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?
Replies
-
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »jasonpoihegatama wrote: »
Op said; 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?
i said No! everyone is different you will not get the same results. You have your opinion about this that's fine!
A group of people can go do a exercise class and they will all benefit from it but there results will not be the same. Some may say if you need to lose weight you need to eat less and train harder! Now this is not always the case!!! because there is so many factors that should be accounted for! There is no such thing as one size fits all exercise and eating plan. Unless your goal is to get fit and health then group classes will be the way to go But if you think everyone is going to look like Op after 4 years of classes this would not be the case!!!
Well, OP also said this:
And he's correct about that and I believe this is what much of the debate stems from, information.Information is great but it really amazes me just how much information and debate complicates some very simple concepts about fitness.
Regarding the bold - I see this a lot, and you've stated some variation of it multiple times. Although there is some truth there, there are also known variables that can be accounted for, studied in control groups of various sizes and conclusions drawn with reasonable certainty.
It sounds as though you're opting for a free for all approach regarding known science and techniques because not all participants may not have the same exact results.
Is that accurate? If so, I respectfully disagree.Unless your goal is to get fit and health then group classes will be the way to go But if you think everyone is going to look like Op after 4 years of classes this would not be the case!!!
I would like to add to this. I don't do "group classes" to achieve my results and I don't think group classes is the best way to "get fit and healthy".
I can say that I have kept a similar build to what my picture shows for 26 years straight. I have done that with as little as three trips a week to the gym and as much as seven. Personally, I consider myself healthy for 41 years old and I attribute it to my conscious decisions and actions, not because I am lucky.
Would my approach work for others? Apparently some of the posters could care less and feel that there is little to no value in others personal experiences. I think that kind of approach is unfortunate but we are all different. Heck sometimes business takes over because it isn't profitable for an organization to have potential customers paying attention to individuals. We are all different. Again, I think there is a lot of value in hearing how others do what they do, if it is what I want to be able to do too. Haha, silly last sentence.
I feel like you're moving the goalposts. You wondered in the OP how a typical person can avoid getting confused by all the different "experts" and techniques. Most of the responses advised learning how to vet sources better and basing everything on what has been scientifically proven.
Now you're arguing that we're saying an individuals experience isn't valuable. We are simply saying that a person's experience is only as valuable as their understanding of the scientific and biological processes at work. You have clearly had great success. But with all due respect, I have no clue who you are or what you have based your techniques on. You might have followed some weird protocol with crazy rules, and that protocol worked by keeping you at the right amount of calories, and challenging your muscles aporopriately. But you are understandably convinced that your weird protocol was the key. So now I start following your weird protocol, but because of my lifestyle it leaves me with too many calories and too much stress on my joints, leaving me overweight and injured, because I'm a woman and smaller and less active than you. If I had compared your story with what I know to be established science and biology, I would have known to either disregard it or to at least see through your protocol to what really worked.
Also, most of the more recent posts are arguing against taking advice from the best of the best. And you are conflating that with your experience being worthless. Are you saying you are in the same league with Bolt and Brady?
Hi Kinny72, Thank you for your reply. I have to admit that I am falling behind and not able to keep up. You wrote, "We are simply saying..." May I ask who "we" is? To cut though the noise and go back to the original post, is it really that controversial that there is a "we" against me? Holly molly.
I can't keep up to multiple posters "we" with a history of hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of posts each.
I'm not really sure how to continue. Bend to the pressure and agree that science is the only way to go? Go silent? I don't really know where to start. I will say that I certainly don't mean to move the goalposts. There are a lot of moving parts between a lot of comments. Without being paid to be posting here, it can be a bit much. I do stick to my original post and the message behind it. I appreciate anyone who has joined in and I apologize if I can't address everyone's point.
This community is extremely evidence based. There are hundreds of posts every day from people who have found some blog or info posted by a “fit guy” (or girl) and they are hopelessly confused by the amount of conflicting information from all the assorted “fit guys” (and girls) out posting their one true way (that is different than all the other one true ways...), or they aren’t able to follow the one true way, or they aren’t getting results or seeing success from the one true way.
That’s probably 80% of the posts here.
The one true way is the science behind all the methods that takes away the nonsense and helps people find THEIR way.
