Too much protein?
Replies
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
LOL. So you obviously don't know what "double-blind" means.
"of or relating to an experiment or clinical trial in which neither the subjects nor the researchers know which subjects are receiving the active medication, treatment, etc., and which are not: a technique for eliminating subjective bias from the test results."
Congratulations. You can google definitions and copy/paste them.
Now explain how you can double-blind an epidemiological study on meat and cancer.
I would say you have a meat dish and a faux meat dish. You have an unbiased third party randomly select people to which one to eat and record who eats what. Have the researchers do their studies on the control (faux meat group because it doesn't have any carcinogens in it) and experimental (meat group because of the carcinogen) and see what changes occur in both of the groups. At the end of the study, the unbiased 3rd party reveals who ate what and record the changes that the experimental group experienced compared to the control group.
That's just my best stab at it, I'm sure a researcher could come up with a better study.
Except faux meat tastes nothing like real meat, and you don't catch cancer in a few weeks. That's why all research to determine causes of cancer are epidemiological -- you have to look at decades worth of data.
Now kindly explain how you would double-blind an epidemiological study.
First I've heard there are various meats that taste like actual meat. Gardein Szechuan beefless strips taste exactly like beef; there ARE products that you can't distinguish between real or faux. Second, I never said anything about the time period of the study. If it needs years to do, then it needs years to do.
So back to fantasy land, I see.
Point to a single double-blind study, about ANYTHING, that lasted for years.
Have you tried the product I am talking about? Most likely not. So how could you formulate a decision when you have not tried it; that's silly. Second, I don't have to point anything out. All you asked me to do was give an example of what a correlative DB study would look like.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
LOL. So you obviously don't know what "double-blind" means.
"of or relating to an experiment or clinical trial in which neither the subjects nor the researchers know which subjects are receiving the active medication, treatment, etc., and which are not: a technique for eliminating subjective bias from the test results."
Congratulations. You can google definitions and copy/paste them.
Now explain how you can double-blind an epidemiological study on meat and cancer.
I would say you have a meat dish and a faux meat dish. You have an unbiased third party randomly select people to which one to eat and record who eats what. Have the researchers do their studies on the control (faux meat group because it doesn't have any carcinogens in it) and experimental (meat group because of the carcinogen) and see what changes occur in both of the groups. At the end of the study, the unbiased 3rd party reveals who ate what and record the changes that the experimental group experienced compared to the control group.
That's just my best stab at it, I'm sure a researcher could come up with a better study.
Except faux meat tastes nothing like real meat, and you don't catch cancer in a few weeks. That's why all research to determine causes of cancer are epidemiological -- you have to look at decades worth of data.
Now kindly explain how you would double-blind an epidemiological study.
First I've heard there are various meats that taste like actual meat. Gardein Szechuan beefless strips taste exactly like beef; there ARE products that you can't distinguish between real or faux. Second, I never said anything about the time period of the study. If it needs years to do, then it needs years to do.
So back to fantasy land, I see.
Point to a single double-blind study, about ANYTHING, that lasted for years.
Have you tried the product I am talking about? Most likely not. So how could you formulate a decision when you have not tried it; that's silly. Second, I don't have to point anything out. All you asked me to do was give an example of what a correlative DB study would look like.
Yes, it would look like something that has never, and can never happen in the real world.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
LOL. So you obviously don't know what "double-blind" means.
"of or relating to an experiment or clinical trial in which neither the subjects nor the researchers know which subjects are receiving the active medication, treatment, etc., and which are not: a technique for eliminating subjective bias from the test results."
Congratulations. You can google definitions and copy/paste them.
Now explain how you can double-blind an epidemiological study on meat and cancer.
I would say you have a meat dish and a faux meat dish. You have an unbiased third party randomly select people to which one to eat and record who eats what. Have the researchers do their studies on the control (faux meat group because it doesn't have any carcinogens in it) and experimental (meat group because of the carcinogen) and see what changes occur in both of the groups. At the end of the study, the unbiased 3rd party reveals who ate what and record the changes that the experimental group experienced compared to the control group.
That's just my best stab at it, I'm sure a researcher could come up with a better study.
Except faux meat tastes nothing like real meat, and you don't catch cancer in a few weeks. That's why all research to determine causes of cancer are epidemiological -- you have to look at decades worth of data.
Now kindly explain how you would double-blind an epidemiological study.
First I've heard there are various meats that taste like actual meat. Gardein Szechuan beefless strips taste exactly like beef; there ARE products that you can't distinguish between real or faux. Second, I never said anything about the time period of the study. If it needs years to do, then it needs years to do.
So back to fantasy land, I see.
Point to a single double-blind study, about ANYTHING, that lasted for years.
Have you tried the product I am talking about? Most likely not. So how could you formulate a decision when you have not tried it; that's silly. Second, I don't have to point anything out. All you asked me to do was give an example of what a correlative DB study would look like.
Yes, it would look like something that has never, and can never happen in the real world.
Because what meat eating researches want to spend that amount of time and effort to prove that the stuff they are eating isn't good for them.0 -
A little late to this party but since @OMP33 mentioned Chris Froome, he might find this interview from 2013 interesting.
an exerpt...CF: Yeah, if you’re breaking down muscle that is, and that’s why the weight loss process is really important. If you look at me, as Michelle pointed out, in the Vuelta that year (2011), I think my muscles were probably lighter. I was quite gangly. You wouldn’t look at me and say, ‘That’s someone who’s strong’. Whereas now, my diet is a lot more protein based. I’ve cut back on carbs completely but I’m not losing muscle.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-2-30394950.html
Ahem....
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
LOL. So you obviously don't know what "double-blind" means.
"of or relating to an experiment or clinical trial in which neither the subjects nor the researchers know which subjects are receiving the active medication, treatment, etc., and which are not: a technique for eliminating subjective bias from the test results."
Congratulations. You can google definitions and copy/paste them.
Now explain how you can double-blind an epidemiological study on meat and cancer.
I would say you have a meat dish and a faux meat dish. You have an unbiased third party randomly select people to which one to eat and record who eats what. Have the researchers do their studies on the control (faux meat group because it doesn't have any carcinogens in it) and experimental (meat group because of the carcinogen) and see what changes occur in both of the groups. At the end of the study, the unbiased 3rd party reveals who ate what and record the changes that the experimental group experienced compared to the control group.
That's just my best stab at it, I'm sure a researcher could come up with a better study.
Except faux meat tastes nothing like real meat, and you don't catch cancer in a few weeks. That's why all research to determine causes of cancer are epidemiological -- you have to look at decades worth of data.
Now kindly explain how you would double-blind an epidemiological study.
First I've heard there are various meats that taste like actual meat. Gardein Szechuan beefless strips taste exactly like beef; there ARE products that you can't distinguish between real or faux. Second, I never said anything about the time period of the study. If it needs years to do, then it needs years to do.
So back to fantasy land, I see.
Point to a single double-blind study, about ANYTHING, that lasted for years.
Have you tried the product I am talking about? Most likely not. So how could you formulate a decision when you have not tried it; that's silly. Second, I don't have to point anything out. All you asked me to do was give an example of what a correlative DB study would look like.
Yes, it would look like something that has never, and can never happen in the real world.
Because what meat eating researches want to spend that amount of time and effort to prove that the stuff they are eating isn't good for them.
Right. That's why there are so many double-blind interventions that have lasted for years. And by "so many", I mean zero.
And I'm not referring to meat and cancer. I'm talking about all of science. There has never been, and will never be a double-blind intervention that lasts for years. It's not realistically feasible. That's why the research that requires years of data has always been, and always will be, epidemiological.
