Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is anyone confused?
Options
Replies
-
@fitfamilyguy I'm really having trouble understanding your post or what your point is at this point. But I'll go back to my original post - being able to vet sources. "Science" isn't defined by one study, or the most recent study. It is constantly doubling back, taking one study which leads to several other studies, which lead to dozens of studies, continuing to drill down, pin down variables, correct inaccurate assumptions. THAT is the scientific method. The problem is the average consumer isn't educated enough about the scientific method, and so when their trainer shows them a study that "proves" that his diet or workout program is the best, they think they should believe it because "science". The best charlatans are the ones that can misuse science and confuse their marks.
I have talked to far too many bodybuilders/trainers who looked amazing and didn't know *kitten* about biology or science to assume that someone with a great physique would give good advice. Said that I should eat 1200 cals, or I had to IF to maximize fat loss, or I had to use little pink weights because I was a girl, or I had to use the fat burners that they could give me a discount on. Sorry.
Fair enough. I liked your "*kitten*" comment. Funny.
Again, nothing is perfect. The bodybuilder in your example is likely doing something right but again nothing is perfect. I wouldn't follow that guy either. But the other side of that is the intellectual that can't figure out why their science based approach to fitness won't get them the fit body they constantly work on. I've met plenty of them too. Again, I think it comes down to multiple ways of learning. No need to apologize. Were you insulting me?
3 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »The "we" in this thread will be quick to list off all of the reasons why real world results form individuals is a problem so I don't need to do that here. They exist. I get it. There are problems learning from one guys results.
These reasons have been outlined multiple times for you and yet you continue to propose that it is optimal to get our information from these individuals.
Can you list off any of these reasons?FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
Now, forget about "fit guy". What about a bodybuilder? Can't we look at what a bodybuilder generally does, recognize that they are pretty darn good at building muscle and burning fat and learn from that? You don't have to want to be a bodybuilder to learn from the principles and apply some or all of them to replicate some results. You can also talk to one bodybuilder to find out what he does and then learn from that.
Following your answer to the above, can you apply all those reasons to why “we” really don’t hold value on this as a research method?
1 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »@fitfamilyguy I'm really having trouble understanding your post or what your point is at this point. But I'll go back to my original post - being able to vet sources. "Science" isn't defined by one study, or the most recent study. It is constantly doubling back, taking one study which leads to several other studies, which lead to dozens of studies, continuing to drill down, pin down variables, correct inaccurate assumptions. THAT is the scientific method. The problem is the average consumer isn't educated enough about the scientific method, and so when their trainer shows them a study that "proves" that his diet or workout program is the best, they think they should believe it because "science". The best charlatans are the ones that can misuse science and confuse their marks.
I have talked to far too many bodybuilders/trainers who looked amazing and didn't know *kitten* about biology or science to assume that someone with a great physique would give good advice. Said that I should eat 1200 cals, or I had to IF to maximize fat loss, or I had to use little pink weights because I was a girl, or I had to use the fat burners that they could give me a discount on. Sorry.
Fair enough. I liked your "*kitten*" comment. Funny.
Again, nothing is perfect. The bodybuilder in your example is likely doing something right but again nothing is perfect. I wouldn't follow that guy either. But the other side of that is the intellectual that can't figure out why their science based approach to fitness won't get them the fit body they constantly work on. I've met plenty of them too. Again, I think it comes down to multiple ways of learning. No need to apologize. Were you insulting me?
I've been following this thread but I haven't jumped in yet. I think the fundamental difference you're missing here is that on the science side of things, the idea isn't to take advice from the scientist. The idea is to take the science from a conglomeration of scientists and then use it to apply to your own situation.
If a guy at the gym tells me I can't eat carbs after 7 and I need to do a ton of cardio and eat salad and boiled cod all day to lose weight, and then it doesn't work for whatever reason, I don't have the information I need to troubleshoot why it isn't working. I can go back to the bro, but he likely won't know. I can find a different person to ask. I can flounder or give up. I can bounce from plan to plan. But I don't have the tools I need to get into the right groove unless I get there by accident. And then I won't be able to adjust as I go, anyway.
