Nutrition is not a belief system...
Options
Replies
-
This is an ad. You have to start thinking of the motivation of the writer before you go off and believe anything online. This person wants your money. Keep that in mind. I tend to trust studies and authorities on health who are not trying to get me to spend on them.6
-
This is an ad. You have to start thinking of the motivation of the writer before you go off and believe anything online. This person wants your money. Keep that in mind. I tend to trust studies and authorities on health who are not trying to get me to spend on them.
But do you disagree with any of the non-advertising points the author made?
I really think OP was just happy to see a mainstream nutrition post that suggested people stop "believing" in every new thing that comes down the pike and look at the preponderance of actual scientific evidence that has accumulated over time. Considering the 2 billion posts here about ACV and green tea and superfoods and detoxes and waist trainers etc that people learn about through blog posts like this one, it's nice to see someone trying to sell science <shrug>3 -
This is an ad. You have to start thinking of the motivation of the writer before you go off and believe anything online. This person wants your money. Keep that in mind. I tend to trust studies and authorities on health who are not trying to get me to spend on them.
But do you disagree with any of the non-advertising points the author made?
I really think OP was just happy to see a mainstream nutrition post that suggested people stop "believing" in every new thing that comes down the pike and look at the preponderance of actual scientific evidence that has accumulated over time. Considering the 2 billion posts here about ACV and green tea and superfoods and detoxes and waist trainers etc that people learn about through blog posts like this one, it's nice to see someone trying to sell science <shrug>
I think the problem is how dismissive the author is of anything that doesn't fit his particular model. He doesn't have a monopoly on nutrition science, there is no monopoly, there are a thousand different studies by a thousand different people that say a thousand different things. There's nothing about his particular system that makes it anymore rigorously "scientific" than what most companies are selling. Atkins, Keto, IF, or any other you can think up. Pick up any of the "pop" nutrition books he dismissed outright, you'll find them filled with references to scientific studies. Being backed up by "actual scientific evidence that has accumulated over time" is hardly a unique or meaningful claim.5 -
"Stop believing in every new thing that comes along" unless it has Precision Nutrition name on it. This is not science, not research, it's cherry picking "studies" to promote a product.8
-
"Stop believing in every new thing that comes along" unless it has Precision Nutrition name on it. This is not science, not research, it's cherry picking "studies" to promote a product.
Agree! Almost every new thing comes with a good sales pitch claims that it's based on scientific research and studies. I could write an article and claim it's backed by scientific research as well... that doesn't mean it is. For that matter... I could start selling shakes and call myself a nutritional coach
2 -
This is an ad. You have to start thinking of the motivation of the writer before you go off and believe anything online. This person wants your money. Keep that in mind. I tend to trust studies and authorities on health who are not trying to get me to spend on them.
But do you disagree with any of the non-advertising points the author made?
I really think OP was just happy to see a mainstream nutrition post that suggested people stop "believing" in every new thing that comes down the pike and look at the preponderance of actual scientific evidence that has accumulated over time. Considering the 2 billion posts here about ACV and green tea and superfoods and detoxes and waist trainers etc that people learn about through blog posts like this one, it's nice to see someone trying to sell science <shrug>
I think the problem is how dismissive the author is of anything that doesn't fit his particular model. He doesn't have a monopoly on nutrition science, there is no monopoly, there are a thousand different studies by a thousand different people that say a thousand different things. There's nothing about his particular system that makes it anymore rigorously "scientific" than what most companies are selling. Atkins, Keto, IF, or any other you can think up. Pick up any of the "pop" nutrition books he dismissed outright, you'll find them filled with references to scientific studies. Being backed up by "actual scientific evidence that has accumulated over time" is hardly a unique or meaningful claim.
I would respectfully disagree that all those diets have thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies to back them up. I've seen plenty of diet books/websites link to studies and research that don't actually prove what they say they do, or to studies that have since been overturned by years of follow up research that disproved the assertion.