So yes-in this community-you’re not going to find a lot of support for bro-science, anything describing a single methodology that is absolutely universal for every single person regardless of goals, skills, preferences, etc (except CICO for weight management and following the appropriate science based theories for the training of choice - those will be supported), or anything else that doesn’t have evidence based backing.
Because science IS uninvrrsal. And it’s the only thing that is universal and it’s the only thing to make sense of the vast piles of garbage information out there.
It’s not we against you. None of this is about YOU at all.
Your original post asked if we didn’t have a good idea what works. We do. And it’s because there are studies to back it up.
This particular community is never going to choose random anecdotal “evidence” over science because random blogs and brosience is why people end up here asking questions in the first place.12 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »jasonpoihegatama wrote: »
Op said; 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?
i said No! everyone is different you will not get the same results. You have your opinion about this that's fine!
A group of people can go do a exercise class and they will all benefit from it but there results will not be the same. Some may say if you need to lose weight you need to eat less and train harder! Now this is not always the case!!! because there is so many factors that should be accounted for! There is no such thing as one size fits all exercise and eating plan. Unless your goal is to get fit and health then group classes will be the way to go But if you think everyone is going to look like Op after 4 years of classes this would not be the case!!!
Well, OP also said this:
And he's correct about that and I believe this is what much of the debate stems from, information.Information is great but it really amazes me just how much information and debate complicates some very simple concepts about fitness.
Regarding the bold - I see this a lot, and you've stated some variation of it multiple times. Although there is some truth there, there are also known variables that can be accounted for, studied in control groups of various sizes and conclusions drawn with reasonable certainty.
It sounds as though you're opting for a free for all approach regarding known science and techniques because not all participants may not have the same exact results.
Is that accurate? If so, I respectfully disagree.Unless your goal is to get fit and health then group classes will be the way to go But if you think everyone is going to look like Op after 4 years of classes this would not be the case!!!
I would like to add to this. I don't do "group classes" to achieve my results and I don't think group classes is the best way to "get fit and healthy".
I can say that I have kept a similar build to what my picture shows for 26 years straight. I have done that with as little as three trips a week to the gym and as much as seven. Personally, I consider myself healthy for 41 years old and I attribute it to my conscious decisions and actions, not because I am lucky.
Would my approach work for others? Apparently some of the posters could care less and feel that there is little to no value in others personal experiences. I think that kind of approach is unfortunate but we are all different. Heck sometimes business takes over because it isn't profitable for an organization to have potential customers paying attention to individuals. We are all different. Again, I think there is a lot of value in hearing how others do what they do, if it is what I want to be able to do too. Haha, silly last sentence.
I feel like you're moving the goalposts. You wondered in the OP how a typical person can avoid getting confused by all the different "experts" and techniques. Most of the responses advised learning how to vet sources better and basing everything on what has been scientifically proven.
Now you're arguing that we're saying an individuals experience isn't valuable. We are simply saying that a person's experience is only as valuable as their understanding of the scientific and biological processes at work. You have clearly had great success. But with all due respect, I have no clue who you are or what you have based your techniques on. You might have followed some weird protocol with crazy rules, and that protocol worked by keeping you at the right amount of calories, and challenging your muscles aporopriately. But you are understandably convinced that your weird protocol was the key. So now I start following your weird protocol, but because of my lifestyle it leaves me with too many calories and too much stress on my joints, leaving me overweight and injured, because I'm a woman and smaller and less active than you. If I had compared your story with what I know to be established science and biology, I would have known to either disregard it or to at least see through your protocol to what really worked.
Also, most of the more recent posts are arguing against taking advice from the best of the best. And you are conflating that with your experience being worthless. Are you saying you are in the same league with Bolt and Brady?
Hi Kinny72, Thank you for your reply. I have to admit that I am falling behind and not able to keep up. You wrote, "We are simply saying..." May I ask who "we" is? To cut though the noise and go back to the original post, is it really that controversial that there is a "we" against me? Holly molly. I can't keep up to multiple posters "we" with a history of hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of posts each.
I'm not really sure how to continue. Bend to the pressure and agree that science is the only way to go? Go silent? I don't really know where to start. I will say that I certainly don't mean to move the goalposts. There are a lot of moving parts between a lot of comments. Without being paid to be posting here, it can be a bit much. I do stick to my original post and the message behind it. I appreciate anyone who has joined in and I apologize if I can't address everyone's point.
This community is extremely evidence based. There are hundreds of posts every day from people who have found some blog or info posted by a “fit guy” (or girl) and they are hopelessly confused by the amount of conflicting information from all the assorted “fit guys” (and girls) out posting their one true way (that is different than all the other one true ways...), or they aren’t able to follow the one true way, or they aren’t getting results or seeing success from the one true way.
That’s probably 80% of the posts here.
The one true way is the science behind all the methods that takes away the nonsense and helps people find THEIR way.
So yes-in this community-you’re not going to find a lot of support for bro-science, anything describing a single methodology that is absolutely universal for every single person regardless of goals, skills, preferences, etc (except CICO for weight management and following the appropriate science based theories for the training of choice - those will be supported), or anything else that doesn’t have evidence based backing.
Because science IS uninvrrsal. And it’s the only thing that is universal and it’s the only thing to make sense of the vast piles of garbage information out there.
It’s not we against you. None of this is about YOU at all.
Your original post asked if we didn’t have a good idea what works. We do. And it’s because there are studies to back it up.
This particular community is never going to choose random anecdotal “evidence” over science because random blogs and brosience is why people end up here asking questions in the first place.
Bolded quoted for truth.
Honestly, this whole thread from the OP has seems like one big campaign to get people to ask what he does and have him impart his wisdom. And a lot of people saying, no thanks. Right from the click baitey title to the changing goal posts and the humble brag about 26 years of success. That's why one poster asked what the OP was selling. He keeps trying to make the discussion about him and what he's done.
The point I was trying to make with my previous post was similar to what you are saying. I don't really care what some rando on the internet claims to have done and wants to show everyone in order to "help". There is plenty of evidence based info out there and plenty of people like the ones I've mentioned my first post that have the credentials and the experience.
9 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »jasonpoihegatama wrote: »
Op said; 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?
i said No! everyone is different you will not get the same results. You have your opinion about this that's fine!
A group of people can go do a exercise class and they will all benefit from it but there results will not be the same. Some may say if you need to lose weight you need to eat less and train harder! Now this is not always the case!!! because there is so many factors that should be accounted for! There is no such thing as one size fits all exercise and eating plan. Unless your goal is to get fit and health then group classes will be the way to go But if you think everyone is going to look like Op after 4 years of classes this would not be the case!!!
Well, OP also said this:
And he's correct about that and I believe this is what much of the debate stems from, information.Information is great but it really amazes me just how much information and debate complicates some very simple concepts about fitness.
Regarding the bold - I see this a lot, and you've stated some variation of it multiple times. Although there is some truth there, there are also known variables that can be accounted for, studied in control groups of various sizes and conclusions drawn with reasonable certainty.
It sounds as though you're opting for a free for all approach regarding known science and techniques because not all participants may not have the same exact results.
Is that accurate? If so, I respectfully disagree.Unless your goal is to get fit and health then group classes will be the way to go But if you think everyone is going to look like Op after 4 years of classes this would not be the case!!!
I would like to add to this. I don't do "group classes" to achieve my results and I don't think group classes is the best way to "get fit and healthy".
I can say that I have kept a similar build to what my picture shows for 26 years straight. I have done that with as little as three trips a week to the gym and as much as seven. Personally, I consider myself healthy for 41 years old and I attribute it to my conscious decisions and actions, not because I am lucky.
Would my approach work for others? Apparently some of the posters could care less and feel that there is little to no value in others personal experiences. I think that kind of approach is unfortunate but we are all different. Heck sometimes business takes over because it isn't profitable for an organization to have potential customers paying attention to individuals. We are all different. Again, I think there is a lot of value in hearing how others do what they do, if it is what I want to be able to do too. Haha, silly last sentence.
I feel like you're moving the goalposts. You wondered in the OP how a typical person can avoid getting confused by all the different "experts" and techniques. Most of the responses advised learning how to vet sources better and basing everything on what has been scientifically proven.
Now you're arguing that we're saying an individuals experience isn't valuable. We are simply saying that a person's experience is only as valuable as their understanding of the scientific and biological processes at work. You have clearly had great success. But with all due respect, I have no clue who you are or what you have based your techniques on. You might have followed some weird protocol with crazy rules, and that protocol worked by keeping you at the right amount of calories, and challenging your muscles aporopriately. But you are understandably convinced that your weird protocol was the key. So now I start following your weird protocol, but because of my lifestyle it leaves me with too many calories and too much stress on my joints, leaving me overweight and injured, because I'm a woman and smaller and less active than you. If I had compared your story with what I know to be established science and biology, I would have known to either disregard it or to at least see through your protocol to what really worked.
Also, most of the more recent posts are arguing against taking advice from the best of the best. And you are conflating that with your experience being worthless. Are you saying you are in the same league with Bolt and Brady?
Hi Kinny72, Thank you for your reply. I have to admit that I am falling behind and not able to keep up. You wrote, "We are simply saying..." May I ask who "we" is? To cut though the noise and go back to the original post, is it really that controversial that there is a "we" against me? Holly molly. I can't keep up to multiple posters "we" with a history of hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of posts each.
I'm not really sure how to continue. Bend to the pressure and agree that science is the only way to go? Go silent? I don't really know where to start. I will say that I certainly don't mean to move the goalposts. There are a lot of moving parts between a lot of comments. Without being paid to be posting here, it can be a bit much. I do stick to my original post and the message behind it. I appreciate anyone who has joined in and I apologize if I can't address everyone's point.
I'm sorry, I missed where this thread was personally about you, I thought based on your original post it was a debate about the overwhelming and often contradictory info out there. But you're taking the responses personally so I guess maybe you really wanted to talk about you? I suspect part of the problem you're running up against is most of the posters who were drawn into your thread are already having our own success. And we got there by shutting out all the self proclaimed experts and noisy chatter and just seeking the science. We're not confused anymore. If you're looking for confused people who are interested in random "experts" n=1 theories, you might have better luck on FB and you tube.
And I'm not getting paid to be here either
Edited to add : for future reference, if you put your post in the Debate section, you should expect push back, that's kind of the point!12 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Why do I get the feeling there's a sales pitch coming?
From me? Not yet. Haha... Do you want one? Haha... I don't have a sales pitch but I do strongly believe that my message helped me and it can help others. I wish I could help millions of people learn the things that have served me well. That would be really rewarding and a positive contribution to society. But I don't think these posts are reaching out too far... funny post on your end though. I chuckled.
So you're drumming up traffic then? I bet there's a blog or a website or a podcast involved. Maybe a handy "donation" page to support your mission to help people?
ETA: If you were drumming up traffic or trying to build a rep, you'd have a twitter account for the promotion. You should tweet at Lyle Mcdonald or Layne Norton with some of your ideas, see how that goes.
11 -
Hey folks - a friendly reminder to keep this debate to the issue and not the personalities or people posting.0
-
A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day! 7 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
I don't think anyone here is arguing that science is without flaws. It's a human enterprise and we (collectively) make mistakes, have blind spots, are sometimes self-serving, etc. All human characteristics are sometimes reflected in science and all other human endeavors.
The question isn't "Are there flaws in science?" but "Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »"Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
Better not. Science and the research behind it (primarily medical) has saved my bacon, my wife's and is currently keeping a much loved niece alive.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
I don't think anyone here is arguing that science is without flaws. It's a human enterprise and we (collectively) make mistakes, have blind spots, are sometimes self-serving, etc. All of human characteristics are sometimes reflected in science and all other human endeavors.
The question isn't "Are there flaws in science?" but "Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
And furthermore, "Are the flaws in science more significant than the flaws in any individual's analyzing and reporting of their n=1 anecdotes?"10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »"Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
Better not. Science and the research behind it (primarily medical) has saved my bacon, my wife's and is currently keeping a much loved niece alive.
Yes, I'm also in the "It's not perfect, but we're better off for having science" camp.janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
I don't think anyone here is arguing that science is without flaws. It's a human enterprise and we (collectively) make mistakes, have blind spots, are sometimes self-serving, etc. All of human characteristics are sometimes reflected in science and all other human endeavors.
The question isn't "Are there flaws in science?" but "Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
And furthermore, "Are the flaws in science more significant than the flaws in any individual's analyzing and reporting of their n=1 anecdotes?"
Exactly. I'm open to critiquing science and I think it's a process that is important and needs to happen. I still think that even with flaws, it's better than approaching the physical world as a collection of isolated individual realities (which is too often what it comes down to in conversations like this).7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
I don't think anyone here is arguing that science is without flaws. It's a human enterprise and we (collectively) make mistakes, have blind spots, are sometimes self-serving, etc. All human characteristics are sometimes reflected in science and all other human endeavors.
The question isn't "Are there flaws in science?" but "Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
Good question and easy answer. Don't abandon the scientific method. Nothing is perfect.0 -
-
N=1 meaning a study of one person, the participant count :drinker:3 -
n=1 is shorthand for individual experience, i.e. sample size = 1. A scientific study would state the number of subjects, 50 participants would be a n=50 study.
Larger size studies are better because individual variables are more easily accounted for, but are more expensive and difficult to do effectively.3 -
N=1 meaning a study of one person, the participant count :drinker:
Ah, same formula/different variable. Thank you 0 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
I don't think anyone here is arguing that science is without flaws. It's a human enterprise and we (collectively) make mistakes, have blind spots, are sometimes self-serving, etc. All human characteristics are sometimes reflected in science and all other human endeavors.
The question isn't "Are there flaws in science?" but "Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
Good question and easy answer. Don't abandon the scientific method. Nothing is perfect.
So, in that context, what does it mean to say "I can't agree that science is without flaws"?
First, I don't think anyone is arguing that. Second, what behavior proceeds from your statement?0 -
N=1 meaning a study of one person, the participant count :drinker:
Ah, same formula/different variable. Thank you
And, to be fair, the N=1 is usually shorthand for it being the reported "feelings" of one person, or anecdotal data. When it is used it is often meant to highlight that the opinion is just one persons opinion that is not based on a real scientific study.8 -
Thank you - I was seeing it used and not quite getting it
n=1 is shorthand for individual experience, i.e. sample size = 1. A scientific study would state the number of subjects, 50 participants would be a n=50 study.
Larger size studies are better because individual variables are more easily accounted for, but are more expensive and difficult to do effectively.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
I don't think anyone here is arguing that science is without flaws. It's a human enterprise and we (collectively) make mistakes, have blind spots, are sometimes self-serving, etc. All of human characteristics are sometimes reflected in science and all other human endeavors.
The question isn't "Are there flaws in science?" but "Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
And furthermore, "Are the flaws in science more significant than the flaws in any individual's analyzing and reporting of their n=1 anecdotes?"
Not to be too controversial here, and as a big lover, supporter and beneficiary of science, and personal results and learning from others.... perhaps the answer isn't black and white but rather it is somewhere in between. 7 -
Ok that's the bit I was wondering about but didn't want to ask. Makes perfect sense now. Thank you.Tacklewasher wrote: »
N=1 meaning a study of one person, the participant count :drinker:
Ah, same formula/different variable. Thank you
And, to be fair, the N=1 is usually shorthand for it being the reported "feelings" of one person, or anecdotal data. When it is used it is often meant to highlight that the opinion is just one persons opinion that is not based on a real scientific study.
2 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
I don't think anyone here is arguing that science is without flaws. It's a human enterprise and we (collectively) make mistakes, have blind spots, are sometimes self-serving, etc. All of human characteristics are sometimes reflected in science and all other human endeavors.
The question isn't "Are there flaws in science?" but "Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
And furthermore, "Are the flaws in science more significant than the flaws in any individual's analyzing and reporting of their n=1 anecdotes?"
Not to be too controversial here, and as a big lover, supporter and beneficiary of science, and personal results and learning from others.... perhaps the answer isn't black and white but rather it is somewhere in between.
So your answer to the question would be "Maybe"? I'm not sure what "somewhere in between" means in this context.
It's a question that is compatible with an answer of "Yes" or "No." So if you're saying you aren't giving either of those answers, you're still saying that you think it is possible that the flaws in science are more significant than the flaws to be found in relying on anecdotes, aren't you?4 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
I don't think anyone here is arguing that science is without flaws. It's a human enterprise and we (collectively) make mistakes, have blind spots, are sometimes self-serving, etc. All of human characteristics are sometimes reflected in science and all other human endeavors.
The question isn't "Are there flaws in science?" but "Are the flaws in science significant enough that we should abandon the scientific method as a way to help us understand the world?"
