He was just told to chill so don't use that as a springboard to launch into him knowing he is going to respect my request.
Weight Loss Thread
- Thread starter Sean_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
- 17,713
- 8,754
I really don't feel the need to get further supporting evidence just because you're playing the "science fallacy" card.
I'll just point out that the study in question was good enough to make it onto the caloriesproper.com blog, a blog written by:
"I have a Ph.D. in Nutritional Biochemistry and Physiology with a focus on obesity, inflammation, and insulin resistance (here’s a list of my publications). This blog is about energy balance; including everything from foods and dietary patterns to hormones and weight loss… calories proper. I’m passionate about this field and I hope you enjoy the blog.
Sometimes I think faster than I type, so some of the stuff about energy balance, insulin resistance, and how they apply to body composition might seem unclear. I wrote a book to more thoroughly explain these concepts in a variety of different contexts (with plenty of examples). A lot of the fundamentals can be found right here in earlier blog posts, but if you’d like a condensed version all in one place: The poor, misunderstood calorie. "
So yeah, if the science is good enough for him then it's good enough for me and it damn well should be for you.
But by all means, keep looking for ways to argue that the science is bad science.
- 17,713
- 8,754
LiquidDeath
Magnus Deadlift the Fucktiger
- 5,042
- 11,885
That you think this is a properly controlled, valid scientific study is all the evidence I need to know you are exactly the mindless zealot you rage against.
Edit: for exactly this reason.
News - For obesity research, self-reported diet and physical activity data too inaccurate, expert report says
- 17,713
- 8,754
"the carbs weren't low enough"
"there weren't enough people in the study"
"ok now there are enough people in the study but the subjects can't monitor their diet properly"
I would ask you how you propose to do a study featuring hundreds of fat people (of course the fact they're fat suggests calorie counting/logging isn't exactly their forte), for a significant period of time with sufficient accuracy......but the reality is I've given this topic two days worth of attention which is 47 hours 59 minutes and 59 seconds more than it warranted.
To make matters worse all the studies I'm linking to are "bad science".
I'll just put you on ignore for a bit, it's easier.
P.S
You clearly didn't even bother reading the link in full:
Hall’s first study housed 19 people in a lab where they ate only the food the researchers provided. Those diets cut 800 calories either from carbs (about half of the cuts came from sugar) or from fat for one week each.
But that study didn’t cut carbs enough or last long enough, argued some critics. So Hall did a longer study using a very-low-carb diet.2
“After one month of eating a high-sugar, high-carbohydrate diet, we cut the carbs down to 5 percent, cranked the fat up to 80 percent, and kept protein and calories constant,” Hall explains.
The result: “The rate of fat loss actually slowed down for the first two weeks, and then picked back up to the normal rate again for the last two weeks,” says Hall. So the low-carb diet didn’t speed fat loss.
“We did see a very slight increase in the number of calories that were being burned—57 more a day—on the very-low-carb diet,” adds Hall. But NuSI’s Energy Balance Consortium had agreed beforehand that only an increase of at least 150 calories a day would be meaningful.
“Our results add to the evidence from many other controlled feeding studies on more than 500 people,” says Hall. Those studies failed to show that cutting carbs boosts calorie burning or fat loss more than cutting fat.3
Edit: I'm leaving you off ignore for now. The fact that you attempted to argue that the link was more bad science because of "self reported data" even though the same link refers to controlled feeding studies is just lol.
I want to see how you dig yourself out of that one, then you go on ignore
I also don't get why you keep calling me a zealot when I've already stated that I've tried every diet under the sun, including keto, lol
Last edited:
LiquidDeath
Magnus Deadlift the Fucktiger
- 5,042
- 11,885
You just don't get how science works.
Taking multiple studies all with different lengths, methodologies, and controls only linked by the same general concept and saying their combined results are indicative of meaning is bad science. Full stop.
This isn't to say that their results are of no worth, but to use them as proof of anything is absurd. None of the small studies even had a control group for god's sake. Also, most of these studies don't even have a falsifiable hypothesis, the foundation of a true scientific endeavor.
I understand that it is extremely difficult to do a worthwhile, well-controlled study over an acceptable period of time to investigate diet issues. That doesn't mean we should accept results from studies that don't follow the scientific method, though. That just makes researchers more likely to take non-scientific shortcuts.
LiquidDeath
Magnus Deadlift the Fucktiger
- 5,042
- 11,885
Never!
Someone is being a cunt on the internet. I can't stop arguing until I'm just as big a cunt as he is.....so this will be a while.
Seriously though, I'll stop with him. He's hell-bent on not getting it. Consider this my withdrawal from it.
- 17,713
- 8,754
Reminder that you were the first one to resort to personal insults, all because I said the topic was pointless and "impossible, people are too invested in their own viewpoint to have a logical discussion."
Admittedly I took your initial flame and went nuclear but you've spent two days proving my point, every study I linked (from an experts blog funny how you ignored that lol) was dismissed as bad science.
"I have a Ph.D. in Nutritional Biochemistry and Physiology with a focus on obesity, inflammation, and insulin resistance"- so tell me what qualifies you to better determine what is good and bad science over this guy?
Two days off us dominating the thread and descending into ad hominems (which you're still continuing despite a_skeleton_03 intervening - I would tag him but I'm not that petty)
Like I said at the start, and shortly after - this is why keto debates are pointless and you've just proven my point yet again, what's strange if you continued proving it even though I pointed out that you were proving it
What's even funnier is that Taubes funded the Institute referred to in this link The battle of low-carb versus low-fat – Nutrition Action which means he funded the very studies you're attempting to dismiss as "bad science"
ROFL
OK so if the study is Taubes funded that means he approved it right? And must therefore be happy with the methods?
Reality Time:
This is something I alluded to earlier with my self coined science fallacy. It's something I defined to myself some time ago and previous keto debates here and elsewhere contributed but you can sub keto for any topic. (The Google memo was another example)
Study A says one thing
Study B says the opposite.
Supporters of position A say Study B is bad science. Those of position B say the same about study A.
Therefore, is it pointless to cite science?
Last edited:
- 17,713
- 8,754
200+ keto/carb studies: A collection of 200+ keto and carbohydrate studies - SCI-FIT
Conclusion/write up reviewed by notable names such as Alan Aragorn and contributors including Lyle Macdonald
"Keto does not seem to offer a distinct advantage for fat loss when both groups in a study eat the same amount of calories. People on the ketogenic diet typically lose body weight quicker, but this is most likely due to glycogen depletion and water loss."
"We generally see greater lean body mass (LBM) loss in ketogenic diet groups. Note that lean body mass contains water, glycogen, and muscle protein, by definition. It is hard to say with certainty that LBM loss implies greater “dry” muscle protein loss. “Wet” LBM can come and go quickly because it consists of water and glycogen" (no surprises here, low carb means less water/glycogen - studies don't show that keto diets lose more actual muscle mass)
"Some have a lot of success on keto, and some do not. Hence, one diet might not work for you, but perhaps another will." - re-affirms what has already been stated.
I rest my case.
Conclusion/write up reviewed by notable names such as Alan Aragorn and contributors including Lyle Macdonald
"Keto does not seem to offer a distinct advantage for fat loss when both groups in a study eat the same amount of calories. People on the ketogenic diet typically lose body weight quicker, but this is most likely due to glycogen depletion and water loss."
"We generally see greater lean body mass (LBM) loss in ketogenic diet groups. Note that lean body mass contains water, glycogen, and muscle protein, by definition. It is hard to say with certainty that LBM loss implies greater “dry” muscle protein loss. “Wet” LBM can come and go quickly because it consists of water and glycogen" (no surprises here, low carb means less water/glycogen - studies don't show that keto diets lose more actual muscle mass)
"Some have a lot of success on keto, and some do not. Hence, one diet might not work for you, but perhaps another will." - re-affirms what has already been stated.
I rest my case.
LiquidDeath
Magnus Deadlift the Fucktiger
- 5,042
- 11,885
Just in case it wasn't clear in my last comment, I'm not arguing with you anymore.
The quoted text is precisely why. You made up your own logical fallacy, somehow expecting anyone to take it seriously, then used it to argue your points while at the same time using appeals to authority, an actual logical fallacy.
Regardless, there is enough text between the two of us for anyone interested to make up their minds.
Jim Russel
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 509
- 50
I'm not sure if this has been touched on but from what i understand what you feed your gut flora is way more important than actually providing any special bacterial culture. A shift in diet towards way more vegetables consumed will substantially change gut bacteria compared to just eating more yogurt.