I'm not saying we should all print the OP article out and memorize it. I'm just surprised by the level of indignation the OP was met with. For a fluff piece leading into a sales pitch, I preferred it over most others I see.5 -
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/10/the_healthiest_diet_proven_by_science.html
This article posits that the healthiest diet is no diet. That's turned out to be the most effective methodology for me when it come to eating."Science has not identified the healthiest way to eat. In fact, it has come as close as possible (because you can't prove a negative) to confirming that there is no such thing as the healthiest diet. To the contrary, science has established quite definitively that humans are able to thrive equally well on a variety of diets. Adaptability is the hallmark of man as eater. For us, many diets are good while none is perfect."6 -
I was expecting nutritional advice as a taster, not a prelude to, "join my certification scheme", without any idea of what you were letting yourself in for.
I'm someone who discovered vit b 12 with intrinsic factor made the world of difference to intolerances in my Hashimoto's Thyroiditis wrecked system and this was after I'd assiduously followed nutritional advice which was already making inroads to my issues but I'd still been lacking something. I support any move towards nutrition, particularly for those who are enzyme or microbially challenged, those who are in poor health for some reason, beyond the regularly available knowledge.
I wish I'd studied nutrition in the past, it would have been way more beneficial for me than taking business studies.
My beliefs are too way out for many on here who consider it all, woo. It is where the science is steadily leading those who are repeatedly failed by current medical practices. I'm not convinced this article does anything to hasten this progress.0 -
He had aome interesting thoughts but he lost credibility at the end.
the hilarious part?
#4 on his list of what to do next
4. Scrutinize claims that are tied to financial gain.
and #6?
6. Get qualified coaching.
If you don’t feel confident reading research or understanding the science, consider finding a Precision Nutrition Certified coach or enrolling in the Certification yourself.
hmmm
folllowed a pitch for his classes, and a teaser for a $200 discount!
Scrutinize claims that are tied to financial gain indeed.
These are not contradictory statements.
#4 says to "scrutinize" claims tied to financial gain. It does not say to dismiss them. It also goes on to explain what he means by "claims tied to financial gain" by offering examples of claims made by companies to get you to buy their product ("ripped abs in 1 minute), illustrating that he means if a company wants to sell you something to get ripped abs in 1 minute, you shouldn't hand over the cash until after you've scrutinized their claims (meaning you research for yourself to see if 1 minute abs are actually possible based on scientific research).
#6 makes the claim (tied to financial gain) that Precision Nutrition Certified coaches are qualified to help you understand the science of nutrition. I'm sure the author would agree that you should then indeed scrutinize this claim before handing over your money. Do research and verify whether Precision Nutrition Certified coaches are indeed qualified to help you understand the science of nutrition.
Scrutiny =/= rejection
Edited to add: Besides, even if these two points at the conclusion of the article were contradictory, would that invalidate the premise of the article, that nutritional theories should be built on a foundation of scientific research rather than on mere beliefs, what we want to be true or what sounds good? No. No it wouldn't.4 -
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater...7
-
This is an ad. You have to start thinking of the motivation of the writer before you go off and believe anything online. This person wants your money. Keep that in mind. I tend to trust studies and authorities on health who are not trying to get me to spend on them.
But do you disagree with any of the non-advertising points the author made?
I really think OP was just happy to see a mainstream nutrition post that suggested people stop "believing" in every new thing that comes down the pike and look at the preponderance of actual scientific evidence that has accumulated over time. Considering the 2 billion posts here about ACV and green tea and superfoods and detoxes and waist trainers etc that people learn about through blog posts like this one, it's nice to see someone trying to sell science <shrug>
I think the problem is how dismissive the author is of anything that doesn't fit his particular model. He doesn't have a monopoly on nutrition science, there is no monopoly, there are a thousand different studies by a thousand different people that say a thousand different things. There's nothing about his particular system that makes it anymore rigorously "scientific" than what most companies are selling. Atkins, Keto, IF, or any other you can think up. Pick up any of the "pop" nutrition books he dismissed outright, you'll find them filled with references to scientific studies. Being backed up by "actual scientific evidence that has accumulated over time" is hardly a unique or meaningful claim.
This article discussing doing research and basing one's understanding of nutrition on real scientific research instead of merely accepting extravagant claims, feelings, beliefs or convincing sales pitches from people with abs.
He does not posit his own thoughts on how people should eat. Nor does he dismiss any other nutritional philosophies outside of a few obviously flawed extremes (strictly carnivorous diets, 600 cal limits, etc.). He does illustrate the difference between understanding research and believing baseless claims by offering an example of two different claims ("eating honey boosts metabolism" vs "creatine improves strength performance"), one for which there is no research and one for which there is plenty.
So I don't know what you're referring to when you claim he's dismissive of ideas that don't fit his model considering that we don't even know from this article what his model is.
It seems more like you're reaching and trying to find any reason you can to dismiss his premise that nutritional philosophies should be based on real research rather than a belief system. Why is that? Do you subscribe to nutritional beliefs that are not backed by scientific research?11 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »It seems more like you're reaching and trying to find any reason you can to dismiss his premise that nutritional philosophies should be based on real research rather than a belief system. Why is that? Do you subscribe to nutritional beliefs that are not backed by scientific research?
Fair question...0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »It seems more like you're reaching and trying to find any reason you can to dismiss his premise that nutritional philosophies should be based on real research rather than a belief system. Why is that? Do you subscribe to nutritional beliefs that are not backed by scientific research?
Fair question...
page 2....
pp is most likely a low carber, which may be a factor here, (I could be wrong, but I did think it was interesting).
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10592316/which-has-worked-better-for-you-watching-calories-fat-or-keto#latest
edited for further thoughts1 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »It seems more like you're reaching and trying to find any reason you can to dismiss his premise that nutritional philosophies should be based on real research rather than a belief system. Why is that? Do you subscribe to nutritional beliefs that are not backed by scientific research?
Fair question...
page 2....
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10592316/which-has-worked-better-for-you-watching-calories-fat-or-keto#latest
and there it is...
ok3 -
you guys kill me. off the charts obtuseness9
-
Okay article.
The problem with science is the conflicting studies. Over and over you see one study that proves something and then another that disproves it. There is very little fact out there beyond people need calories, protein and some fats from quality foods full of micronutrients.
I did find it sort of funny how he went on about sexy, splashy diet programs that are out to make a buck, but then finished with advertising for Precision Nutrition. Bit ironic.
Science doesn't prove things. Maths does - they get to set their own rules, so they get to prove things. Science isn't so lucky. Science gets given rules by the real world, and establishes and tests hypotheses to try and figure out what they are. It can only ever be as good as the measuring equipment they're using. Biological systems are incredibly complex, with huge amount of inputs and processes that we just can't get a handle on.
It's also worth bearing in mind that statistics are tricky. For instance, you can't prove something, only say it holds with a certain level of confidence. That is, a certain probability that you are wrong. And then you get this:
https://www.xkcd.com/882/
I wish statistics was taught in schools
and it should be mandatory for anyone calling themselves a journalist. I see so much sloppy work in statistics in the news and it really winds me up. 4 -
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »
I'm rejecting it because his entire pitch is "pay me because I know science and nobody else does," which is nonsense. It's not nonsense because he doesn't know science, it's nonsense because everybody else makes the exact same claim.
I'm sure there's plenty of scientific evidence for everything he believes, and everything in the article.
If he just pitched "we have a system, we have evidence, let use help you" he'd be fine. But he doesn't. He goes farther, trying to stake a claim to "one true science" which is absurd.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
I'm rejecting it because his entire pitch is "pay me because I know science and nobody else does," which is nonsense. It's not nonsense because he doesn't know science, it's nonsense because everybody else makes the exact same claim.
I'm sure there's plenty of scientific evidence for everything he believes, and everything in the article.
Could you give an example of this because I did not get that from the article...6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions