ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 4:57 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:09 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3987
Harpoon wrote:
to be fair, in the second link
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=459

the last point addresses Healthy vs diabetic people...


On the second page, the "myth/fact" part still tends to be mostly straw man arguments, and other deception. However I agree with some of the stuff they were saying. Like highlighting the difference in insulin response in different people. That has a lot to do with why some people are fat and some people aren't. Those parts I agree with do tend to be red herrings that don't support the premise of the section they are in, but they are at least true. If nothing else those parts support my rejection of the whole "good/bad" paradigm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:01 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 55
Ironman wrote:
4 "MYTH: Carbohydrate Is Singularly Responsible for Driving Insulin

FACT: Protein Is a Potent Stimulator of Insulin Too"

What do you know, another straw man. The answer is kind of confusing, why single out protein? Eating a very large meal stimulates insulin. Carbs just produce more. This is obvious. Food stimulates insulin. If it didn't you would die without carbs. duh.



hi, back again, hoping there would have been more responses to the thread :)

well thats the issue, like marks link shows, white pasta and eggs release the same amount of insulin. South beach and other low carb diets explain the science as being that grain and other carb foods release more insulin that protein and veggies, which put you in the "fat building mode", that you can eat a low-calorie diet and still gain weight if you're eating the "wrong" foods (insulin sabotaging your weight loss, total reduced calories putting you into "starvation mode" and reducing metabolism), and that if you just eat the "right foods" you can eat to your hearts content. Well if popcorn spikes insulin less than super-healthy fish, that can't be the reason..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:43 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3987
I think the problem is that insulin and glycemic index may or may not be very accurate. It also depends on how much you eat. The more you eat the bigger the spike you get. It also isn't JUST insulin, it's the sugar that certain foods break down into as well. I would think the glycemic score would matter more, since insulin does more than just metabolize sugar. You can't really equate what insulin does with one substance, to what it does with ALL substances. Especially since the concepts we are discussing are in reference to metabolizing sugars.

You also seem to be under the impression that if you can show medical science does not know every single tiny detail having to do with this, that the whole thing is wrong, and you are right. That just doesn't logically follow. It just shows that we don't know everything, which is a given anyway.

Quote:
that you can eat a low-calorie diet and still gain weight if you're eating the "wrong" foods (insulin sabotaging your weight loss, total reduced calories putting you into "starvation mode" and reducing metabolism), and that if you just eat the "right foods" you can eat to your hearts content.


Some people with a simplistic understanding may say something like that, but just because SOME people say that doesn't mean we all agree. In fact if you notice my position is different than that. So you seem to be applying someone else simplified view, to be my position, so you can then effectively argue against it.

Now if you are just saying that some people say that, and it's overly simplistic and not completely accurate, I won't argue about that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:12 am 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:09 pm
Posts: 406
Ironman wrote:
I think the problem is that insulin and glycemic index may or may not be very accurate.


And what makes you think that?

_________________
I don't know where the blind could lead the sightless
but I'd still like to witness


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:08 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 55
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... index.aspx

damn btw i just wrote a couple of paragraphs, doing research the whole time and i pressed backspace not knowing that my cursor wasnt activated and it took me back 1 post and cleared the field :angryfire:

ill retype my questions tomorrow, but just to ironman, to re-iterate im not trying to argue with you. The problem is that whenever i get into a discussion online or in real life about this topic, everyone has their own pet theory that they learned from somewhere else. When you actually try to go into the mechanism of it, things become confusing, counter intuitive, or contradictory, even to those with some biochem or nutrition science background. In the end, people just go back to what they said and originally and leave it at that... there's never any consensus. I just want clear, relatively verified facts on what things work and how they work when the topic comes up again, thats the reason why I started the thread in the first place...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:19 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6435
Location: Halifax, NS
Harpoon wrote:
... there's never any consensus. I just want clear, relatively verified facts on what things work and how they work ...


I think we all want that but there is always going to be bias in any research and for any study that proves one thing, you will be able to find another that proves the opposite. It all depends on the lens the author of the study looks through. I think everyone should read David Freedman. http://www.freedman.com/ especially this article http://www.freedman.com/2010/10/lies-da ... ience.html from The Atlantic.

_________________
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:32 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3987
mark74 wrote:
Ironman wrote:
I think the problem is that insulin and glycemic index may or may not be very accurate.


And what makes you think that?


Just because there isn't anything very conclusive about it. So I'm not sure of it's accuracy. I'm sure it's at least a good ballpark figure though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:44 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3987
Harpoon wrote:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/nutrition/glycemic-index.aspx

damn btw i just wrote a couple of paragraphs, doing research the whole time and i pressed backspace not knowing that my cursor wasnt activated and it took me back 1 post and cleared the field :angryfire:

ill retype my questions tomorrow, but just to ironman, to re-iterate im not trying to argue with you. The problem is that whenever i get into a discussion online or in real life about this topic, everyone has their own pet theory that they learned from somewhere else. When you actually try to go into the mechanism of it, things become confusing, counter intuitive, or contradictory, even to those with some biochem or nutrition science background. In the end, people just go back to what they said and originally and leave it at that... there's never any consensus. I just want clear, relatively verified facts on what things work and how they work when the topic comes up again, thats the reason why I started the thread in the first place...


