Looking for other pro science people on here

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Science as is so often used here is an epistemological construct where people believe that by calling upon it they have referenced some immutable Truth that applies to all people and all situations. I abhor this seagull cackle of me-too head-nodding where people do not look at evidence-based something or other and do not allow for arguments that are some times contradictory.

For example, I'm generally unsupportive of detoxes and the bandwagon 'in-the-name-of-science' people will baaa-baaa their way to beat down any discussion or talk about any detox or cleanse as completely useless and unnecessary.

A scientist will look at this and say, what evidence is there to their harm, or to their positive effect? And while generally I would not recommend them - I certainly DO read about them and DO consider the psychological value, the self sense that some people pay to them.

In other cases, there is published evidence of value for some health markers.
For example, one might consider that these short term cleanses might demonstrate the same value, vis a vis insulin, as calorie restriction for the period. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25912765)

Or sometimes VLCD make sense.

Or CICO, being the first order equation, may be highly influenced by second order factors such as metabolic disease, macro breakdown, satiety, etc.

If you aren't first and foremost self-critical you are not using science.

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Science as is so often used here is an epistemological construct where people believe that by calling upon it they have referenced some immutable Truth that applies to all people and all situations. I abhor this seagull cackle of me-too head-nodding where people do not look at evidence-based something or other and do not allow for arguments that are some times contradictory.

For example, I'm generally unsupportive of detoxes and the bandwagon 'in-the-name-of-science' people will baaa-baaa their way to beat down any discussion or talk about any detox or cleanse as completely useless and unnecessary.

A scientist will look at this and say, what evidence is there to their harm, or to their positive effect? And while generally I would not recommend them - I certainly DO read about them and DO consider the psychological value, the self sense that some people pay to them.

In other cases, there is published evidence of value for some health markers.
For example, one might consider that these short term cleanses might demonstrate the same value, vis a vis insulin, as calorie restriction for the period. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25912765)

Or sometimes VLCD make sense.

Or CICO, being the first order equation, may be highly influenced by second order factors such as metabolic disease, macro breakdown, satiety, etc.

If you aren't first and foremost self-critical you are not using science.

And yet, your representation is an oversimplification of most of those cases.

Detoxes are often part of an MLM (which isn't a scientific issues, but an ethical one), and saying they have psychological value doesn't justify them - any number of actions can have placebo effect, and most scientific and medical associations consider it unethical to give people a treatment purely for placebo effect purposes.

Most people that argue against VLCD's are in the context of self-administered ones. Given that a VLCD crosses not just what makes scientific sense, but ethics because of the potential for self harm and even death, it never make sense to allow someone to VLCD without medical supervision. Both MFP and most posters are okay with VLCD's under medical supervision, with the caveat that they are never a necessity.

It is all best viewed in a Bayesian sense - sure, there are disease out there that affect metabolism, but given common inaccuracies in other areas, assuming someone has a self diagnosed one just isn't probable. Many frequent posters in favor of the established science have, in a sense, become expert systems in applying a methodology. Yes, it becomes a rote recital, but it works far more than the likely hood that we have a rare metabolic disorder. Indeed, many make claims that they fail to lose weight on calorie counts that would defy any capacity for a variance in metabolism, as metabolism has floors on it far more than ceilings.

Yep, my post was an oversimplification or more precisely a counter simplification. I wouldn't say you are one of the people bleeting a thoughtless echo of truth - I've seen you dig in thoughtfully - although sometimes you seem to argue for arguments sake.

As to the ethics of placebo? Please. First, I'm not prescribing anything, let along detox/cleanse. Second, in terms of weight loss - a low cal detox or cleanse for a short period is anything but a placebo - fasting for this time does show clinically significant results - people lose weight. Not a placebo. Is it an effective strategy? I don't think so - in the absence of learning how to manage calorie intake AND habits it isn't likely to be successful. But it isn't a weight loss placebo. It's a mealy-mouthed argument to question my ethics.

Short term VLCDs (<4 weeks) to reach sports or event weight have little to no risk of self harm or death. I've yet to see a scientific report that demonstrates this. And while I obviously don't recommend them (the site has a policy) many of us old timers have tried variants of protein sparing rapid weight loss diets. It's an LCD to VLCD.
We don't yet live in a society where it's even about "allowing someone to VLCD" - one can provide the risks concerning them - from metabolic issues, to gallstones, to depression, etc...
As to medical necessity under supervision? Who are you to say? That is really a clinical decision. In cases of significant comorbidity - and difficulties in adherence otherwise they make clinical sense

But feel free to show me evidence of large risks for short diets - I haven't found it. What I have found is that there is some evidence that short term rapid loss is more effective long term (for example, greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y and other studies support or contradict...)

Rare diseases? Are you really calling PCOS, diabetes, hypothyroidism, metabolic syndrome, depression, mobility handicaps rare diseases in the overweight population on this site?

Indeed some people make those claims that they can't lose at calories count that suggest something magical is going on. And yes, it makes sense to first confirm method and adhesion (and gasp, weight loss is possible without counting too). I'm in no way arguing that "cico doesn't work" so please don't place me in that camp. However reducing weight loss to a linear conservation of energy equation is outright silly and scientifically obtuse. Yet some people here do it constantly. Because science! Equations! Where does satiety, hunger signaling or a variety of other factors that effect long term adherence enter into that equation. Because the science of habit and the influence of the invisible mind are so much more difficult to quantify some people seem to ignore them.