For Open Minded Thinkers Only

[Nelson Montana]

Before I say what I'm going to say I must implore that the member known as "Juice Authority" do not reply to this thread. For those of you who aren't aware of it, JA has been stalking me, disruptig posts, instigating hostilities on every thread I write on and sending me personal e-mails complete with threats and insults. I'm sure he'll come on here acting like an innocent victim, but until then, I'd like to propose a hypothical scenario for those of you with an open mind. I think you'll find it interesting.

One of the problems that seems to be prevelant on bodybuilding boards (and no where else, curiously) is the use of studies and references as the end-all be all of proof. What I've always maintained is, just because something is referenced, does not mean it's concrete evidence. It's just an opinion from somewhere else -- which should be considered on the merit of its logic.

Studies are different. Naturally, studies help us to understand the effects of everything from changes in blood levels from the ingestion of a drug to the results of a particular activity on the various systems of the body. But studies, too, are not irrefutable proof. Many studies are limited, vauge and not conducted in a controlled manner. Many are performed with an end result in mind. A truly intelligent person needs to study the STUDY, to see where it may be misleading. THAT, is where people on bodybuilding forums seem to be astonishingly ignorant. There's a mindless concensous that as long as a study suggests one thing, and there are no studies to suggest the opposing point of view, the first point of view must autoatically be correct, even if logic dictates that it is not. I have a study. You don't. I win.

Still with me? Good. Here is the hypotetcial scenario that I believe puts it into perspective. Follow me:

A study was conducted between 4 people -- two had brown hair, and two had red hair.
A series of 100 questions regarding matmatical equations were presented to each of the participants.

On summery of the test, the group with brown hair answered 82 of the 100 questions correctly, whereas the group with red hair answered 86 of the questions correctly.

It is then concluded that people with red hair are more skilled at mathmatics than people with brown hair.

Ridiculous?

Okay,then. Prove it wrong.


I challange every member here to dig up a study that refutes these findings. Find a study that shows brown haired people are better at math than red haired people. Until then. The conclusions stand. I win.

Get it? I'm sure some of the more intelligent people understand what I'm doing here, while it will fly over others heads.

This is what I try to bring to peoples attention in regard to so many of the sckewed, flawed and incomplete studies that are so often presented to defend an argument. yet, just as the above example defies logical reasoning, so do many of the studies presented here. And it isn't because I just wish to disagree with them. What purpose does that serve? But I also know, people WANT to belive what hey want to believe. And for some peculiar reason, a study of any kind is the last and final word here -- and other BB forums. Maybe it stems from a desire to appear scientic, when if act, the science is as weak as the brown hair/red hair comparison.

I have a saying that appears in "The Bodybuilding Truth"..."Look for logic, and the truth won't be far behind."

Think before responding. otherwise, you're just reacting. A reaction is just a defense of an existing concept. And as long as you only see part of the picture, the truth will never be totally clear, be it pertaining to bodybuilding, or anything else. Don't accept anything at face value. Read. And read between the lines.

That's all I want to say. I'll leave this with you for a while and hopefully it'll stir some debate (Unless JA comes along and shits all over it)

One lat thing; I won't be able to post for a while. I've let too any things slide and I need a break to take care of business. I will still and try to answer PM's though.

See you all later. And...think about it.

 

[satchboogie]

totally agree with you on this one.
studies must be STUDIED too.

 

[sk*]

Like I said in another thread, no study can be done in a vacume and we do not live in a vacume either ... so yes no study is absolutely perfect, but we have to do what we can with them

The example you give about the hair colors is too extreme. It would, however, have a point if more subjects were used in the "study." One could argue that the psychological effects of being a certain color effect one's ability to perform in mathematics, but again you would need more "data."

So, yes, studies can be flawed, but many times they are the best thing we have. If you are gonna use "logic" instead of studies, than you better tell us what your "logic" is or else it will hold no value.

Things need to be explained, and this is why people get upset. Everyone jumps the gun and asks you for a study because that's how they are used to asking for credibility, but I understand what you are saying so you better explain your logic to us or else why should anyone listen to you?

-sk

 

[drrman]

Me an you(Nelson) have had some differences on things and reasons for being here etc, but i never said you were an idiot, i have to agree with you on this one, i have always thought like you stated above. I am a mech engineer by trade so scientifical studies and theory are all i ever studied in school, but in the real world true "tests" are what its all about, just too many variables for all "studies" to be correct. You have made a good point with this post, one of your best yet!!!

 

[creep]

the studies have to be wrong... I have brown hair and I'm WAY smarter than everyone I know who has red hair..

I'm off to conduct a study of my own.. lol

 

[deca_durabolin_]

Although I am a "newbie" I have been on this board and numerous amounts of bodybuilding boards for several years. One board in particular I am a known member for three years. I agree completely with this post.

 

[kosh]

Several good points here.

#1 Studies DO need to be studied
#2 Nelson should not reject EVERY study that is put in front of him. Instead look into the study with an open mind and see what you can teach yourself or discredit in the study.
#3 Juice Authority should just relax and open his mind.

......wait, that goes for both of you guys.

 

[jubei]

I agree about studies 100 percent.

 

[Rio 2001]

Serious studies have to show if any difference between tested group and control group is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT, there are complicated mathematical equations to process the data collected from the study and then tell if the results can mean anything.
Different methodologys presents different degrees of evidence, case reports are very low, non controlled , non randomized, low number of subjects, wrongful assumptions, lack of methodology, multiple variable contamination, all can lead one to discredit a reference study as being worth of consideration when analysing a situation.
In the example given, the simple majority of a group over the other is not statistically significant, and even if it was, you should ask how many variables between the 2 groups would have an impact on the result, like age, school background, etc...
Try to become familiar with the most respectable publications in each area , because those are more selective in publishing articles and it will be more difficult to find junk science.

 

[Rio 2001]

The auditive capacity of the limbs of Aracnhaie spiderman .
Klutz et al, dep. of Sciences, University of Junk Science, Moronóvia

Objective:
To proof that the auditive apparatus of spiders is in their legs.

Methods:
We divided 20 spider in 2 groups;
Group A has all legs,
Group B had all legs cut off.
We made a loud noise and only spiders from group A moved.

Conclusions

Without their legs, spiders cannot hear.

 

[Juice Authority]

Before I say what I'm going to say I must implore that the member known as "Juice Authority" do not reply to this thread. For those of you who aren't aware of it, JA has been stalking me, disruptig posts, instigating hostilities on every thread I write on and sending me personal e-mails complete with threats and insults. I'm sure he'll come on here acting like an innocent victim, but until then, I'd like to propose a hypothical scenario for those of you with an open mind. I think you'll find it interesting.

I'm not going to shit on you or this thread because I actually agree in part to what you're saying. The whole shit about me disrupting posts, instigating hostilities on every thread you write on and sending you personal e-mails complete with threats and insults is getting old. The "bottonline" is that you just can't handle being proven wrong as you so clearly were in the thread about cardio.

 

[tinymm]

very good post....
-matt

 

[bigrand]

Well Rio, that one must be disputed because it fails the general law of an argument and cause/effect!

 

[mrflexdiesel]

I agree one hundred percent! Except, I have brown hair and I have yet to meet a redhead who is better at math than me. Therefore, I win! He, he.

 

[jubei]

Rio, very good post. Karma for you.

 

[jubei]

sorry, can't give you any more karma for the moment.

 

[Rio 2001]

I was illustrating with an aberration of an example that many times people would believe something because it is referenced, but fail to analyse if the ref. is worth of credit.

Nevertheless, stating oppinions that are not scientific based AS IF THEY WERE A FACT, which is quite common here, is a mistake also.

Taking in consideration the lack of well controlled studies on the matter of BBding and AAS, we have to extrapolate a lot and take into consideration testimonials and personal experience, but people sometimes forget to emphasize that what they are saying are OPPINIONS, not facts.
Yep, this is a good post .

 

[Rio 2001]

Thanks Jubei, I´ll hit you back

 

[Iron Gator]

I hate redheads too!

 

[LCBUTLER]

I find that reading many of the studies there is usually at least one aspect of the study that does not apply to me or my situation. So I take what I can from them and try to use logic to find the things that will impact me, my training, my sphere of influence. We are all so different, that we all know, and the better we become at listening to our bodies and doing research the better we can become at being our best selves.

My .02

LC

 

[Lumberg]

Serious studies have to show if any difference between tested group and control group is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT, there are complicated mathematical equations to process the data collected from the study and then tell if the results can mean anything.
Different methodologys presents different degrees of evidence, case reports are very low, non controlled , non randomized, low number of subjects, wrongful assumptions, lack of methodology, multiple variable contamination, all can lead one to discredit a reference study as being worth of consideration when analysing a situation.
In the example given, the simple majority of a group over the other is not statistically significant, and even if it was, you should ask how many variables between the 2 groups would have an impact on the result, like age, school background, etc...
Try to become familiar with the most respectable publications in each area , because those are more selective in publishing articles and it will be more difficult to find junk science.

Rio, you are a smart guy I know, but calculating the t statistic for a study like the one Nelson mentioned does not involve "complicated mathematical equations." Well, maybe to someone who hasn't studied statistics.

Most studies do calculate a t-statistic for a given p and the p given the data. Usually the threshold is 5%. Meaning, assume that the results lead the study creators to reject the nuill hypothesis, there is at most a 5% chance that they incorrectly rejected the null hypothesis. Of course there are alpha and beta errors.

I honestly don't think you can make rational examinatin of studies without a good understanding of statistics. ANd the peopl eho write the studeis have very strong backgrounds in stats.

 

[DepressiveJuice]

good point about studies. an interesting study i read, done by UK scientists, about monkeys caught my attention. they put some computers with a roomfull of monkeys. at first, the monkeys were destroying the computers. then, they were urinating and deficating on them. finally, they started to press down on a button on the keyboard and they noticed that a letter appeard on the screen. they then repetitively pressed the button. the conclusion of the study? the monkeys cant spell because they dont know english. true story

 

[DaddyX]

way to long to read

 

[Lumberg]

BTW I agree with the original post.

 

[Rio 2001]

Rio, you are a smart guy I know, but calculating the t statistic for a study like the one Nelson mentioned does not involve "complicated mathematical equations." Well, maybe to someone who hasn't studied statistics.

Most studies do calculate a t-statistic for a given p and the p given the data. Usually the threshold is 5%. Meaning, assume that the results lead the study creators to reject the nuill hypothesis, there is at most a 5% chance that they incorrectly rejected the null hypothesis. Of course there are alpha and beta errors.

I honestly don't think you can make rational examinatin of studies without a good understanding of statistics. ANd the peopl eho write the studeis have very strong backgrounds in stats.

You´re right, the statistics are complicated for me, altough in Nelson´s example maybe even I could do it.
I hate math, LOL.
I think the most difficult part of writing a study is to eliminate all variables and keep it controlled.Usually you have to try to prove a simple point, the more you try to add to your objective, ,the less ae your chances to be able to do it with proper maner and without contamination.
I agree it would be better to have a strong background in stats, but at least where I practice ( MD) we are not required to know much, you write a protocol and submit it first to statistic department that would check if your "n" is acceptable, what tests will be required , how would you like to display the data, etc...(Most MDs suck at math)Then you´ll have a complete protocol that will be evaluated by an internal board to make sugestions, correct errors, evaluate objective, methods, etc...Then it goes to the ethics board to have a go ...
After it´s "ready" .,you choose wheter you want to send it to a journal, congress, etc...and wait to see if it will be accepted.Many times it comes back( usually more than once) to be submited to sugested modifications required to acceptance.
We follow a rigid protocol here and we are usually complaining about so many poor controlled, junk studies we see published and presented.
The real thing is veeery hard to produce.

 

[Lestat]

I go to bodybuilding boards to see some studies, but the REAL value is this.

I say "Hey, what side effects do you see from usage of Deca?"

Then 30 people chime in... at least 10 of them are people that have actually used it and describe the effects..

Those real world experiences from other people who are similar to me in way (and disimilar in other ways) are what I find of real value on body building boards.

Not any one of two individuals that think they know everything about anything and can pull up some obscure study to back up every little point they have.

You see many guys on this board that are afraid to just say "I'm not sure" or "I don't have experience with that" because they think they are the shit and know everything that could possibly be asked.

For me, I chime in with my personal experience whenever I can.. I try to stay away from repeating things I have seen over and over and over.. but I must admit its tough not to do that.. you read something so many times you think its right and start to believe it.. you start to think you may even be knowledable on it. But guess what, you're not.

So lets keep the sharing of information alive, and not let a few people stifle that for everyone.

 

[Juice Authority]

I go to bodybuilding boards to see some studies, but the REAL value is this.

I say "Hey, what side effects do you see from usage of Deca?"

Then 30 people chime in... at least 10 of them are people that have actually used it and describe the effects..

Those real world experiences from other people who are similar to me in way (and disimilar in other ways) are what I find of real value on body building boards.

Not any one of two individuals that think they know everything about anything and can pull up some obscure study to back up every little point they have.

You see many guys on this board that are afraid to just say "I'm not sure" or "I don't have experience with that" because they think they are the shit and know everything that could possibly be asked.

For me, I chime in with my personal experience whenever I can.. I try to stay away from repeating things I have seen over and over and over.. but I must admit its tough not to do that.. you read something so many times you think its right and start to believe it.. you start to think you may even be knowledable on it. But guess what, you're not.

So lets keep the sharing of information alive, and not let a few people stifle that for everyone.

Good points.

 

[kidkoala]

another great post by NELSON!!!

