A Plea For Truth In our Lifestyle

[Silent Method]

Before I get to the main thrust of this thread, everyone needs to understand something about this board and the athletes who frequent it:

This is ELITE Fitness. We are athletes (many of whom are quite elite) and as such we come here to seek information leading to optimal performance and adaptation.



That being said, NONE OF US HERE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT "COMMON KNOWLEDGE" OR THE "TRADITIONAL WAY THINGS ARE DONE" IF IT DOES NOT LEAD TO OPTIMAL PHYSIOLOGICAL ADAPTATION! NOT ONE OF US!

Now it is very true that a great many (if not the majority) us, upon learning that past practices have been sub-optimal, will at first meet the "new truth" with rejection - even scorn. HOWEVER (and this is a big however), if we find evidence that this "new truth" can lead us to the realization of greater physiological adaptation we will jump on it.



There will always be disputes over what constitutes optimal diet and training in regard to athletic adaptation. In turn, there will always be advancement AND retrogression in the value of the practices of athletes.

The retrogression and sub-optimal nature of a good deal of athletic practice is due to MISINFORMATION, for whatever reason, every damn bit as much as ignorance. In order for advancement to occur, in order for us to climb the ladder towards that which IS optimal, we must base our practices, as well as any theory, which guides them, on the foundations of observable phenomena and science.



The bottom line is this: If you have evidence or any reason to believe that a given practice serves only circumvent optimal performance and/or adaptation, BY ALL MEANS POST IT IN THIS FORUM!

HOWEVER, when you do so, you must, AT THE VERY LEAST, provide some supporting explanation for such theory. Better yet, provide some supporting reference for the idea. If you do not, we, as a society seeking truth, suffer.

 

[Warpath]

Well stated, I couldn't agree more

 

[slobberknocker]

The problem is (and this is especially true with training routines) that not everyone will have the same results on a given program. So in that sense, you may have to stumble and fall a few times, just in the interest of gaining personal experience. Good post, by the way.

 

[Silent Method]

The problem is (and this is especially true with training routines) that not everyone will have the same results on a given program. So in that sense, you may have to stumble and fall a few times, just in the interest of gaining personal experience. Good post, by the way.

There is no doubt about it - this is dynamic stuff. Even more compelling reason to provide explanation and support for theories - rather than dogmatic statement.

 

[rjl296]

for the love of god, stop reading muscle mags.

thats all i want to say. i hope the general public reads this, and listens

 

[magman1]

gee...i wonder what post this was in response to today?

 

[Atomic Punk]

Add up all those fifty cent words, and you'd have enough for a number 4 at Wendy's.

Good post brother.

 

[newpump]

uh.. well, ok I would contribute, but I'm too uneducated - but I sure learn a HELL of a lot by lurking . Great post SM -> keep em coming!

 

[Slyder190]

Woah

Can I get an Amen? Can I get a halleleuia? Can I get a praise the lord? Not sure where the outburst came from, but you definately went with it.

 

[02gixxersix]

Absolutely a great post. I have to spread my karmaaround some more but you have some coming your way.

 

[fogg88]

excellent post.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Unfortunately, a logical explanation is too often lost in the myriad of requests for studies and references. Or so I've heard.

 

[Citruscide]

Unfortunately, a logical explanation is too often lost in the myriad of requests for studies and references. Or so I've heard.

Can you cite or give reference to that please?

C-ditty

 

[Tomo]

this is exactly how i feel --tomo

 

[RADAR]

Can you cite or give reference to that please?

C-ditty

RADAR

 

[Silent Method]

Unfortunately, a logical explanation is too often lost in the myriad of requests for studies and references. Or so I've heard.

More unfortunate, a logical explanation is often completely absent.


Regardless of others' requests for "studies and references," faliure or refusal to provide some supporting explanation for dogmatic assertions that are contrary to established observable phenomena and science is pathetic - and it has no rightful place here.

If one chooses to blame his or her failure to give supporting argument to such theory on the very request for support, he or she is engaging in nothing more than a blatant, shameless dodge.

 

[Nelson Montana]

More unfortunate, a logical explanation is often completely absent.


Regardless of others' requests for "studies and references," faliure or refusal to provide some supporting explanation for dogmatic assertions that are contrary to established observable phenomena and science is pathetic - and it has no rightful place here.

