Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:48 pm
If it does not upset you in terms of impertinence or boredom, will start a new thread and we can hash it out. I definitely have some counterpoints to some comments of yours. The lit searches will take time.
Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:57 pm
Gotta go swim and squat. gym closes at 1800. Will get geeky later tonight. Respect.
Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:01 pm
I'm back. Really tired.
It's almost as if I'm overtraining. Except my strength keeps going up. And I'm an old, wimpy, fat guy. Therefore unlikely to be overtrained.
Anyhoo...will tee up a thread in general, later (amybe in a while). Not avoaindg. Just...well...avoiding...tired. :(
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:47 am
Just remember Alan Aragons research reviews are subscriber only (if that's what you're referring to). Also, that's all it really is - he reviews research articles. Just breaks them down and explains what they mean so that non sciencey guys can understand what was done - instead of basing what you know from small extracts available for free on pubmed.... There is a lot on his blog that anyone can read that could be used, though.
I don't take him as a guy with an opinion or 'comfirmation bias'. As far as I can tell, he just looks at the latest research and breaks it down and offers his interpretation of it. It's amazing how differently people can interpret these things.
I'm not jumping on his bandwagon, it's just a "FYI". Out of respect I wouldn't re produce Strength Coach material, for example. However I don't really know what his bandwagon would be, from what I've read. I'm still on the fence with a lot of the strict paleo stuff. I need a better understanding of nutrition in general before I can call it.
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:24 am
That's a good point, I'm probably unfairly characterizing his work as I've seen him grouped with others in a blog somewhere. I tend to group people into camps but in reality there is a large grey area and a lot of overlap between different theories. A lot of methods work for some people. Nothing works for everyone. I think that if you eat for what improves your own health your weight issues will go away automatically. You may not have a model's body but you will have the one you were supposed to have.
The theories are fascinating and important but I think that we need to keep it in perspective.
I think this is the best starting point: http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 5:19 pm
I have one question. For one to really understand how to breakdown studies for other shouldn't the have research experience?
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 5:37 pm
What's your point Peter?
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 12:13 pm
Peter Rouse wrote:I have one question. For one to really understand how to breakdown studies for other shouldn't the have research experience?
No, just some knowledge on the subject.
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:41 am
I've actually always been weary of getting too much into studies when discussing something. It's why you'll rarely see me post any. I wouldn't pretend to understand everything. I don't think it's just knowledge on the subject but you need knowledge on how to interpret studies.
Mark Young had a good blog post on this,
http://markyoungtrainingsystems.com/201 ... ntentions/
btw Peter it's good to see you posting again. I read your blog quite a lot.
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:43 pm
Also, before getting into the fray, shouldn't we try to at least find out what each person conceives a "calorie" to be, and whether they believe that the calorie is a useful unit of food energy, and whether they believe that a "calorie worth" of every type of fat gives the body the same amount of energy as every other type of fat, same for every type of carbohydrate, and whether a "calorie worth" of fat gives the body the same energy as a "calorie worth" of carb or protein, and whether consuming a given number of calories of each nutrient causes the equivalent result in the body? Because if we don't agree on those points (and we won't) then arguing over studies will just be silly.
And I predict a lot of silliness.
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:18 pm
Well, I know where Peter stands on it, due to the following blog post,
http://coachrouse.wordpress.com/2010/03 ... eory-myth/
(i posted the link which is on that blog in the 'food fight' thread but, I actually got the link from Peters blog so, thought I would post again)
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:28 pm
The thing that annoys me about "calories" is that they are not calories, but kilocalories (or rather stupidly, Calories). We do not say grams instead of kilgrams or metres instead of kilometres, so why drop the kilo from kilocalorie?
1 kilocalorie (kcal) = 1 Calorie (Cal) = 1000 calories (cal)
At least, I think that is how it works. Why don't we all move on and use joules instead?