Pseudoscience and bad advice
Options
Replies
-
Bump to read through later when I have more time....0
-
I completely agree. A few things that need to go, that I've seen on here a lot (in my opinion):
*People insisting you have to stop eating after 7 (this is a suggestion to those that tend to overeat at night, but some, like myself, just aren't all that hungry earlier in the day and keep under my cal pretty well most days)
*The blood-type diet. This has no scientific proof whatsoever. It is ridiculous that anyone still suggests this.
*People insisting that you HAVE TO EAT BREAKFAST. Again, I am one that doesn't get hungry until later in the morning, so I have coffee when I get up, and eat an earlier lunch/brunch.
*People insisting on any sort of one-size-fits-all diet. We all have to figure out what works best for our taste, lifestyle, bodies, metabolism, etc..
*People insisting on any sort of one-size-fits-all exercise. Some may love the exciting cardio of a jillian michaels dvd, others may prefer the gentle movements of a yoga class. To each their own! :]
I agree!
The web is great. This site is great. But you need to be smart. Read and ask questions. Every person is different. What works for you may not work for me.
PS I don't eat breakfast AND I eat after 7pm.0 -
And you forgot one important item to look for.
People with results.
I judge the fruit a person produces before wasting time listening to his theories and philosophies.
If you can't make it work, I am not too much interested.
At the end of the day, results are all that matter.
I think I agree.
That person who's reached the same goals I have has valuable advice about their experipence. I'll listen to them for guidance, granted with a grain of salt because everyone's body is different and what works for them might not work for me. I look for achievers with my similiar body type, height and weight.
The fact that the lay person online HAS achieved the goal and gotten the results I'd like to replicate holds clout for me. More clout than a peer reviewed journal based on a study with specific parameters trying to prove a certain theory right or wrong. Aren't these carefully controlled experiments funded by corporations that want to sell their product? How many experiemnets are done with pure good-will with no other motive? Experiemtns have something to prove.
The person online sharing what they did to get their goals is much more applicable to my daily life than some experiement that claims the results of their study apply to the general public. The person online isn't trying to sell me something, they are saying what actually worked in real life, and perhaps it will work for me.
Just my take on it and the criteria I consider. I've had too many college classes poke holes in the credibility of experiments. In how data reported from controlled experiemnts is manipulated and twisted around to say what the people funding it want to hear. Not to say they are all bogus. But not all the people online are bogus either. I'll hazard a guess that lay people aren't the only ones on the internet giving their opinions. We're hob-nobbing with expert scientists too and what they have to say is relavent.
Well now. Pardon me. End rant.
Please note that I specifically mentioned METABOLISM/MEDICAL problems in my first post. I think it's perfectly ok for someone to say "I did this and I got a positive result. Feel free to ask me how I did it" and take advice from that person if it sounds sensible and is in general agreement with what's recommended already. That's what I often do for fitness advice: I try to find out what exactly they did, how and why it probably worked and see if it's a sensible strategy etc. What's not OK is people that dictate or people who promote as gospel dubious or unverified sources of information.0 -
The NHS is clueless on diet in my experience. My doctor even more so. I talk to him when I need something cut off or an injection, not for very much else. If I catch him in the gym one day bench-pressing, squatting and deadlifting like a baws, I will take his advice on that subject.
You need a PT session for the latter part. I said metabolism/medical issues in my first post. If you had diabetes or high cholesterol, or you were obese with bad asthma and wanted to start losing weight, you'd probably head to your GP as a first step. I would.0 -
Too often people who can't produce real results hide behind intellectualism or sacred dogma.These national publications are typically very far behind the science in their recommendations on many things.
Just follow the MFP simple recommendations.
You don't need a science degree or a year to comb through every contradicting journal.
MFP makes it all real simple.
Eat healthy foods.
Create a 1 pound per week deficit.
Exercise
How hard is this?
Yes. All the rest is just "fluff".
How many carbs, how much water, how often to eat, weigh before or after pooping, too much protein, not enough fat, exercise on empty stomach, cardio or no, lifting or no....seriously, just do the above. And be patient. It's not instant.
Agreed. That's all there is to it unless you have an underlying condition (celiac, allergy etc) but that doesn't apply to most.
What do you define as an underlying condition? For instance there is a strong correlation between being considered 'obese' and having insulin resistance and prediabetes, which are very serious conditions that should be addressed as part of a diet. Most people don't even know they have these conditions.
People with underlying conditions should consult with their doctor and a registered dietician. Most general physicians don't study the endocrine or metabolic systems in depth, so if a simple deficit + exercise isn't working, a visit to a specialist may be in order.0 -
Too often people who can't produce real results hide behind intellectualism or sacred dogma.These national publications are typically very far behind the science in their recommendations on many things.
Just follow the MFP simple recommendations.
You don't need a science degree or a year to comb through every contradicting journal.
MFP makes it all real simple.
Eat healthy foods.
Create a 1 pound per week deficit.
Exercise
How hard is this?
Yes. All the rest is just "fluff".
How many carbs, how much water, how often to eat, weigh before or after pooping, too much protein, not enough fat, exercise on empty stomach, cardio or no, lifting or no....seriously, just do the above. And be patient. It's not instant.
Agreed. That's all there is to it unless you have an underlying condition (celiac, allergy etc) but that doesn't apply to most.
What do you define as an underlying condition? For instance there is a strong correlation between being considered 'obese' and having insulin resistance and prediabetes, which are very serious conditions that should be addressed as part of a diet. Most people don't even know they have these conditions.
People with underlying conditions should consult with their doctor and a registered dietician. Most general physicians don't study the endocrine or metabolic systems in depth, so if a simple deficit + exercise isn't working, a visit to a specialist may be in order.
For example I have a healthy BMI like many on this site (who may give advice to people who do not fall in this category) and I am here to get fitter and lose a few pounds (you can be of a normal weight and be quite unfit as I'm sure you know, or even carry too much body fat). If I were obese, I would get professional advice because I may have an underlying condition.
Does that make sense?0 -
Too often people who can't produce real results hide behind intellectualism or sacred dogma.These national publications are typically very far behind the science in their recommendations on many things.
Just follow the MFP simple recommendations.
You don't need a science degree or a year to comb through every contradicting journal.
MFP makes it all real simple.
Eat healthy foods.
Create a 1 pound per week deficit.
Exercise
How hard is this?
Yes. All the rest is just "fluff".
How many carbs, how much water, how often to eat, weigh before or after pooping, too much protein, not enough fat, exercise on empty stomach, cardio or no, lifting or no....seriously, just do the above. And be patient. It's not instant.
Agreed. That's all there is to it unless you have an underlying condition (celiac, allergy etc) but that doesn't apply to most.
What do you define as an underlying condition? For instance there is a strong correlation between being considered 'obese' and having insulin resistance and prediabetes, which are very serious conditions that should be addressed as part of a diet. Most people don't even know they have these conditions.
People with underlying conditions should consult with their doctor and a registered dietician. Most general physicians don't study the endocrine or metabolic systems in depth, so if a simple deficit + exercise isn't working, a visit to a specialist may be in order.
Right I think my point here is that simply being in the 'obese' category is grounds to see a doctor and look for things like insulin resistance and pre-diabetes before even determining the diet plan. I would imagine a rather large percentage of the population here falls under that category.0 -
The NHS is clueless on diet in my experience. My doctor even more so. I talk to him when I need something cut off or an injection, not for very much else. If I catch him in the gym one day bench-pressing, squatting and deadlifting like a baws, I will take his advice on that subject.
You need a PT session for the latter part. I said metabolism/medical issues in my first post. If you had diabetes or high cholesterol, or you were obese with bad asthma and wanted to start losing weight, you'd probably head to your GP as a first step. I would.
I don't need a PT at all. I'm perfectly capable of watching a video online and then repeating what I saw in the gym. And FYI, I was obese with asthma and felt no need to speak to my Doctor. The information is available if you spend time looking for it, and I'd rather trust the experiences and results of the masses over a piece of paper that says the holder has studied the THEORY of human health for several years. Especially as a lot of their study materials are based on old, outdated research, and in the case of diet and fitness, a lot of which has been disproved.0 -
The NHS is clueless on diet in my experience. My doctor even more so. I talk to him when I need something cut off or an injection, not for very much else. If I catch him in the gym one day bench-pressing, squatting and deadlifting like a baws, I will take his advice on that subject.
You need a PT session for the latter part. I said metabolism/medical issues in my first post. If you had diabetes or high cholesterol, or you were obese with bad asthma and wanted to start losing weight, you'd probably head to your GP as a first step. I would.
I don't need a PT at all. I'm perfectly capable of watching a video online and then repeating what I saw in the gym. And FYI, I was obese with asthma and felt no need to speak to my Doctor. The information is available if you spend time looking for it, and I'd rather trust the experiences and results of the masses over a piece of paper that says the holder has studied the THEORY of human health for several years. Especially as a lot of their study materials are based on old, outdated research, and in the case of diet and fitness, a lot of which has been disproved.
Good for you. I pay a PT as a one off every 6-8 weeks so that they teach me to do weights with the correct form. £30 here and there to make sure I don't injure myself or hurt my joints is money well spent in my books (and I'm a student so I have to cut back on other things for this). I guess we disagree.0 -
OP - you are from the UK yes?
i suggest you read confessions of a GP - available for 99p for the kindle if you have one.
sure opened my eyes to the NHS and its targets.
dont be such a sucker.0 -
My objection here is that this kind of 'only scientists can know science' point of view is fundamentally disempowering. I thought us academics were into the idea of making our work accessible. Public engagement. Not making people feel that science is a shrine that only the chosen few can enter.
