Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

For Open Minded Thinkers Only

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
here is where i am......

Rio 2001 said:
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"??????
 
Fukkenshredded said:
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:"

Fukkenshredded said:
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 said:
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.
 
jboldman said:
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.
 
Silent Method said:

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.

:FRlol: :FRlol: :FRlol:

Karma to you!
 
Nelson Montana said:
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.
 
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.
 
flexed1 said:
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.
 
Top Bottom