Replies
-
Wow. Four. Out of several million professional athletes. Less than a fraction of 1% is not "many".
-
There aren't. There are a trivial number of vocal ketoevangalist amateur athletes, but the overwhelming majority of professional athletes are not low carb.
-
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.
-
Not even close. When both are available, glucose is used. That's what the word "preferred" means.
-
The problem lies not in the model, but in your understanding of it. It has been explained several times, you just keep ignoring it
-
Some people fall down less than others, therefore gravity doesn't work for everyone
-
-
Wild speculation in an area outside of your expertise isn't "where the scientist is going", it's more like where the pulp sci-fi writer is going.
-
Did you learn the definitions of post hoc fallacy and spontaneous remission before deciding it was true in your case?
-
The first rule of keto is you only talk about keto The second rule of keto is YOU ONLY TALK ABOUT KETO
-
Not hard at all. If the results of an intervention don't differ from random chance, the null hypothesis is not rejected and it's safe to assume that there is no effect.
-
Because woo peddlers like to reverse the direction of causality. Intestinal permeability can be caused by certain medical conditions such as celiac. But it isn't caused, nor can it be cured by, dietary changes
-
Hi Paul. You might want to take the sock puppet off of your hand or you will never catch that dream you been a chasin.
-
https://youtu.be/oB-NnVpvQ78?t=78s
-
You can call it whatever you want. I can start introducing my cat as a purple mountain gorilla. Still doesn't make it so.
-
Translation: I prefer to trust sources that reinforce my woo based beliefs and ignore those that employ science and critical thinking.
-
And do glutinz. You can't forget de glutinz
-
Wait a minute. Are you Shouty Guy's dad? It all makes sense now.
-
Disclaimer: proceed at your own risk. Don't underestimate the power of Rule 34
-
Given his history, I doubt that too.
-
The hoops that you will jump through to avoid posting objective evidence is hilarious.
-
Put up or shut up.
-
"Do your own research" = "I'm talking out of my *kitten* and don't have an iota of actual evidence to back it up" Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've provided none.
-
Orly?
-
Look harder http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/39/1/43 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-pdf/93/4/844/23871245/844.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi_-qnj9fvaAhWiUt8KHQE4C0kQFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2c9A8v2eY1g0vMNtN87xWl
-
Obesity and genetics are the primary risk factors, not necessarily the only ones. There are non smokers who get lung cancer. Your argument is akin to one of them claiming that smoking doesn't cause cancer Argumentum ad ignorantum
-
Starting Strength is a solid beginner program-
-
Hint: It's not a high school book report
-
Whether or not GI is physiologically relevant is not subjective-- it's an objective claim. One that neither you nor the nutritionist are qualified to make
-
Any actual scientific evidence, or just hearsay from conspiracy theorists?