 

[jboldman]

experimental design and peer reviewed studies are the backbone of modern day science. If studies are looked at with a critical eye, much usefull information can be gathered. To just disregard them because one does not have the time or inclination is a sure path to misinformation and the dark ages. I have always advocated using critical thinking when reading studies as well as when listening to so called gurus. As ronald reagan so often said:
"trust but verify!"

jb

 

[Wrongun]

Good post IMHO

I have always maintained that the subject regarding AAS is two fold.

1) Chemical / Biological theory
2) User experience.

What works on one user may not work on another so you do need to get a combination of the two and both may contradic for certain users

Wrongun!

 

[Fukkenshredded]

Well, we're forgetting that studies are done to predict and explain real world results, and generally we can compare the results of a study with real world experience.

What if, in your day-to-day activities, you had actually found that people with a certain hair color seemed way smarter? That might lead you to conduct a study, and you might find the conclusions that you did.

This would undoubtedly lead to a larger study group...and one with a different set of controls.

The purpose of a study is to either SUPPORT or DISPROVE our theories about why things are the way they are.

Studies are not always statistical in nature, either. In studies concerning biology, for example, we operate on the assumption that the human anatomy is more or less the same in every human...at least enough so to qualify each person as 'human'. It is possible to mistake a given supposition in a study for an absolute, and only, possible fact. In truth, each trait listed, when reduced to its lowest term definition, is a trend. Quantifiers become infinite if we cannot agree on certain facts prior to any study.

For example:

Hair is brown, but how brown is it? In fact, isn't it true that everyone's hair is a different color when we get right down to it? I have brown hair, and so does my son, but our hair is not the same color.

But the genetic cause of that browness is EXACTLY the same.

Now, as far as studies vs. empirical data...it is my posistion that studies are designed to find out the reasons we experience certain phenomenae.

Your example of hair color/intellect study is sophist, simply because the vast majority of people's experiences have already proven the conclusion absurd.

So the disproof of your study is simply this:

WE HAVE ALL EXPERIENCED OTHERWISE. EXPERIENCE IS PROOF.

Now, in an AAS study about...oh, let's just pick something out of the blue and say..car...no...okay:

"Do AAS add size without resistance training?"

Well, the studies say yes. Ok, some bodybuilders say no, but when pressed, they might have to amend their position to "not very much".

If we refine the question, then...

"If one group takes AAS, and another does not, and niether engages in any resistance training, and both groups eat an identicle diet, which will gain more muscle?"

The study will verify what we already have observed...the AAS group will gain slightly more muscle, all things being equal.

What a study does, Nelson, is ISOLATE THE VARIABLES, so that we can see WHY things are how they are, or at least provide reasonable explanations.

If everyone doing cardio on an empty stomach got identicle results to their efforts on a full stomach, there would never have been a debate in the first place.

That point is easily proven by rephrasing the question to something like:

"Is cardio on Tuesdays more effective than cardio on Wednesdays, if all other factors are equal?"

Well, no need for a study there. Because regardless of what the study shows, we would know that any result suggesting that Tuesday is better would be from a factor other than the day of the week, and the study is flawed because our day to day experiences disprove it.

LIFE is a study of sorts. Controlled studies simply reduce the variables in a given hypothesis.

Three rules:

A large enough group to be statistically significant.
A control group.
A closed set.

Your hair study does not meet any of these requirements.

It is therefore invalid from the beginning.

You like to point out from time to time different traits of different races. Asians are smaller, generally, you like to remind us.

If I did a study that only examined Yao, the basketball player, and myself, my study would prove that Asians are bigger.

Well, PROPERLY analyzed, that study proves that it is POSSIBLE for an Asian to be bigger, but a larger study will verify a trend, and that trend will coincide with our day to day life observations.

This is why I asked you for a study showing your position. That way, we could see an example that your assertion was at least possible, and that a study had shown that to be the case.

Studies only study the groups, and cannot always represent the entire world population. I was asking you to provide a formally observed example of your hypothesis, since in a similar fashion I had provided a formally observed model of my hypothesis.

The variables had been reduced to isolate fasting as the main one, and in that context I wanted to see where fasting had been isolated and proven to HAVE NO IMPACT on exercise whatsoever. That would be an incredibly effective addition to your argument, because it would force me to the postition of saying,

"Morning cardio on an empty stomach works for ME, but I can't really suggest it for others because studies are inconclusive."

However, all of the studies I have examined suggest otherwise, even if they do not do so in a completely satisfactory fashion in any one setting, in totality, coupled with my own and other's experiences, we see a TREND, and that trend is one of effectiveness.

So studies are also conducted for the purpose of DISPROVING a theory, and that is what I was asking you to provide.

A single example of disproof goes a long way.

 

[Lumberg]

Wow.

The level fo discourse on this thread is so high. I love it. Really using my brains here.

Good post fuckinshredded.

Also Rio thanks for insight into how doctors write studies! Here I was thinking they were all great statisticians...now I know the truth

I wish _I_ had an army of statisticians at my beck and call!

 

[Machiavellian Muscle]

Fukkenshredded good remarks. I enjoy reading your posts they add quality to the boards.

 

[Wrongun]

Excellent post Fukkenshredded very thopught provoking this is a good thread

Wrongun!

 

[Juice Authority]

FS, excellent points as usual. It definitely adds a different spin to Nelson's position in a very clear concise manner.

 

[Zoomster]

I have always asked for the "real world" experienced people to chime in. Studies, are so biased. Every scientist knows this.

What is interesting though is that when I have gone down the road of asking what everyone's real experieince is I have been chastised in the face of scientific study.

Where were all of you before this post?

 

[bbkingpin]

Damn!!! Fukkenshredded just slam-dunked.

 

[Silent Method]

What a loaded intro Nelson, way to be open minded yourself...


Regardless - no shit. Studies alone do not illuminate "the whole truth." There are countless variables to consider. This is certainly not the first time such a thread has been posted here.


But Nelson, this is exactly one of the problems I have with much of what you write. Simply referencing one or several pieces of data that support some opinion contrary to that of others, and proclaiming your opinion as gospel, is not uncommon.

Good post here. Take it to heart.

 

[Ulter]

For those of you who have only seen this board in the last two years.. This is how it used to look.

Nelson, you would have to show your open mindedness to reply to Fukkenshredded with any oposing view you might have. Here's your big chance.

 

[bazuka]

Very good post Nelson and I agree, I too come from a Engineering background and have to face studies and how they apply to the real world. I have no experience in using AAS which is why I am researching and lobbying off the experience of others. I will base my choice of AAS on all suggestions and finally my own choice. I consider myself a student and read all comments, make my own decisions before I take that head first dive. We should all remember, through knowledge and understanding comes experience. Not all things will work for all people all the time, which is why some studies are applicable and some are not.

 

[Mr. Las Vegas]

I have been preaching logic and common sense for years, but most humans do not understand it.

 

[tri~zilla]

well controlled study/ real world results = informed personal theory

 

[Wrongun]

For those of you who have only seen this board in the last two years.. This is how it used to look.

Exactly what crossed my mind earlier when reading

Wrongun!

