saying you think that individual anecdote is more valuable than scientific studies?
No I am not.
I agree that people can get cause and effect wrong including the "fit guy". I agree that people can have bias. We are all human just like the scientist conducting a study.
I enjoy reading about facts, data, science and theories that others are trying. I try many of them too! I learn from others and I learn from my mistakes. Learning isn't one dimensional.
However, my personal experience, my passion, my research and my personal real world results based on my personal actions do mean more to me than a study that tells me what "should happen" to me.
If I wanted to learn how to play in the NHL, personally, I would be way more interested in learning from Sidney Crosby and asking how he got there than I would be from a commentator who did not play in the NHL but does get paid full time to watch and study the game.
I would rather learn about SEO from someone who built up a site and is getting huge traffic from search than I would someone who studies SEO and offers a course on it.
Both approaches have flaws but I do trust my results over others theories and tests. If I had the chance to talk to someone who achieved what I wanted to achieve, I would be thrilled and I would place a huge amount of value on that. If I see something about a test finding I would be intrigued and likely want to learn more and verify its accuracy the best that I can.
I guess this is a fundamental difference.
If I wanted to play in the NHL, I wouldn’t ask one guy what he did. I wouldn’t ask a commentator. I would ask many coaches of many teams and youth and feeder programs that have sent many players to the NHL. I would want to know what has and hasn’t worked for many people, what paths are nearly universally successful or not. One guy can’t tell me that.
And on the SEO-again, I would go with who has studied it and knows what does and doesn’t work. One guy who is experiencing success may or may not be doing all the things he could be-he might be doing things he doesn’t need to-he night be doing things in a way that is tailored to the way people search for his specific site.
I guess my fundamental is that anecdotes are fine. But I’m certainly not ever going to use one as a basis for my path forward.
YMMV obviously.7 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
This is very true. 50 years ago, if you wanted to publish drivel - you had to get a publisher or a magazine to agree to publish your drivel then you had to get someone to actually pick it up and read it. Now you just need a free Wordpress account, the right font choice, proper spelling and some good graphics and it looks like your drivel is coming from the WHO. But some info is good. So how is your average person going to know? What I’m reading makes sense. It might be entirely garbage, but it makes sense and this blog as 2 million followers so it must be right. Right?
And a lot of what’s out there is drivel. And also a lot of what’s out there is a “fit” person talking about what they did to achieve that. Nevermind that simply achieving results doesn’t mean that one has taken the most direct path. If I wake up and pray to the sun god every morning before I do my workout-are my results because I prayed to the sun god? That’s where studies are helpful. Just because someone has done something doesn’t mean it was necessary, helpful or that the same person couldn’t have achieved more by doing something different.
This makes sense Phirrgus.
Ideally the average person can use best judgement to decipher between relevant and irrelevant pointers from a fit person. Having someone explain how they achieved success in a way you want to achieve success is often considered invaluable. Nothing is perfect as a lot of studies have so many variables including short durations, small samples, bias, limited control over the accuracy of the data, the type of subjects used etc.
For Example:
A study about "exercise" and "metabolism" that studies a group of marathon runners likely doesn't provide much insight to a guy like me whose primary form of "exercise" is weights.
Or
Some people argue about tiny details in a study that may have a fraction of importance on the end goal and then that study really confuses people about what they should do.
Or
Sometimes studies rely on people self reporting what they did, ate or how much rest they had.
These kinds of thing seems very common and it is likely just as confusing, if not more confusing than the fit person explaining their process to get the way they are.
But even the "fit guy" has a lot of problems as drugs is often hidden. This seems more common than most people realize. Hopefully the "fit guy" can provide enough information to address the drugs concern (if it is a concern for that person). But then again, magazines constantly misrepresent results from a natural or drugs perspective.
Tough go. Keeping it simple has worked for me.
Actually- the mere fact that “fit guy” appears fit doesn’t mean he has anything valuable to say.
He achieved results perhaps because of, but equally likely in spite of, his methods.
99% of what is out there is irrelevant nonsense to begin with.
99% of actual studies minimize the noise because no, “fit guy” didn’t get fit because he does IF Keto vegan gluten free whey protein bomb shakes within a 27 minute window after only working legs on the 7th Tuesday of each full blood moon.
Also-“fit guy”s results are irrelevant to me if my goals are about race times and idgaf what my BF% is or how “lean” I look. So even within the context of lifting, my goals are for race performance.
Fit guy’s anecdotal info is nearly useless. He achieved results in spite of what he was doing. He also achieved results that aren’t aligned to my goals. But the internet is full of fit guys sharing their “knowledge” and “expertise”
Years ago, we went out to dinner with my son to celebrate his getting his driver’s license. He insisted on driving himself. We all left at the same time. He got to the restaurant an hour after we did. It was a 7 minute drive (for us). He also needed to borrow money to get some gas because he used all of his on the drive there. Did he get there? Yep. Did he take the best route? I suppose that depends on your definition of best. The internet is FULL of my son giving directions to the restauarant.
Studies are the GPS. Maybe they don’t have every address on planet earth-but I’ll take my chances with that over my kid any day.
Interesting Duck_Puddle. You should stick with that approach, especially if it is working for you!
If you want to learn how to improve your race time, I'd ask the fastest racer you can find. I wouldn't be asking "fit guy" about how to improve my racing times.
In case you missed it, I addressed this in my last post:No I am not.
I agree that people can get cause and effect wrong including the "fit guy". I agree that people can have bias. We are all human just like the scientist conducting a study.
I enjoy reading about facts, data, science and theories that others are trying. I try many of them too! I learn from others and I learn from my mistakes. Learning isn't one dimensional.
However, my personal experience, my passion, my research and my personal real world results based on my personal actions do mean more to me than a study that tells me what "should happen" to me.
If I wanted to learn how to play in the NHL, personally, I would be way more interested in learning from Sidney Crosby and asking how he got there than I would be from a commentator who did not play in the NHL but does get paid full time to watch and study the game.
I would rather learn about SEO from someone who built up a site and is getting huge traffic from search than I would someone who studies SEO and offers a course on it.
Both approaches have flaws but I do trust my results over others theories and tests. If I had the chance to talk to someone who achieved what I wanted to achieve, I would be thrilled and I would place a huge amount of value on that. If I see something about a test finding I would be intrigued and likely want to learn more and verify its accuracy the best that I can.7 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »
This. IMHO it is only confusing because people don't know how to properly vet sources.
This is important from my perspective because, while I recognize really obvious snake oil pitches for what they are, some of what's out there uses language that a lay person like me has a difficult time understanding to begin with, much less knowing exactly where to go to vet the sources I'm using.
What's helping me (because my mind is to busy for my own good sometimes) is just asking questions here and trusting the "peer review" type answers each question gets, and also remembering 35 years ago I didn't want or need anything complex, whether routine or supplement, to stay in excellent shape.
It's easy to see why folks get confused imo.
This is very true. 50 years ago, if you wanted to publish drivel - you had to get a publisher or a magazine to agree to publish your drivel then you had to get someone to actually pick it up and read it. Now you just need a free Wordpress account, the right font choice, proper spelling and some good graphics and it looks like your drivel is coming from the WHO. But some info is good. So how is your average person going to know? What I’m reading makes sense. It might be entirely garbage, but it makes sense and this blog as 2 million followers so it must be right. Right?
And a lot of what’s out there is drivel. And also a lot of what’s out there is a “fit” person talking about what they did to achieve that. Nevermind that simply achieving results doesn’t mean that one has taken the most direct path. If I wake up and pray to the sun god every morning before I do my workout-are my results because I prayed to the sun god? That’s where studies are helpful. Just because someone has done something doesn’t mean it was necessary, helpful or that the same person couldn’t have achieved more by doing something different.
This makes sense Phirrgus.
Ideally the average person can use best judgement to decipher between relevant and irrelevant pointers from a fit person. Having someone explain how they achieved success in a way you want to achieve success is often considered invaluable. Nothing is perfect as a lot of studies have so many variables including short durations, small samples, bias, limited control over the accuracy of the data, the type of subjects used etc.
For Example:
A study about "exercise" and "metabolism" that studies a group of marathon runners likely doesn't provide much insight to a guy like me whose primary form of "exercise" is weights.
Or
Some people argue about tiny details in a study that may have a fraction of importance on the end goal and then that study really confuses people about what they should do.
Or
Sometimes studies rely on people self reporting what they did, ate or how much rest they had.
These kinds of thing seems very common and it is likely just as confusing, if not more confusing than the fit person explaining their process to get the way they are.
But even the "fit guy" has a lot of problems as drugs is often hidden. This seems more common than most people realize. Hopefully the "fit guy" can provide enough information to address the drugs concern (if it is a concern for that person). But then again, magazines constantly misrepresent results from a natural or drugs perspective.
Tough go. Keeping it simple has worked for me.
Actually- the mere fact that “fit guy” appears fit doesn’t mean he has anything valuable to say.
He achieved results perhaps because of, but equally likely in spite of, his methods.
99% of what is out there is irrelevant nonsense to begin with.
99% of actual studies minimize the noise because no, “fit guy” didn’t get fit because he does IF Keto vegan gluten free whey protein bomb shakes within a 27 minute window after only working legs on the 7th Tuesday of each full blood moon.
Also-“fit guy”s results are irrelevant to me if my goals are about race times and idgaf what my BF% is or how “lean” I look. So even within the context of lifting, my goals are for race performance.
Fit guy’s anecdotal info is nearly useless. He achieved results in spite of what he was doing. He also achieved results that aren’t aligned to my goals. But the internet is full of fit guys sharing their “knowledge” and “expertise”
Years ago, we went out to dinner with my son to celebrate his getting his driver’s license. He insisted on driving himself. We all left at the same time. He got to the restaurant an hour after we did. It was a 7 minute drive (for us). He also needed to borrow money to get some gas because he used all of his on the drive there. Did he get there? Yep. Did he take the best route? I suppose that depends on your definition of best. The internet is FULL of my son giving directions to the restauarant.
Studies are the GPS. Maybe they don’t have every address on planet earth-but I’ll take my chances with that over my kid any day.
Interesting Duck_Puddle. You should stick with that approach, especially if it is working for you!
If you want to learn how to improve your race time, I'd ask the fastest racer you can find. I wouldn't be asking "fit guy" about how to improve my racing times.
In case you missed it, I addressed this in my last post:No I am not.
I agree that people can get cause and effect wrong including the "fit guy". I agree that people can have bias. We are all human just like the scientist conducting a study.
I enjoy reading about facts, data, science and theories that others are trying. I try many of them too! I learn from others and I learn from my mistakes. Learning isn't one dimensional.
However, my personal experience, my passion, my research and my personal real world results based on my personal actions do mean more to me than a study that tells me what "should happen" to me.
If I wanted to learn how to play in the NHL, personally, I would be way more interested in learning from Sidney Crosby and asking how he got there than I would be from a commentator who did not play in the NHL but does get paid full time to watch and study the game.
I would rather learn about SEO from someone who built up a site and is getting huge traffic from search than I would someone who studies SEO and offers a course on it.
Both approaches have flaws but I do trust my results over others theories and tests. If I had the chance to talk to someone who achieved what I wanted to achieve, I would be thrilled and I would place a huge amount of value on that. If I see something about a test finding I would be intrigued and likely want to learn more and verify its accuracy the best that I can.
Actually-I asked my coach-who knows my particular history, skills, preference, psychology, physical makeup, life demands etc.
I don’t know his race times. I also don’t care.
I know that he is using science-based methods condiering all my unique factors to help me PR every single race distance I’ve attempted since I started working with him.
I would assume that Meb’s training is entirely different and not really applicable to me.
So again-I’m choosing science over one dude who actually doesn’t have a lot that’s useful to me (despite his obvious success).
10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions