OATS = THIN

Sublog

I'm here.

OP- Those links you provided aren't studies or scientific research backing up your statements.

Could you please cite some studies proving that Oats cause you to lose weight and burn fat?

Thanks.

Now, now joe. Studies don't "prove" things. Not even a point.

They are the closest thing to proof we can come up with. If you have a better method of "proving" things, please enlighten us with your wisdom.

Over time, many varied studies all providing similar evidence, that is the closest we come to proof (though still not proof). But posting a handful of links to studies as proof? There are thousands of studies done every year. To point to a few and call it "proof" is nonsense. Or, to use a term popular on this site, it's "cherry picking".

What Joe said was correct. Those are columns written on the internet. Means jack squat. There are zero peer reviewed studies out that proving that oats helps you lose more fat than a similar calorie substitute. With that being said, you can eat oats and lose weight. But also, I can eat ice cream and lose weight too. I guess that means that ice cream makes you thin, right? Correlation =/= causation .

If Joe said that I missed it. My reply was to his request that the OP provide a link "proving" that oats burn more fat than other foods. Obviously there is no study proving that because studies don't prove things.

correltation =/= causation would be a good example of why one or two studies don't prove anything.

So if peer reviewed studies don't prove things, then what does? Pixy dust? Unicorn horns? Leprechauns? Internet columns written by bro-scientists?

wrevhn

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

i am enjoying those of you who are cutting humor into this thread. we can always use a good laugh. everyone can agree laughter is healthy at least. (well, ppl can fight about any stupid ol' thing actually)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21280463

Just in case you are asked for "proof" :laugh:

thats just great! love it!

bcattoes

I'm here.

OP- Those links you provided aren't studies or scientific research backing up your statements.

Could you please cite some studies proving that Oats cause you to lose weight and burn fat?

Thanks.

Now, now joe. Studies don't "prove" things. Not even a point.

They are the closest thing to proof we can come up with. If you have a better method of "proving" things, please enlighten us with your wisdom.

Over time, many varied studies all providing similar evidence, that is the closest we come to proof (though still not proof). But posting a handful of links to studies as proof? There are thousands of studies done every year. To point to a few and call it "proof" is nonsense. Or, to use a term popular on this site, it's "cherry picking".

What Joe said was correct. Those are columns written on the internet. Means jack squat. There are zero peer reviewed studies out that proving that oats helps you lose more fat than a similar calorie substitute. With that being said, you can eat oats and lose weight. But also, I can eat ice cream and lose weight too. I guess that means that ice cream makes you thin, right? Correlation =/= causation .

If Joe said that I missed it. My reply was to his request that the OP provide a link "proving" that oats burn more fat than other foods. Obviously there is no study proving that because studies don't prove things.

correltation =/= causation would be a good example of why one or two studies don't prove anything.

So if peer reviewed studies don't prove things, then what does? Pixy dust? Unicorn horns? Leprechauns? Internet columns written by bro-scientists?

Are you just wanting to argue or do you truly not get my point? btw - what is a "bro-scientist"?

Sublog

I'm here.

OP- Those links you provided aren't studies or scientific research backing up your statements.

Could you please cite some studies proving that Oats cause you to lose weight and burn fat?

Thanks.

Now, now joe. Studies don't "prove" things. Not even a point.

They are the closest thing to proof we can come up with. If you have a better method of "proving" things, please enlighten us with your wisdom.

Over time, many varied studies all providing similar evidence, that is the closest we come to proof (though still not proof). But posting a handful of links to studies as proof? There are thousands of studies done every year. To point to a few and call it "proof" is nonsense. Or, to use a term popular on this site, it's "cherry picking".

What Joe said was correct. Those are columns written on the internet. Means jack squat. There are zero peer reviewed studies out that proving that oats helps you lose more fat than a similar calorie substitute. With that being said, you can eat oats and lose weight. But also, I can eat ice cream and lose weight too. I guess that means that ice cream makes you thin, right? Correlation =/= causation .

If Joe said that I missed it. My reply was to his request that the OP provide a link "proving" that oats burn more fat than other foods. Obviously there is no study proving that because studies don't prove things.

correltation =/= causation would be a good example of why one or two studies don't prove anything.

So if peer reviewed studies don't prove things, then what does? Pixy dust? Unicorn horns? Leprechauns? Internet columns written by bro-scientists?

Are you just wanting to argue or do you truly not get my point? btw - what is a "bro-scientist"?

I could ask you the same thing. I guess you don't get my point. You keep saying that peer reviewed studies don't prove anything, but yet I've asked you now twice to tell me what does, and you've failed to answer that question either time.

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?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=broscience

Meggles63

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

i am enjoying those of you who are cutting humor into this thread. we can always use a good laugh. everyone can agree laughter is healthy at least. (well, ppl can fight about any stupid ol' thing actually)

Well, it depends on how often and when you laugh!! (just kidding!)

bcattoes

I'm here.

OP- Those links you provided aren't studies or scientific research backing up your statements.

Could you please cite some studies proving that Oats cause you to lose weight and burn fat?

Thanks.

Now, now joe. Studies don't "prove" things. Not even a point.

They are the closest thing to proof we can come up with. If you have a better method of "proving" things, please enlighten us with your wisdom.

Over time, many varied studies all providing similar evidence, that is the closest we come to proof (though still not proof). But posting a handful of links to studies as proof? There are thousands of studies done every year. To point to a few and call it "proof" is nonsense. Or, to use a term popular on this site, it's "cherry picking".

What Joe said was correct. Those are columns written on the internet. Means jack squat. There are zero peer reviewed studies out that proving that oats helps you lose more fat than a similar calorie substitute. With that being said, you can eat oats and lose weight. But also, I can eat ice cream and lose weight too. I guess that means that ice cream makes you thin, right? Correlation =/= causation .

If Joe said that I missed it. My reply was to his request that the OP provide a link "proving" that oats burn more fat than other foods. Obviously there is no study proving that because studies don't prove things.

correltation =/= causation would be a good example of why one or two studies don't prove anything.

So if peer reviewed studies don't prove things, then what does? Pixy dust? Unicorn horns? Leprechauns? Internet columns written by bro-scientists?

Are you just wanting to argue or do you truly not get my point? btw - what is a "bro-scientist"?

I could ask you the same thing. I guess you don't get my point. You keep saying that peer reviewed studies don't prove anything, but yet I've asked you now twice to tell me what does, and you've failed to answer that question either time.

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?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=broscience

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.

kennethmgreen

Despite the arguing of facts, steel cut oats are awesome! Once you've had them, you won't go back to "instant/quick" oats. Great way to help get your fiber in.

This might be the most useful post (for me) in this thread. Thanks. I'm going to have to try steel cut oats. Never had them before.

kennethmgreen

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.

kennethmgreen

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?"

Iceskatefanrn

Can I join the popcorn-eaters? What an entertaining thread!

But really, MFP'rs... in the spirit of the thread topic, here's our snack...

http://www.thekitchn.com/thekitchn/baked-good/afternoon-snack-recipe-maplecinnamon-popcorn-wafers-134616

Popcorn AND oats - yum!

:drinker:

Ice

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.