Muscle Glycogen and Growth
- Thread starter Martin Levac
- Start date
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 22 2008,15:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You do realize that fat in the past was not used as a temporary storage (i.e. hours or a day,) right? Do you think our ancestors would have survived periods when food was scarce if fat functioned in the way you suggest?</div>
Yeah. I guess proof is needed for your claims there too, huh?
(Totentanz @ Mar. 22 2008,15:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You do realize that fat in the past was not used as a temporary storage (i.e. hours or a day,) right? Do you think our ancestors would have survived periods when food was scarce if fat functioned in the way you suggest?</div>
Yeah. I guess proof is needed for your claims there too, huh?
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 22 2008,20:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 22 2008,15:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You do realize that fat in the past was not used as a temporary storage (i.e. hours or a day,) right? Do you think our ancestors would have survived periods when food was scarce if fat functioned in the way you suggest?</div>
Yeah. I guess proof is needed for your claims there too, huh?</div>
Luckily, my claims have proof. However, since you are the one making the initial claims, the burden of proof lies on you. I'm not asking you to disprove anything I said, I'm asking for third party, non-anecdotal proof of your claims. Should be easy.
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 22 2008,20:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 22 2008,15:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You do realize that fat in the past was not used as a temporary storage (i.e. hours or a day,) right? Do you think our ancestors would have survived periods when food was scarce if fat functioned in the way you suggest?</div>
Yeah. I guess proof is needed for your claims there too, huh?</div>
Luckily, my claims have proof. However, since you are the one making the initial claims, the burden of proof lies on you. I'm not asking you to disprove anything I said, I'm asking for third party, non-anecdotal proof of your claims. Should be easy.
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 22 2008,20:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 22 2008,20:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 22 2008,15:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You do realize that fat in the past was not used as a temporary storage (i.e. hours or a day,) right? Do you think our ancestors would have survived periods when food was scarce if fat functioned in the way you suggest?</div>
Yeah. I guess proof is needed for your claims there too, huh?</div>
Luckily, my claims have proof. However, since you are the one making the initial claims, the burden of proof lies on you. I'm not asking you to disprove anything I said, I'm asking for third party, non-anecdotal proof of your claims. Should be easy.</div>
See post 105 by me. Then see post 114 by Aaron. It seems Aaron implies he did claim adipose tissue's job was a temporary fuel buffer. But I looked for such a claim by him and didn't find any.
I guess I did make the first claim on the subject, huh? So I guess the onus is on me.
See Gerald Reaven and his research on insulin, obesity, diabetes and what he came to call Syndrome X but we call it Metabolic Syndrome.
While I think it's not outright evidence of my claims, it does suggest that we are not the descendants of those who were obese. Instead, it suggests we are the descendants of those who were lean.
Tit for tat. Where's the proof of your claims?
(Totentanz @ Mar. 22 2008,20:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 22 2008,20:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 22 2008,15:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You do realize that fat in the past was not used as a temporary storage (i.e. hours or a day,) right? Do you think our ancestors would have survived periods when food was scarce if fat functioned in the way you suggest?</div>
Yeah. I guess proof is needed for your claims there too, huh?</div>
Luckily, my claims have proof. However, since you are the one making the initial claims, the burden of proof lies on you. I'm not asking you to disprove anything I said, I'm asking for third party, non-anecdotal proof of your claims. Should be easy.</div>
See post 105 by me. Then see post 114 by Aaron. It seems Aaron implies he did claim adipose tissue's job was a temporary fuel buffer. But I looked for such a claim by him and didn't find any.
I guess I did make the first claim on the subject, huh? So I guess the onus is on me.
See Gerald Reaven and his research on insulin, obesity, diabetes and what he came to call Syndrome X but we call it Metabolic Syndrome.
While I think it's not outright evidence of my claims, it does suggest that we are not the descendants of those who were obese. Instead, it suggests we are the descendants of those who were lean.
Tit for tat. Where's the proof of your claims?
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 22 2008,15:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 22 2008,15:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I admit, the above is only a hypothesis. But unlike the "eat more, grow bigger" hypothesis, we can find abundant proof of it in the scientific literature dating back maybe 150 years. So it should be easy to find.</div>
It should be easy for you to prove then.
You do realize that fat in the past was not used as a temporary storage (i.e. hours or a day,) right? Do you think our ancestors would have survived periods when food was scarce if fat functioned in the way you suggest?</div>
I just realized that what you wrote is pure speculation. You can't find proof. Yet in a subsequent post you say "Luckily my claims have proof" The only thing we will find to support your speculation is bits and pieces. Since you ask for proof yourself of my claims, we can't consider those bits and pieces as proof of the same value as that you ask of me. You are not as strict with your claims as you are with mine.
We call this bias.
(Totentanz @ Mar. 22 2008,15:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 22 2008,15:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I admit, the above is only a hypothesis. But unlike the "eat more, grow bigger" hypothesis, we can find abundant proof of it in the scientific literature dating back maybe 150 years. So it should be easy to find.</div>
It should be easy for you to prove then.
You do realize that fat in the past was not used as a temporary storage (i.e. hours or a day,) right? Do you think our ancestors would have survived periods when food was scarce if fat functioned in the way you suggest?</div>
I just realized that what you wrote is pure speculation. You can't find proof. Yet in a subsequent post you say "Luckily my claims have proof" The only thing we will find to support your speculation is bits and pieces. Since you ask for proof yourself of my claims, we can't consider those bits and pieces as proof of the same value as that you ask of me. You are not as strict with your claims as you are with mine.
We call this bias.
Stop before this becomes a pissing contest, if it isn't allready. Refuting the obvious (lean ancestors and such) isn't worthy of discussion, and when proof is required, we don't tell people to go take a course on something, we post the references.
Otherwise, nothing is gained here and this thread dies useless. Other things like the sky being blue don't need proof when used as a reference. But the way this is going, we're all going to have to start proving that eating food keeps us alive.
Gentlemen, I believe the discussion at hand had something to do with building bodies without eating carbs.
Otherwise, nothing is gained here and this thread dies useless. Other things like the sky being blue don't need proof when used as a reference. But the way this is going, we're all going to have to start proving that eating food keeps us alive.
Gentlemen, I believe the discussion at hand had something to do with building bodies without eating carbs.
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(quadancer @ Mar. 22 2008,21:50)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
building bodies without eating carbs.</div>
So simple.
(quadancer @ Mar. 22 2008,21:50)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
building bodies without eating carbs.</div>
So simple.
Martin Levac
New Member
Remember what my original argument was? That a carbohydrate metabolic profile is abnormal and any conclusion we draw from it is incorrect. These below are the conclusions Gary Taubes came to in his book Good Calories Bad Calories (p. 454). I won't argue any of them since I'm not the one who made those conclusions. But I read the book and I agree with them entirely. And I think that they support my claim that a carbohydrate metabolism is abnormal and any conclusion we draw from it is incorrect. The information contained in his book (although that's not where I got it from at first) is what drove me to make the claims in the first place. Here they are:
============================================================
1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease, or any other chronic disease of civilization.
2. The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis--the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.
3. Sugars--sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup specifically--are particularly harmful, probably because the combination of fructose and glucose simultaneously elevates insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbohydrates.
4. Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and the other chronic diseases of civilization.
5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior.
6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child to grow taller. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.
7. Fattening and obesity are caused by an imbalance--a disequilibrium--in the hormonal regulation of adipose tissue and fat from the adipose tissue and its subsequent oxidation. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this balance.
8. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated--either chronically or after a meal--we accumulate fat in our fat tissue. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and use it for fuel.
9. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. The fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be.
10. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.
============================================================
(I typed it myself so any error in the text is entirely mine.)
His book is full of references to research papers, books, interviews, and studies. It's a good source of information on the subject. It's where I learned about Gerald Reaven and Ancel Keys. Mainly, the book intends to shed light on the reasons we now believe the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis and it does a good job of it in my opinion.
============================================================
1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease, or any other chronic disease of civilization.
2. The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis--the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.
3. Sugars--sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup specifically--are particularly harmful, probably because the combination of fructose and glucose simultaneously elevates insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbohydrates.
4. Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and the other chronic diseases of civilization.
5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior.
6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child to grow taller. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.
7. Fattening and obesity are caused by an imbalance--a disequilibrium--in the hormonal regulation of adipose tissue and fat from the adipose tissue and its subsequent oxidation. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this balance.
8. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated--either chronically or after a meal--we accumulate fat in our fat tissue. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and use it for fuel.
9. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. The fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be.
10. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.
============================================================
(I typed it myself so any error in the text is entirely mine.)
His book is full of references to research papers, books, interviews, and studies. It's a good source of information on the subject. It's where I learned about Gerald Reaven and Ancel Keys. Mainly, the book intends to shed light on the reasons we now believe the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis and it does a good job of it in my opinion.
Martin Levac
New Member
See bottom of page, "A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics:
http://nmsociety.org/index.p....emid=46
http://nmsociety.org/index.p....emid=46
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Mar. 23 2008,03:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do a search for
Zealot</div>
Do a search for
Obtuse
(Aaron_F @ Mar. 23 2008,03:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do a search for
Zealot</div>
Do a search for
Obtuse
My eyes begin to hurt from rolling so much, but since insulin is the key you wish to expound upon and only quote from a book, then I supply this from "Knowledge and Nonsense" about insulin; just one quote, mind you.
"Insulin sends messages to you brain regarding eating patterns. For example, injecting insulin directly into the brains of animals decreases hunger and appetite. Insulin is very responsive to single meals. It goes up when you eat and back down after a few hours. It mainly affects short-term reactions to food. Insulin levels are easy to control just by making food choices. (one caveat for you, but...) It is often misinterpreted as the cause of obesity. A specific level of insulin actually decreases food intake.
Insulin is a complex hormone that serves many purposes in the body. It is not as simple as the supposed nutrition experts would have you believe."
Other uses were to include GH production from insulin and storage and sythesis of proteins, as the insulin serves as a regulator for mixed composition meals. It appears the excess insulin IS a factor, but only one of many in the causes of obesity, and thereby blown out of proportion by the lowcarb diet guru's.
I really loved it when I read "Studies by Keckwick and Pawan are cited by Atkins to support his contention that diet composition rather than caloric intake is the key variable for weight loss. Yet, despite this contention, these studies support the notion that calories DO count." Oleosen and Quade went on to further these studies with longer time periods and the end result was that diets on low carbs were no more or less effective than other diets. The thing that would interest me is the extra release of GH from fat intake, although we know now that GH is a very small part of muscle gain unless you're taking it in extrageneously (sp?).
Keeping on track, the major definition of this website is muscle gain, not fatloss. Our interest in that is due to cutting cycles only. When studying diets, it's rarely even mentioned anything about sparing lean mass, henceforth guys like Lyle McDonald come to mind regarding athletes.
For me, my interest would be to the full extremes: how to bulk lean. Anything else has been beat to death, except on whatever planet Taubes is from.
"Insulin sends messages to you brain regarding eating patterns. For example, injecting insulin directly into the brains of animals decreases hunger and appetite. Insulin is very responsive to single meals. It goes up when you eat and back down after a few hours. It mainly affects short-term reactions to food. Insulin levels are easy to control just by making food choices. (one caveat for you, but...) It is often misinterpreted as the cause of obesity. A specific level of insulin actually decreases food intake.
Insulin is a complex hormone that serves many purposes in the body. It is not as simple as the supposed nutrition experts would have you believe."
Other uses were to include GH production from insulin and storage and sythesis of proteins, as the insulin serves as a regulator for mixed composition meals. It appears the excess insulin IS a factor, but only one of many in the causes of obesity, and thereby blown out of proportion by the lowcarb diet guru's.
I really loved it when I read "Studies by Keckwick and Pawan are cited by Atkins to support his contention that diet composition rather than caloric intake is the key variable for weight loss. Yet, despite this contention, these studies support the notion that calories DO count." Oleosen and Quade went on to further these studies with longer time periods and the end result was that diets on low carbs were no more or less effective than other diets. The thing that would interest me is the extra release of GH from fat intake, although we know now that GH is a very small part of muscle gain unless you're taking it in extrageneously (sp?).
Keeping on track, the major definition of this website is muscle gain, not fatloss. Our interest in that is due to cutting cycles only. When studying diets, it's rarely even mentioned anything about sparing lean mass, henceforth guys like Lyle McDonald come to mind regarding athletes.
For me, my interest would be to the full extremes: how to bulk lean. Anything else has been beat to death, except on whatever planet Taubes is from.
Martin Levac
New Member
The quote from Taubes book and the quote from Hale's book should both be subjected to the same scrutiny. Insulin is what everything sits on. So, your view on insulin absolutely determines your view on everything else too. If you think insulin is not the cause of obesity as Hale suggested, then it can't be such a dominating factor in muscle growth either. At least not in the context of bulking up. But if it is as crucial as Taubes concluded, then we must consider that our current knowledge on muscle growth is somehow flawed.
If Hale thinks insulin doesn't play such a significant role, and if insulin is indeed as significant as Taubes said, then maybe Hale is giving advice that is bound to fail. If Taubes is full of it and insulin is not so important, then Hale makes sense.
We could look at the body of evidence that each has looked at for the foundation of their book. I don't know how much Hale looked at so I can't say anything at this time. But Taubes says he interviewed over 600 people who are working or who worked in the field of nutrition, obesity, diabetes, various chronic diseases, insulin and other hormones research, etc. And that's just interviews. He referenced about a thousand other books and maybe another 400 papers. From either side of the discussion, too. So that's quite a bit to look at right there.
We could also look at the professional formation of each. I don't know what Hale's formation is so I can't comment on it. I'll take your word for it though. We can read about Gary Taubes on wikipedia. I think he comes from Earth with academic degrees to prove it.
Or we could look at how long it took for each to write his book. Taubes took about 5-7 years full time for his. Or we could look at which field each work in and compare the relative proximity they are to the subject being discussed. Or we could look at how deeply they analyzed the subject. Or if you prefer, how many pages each dedicated to it. Or we could look at how many other professionals of the same field agree with each. Scientific journalists for Taubes, athletic coaches for Hale. Or how many professionals from each other's field: Athletic coaches for Taubes, scientific journalists for Hale.
The point of this exercise is to be critical of all the information, not just the information that comes from "elsewhere". Be as strict with what you already know as with what you don't yet know. This way, both the old knowledge and the new have equal weight.
The irony of the higher scrutiny we put new knowledge through is that when all is said and done, old knowledge can't stand a chance. That's because old knowledge doesn't have the merit of having passed the test. So it's easily discarded as invalid once new knowledge is validated. It's dismissed without a second thought. In that context, if you value your current knowledge, it would be natural to put it through the same rigorous testing as you do the new one. It would then carry as much weight and would not be so easily dismissed.
But then, if we put up a wall of "indisputable scientific proof" as protection for the old knowledge, it's not a test, it's a mechanism to avoid testing the old knowledge when new stuff comes along. We're being lazy. We don't want to think about it. We don't want to get rid of our identity. It's our beliefs after all. Or some other reason to stick with the old. When the test is the protection, it ensures the information is still valid once it encounters contradictory data. Or, as the case may be, it replaces the old invalid data with the one now testing valid. Or further still, it incorporates the new to the old because it was found compatible somehow.
When a researcher begins work in his field, he must first try to disprove the old truths. He can't just accept the old truths as law. He must question them. It's both a test of his skill and a test of the truths themselves. It's a test of his skill to make sure he knows how to proceed. It's a test of the old truths to make sure he has a solid foundation to discover further truths. It is said that a cancer researcher that can't cure cancer in mice should look for another job (we can cure cancer in mice).
The scientific method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Members of this board pride themselves that their method is founded on science after all. So let's look at what coach Hale and Gary Taubes said and see if it holds up to scrutiny. There is ample research done on insulin so it should be easy to find evidence either way. I suggest we look at Gerald Reaven, he's a dominating figure on insulin research. Another name is Richard D. Feinman. We can find research from both on pubmed, I think.
If we validate insulin as the cause of obesity, it's only logical to conclude that our current perception of the classical bulking process is flawed and we should think about that for a moment. If we validate that insulin is inconsequential, then we continue with our old bulking method and see how it goes.
If I was bulking, I'd much prefer to put all my food (all my efforts really) toward building muscle instead of seeing any of it wasted on fat. So the possibility that I can do it should naturally be considered.
-edit-
I just realized that the whole point is not to do the research ourselves. Instead, it's to make sure the source of information (i.e. Gary Taubes or Coach Hale) applied the scientific method on their data before they published it. Ultimately, it's a matter of trust. I trust Taubes. You trust Hale.
-edit-
If Hale thinks insulin doesn't play such a significant role, and if insulin is indeed as significant as Taubes said, then maybe Hale is giving advice that is bound to fail. If Taubes is full of it and insulin is not so important, then Hale makes sense.
We could look at the body of evidence that each has looked at for the foundation of their book. I don't know how much Hale looked at so I can't say anything at this time. But Taubes says he interviewed over 600 people who are working or who worked in the field of nutrition, obesity, diabetes, various chronic diseases, insulin and other hormones research, etc. And that's just interviews. He referenced about a thousand other books and maybe another 400 papers. From either side of the discussion, too. So that's quite a bit to look at right there.
We could also look at the professional formation of each. I don't know what Hale's formation is so I can't comment on it. I'll take your word for it though. We can read about Gary Taubes on wikipedia. I think he comes from Earth with academic degrees to prove it.
Or we could look at how long it took for each to write his book. Taubes took about 5-7 years full time for his. Or we could look at which field each work in and compare the relative proximity they are to the subject being discussed. Or we could look at how deeply they analyzed the subject. Or if you prefer, how many pages each dedicated to it. Or we could look at how many other professionals of the same field agree with each. Scientific journalists for Taubes, athletic coaches for Hale. Or how many professionals from each other's field: Athletic coaches for Taubes, scientific journalists for Hale.
The point of this exercise is to be critical of all the information, not just the information that comes from "elsewhere". Be as strict with what you already know as with what you don't yet know. This way, both the old knowledge and the new have equal weight.
The irony of the higher scrutiny we put new knowledge through is that when all is said and done, old knowledge can't stand a chance. That's because old knowledge doesn't have the merit of having passed the test. So it's easily discarded as invalid once new knowledge is validated. It's dismissed without a second thought. In that context, if you value your current knowledge, it would be natural to put it through the same rigorous testing as you do the new one. It would then carry as much weight and would not be so easily dismissed.
But then, if we put up a wall of "indisputable scientific proof" as protection for the old knowledge, it's not a test, it's a mechanism to avoid testing the old knowledge when new stuff comes along. We're being lazy. We don't want to think about it. We don't want to get rid of our identity. It's our beliefs after all. Or some other reason to stick with the old. When the test is the protection, it ensures the information is still valid once it encounters contradictory data. Or, as the case may be, it replaces the old invalid data with the one now testing valid. Or further still, it incorporates the new to the old because it was found compatible somehow.
When a researcher begins work in his field, he must first try to disprove the old truths. He can't just accept the old truths as law. He must question them. It's both a test of his skill and a test of the truths themselves. It's a test of his skill to make sure he knows how to proceed. It's a test of the old truths to make sure he has a solid foundation to discover further truths. It is said that a cancer researcher that can't cure cancer in mice should look for another job (we can cure cancer in mice).
The scientific method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Members of this board pride themselves that their method is founded on science after all. So let's look at what coach Hale and Gary Taubes said and see if it holds up to scrutiny. There is ample research done on insulin so it should be easy to find evidence either way. I suggest we look at Gerald Reaven, he's a dominating figure on insulin research. Another name is Richard D. Feinman. We can find research from both on pubmed, I think.
If we validate insulin as the cause of obesity, it's only logical to conclude that our current perception of the classical bulking process is flawed and we should think about that for a moment. If we validate that insulin is inconsequential, then we continue with our old bulking method and see how it goes.
If I was bulking, I'd much prefer to put all my food (all my efforts really) toward building muscle instead of seeing any of it wasted on fat. So the possibility that I can do it should naturally be considered.
-edit-
I just realized that the whole point is not to do the research ourselves. Instead, it's to make sure the source of information (i.e. Gary Taubes or Coach Hale) applied the scientific method on their data before they published it. Ultimately, it's a matter of trust. I trust Taubes. You trust Hale.
-edit-
Martin Levac
New Member
You know maxcondition.com? It's coach Hale's website. Bottom of the page, last paragraph:
http://maxcondition.com/page.php?3
I quote:
"The key message with my work is don't be afraid to question authority and conduct your own research."
Good advice.
http://maxcondition.com/page.php?3
I quote:
"The key message with my work is don't be afraid to question authority and conduct your own research."
Good advice.
Knowledge and Nonsense was founded from research and of course statistical studies for the purpose of dispelling myths surrounding bodybuilding, diet and strength, that's all.
For some strange reason, according to your camp, a couple million athletes, thousands of dieticians and a vast host of scientists are completely befuddled regarding the usage of carbohydrates in the diet. But several researchers and writers now have it right? Is this what you're saying or do I have it wrong?
I'm perfectly willing to consider new science myself and I concede that we don't know everything about macros and insulin, although we've learned a huge amount in the last decade. Simply put outside of argument, I would love to see a host of people, preferably BB'ers who've cut out carbs, gained mass and lost fat. Were this possible as you infer, it would take the world by storm...again. I would be all too ready to try something new if I thought it would work, but man, I'm just not convinced amidst two conflicting bodies of scientific (I must assume) evidence? And then the former failure of this diet with the bodybuilder camp sort of nails it down for me. Philosophy won't make any difference to my belly or my triceps.
Heck, I'll make it even easier. Hook me up with ONE accredited bodybuilder who is an advocate of it so I can see what he has to say. That would spark my interest enough to set me on to some research time.
Edit: thanx for the link; I was unaware of the vastness of his site, and I posted a question for his thoughts on this matter, awaiting reply from him.
For some strange reason, according to your camp, a couple million athletes, thousands of dieticians and a vast host of scientists are completely befuddled regarding the usage of carbohydrates in the diet. But several researchers and writers now have it right? Is this what you're saying or do I have it wrong?
I'm perfectly willing to consider new science myself and I concede that we don't know everything about macros and insulin, although we've learned a huge amount in the last decade. Simply put outside of argument, I would love to see a host of people, preferably BB'ers who've cut out carbs, gained mass and lost fat. Were this possible as you infer, it would take the world by storm...again. I would be all too ready to try something new if I thought it would work, but man, I'm just not convinced amidst two conflicting bodies of scientific (I must assume) evidence? And then the former failure of this diet with the bodybuilder camp sort of nails it down for me. Philosophy won't make any difference to my belly or my triceps.
Heck, I'll make it even easier. Hook me up with ONE accredited bodybuilder who is an advocate of it so I can see what he has to say. That would spark my interest enough to set me on to some research time.
Edit: thanx for the link; I was unaware of the vastness of his site, and I posted a question for his thoughts on this matter, awaiting reply from him.
Martin Levac
New Member
The data is not new. It's old. It started before either of us was born. It began in the 20s and we had figured it all out by the 60s. We know exactly what insulin does and we know exactly what controls insulin. We just choose to ignore it. At least, that's what coach Hale seems to be doing in his book. Aaron tried to ignore it as well with his post trying to explain how fat was accumulated. At least, he tried to shift the focus away from insulin and toward other agents such as ASP.
We are so befuddled that instead of advising to stop eating carbs, we advise to cut up the intestines to reduce the amount of nutrients that can be absorbed. I mean, who thought up this hack job to fix a psychological problem? That's just wrong. That's how we see it, a psychological problem. We think we grow fat because we overeat. Thus, it's a behavioral problem. So we cut up his intestines to fix the problem with his brain?!?
We're so befuddled that instead of advising to stop eating carbs to treat diabetes, we advise to eat more carbs. Instead of advising to stop eating carbs, we advise to take drugs. And when it grows worse, we advise to take even more drugs. It goes on like this until we advise on which coffin to put the body in.
I mean, if there was any hint that something was wrong, that would be it.
I hooked you up but somehow you didn't see it. Jeff Volek. Go on pubmed, search for Jamie Hale and then for Jeff Volek. I can't find Hale's name yet he claims he's a researcher in the field of fitness and nutrition. I can find Volek's name on 5 pages of results. If you wanted accreditation, pubmed is it. But maybe you wanted accreditation of a different sort. See Volek's bio.
I'd like it if I wasn't the only one who brought new ideas to the discussion. What say you?
We are so befuddled that instead of advising to stop eating carbs, we advise to cut up the intestines to reduce the amount of nutrients that can be absorbed. I mean, who thought up this hack job to fix a psychological problem? That's just wrong. That's how we see it, a psychological problem. We think we grow fat because we overeat. Thus, it's a behavioral problem. So we cut up his intestines to fix the problem with his brain?!?
We're so befuddled that instead of advising to stop eating carbs to treat diabetes, we advise to eat more carbs. Instead of advising to stop eating carbs, we advise to take drugs. And when it grows worse, we advise to take even more drugs. It goes on like this until we advise on which coffin to put the body in.
I mean, if there was any hint that something was wrong, that would be it.
I hooked you up but somehow you didn't see it. Jeff Volek. Go on pubmed, search for Jamie Hale and then for Jeff Volek. I can't find Hale's name yet he claims he's a researcher in the field of fitness and nutrition. I can find Volek's name on 5 pages of results. If you wanted accreditation, pubmed is it. But maybe you wanted accreditation of a different sort. See Volek's bio.
I'd like it if I wasn't the only one who brought new ideas to the discussion. What say you?
Martin Levac
New Member
The rest of Hale's quote:
==============================================================
The key message with this book is don't be afraid to question authority and conduct your own research. Realize the only true authority in science is science itself. Approach fitness and nutrition with an open mind and realize the majority of information you have probably been exposed to is mis-leading and in some cases deceitful. Keep up to date with the current research. Don't be afraid to debate your beliefs. Never judge an individuals exercise and nutrition knowledge by their degrees, certificates, physique, or athletic ability, but by their passion, ability to explain and willingness to debate their beliefs and proclamations. Not many of the "so-called" fitness experts are willing to debate their statements when challenged. If you are not willing to debate your statements with formidable opponents you shouldn't be making those statements.
============================================================
I like this line:
"Never judge an individuals exercise and nutrition knowledge by their degrees, certificates, physique, or athletic ability, but by their passion, ability to explain and willingness to debate their beliefs and proclamations."
Translation:
Never judge an individual by the facts he can show you (his physical ability, his academic accomplishments, his accreditations from recognized sources, etc) but instead, trust his sale's pitch (passion, ability to speak, willingness to debate beliefs and proclamations).
Yeah.
==============================================================
The key message with this book is don't be afraid to question authority and conduct your own research. Realize the only true authority in science is science itself. Approach fitness and nutrition with an open mind and realize the majority of information you have probably been exposed to is mis-leading and in some cases deceitful. Keep up to date with the current research. Don't be afraid to debate your beliefs. Never judge an individuals exercise and nutrition knowledge by their degrees, certificates, physique, or athletic ability, but by their passion, ability to explain and willingness to debate their beliefs and proclamations. Not many of the "so-called" fitness experts are willing to debate their statements when challenged. If you are not willing to debate your statements with formidable opponents you shouldn't be making those statements.
============================================================
I like this line:
"Never judge an individuals exercise and nutrition knowledge by their degrees, certificates, physique, or athletic ability, but by their passion, ability to explain and willingness to debate their beliefs and proclamations."
Translation:
Never judge an individual by the facts he can show you (his physical ability, his academic accomplishments, his accreditations from recognized sources, etc) but instead, trust his sale's pitch (passion, ability to speak, willingness to debate beliefs and proclamations).
Yeah.
Doesn't that refer to you?
I'm sorta devil's advocate. For instance, when Chickeneater posted about back pain being mostly in the mind, I, like most others thought he was nuts. But I paid attention to what he was saying enough to buy Dr. John Sarno's book. I read that thing with TOTAL skepticism and amusement at first, but like most who read it, was slowly absorbing the concept as I went. End result: by the end of the book I was about 60% pain-free simply from reading a book! By all standards, this is impossible, but there's a story behind it. Later adding the very exersizes the chiropractors and doctors tell us to avoid, I've become stronger and nearly pain-free, thanks to Dr. Sarno, Chickeneater, and curiosity after 30 years of agony.
So I'm not saying it's impossible what you propose, merely implausible from our viewpoint. One reason I trust Coach Hale is I'm reading his book, and his experience with BB contestants. I've seen no reason to doubt, yet I'll admit I'm no scientist or great scholar, and my time for reading is limited due to other studies and business. He also has some great contacts he corresponds with and had their assistance with the research. I haven't read your book nor you mine, so I can't speak for Taube. Nor against him or you personally.
I'm simply not going to go out and buy a freezer full of meat and cheese on your sayso, you see? But as with the back problem, I have been paying attention.
I also can't afford to go out and buy every book or reference suggested, so I'd asked you to provide some legitimacy outside of Taube for the claims. After all, I'm 54 and keep hitting a wall with my body, energy, and strength. Of course I'm seeking alternatives, being hormonal or otherwise. Even if this process could/should/would work, there is still the outlying issue of health concerns as well. Somehow this diet would seem to be incomplete lest one provided whatever missing nutrients, vitamins, minerals etc. there might be.
Then there's the issue we'd talked about before, insecticides, steroids or other such malicious entities that may accumulate from accellerated monoconsumptions. (my word)
I'm sorta devil's advocate. For instance, when Chickeneater posted about back pain being mostly in the mind, I, like most others thought he was nuts. But I paid attention to what he was saying enough to buy Dr. John Sarno's book. I read that thing with TOTAL skepticism and amusement at first, but like most who read it, was slowly absorbing the concept as I went. End result: by the end of the book I was about 60% pain-free simply from reading a book! By all standards, this is impossible, but there's a story behind it. Later adding the very exersizes the chiropractors and doctors tell us to avoid, I've become stronger and nearly pain-free, thanks to Dr. Sarno, Chickeneater, and curiosity after 30 years of agony.
So I'm not saying it's impossible what you propose, merely implausible from our viewpoint. One reason I trust Coach Hale is I'm reading his book, and his experience with BB contestants. I've seen no reason to doubt, yet I'll admit I'm no scientist or great scholar, and my time for reading is limited due to other studies and business. He also has some great contacts he corresponds with and had their assistance with the research. I haven't read your book nor you mine, so I can't speak for Taube. Nor against him or you personally.
I'm simply not going to go out and buy a freezer full of meat and cheese on your sayso, you see? But as with the back problem, I have been paying attention.
I also can't afford to go out and buy every book or reference suggested, so I'd asked you to provide some legitimacy outside of Taube for the claims. After all, I'm 54 and keep hitting a wall with my body, energy, and strength. Of course I'm seeking alternatives, being hormonal or otherwise. Even if this process could/should/would work, there is still the outlying issue of health concerns as well. Somehow this diet would seem to be incomplete lest one provided whatever missing nutrients, vitamins, minerals etc. there might be.
Then there's the issue we'd talked about before, insecticides, steroids or other such malicious entities that may accumulate from accellerated monoconsumptions. (my word)
Martin Levac
New Member
I did provide outside legitimacy. Gerald Reaven, Richard Feinman and Jeff Volek.
Would it surprise you to find that insulin can be stimulated before we even put food in our mouth? Just thinking about food stimulates insulin secretion and as a result of that, hunger. It literally empties the blood of nutrients and puts it all in adipose tissue in expectation of the imminent arrival of new nutrients. So, I don't doubt your story of lower back pain being reduced just by thinking about the whole thing.
