Carb Cycling

mynameisuntz

I am completely agreeing with you. It's a breath of fresh air to see others with that scientific mindset.

I have my M.S. in Statistics and am currently a statistician at a rehab hospital.

Hot damn I'm preaching to the choir. Your experience surely outweighs mine as I'm still just a lowly holder of a BA! Preparing for the GRE to get back to grad school as we speak.

brit49

Read later, good post

beernutz

What is it with YOU and hypocritical posting? YOU made the claim that carb cycling was NOT the best in any fashion. All I asked was for you to provide some evidence to support your claim, just as you seem to love to ask everyone else to do. Otherwise you = hypocrite.

Let me teach you how science works:

Behind every hypothesis is the null hypothesis. This, for simplistic purposes, implies the status quo. When you make the hypothesis that carb cycling is the optimum diet, the null hypothesis is "carb cycling is not the optimum diet," and taking it one step further, the universal null hypothesis regarding diets is: there IS NO optimum diet.

If you want to prove the null hypothesis wrong, YOU have the prove it. As I am on the side of the null hypothesis, I do NOT have the prove it. Similarly the null hypothesis regarding the existence of unicorns would be, "unicorns do not exist." Someone who supports that null hypothesis does NOT have to prove that unicorns don't exist, but someone who challenges the null hypothesis DOES have to prove that unicorns exist.

Making a claim that goes against the null hypothesis implies THAT person has to provide the evidence. I am siding with the null hypothesis by saying a carb cycling-based diet is not THE best diet.

You both misunderstand the application of the null hypothesis in this situation and exhibit a childishly condescending attitude.

If I for example made the claim, that "Porche 911 is not the best car for off-roading", that is easily provable by me by providing evidence that a better car exists for that purpose. Similarly, your claim is that "Carb loading is not the best approach to fat loss" should be easily provable by you by providing a single counter example of one that is the same or better. All I asked was for you to provide some evidence that validates your claim.

mynameisuntz

You both misunderstand the application of the null hypothesis in this situation and exhibit a childishly condescending attitude.

If I for example made the claim, that "Porche 911 is not the best car for off-roading", that is easily provable by me by providing evidence that a better car exists for that purpose. Similarly, your claim is that "Carb loading is not the best approach to fat loss" should be easily provable by you by providing a single counter example of one that is the same or better. All I asked was for you to provide some evidence that validates your claim.

Then look up the definition of the word:

"The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or that a potential treatment has no effect."

The general or default position is that the potential treatment (carb cycling) has no added benefits to fat loss/body composition: the independent variable (carb cycling) has no added effect on dependent variable (fat loss/body composition).

It doesn't matter how easily provable something is. That's irrelevant to the null hypothesis. What is relevant is who makes the claim that goes against the null hypothesis, or default position, as it is that person's responsibility to provide evidence. Those standing by the null hypothesis do not provide counter evidence.

Furthermore - I have never come across a study that compares carb cycling to a diet that is comparable in macronutrients. Until that study comes, the claims revolving around carb cycling can't be verified.