Anyone read the latest research on Keto by Alan Aragon?
Replies
-
MinuitMinuet wrote: »@MinuitMinuet you are responsible for whatever you are reading in and reacting to both in the OP and other posts. It was presented as neutral data with no criticism. I honestly don't get what you are reacting to and from some of the posts, neither do others.
Thus my most recent response in an attempt to explain it. You're welcome. I really don't mind going into further detail if you find previous attempts at comprehending my seemingly more vague responses challenging. You have but to ask. I recognize that I do tend to obfuscate the entirety of my connotation by overcompensating with a superfluous amount explaining. Ill simplify it so you don't have to dig through the rubble to extract the meaning.
Keto good.. Pseudoscience behind it bad.
Questionable sites bad.. Even if research good.
Good research. Bad delivery.
Pole
Anti-keto
Super keto
Both bad
neutral non keto/ketoer
Both good
OP? Questionable on his end goal (bad) until he explained it in further detail.(good).
People still harping on my superior comprehension skills without bothering to try and understand my responses? (Bad)
People who read my responses and understand that I'm not against OP, research, or neutral ketoers? (Good)
I'm acting as neutral chaotic at the moment but my original attempt was lawful neutral. Trying to garner the atmosphere in which the research was being presented. I am now satisfied that the OP is not against keto, just the faulty science.
I do hope this was more clear. I really did think my santa analogy clarified my position.
Not going to lie, struggling to follow in how you are trying to explain yourself, but how is the science faulty?
I will point out there are several low carbers in this thread. And the majority of us just like science regardless if it's for or against a particular diet.
The science is faulty when the extreme keto followers think they can ignore CICO and still lose weight. Not all believe this, I know.. But the ones selling it by saying it cures cancer and you can eat without counting calories are the ones making the diet look like fairy wishes and unicorn sprinkles. They will not want to look at the research unless it's from a medical site, even if it's the truth. If you can find this exact same research but on a better known site, it would go a long way to helping your case. But I also don't want to see the complete opposite saying keto is the wrong way period, which is what it looked like the OP was saying at first until his intentions were clarified. Educating others works best when approached from a neutral standpoint.7 -
What's wrong with the site? Sci-fit.. not well known and widely accepted. Authors may be but like I tried to explain.. take proven medical fact, post it on a not well known site, and someone will come along and say it must be wrong.10
-
You can woo me all you like but that's fact. You give people way to much credit if you believe they are so accepting of every research hosting site out there.8
-
Where should it be hosted?1
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Where should it be hosted?
Can it be submitted to maybe a medical site? How does hosting work?
2 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »What's wrong with the site? Sci-fit.. not well known and widely accepted. Authors may be but like I tried to explain.. take proven medical fact, post it on a not well known site, and someone will come along and say it must be wrong.
It sounds like you need to take a step back a bit more and look at the actual research, and research the site and researchers participating in the research.
In science, meta-analyses are regarded as one of the highest forms of science (noted by the hierarchy below). It can and will be posted on multiple sites. Evaluated content based on the site is a bit short-sighted IMO.
6 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Where should it be hosted?
Can it be submitted to maybe a medical site? How does hosting work?
Medical sites don't really host this kind of information. They take recommendations from scientific boards to form opinions. They aren't research sites.3 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Where should it be hosted?
Can it be submitted to maybe a medical site? How does hosting work?
Medical sites don't really host this kind of information. They take recommendations from scientific boards to form opinions. They aren't research sites.
That's a shame. I really like science and research and would like to see sites like this grow in popularity. It would go a long way if it could be shared as an objective based argument.0 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »MinuitMinuet wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Where should it be hosted?
Can it be submitted to maybe a medical site? How does hosting work?
Medical sites don't really host this kind of information. They take recommendations from scientific boards to form opinions. They aren't research sites.
That's a shame. I really like science and research and would like to see sites like this grow in popularity. It would go a long way if it could be shared as an objective based argument.
Ironically, the ones that do exist tend to be very biased towards one particular diet and slow to adopt any new science. That is why it's important to look at research sites or universities as opposed to doctors sites. But also, you should note there are significant difference between PhD's and MD's. The majority of MD's have no training or education in nutritional sciences. This is why I would put little faith in most of their recommendations.4 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »MinuitMinuet wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Where should it be hosted?
Can it be submitted to maybe a medical site? How does hosting work?
Medical sites don't really host this kind of information. They take recommendations from scientific boards to form opinions. They aren't research sites.
That's a shame. I really like science and research and would like to see sites like this grow in popularity. It would go a long way if it could be shared as an objective based argument.
Ironically, the ones that do exist tend to be very biased towards one particular diet and slow to adopt any new science. That is why it's important to look at research sites or universities as opposed to doctors sites. But also, you should note there are significant difference between PhD's and MD's. The majority of MD's have no training or education in nutritional sciences. This is why I would put little faith in most of their recommendations.
I agree. Problem is, not everyone does. Not enough dragons to slay.0 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »What's wrong with the site? Sci-fit.. not well known and widely accepted. Authors may be but like I tried to explain.. take proven medical fact, post it on a not well known site, and someone will come along and say it must be wrong.
So that's your objection!
Now the penny drops - to be fair I've come across the same thing said about well written articles in Men's Health magazine by authors who are leaders in their field (guess who!!) but dismissed because the gem of good information is surrounded by the usual "Get 6 pack Abs in 8 weeks" tosh. Or is it 8 pack abs in 6 weeks?
Here's something you may well find interesting and it's hosted on a site you may prefer.
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-017-0174-y
It's very wide ranging looking at many different types of diets but there's a large section on ketogenic diets.5 -
Whoever made that pyramid should be ejected into space..
I tried fixing it, but the trapeziums aren't even the right size! Geometry has never been this triggering before.
5 -
Mycophilia wrote: »Whoever made that pyramid should be ejected into space..
I tried fixing it, but the trapeziums aren't even the right size! Geometry has never been this triggering before.
What do you expect from PhD's, lol? It's from Dr. Brad Schoenfelds site.
http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/evidence-based-practice-in-exercise-and-nutrition-common-misconceptions-and-criticisms/2 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »@MinuitMinuet you are responsible for whatever you are reading in and reacting to both in the OP and other posts. It was presented as neutral data with no criticism. I honestly don't get what you are reacting to and from some of the posts, neither do others.
Thus my most recent response in an attempt to explain it. You're welcome. I really don't mind going into further detail if you find previous attempts at comprehending my seemingly more vague responses challenging. You have but to ask. I recognize that I do tend to obfuscate the entirety of my connotation by overcompensating with a superfluous amount explaining. Ill simplify it so you don't have to dig through the rubble to extract the meaning.
Keto good.. Pseudoscience behind it bad.
Questionable sites bad.. Even if research good.
Good research. Bad delivery.
Pole
Anti-keto
Super keto
Both bad
neutral non keto/ketoer
Both good
OP? Questionable on his end goal (bad) until he explained it in further detail.(good).
People still harping on my superior comprehension skills without bothering to try and understand my responses? (Bad)
People who read my responses and understand that I'm not against OP, research, or neutral ketoers? (Good)
I'm acting as neutral chaotic at the moment but my original attempt was lawful neutral. Trying to garner the atmosphere in which the research was being presented. I am now satisfied that the OP is not against keto, just the faulty science.
I do hope this was more clear. I really did think my santa analogy clarified my position.
Really? You class your behavior based on the Dungeons and Dragons alignment system?
12 -
Hold on....there is a web site called "lookgreatnaked.com"? Hawt dang! LOL!0
-
MinuitMinuet wrote: »So, like the obsessed ketoers, shaky sites. I agree that it's mostly nonsense, but the sites on both sides are.. questionable. You can woo me all you like but that doesn't take away from the fact that I'm right. Anti-ketoers hate it and demonized it while ketoers evangelize it. I beginning to think you people just like to find something to fight about..like an old nagging couple. There needs to be a neutral group that can untangle this mess and show both sides that it isn't magic but it isn't ridiculous either. If it don't work for you.. try something else.. don't hate on those it works for. If it works for you, awesome, don't add pseudoscience to try and make it look better. Just leave it at CICO for those who binge on carbs.
and who are you again?4 -
CWShultz27105 wrote: »Hold on....there is a web site called "lookgreatnaked.com"? Hawt dang! LOL!
I always struggle going to it at work, but it is filled with goodness.3 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »@MinuitMinuet you are responsible for whatever you are reading in and reacting to both in the OP and other posts. It was presented as neutral data with no criticism. I honestly don't get what you are reacting to and from some of the posts, neither do others.
Thus my most recent response in an attempt to explain it. You're welcome. I really don't mind going into further detail if you find previous attempts at comprehending my seemingly more vague responses challenging. You have but to ask. I recognize that I do tend to obfuscate the entirety of my connotation by overcompensating with a superfluous amount explaining. Ill simplify it so you don't have to dig through the rubble to extract the meaning.
...SNIP...
I do hope this was more clear. I really did think my santa analogy clarified my position.
No- this isn't more clear.
I've realized my boss is right- when she says "its' to many words you already lost me"
if what you're trying to say- isn't extremely evident in the first 2-3 sentences it's too many god*mn words.
Be like Thoreau- simplify simplify simplify.
Stop trying to sound smart and just say what you mean.14 -
Admittedly I've not read the study itself, but I'm not seeing an anti-keto bias from the presented graphic. Seems pretty cut and dried that like other ways of eating, keto is effective for some goals and ineffective for others.
I've never really seen it pushed for anything beyond fat loss, which it seems according to the graphic, it can be effective for if that is one's specific goal. Of course if lbm gain or retention is a concern then yeah it doesn't look like it's the best way to go, which makes sense because those things require more than fat and protein for optimum results. That being the case, I don't think it's terribly surprising.7 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »So, like the obsessed ketoers, shaky sites. I agree that it's mostly nonsense, but the sites on both sides are.. questionable. You can woo me all you like but that doesn't take away from the fact that I'm right. Anti-ketoers hate it and demonized it while ketoers evangelize it. I beginning to think you people just like to find something to fight about..like an old nagging couple. There needs to be a neutral group that can untangle this mess and show both sides that it isn't magic but it isn't ridiculous either. If it don't work for you.. try something else.. don't hate on those it works for. If it works for you, awesome, don't add pseudoscience to try and make it look better. Just leave it at CICO for those who binge on carbs.
I may be reading the wrong thing into this but i missed it first read around. Are you saying that for those of us who don't low carb we're by default bingeing on carbs?5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 909 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions