For all my science people...

jayche

A good listen for everyone who blindly posts pubmed studies to prove a point... actually a good listen for anyone involved in fitness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhpIeLKQmg4

A little bit about the guy who's talking...
http://www.3dmusclejourney.com/team-3dmj-eric-helms-coach.php

craigmandu

Pretty interesting video.

I always question motive when I read a study. Is the motive really to substantiate a seen behavior or is it to create a wider arching opinion of a seen behavior for some sort of gain (notoriety, product selling, etc..)

myofibril

Absolutely terrific video.

It's a sad state of affairs that it has so few views.

Carol_L

A study is only as good as the methodology behind it. Unfortunately, most people hear about some study which supports their particular bias and rush out to publicize it without taking a critical look at how it was done, who sponsored it, whether this was a one off or if there are additional studies which either support or dispute the findings.

I could take a group of subjects, set up something that looks like a legitimate protocol and find someone to publish it, but still not necessarily produce a valid result. Many of these studies use things like self-reporting (not the gold standard for accuracy because of its lack of verification), small groups (sample sizes of 20 or fewer subjects) of a relatively homogeneous composition (e.g. college volleyball team), with short (weeks, maybe months, rarely more than 1 year).

Ultimately, it comes down to convenience and cost. The inescapable reality is that to do a really solid study requires a large subject pool, time and money. Most entities who provide funding for research don't necessarily want to commit to a 10 year time horizon. Even if they did, there are the attendant problems of subject drop out and how you handle it. To get precision in nutrient intake, the gold standard would be to provide all of your subjects with all of their food intake for the duration of the study. The costs would add up quickly, assuming a large (100+) subject pool and long (2+ years) study period.

While there are some studies out there following a large subject pool over a long time - the Nurse's Health study comes to mind - they still use self-reporting and there is some churn in the subject pool. Even then, they still frame their findings as indicative of a trend as opposed to absolutes.

tomg33

Great video, smart guy. Eric Helms amongst the Youtube "fitness community" is like that guy at the back of the town meeting who has the only sensible idea but can't be heard over the fear-mongering and bickering up the front.

ninerbuff

Good video. Objective and not subjective.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

jayche

A study is only as good as the methodology behind it. Unfortunately, most people hear about some study which supports their particular bias and rush out to publicize it without taking a critical look at how it was done, who sponsored it, whether this was a one off or if there are additional studies which either support or dispute the findings.

I could take a group of subjects, set up something that looks like a legitimate protocol and find someone to publish it, but still not necessarily produce a valid result. Many of these studies use things like self-reporting (not the gold standard for accuracy because of its lack of verification), small groups (sample sizes of 20 or fewer subjects) of a relatively homogeneous composition (e.g. college volleyball team), with short (weeks, maybe months, rarely more than 1 year).

Ultimately, it comes down to convenience and cost. The inescapable reality is that to do a really solid study requires a large subject pool, time and money. Most entities who provide funding for research don't necessarily want to commit to a 10 year time horizon. Even if they did, there are the attendant problems of subject drop out and how you handle it. To get precision in nutrient intake, the gold standard would be to provide all of your subjects with all of their food intake for the duration of the study. The costs would add up quickly, assuming a large (100+) subject pool and long (2+ years) study period.

While there are some studies out there following a large subject pool over a long time - the Nurse's Health study comes to mind - they still use self-reporting and there is some churn in the subject pool. Even then, they still frame their findings as indicative of a trend as opposed to absolutes.

Well said (actually all the posts in this thread have been great), I just wanted to share this video so the people know that any one particular study (or even a group of studies) should not be the end all be all for everyone's personal nutrition and training. There happens to be a trend I see a lot of these forums where people needlessly bash those who found what works for them because some study they(the critics) read doesn't agree.

liz2512

BUMP - more people should watch this

AlchemyOfTheBlackSunCult

Hell yeah, great post. Eric Helms (and the other 3DMJ coaches) are extremely intelligent and I feel like they have such high morals which is very rare in the fitness world nowadays

tomcornhole

Replying to watch later