Think before you post.

iecreamheadaches · May 2013

*pulls up chair and grabs bucket of popcorn* Dis gone be guuud :drinker:

^^^

GiddyupTim · May 2013

I haven't seen anything yet that credibly refutes the suggestion made in like the second or third post.
You guys need more Twinkies. Lots more.

katebowen37 · May 2013

*pulls up chair and grabs bucket of popcorn* Dis gone be guuud :drinker:

Pass the popcorn!

jofjltncb6 · May 2013

I haven't seen anything yet that credibly refutes the suggestion made in like the second or third post.
You guys need more Twinkies. Lots more.

For clarity, to which guys are you referring by "[y]ou guys"?

ldrosophila · May 2013

Too many words. Paragraphs. Need paragraphs.

LOL this!

EatClean_WashUrNuts · May 2013

Ramberta · May 2013

I forgot to add:

People here are called rude and nasty by people who post bad information and get all offended when it gets pointed out . As is the case here.

The "rude and nasty" people on this site deserve a medal for the work they do. If it weren't for them you'd all be listening to Dr. Oz, spending a fortune on body wraps and wondering why you're still not losing any weight.

I am pretty sure that regardless of what anyone has told me on this site-- and I have learned a lot both from "rude and nasty" people and the nicer ones-- that I wasn't about to fall for Dr. Oz or other fad diets simply due to not being educated by forum crawlers.

Give us a little credit.

Sarauk2sf · May 2013

Meh.

I could deconstruct the CICO model if I wanted to using PubMed abstracts. In an area of such inherent uncertainty as nutrition and fitness I am always wary of people who pontificate with absolutely certainty on most areas within it.

One of the brightest minds in fitness in my view is Matt Perryman and he has this to say:

The problem to me isn’t the fact that science is used as a tool, but rather the reverence for, and certainty given to, the findings of published research with no further context. There’s an awful lot of confidence there for an awfully shaky set of assumptions, especially given the realities of exercise science and nutritional research. This is not to say that the research is useless — far from it — but more often than not it becomes fodder for a rider looking to justify the elephant’s intuitive choice. Constructing a story out of Pubmed abstracts is not a particularly compelling case.

Personally speaking I’m less confident than ever that looking at published research can provide all the answers; and likewise, I’m much less willing to be so vocal in pushing arguments which have so much inherent uncertainty (and when I can’t be sure of eliminating my own biases).

link: http://www.myosynthesis.com/two-minds-flame-war

Check out the actual thread that the OP is complaining about. This really has nothing to do with PubMed abstracts at all.

Actual thread:

OP posts link to an article stating something that had absolutely no basis in reality, that quote Tom Venuto as the source

Said article completely misrepresented what Venuto believed.

OP said he has research

OP was asked for research

OP said he could not find it and that he was wrong

OP posts a thread complaining.

Sarauk2sf · May 2013

I haven't seen anything yet that credibly refutes the suggestion made in like the second or third post.
You guys need more Twinkies. Lots more.

What post are you talking about?

SaraBrown12 · May 2013

At the end of the day the beauty of this site... There is no one size fits all answer. What works for one might not work for another so, it makes sense to have different methods and different options to try. This means that when people hit that wall they can pretty much always find another option to try by reading forums. 1 example... Slimfast plan and no.., i do not sell it nor am i on commission. I tried this and it made me feel like crap, on the flip side, several friends of mine have lost shed loads of weight and been 110% better then before energy and health wise for it. Will there be people here who say ergh... slimfast is about as far from healthy as possible as its a quick fix unless you stay on it for the rest or your days? Cause they will and to an extent i kind of agree. That said it does not mean eg a 500lb woman who needs to lose some excess weight so she can exercise without aches and pain would not benefit from using slimfast in the short term to loose say 100lb.

As long as no one is here promoting anorexia and other eating disorders i don't think they should be shot down for sharing what is working for them. The information sharing might just help 1 person break through that brick wall plateau we all hit from time to time by changing it up a little, instead of logging out and giving up for good.

Good luck to all, maybe i will wake up tomorrow and read a rant/ drama free forum.

Maybe i bought the winning lotto ticket tonight too! xxx

jofjltncb6 · May 2013

I haven't seen anything yet that credibly refutes the suggestion made in like the second or third post.
You guys need more Twinkies. Lots more.

What post are you talking about?

Hey! Get in line. I asked first.

For clarity, to which guys are you referring by "[y]ou guys"?

sweetbippy · May 2013

I think that people need to be shown a little bit of grace in both giving and recieving advice. Sure, there are people out there that know more... but no one knows everything for certain... there is always some measure of faith that they are putting into someone else's studies. I think that at every point in my weight loss, I have been looking back at my previous self and saying "Wow... I didn't know jack, then!" I'm pretty sure that in a few years I will be saying the same of my current self.

Excellent point. This is also true in science, certainly as it pertains to health and weight loss. It is ever changing as new discoveries are made. Another point, anybody ever take a statistics class? One of the first things you learn is that studies are often skewed by who is paying for them, and what the goal is. For instance, if the dairy farmers are paying, they may say dairy is the best way to get calcium and far superior to anything else. If the study is by vegans, the outcome of said study will be far different. When you post your science, give some thought to who did the study? What are they hoping to prove? And most importantly, who is paying for it, and how will it benefit them. I'm not anti science. My husband is a naturalist. We are close with many finely educated, scientific types. Love science. What I don't love is the insistence that your science is better than anyone elses science. Facts can and are fabricated all the time. I should say, fabricated and manipulated.

KenosFeoh · May 2013

It's astonishing how often today's facts become tomorrow's nonsense. That's why on most of these topics, your mileage may vary.

myofibril · May 2013

Meh.

I could deconstruct the CICO model if I wanted to using PubMed abstracts. In an area of such inherent uncertainty as nutrition and fitness I am always wary of people who pontificate with absolutely certainty on most areas within it.

One of the brightest minds in fitness in my view is Matt Perryman and he has this to say:

The problem to me isn’t the fact that science is used as a tool, but rather the reverence for, and certainty given to, the findings of published research with no further context. There’s an awful lot of confidence there for an awfully shaky set of assumptions, especially given the realities of exercise science and nutritional research. This is not to say that the research is useless — far from it — but more often than not it becomes fodder for a rider looking to justify the elephant’s intuitive choice. Constructing a story out of Pubmed abstracts is not a particularly compelling case.

Personally speaking I’m less confident than ever that looking at published research can provide all the answers; and likewise, I’m much less willing to be so vocal in pushing arguments which have so much inherent uncertainty (and when I can’t be sure of eliminating my own biases).

link: http://www.myosynthesis.com/two-minds-flame-war

Check out the actual thread that the OP is complaining about. This really has nothing to do with PubMed abstracts at all.

Actual thread:

OP posts link to an article stating something that had absolutely no basis in reality, that quote Tom Venuto as the source

Said article completely misrepresented what Venuto believed.

OP said he has research

OP was asked for research

OP said he could not find it and that he was wrong

OP posts a thread complaining.

I read that thread and posted on it before posting here.

The point still stands. There are very few concrete answers rather than ideas, probabilities and best guesses. Of course we should bear in mind the science but not slavishly push it...

marciebrian · May 2013

Too many words. Paragraphs. Need paragraphs.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

touché!

RivenV · May 2013

Facts are facts.
Fact.

Well that's *your* opinion. heh.

I was thinking exaclty this, right as your post came up.
The dude abides.

Sarauk2sf · May 2013

Meh.

I could deconstruct the CICO model if I wanted to using PubMed abstracts. In an area of such inherent uncertainty as nutrition and fitness I am always wary of people who pontificate with absolutely certainty on most areas within it.

One of the brightest minds in fitness in my view is Matt Perryman and he has this to say:

The problem to me isn’t the fact that science is used as a tool, but rather the reverence for, and certainty given to, the findings of published research with no further context. There’s an awful lot of confidence there for an awfully shaky set of assumptions, especially given the realities of exercise science and nutritional research. This is not to say that the research is useless — far from it — but more often than not it becomes fodder for a rider looking to justify the elephant’s intuitive choice. Constructing a story out of Pubmed abstracts is not a particularly compelling case.