Open access now, I say.0 -
OP - you are from the UK yes?
i suggest you read confessions of a GP - available for 99p for the kindle if you have one.
sure opened my eyes to the NHS and its targets.
dont be such a sucker.
Yes I read it already thanks. I get your point but for metabolic/medical problems (what I referred to in my initial post) I will trust a GP more than magazines, people on the net, and holistic medicine.0 -
My objection here is that this kind of 'only scientists can know science' point of view is fundamentally disempowering. I thought us academics were into the idea of making our work accessible. Public engagement. Not making people feel that science is a shrine that only the chosen few can enter.
Open access now, I say.
Me too and a lot of med journals are. It really annoys me when newspaper articles don't link to the open access articles. The readers should be able to assess the info and make their mind up should they want on the article. I did mention that on page one.
However on the same note I personally wouldn't trust someone at face value who said "I read this paper and what I am telling you, you MUST do/is the RIGHT thing" or whatever. Not cool. That's more what I was getting at: "if you need information as a general rule of thumbs...". I don't think most people want or have the time to dig into academic publications but those that do, great as long as they don't become self proclaimed experts...0 -
No, but it's also not cool to suggest that as a scientist (reading between the lines, a scientist currently with only a first degree?), you're the only category of person that can understand scientific writing.0
-
No, but it's also not cool to suggest that as a scientist (reading between the lines, a scientist currently with only a first degree?), you're the only category of person that can understand scientific writing.
And that everyone that isn't a scientist is wrong.0 -
No, but it's also not cool to suggest that as a scientist (reading between the lines, a scientist currently with only a first degree?), you're the only category of person that can understand scientific writing.No, but it's also not cool to suggest that as a scientist (reading between the lines, a scientist currently with only a first degree?), you're the only category of person that can understand scientific writing.
And that everyone that isn't a scientist is wrong.
I said much earlier on to answer someone's question (post 3): "I have a wide range of interest, from population genetics (my PhD and area of expertise, or at least it will be one day!) to metabolism (something I got into during my biochemistry degree, but I'm not an expert)".
My first degree only gave me some notions of what it is to be a research scientist, the second I got much better at critical appraisal, and the 3rd one I hope to become an expert in my very narrow field of science. I think it's ok to say what my background is and to say that it's still a very large learning curve for me to understand scientific literature and appraise it.
As someone with a science background, I find that understanding social science or history of art papers very hard as I don't have the right background. Doesn't mean I shouldn't do it but I'm certainly not going to dictate to people what I think the real meaning of Baudelaire's Les Fleurs du Mal is or what Picasso's Cote d'Azur series was really about to take 2 random examples (doesn't mean I can't talk about it though). It also means I understand superficially a fair bit of the biological sciences, but nothing else, and only a tiny tiny bit in good enough depth to classify me as an expert (not even there yet but getting there :bigsmile:)
Anyway I'm sorry you both think that and apologies if that's how I came across. I have seen a lot of people asking questions who have been bombarded by misinformation and I think it can be even dangerous in some cases when it's medical or otherwise.0 -
So how do you decide what to believe when faced with conflicting evidence?
You dig in and read the detail, read more studies, 99% of the time that is going to throw up a significant issue with one argument or the other, if that fails, you go with where the body of evidence lies. So if you can find 20 studies that say X + Y = Z but one new study says X + Y = A, you would go with the 20.
This is actually built into science reporting in that when a research team comes up with a hypothesis that goes against current thinking they have to do extra work (and this work has to be replicated by others) to prove their point.
Of course that takes time and an understanding of the background facts and underlying science and that is where trusted sources must come in (which was I think the OPs original message: Think about what your trusted sources are. Bloke down the pub = Bad, Credible scientific journal = Good).
This does not mean that the established theories will always win out, but that new theories must "prove themselves".0 -
I'll stick to listening to my body and it's needs... as well as sticking to natural/holistic lifestyle choices. It's what is working well for me. I am vegan, take supplements and vitamins, drink 8-10 glasses of water a day, exercise at least 30 minutes at least 5 days a week, and I am losing weight steadily, never hungry, and feeling better than I did when I was 18 and a size 6. I didn't need a doctor to tell me anything. I only wish I'd started listening to my body sooner in my life.0
-
*Eludes to some conspiracy that “they” are trying to cover up.
Alludes surely? Unless they're trying to hide the cover up of the cover up of the conspiracy.
I do hope your reading of scientific journals is more careful than you choice of words. :-)
(Stand back, man. I *am* a scientist....)
LOVE it0 -
That would only be true if the sources you checked were the media. Most medical entities have been saying to replace saturated/trans fat with non-saturated fat for at least 30 years. There was a brief period back in the 70's where low fat was the fad, but further research quickly showed that the type of fat was the really important thing.
I agree completely I just gave the wrong time scale. The point I think we are both making is that there was a point in history that if you had checked, current scientific opinion would have been "Fat is bad" if, at that time someone were to do a bit of research they would conclude that they should limit fat.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions