Training in keto, fighting on carbs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wish more people would follow this example. Just too many damn variables to draw a conclusion as to cause. To do so is junk science.

We have cultures eating diets that span the spectrum, for lack of a better way to put it. IMO, it is largely because we are amazingly adaptable. Sure, I share that opinion with a lot of people, but it is still an just an opinion.

Large-scale, long-term hormonal response testing gets expensive, and gets harder and harder to get approved. Unless, of course, someone is backing the study, which raises its own problems.

Still think a pancreas and insulin are theories?
 
What do you research, if you don't mind me asking?

Right now I am doing reviews of existing research. Exercise physiology. Currently pulling a bunch of crap on women and testosterone, will need to compile it, scan data to meet parameters, draw a reasonable conclusion based on existing data . . .
blah, blah, blah.

I compile a lot of crap for other people right now, because I get paid to do it and I am pretty much a whore.
:)

First ever research was on muscle fiber conversion in grad school. Have done other work on protein and peptides, but nothing ground breaking or particularly novel.

Best ever research that I was involved in was power-production secondary to spinal alignment. Worked with some really good people and learned a freakin' ton.
 
Right now I am doing reviews of existing research. Exercise physiology. Currently pulling a bunch of crap on women and testosterone, will need to compile it, scan data to meet parameters, draw a reasonable conclusion based on existing data . . .
blah, blah, blah.

I compile a lot of crap for other people right now, because I get paid to do it and I am pretty much a whore.
:)

First ever research was on muscle fiber conversion in grad school. Have done other work on protein and peptides, but nothing ground breaking or particularly novel.

Best ever research that I was involved in was power-production secondary to spinal alignment. Worked with some really good people and learned a freakin' ton.

Very cool stuff. Nice to have you around.
 
Ok guys wait a second... let me see if I can wrap my head around what's going on in this debate. and mind you I am not defending any ONE argument here but =
Monger you say Observational study > than nothing
so
that means, using your math,
that shitloads of studys, surveys, links, reviews etc. posted to support one argument > than ONE observational study > than nothing
right?
 
Very cool stuff. Nice to have you around.

Thanks man.

Some of it was cool. Some of it, when I was first being shit on as a grad student/research asst. sucked just as much as it did for everyone else.

:)
 
Monger you say Observational study > than nothing
so
that means, using your math,
that shitloads of studys, surveys, links, reviews etc. posted to support one argument > than ONE observational study > than nothing
right?

Please clarify. I have no idea what you're asking. And if you're not quick, you'll have to wait until Monday for a response :)
 
Ok guys wait a second... let me see if I can wrap my head around what's going on in this debate. and mind you I am not defending any ONE argument here but =
Monger you say Observational study > than nothing
so
that means, using your math,
that shitloads of studys, surveys, links, reviews etc. posted to support one argument > than ONE observational study > than nothing
right?

They cannot be used to indicate cause. Unless you isolate and measure/quantify the variable you wish to describe, it is nothing more than an observation.

Example: if you were going to measure insulin response vs. kcal balance to determine effectiveness of diet or % fat loss, you would need to:

1. Control the diets of all parties studied after dividing them into groups.
2. Take not only weight, but body comp tests prior to start of study, along with anything else you wanted to measure.
3. See if something is screwed up at this point.
4. Proceed, tracking everything that is consumed by both groups.
5. Proceed, measuring insulin response at pre-determined intervals.
6. Proceed, tracking weight, body comp and any other factors.
7. Track activity levels of both groups, note changes in activity levels that must be factored in.
8. Check again to see if something is screwed up.
9. Correlate data at various points within study (if it were six months, usually at every month, but this can vary depending on controls and budget)
10. Put everything together.
11. Make sure nothing is screwed up.
12. Have someone else make sure nothing is screwed up.
13. Peer review (this freakin' blows)
14. Kiss someone's ass.
15. Get it published, never once using the words fact or proof.

This can actually be more complicated, depending on who you work for and who controls the budget.
 
My reason for posting the article was to show that not all carbs are created equal. That you can live a healthy and long life (all while smoking cigarettes!) on a healthy diet, even one based around carbohydrate intake.

I was never a proponent of the calorie in vs. calorie out line of thinking. I just think it's retarded to demonize a single macronutrient and espouse that this macronutrient is responsible for a whole wack of health problems, when the issue is obviously more complicated than that. Going low carb is not necessary. Eating healthy, natural, whole foods is!


Got it. For some reason I had perceived you as coming across as if you were holding a very strong "Calories in/out" argument. As opposed to a macro sources are a factor even within the individual macros.
 
Addendum to previous post:

If you truly wanted the study to be top-notch, you would also need to either control, which is impossible, or measure other hormones that played a role in fat loss, including thyroid, even epinephrine, which can scavenge both fat and glycogen.
 
They cannot be used to indicate cause. Unless you isolate and measure/quantify the variable you wish to describe, it is nothing more than an observation.

Example: if you were going to measure insulin response vs. kcal balance to determine effectiveness of diet or % fat loss, you would need to:

1. Control the diets of all parties studied after dividing them into groups.
2. Take not only weight, but body comp tests prior to start of study, along with anything else you wanted to measure.
3. See if something is screwed up at this point.
4. Proceed, tracking everything that is consumed by both groups.
5. Proceed, measuring insulin response at pre-determined intervals.
6. Proceed, tracking weight, body comp and any other factors.
7. Track activity levels of both groups, note changes in activity levels that must be factored in.
8. Check again to see if something is screwed up.
9. Correlate data at various points within study (if it were six months, usually at every month, but this can vary depending on controls and budget)
10. Put everything together.
11. Make sure nothing is screwed up.
12. Have someone else make sure nothing is screwed up.
13. Peer review (this freakin' blows)
14. Kiss someone's ass.
15. Get it published, never once using the words fact or proof.

This can actually be more complicated, depending on who you work for and who controls the budget.


And even then, due to biological diversity the study is not inherently applicable to every human on the planet.
 
Please clarify. I have no idea what you're asking. And if you're not quick, you'll have to wait until Monday for a response :)

actually I was hoping you would clarify why you and others bash someone for using "incompetent" or "amatuer" studies when you can offer nothing better = and then you quantify this by saying that x > y ? I just am confused as to why you would be so closed minded and prejudice to use a study that even you have admitted you don't like and describe it as better than nothing all while not once taking any of the "opposing" argument studies/info seriously or at least considering the other side at all...

I am not worried how soon you reply - take your leave if you must.
 
actually I was hoping you would clarify why you and others bash someone for using "incompetent" or "amatuer" studies when you can offer nothing better = and then you quantify this by saying that x > y ? I just am confused as to why you would be so closed minded and prejudice to use a study that even you have admitted you don't like and describe it as better than nothing all while not once taking any of the "opposing" argument studies/info seriously or at least considering the other side at all...

I am not worried how soon you reply - take your leave if you must.

I did not bash anyone. I just said that it did not show sufficient evidence. Big difference.

Just because something is better than nothing does not make it good enough to pass rigor as valid scientific theory. An observational study can give you a starting point, but that is about it. Drawing conclusions from an observational study is as valid as drawing conclusions from any other opinion. You can hope that the people who did the study were well-informed, or at least better informed than you or I, but it does not make it valid with respect to determining cause.

"I do not know" is a perfectly acceptable answer, and one that should have been given. An answer qualified with "In my opinion" is fine, as we are all entitled to our opinions. (well, I am not if you ask my ex-wife).

But to state cause you must show cause. It really is that simple.

If I was going to state that the reason people lost more weight on high protein diets was because of the role of neuropeptide Y on the hippocampus by increasing satiety in subjects, I would have to show that not only did this occur, but nothing else was a factor. Very difficult to do, but doable under the right conditions.

But until stuff like this occurs, people are best not assuming they know. I am aware of the role insulin plays in fat storage. While a calorie does remain a calorie, if you view my posts in the thread I never once stated that you could eat whatever you want as long as it fell within your caloric limits. Ever. I just questioned a couple of things.
 
And even then, due to biological diversity the study is not inherently applicable to every human on the planet.


Yup. This is why there is no one-diet-fits all. Hell, give it a few years (I am assuming you are younger than me) and what works well for you now may not work so well in the future. I used to use a high-carb approach, not any more. Of course, I was about a gazillion (or so) times as active.
 
actually I was hoping you would clarify why you and others bash someone for using "incompetent" or "amatuer" studies when you can offer nothing better = and then you quantify this by saying that x > y ? I just am confused as to why you would be so closed minded and prejudice to use a study that even you have admitted you don't like and describe it as better than nothing all while not once taking any of the "opposing" argument studies/info seriously or at least considering the other side at all...

I am not worried how soon you reply - take your leave if you must.

First of all, I don't bash people for using studies and research. If it's not applicable for whatever reason, I point it out. If the research has faults, I point it out. Most people love to post random articles as evidence. That
 
Closing this thread, getting complaints.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top