Fitness And Nutrition General

I think I love you right now.

Kap was you born a total *** or you work on perfecting it?

I never stop perfecting the ***

thats a lot of talking in the mirror dude >.< i salute you

Yeah, I guess it's just that it's often hard to figure out what is known and what was simply misunderstood/lies/stood in for truth that is the problem.

You get a study that explains a minor connection between a disease and a product and you get news articles that say:

Cancer cured!

or

Oreos cause cancer!

Obvious things like this are easy to filter out, but some are very much more subtle. I think the cherry-picking and playing with numbers are the ones I don't catch the most.

I can synthesize 4 HQ3 purple bodies back to back then synthesize 20 NQs right after that and no one knows the *** why.

That's where you're wrong. He's not necessarily using buzzwords but common language. We don't expect common people to understand fatty acid oxidation on detail do we?

Heck we don't expect physicians to understand pharmokinetics as in depth as a pharmacist...

My point is, especially in public health, part of a public health scientist's job is to "translate" information accordingly.

Again education with patience and tact....

There are some folks who digest research into easier to understand information for fitness professionals though. I only know of Alan Aragon, but since he's awesome, I don't need to know any others.

On this topic, Alan wrote up a rebuttal to Lustig's HFCS alarmism a few years back, but more interestingly, Lustig himself actually replied in the comments and debate ensued. Due to the enormous response to that post, it was summarized here for those who don't want to wade through comments.

Personally, I try to stay out of these debates, like Slugman. It's sort of like international politics-- unless you've studied the topic very deeply, there's an extremely high probability that your perspective will be missing important nuances and caveats.

There are subjects that should be reserved to specialists. My background is in evolutionary biology but I can still understand the literature. I am far from a specialist in biochemistry and behavioral biology, so I can appreciate the translations for all.

Prior to my PhD program I did a Master's of Public Health. One of the most important factors in public health is language.

In the same way a physician dumbs down the diagnosis and pharmacology, so must recommendations to the general public.

Scolding someone because they didnt take soph biochemistry is pointless. It's important to understand WHY the public has such misconceptions in order to educate them properly.

E.g you don't scold a woman for thinking the pill provides HIV/STI protection. You explain that it's strictly a contraception and then use that instance to explain transmission via bodily fluids...

ftfy :)

Lol swallowing can cause gonorrhea in the throat lol.

ftfm

Of course not, but understanding a mechanism doesn't require such specificity. Mechanistic understanding can be as broad as one needs it to be.

The problem is that the "common language" you're referring to is a group of arbitrary pseudo-identifiers. The terms have literally no relevant distinguishing properties. If you have the patience for tact when argumentative building blocks are created out of hot air, more power to you. I don't, and I don't intend to pretend to. The idea that "synthetic", "organic", "natural", and "real" have no biological relevance isn't a concept I'm going to walk anyone through. With a moment's critical thinking -entirely devoid of experience- anyone should arrive at the same conclusion.

And in the interest of not ignoring your analogy, I don't know many women who insist that the pill does anything of the sort. Walking into a situation with a poor foundation =/= walking into a situation with your "I already know <this>" guns blazing

I liked this thread better when it was about horseshit, and training.

Maybe it's California. STI/HIV clinics provide services to I believe 13+ w/o parent accompanying them.

What i mean is those buzzwords do have different meanings based on field of study and level of education.

E.g organic takes on different meanings in biochemistry vs organic chemistry.

So is something organic because it pertains to a living system as defined in biochem. Or is it anything with carbon. (I think that's the ochem definition)

It be amazing if one could snap a finger and give every American a basic college general education- that isn't the case.

Do I scold the immigrant because they lack the same basic education as someone in the Hamptons?

No you understand that different demographics require different education models.

I don't think it's that simple, even for a critical thinker. It's natural for someone to want to find the answer to a question, especially one that impacts them. And in a sea of ostensible authority figures, it's not exactly easy to discern which is the more accurate. On the whole, I agree with your sentiment since I generally abstain from these sorts of debates due to ignorance, but it's unrealistic to expect the majority to do the same.

Like I said before, I see this as the same pattern that one finds in political debates and it's not too dissimilar to the topic of religion as well. Embracing ignorance isn't a common behavior even if it's the only logical option but one has to realize they are ignorant of something before they can even embrace it.

He's not scolding his lack of education. He's scolding his combination of conviction/arrogance and lack of education.

Not knowing what the *** + knowing you don't know what the *** = fine.

Knowing what the *** + knowing you know what the *** = fine.

Not knowing what the *** + convinced you do in fact know what the *** = problem.

As for the terminology, it's pretty evident which meaning the poster intends to apply to a word like "Organic" by looking at the basic context clues in the surrounding post, it's much less of an issue than you're making it.

I don't think anyone is mistaking the "organic" colloquialism for an organic compound, but that's beside the point.

I'm not scolding you for your lighter touch with the subject, I'm just saying that I have no intention of feigning patience for ignorant declarations.

If someone has a question, I'm happy to answer it. If someone wants to claim knowledge of something that they quite clearly don't understand, I'm going to point out their folly in the most constructive manner I can muster. If you'd like to come in and ease the tension afterward, you're more than welcome. Either way, I don't frequent this thread enough to cause any real trouble, so you have little to worry about.

I'm just saying there's better ways of getting your point across. Understanding why someone arrived with such conviction again provides a better education experience.

I ASSUME you are correcting someone to educate them, and not what I find common in higher academics aka "I know everything and am always right and will prove everyone wrong to the death."

That's a matter of opinion. As far as I know, short of personal attacks, no one here is obligated to be nice.

The former, of course, it's just a bit more heavy-handed

Regardless, I'm fairly forthcoming with regard to the holes in my own knowledge. I've been wrong about plenty of things, plenty of times. Learning is an ongoing process

In all fairness, I'm not trying to be mean. I honestly just don't feel like filtering myself

I'd say that "Matter-of-Fact" would be a fair description.

Lifters/bodybuilders/wannabes who ***up the thread with gym myths/broscience perpetuate the meathead stereotype and I'm thrilled to see them flushed out.

I don't think I would trust anyone named baconwrap about fitness. :[

Correct and with that attitude one comes across as arrogant and no one learns anything.

Especially in sciences people have this mentality if one is not formally learned in sciences you therefore know nothing about science. Heck, I've been guilty of this sometimes it's out of arrogance other times frustration.

If information is presented with reliable sources, insight, and a hefty side of condescension, I'll gladly pull what I can out of it.

I don't see the point in tiptoeing around posters with egos too fragile to do the same. They're terrible, they'll stay terrible, and I have no interest in forcing them to learn, or for that matter, seeing them succeed.

The best learning tool I learned as a bio major my professor gave me was:

"If you can prove it and address/discredit its counterarguments you get the points for the final"

OR...

"If you can prove the question is ambiguous."

Lol the second ended up being easier lol

I think it's with a stubborn attitude that one does not learn, rather than arrogance being indicative of a lack of educational value.

But what do I know

Someone pm when the whoreshit is back.

Acts like an expert on nutrition, probably looks like this IRL: