Fact, Opinion, and Belief

While I totally agree with this, there is a problem in that even the "expert" community isn't in agreement over what the facts are on some (many?) topics. Most of us consider peer-reviewed, replicable, well-designed studies to be the standard for establishing true facts, but there are so many things that are passed on as facts by the "expert" community (doctors, trainers, nutritionists, etc.) even though there is now evidence suggesting that long-held facts aren't really facts! People will find studies and think they're acceptable and others will suggest otherwise. I do think that about 90% of people should be more choosy about where and how they obtain their information, but even then it's not at all black and white, and often times you get people arguing and both sides truly believe they are promoting the "facts". :ohwell:

This^^ this is so true.

Yep.. agreed.

I'll bet there's new debate on why there's muscle soreness and the role of lactic acid, for example. New studies suggest any lactic acid soreness is gone within something like 4 hours (forgive me, my recall isnt' terribly precise); but it's been a long held "fact" that lactic acid causes muscle soreness. Bananas don't have as much potassium as people think (I looked it up and was sorely disappointed) and spinach doesn't have as much iron as Popeye would like for you to believe. Lastly, new articles would suggest that calories are not precise and a unit of heat which is converted to energy and many many many factors are implicated in how many calories an individual needs, burns and at what rate. Oh, and it's never *really* been studied in people but rather the rate of burn in other materials such as fruits and vegetables and THAT information has been applied to people - much like the effects of new drugs being found in rodents and those associated findings being somewhat assumed for humans. Generally, more rodents are studied adn over a longer period of time than human trials are conducted. Rodents don't live as long so longitudinal studies are easier and less expensive. Some of what I've read would strongly indicate that our information on how calories work in mammals is actually very limited... but then, I didn't confirm the date on those articles and I don't have them any more so I kinda' suck that way.

So... what is fact again?

u taso! You know I just have to put in my coffee stirrer... just because. MUAH!

While I totally agree with this, there is a problem in that even the "expert" community isn't in agreement over what the facts are on some (many?) topics. Most of us consider peer-reviewed, replicable, well-designed studies to be the standard for establishing true facts, but there are so many things that are passed on as facts by the "expert" community (doctors, trainers, nutritionists, etc.) even though there is now evidence suggesting that long-held facts aren't really facts! People will find studies and think they're acceptable and others will suggest otherwise. I do think that about 90% of people should be more choosy about where and how they obtain their information, but even then it's not at all black and white, and often times you get people arguing and both sides truly believe they are promoting the "facts". :ohwell:

The problem with a lot of this is that medical or scientific studies rarely provide any fact other than the individual study results. Those results, however, may suggest a truth. When enough studies suggest the same truth, that truth may become accepted as fact. If a future study's results suggest an opposite or alternative truth, this does not mean that original study(s) were wrong or have been "debunked". It simply means that more study is needed to get to the real truth.

WELL PUT!

I like this post. And that's a fact, not an opinion. :P

I agree that people could become confused, but honestly, do people really read these threads as fact? I mean, some of the people on these threads are experts and others post articles and evidence to support theories, but in general it's just a conversation with a bunch of strangers. If some guy walking down the street stopped me to tell me the "facts" about health and fitness, would I automatically believe him?

I guess my point is that we all need to use our brains and recognize that what people share on these threads is usually what works for them--hence opinion. I don't think we should have to begin every comment with "this is just my opinion"--that should be assumed by those reading the comments.

Oh, and just so it's clear, this is just my opinion

Yep.. .people both dole out and believe things here as "facts" - or try to disprove someone's "facts" with their own "facts".

To me, I believe (opinion) that anything pertaining to the human structure is opinion, sometimes but not always, supported by research (opinions being interpreted as fact). The academic in me can't make the assumption that anything we "know" is necessarily "true". We - as conscious beings - assume many things and assume we know alot; alot more than we do. We can't prove anything and therefore, nothing we know can be assumed to be true. However, we can determine what works for each of us as individuals by the experiential evidence that mounts as we progress through any activity.

Does this mean that I disregard research, science or what are currently accepted knowns? No - unless they seem counterintuitive to what I know about myself and some things are. That doesn't mean that I won't share that information if I believe it to possibly be valid elsewhere, though, even if it isn't for me. Bell curve, my darlings. and..only a small percentage fit right smack in the middle of that median line. :-) (fact - but of course, we can't put every single human being on the planet into a study, so again.. an assumption is made based on very finite information and it is accepted as a "fact").

The biggest problem is people claiming belief/possiblity/personal experience as facts. Yes, doing xxx may have helped you lose 10lbs...but it doesn't mean that it DID. So by claiming that fact, you cause friction, as others simply see no hard evidence for it, and it could easily be coincedence. I cite my fruit theory as an example. I eat 2 pieces of fruit a day, and have never been struck by lightning. I could say its a fact then that eating 2 bits of fruit a day will prevent you from being struck by lightning!

I find it amazing though. We can grow stem cells. We have explored millions of miles out into space. We know how things work at a genetic level. Yet we cannot conclusively say how many calories we burn, how our metabolism exactly works, etc. We know some basic things sure, yet we cannot say if you do x amount of exercise, and eat x amount of calories, you will lose x lbs.

Ok, last thing and then I'll stop replying... Regarding the bell curve and "every body is different". Of course every body is a bit different, but we are more alike than different. Consider body temperature - 98.6F is the average. Most people are within a few tenths of that. I'm sure there are people who have drastically higher or lower temps, but they would represent a very small percentage of the population. Amount of blood in a grown adult: appx between 4.7 and 5 liter. Most of us are born with 2 arms, 2 legs, 1 stomach, 2 lungs, 2 eyes, 1 nose, 5 fingers per hand, 5 toes per foot. A small percent are born differently.

[Warning: Opinion here:] So. when it comes to weight loss and weight gain, it's similar. For a given height, weight, gender, and activity level, a person has a certain, predictable total daily calorie expenditure and certain caloric needs. On an individual basis, some might be slightly above or below the predicted value, but as a ballpark figure (like the 98.6 degrees body temperature), it's going to be quite close. Except for some very tiny percentage of the population, nobody is going to be off by hundreds and hundreds of calories. That's where things like the "1200 for women; 1500 for men safe minimums" come from. But it is people's internal beliefs that let them convince themselves these figures do not apply to them, and are off by hundreds of calories.

So.. was that opinion or fact... really? :-) Because it looks to me like you're addressing an opinion (people's) with an opinion (yours, by your own admission). Generally, my body temperature runs low; so does my blood pressure. but my cholesterol is high.. according to the law of averages.

"...except for some very tiny percentage of the population, **nobody** is going to be off by hundreds and hundreds of calories." This SOUNDS like a statement of fact...
"but its people's internal beliefs...these figures do not apply to them, and are off by hundreds of calories" -again, sounds like a statement of fact...
"[WARNING: OPINION]:" ... ????

I'm not trying to tear you apart, dear. You're awesome and you've done a fantastic job. I'm just pointing out why that you're doing (even with the caveat) exactly what you started this post about and showing how and why people get confused and why people get things wrong and why fact, opinion and beliefs can be very tricky matters and they arent' always as clear as we might wish them to be.

It is in fact my opinion that facts should not be believed. *grins*

Hey, I should keep that. ha!