If instead I learn that meal timing doesn't amount to a large percentage of weight loss, cardio can increase a deficit but isn't required, and salad and cod just happen to be low calorie/high protein foods, and that calories lead to weight loss, then I have knowledge. I don't have someone else's plan. I don't have what some reporter put in a magazine about what they think a study says. I can build the plan that works for me. I can take the pieces of advice I like and throw the rest away. I can tweak. I can troubleshoot. I can adjust things. And I don't have to bounce from plan to plan unsure of what's going on in my own body. The knowledge gives me control over what's happening.
There are absolutely confused people in the world. I just think some of the people in this thread differ on how best to help them. Whether it's best to give them a plan that might work or to give them the knowledge to make their own plan.11 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »The "we" in this thread will be quick to list off all of the reasons why real world results form individuals is a problem so I don't need to do that here. They exist. I get it. There are problems learning from one guys results.
These reasons have been outlined multiple times for you and yet you continue to propose that it is optimal to get our information from these individuals.
Can you list off any of these reasons?FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
Now, forget about "fit guy". What about a bodybuilder? Can't we look at what a bodybuilder generally does, recognize that they are pretty darn good at building muscle and burning fat and learn from that? You don't have to want to be a bodybuilder to learn from the principles and apply some or all of them to replicate some results. You can also talk to one bodybuilder to find out what he does and then learn from that.
Following your answer to the above, can you apply all those reasons to why “we” really don’t hold value on this as a research method?
Perhaps this is the issue.
You possibly feel that I am trying to provide a new way to do science. I don't think that at all.
I believe in taking a balanced approach to learning for an individual like me or someone else. I am talking about learning on an individual level and finding a way to cut through the noise and confusion. As said many times part of that is learning from others and science.6 -
Both what?FitFamilyGuy wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »I'm kind of wondering, if one wouldn't take science to be the ultimate system of empirical knowledge, how would one demonstrate a better method of discovering and demonstrating empirical truth?
I really don't see how it can begin to happen for these ideas of individual "experiments". I take knowledge to be have components of belief, truth, and justification or something like justification. One person doing something can certain state they did X, Y, Z as truth, and that there was a Result R, and all those things are true. I'm just not seeing anything like a justificatory path for X, Y, Z have a causal relation with R. With only one individual, there's nothing to tie-break over influences - all facts about the subject are equally relevant from what I can tell. X is I ate fewer calories, Y is I was born in 1963. Both facts are equally true - why is one preferential to another in determining what worked for the individual? I see no explanatory power.
Both are equally true. My common sense tells me that one probably doesn't apply but the other probably does. The reason I would pay attention is because I felt like you demonstrated some things that made sense to me and I wanted to learn and find out for myself.
Common sense for things about your individual experience? The problem is common sense is trying to accumulate empirical evidence without counting it. You're saying your person experience is a determinant, but when it can't differentiate between facts, you're going to use a weak implementation of science to differentiate? You're smuggling science back into answering the issue, you're just going about it in a poor, non-numerically rigorous way. And lacking numerical data, you give up one of the great benefits of science: falisifiability - that you can actually find out you have a reason to alter your position. Seems one might as well use science for figuring out the whole thing.5 -
-
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »The "we" in this thread will be quick to list off all of the reasons why real world results form individuals is a problem so I don't need to do that here. They exist. I get it. There are problems learning from one guys results.
These reasons have been outlined multiple times for you and yet you continue to propose that it is optimal to get our information from these individuals.
Can you list off any of these reasons?FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
Now, forget about "fit guy". What about a bodybuilder? Can't we look at what a bodybuilder generally does, recognize that they are pretty darn good at building muscle and burning fat and learn from that? You don't have to want to be a bodybuilder to learn from the principles and apply some or all of them to replicate some results. You can also talk to one bodybuilder to find out what he does and then learn from that.
Following your answer to the above, can you apply all those reasons to why “we” really don’t hold value on this as a research method?
Perhaps this is the issue.
You possibly feel that I am trying to provide a new way to do science. I don't think that at all.
I believe in taking a balanced approach to learning for an individual like me or someone else. I am talking about learning on an individual level and finding a way to cut through the noise and confusion. As said many times part of that is learning from others and science.
What does it mean to "learn on an individual level"?
One of the reasons why I think you're getting pushback is that what you're advising -- at least to my reading -- seems to be so vague.
6 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »The "we" in this thread will be quick to list off all of the reasons why real world results form individuals is a problem so I don't need to do that here. They exist. I get it. There are problems learning from one guys results.
These reasons have been outlined multiple times for you and yet you continue to propose that it is optimal to get our information from these individuals.
Can you list off any of these reasons?FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
Now, forget about "fit guy". What about a bodybuilder? Can't we look at what a bodybuilder generally does, recognize that they are pretty darn good at building muscle and burning fat and learn from that? You don't have to want to be a bodybuilder to learn from the principles and apply some or all of them to replicate some results. You can also talk to one bodybuilder to find out what he does and then learn from that.
Following your answer to the above, can you apply all those reasons to why “we” really don’t hold value on this as a research method?
Perhaps this is the issue.
You possibly feel that I am trying to provide a new way to do science. I don't think that at all.
I believe in taking a balanced approach to learning for an individual like me or someone else. I am talking about learning on an individual level and finding a way to cut through the noise and confusion. As said many times part of that is learning from others and science.
No. What I’m saying is that we have presented to you all the reasons individual anecdotes aren’t valid as guidance.
You said you “get it” so you don’t need to list them.
Since you continue to advocate for using individual anecdotes-it’s kind of like you really don’t “get it” so I was asking you to list the reasons that you “get”. Perhaps that’s the disjoint.5 -
I'm just throwing this line of thought out there because I can't help but think there's been a massive breakdown between who is discussing research, who is discussing science (a moment on that one please) and who is discussing how we learn and what from. I'm addressing this strictly from an "end user" PoV so to speak.
I know my view is simplistic (overly) but at the moment, until I learn more, it works for me.
To me, research is what a body does in order to find out how something works, by using scientific methodology.
The scientific results gained from that research are what lead to a change in behavior (learning) and are in a constant state of flux due to variables being added or removed.
What I do and/or change...or do not do, is a direct result of how that application works for me. The example I'll use is the study of and discussions about concentric and eccentric motion. Bicep curls. Both concentric and eccentric motion work for me, but concentric causes pain, eccentric does not.
I need treatment for that tendonitus that is based upon medical research, the results of which are taught to doctors so they can tell me why, and properly treat it.
I do not need (won't accept because I don't like pain) someone telling that xyz worked for them without any understanding that xyz may cause further damage.
I also need and will listen to someone with the proper education who can help me do what I would like to based on my particular variables or, possibly, advise me to get it fixed before attempting any other routines with that arm. This is why I go to men and women who have that proper training and have learned to apply it in real world situations.
We all know biceps curls strengthen/build biceps. But what can a person tell me about my biceps in particular and why there's pain when I try to exercise them? Is it skeletal/musculature/tendon? I need to know that.
The supplements are another matter entirely for me as I just do not take any other than protein. I have seen (we all have) some crazy pitches before, but that's past for me today.3 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Information is great but it really amazes me just how much information and debate complicates some very simple concepts about fitness.
Cardio, Muscle, Burn Fat, Weight Loss, Keto, Atkens, High Carb, Calories In Calories Out, Low Carb, Low Fat, HITT, Low Intensity cardio, Steroids, High Intensity cardio, Sugar, Supplements, Protein, Macros, Micros, Weights, Body Weight, Fitness Gadgets, Functional Training, Food Points... Wow!
No kidding people fail to burn fat and keep a lean healthy weight. Wow!
Do we not have pretty good real world examples of what does and does not work for most people?... there are always exceptions and people do vary but in 2019, can't we point to examples of real world strategies that tend to result in lean, fit people from easy to follow principles?
I can understand people feeling confused about how to go about pursuing weight loss. It can seem like a daunting and overwhelming task when you first set out to pursue a goal. I think the key thing is to take it one day, one small step at a time. "Rome wasn't built in a day" and weight loss doesn't just happen overnight. We need to reprogram our thinking and the way we live our lives if we want to make lasting positive changes.
On some level, we have a general idea of what we should do to lose weight: eat better, exercise, drink water and get enough rest. But there's a fine line between knowledge and action. We know what we SHOULD do, we just have to do it. And there's no magic fix, you just have to experiment a bit and see what works for your body and lifestyle. That's why so many different diets exist in the first place- "different strokes for different folks", so-to-speak. It's a matter of personal research, trial and error.0 -
I'm just throwing this line of thought out there because I can't help but think there's been a massive breakdown between who is discussing research, who is discussing science (a moment on that one please) and who is discussing how we learn and what from. I'm addressing this strictly from an "end user" PoV so to speak.
I know my view is simplistic (overly) but at the moment, until I learn more, it works for me.
To me, research is what a body does in order to find out how something works, by using scientific methodology.
The scientific results gained from that research are what lead to a change in behavior (learning) and are in a constant state of flux due to variables being added or removed.
What I do and/or change...or do not do, is a direct result of how that application works for me. The example I'll use is the study of and discussions about concentric and eccentric motion. Bicep curls. Both concentric and eccentric motion work for me, but concentric causes pain, eccentric does not.
I need treatment for that tendonitus that is based upon medical research, the results of which are taught to doctors so they can tell me why, and properly treat it.
I do not need (won't accept because I don't like pain) someone telling that xyz worked for them without any understanding that xyz may cause further damage.
I also need and will listen to someone with the proper education who can help me do what I would like to based on my particular variables or, possibly, advise me to get it fixed before attempting any other routines with that arm. This is why I go to men and women who have that proper training and have learned to apply it in real world situations.
We all know biceps curls strengthen/build biceps. But what can a person tell me about my biceps in particular and why there's pain when I try to exercise them? Is it skeletal/musculature/tendon? I need to know that.
The supplements are another matter entirely for me as I just do not take any other than protein. I have seen (we all have) some crazy pitches before, but that's past for me today.
Now i see why you are confused!15 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »@fitfamilyguy I'm really having trouble understanding your post or what your point is at this point. But I'll go back to my original post - being able to vet sources. "Science" isn't defined by one study, or the most recent study. It is constantly doubling back, taking one study which leads to several other studies, which lead to dozens of studies, continuing to drill down, pin down variables, correct inaccurate assumptions. THAT is the scientific method. The problem is the average consumer isn't educated enough about the scientific method, and so when their trainer shows them a study that "proves" that his diet or workout program is the best, they think they should believe it because "science". The best charlatans are the ones that can misuse science and confuse their marks.
I have talked to far too many bodybuilders/trainers who looked amazing and didn't know *kitten* about biology or science to assume that someone with a great physique would give good advice. Said that I should eat 1200 cals, or I had to IF to maximize fat loss, or I had to use little pink weights because I was a girl, or I had to use the fat burners that they could give me a discount on. Sorry.
Fair enough. I liked your "*kitten*" comment. Funny.
Again, nothing is perfect. The bodybuilder in your example is likely doing something right but again nothing is perfect. I wouldn't follow that guy either. But the other side of that is the intellectual that can't figure out why their science based approach to fitness won't get them the fit body they constantly work on. I've met plenty of them too. Again, I think it comes down to multiple ways of learning. No need to apologize. Were you insulting me?
Y'know, maybe the difference between me and you is simple. I haven't met that (bolded) guy. I'm sure he's out there somewhere. Anyone I know who researched and tried to follow the science and put in the work (not just read about it), got results.
I've met the folks with good physiques and unscientific ideas, though.
In my experience, people who try to discount the best scientific approach we can muster (which won't be perfect) in favor of some "trust me, look at my results" ideas . . . are selling something. Even if not for $$$, maybe just for cool-guy bragging rights.
But that's just my n = 1, so not science, so unpersuasive to others.
8 -
diannethegeek wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »@fitfamilyguy I'm really having trouble understanding your post or what your point is at this point. But I'll go back to my original post - being able to vet sources. "Science" isn't defined by one study, or the most recent study. It is constantly doubling back, taking one study which leads to several other studies, which lead to dozens of studies, continuing to drill down, pin down variables, correct inaccurate assumptions. THAT is the scientific method. The problem is the average consumer isn't educated enough about the scientific method, and so when their trainer shows them a study that "proves" that his diet or workout program is the best, they think they should believe it because "science". The best charlatans are the ones that can misuse science and confuse their marks.
I have talked to far too many bodybuilders/trainers who looked amazing and didn't know *kitten* about biology or science to assume that someone with a great physique would give good advice. Said that I should eat 1200 cals, or I had to IF to maximize fat loss, or I had to use little pink weights because I was a girl, or I had to use the fat burners that they could give me a discount on. Sorry.
Fair enough. I liked your "*kitten*" comment. Funny.
Again, nothing is perfect. The bodybuilder in your example is likely doing something right but again nothing is perfect. I wouldn't follow that guy either. But the other side of that is the intellectual that can't figure out why their science based approach to fitness won't get them the fit body they constantly work on. I've met plenty of them too. Again, I think it comes down to multiple ways of learning. No need to apologize. Were you insulting me?
I've been following this thread but I haven't jumped in yet. I think the fundamental difference you're missing here is that on the science side of things, the idea isn't to take advice from the scientist. The idea is to take the science from a conglomeration of scientists and then use it to apply to your own situation.
If a guy at the gym tells me I can't eat carbs after 7 and I need to do a ton of cardio and eat salad and boiled cod all day to lose weight, and then it doesn't work for whatever reason, I don't have the information I need to troubleshoot why it isn't working. I can go back to the bro, but he likely won't know. I can find a different person to ask. I can flounder or give up. I can bounce from plan to plan. But I don't have the tools I need to get into the right groove unless I get there by accident. And then I won't be able to adjust as I go, anyway.
If instead I learn that meal timing doesn't amount to a large percentage of weight loss, cardio can increase a deficit but isn't required, and salad and cod just happen to be low calorie/high protein foods, and that calories lead to weight loss, then I have knowledge. I don't have someone else's plan. I don't have what some reporter put in a magazine about what they think a study says. I can build the plan that works for me. I can take the pieces of advice I like and throw the rest away. I can tweak. I can troubleshoot. I can adjust things. And I don't have to bounce from plan to plan unsure of what's going on in my own body. The knowledge gives me control over what's happening.
There are absolutely confused people in the world. I just think some of the people in this thread differ on how best to help them. Whether it's best to give them a plan that might work or to give them the knowledge to make their own plan.
Very well said! There is a reason you have.... 14,564 comments under your belt. Perhaps I should pay more attention to what you say because you have done something earn my attention. Your not a scientist are you? You don't have to be, you think clearly. You have logical ideas. I'm not a scientist but I can tell that with my common sense. I agree that good advice and leadership should come from a foundation understanding. I think this is part of the filtering process. However, I think another part of the issue in the threat is that threshold. It seems to me that some people seem to think that unless Dr. is attached to your name or your part of a very big corporation, the words from a fit person on not even worth considering. I agree that the "hey look what I have been able to do" is only the marketing so to speak. I don't mean marketing literally but rather a starting point to say that now that you see some proof, I may have some more credibility that I'm onto something and you can find out for yourself over time. The "hey look what I have been able to do" may end up being full of very, very wise and helpful information. That same guy may end up being full of BS. Who knows. Personally, I'm willing to learn from others as they probably have a combination of practical advice and advice based on science and it is my job to determine what I do and do not value. I've never really heard people argue so hard against the concept of learning from successful people. It is very strange to me. To be honest, it almost starts to feel like a way of controlling information and shutting downs others ability to share than actually offering a variety of solutions to help people. But again, I really do think you made a lot of darn good sense. Thanks. 8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »The "we" in this thread will be quick to list off all of the reasons why real world results form individuals is a problem so I don't need to do that here. They exist. I get it. There are problems learning from one guys results.
These reasons have been outlined multiple times for you and yet you continue to propose that it is optimal to get our information from these individuals.
Can you list off any of these reasons?FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
Now, forget about "fit guy". What about a bodybuilder? Can't we look at what a bodybuilder generally does, recognize that they are pretty darn good at building muscle and burning fat and learn from that? You don't have to want to be a bodybuilder to learn from the principles and apply some or all of them to replicate some results. You can also talk to one bodybuilder to find out what he does and then learn from that.
Following your answer to the above, can you apply all those reasons to why “we” really don’t hold value on this as a research method?
Perhaps this is the issue.
You possibly feel that I am trying to provide a new way to do science. I don't think that at all.
I believe in taking a balanced approach to learning for an individual like me or someone else. I am talking about learning on an individual level and finding a way to cut through the noise and confusion. As said many times part of that is learning from others and science.
What does it mean to "learn on an individual level"?
One of the reasons why I think you're getting pushback is that what you're advising -- at least to my reading -- seems to be so vague.
Of course my friend. Some specifics are not allowed. I can't condense my theories onto a paragraph because there is often too much to cover and often I would be accused of self promotion, I'd be censored and banned. This post is more about a general philosophies. I mentioned this before, as open as a forum is, there are governing bodies that limit and control how the information flows. I get why this happens but it is still a reality. I do sometimes wonder how many times I answer to an actual user versus a moderators account. That is part of life online. 11 -
Something else is kind of gnawing at me a little.
You haven’t told us what your miracle methods are. I’m assuming that’s available for purchase somewhere.
Regardless.
According to your profile, you’re 41. As you’ve mentioned more times than I can count, you’ve been doing this same thing for 26 years.
So...you’ve been doing the exact same thing during a period of your life when your body was still growing to adult size, when it was thriving with peak levels of testosterone and other hormones, and now as you begin to age some. You’ve not made a single change as you’ve gone through these stages?
4 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »@fitfamilyguy I'm really having trouble understanding your post or what your point is at this point. But I'll go back to my original post - being able to vet sources. "Science" isn't defined by one study, or the most recent study. It is constantly doubling back, taking one study which leads to several other studies, which lead to dozens of studies, continuing to drill down, pin down variables, correct inaccurate assumptions. THAT is the scientific method. The problem is the average consumer isn't educated enough about the scientific method, and so when their trainer shows them a study that "proves" that his diet or workout program is the best, they think they should believe it because "science". The best charlatans are the ones that can misuse science and confuse their marks.
I have talked to far too many bodybuilders/trainers who looked amazing and didn't know *kitten* about biology or science to assume that someone with a great physique would give good advice. Said that I should eat 1200 cals, or I had to IF to maximize fat loss, or I had to use little pink weights because I was a girl, or I had to use the fat burners that they could give me a discount on. Sorry.
Fair enough. I liked your "*kitten*" comment. Funny.
Again, nothing is perfect. The bodybuilder in your example is likely doing something right but again nothing is perfect. I wouldn't follow that guy either. But the other side of that is the intellectual that can't figure out why their science based approach to fitness won't get them the fit body they constantly work on. I've met plenty of them too. Again, I think it comes down to multiple ways of learning. No need to apologize. Were you insulting me?
I've been following this thread but I haven't jumped in yet. I think the fundamental difference you're missing here is that on the science side of things, the idea isn't to take advice from the scientist. The idea is to take the science from a conglomeration of scientists and then use it to apply to your own situation.
If a guy at the gym tells me I can't eat carbs after 7 and I need to do a ton of cardio and eat salad and boiled cod all day to lose weight, and then it doesn't work for whatever reason, I don't have the information I need to troubleshoot why it isn't working. I can go back to the bro, but he likely won't know. I can find a different person to ask. I can flounder or give up. I can bounce from plan to plan. But I don't have the tools I need to get into the right groove unless I get there by accident. And then I won't be able to adjust as I go, anyway.
If instead I learn that meal timing doesn't amount to a large percentage of weight loss, cardio can increase a deficit but isn't required, and salad and cod just happen to be low calorie/high protein foods, and that calories lead to weight loss, then I have knowledge. I don't have someone else's plan. I don't have what some reporter put in a magazine about what they think a study says. I can build the plan that works for me. I can take the pieces of advice I like and throw the rest away. I can tweak. I can troubleshoot. I can adjust things. And I don't have to bounce from plan to plan unsure of what's going on in my own body. The knowledge gives me control over what's happening.
There are absolutely confused people in the world. I just think some of the people in this thread differ on how best to help them. Whether it's best to give them a plan that might work or to give them the knowledge to make their own plan.
Very well said! There is a reason you have.... 14,564 comments under your belt. Perhaps I should pay more attention to what you say because you have done something earn my attention. Your not a scientist are you? You don't have to be, you think clearly. You have logical ideas. I'm not a scientist but I can tell that with my common sense. I agree that good advice and leadership should come from a foundation understanding. I think this is part of the filtering process. However, I think another part of the issue in the threat is that threshold. It seems to me that some people seem to think that unless Dr. is attached to your name or your part of a very big corporation, the words from a fit person on not even worth considering. I agree that the "hey look what I have been able to do" is only the marketing so to speak. I don't mean marketing literally but rather a starting point to say that now that you see some proof, I may have some more credibility that I'm onto something and you can find out for yourself over time. The "hey look what I have been able to do" may end up being full of very, very wise and helpful information. That same guy may end up being full of BS. Who knows. Personally, I'm willing to learn from others as they probably have a combination of practical advice and advice based on science and it is my job to determine what I do and do not value. I've never really heard people argue so hard against the concept of learning from successful people. It is very strange to me. To be honest, it almost starts to feel like a way of controlling information and shutting downs others ability to share than actually offering a variety of solutions to help people. But again, I really do think you made a lot of darn good sense. Thanks.