Yes, that is indeed the problem. It is VERY complicated. Someone who specializes in nutrition and endocrinology would probably understand it the best, but we're talking about a medical specialist with a PHD. It's also a fact that we don't know everything about it yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:04 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 55
stuward wrote:
Harpoon wrote:
... there's never any consensus. I just want clear, relatively verified facts on what things work and how they work ...


I think we all want that but there is always going to be bias in any research and for any study that proves one thing, you will be able to find another that proves the opposite. It all depends on the lens the author of the study looks through. I think everyone should read David Freedman. http://www.freedman.com/ especially this article http://www.freedman.com/2010/10/lies-da ... ience.html from The Atlantic.


Well according to that article 10-80% of studies are completely wrong or biased due to a combination of factors: journals prefer ground-breaking, exciting studies so researchers competing for $$$ skew their results to match this, peer based system means you dont want to piss off your fellows by submitting a study to a journal that refutes what your other peers did, and conversely peers in charge of selecting studies for publishing will publish things that they know is bull$h1t if it supports their own work, regular human sloppiness, sometimes simple fabrication, and huge bias due to drug companies funding 90% of studies...
25% of even the gold standard, double blind randomized whatever studies that become law in treatment and research are false or biased.. im gonna check out that list of 60 or so later

so there u go ironman, not even a pHD will tell you the straight-up about anything, cause all their knowledge will come from studies and chances are those studies will be bull$h1t and contradicted a few years down the line


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3987
Harpoon wrote:
stuward wrote:
Harpoon wrote:
... there's never any consensus. I just want clear, relatively verified facts on what things work and how they work ...


I think we all want that but there is always going to be bias in any research and for any study that proves one thing, you will be able to find another that proves the opposite. It all depends on the lens the author of the study looks through. I think everyone should read David Freedman. http://www.freedman.com/ especially this article http://www.freedman.com/2010/10/lies-da ... ience.html from The Atlantic.


Well according to that article 10-80% of studies are completely wrong or biased due to a combination of factors: journals prefer ground-breaking, exciting studies so researchers competing for $$$ skew their results to match this, peer based system means you dont want to piss off your fellows by submitting a study to a journal that refutes what your other peers did, and conversely peers in charge of selecting studies for publishing will publish things that they know is bull$h1t if it supports their own work, regular human sloppiness, sometimes simple fabrication, and huge bias due to drug companies funding 90% of studies...
25% of even the gold standard, double blind randomized whatever studies that become law in treatment and research are false or biased.. im gonna check out that list of 60 or so later

so there u go ironman, not even a pHD will tell you the straight-up about anything, cause all their knowledge will come from studies and chances are those studies will be bull$h1t and contradicted a few years down the line


What is this an appeal to solipsism or something? It's not quite that bad. But yea, there is a lot of junk science out there. However if you evaluate the study you can tell whether it is or isn't. Usually the junk science supports the establishment and corporate interests. Like basically stating as an axiom that saturated fat and sodium are the things to be most concerned with.

But like I was saying in the other thread, it absolutely is NOT just the presence of insulin. It is SPECIFICALLY the metabolizing of sugars. The protein synthesis function has nothing to do with it. I think that is where people get confused.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:14 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 55
whats with all the big words :lol:

what other thread?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 7:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3987
Harpoon wrote:
whats with all the big words :lol:

what other thread?


You posted about this topic in two threads.
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=8083

What big words?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 3:54 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Posts: 7503
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea
Ironman wrote:
Harpoon wrote:
whats with all the big words :lol:

what other thread?


You posted about this topic in two threads.
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=8083

What big words?

You used at least three four-syllable words (absolutely, specifically and metabolizing) in your post, and that threw him for a loop. You should be patient with him, and use no more than 2-syllable words. Just my suggestion.

_________________
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:18 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3987
Jungledoc wrote:
You used at least three four-syllable words (absolutely, specifically and metabolizing) in your post, and that threw him for a loop. You should be patient with him, and use no more than 2-syllable words. Just my suggestion.


Oh yea, I said "solipsism" too. Four, four syllable words, that's practically like using a 16 syllable word. Well good thing I wasn't talking about methylhydroxynandrolone, or gluconeogenisis, or apocalypticism, or quoting "Marry Poppins". I've been known to use the semicolon in my writing too. :lol:

His post could be described as anti-intellectualism......
Oooh, what if I was talking about the guy being discussed in this video.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDPqB9i1ScY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:35 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 55
Ironman wrote:
Harpoon wrote:
whats with all the big words :lol:

what other thread?


You posted about this topic in two threads.
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=8083

What big words?

:lol: @ the thesaurus battle

Anyway, in that topic you disproved a lot of what the woman wrote about in her article but mentioned nothing specific about the metabolism of sugars and the mechanism by which carb restriction is or is not effective in fat reduction... if thats the key then i guess thats what we're trying to get at here :) what do you mean specifically??


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group