OATS = THIN

tameejean

Wow! So many people here with nothing better to do. Give the girl a break and move on...the attackers must have been picked on in school. Bunch of bullies.

bcattoes

Please inform us all that if your point is that peer reviewed studies doesn't prove anything, then what in your opinion does prove something as fact?

I've answered it several times. There is little "proof" when it comes to nutrition/medicine. There is sufficient evidence on some things so that they are commonly accepted as "fact", such as smoking can cause cancer. But that's still not technically "proof", it's just accepted evidence. Many people smoke and never develop cancer. Most other things have enough conflicting evidence to not be considered fact by all. Saturated fat for example. Some say it's bad, some say it's good, some say it depends on the type.

That isn't answering the question. I've removed all the distracting miles of quotes. Maybe that will help.

You seem smart. I'm curious what your definition of proof is. No, I'm curious what your answer to the above question is. And by above question, I mean this: "what in your opinion does prove something as fact?"

"something"? As in, anything, whether medicine or nutrition related? For me, personally? Wow, I never really thought about it.

Edit: I really fail to see what this has to do with posting a few out of thousands of studies and calling it "proof" though. Or oats burning fat. But it has got me thinking.

bcattoes

I personally am a simple southern girl. with simple standards on happiness. there was a time when "ol' wives" passed around unproven knowledge that today still works. i don't really need to have every detail pounded out to death in front of me to see the point. study or no study... oats = good. unless your allergic. guess there is always a factor to disprove any absolute.

really not worth the fighting. did not mean to start such a fire. i do however appreciate those who are being nice and helpful vs annoying and negative. no reason to ruffle each others feathers so.

its all good.


ps.
i'm sure there is a way some fantastic lovable person could pick. picking at every little unimportant detail is SUCH a honorable and desirable talent.

Use the shift key. There are studies that show readability is improved greatly when the beginning of sentences are capitalized.

Now I'd like to see a link to those studies.

kennethmgreen

Now I'd like to see a link to those studies.

Well played, you.

kennethmgreen

"what in your opinion does prove something as fact?"

"something"? As in, anything, whether medicine or nutrition related? For me, personally? Wow, I never really thought about it.

Edit: I really fail to see what this has to do with posting a few out of thousands of studies and calling it "proof" though. Or oats burning fat. But it has got me thinking.

You are getting dangerously close to semantics gymnastics, like asking what the definition of "is" is. I get it. But I think it's a valid question. You have continually stated that studies don't really "prove" anything, only offer substantiated explanations. And I agree with some of your reasoning. But I'm curious about the question of what does constitute proof, in your view? I'm curious if you are edging toward the position that nothing is every really known, that it's all just a matter of educated guessing and there are no 100% absolutes.

Because if that's the case, then your "studies don't really prove anything" position has a different meaning.

Navie42

i'm sure there is a way some fantastic lovable person could pick. picking at every little unimportant detail is SUCH a honorable and desirable talent.

Picking at detail is how science works. Weight loss and nutrition are a science. It isn't about picking at YOU, rather it's picking at the evidence presented so that adequate theories / truths can be formulated.

Navie42

Wow! So many people here with nothing better to do. Give the girl a break and move on...the attackers must have been picked on in school. Bunch of bullies.

Yes, being intelligent and wanting fact as opposed to opinion is a horrible stance indeed.

wrevhn

tameejean... thank you.
Iceskatefanrn...very cute tie in.

both of you rock.

bcattoes

But I'm curious about the question of what does constitute proof, in your view? I'm curious if you are edging toward the position that nothing is every really known, that it's all just a matter of educated guessing and there are no 100% absolutes.

Because if that's the case, then your "studies don't really prove anything" position has a different meaning.

Studies provide evidence. There are, I'm sure, some medical topics that most could be considered proven, but there is no way that posting a handful of studies is going to show that proof. Semantics aside, it simply takes more evidence than that for proof.

This is what I've said (repeatedly) and what I stand by. If you don't agree or don't understand, then there's nothing I can do about it. But the horse was dead a long while ago, don't you think?

kennethmgreen

But I'm curious about the question of what does constitute proof, in your view? I'm curious if you are edging toward the position that nothing is every really known, that it's all just a matter of educated guessing and there are no 100% absolutes.

Because if that's the case, then your "studies don't really prove anything" position has a different meaning.

Studies provide evidence. There are, I'm sure, some medical topics that most could be considered proven, but there is no way that posting a handful of studies is going to show that proof. Semantics aside, it simply takes more evidence than that for proof.

This is what I've said (repeatedly) and what I stand by. If you don't agree or don't understand, then there's nothing I can do about it. But the horse was dead a long while ago, don't you think?

How much more? At what point is enough evidence enough? Where does "proof" begin?

Please don't use the "I've explained it enough, you must not understand" tactic. That just implies I'm dense. You haven't explained what constitutes proof. You cite studies and call out accuracy. I respect that. But you should be held to the same standard.

You have repeatedly said that a handful of studies aren't enough for proof. You keep saying there is little proof when it comes to nutrition/medicine. That implies there is *some*, correct? So I'm asking you - of the little things that you consider "proof", how do they differ from the things you consider only to have "sufficient evidence"?

The question is what is proof to you. You aren't answering that. You are only saying it takes more than a handful of studies to show proof. That's not really an answer. You are defining X by saying it's not Y. I'm asking for X.

My condolences to the horse.

neanderthin

The question is what is proof to you. You aren't answering that. You are only saying it takes more than a handful of studies to show proof. That's not really an answer. You are defining X by saying it's not Y. I'm asking for X.

My condolences to the horse.

I know where your going with this and your wasting your time.........any person that studies nutrition whether professionally or as a hobby knows that all we have are studies, but we have to know a few things about studies and science to even begin to understand their relavance on any given subject, otherwise you get this arguement.......which is a basic strawman. Like I said don't waste your time.

bcattoes

But I'm curious about the question of what does constitute proof, in your view? I'm curious if you are edging toward the position that nothing is every really known, that it's all just a matter of educated guessing and there are no 100% absolutes.

Because if that's the case, then your "studies don't really prove anything" position has a different meaning.

Studies provide evidence. There are, I'm sure, some medical topics that most could be considered proven, but there is no way that posting a handful of studies is going to show that proof. Semantics aside, it simply takes more evidence than that for proof.

This is what I've said (repeatedly) and what I stand by. If you don't agree or don't understand, then there's nothing I can do about it. But the horse was dead a long while ago, don't you think?

How much more? At what point is enough evidence enough? Where does "proof" begin?

Please don't use the "I've explained it enough, you must not understand" tactic. That just implies I'm dense. You haven't explained what constitutes proof. You cite studies and call out accuracy. I respect that. But you should be held to the same standard.

You have repeatedly said that a handful of studies aren't enough for proof. You keep saying there is little proof when it comes to nutrition/medicine. That implies there is *some*, correct? So I'm asking you - of the little things that you consider "proof", how do they differ from the things you consider only to have "sufficient evidence"?

The question is what is proof to you. You aren't answering that. You are only saying it takes more than a handful of studies to show proof. That's not really an answer. You are defining X by saying it's not Y. I'm asking for X.

My condolences to the horse.

Let me ask you. How many studies with conflicting results can be ignored for the cherry picked studies to still be considered proof? I'd like to know exactly how many, in your opinion.

killagb

Let me ask you. How many studies with conflicting results can be ignored for the cherry picked studies to still be considered proof? I'd like to know exactly how many, in your opinion.

The answer is pi.

yummy♥

Let me ask you. How many studies with conflicting results can be ignored for the cherry picked studies to still be considered proof? I'd like to know exactly how many, in your opinion.

The answer is pi.

cherry pi?

myofibril

Depends on the diet someone is currently consuming. For example protein in general can account for 20-30% of it's caloric value to be used in the digestion process. Fats on the other hand is pretty much 0, and refined carbs are in the 2-3% area, or at least that is what most people in that field attribute those value to be. Basically a highly processed carb diet compared to one high in protein, veg and whole grain can and will have a higher thermic effect than the later, which translates into more calories burned through TEF. TEF is part of the energy out side of the equation.

Pretty much this.

All foods are thermogenic to the extent that the body must use energy to process / digest them which will factor into the TEF numbers in the energy balance equation. Whether this will then result in fat loss will depend on the overall context of your fat loss programme. Clearly you must be running a calorie deficit primarily. Other things will assist as well such as whether your calorie deficit is suitable for your current body composition and how your body then partitions calories as well as additional factors such the type of training you are doing. In reality, various fuel substrates are used to power the body in the face of a calorie deficit (meaning usually both fat and LBM are lost in a fat loss programme). The idea is to maximise the use of fat stores and minimise muscle.

Anyway, I think eating oats in context of a hypocalorific diet where adequate amounts of protein are consumed, with plenty of fibrous veg thrown into the mix is a good idea. Oats taste goooooood (and helps with satiety as well. Nice bonus.)

joejccva71

Lol didn't think this thread was still going on.

Sidesteal

cherry pi?

Strong username to post relevance.

MikeSEA

Anyone want to speculate on whether or not this would have gone 5 pages if:

1) The title of the tread were something other than "[whatever product] = THIN"
and
2) the sentence "[Whatever product] each day will improve your overall fat burning." had been left out

?

As Samuel Clemens put it "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is really a large matter — it's the difference between a lightning bug and the lightning."

kennethmgreen

Let me ask you. How many studies with conflicting results can be ignored for the cherry picked studies to still be considered proof? I'd like to know exactly how many, in your opinion.

I give up. You acted like you have answered a question multiple times, yet in fact, have sidestepped the question, answer different questions, implied I just didn't understand, and are now responding with a question of your own. I am disappointed. Believe it or not, I was genuinely interested in your response.

You should run for office. Your debate style is well-suited for that endeavor.

wrevhn

Lol didn't think this thread was still going on.

i agree. i'm shocked it went on as long as it has. i did not expect to see it still going on. i think everyone is enjoying picking, arguing and debating. I can't imagine anyone seriously cares at this point as much as its just something to do.

which brings me to wonder....why am I here again? I got workouts to do.
(ah, thats why i'm here then. procrastination)

killagb

Lol didn't think this thread was still going on.

i agree. i'm shocked it went on as long as it has. i did not expect to see it still going on. i think everyone is enjoying picking, arguing and debating. I can't imagine anyone seriously cares at this point as much as its just something to do.

which brings me to wonder....why am I here again? I got workouts to do.
(ah, thats why i'm here then. procrastination)

Just eat some oatmeal...no need to exercise then.

infamousmk

I love when people explain things way above my comprehension level, I can just back and think about how hot it is...*sigh*

I was JUST THINKING 'man, it's so hot when my friends get all smart in the forums..'

bcattoes

Let me ask you. How many studies with conflicting results can be ignored for the cherry picked studies to still be considered proof? I'd like to know exactly how many, in your opinion.

I give up. You acted like you have answered a question multiple times, yet in fact, have sidestepped the question, answer different questions, implied I just didn't understand, and are now responding with a question of your own. I am disappointed. Believe it or not, I was genuinely interested in your response.

You should run for office. Your debate style is well-suited for that endeavor.

Sigh. I really don't think you do understand. I don't know how else to answer your question, because there is no single answer. What did you expect? I'd say "27". Or some other random number? That is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

There is no magic number. A number of variables, including but not limited to, the number of studies available, the length and type of studies, the number of participants, would influence how many was necessary to declare proof.

Just as you can't give a specific number for how many can be ignored when cherry picking to prove a point. There is no specific number.

Ain't science grand?