And furthermore, "Are the flaws in science more significant than the flaws in any individual's analyzing and reporting of their n=1 anecdotes?"
Not to be too controversial here, and as a big lover, supporter and beneficiary of science, and personal results and learning from others.... perhaps the answer isn't black and white but rather it is somewhere in between.
So...let’s say you have just been diagnosed with a serious, life altering disease.
Your doctor says “I talked to this guy at the cafeteria and he said he got better by eating elk vomit waffles every morning.”
Or...
You could take a medication that’s been studied for years in various settings and has had clinical trials that have had repeated results and the entire universe (except maybe elk vomit waffle guy) has found this to be the most effective treatment.
You propose that elk vomit waffle guy is the way to go?
How about if elk vomit waffle guy is also actually taking the same medication but didn’t mention it because “that stuff doesn’t work and it’s just big pharma”16 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »A lot of feedback.
Personally... I can't speak for anyone but myself and I don't have a "we" to address you all. I was doing my best to address everything including when the comments were about or directed toward me. I am very sorry if some of you feel offended for whatever reason. The internet is a very interesting place. I know there are a lot of smart cookies here. Your board is great. I hope I have added value in some meaningful way. I am a huge supporter of evidence and science based reports. Clearly I don't simply "wing it". I don't think many people have long term success "winging it". I love science! I can't agree that science is without flaws or that any one person mentioned in previous posts has enough answers for everyone or can relate to everyone. I think the original post is valid. I may have underestimated how passionate people can get even when intentions are good. I can also say that it is more clear than ever where a lot of confusion comes from. Goodness. But then again these are just one persons opinion... haha! I hope everyone is having a wonderful day!
So perhaps we all just don’t understand the true intent of the original post. This is second (maybe third or fourth) time you’ve said you stand behind it/it’s valid.
The original post asked a question.
Did you intend to phrase the original post as a statement or something that you could stand behind/consider valid? Or is something not included?
8 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »
So...let’s say you have just been diagnosed with a serious, life altering disease.
Your doctor says “I talked to this guy at the cafeteria and he said he got better by eating elk vomit waffles every morning.”
Or...
You could take a medication that’s been studied for years in various settings and has had clinical trials that have had repeated results and the entire universe (except maybe elk vomit waffle guy) has found this to be the most effective treatment.
You propose that elk vomit waffle guy is the way to go?
How about if elk vomit waffle guy is also actually taking the same medication but didn’t mention it because “that stuff doesn’t work and it’s just big pharma”
And also taking into consideration that this isn't just a hypothetical. People do go for the elk vomit waffles (usually its weed) and then they die. The end point of this slippery slope is anti-vaxxers, a brand new measles epidemic and homeopaths treating leukemia in children.11 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »
So...let’s say you have just been diagnosed with a serious, life altering disease.
Your doctor says “I talked to this guy at the cafeteria and he said he got better by eating elk vomit waffles every morning.”
Or...
You could take a medication that’s been studied for years in various settings and has had clinical trials that have had repeated results and the entire universe (except maybe elk vomit waffle guy) has found this to be the most effective treatment.
You propose that elk vomit waffle guy is the way to go?
How about if elk vomit waffle guy is also actually taking the same medication but didn’t mention it because “that stuff doesn’t work and it’s just big pharma”
And also taking into consideration that this isn't just a hypothetical. People do go for the elk vomit waffles (usually its weed) and then they die. The end point of this slippery slope is anti-vaxxers, a brand new measles epidemic and homeopaths treating leukemia in children.
Exactly. And anti-vaxxers sprung to mind as a good example of the “some dude getting results” vs science. But I was too scared to use that for fear of this thread having a nuclear meltdown.
4 -
I'm kind of wondering, if one wouldn't take science to be the ultimate system of empirical knowledge, how would one demonstrate a better method of discovering and demonstrating empirical truth?
I really don't see how it can begin to happen for these ideas of individual "experiments". I take knowledge to be have components of belief, truth, and justification or something like justification. One person doing something can certain state they did X, Y, Z as truth, and that there was a Result R, and all those things are true. I'm just not seeing anything like a justificatory path for X, Y, Z have a causal relation with R. With only one individual, there's nothing to tie-break over influences - all facts about the subject are equally relevant from what I can tell. X is I ate fewer calories, Y is I was born in 1963. Both facts are equally true - why is one preferential to another in determining what worked for the individual? I see no explanatory power.6 -
Well if the debate continues in a healthy way that is a good thing. I still can't address each point because it gets out of hand with some making it personal and then the reply to the personal comment gets taken out of context etc. etc.
I had to re-read the original post because it has gone so many darn directions. Haha! I doubt I can satisfactorily summarize my thoughts and there will probably be a lot to pick apart here but I'll give it a try.
I get that this message board and most people posting on this thread are all about CICO. I am too! I am on board with this 100%. However, there are a lot of scientific studies and a huge number of credible people that will support the argument of hormonal responses to food, insulin, ghrelin. Now we have one, very small example where scientific studies are confusing people. I certainly know which side you all will take on this example (me too) but that doesn't discredit the fact the confusion amongst others is there. This was just one tiny example.
OR
What about tests that involve "exercise" as a general term yet the "exercise" experience and background is very different? Arnold Schwarzenegger's form of exercise or resistance training will be very different that a group of senior ladies. Now in this case people can be very confused about what they should do because the study that applies to them doesn't really exist. We don't need to debate this example, but could it add confusion for some people?
OR
What about influence of a corporation or monopoly or an industry? Does this not exist in science? What if keeping "weight loss" a well known term over "fat loss" was more profitable for some companies or heck entire industries? This isn't possible? We don't need to debate this specific example either way but does it possibly exist and possibly result in confusion for people?
OR
What about studies that have waaaay too many variables that can not be controlled very well? This isn't a problem for creating poor results which may end up confusing people? We could go over a million examples but just understanding that this possibility exists is the key to understand that it can end up giving people bad information or confusing people.
OR
Is coffee good for your or bad for you? What about red wine? What does the science say? Hmm.... what does the most recent report say? Should we go with the last one or the last dozen that contradict each other? Again, this is just a example of science possibly resulting in confusing some people. Perhaps there are other ways to learn.
SO... these were a few examples off the top of my head that can add to the confusion about fitness. But as discussed nothing is perfect. The "we" in this thread will be quick to list off all of the reasons why real world results form individuals is a problem so I don't need to do that here. They exist. I get it. There are problems learning from one guys results. Understood. Not perfect. But then again, nothing is perfect. I love science. I benefit from science. I use science. Science is amazing. Please try to see if we have common ground here.
Now, forget about "fit guy". What about a bodybuilder? Can't we look at what a bodybuilder generally does, recognize that they are pretty darn good at building muscle and burning fat and learn from that? You don't have to want to be a bodybuilder to learn from the principles and apply some or all of them to replicate some results. You can also talk to one bodybuilder to find out what he does and then learn from that. You don't need a study and test result to learn how to make a fire. You can watch how someone else makes a fire and learn from them. Is science the only way to learn about fitness? Does science sometimes confuse people about fitness?
In my opinion the least confusing answer to someone wanting to get fit is probably a blend of the different ways of learning including science, learning what others do "fit guy", common sense, trial and error etc. etc. etc. I don't think it is black or white.
Again, I love and support science. The scientific method is important. Please... I get that this will be upsetting to some of you. Please just think about the overall message and not a small hypothetical that can be singled out and picked apart.
2 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Well if the debate continues in a healthy way that is a good thing. I still can't address each point because it gets out of hand with some making it personal and then the reply to the personal comment gets taken out of context etc. etc.
I had to re-read the original post because it has gone so many darn directions. Haha! I doubt I can satisfactorily summarize my thoughts and there will probably be a lot to pick apart here but I'll give it a try.
I get that this message board and most people posting on this thread are all about CICO. I am too! I am on board with this 100%. However, there are a lot of scientific studies and a huge number of credible people that will support the argument of hormonal responses to food, insulin, ghrelin. Now we have one, very small example where scientific studies are confusing people. I certainly know which side you all will take on this example (me too) but that doesn't discredit the fact the confusion amongst others is there. This was just one tiny example.
OR
What about tests that involve "exercise" as a general term yet the "exercise" experience and background is very different? Arnold Schwarzenegger's form of exercise or resistance training will be very different that a group of senior ladies. Now in this case people can be very confused about what they should do because the study that applies to them doesn't really exist. We don't need to debate this example, but could it add confusion for some people?
OR
What about influence of a corporation or monopoly or an industry? Does this not exist in science? What if keeping "weight loss" a well known term over "fat loss" was more profitable for some companies or heck entire industries? This isn't possible? We don't need to debate this specific example either way but does it possibly exist and possibly result in confusion for people?
OR
What about studies that have waaaay too many variables that can not be controlled very well? This isn't a problem for creating poor results which may end up confusing people? We could go over a million examples but just understanding that this possibility exists is the key to understand that it can end up giving people bad information or confusing people.
OR
Is coffee good for your or bad for you? What about red wine? What does the science say? Hmm.... what does the most recent report say? Should we go with the last one or the last dozen that contradict each other? Again, this is just a example of science possibly resulting in confusing some people. Perhaps there are other ways to learn.
SO... these were a few examples off the top of my head that can add to the confusion about fitness. But as discussed nothing is perfect. The "we" in this thread will be quick to list off all of the reasons why real world results form individuals is a problem so I don't need to do that here. They exist. I get it. There are problems learning from one guys results. Understood. Not perfect. But then again, nothing is perfect. I love science. I benefit from science. I use science. Science is amazing. Please try to see if we have common ground here.
Now, forget about "fit guy". What about a bodybuilder? Can't we look at what a bodybuilder generally does, recognize that they are pretty darn good at building muscle and burning fat and learn from that? You don't have to want to be a bodybuilder to learn from the principles and apply some or all of them to replicate some results. You can also talk to one bodybuilder to find out what he does and then learn from that. You don't need a study and test result to learn how to make a fire. You can watch how someone else makes a fire and learn from them. Is science the only way to learn about fitness? Does science sometimes confuse people about fitness?
In my opinion the least confusing answer to someone wanting to get fit is probably a blend of the different ways of learning including science, learning what others do "fit guy", common sense, trial and error etc. etc. etc. I don't think it is black or white.
Again, I love and support science. The scientific method is important. Please... I get that this will be upsetting to some of you. Please just think about the overall message and not a small hypothetical that can be singled out and picked apart.
I think you're (inadvertently?) making an argument that we need to be more scientifically literate.
Nobody is arguing that we need to accept something just because it is a study. There are well-constructed studies that produce replicatable results and there are poorly constructed studies that nobody can reproduce.
In these cases, it isn't a case of science itself confusing people. It's that none of us are born with basic scientific literacy and we need to learn how to filter out quality information from all the misleading and confusing information.8 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »I'm kind of wondering, if one wouldn't take science to be the ultimate system of empirical knowledge, how would one demonstrate a better method of discovering and demonstrating empirical truth?
I really don't see how it can begin to happen for these ideas of individual "experiments". I take knowledge to be have components of belief, truth, and justification or something like justification. One person doing something can certain state they did X, Y, Z as truth, and that there was a Result R, and all those things are true. I'm just not seeing anything like a justificatory path for X, Y, Z have a causal relation with R. With only one individual, there's nothing to tie-break over influences - all facts about the subject are equally relevant from what I can tell. X is I ate fewer calories, Y is I was born in 1963. Both facts are equally true - why is one preferential to another in determining what worked for the individual? I see no explanatory power.
Both are equally true. My common sense tells me that one probably doesn't apply but the other probably does. The reason I would pay attention is because I felt like you demonstrated some things that made sense to me and I wanted to learn and find out for myself.2 -
@fitfamilyguy I'm really having trouble understanding your post or what your point is at this point. But I'll go back to my original post - being able to vet sources. "Science" isn't defined by one study, or the most recent study. It is constantly doubling back, taking one study which leads to several other studies, which lead to dozens of studies, continuing to drill down, pin down variables, correct inaccurate assumptions. THAT is the scientific method. The problem is the average consumer isn't educated enough about the scientific method, and so when their trainer shows them a study that "proves" that his diet or workout program is the best, they think they should believe it because "science". The best charlatans are the ones that can misuse science and confuse their marks.
I have talked to far too many bodybuilders/trainers who looked amazing and didn't know *kitten* about biology or science to assume that someone with a great physique would give good advice. Said that I should eat 1200 cals, or I had to IF to maximize fat loss, or I had to use little pink weights because I was a girl, or I had to use the fat burners that they could give me a discount on. Sorry.13
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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