That line from Hale is part of the sale's pitch for Hale's book. It's ironic that he would use it in his sale's pitch while simultaneously implying his book is based on science: "Realize the only true authority in science is science itself." He hasn't yet proven to be a scientist in my eyes but he sure proved to be a salesman with that line. I don't trust salesmen as a rule. Concerning training information, that's another story. He's a coach and he should know how to coach. I have no reason to doubt him when he speaks of coaching and training. But when it comes to science, I can't take him seriously.
Below are two studies on low carb diet and inflammation marker called C-reactive protein. For those studies to be relevant to the back pain you spoke, we must first establish a link between back pain and inflammation. I can make that link without research but only with anecdotal evidence; my personal experience.
One study says one thing, the other study says the opposite. The study that says inflammation marker increases is 4 weeks long. The study that says a decrease is 6 months long. Multiple other studies show that there is a period of 2 to 4 weeks of adaptation to the low carb diet where things aren't as normal as expected. It's natural to suppose that inflammation marker could be one of those aspects that isn't normal during this period. This is only speculation on my part. But having discussed the subject of low carb with other people who were at different stages of the diet frequently said they felt fewer and/or lesser pains where some existed before.
So, if pain is associated with inflammation marker C-reactive protein, then less pain would allow us to suppose that there are fewer inflammation marker. Incidentally, I, too, don't feel as much pain where there was pain before including my lower back. Just this aspect allowed me to lift heavier and for a bit longer when I work out.
Low carbohydrate, high fat diet increases C-reactive protein during weight loss.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum
A randomized study comparing the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet and a conventional diet on lipoprotein subfractions and C-reactive protein levels in patients with severe obesity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum
You can look at it as though you were the one proposing it. This way, the bias is turned around. It's not my information after all. I collected it from elsewhere. I did not make it up if that's what it takes to make it mine. I may have drawn conclusions and posted these but the data I used is not mine. In other words, it's just as equally yours as it is mine. If you prefer, it's neither yours nor mine. And if I find that some part of it or even the whole thing stops making sense because new data comes in to make it so, then I'll just figure it out all over again.
Would it surprise you to find that insulin can be stimulated before we even put food in our mouth? Just thinking about food stimulates insulin secretion and as a result of that, hunger. It literally empties the blood of nutrients and puts it all in adipose tissue in expectation of the imminent arrival of new nutrients. So, I don't doubt your story of lower back pain being reduced just by thinking about the whole thing.
That line from Hale is part of the sale's pitch for Hale's book. It's ironic that he would use it in his sale's pitch while simultaneously implying his book is based on science: "Realize the only true authority in science is science itself." He hasn't yet proven to be a scientist in my eyes but he sure proved to be a salesman with that line. I don't trust salesmen as a rule. Concerning training information, that's another story. He's a coach and he should know how to coach. I have no reason to doubt him when he speaks of coaching and training. But when it comes to science, I can't take him seriously.
Below are two studies on low carb diet and inflammation marker called C-reactive protein. For those studies to be relevant to the back pain you spoke, we must first establish a link between back pain and inflammation. I can make that link without research but only with anecdotal evidence; my personal experience.
One study says one thing, the other study says the opposite. The study that says inflammation marker increases is 4 weeks long. The study that says a decrease is 6 months long. Multiple other studies show that there is a period of 2 to 4 weeks of adaptation to the low carb diet where things aren't as normal as expected. It's natural to suppose that inflammation marker could be one of those aspects that isn't normal during this period. This is only speculation on my part. But having discussed the subject of low carb with other people who were at different stages of the diet frequently said they felt fewer and/or lesser pains where some existed before.
So, if pain is associated with inflammation marker C-reactive protein, then less pain would allow us to suppose that there are fewer inflammation marker. Incidentally, I, too, don't feel as much pain where there was pain before including my lower back. Just this aspect allowed me to lift heavier and for a bit longer when I work out.
Low carbohydrate, high fat diet increases C-reactive protein during weight loss.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum
A randomized study comparing the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet and a conventional diet on lipoprotein subfractions and C-reactive protein levels in patients with severe obesity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum
You can look at it as though you were the one proposing it. This way, the bias is turned around. It's not my information after all. I collected it from elsewhere. I did not make it up if that's what it takes to make it mine. I may have drawn conclusions and posted these but the data I used is not mine. In other words, it's just as equally yours as it is mine. If you prefer, it's neither yours nor mine. And if I find that some part of it or even the whole thing stops making sense because new data comes in to make it so, then I'll just figure it out all over again.