A Plea For Truth In our Lifestyle

[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.