My meeting with a Sports Nutritionist

I read the OP and will add it to the body of knowledge I have gathered on weight loss. As with most bodies of knowledge - some of it is helpful and accurate. Some of it is contradictory. Some of the well established and researched "facts" will be disproved in years to come and we will look back and say - people actually believed that!

How can a "scientist" say that a bunch of misinformation and some outright lies "add to the body of knowledge"?

What kind of scientist are you?

lies and misinformation imply that there is a deliberate intent to mislead. Contradictory "facts" are common place in science as is disproving a well established "fact" or assumption.

A personal insult like - what sort of scientist are you? Is a perfect example of the difference between a discussion and "Hating" Thank you for so clearly showing the difference.

My question was a genuine question. I actually want to know what kind of scientist you are.

I read the OP and will add it to the body of knowledge I have gathered on weight loss. As with most bodies of knowledge - some of it is helpful and accurate. Some of it is contradictory. Some of the well established and researched "facts" will be disproved in years to come and we will look back and say - people actually believed that!

How can a "scientist" say that a bunch of misinformation and some outright lies "add to the body of knowledge"?

What kind of scientist are you?

lies and misinformation imply that there is a deliberate intent to mislead. Contradictory "facts" are common place in science as is disproving a well established "fact" or assumption.

A personal insult like - what sort of scientist are you? Is a perfect example of the difference between a discussion and "Hating" Thank you for so clearly showing the difference.

My question was a genuine question. I actually want to know what kind of scientist you are.

Physics.

That would be a field, not a type of scientist. University researcher? Lab assistant? High school teacher?

I was a Phd student studying partial dislocations and stacking faults in GaN semiconductor thin flims.

I am struggling to see your point though?

AS A SCIENTIST....
I'm going to have to agree with the masses that this all sounds like correlation and not causation.

BUT

I'm actually going to speak to her credentials. She's a sports nutritionist. SPORTS. Not a nutritionist who specializes in weight loss. She does seem to know her stuff when it comes to sports. But knowing about sports does not mean she knows about weight loss.

The two are not the same. For example. I am a Social Psychologist. I conduct research on gender discrimination in the workplace and leadership. Saying a sports nutritionist can speak with authority and expertise on weight loss is like saying that I can start treating patients for depression.

LINE UP FOLKS! DOCTOR LIZ IS IN!!!

AS A SCIENTIST....
I'm going to have to agree with the masses that this all sounds like correlation and not causation.

BUT

I'm actually going to speak to her credentials. She's a sports nutritionist. SPORTS. Not a nutritionist who specializes in weight loss. She does seem to know her stuff when it comes to sports. But knowing about sports does not mean she knows about weight loss.

The two are not the same. For example. I am a Social Psychologist. I conduct research on gender discrimination in the workplace and leadership. Saying a sports nutritionist can speak with authority and expertise on weight loss is like saying that I can start treating patients for depression.

LINE UP FOLKS! DOCTOR LIZ IS IN!!!

Holy ****! An intelligent comment. How did you get into this discussion?

(BTW Nancy Clark is a lot more than a nutritionist. She practically invented the field of sports nutrition. And she is an RD. Calling her a "nutritionist" is like calling a concert violinist a "fiddler").

^^yep.

It makes me wonder how much misinterpretation/misunderstanding there was regarding context of some of the comments. (the meal timing one in particular).

I read the OP and will add it to the body of knowledge I have gathered on weight loss. As with most bodies of knowledge - some of it is helpful and accurate. Some of it is contradictory. Some of the well established and researched "facts" will be disproved in years to come and we will look back and say - people actually believed that!

How can a "scientist" say that a bunch of misinformation and some outright lies "add to the body of knowledge"?

What kind of scientist are you?

lies and misinformation imply that there is a deliberate intent to mislead. Contradictory "facts" are common place in science as is disproving a well established "fact" or assumption.

A personal insult like - what sort of scientist are you? Is a perfect example of the difference between a discussion and "Hating" Thank you for so clearly showing the difference.

My question was a genuine question. I actually want to know what kind of scientist you are.

Physics.

That would be a field, not a type of scientist. University researcher? Lab assistant? High school teacher?

I was a Phd student studying partial dislocations and stacking faults in GaN semiconductor thin flims.

I am struggling to see your point though?

(If I'm guessing, I suspect he will offer some untruths relevant to your field and ask if you would want them to go unchallenged on myscientistpal.com. That's the kind of parallel *I* would draw...

...if I wasn't so disheartened by the knowledge that actual scientists have no problem with untruths being allowed to stand unchallenged because they dare not cross over from a discussion to an argument.)

(If I'm guessing, I suspect he will offer some untruths relevant to your field and ask if you would want them to go unchallenged on myscientistpal.com. That's the kind of parallel *I* would draw...

...if I wasn't so disheartened by the knowledge that actual scientists have no problem with untruths being allowed to stand unchallenged because they dare not cross over from a discussion to an argument.)

Science is full of untruths that are constantly being challenged. Scientist are often more wrong that right. A well written and properly researched article in a peer reviewed journal will almost certainly be proven as an untruth in the future. There is very little right or wrong and to imply that I am against challenging current scientific knowledge is wrong.

Wouldn't it be more helpful to the OP to point out the tips that are valid and good and the parts that are generally not necessary?

None of the advice will exactly stall weight loss (she's not advising taking raspberry ketones or VLCDs here), it is just that some of it (such as eating breakfast or avoiding large dinners) isn't necessary. The advice about large dinners would be good advice for someone who doesn't count calories because it's likely to lead to a surplus. For people who track and count calories, they can eat all of their calories before bed and find success.

Regaining weight and percentages, while flawed, must necessarily be based on statistics. How many of the people on here recommend TDEE and not eating too great of a deficit? How is that advice different from what this nutritionist has given.

The progesterone issue probably doesn't come into play for most women. It might, however, for someone who is under medical care and needs extra calories to deal with shedding meconium, blood loss, iron depletion, etc.

The advice about eating when your hungry is something that applies to people who have been at it for a while and pay attention to their actual hunger cues. Intuitive eating doesn't seem to work for dieters, though.

The rest of her advice seems to be "learn moderation, don't lose too fast, strength train and step away from the scale and pick up the tape measure." Honestly, is that any different from the advice given here daily?

I could go into more detail, but TL; DR. It's not completely wasted advice, but some of it isn't necessary, either.

(If I'm guessing, I suspect he will offer some untruths relevant to your field and ask if you would want them to go unchallenged on myscientistpal.com. That's the kind of parallel *I* would draw...

...if I wasn't so disheartened by the knowledge that actual scientists have no problem with untruths being allowed to stand unchallenged because they dare not cross over from a discussion to an argument.)

Science is full of untruths that are constantly being challenged. Scientist are often more wrong that right. A well written and properly researched article in a peer reviewed journal will almost certainly be proven as an untruth in the future. There is very little right or wrong and to imply that I am against challenging current scientific knowledge is wrong.

No.