The point you continue to miss is that the reason the people are experiencing success is because they are doing the things that have proven (by science) to be successful.
The science IS the information of value.11 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Of course my friend. Some specifics are not allowed. I can't condense my theories onto a paragraph because there is often too much to cover and often I would be accused of self promotion, I'd be censored and banned. This post is more about a general philosophies. I mentioned this before, as open as a forum is, there are governing bodies that limit and control how the information flows. I get why this happens but it is still a reality. I do sometimes wonder how many times I answer to an actual user versus a moderators account. That is part of life online.
I don't understand this.
Myself, I eat a wide variety of foods keeping a deficit each day, do 3 full body workouts per week and cardio/abs 2-3 times per week. My exercise plan is based on AthleanX Ax1 and Ax2.
That's a very small paragraph and I'm fairly certain it is within forum guidlines. What am I missing?11 -
BFitFamilyGuy wrote: »Of course my friend. Some specifics are not allowed. I can't condense my theories onto a paragraph because there is often too much to cover and often I would be accused of self promotion, I'd be censored and banned. This post is more about a general philosophies. I mentioned this before, as open as a forum is, there are governing bodies that limit and control how the information flows. I get why this happens but it is still a reality. I do sometimes wonder how many times I answer to an actual user versus a moderators account. That is part of life online.
I don't understand this.
Myself, I eat a wide variety of foods keeping a deficit each day, do 3 full body workouts per week and cardio/abs 2-3 times per week. My exercise plan is based on AthleanX Ax1 and Ax2.
That's a very small paragraph and I'm fairly certain it is within forum guidlines. What am I missing?
The difference is you’re not selling something.
9 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »BFitFamilyGuy wrote: »Of course my friend. Some specifics are not allowed. I can't condense my theories onto a paragraph because there is often too much to cover and often I would be accused of self promotion, I'd be censored and banned. This post is more about a general philosophies. I mentioned this before, as open as a forum is, there are governing bodies that limit and control how the information flows. I get why this happens but it is still a reality. I do sometimes wonder how many times I answer to an actual user versus a moderators account. That is part of life online.
I don't understand this.
Myself, I eat a wide variety of foods keeping a deficit each day, do 3 full body workouts per week and cardio/abs 2-3 times per week. My exercise plan is based on AthleanX Ax1 and Ax2.
That's a very small paragraph and I'm fairly certain it is within forum guidlines. What am I missing?
The difference is you’re not selling something.
It's sounding that way.4 -
FitFamilyGuy wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »FitFamilyGuy wrote: »The "we" in this thread will be quick to list off all of the reasons why real world results form individuals is a problem so I don't need to do that here. They exist. I get it. There are problems learning from one guys results.
These reasons have been outlined multiple times for you and yet you continue to propose that it is optimal to get our information from these individuals.
Can you list off any of these reasons?FitFamilyGuy wrote: »
Now, forget about "fit guy". What about a bodybuilder? Can't we look at what a bodybuilder generally does, recognize that they are pretty darn good at building muscle and burning fat and learn from that? You don't have to want to be a bodybuilder to learn from the principles and apply some or all of them to replicate some results. You can also talk to one bodybuilder to find out what he does and then learn from that.
Following your answer to the above, can you apply all those reasons to why “we” really don’t hold value on this as a research method?
Perhaps this is the issue.
You possibly feel that I am trying to provide a new way to do science. I don't think that at all.
I believe in taking a balanced approach to learning for an individual like me or someone else. I am talking about learning on an individual level and finding a way to cut through the noise and confusion. As said many times part of that is learning from others and science.
What does it mean to "learn on an individual level"?
One of the reasons why I think you're getting pushback is that what you're advising -- at least to my reading -- seems to be so vague.
Of course my friend. Some specifics are not allowed. I can't condense my theories onto a paragraph because there is often too much to cover and often I would be accused of self promotion, I'd be censored and banned. This post is more about a general philosophies. I mentioned this before, as open as a forum is, there are governing bodies that limit and control how the information flows. I get why this happens but it is still a reality. I do sometimes wonder how many times I answer to an actual user versus a moderators account. That is part of life online.
In regular forum threads, the moderators are labeled: It says "moderator" rather than "member" next to their names. Assuming you're not talking about PM/DM communications, or thinking there are stealth moderators.
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions