Replies
-
Thank you all, I'm glad you're enjoying the book. Kalikel - think the book title is hilarious, but it's what Rodale (the publisher) thinks will grab the target audience, rank high in keyword searches, etc. We really didn't have much say in the title, but the good thing is that we were 100% in charge of the content, so I…
-
Kalikel, did you time things perfectly to be the 10,000th person to riff on the book title? Impressive. :)
-
Hello, everyone, time to do an MFP drive-by, heh. Below should clear up some stuff (especially for women). There are only 2 (possibly 3) simple adjustments that women will need to make in order to properly ‘hack’ the dietary programming to fit them: * Use the lower end of the Standard Formula’s 9-11 multiplier (this will…
-
I'll try to stop in more often than my typical frequency (never) :)... So much social media, so little time. You might be pleased to know that the subjects in our study used MFP to track & report their intake. It's good to know that some folks on here follow my work (and the work of my colleagues), and thus can provide…
-
Hello everyone, I'm one the study authors. First off, thanks for your interest in this stuff. We spent many months grinding this baby out, and it's great to see it unleashed into the public, spawning discussions like this one. I see that there are some highly knowledgable folks in this thread regarding research methodology…
-
If you don't know the difference between scientific sources & unscientific sources, then I won't be the guy to teach you the basics. Most everyone in this thread gets it -- eat the breakfast that suits your personal preference & tolerance, whether it contains grains or not. It's amusing that you cannot comprehend this…
-
Call the kettle black much? Trollish behavior is making bold claims & accusations & not putting up supporting research. You are doing lots of hand-waving & whistle-blowing, yet you have put up zilch in terms of research that backs up your preachings. And to reiterate, you've used the weak timeline argument, and also the…
-
Toxins, haha. Do you purposely ignore the research indicating the neutrality &/or health-promoting effects of grains in order to not anger the gods of your anti-grain religion? Good thing most of the longest-living, healthiest populations on this planet do not live by the rules of your religion. Even the bulk of controlled…
-
Your argument makes no sense at all. Are you in favor of avoiding all human technology, including all modern supplements and medical therapies?
-
Your accusation of denial is a perfect example of the unobjective religious zeal I mentioned earlier. You can choose to ignore the plethora of labor-saving technologies, TV, internet, rise in sit-down jobs, etc that have contributed to a historically recent & massive sedentary shift which is foundational to cardiometabolic…
-
The timeline argument is weak because it involves cherry-picking correlational factors (ie, grains) amidst a multitude of factors contributing to the so-called "diseases of civilization." But why accept a complex interplay of factors when you can point the finger at a single scapegoat?
-
What someone has for breakfast should be based on personal preference & tolerance. If someone likes to have grains for breakfast & feels/performs great, and is either making progress ot maintaining results, then there's no good reason to change a thing. Sure, there will always be folks who have a silly religious zeal…
-
Digitalsteel - I see that you didn't do too well in this debate, and you might need some help for future engagements. So, I've compiled a new set of references for you to cut/paste in your next debate (these are all indexed in Pubmed, so you're solid): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Bailey T. The dummies guide to promoting…
-
Digitalsteel needs to calm down... He's gonna set off the lunk alarm :)
-
Calm down, bro. No need to get defensive the second you get exposed for posting reams of irrelevant research.
-
I noticed that among the high volume of rodent-based, half-centrury old studies you posted, there are at least 5 articles whose topic is exercise, not high vs low-carb dieting. It looks like you indiscriminately posted the bibliography of a Taubes book. That's quite a lazy, dishonest way to approach an argument.
-
Percentage-based programming can be problematic. Macronutrient targets should be individualzed based on the needs dictated by LBM (or a surrogate measure such as target BW), while factoring activity level. To illustrate the problem with percentage-based setups, 40%C/40%P/20%F would tend to be overly restrictive in fat…