 

[brotheriron]

What is safer to trust, personal experience or scientific study?

Thats the question to be answered. Thats why i find it difficult to belive some of nelsons advice. Nelson often relies on science without experience.

Bro

 

[Rio 2001]

FS, great reply, you really summed it up.

 

[Lift Chief]

Well done FS.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Wow. This is the first chance I had to check on this and there's quite a response.

I'm running short on time but there are some interesting points I'd like to address.

In some cases, the people who agree are those who I feel are guilty of drawing the exact conclusion that I parodied. (Another example of reading superficially?)

It may be apparent to some that this thread was in response to the "cardio on an empty stomach thread." By the time that one was done, jboldman was arguing with me over a point that I never even made. Thus is the evolution of too many threads.

JA (who I asked not to participate in this thread, but he did anyway,) posted something on another board that in part,concured with my original stance even though he adamantly argued against it here. Why would someone do that? Because they're trend followers. Whatever position is popular at any particular time or place is the one they'll adopt.

A few others here chose to parrot the old accusation that I reject all studies or that I claim whatever I say is gospel, which is completely untrue, but again, it's been said so much, it's accepted thinking. Adolf Hitler said, "Tell a lie big enough and long enough, and it will become the truth. What great fortune for leaders that the masses don't think." Freighteningly poignant. (Now watch, I'll be accused of being a Nazi)

On to FS's very astute comments.

There is one very big flaw in what he said, if I'm reading it correctly. He states;

"We have all experienced otherwise, and experience is proof."

Aah, now we start to get into four dimentional thinking. This is what seperates the men from the boys. (And agin, JA, stay out.) I offer this question to you FS...

How do we know if one's experience is accurate?

Just like RIO's funny spider analogy, many people draw conclusions based on their "experience" but the information is cross sensed. Here's an example:"I took creatine and got a cold. Therefore it is my experience that creatine gave me a cold." It is VERY difficult to sway someone from believing this isn't so. They took creatine They know that for a fact. That didn't have a cold prior to taking it. Then they did. Personal experience. Proof.

But of course, it's an erroneous perception.

I recently got a letter from someone who read my first book and he said he could have bought a car with the money he would have saved on supplements had he read my book first. One example he gave was that he gained 12 pounds while using Biotests Mag 10. Of course, according to Biotests recommendations he added 1000 calories a day to his diet. Duh. But there are thousands of people who will believe it's the Mag 10. There experience tells them so.

You also say; "What a study does, Nelson, is isolate the variables."

Okay, condesending tone aside, this is exactly what I was saying the studies in question did NOT do. And I explained why. But but that time, too many people were shouting down everything and anything that was said.

You then say, it wouldn't matter if people did better on a Tuesday than a Wednesday because we know that isn't a factor. But what if someone made it a factor? How do you prove working out on a Tuesday isn't better than working out on a Wednesday? Well,logic. Not another study. But god forbid if someone showed another study conducted on a Tuesday. They'll ride you out of town on a rail.

Thus is mob mentality. And we see that A LOT on this board and it's even worse on some of the other BB boards. Sometimes I think bodybuilders are the most myopic, annoying people on the planet. (Well, some of them, at least).

You then summerize by asking for a study showing my position. But as demonstated, the studies you showed were invalid since they were not conducted in an accurate manner. I had no studies (none readily available at least) but I offered logical retort. That's when the villagers began lighting the torches.

I realize this is a very heady discussion and in the end, it's essentially sophistry. The pragmatic part of me says; IF, the theory of burning fat on an empty stomach has any validity at all, arguable as it may be, the amount would be so slight it wouldn't be worth cosidering unless you really enjoy running first thing in the morning on an empty stomach. I'd rather eat glass.

All in all, it seems ridiculous that such a conversation would ellicit the level of hatred it inspired some people. Yes. Hatred. It's been demonstrated in all its ugliess many times over. And that's another thing to consider. When one person antagonizes with lies and another refutes the claims, they are not mutually guilty of bickering. People should see that. But they don't. All they want to know is, who's winning? Because nobody wants to be on the losing side.

To quote the most horrible man who ever lived once again: "History is written by the victors."

Everyone says they want the truth. Everyone believes they tell it. Many are willing to espouse it -- as long as it's the popular trend. But the reality is, it's a lot tougher standing up for it when the majority says it's wrong. It's tougher still to realize you never had it in the first place. And that too, is what seperates the men from the boys.

 

[brotheriron]

I agree nelson, it takes more to stand up alone than to follow the masses. I was shot down when i suggested my 2g+ per week test courses, over 8iu Gh etc, just as you are with your "alternative" approach to AS.

But thats what makes the elite. Being different. Not following the mob. otherwise we'd all be the same. And thats something i never want to be
Bro

 

[Silent Method]

In some cases, the people who agree are those who I feel are guilty of drawing the exact conclusion that I parodied. (Another example of reading superficially?)

Indeed. Go back and read my message to you.

You also say; "What a study does, Nelson, is isolate the variables."

Okay, condesending tone aside, this is exactly what I was saying the studies in question did NOT do. And I explained why. But but that time, too many people were shouting down everything and anything that was said.

I have not seen the thread nor the information that you reference. However, I must ask, did you read the entire study, or just some posted abstract?

I realize this is a very heady discussion and in the end, it's essentially sophistry.

This is the heart of so much of your writing that it deserved a reprinting. Argument for argument sake...round and round we go.

 

[Lumberg]

I realize this is a very heady discussion and in the end, it's essentially sophistry.

All your trite "men vs. boys" analogies aside, this quote is the pure and simple truth.

99% of the discussions you provoke basically boil down to this one point.

 

[speedy7]

I hate redheads too!

So do you hate me??????

 

[Ulter]

"This is the heart of so much of your writing that it deserved a reprinting. Argument for argument sake...round and round we go."

"All your trite "men vs. boys" analogies aside, this quote is the pure and simple truth.

99% of the discussions you provoke basically boil down to this one point."


Now you understand the business of being on the first page.

 

[speedy7]

Man Nelson you really hit it home. What is your take on double blind studies???

 

[Silent Method]

What is your take on double blind studies???

This is an odd question.

The "double blind" aspect of some studies is simply one factor utilized in some study design. In and of itself, it does not guarantee any specific degree of validity.

 

[brotheriron]

Validity? Well it reduces any chance of researcher/interviewer bias. If thats not an increase in validity ive not just got my BSc!
Bro

 

[Rio 2001]

Nelson, I respect you a lot, and the inflammatory response to your threads made this board a lot more interesting, LOL...but I think maybe people are trying to get from you the same level of evidence you are demanding from them.
You ask for double blind ( not possible in the cardio example, though), randomized, controlled ,full text studies, yet you offer to back your oppinion the years of experience and knowledge you have and the oppinion of the fine people you know. I suppose if you were at a symposium or a scientific debate, you'd be ruled out for refusing to present hard evidence.
You know, personal experience IS, after all, a very low degree of evidence, that cannot back up any kind of recomendation .
It is VERY HARD to say without any shed of a doubt that someyhing is the ULTIMATE TRUTH, specially in an area that has sooooo much research to be done, so many unanswered questions.
Just my thoughts...