Personally speaking I’m less confident than ever that looking at published research can provide all the answers; and likewise, I’m much less willing to be so vocal in pushing arguments which have so much inherent uncertainty (and when I can’t be sure of eliminating my own biases).

link: http://www.myosynthesis.com/two-minds-flame-war

Check out the actual thread that the OP is complaining about. This really has nothing to do with PubMed abstracts at all.

Actual thread:

OP posts link to an article stating something that had absolutely no basis in reality, that quote Tom Venuto as the source

Said article completely misrepresented what Venuto believed.

OP said he has research

OP was asked for research

OP said he could not find it and that he was wrong

OP posts a thread complaining.

I read that thread and posted on it before posting here.

The point still stands. There are very few concrete answers rather than ideas, probabilities and best guesses. Of course we should bear in mind the science but not slavishly push it...

You are missing my point. The article was a misrepresentation of what Venuto was saying (as you pointed out yourself). That is regardless of whether Venuto is right or wrong.

The OP said he had research, and then said he did not and was wrong. And then goes and post a thread complaining. I am not sure where your point comes into it.

LoraF83 · May 2013

I forgot to add:

People here are called rude and nasty by people who post bad information and get all offended when it gets pointed out . As is the case here.

The "rude and nasty" people on this site deserve a medal for the work they do. If it weren't for them you'd all be listening to Dr. Oz, spending a fortune on body wraps and wondering why you're still not losing any weight.

I am pretty sure that regardless of what anyone has told me on this site-- and I have learned a lot both from "rude and nasty" people and the nicer ones-- that I wasn't about to fall for Dr. Oz or other fad diets simply due to not being educated by forum crawlers.

Give us a little credit.

LoraF83 · May 2013

I haven't seen anything yet that credibly refutes the suggestion made in like the second or third post.
You guys need more Twinkies. Lots more.

What post are you talking about?

Hey! Get in line. I asked first.

For clarity, to which guys are you referring by "[y]ou guys"?

I would also love to know this.

After Jof finds out of course. He was in line before me.

Ramberta · May 2013

I forgot to add:

People here are called rude and nasty by people who post bad information and get all offended when it gets pointed out . As is the case here.

The "rude and nasty" people on this site deserve a medal for the work they do. If it weren't for them you'd all be listening to Dr. Oz, spending a fortune on body wraps and wondering why you're still not losing any weight.

I am pretty sure that regardless of what anyone has told me on this site-- and I have learned a lot both from "rude and nasty" people and the nicer ones-- that I wasn't about to fall for Dr. Oz or other fad diets simply due to not being educated by forum crawlers.

Give us a little credit.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/949397-dr-oz-3-day-detox?hl=dr.+oz

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/953037-dr-oz-starch-carb-news?hl=dr.+oz

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/976638-thin-tab-green-coffee-bean-extract-with-green-tea?hl=green+tea#posts-14912086

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/976510-green-tea-extract?hl=green+tea#posts-14910126

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/973955-green-tea-pills?hl=green+tea#posts-14870629

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/850308-green-coffee-bean-extract-gcbe-and-garcinia-cambogia?hl=green+coffee+bean

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/972808-does-green-coffee-bean-supplements-work?hl=green+coffee+bean#posts-14851966

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/732668-green-coffee-bean-extract-raspberry-ketones?hl=green+coffee+bean#posts-14726215

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/964197-pure-green-coffee-bean-extract?hl=green+coffee+bean#posts-14716638

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/963801-green-coffee-bean-extract?hl=green+coffee+bean#posts-14703958

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/958507-seafood-diet-and-green-coffee-bean-extract?hl=green+coffee+bean

So 11 people now speak for the masses? Huh.

Cuz that's not a ridiculously small sample or anything...

All I was trying to point out is that not EVERY MFP user starts off believing this crap, in contradiction to the generalization of the post I initially replied to ("you'd all be listening to Dr. Oz")

ScottysSpeedShop · May 2013

Hi. Just checking in to see how everyone is doing this evening.

jonnythan · May 2013

Hi. Just checking in to see how everyone is doing this evening.

I think some of us are feeling a little passive aggressive, dontcha think?

jofjltncb6 · May 2013

I haven't seen anything yet that credibly refutes the suggestion made in like the second or third post.
You guys need more Twinkies. Lots more.

What post are you talking about?

Hey! Get in line. I asked first.

For clarity, to which guys are you referring by "[y]ou guys"?