But then you're just eating more vegetables, which we know to be healthy and cause weight loss. So it's hard hard say whether this is really useful information.
I imagine the whole "bacterial culture makes you thin" came from studies that compared the proportion of bacteria in thin people's guts who had good diets and the proportion of bacteria in heavy people's guts who ate bad diets. Somebody realized that the bacteria in healthy people is similar to the bacteria in yogurt and decided that supplementing that bacteria will make you thinner. Correlation doesn't always equal causation. With that said, there's some research saying yogurt is good for you. Personally that much dairy messes up my gut more than I can handle so it's not really worth it for me.
Jim Russel
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 509
- 50
I should know better than to respond....200+ keto/carb studies: A collection of 200+ keto and carbohydrate studies - SCI-FIT
Conclusion/write up reviewed by notable names such as Alan Aragorn and contributors including Lyle Macdonald
"Keto does not seem to offer a distinct advantage for fat loss when both groups in a study eat the same amount of calories. People on the ketogenic diet typically lose body weight quicker, but this is most likely due to glycogen depletion and water loss."
"We generally see greater lean body mass (LBM) loss in ketogenic diet groups. Note that lean body mass contains water, glycogen, and muscle protein, by definition. It is hard to say with certainty that LBM loss implies greater “dry” muscle protein loss. “Wet” LBM can come and go quickly because it consists of water and glycogen" (no surprises here, low carb means less water/glycogen - studies don't show that keto diets lose more actual muscle mass)
"Some have a lot of success on keto, and some do not. Hence, one diet might not work for you, but perhaps another will." - re-affirms what has already been stated.
I rest my case.
This is a bit of a sidetrack though since I think you're original argument is about weight loss rather than sports performance. But there's good evidence that low carb diets in the long-term are helpful for aerobic performance, especially for beginner athletes or individuals with a lot of anearobic power but relatively poor aerobic engines ("carb burners"). This effect is particularly pronounced for very long events (marathon length or longer) because a low-fat diet will shift muscle metabolism to fat-burning which lasts a lot longer. I should note that this is using a strategy of "train on keto, race on carbs."
The whole point of endurance training is to make your body rely more on fat as a fuel when you're doing your sport. A keto diet will just accelerate the transition from fat-buring to carb burning.(accelerate is used loosely here--it may take 6 months of keto training to get good results) But unless you're already doing 5+ hours a week of aerobic exercise (in addition to 1-2x a week of strength which everyone should do), I don't know how applicable this research is to people who just want to lose weight and don't care about sports performance.
Last edited:
Adebisi
Clump of Cells
- 27,713
- 32,825
I like how this thread's been dead over the Christmas holidays. ShameBell.gif
Alright bros, I gotta lose 40 lbs this year. I just love food and eating too much. And I love to cook, goddammit. My other issue is that I drive about 3 hours a day for work, then sit in an office for 8 hours. Ugh.
Alright bros, I gotta lose 40 lbs this year. I just love food and eating too much. And I love to cook, goddammit. My other issue is that I drive about 3 hours a day for work, then sit in an office for 8 hours. Ugh.
Lambourne
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 2,863
- 6,833
The only change you really need to make is eating less. You can cook the same stuff, just make smaller portions. 70 grams of pasta tastes just as good as 140 grams does, but it's half the calories.
Reducing portion sizes on all meals was the major change I made 10 years ago and I lost 45 lbs over a year and have kept it off. You get used to the smaller portions eventually so you will feel satisfied after the meal.
Exercise helps too, I found it reduced my appetite and prevented boredom-induced snacking. The actual calories burned aren't that impressive.
- 1
Itlan
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 4,994
- 744
I love food & eating as well, but that's incredibly vague. What do you generally eat? Do you double batter and deep fry everything you eat? Do you drink soda? How much water do you drink a day? Take me through a typical Adebisi day.
Just the dietary shit though. I don't know need to hear about your bowel movements and jerk off sessions.
McCheese
SW: Sean, CW: Crone, GW: Wizardhawk
- 6,918
- 4,315
All the fat housewives I work with are crowing about their new Fitbits and counting their steps proudly while adding "healthy" food to their diets like nuts and guacamole to lose weight. I can't wait till they get bored and go back to being quietly miserable in mid February.
- 1