 

[Lumberg]

"This is the heart of so much of your writing that it deserved a reprinting. Argument for argument sake...round and round we go."

"All your trite "men vs. boys" analogies aside, this quote is the pure and simple truth.

99% of the discussions you provoke basically boil down to this one point."


Now you understand the business of being on the first page.

What are you trying to say ulter? Are you in the camp who say that Nelson stirs things up just to get exposure and sell more books?

 

[Silent Method]

Validity? Well it reduces any chance of researcher/interviewer bias. If thats not an increase in validity ive not just got my BSc!
Bro

Please reread my post.

Specificaly - "In and of itself, it does not guarantee any specific degree of validity."

 

[Tiervexx]

One of my old teachers would always say there are three types of lies, big lies, small lies and statistics.

 

[Wrongun]

One of my old teachers would always say there are three types of lies, big lies, small lies and statistics.

LOL and add that 83% of statistics are made up LOL

Wrongun!

 

[Ulter]

Your old teacher was Mark Twain?

 

[thx9000]

Your old teacher was Mark Twain?

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" --Benjamin Disraeli

 

[Lift Chief]

Your old teacher was Mark Twain?

Zing!

 

[bigp3]

Nelson

I do not always agree with what you say,, but you made a good point with this one. We are all here to learn and the open discussion on this board by everone leads to our education.

Keep the info flowing

 

[Nelson Montana]

One of my old teachers would always say there are three types of lies, big lies, small lies and statistics.

That's a great quote.

RIO: I'm a little surprised. I thought you of all people would get my point. I never said that others should offer studies and I shouldn't, or that my experience is enough. I know I would never say that because it's ridiculous and it's stuff like that which frustrates me because it goes against all I believe. To put it in siple terms, I'm saying that a poorly conducted study is as valueless as no study at all, and it too many cases it's worse since people tend to believe studies, no matter how inanccurate they are.

And incidentally, I read over a hundred studies gathering information for The Bodybuilding Truth, but I'm not a reference guy. I just think it's boring and "text book like" and I feel my job as a writer, in part, is to entertain. Some guys love that text book stuff. To each his own. Utimately, it doesn't matter because for every study that says one thing, another study says another. What's the point of just picking a side? I'd rather use deduction and present my reasoning. But hey, some people just want the studies. The funny thing is, one guy who posted on this thread accused me of just offering science without experience. How can I possibly be guilty of both sides of the issue???. It's just another example of people choosing ridicule over analysis.

Much of what is espoused here is (or should be) intelectual debate, and that should include the interpretation of studies -- especially those conducted for bodybuilding purposes because they tend to not be very well funded.

However, if I say something like, I worked for a supplement company and I saw THIS -- that is not an opinion. You may chose not to believe what I'm saying is accurate, but that's a seperate issue.

If I'm not mistaken, what ulter is saying is; " They only go after the guy who's carrying the ball."

I'm not sure what Silent Method is saying.

 

[jubei]

I find it is difficult to reason with teenagers, and I'm sure this board is full of them. I'm only 22 but trying to reason with a 16 year old is very exhausting for me.

 

[Fukkenshredded]

I couldn't do it, JA...sorry.

Had to delete this post folks.

 

[Juice Authority]

Owned again! Keep digging Nelson.

 

[Lestat]

excellent post!

 

[Fukkenshredded]

Nelson, lets just deal with logic, since it is what you question and where your strength is.

You agree that more muscle burns fat.
You state that the body burns muscle before fat, but carbs before either.

In the absence of carbs, then you assert that the body will burn muscle first.

So reconcile the following two aspects:

More muscle burns fat.
The body burns muscle before it burns fat.

They are your position, and to me, defy logic.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Owned again! Keep digging Nelson.

And so, once again, thanks to Juice Authority, another good thread degrades to garbage.

I'm done.

 

[thx9000]

More muscle burns fat.
The body burns muscle before it burns fat.

They are your postition, and to me, defy logic.

Where is the problem?

I haven't read this famous cardio thread, but I assume it is something like "the more muscle one has, the more fat that gets burnt long term" and "Durring cardio the body utilizes carbs first then muscle then fat". Is that right? If so there is no contradiction.

 

[Rio 2001]

That's a great quote.

RIO: I'm a little surprised. I thought you of all people would get my point. I never said that others should offer studies and I shouldn't, or that my experience is enough. I know I would never say that because it's ridiculous and it's stuff like that which frustrates me because it goes against all I believe. To put it in siple terms, I'm saying that a poorly conducted study is as valueless as no study at all, and it too many cases it's worse since people tend to believe studies, no matter how inanccurate they are.

Agreed, a bad study is worse than no study, that's exactly why I tried to emphasize that people should be able to make the distinction.
It just blows me away how you can be so sure about so many controversial aspects of bbdilng , training and nutrition, and I think you are maybe right in a lot of them, that you raise very interesting questions, as a matter of fact you have the abillity to QUESTION what is considered a fact, and strongly present what you believe it would be the truth, but I just think that in some cases you are pushing it too hard. I don't know how can you be so sure about things with so much evidence presented in contrary , even if you consider it weak evidence, isn't enough to raise the benefit of doubt???


And incidentally, I read over a hundred studies gathering information for The Bodybuilding Truth, but I'm not a reference guy. I just think it's boring and "text book like" and I feel my job as a writer, in part, is to entertain. Some guys love that text book stuff. To each his own. Utimately, it doesn't matter because for every study that says one thing, another study says another. What's the point of just picking a side? I'd rather use deduction and present my reasoning. But hey, some people just want the studies. The funny thing is, one guy who posted on this thread accused me of just offering science without experience. How can I possibly be guilty of both sides of the issue???. It's just another example of people choosing ridicule over analysis.

I'm not questioning your book, I'm sure it's quite a pleasant reading, but as you said since there can be different results from some studies there is not , from the scientific point of view, on these studies, a fact, a consense.

Much of what is espoused here is (or should be) intelectual debate, and that should include the interpretation of studies -- especially those conducted for bodybuilding purposes because they tend to not be very well funded.

However, if I say something like, I worked for a supplement company and I saw THIS -- that is not an opinion. You may chose not to believe what I'm saying is accurate, but that's a seperate issue.

If I'm not mistaken, what ulter is saying is; " They only go after the guy who's carrying the ball."

I'm not sure what Silent Method is saying.

 

[Juice Authority]

And so, once again, thanks to Juice Authority, another good thread degrades to garbage.

I'm done.

It would be a great thread if you would simply address FS' points instead of doing the Nelson 2-Step around the issues at hand. Come on Nelson, let's get to the "bottomline". LOL!

 

[Curious George]

Nelson, I just wanted to formally invite you to AF again to debate this.