I would also love to know this.

After Jof finds out of course. He was in line before me.

As usual, we probably won't get an answer. Was apparently just another cheap shot fired at a group of people...but since this particular target is the "mean people", it's completely different and totally fine...

...because hypocrisy.

candicane32081 · May 2013

This is by far the most exciting message board I have ever seen! And to think, I was gonna miss Jerry Springer for this. I am definately getting rid of cable!

ILiftHeavyAcrylics · May 2013

This is by far the most exciting message board I have ever seen! And to think, I was gonna miss Jerry Springer for this. I am definately getting rid of cable!

I'd hold off on that. It can be entertaining but it gets pretty repetitive. At least keep your Netflix.

UsedToBeHusky · May 2013

Meh.

I could deconstruct the CICO model if I wanted to using PubMed abstracts. In an area of such inherent uncertainty as nutrition and fitness I am always wary of people who pontificate with absolutely certainty on most areas within it.

One of the brightest minds in fitness in my view is Matt Perryman and he has this to say:

The problem to me isn’t the fact that science is used as a tool, but rather the reverence for, and certainty given to, the findings of published research with no further context. There’s an awful lot of confidence there for an awfully shaky set of assumptions, especially given the realities of exercise science and nutritional research. This is not to say that the research is useless — far from it — but more often than not it becomes fodder for a rider looking to justify the elephant’s intuitive choice. Constructing a story out of Pubmed abstracts is not a particularly compelling case.

Personally speaking I’m less confident than ever that looking at published research can provide all the answers; and likewise, I’m much less willing to be so vocal in pushing arguments which have so much inherent uncertainty (and when I can’t be sure of eliminating my own biases).

link: http://www.myosynthesis.com/two-minds-flame-war

Here I go debating with you again, but....

While I agree that science is never absolutely certain, I personally feel more certain about putting my faith in a study that follows the scientific model and has been strenuously reviewed than in research that is not properly performed and is generally unexplained. Most of the research I see used on this site is not scientific and generally anecdotal at best.

The human body, for all intents and purposes, is designed to perform one way. As with any statistically motivated research, there is always instances that occur outside the confines of normal context. To better interpret the results of the research, these abnormalities are thrown out. That does not mean that what is not true for the minority is not true for the majority. Exceptions to the rule does not invalidate the rule.

craigmandu · May 2013

Interesting set of replies...both to this thread and the orignal.

You guys went to awful great lengths to do what? Someone posted a link...it happens all the time. The first retaliation post that listed actual studies that concluded the original link was incorrect was all that was needed to show the "community" that the link posted had inaccuracies in it, and was not complete in nature.

The other 3 pages were just crap. People bandwagoning in an attempt to do what exactly?

Kind of like this thread. Guy posts a "butt-hurt", all that is needed is to link the original post...not 6 pages of grandstanding.

RhineDHP · May 2013

Interesting set of replies...both to this thread and the orignal.

You guys went to awful great lengths to do what? Someone posted a link...it happens all the time. The first retaliation post that listed actual studies that concluded the original link was incorrect was all that was needed to show the "community" that the link posted had inaccuracies in it, and was not complete in nature.

The other 3 pages were just crap. People bandwagoning in an attempt to do what exactly?

Kind of like this thread. Guy posts a "butt-hurt", all that is needed is to link the original post...not 6 pages of grandstanding.

Welcome to the forums.

Scratch that, welcome to interwebz.

BurtHuttz · May 2013

Guy posts a "butt-hurt", all that is needed is to link the original post...not 6 pages of grandstanding.

You rang?

GOD DAMNIT!!!!

craigmandu · May 2013

Interesting set of replies...both to this thread and the orignal.

You guys went to awful great lengths to do what? Someone posted a link...it happens all the time. The first retaliation post that listed actual studies that concluded the original link was incorrect was all that was needed to show the "community" that the link posted had inaccuracies in it, and was not complete in nature.

The other 3 pages were just crap. People bandwagoning in an attempt to do what exactly?

Kind of like this thread. Guy posts a "butt-hurt", all that is needed is to link the original post...not 6 pages of grandstanding.

Welcome to the forums.

Scratch that, welcome to interwebz.

I like the success stories boards better....

Think before you post.

Replies

Categories