0 -
A little late to this party but since @OMP33 mentioned Chris Froome, he might find this interview from 2013 interesting.
an exerpt...CF: Yeah, if you’re breaking down muscle that is, and that’s why the weight loss process is really important. If you look at me, as Michelle pointed out, in the Vuelta that year (2011), I think my muscles were probably lighter. I was quite gangly. You wouldn’t look at me and say, ‘That’s someone who’s strong’. Whereas now, my diet is a lot more protein based. I’ve cut back on carbs completely but I’m not losing muscle.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-2-30394950.html
Ahem....
What does that have to do with anything? I said he doesn't need the muscle and he proved that in that passage.0 -
A little late to this party but since @OMP33 mentioned Chris Froome, he might find this interview from 2013 interesting.
an exerpt...CF: Yeah, if you’re breaking down muscle that is, and that’s why the weight loss process is really important. If you look at me, as Michelle pointed out, in the Vuelta that year (2011), I think my muscles were probably lighter. I was quite gangly. You wouldn’t look at me and say, ‘That’s someone who’s strong’. Whereas now, my diet is a lot more protein based. I’ve cut back on carbs completely but I’m not losing muscle.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-2-30394950.html
Ahem....
"If the facts don't conform to the theory, they must be disposed of."0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
LOL. So you obviously don't know what "double-blind" means.
"of or relating to an experiment or clinical trial in which neither the subjects nor the researchers know which subjects are receiving the active medication, treatment, etc., and which are not: a technique for eliminating subjective bias from the test results."
Congratulations. You can google definitions and copy/paste them.
Now explain how you can double-blind an epidemiological study on meat and cancer.
I would say you have a meat dish and a faux meat dish. You have an unbiased third party randomly select people to which one to eat and record who eats what. Have the researchers do their studies on the control (faux meat group because it doesn't have any carcinogens in it) and experimental (meat group because of the carcinogen) and see what changes occur in both of the groups. At the end of the study, the unbiased 3rd party reveals who ate what and record the changes that the experimental group experienced compared to the control group.
That's just my best stab at it, I'm sure a researcher could come up with a better study.
Except faux meat tastes nothing like real meat, and you don't catch cancer in a few weeks. That's why all research to determine causes of cancer are epidemiological -- you have to look at decades worth of data.
Now kindly explain how you would double-blind an epidemiological study.
First I've heard there are various meats that taste like actual meat. Gardein Szechuan beefless strips taste exactly like beef; there ARE products that you can't distinguish between real or faux. Second, I never said anything about the time period of the study. If it needs years to do, then it needs years to do.
So back to fantasy land, I see.
Point to a single double-blind study, about ANYTHING, that lasted for years.
Have you tried the product I am talking about? Most likely not. So how could you formulate a decision when you have not tried it; that's silly. Second, I don't have to point anything out. All you asked me to do was give an example of what a correlative DB study would look like.
Yes, it would look like something that has never, and can never happen in the real world.
Because what meat eating researches want to spend that amount of time and effort to prove that the stuff they are eating isn't good for them.
Right. That's why there are so many double-blind interventions that have lasted for years. And by "so many", I mean zero.
And I'm not referring to meat and cancer. I'm talking about all of science. There has never been, and will never be a double-blind intervention that lasts for years. It's not realistically feasible. That's why the research that requires years of data has always been, and always will be, epidemiological.
I agree, I don't think there will be a long-term DB studies because of the fact that people don't want to waste their lives for the sole reason of a study.0 -
Why does everyone continue to feed this troll? The best way to deal with a troll is to ignore them.0
-
Interesting tidbit from the interview @Hornsby posted:MC: Especially the carbs, he’s got such a sweet tooth. But he’s found now that if he does cut back on carbs the weight does come down a lot easier than it did in the past. And cutting out foods like breakfast cereals and a lot of the wheat products and bread but still eating enough food – the right food – that he is able to not feel hungry during the day. If you look at his build from the 2011 Vuelta compared to now, he’s still lean but his muscles look a lot more defined. So now he has found a way of doing it . . .0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
Interesting tidbit from the interview @Hornsby posted:MC: Especially the carbs, he’s got such a sweet tooth. But he’s found now that if he does cut back on carbs the weight does come down a lot easier than it did in the past. And cutting out foods like breakfast cereals and a lot of the wheat products and bread but still eating enough food – the right food – that he is able to not feel hungry during the day. If you look at his build from the 2011 Vuelta compared to now, he’s still lean but his muscles look a lot more defined. So now he has found a way of doing it . . .