This is a debate that I would like to see continue on a platform that it deserves. FS is convinced in his arguement as you are in yours. Like he said, and I am paraphrasing, This is where the learning comes from.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Nelson, I just wanted to formally invite you to AF again to debate this.

This is a debate that I would like to see continue on a platform that it deserves. FS is convinced in his arguement as you are in yours. Like he said, and I am paraphrasing, This is where the learning comes from.

Thanks for the offer George, but as FS knows, I've already stated that I will not participate in any thread that includes JA, since his sole intention is to derail the thread, disrupt the conversation and heckle me whenever possible. I asked him twice not to come and this thread and he ignored it. I have already gone to post on AF and within minutes JA was on it harrassing me to the point where the thread had to be closed. Since he is a member there, I see nothing that would stop him from doing the same thing again.

My appologies to the members of both EF and AF.

 

[sk*]

this famous cardio thread

Hey bro,

sadly that was my fault.

See ya on aim.

-sk

 

[Ulter]

No one harrasses anyone at AF. If they do, it only happens once.

 

[Curious George]

I understand your position Nelson, but a debate should continue nontheless.

 

[Fukkenshredded]

Thx9000

Muscle cannot be its own fuel. Think about it, if it were true, the more muscle we gained, the harder it would be to burn fat because the body would be using all the muscle for energy first, remember? But we just agreed that more muscle burns fat more effectively. And anyway, how can the fuel be the building block? Muscle would be self-annihilating.

So that’s the logical contradiction.

Not only that, it would be impossible to gain muscle in a carb-depleted state. We would atrophy and die. But it is possible to gain muscle in a carb-depleted state, provided we take in enough protein and fat.

Put another way, if the body prefers muscle as a substrate, it stands to reason that a body prefers to burn protein over fat. Anyone have any evidence of this? It would mean that a ketogenic diet would promote, specifically, obesity and muscle loss, since the body would be burning all the protein and storing the fat.

See?

And Nelson, with regards to JA...how effective is an unanswered insult?

 

[Juice Authority]

Thanks for the offer George, but as FS knows, I've already stated that I will not participate in any thread that includes JA, since his sole intention is to derail the thread, disrupt the conversation and heckle me whenever possible. I asked him twice not to come and this thread and he ignored it. I have already gone to post on AF and within minutes JA was on it harrassing me to the point where the thread had to be closed. Since he is a member there, I see nothing that would stop him from doing the same thing again.

My appologies to the members of both EF and AF.

Quit using me as an excuse you big baby. That's a cop out. I'll tell you what, if you go post this discussion over at AF, I'll keep my mouth shut. Instead of focusing in on me focus on responding to FS' points which you keep dancing around and avoiding altogether.

 

[variation]

Thx9000

But it is possible to gain muscle in a carb-depleted state, provided we take in enough protein and fat.

that is only because excess protein and fat will cause enough glucose conversion to trigger an insulin spike, without any significant amount if insulin you won't gain anything.

and as we know carbs -> glucose

glucose = insulin release

what I believe, though I'm not speaking for nelson, is that in a regular state we will use more fat for fuel, but during any kind of higher intensity exercise such as running etc.. if carbohydrates are not available more muscle will be oxidized as energy appose to fat, due to the fact that fat cannot be oxidized quickly enough to support a good steady flow of energy. so our body will use a more efficient source of energy 'muscle' which can be oxidized more quickly then fat.

 

[bbkingpin]

How do we know if one's experience is accurate?

This reminds me of Des Cartes ... It took a lot of thought before he was able to confirm just one thing ... "I think, therefore I am." (I had to read that for philosophy class in college ... excruciating.)

Nelson, your post is sort of hard to follow. How do we know if our experience is accurate??? All we know is what we saw, heard, thought, felt emotionally, touched, smelled, or tasted. It is how we interpret our experience that may be suspect. But not the experience itself. (Assuming we all have suficient mental capacity.)

But, as far as rational intelligent minds are concerned, there will usually only be one interpretation. "Reasonable minds." There are objective standards to the interpretation of a study, even if it is no more than "reasonable minds could not come to a different conclusion." (A legal concept for directing a verdict -- i.e., there's no point in sending it to the jury because if they are reasonably minded people they will only come to one result.)

This stuff is not as esoteric as people are making it out to be.

 

[thx9000]

FS,

I'm not actually trying to support the idea that "the body burns muscle before it burns fat."


However...

I understood the contradiction that you think exists. But, you need more than "In the absence of carbs...the body will burn muscle first" and "The body burns muscle before it burns fat" to reach that contradition. You are assuming that NM meant that body will continue to burn muscle until there's none left BEFORE it moves on to using fat. However, he doesn't specify any length of time, we don't even know that the body will burn it's carbs first then move onto muscle we just know that it will burn muscle before fat in the absence of carbs. BUT it may just burn muscle for short period of time. Likewise, from the information provided, we don't even know how the body performs in the presence of carbs. Does it burn ALL the carbs first? Some carbs and some fat? Some carbs and muscle and fat...

 

[Fukkenshredded]

And exactly how do you know it burns muscle before fat in the absence of carbs? How do you explain the unchanged plasma glucose, and the retarding of muscular gluconeogenesis?

Not to mention the excess of fatty acids and fat metabolites found, which indicate that fat is being burned?

Where is your data showing that muscle is burned before fat? I have asked Nelson repeatedly to show us all something, anything, anywhere, that will support this widely held belief.

Again, in the real world experiences of all of us here...who has actually lost an amount of muscle that corresponds to the theory that muscle wasting occurs preferentially over fatburning?

Remember, one pound of muscle yields 600 calories of energy.

Also, would you please detail for us the actual process of protien burning? Show us how it is more efficient and more quickly oxidized, so we can find out what the preferred mechanism really is.

 

[Rio 2001]

An 8hs fast isn´t enough to deplete liver/muscle glycogen, but it is enough to create a favorable metabolic environment for fat burning.

If you were at a complete depletion state, you would burn BCAAs along with FFAs when exercising, and performance would suffer with the absence of carbos.

Long bouts of low intensity training in a low insulin/ high adrenalin/glucagon state will oxidate mostly FFAs, but the overall calorie expenditure will be small as well as the effect on RMR and TEA.

Glucose plasma level will be maintained through remaining glycogenolysis and neoglucogenesis from triglycerides, but if glycogen is far depleted, BCAAs will be used.

High intensity aerobic training ( >80% max VO2) will burn mostly carbs , even if you are in a 8 hs fasting state, that period is just not enough to deplete glycogen stores ( unless you are on a Keto diet).However, RMR and TEA will be increased and total calorie expenditure will be greater. There is enough carbo reserve left to energize such high intensity bouts, and there will be no significant protein breakdown. On top of spending more calories, you´ll burn fat for longer.

Enough carbo = performance
Low insulin high adrenalin/glucagon environment = fat loss
High intensity = higher RMR and lasting fat burning effects

There are studies on prolongued exercises and as the hours goes by and glycogen stores are depleted, fat oxidation increase( up to 80%), then protein breakdown begin to be more significant.

Doing the average cardio sessions on an empty stomach will not burn down your hard earned muscle, and guess what, with proper nutrition, protein synthesis will be even stimulated.You probably loose more nitrogen after a muscle-damaging grueling RESISTANCE training, through rhabdomyolisis, than with a cardio session.But then again, what happens AFTER is what counts.

Doing cardio sessions in a depleted NUTRITIONAL state ( very low caloric diets) will progressively loose efficiency, lower RMR and thermal effects, so watch out chubby people, because overtraining/undernutrition is a NO-NO.

I enjoy beginning my day with a great cardio session, 30 to 40 minutes, empty stomach , heavy sprints at the end. Body heats through the roof, I feel I carry the effects of training with me for HOURS after it took place.

 

[Fukkenshredded]

Excellent point, Rio.

 

[bbkingpin]

I never read the AM cardio thread. Let me just say that from real world experience, AM cardio does not burn muscle. It is amazing how much fat I have stripped off in so little time doing AM cardio or just cardio on an empty stomach (5-6 hrs after meals) without any strength loss, and that was without the use of AAS. Since I wasn't on AAS back then I used HMB and glutamine pre-cardio. But I don't know if that made a difference.

 

[Juice Authority]

I never read the AM cardio thread. Let me just say that from real world experience, AM cardio does not burn muscle. It is amazing how much fat I have stripped off in so little time doing AM cardio or just cardio on an empty stomach (5-6 hrs after meals) without any strength loss, and that was without the use of AAS. Since I wasn't on AAS back then I used HMB and glutamine pre-cardio. But I don't know if that made a difference.

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=247580

It's actually a real good read minus Nelson's ignorance.

 

[thx9000]

And exactly how do you know it burns muscle before fat in the absence of carbs? How do you explain the unchanged plasma glucose, and the retarding of muscular gluconeogenesis?

Not to mention the excess of fatty acids and fat metabolites found, which indicate that fat is being burned?

Where is your data showing that muscle is burned before fat? I have asked Nelson repeatedly to show us all something, anything, anywhere, that will support this widely held belief.

Again, in the real world experiences of all of us here...who has actually lost an amount of muscle that corresponds to the theory that muscle wasting occurs preferentially over fatburning?

Remember, one pound of muscle yields 600 calories of energy.

Also, would you please detail for us the actual process of protien burning? Show us how it is more efficient and more quickly oxidized, so we can find out what the preferred mechanism really is.

Like I said, I am not trying to support his theory. I am just simply saying that IF they two statements you posted are really an accurate summary of what NM believes, THEN you are ASSUMING there is a contradiction. You are assuming that he is ALSO claiming that muscle gets burned exclusively in the absense of carbs and you are ASSUMING this state continues until all the muscle is gone. He doesn't say those two things...

 

[Fukkenshredded]

Think it through again. Whether or not muscle is burned exclusively is immaterial. He states that it is burned preferentially to fat, period. If that is the case, how then can more muscle promote fatloss without also promoting MORE muscle loss?

Thinking of it this way might help:

If its true that muscle is burned faster than fat, and preferentially to fat, then:

Wouldn't muscle always dissapear at a rate greater than that of fat?

Yes, it is a necessary conclusion of the assertion.

So it is therefore irreconcilable with the other assertion that more muscle promotes greater fatloss.

 

[jboldman]

Rio, congratualtions on a well thought out post. Unfortunately there is no way that nelson will be able to effectively respond so we will hear more whining about ja and meaningless studies. When asked to produce a single shred of evidence other than his opinion regarding this subject nelson tends to jump up on the soapbox and blame poorly designed studies, misguided members who believe everything they read, and mean individuals whose sole purpose in life is to harass him. When all else fails and the house of cards is falling, he goes on vacation but just for a while then comes back with another provactive post designed to draw attention to him. I truly thought and hoped that nelson could put aside the petty bickering and name calling and just offer effective well thought out and supported comments but somehow that just never happens.

FS, likewise a good post and likewise not answered. Don't stay up late.

Nelson, i'd like to extend an invitation to you to pop over to CEM. I can guarantee you that any name calling or overt harassment will be edited just as fast as the mods see it.

jb

 

[tri~zilla]

here is where i am......

Nelson, I respect you a lot, and the inflammatory response to your threads made this board a lot more interesting, LOL...but I think maybe people are trying to get from you the same level of evidence you are demanding from them.
You ask for double blind ( not possible in the cardio example, though), randomized, controlled ,full text studies, yet you offer to back your oppinion the years of experience and knowledge you have and the oppinion of the fine people you know. I suppose if you were at a symposium or a scientific debate, you'd be ruled out for refusing to present hard evidence.
You know, personal experience IS, after all, a very low degree of evidence, that cannot back up any kind of recomendation .
It is VERY HARD to say without any shed of a doubt that someyhing is the ULTIMATE TRUTH, specially in an area that has sooooo much research to be done, so many unanswered questions.
Just my thoughts...

nelson, if you require studies to be so definite, shouldn't we expect the same from your "LOGIC"??????

 

[thx9000]

Think it through again. Whether or not muscle is burned exclusively is immaterial. He states that it is burned preferentially to fat, period. If that is the case, how then can more muscle promote fatloss without also promoting MORE muscle loss?

Like I said, I did not read the famous cardio Thread.

Like I said, "...IF they two statements you posted are really an accurate summary of what NM believes..."

And your summary of what NM claimed was did not include "preferentially:"

Nelson, lets just deal with logic, since it is what you question and where your strength is.

You agree that more muscle burns fat.
You state that the body burns muscle before fat, but carbs before either.

In the absence of carbs, then you assert that the body will burn muscle first.

So reconcile the following two aspects:

More muscle burns fat.
The body burns muscle before it burns fat.

They are your position, and to me, defy logic.

 

[Juice Authority]

JA (who I asked not to participate in this thread, but he did anyway,) posted something on another board that in part,concured with my original stance even though he adamantly argued against it here. Why would someone do that? Because they're trend followers. Whatever position is popular at any particular time or place is the one they'll adopt.

A few others here chose to parrot the old accusation that I reject all studies or that I claim whatever I say is gospel, which is completely untrue, but again, it's been said so much, it's accepted thinking. Adolf Hitler said, "Tell a lie big enough and long enough, and it will become the truth. What great fortune for leaders that the masses don't think." Freighteningly poignant. (Now watch, I'll be accused of being a Nazi)

On to FS's very astute comments.

There is one very big flaw in what he said, if I'm reading it correctly. He states;

"We have all experienced otherwise, and experience is proof."

Aah, now we start to get into four dimentional thinking. This is what seperates the men from the boys. (And agin, JA, stay out.) I offer this question to you FS...

How do we know if one's experience is accurate?

Just like RIO's funny spider analogy, many people draw conclusions based on their "experience" but the information is cross sensed. Here's an example:"I took creatine and got a cold. Therefore it is my experience that creatine gave me a cold." It is VERY difficult to sway someone from believing this isn't so. They took creatine They know that for a fact. That didn't have a cold prior to taking it. Then they did. Personal experience. Proof.

But of course, it's an erroneous perception.

I recently got a letter from someone who read my first book and he said he could have bought a car with the money he would have saved on supplements had he read my book first. One example he gave was that he gained 12 pounds while using Biotests Mag 10. Of course, according to Biotests recommendations he added 1000 calories a day to his diet. Duh. But there are thousands of people who will believe it's the Mag 10. There experience tells them so.

You also say; "What a study does, Nelson, is isolate the variables."

Okay, condesending tone aside, this is exactly what I was saying the studies in question did NOT do. And I explained why. But but that time, too many people were shouting down everything and anything that was said.

You then say, it wouldn't matter if people did better on a Tuesday than a Wednesday because we know that isn't a factor. But what if someone made it a factor? How do you prove working out on a Tuesday isn't better than working out on a Wednesday? Well,logic. Not another study. But god forbid if someone showed another study conducted on a Tuesday. They'll ride you out of town on a rail.

Thus is mob mentality. And we see that A LOT on this board and it's even worse on some of the other BB boards. Sometimes I think bodybuilders are the most myopic, annoying people on the planet. (Well, some of them, at least).

You then summerize by asking for a study showing my position. But as demonstated, the studies you showed were invalid since they were not conducted in an accurate manner. I had no studies (none readily available at least) but I offered logical retort. That's when the villagers began lighting the torches.

I realize this is a very heady discussion and in the end, it's essentially sophistry. The pragmatic part of me says; IF, the theory of burning fat on an empty stomach has any validity at all, arguable as it may be, the amount would be so slight it wouldn't be worth cosidering unless you really enjoy running first thing in the morning on an empty stomach. I'd rather eat glass.

All in all, it seems ridiculous that such a conversation would ellicit the level of hatred it inspired some people. Yes. Hatred. It's been demonstrated in all its ugliess many times over. And that's another thing to consider. When one person antagonizes with lies and another refutes the claims, they are not mutually guilty of bickering. People should see that. But they don't. All they want to know is, who's winning? Because nobody wants to be on the losing side.

To quote the most horrible man who ever lived once again: "History is written by the victors."

Everyone says they want the truth. Everyone believes they tell it. Many are willing to espouse it -- as long as it's the popular trend. But the reality is, it's a lot tougher standing up for it when the majority says it's wrong. It's tougher still to realize you never had it in the first place. And that too, is what seperates the men from the boys.

Ahhhh, Nelson. You truly do make me chuckle. I offerred up the other information on the cardio thread over at AF because it did support your position but for different reasons than the ones you stated. In essence, I did your homework for you so you should thanking me instead of insulting me but oh well.

The central fact of matter is that studies in and of themselves are not the ultimate Alpha and Omega. That part I agree with you. Where we differ is I believe controlled studies provide a good reference point and framework that support one's opinion. Your major shortcoming is that you simply dismiss studies as useless and irrevelant unless they suport conclusions. That is what annoys people about you. I have never seen you admit that you were wrong other than in your "goodbye" thread and trust me that was for self-fullfilling reasons.

 

[Juice Authority]

Rio, congratualtions on a well thought out post. Unfortunately there is no way that nelson will be able to effectively respond so we will hear more whining about ja and meaningless studies. When asked to produce a single shred of evidence other than his opinion regarding this subject nelson tends to jump up on the soapbox and blame poorly designed studies, misguided members who believe everything they read, and mean individuals whose sole purpose in life is to harass him. When all else fails and the house of cards is falling, he goes on vacation but just for a while then comes back with another provactive post designed to draw attention to him. I truly thought and hoped that nelson could put aside the petty bickering and name calling and just offer effective well thought out and supported comments but somehow that just never happens.

FS, likewise a good post and likewise not answered. Don't stay up late.

Nelson, i'd like to extend an invitation to you to pop over to CEM. I can guarantee you that any name calling or overt harassment will be edited just as fast as the mods see it.

jb

Bro, Nelson's failure to respond with evidence that supports his opinion/conclusions has nothing to do with poorly designed studies, misguided members who believe everything they read, or mean individuals whose sole purpose in life is to harass him. Nelson simply cannot find the evidence in question because it usually doesn't exist other than in his own mind. The evidence is his "experience", which is laughable at best. He purposely starts threads like this to draw attention to his theories, which are by their very nature, controversial and then he whines and complains that people are attacking him when solid evidence is presented to the contrary in the form of controlled studies that refute his position. It's really infantile and I hope he grows up one day.

Look what he's doing here. He's using me as the scapegoat to avoid addressing the issues at hand because he knows that he can't back up his position. It's really sad.

 

[Juice Authority]

Either you're being honest, in which case I'm dumbfounded by a lack of command for basic logic, or you simply chose not to argue the charge of hypocrisy.

Karma to you!

 

[Silent Method]

I'm not sure what Silent Method is saying.

Either you're being honest, in which case I'm dumbfounded by a lack of command for basic logic, or you simply chose not to argue the charge of hypocrisy.




BTW...

- Regarding morning, empty stomach cardio, I'm not a fan. I simply think that the practice sets one up for catabolism.

- Trace the metabolic pathways of the three macronutrients. The answers regarding fat and protein rates of utilization for fuel are much more complex then simple generic "cardio" on an empty stomach. INTENSITY and DURATION must be considered.

- Also, in some instances, the TOTAL metabolic output (calories in versus calories out) that occurs in a recent and moderately nourished athlete has been shown to often outweigh the calories burned by an athlete with an empty stomach.

- Lastly, in seeking an answer to the protein/fatty acid utilization question, duration is a huge factor. The body has a much higher affinity for the utilization of carbohydrate and fat first. Thus, it is erroneous to say that protein will be utilized FIRST. However, with time, protein will become increasingly utilized for fuel.

 

[flexed1]

I have actually stopped reading posts by Nelson as I have seen him attack anybody who does not agree with what he says. This includes other mods myself not included.

Funny I read his book or some of it and unlike many others did enjoy what I read. What I don't enjoy is his way or no way on every post he does. Sorry that is not real life and it for sure won't fly here. When challenged he slides sidways to avoid direct questions to what he proposes.

Again all aside I like his info but not how he flames when folks don't agree with him and there are as I have seen many.

 

[Juice Authority]

I have actually stopped reading posts by Nelson as I ahve seen him attack anybody who deos not agree with what he says. This includes other mods myself not included.

Funny I read his book or some of it and unlike many others did enjoy what I read. What I don't enjoy is his way or no way on every post he does. Sorry that is not real life and it for sure won't fly here. When challenged he slides sidways to avoid direct questions to what he proposes.

Again all aside I like his info but not how he flames when folks don't agree with him and there are as I have seen many.

Flexed, from what I can tell you're a stand up guy and very tolerant of other people's viewpoints. Nelson attacks anyone who disagrees with him, which is quite aggravating and immature.