If one chooses to blame his or her failure to give supporting argument to such theory on the very request for support, he or she is engaging in nothing more than a blatant, shameless dodge.

I agree completely.

 

[Boulder257]

Silent - Wonderful post and very well written. I think this is the point most of us were trying to make yesterday. This should be a sticky!

Nelson - your posts may be trusted a little more if your sig wasn't a gigantic advertisement for your book. I hate looking at that thing everytime you post. Get over yourself and get rid of it!

 

[d3track]

mmmmmmmmmm
wendy's #4
mmmmmmmm

 

[BigAndy69]

Good post bro. Good thing I had my Dictionary handy.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Silent - Wonderful post and very well written. I think this is the point most of us were trying to make yesterday. This should be a sticky!

Nelson - your posts may be trusted a little more if your sig wasn't a gigantic advertisement for your book. I hate looking at that thing everytime you post. Get over yourself and get rid of it!

My sig is put there by EF. If you don't want to "trust" me because of it, you don't have to. But that's a really dumb reason.

Okay, lets stop being coy. (I hate coyness). If this is in regard to my "milk" post, stop right there. I have provided pages of exlanations on dozens of topics. And still people will not listen to the logic. They want references. Not too long ago someone was relating a personal experience and someone came on asking for references! That's the mentality. It's very short sighted but that's the way it is. And trying to explain to someone how to use deduction and reasoning just doesn't get through if they can't do it. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

So basically, I think posts like this are a lot of lip service. They sound good. People agree. But few really believe it or follow its principles.

In regard to the "milk" post, by the time I saw it again, there were already about 5 or 6 people getting snotty and NO ONE presented any evidence to the contrary yet they felt compelled and entitled to bash me. By that time, I just wasn't in the mood to debate and the thread had taken another direction anyway. ( as they so often do.)

So all in all, this is just my way of reiterating my new "take it or leave it" philosophy. Those who "take it" will benefit and those who "leave t" will miss out. Either way works just fine for me.

 

[variation]

More unfortunate, a logical explanation is often completely absent.


Regardless of others' requests for "studies and references," faliure or refusal to provide some supporting explanation for dogmatic assertions that are contrary to established observable phenomena and science is pathetic - and it has no rightful place here.

If one chooses to blame his or her failure to give supporting argument to such theory on the very request for support, he or she is engaging in nothing more than a blatant, shameless dodge.

you use bolds, underlines, and big letters too much...

 

[Silent Method]

I have provided pages of exlanations on dozens of topics. And still people will not listen to the logic. They want references.

To qualify as logic, Mr. Montana, a debate over science or theory must adhere to some criteria of validity. Having provided "exlanations on dozens of topics" garners no support for the chemical and physiological claims you made in your "milk" post.

"Protein can not be absorbed without the presense of fat. Without fat, most of the protein will just be converted to glucose in minutes, so that suposedly super anabolic cocktail you think you're drinking is little more than a blast of sugar."

"Keep the junk out of your diet, take protein and fat together, and train hard. It's the only way to grow."

"I should have been more specific and said protein is "far less likely to be fully absorbed without fat and much more likely to be converted to glucose", which is absolutely true."

Tests utilizing both nitrogen balance and metabolic tracer methodology on various supplemental forms of protein (especially some forms of whey) tell us a different story about the absorption of isolated protein. Text book science tells us a very different story about the metabolic path of consumed isolated protein.

The prevalent theory among scientists is that protein consumed with lipids slows the gastric emptying rate further than protein alone via CCK, and that lipids coat the gut, as well as particulate matter in the gut, further slowing absorbtion rate. In some models this will allow for the absorption of protein that could otherwise be flushed. In other models this would serve to inhibit protein absorption.


Old news. I'm just tossing out what's already out there. You are saying that the current science is wrong. Just what ARE we suposed to do Mr. Montana? Believe it because you said so?

You do not have to show me what you say is true by linking specific study or showing it to me under a microscope. But why can you not provide some supporting argument? (BTW, restating it some other way is not support.)

Not too long ago someone was relating a personal experience and someone came on asking for references! That's the mentality. It's very short sighted but that's the way it is. And trying to explain to someone how to use deduction and reasoning just doesn't get through if they can't do it. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

Imagine that! Looking for evidence to back up some anecdotal story! What are we comming to?

Look, I understand just as you do that much anecdotal data is put out here to be taken for just that at whatever it's worth. BUT IF WE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT OR REFUTE IT IN SOME WAY IT IS WORTH NOTHING.

Originally posted by Nelson Montana
So basically, I think posts like this are a lot of lip service. They sound good. People agree. But few really believe it or follow its principles.

The essence of this thread is that our declarations and beliefs are best based in truths - not assumptions.

Regardless, you are correct that a great many ignore those principles. Many will follow what they are told with no regard for it's validity. This I express distaste with your behavior.

Originally posted by Nelson Montana
In regard to the "milk" post, by the time I saw it again, there were already about 5 or 6 people getting snotty and NO ONE presented any evidence to the contrary yet they felt compelled and entitled to bash me. By that time, I just wasn't in the mood to debate and the thread had taken another direction anyway. ( as they so often do.)

A missed opportunity and a shame. Your "mood" and behavior in this particualr situation inhibits the very function for which we are here - discovery and the advancement of our sport.

Some have accepted what you have said based on your word alone. Others have rejected it BECAUSE it was suported by nothing more than your word. Perhaps if you were to lend it some support we could benifit from truth that we had thought fiction.

Originally posted by Nelson Montana
So all in all, this is just my way of reiterating my new "take it or leave it" philosophy. Those who "take it" will benefit and those who "leave t" will miss out. Either way works just fine for me.

Those who take it whithout regard for truth are taking it right up the ass. Feel free to dish it out Nelson.

 

[Boulder257]

silent - you make perfect sense and your point is well written. I am impressed!!

Nelson - you could learn something from silent!

 

[Silent Method]

Than you.

 

[Deleted member 33117]

Great post silent method. I run into this problem alot. I state something based up scientific research, or things that are generally accepted to be true by the scientific community due to various studies, and my point will be met with dogma. Often it is pseudo-scientific dogma, but most of this is based on very poor assumptions based on some loose general rules of biology. A perfect example is that fat and carbs should not be eaten in the same meal. The advocates of this theory say that:
1) insulin is your fat storage hormone (true)
2) eating carbohydrates stimulate the release of insulin (true)

This being the case, they assume that eating fats with protien will cause a greater amount of fat storage that simply eating the same number of calories in the form of a fat-protien for a carb-protien meal. Which is entirely untrue based on a signifigant number of reasons, which I've posted on in the past and do not care to retype here.

Once the science behind why this is totally false is revealed, the advocates of it say, "Well...it worked for me when I was cutting." When in fact it could just be that they were using t3, doing cardio, eating clean foods and eating far less calories than they burned. In fact, those individual may have very well lost bodyfat faster, and preserved more lbm if they had NOT followed this aspect of their eating plan.

I feel for you on the part of using 50 cent words. The girl I just started dating likes to say (with a big smile) "I only understood about half of what you said... in English please."

 

[Silent Method]

Often it is pseudo-scientific dogma, but most of this is based on very poor assumptions based on some loose general rules of biology. A perfect example is that fat and carbs should not be eaten in the same meal.

ARRRG! Don't get me started on that one!

 

[Deleted member 33117]

ARRRG! Don't get me started on that one!

LoL, I know, its one of my all time petpeaves about bodybuilding nutrition. I wrote about a 2 page post on it once on the diet forum. My post was completely based upon known science. I stepped on a few toes with that one, because ALOT of respected authorities preach that as gospel. I guess when I finish college and become a registered dietician, I'll get a little more respect than bodybuilding guru's with no college education in the field of nutrition. NO wait... never mind, I'll just have "book knowledge" while these guys will have "real world knowledge" of the sport.

 

[Silent Method]

^

 

[SCOTTY-TWO-HOTTY]

Silent- Another good read from you. A VERY well written and scintilating thread my learned friend.


BodyByFinaplix- This is what you said your arguments are typically met with...
Often pseudo-scientific dogma, but most of this is based on very poor assumptions based on some loose general rules of biology.
I couldn't have said it better myself Bro... I know exactly what you're saying and it happens too often.

Anyone care to put forth an argument about Androgen receptor upregulation/downregulation??? That's one I'd like to see some different positions on.

 

[Silent Method]

Thanks for the support bro!

Just to reiterate a point, I'm all for exploring differing positions. This is why I'm still waiting for some argument, from Nelson or others, supporting the claims he put in that thread. "Proof" be damned, I'm simply looking for some explanation of his reasoning.

Hundereds of posts after his claim ---> NOTHING.

 

[Silent Method]

^

 

[Deleted member 33117]

Sure, research now shows that androgen receptors upregulate based on serum testosterone levels. Recent studies show that young men given various doses of testosterone enathate, showed, receptor upregulation, in proportion to the dose, if the dose yeilded supralogical testosterone levels. At the end of the study, on average, the 600 mg a week test subject had twice the number of totally androgen receptors present in their muscle tissue as the test subjects given 300 mg of test enathate a week. They also saw roughly twice the gains in lbm.

Actually, I'll skip the argument part, and just stick with the research results.

 

[Silent Method]

Good post. Blows some old theory, at least in part, right out of the water.

 

[Deleted member 33117]

SM, and it also says something about what type of doses might be best for a frist cycle... and they are higher than I used or would have normally recomended. The guys using 600 mg gained twice as much lean body mass as the 300 mg of test guys. The only side effect noted was slightly elevated cholesterol levels if I recall from memory. Maybe 600 mg of test a week is the ideal newbie cycle. It certainly does not seem to cause dimenished returns, like many of us thought would occur when we recomended 250-400 mg a week for first timers.

 

[Spidey]

Thanks for the support bro!

Just to reiterate a point, I'm all for exploring differing positions. This is why I'm still waiting for some argument, from Nelson or others, supporting the claims he put in that thread. "Proof" be damned, I'm simply looking for some explanation of his reasoning.

Hundereds of posts after his claim ---> NOTHING.

Your post was well written and I agree whole-heartedly.

HOWEVER, to be totally fair to Nelson, he did advance an explanation of his reasoning as I remember. It just wasn't a scientifically valid one. I think that whole milk post was based on his misunderstanding of gluconeogenesis.

I think you should probably just let it go. There is no way in hell he will provide references or even a rational scientific explanation for his claims in that post since they likely do not exist. You are just flogging a dead horse here. It used to bother me like this too but I finally just realized that I can't get all hot and bothered every time Nelson posts something absurd. The stress just isn't worth it. I Pm'd him and buried the hatchet (so to speak) and now I either simply ignore his posts or at least try to be civil and non-threatening in my reply.

With all due respect, posts like this one will go nowhere. Sure, you will get some pats on the back (it WAS well written) but in the end it will probably degenerate into just another flame war.

Live and let live bro. If there are fools out there willing to believe something without any scientific credibility whatsoever (and there are), let them. It's no skin off my nose (yours either ).

What still gets me a little are the sycophants who will jump on the bandwagon and just believe it "because the great (whomever) said so". It truly irks me. I can think of a few here...

 

[Silent Method]

Good post yourself bro.

HOWEVER, to be totally fair to Nelson, he did advance an explanation of his reasoning as I remember. It just wasn't a scientifically valid one. I think that whole milk post was based on his misunderstanding of gluconeogenesis.

I didn't see any reasoning, just a restatment with some different parameters.

I think you should probably just let it go. There is no way in hell he will provide references or even a rational scientific explanation for his claims in that post since they likely do not exist. You are just flogging a dead horse here.
>
>
With all due respect, posts like this one will go nowhere. Sure, you will get some pats on the back (it WAS well written) but in the end it will probably degenerate into just another flame war.

Live and let live bro. If there are fools out there willing to believe something without any scientific credibility whatsoever (and there are), let them. It's no skin off my nose (yours either ).

What still gets me a little are the sycophants who will jump on the bandwagon and just believe it "because the great (whomever) said so". It truly irks me. I can think of a few here...

To a degree I agree with everything you said here. But a point of contention - I'm not looking for pats on the back, I'm hoping some of those who read this will learn to be more discriminatory in what they choose to believe and why. This "Nelson" scenario is a great illustration why, but of course it will present itself again and again regardless of who presents the falacy.

In addition, I was looking for Nelson to show some argument for the statements he made (for which, in regard to his revisory statement, the only possible support i can forsee are the two mechanisms of action which I have already outlined myself in this thread). It looks like that's not going to happen.

 

[BigAndy69]

Some guys will always agree with the underdog. It doesn't matter what he says as long as he goes against popular convention we will support him!