Yes it does say he cut back on carbs, yet without knowing his carb intake pre-cutback this passage is useless. He could have been taking in 700g of carbs a day and reduced it to 500g.0 -
208 grams for me today. I don't have the calorie budget you have though.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
208 grams for me today. I don't have the calorie budget you have though.
168 grams here today. Not low carb. I don't believe in either extreme.0 -
What's also funny is that what OMP33 doesn't realize is a lot of the people that are disagreeing with you usually disagree with each other. This is one of those cases where you are so wrong that you actually are bringing the community together. Kudos for that.0
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »
208 grams for me today. I don't have the calorie budget you have though.
Long weights session plus 40 mile ride = pizza night. High carb day. Lol0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
208 grams for me today. I don't have the calorie budget you have though.
Long weights session plus 40 mile ride = pizza night. High carb day. Lol
Lol I need to start riding more for more pizza.0 -
Do I ride cause I like it? Or do I ride to eat? One will never know...0
-
Do I ride cause I like it? Or do I ride to eat? One will never know...
Why not both?
0 -
My money is on "you eat to ride".Do I ride cause I like it? Or do I ride to eat? One will never know...
A while back I did some research on the proper amount of protein for an athlete to eat. The results are all across the board, as is just about anything else in the evil food information industry. Rather than just "g" or "% of energy", the answer was usually in g/lb or g/kilo of lean body mass. The answers ranged from about .5g/lb to 2g/lb. Personally, I use 1g/lb, because I'm lazy. But a smallish, active young lady eating 150g/day sounds reasonable.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
Interesting tidbit from the interview @Hornsby posted:MC: Especially the carbs, he’s got such a sweet tooth. But he’s found now that if he does cut back on carbs the weight does come down a lot easier than it did in the past. And cutting out foods like breakfast cereals and a lot of the wheat products and bread but still eating enough food – the right food – that he is able to not feel hungry during the day. If you look at his build from the 2011 Vuelta compared to now, he’s still lean but his muscles look a lot more defined. So now he has found a way of doing it . . .
Yes it does say he cut back on carbs, yet without knowing his carb intake pre-cutback this passage is useless. He could have been taking in 700g of carbs a day and reduced it to 500g.
In the interest of proving everyone here wrong, can I suggest that you try throwing a protein shake into your diet every day for a month or so to see if you gain the performance advantages that most people seem to have experienced. I'm sure that this will help.
To avoid an increase in your overall calorie intake it would be easy to swap your gummies for the sugar free alternatives.
Give it a try (if only to prove people wrong) and get back to us
0 -
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
We've received several reports from this discussion, and I just took a quick look through. I'd like to point a few things out to you guys.
1. We have a report function. Please use it rather than respond to folks who you believe to be violating guidelines.
2. If you wouldn't want it said about you, saying it to/about someone else here is probably a violation of guideline 1 (see link above). Things like 'don't feed the troll' or posting insulting images in reference to another user could earn you warnings.
3. The second guideline at the link above speaks to purposely making statements specifically to rile up other community members. And then we have guideline 6, which speaks to intentionally hurtful posts. All three guidelines have been violated in this discussion. Violation of any one of them could earn you warnings.
This discussion has been closed because it's early and I haven't had enough coffee to clean it up. It may be removed entirely in the near future. Maybe.
Have a lovely day... and Go Panthers,
JustSomeEm0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions