brentfostwood904 Member

generally 90% of researchers either piss about doing the most useless and pointless studies, with the most awful methods, as long as they can get away with it, or they are getting paid to produce research showing whatever their employer wants it to show. I made that 90% up but you get what I'm saying. Just because these…

My degree didnt teach me conspiracy theories, it taught me how to critically evaluate research, and one of the very first things you must do is look at who did this research, not just for scientific things but for anything, for a biography, for a historical account, for anything you must look at WHO has written it. So it's…

if you knew anything about it then you would know it's too difficult to study the brain properly without dissection.

well firstly if the research hypothesis states that they predict neuron damage or anything like this will occur, then the study wont be approved for humans. Secondly the brains of the rats were dissected to be properly studied because how are you going to study the effect on the brain in the human subjects?

anyway really, I dont have time to talk to people on the internet about this, I actually have work to do... if people want to read more about it then it's on them.

there will NEVER be a study on humans like this because it will never meet the ethical approval. It's not allowed to purposely harm people for research. The dosage was specifically chosen because it is what the FDA says is safe for human consumption...

The "holes" were caused by neuron death, not ventricles lol. Did you read what I linked before? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640

one of the first things you learn when learning how to read and interpret papers is to look at who has written the paper and to see if there is an agenda there. One of the things I learnt in even the first year of my degree is how corrupt the FDA is and how corrupt a lot of research is, believe it or not. It is very bad to…

The first one you linked is by "scientists" from "Research and Development, The NutraSweet Company," Meaning there is a very strong research bias. Meaning I know that the study is worthless before even continuing to read beyond the first few lines. If you want to find a decent study on anything then try to find one where…

no you are wrong, there are many out there which specifically use the amount that the FDA says is safe for human consumption. Actually any study which used a stupid amount should be ignored. But most of the ones I've read did not use a ridiculous amount.

It goes against the required reserach ethics to perform a damaging study on human subjects, which is why the closest available and ethically approved thing has to be used instead, in this case it is rats which were actually manipulated to make their metabolism more in line with human metabolism (something ignored in a lot…

they chose the amount specifically because the FDA says that amount is safe. Yet the study proves that this amount in fact is not safe. The study was only for 90 days, if lower rates of aspartame simply cause a lower rate of damage then if youre looking at a lifetime of consuming it, you will still have more neuron death…

here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640

go and check out the animal model studies on aspartame and the hippocampus, theres a lot more than one out there. Read the long term studies because a lot of the short term studies say there is no effect.. but they are done over a stupid amount of time like 2 days.. so these ones are hardly well designed studies.

the nutrition changes drastically during cooking, due to the weight changing significantly. For example meat could weigh about 70% of its raw weight, once it's been cooked, due to moisture loss. So if someone takes a 500g steak, cooks it, then puts into my fitness pal "500g roast steak" actually they have only eaten a 350g…

aspartame overexcites neurons in the brain, causing them to die, in specific areas such as the hippocampus. Animal studies with aspartame have shown a hole in the hippocampus being caused by aspartame. My ex girlfriend who is now 21 used to drink about 8 cans of diet coke every day for years since the age of 12, and her…

I pretty much eat meat, vegetables and gravy for my normal diet anyway lol. Christmas dinner seems healthy to me?! Or if not I dont think it would need much modification to make it a healthy meal. Like just have a few more vegetables on your plate and a bit less meat, things like that, so you can still eat the same food…

you have to do the research yourself, most of the food I add in myfitness pal is a food ive created myself, because i dont trust other people and often the foods have been incorrect. do it by grams not by "cups" or "bowls" or some random measurment. For meat people often get this incorrect because the cooked weight and…

There is an episode of "my strange addiction" where there is a man addicted to cycling who kind of destroyed his hips.

yeah sure, in the example I gave that uses 4 groups, if there was a lower risk associated with vegetables then the group eating low amounts of protein from plant based sources and the group eating high amounts of protein from plant based sources would both be shown to have lower risk, and the other two groups low protein…

Also if it was about protein in general, then a good study would use the same food source. Well say one group eating low protein mostly plant based, one group eating high protein mostly plant based, one group low protein meat based, one group high protein meat based. Each group eating the same amount of calories, doing the…

"While women who ate higher amounts of vegetable protein appeared to have less heart failure, the association was not significant when adjusted for body mass." If I'm interpreting that properly then this line "The rate of heart failure for women with higher total dietary protein intake was significantly higher compared to…

I lost about 2 stone in 6 months, from 14.5 to 12.5 stone. I just lay in bed most of the day and didnt eat much, because I was depressed. The problem is I lost muscle as well as fat when that happened. As well as obviously I would have been deficient in a lot of nutrients at that time.

These are all the tips I know of which I think can help: 1.Make a big pot of vegetable soup, something like 5 servings (bowls) worth of soup. If you use vegetables with not so many calories in them to make the soup you can pretty much eat as much of the soup as you want all day and you'll even feel full from it. I think…

you can read guides on macronutrient ratios, such as this one http://www.bodybuilding.com/content/macro-math-3-keys-to-dialing-in-your-macro-ratios.html Other guides might give different advice..

you look just like my friend who is 15% and a similar build to you

I didnt ignore advice on what I actually asked. I asked what is the most efficient way to go about reaching 115kg at 20% bodyfat when I'm 100kg right now and I'm already near to my ideal bodyfat range. I took advice from anyone who could accept what my actual end goal is and who could advise with that in mind, I didnt…

ok so do you think maybe cutting to like 15% bf then bulking back up to 20% bf whilst gaining muscle at the same time is a lot more optimal than staying at 20%? Because if i keep on eating a 100-200kcal surplus a day and following my routine i'm doing now (which is a lot of cardio and martial arts 4 days a week and weight…