No More Broscience

[Alyion]

Discussions such as this always boil down to people using extremes to back up their views. At the end of the day chasing your fitness goal is a long term journey - follow the diet that works for you, you can enjoy and you can keep up long term. Provided you follow a solid workout you will get there eventually

[dylanamus]

Interesting read. I think the poster is right in that many forum members sometimes offer advice on an emotional, rather than scientifically/thoroughly researched basis. While on one hand this can cause conflicting data, on the other it is more importantly a testimony to the attitude and social harmony of this community. As we progress as a group, our knowledge also moves forward as a group. I know I digress, but I am pointing out that there are positives as well as negatives to the foundation of your argument.

Also, keep in mind a lot of factors that contribute to getting fat are emotional. Some people understand this better than they understand the actual science behind their findings and may misrepresent some specific scientific facts through their "anecdotal" experiences, however, their general message may still be accurate.

Take for example people who advocate eating six times a day and justify this as being directly related to an accelerated metabolic rate and go on to present an "anecdotal" account of their own experiences accordingly. For an un-researched individual it will be uncertain as to whether the speech on the metabolism is true or false, however, the experience certainly IS true. So they are still taking away a positive lesson that may not have existed if being 100% scientifically accurate were a prerequisite for offering advice.

The biggest reason people gain fat is because they eat emotively. If you plan 6 meals a day in advance, you are closing windows that may have otherwise been open to impulsive eating. No scientific evidence required.

Like I explored in my first paragraph, I am not denying nor excusing any misleading pseudo-facts that may be presented by forum members, but I am explaining that often "anecdotal" experiences have their own merits; and almost always contribute to the development of a sense of belonging and brotherhood.

Perhaps this is a lesson on taking the bad with the good? At the end of the day it is each individual's responsibility as to how they act and what information they are influenced by. Keep helping however you can, forum buddies - that is my stance.

[atypical1]

Perhaps this is a lesson on taking the bad with the good? At the end of the day it is each individual's responsibility as to how they act and what information they are influenced by. Keep helping however you can, forum buddies - that is my stance.

I can get behind that. I've seen people who can eat everything and get away with it. They still become strong and maintain thier lean shape. There are other people who's body shape is very influenced by their diet. Just like I see plenty of guys at the gym who are much bigger than me doing cable flies. That's the beauty of it all though. There's no one size fits all plan which means you simply have to try things until you find something that works.

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as absolutes.

Great discussion.

james

[jpez]

Perhaps this is a lesson on taking the bad with the good? At the end of the day it is each individual's responsibility as to how they act and what information they are influenced by. Keep helping however you can, forum buddies - that is my stance.

I can get behind that. I've seen people who can eat everything and get away with it. They still become strong and maintain thier lean shape. There are other people who's body shape is very influenced by their diet. Just like I see plenty of guys at the gym who are much bigger than me doing cable flies. That's the beauty of it all though. There's no one size fits all plan which means you simply have to try things until you find something that works.

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as absolutes.

Great discussion.

james

That's right there are so many things to take into account. So many things can influence how much calories you intake in your diet turn to fat. Your age, your genes, the climate you live in, the quality of the food you eat, your mental state, how hard you work during the day, how much sleep you get etc etc etc.

Also about the junk food thing. Honestly I would have to force myself to eat a burger from mcdonalds. Why? Because my body knows what's best for it. For me eating a burger from Mcdonalds is like eating cardboard.

Also why do I love eating fresh fish? Put a fish in the freezer and eat it a month later. It's no where near as tasty as it is when it's fresh. There's a reason for this. Nature is giving us hints all the time.

In the end "You are what you eat" are very wise words.

[OneMore]

Take for example people who advocate eating six times a day and justify this as being directly related to an accelerated metabolic rate and go on to present an "anecdotal" account of their own experiences accordingly. For an un-researched individual it will be uncertain as to whether the speech on the metabolism is true or false, however, the experience certainly IS true. So they are still taking away a positive lesson that may not have existed if being 100% scientifically accurate were a prerequisite for offering advice.

(I loved the whole comment by the way!)

I'm all for anecdotal "evidence", and in some cases that's what doctors work off of as well. I don't believe that there are one set of rules on how every human body works (or that anyone understands exactly what those rules are), and that a human body also isn't capable of dramatically changing it's own rules over time. Otherwise you wouldn't develop diabetes or other hormonal imbalances after years of not having it, you wouldn't develop or lose food allergies and intolerances, etc etc...

Also, is there a "sis-science" for all of those women's magazines out there that claim you can lose 10 lbs of pure fat in two weeks by adding the new trendy berry/fruit/pepper of the month and adding 30 minutes a week of 3lb weights to your routine? I swear those things encourage overeating and under-exercising, always citing "scientific research" for it.

[relaxsingh]

Read and become educated:

Insulin
http://alanaragon.com/elements-challeng ... index.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/1/281S
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/4/871
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...act/27/11/2701
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00004/art00001
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...40673604169377
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v3.../0803495a.html

Saturated Fat and Testosterone
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1510 ... d_RVDocSum
http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_arti ... ne_booster

Protein Intake
http://www.jissn.com/content/3/1/7

My recommendation: anytime someone from the fitness industry makes a claim, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/ and do some research. You'll be surprised how much BS is actually out there

What I have come to realize over time is that 90% of the nutritional rules of bodybuilders have been disproven. Spiking insulin post workout, eating 6 meals a day, eating only whole wheat clean foods, they all have been proven to have little effect on body composition.

2) Saturated fat is essential for producing and regulating hormones such as testosterone. But eating more saturated fat past a certain minimum will not increase your testosterone levels necessarily. And there's no science saying it will."
3) I know I will get flamed for this one, but I am going to say it. Insulin does NOT matter. GI does NOT matter. At equal calories, the guy eating white bread is not getting any fatter than the guy eating whole wheat. Sugar does not matter that much either.
4) As said before, meal frequency has no effect on body composition. Total calories does. Eat accordingly. Some people manage to eat less total calories by eating 6 times/day, some people eat less by eating only once or twice a day. Whatever you do, don't think your better off than the other guy.
6) Two guys have the same genes and do the same workout. Both eat 500 calories over their maintenance. Both make sure to get 1 gram protein/lb body weight, and take a couple g's of fish oil daily, along with a mutli-vitamin. The only difference: guy one eats all "clean" foods, and guy two eats whatever he wants, including ice cream, white bread, and Big Macs. Who gains more muscle and less fat?
Trick question, neither of them. They both gain the same amount of fat and muscle

dude did you even read any of the studies you posted links to? you posted them thinking nobody would read them but the entire thread can be shut down since your argument is shit as those studies support the claims you are refuting.


regarding saturated fat and testosterone:

click both articles under "saturated fat and testosterone" - both are in line with medhi's advice in that they advise against low-fat diets and increasing saturated fat - (not indefinitely, but nobody here recommends increasing it with no upper limit here either)

article 1. "Excess dietary saturated fat can exacerbate coronary artery disease; however, low-fat diets result in a reduction in circulating testosterone. Thus, we suggest dietary fats comprise 15-20% of the body builders' off-season and pre-contest diets."

article 2: "After reviewing the literature and studies presented in this article, one can't say that increased consumption of saturated fat definitively increases Testosterone levels, but it may, especially in strength training individuals. It's evident, though, that a higher total intake of dietary fat (30-35% of calories) does increase Testosterone levels compared to a low fat diet."


regarding total calories versus paying attention to macronutrient ratios:

the same article by Lambert, Frank, and Evans you linked to under the saturated fat/testosterone section at recommends "In summary, the composition of diets for body builders should be 55-60% carbohydrate, 25-30% protein and 15-20% of fat, for both the off-season and pre-contest phases."

if you did not understand that, it clearly recommends ratios that are achieved by paying attention to the composition of your diet (eating clean), and not just to total calories.


regarding glycemic index/insulin/postworkout insulin spikes:

the same article also says "Consumption of protein/amino acids and carbohydrate immediately before and after training sessions may augment protein synthesis, muscle glycogen resynthesis and reduce protein degradation. The optimal rate of carbohydrate ingested immediately after a training session should be 1.2 g/kg/hour at 30-minute intervals for 4 hours and the carbohydrate should be of high glycaemic index."

in layman's terms there you have evidence of spiking your insulin via high GI carbs postworkout (just as mehdi recommends). and therefore glycemic index and insulin does matter.


oddly enough you are the one using broscience my friend. read the articles you link to before posting them to avoid wasting people's time.

[relaxsingh]

oh and since you are such a big fan of clinical trials based on the scientific method, here's an interesting one for you direct from the Harvard School of Public Health:

A study by Greene et al. put three groups on a diet with a controlled number of calories and exercise regimen: a low-fat group, a low-carb group, and a low-carb group with 300 more calories a day compared to the other two. they found that over 12 weeks, the low-fat group lost an average of 17 pounds, the low-carb group an average of 23 pounds, and the low-carb group with 300 extra calories lost an average of 20 pounds.

"The low-carbohydrate dieters lost more weight than low-fat dieters despite eating 25,000 extra calories over a 12-week study period."

yes you read that right, you can eat more total calories, and you can still lose more weight compared to others as long as they are low-carb.


link: http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medic ... ve-low-fat


of course, im sure you can find another study refuting this one. the point is the scientific method is less precise than what you may be led to believe

[Mehdi]

@relaxsingh
Make sure you read through the whole thread since Leanstrong posted other stuff later on. Also keep it civil, I'm sure you get your message across efficiently without having to downtalk people.

Welcome to the forum.

[relaxsingh]

lol sorry about that. i got a lil carried away

[hypergeneric]

now this is my kind of thread! science! what is science? how do you define science? lets see what the dictionary has to say:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

i think there is a wealth of context in those definitions. i think it's unfortunate that most people regard science as a thorough immovable body of knowledge, when in truth it is very much the opposite.

"operation of general laws". but what is a law, when it's in the context of "science"? again, the dictionary (abbreviated since there are 27 variations):

(in philosophy, science, etc.)

a. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
b. a mathematical rule.

there is no such thing as "fact" in a scientific law. science does not deal with facts, it deals with theories. you don't think that gravity is a fact do you? or evolution? science deals with observing our physical environment, and trying to find the relationships between them.

"gained through observation and experimentation". hmm ... sounds an awful lot like broscience to me, no? and isn't that what science is in the end? i.e. i have a totally unfounded idea (theorem) and i am going to try to prove it as a law by studying the forces that explain it.

i think forums like this are truly awesome because we're in effect *doing* science! constantly discussing, postulating, experimenting, and re-evaluating what works and what doesn't. each of us is a unique snowflaske, and there will be a different set of "laws" acting upon us. so, practice a precise application of general laws and knowledge gained by systematic study of your personal particular branch of knowledge. science.

i for one am glad to see this kind of active exchange going on.

[jfh26]

Interesting discussion guys! Unfortunately, I can't really offer a whole lot of input as I am pretty much a beginner from a nutritional standpoint. However, I will say what I've found about 99% of the time with reading "scientific" information about nutrition and diet:

You can online or in a book or wherever and find a "scientific study" that will say something, i.e. eating low carb is bad. Then if you keep searching you can immediately find 10 "scientific studies" that say exactly the opposite. The problem is that nutritional effects vary so much from person to person that it is nearly impossible to generalize it to apply to everybody. It's not as black and white as other areas of science. Some things work well for some people, and the same things work terribly for others. So I'm a bit hesitant to turn my life around on a dime based on something I read in a "scientific study." I find something I think I agree with, and if it seems reasonable, I try it - like Medhi's 5x5 program and 8 nutrition rules. If it seems to work, I stick with it. If not, I try something else.

All in all, I am an avid believer of the "do what works for you" method when it comes to nutrition, which I believe is what atypical1 was saying. Just my 2 cents.

[jfh26]

which I believe is what atypical1 was saying

In retrospect, I guess a lot more people were saying that too

[Dada]

Then if you keep searching you can immediately find 10 "scientific studies" that say exactly the opposite. .

Very true and not just with nutrition or lifting related issue. I've even seen this in business situations where 'creative accounting' can make it look as if you're making or losing money depending on how you want to tweak the data.

[Lazarus]

Most of this discussion has been hashed out already, but I thought I would comment on this one statement.

"The statements I make would be "broscience" were they not founded by unbiased and legitimate scientific studies I will share with you shorty."

On the whole, I see scientific investigation as one of the more unbiased fields out there. I do not extend this viewpoint to the current state of affairs in dietary science. There is a huge amount of money in the production and consumption and food, and given human nature, it's generally safe to assume that huge amounts of money = some degree of corruption. One must always ask, "cui bono?" Who could possibly benefit from a personal trainer, already famous and well respected, giving dietary advice that won't work and will diminish his reputation? Who could possibly benefit from a scientist funded by agribusiness recommending foods that are more profitable to agribusiness? This isn't really rocket science, here, in both possible meanings. (Hint: carbs have a higher margin of profit than protein or fat based foods, due to the easier means of production, and lesser perishability)

Specific responses re: carbs vs. protein-- Varying my carb intakes has worked SO well for me, I have to ask, have you personally tried it?

re: insulin -- you're aware bodybuilders inject insulin to promote hypertrophy, right? p.s. why not eat the carbs preworkout, so the insulin rush arrives in a more timely fashion?

[jfh26]

just don't see how someone is going to get big, strong, and healthy eating nothing but ice cream and mcdonalds

Check out this guy's 30 day diet
http://chazzweaver.com/site/down-size-me/the-journal/
I was going to pick out some other people who lost weight only eating mcdonalds, but they didn't lift/care about muscle retention, so not really relevant.

I saw this post from earlier in the thread and felt the need to comment on it. First, a question: Did you read this entire study? Because all I had to read was the conclusion to find some interesting points that do not fully support what you were arguing (i.e. that calorie source is irrelevant - total calories is what matters):

IMPORTANT TO NOTE: I am saying that exercise was the reason for my improvements and not the fact that I only ate McDonald’s food for 30 days. If you were to take exercise out of the equation, I would have gained 30 to 40 pounds of body fat, and I can not tell you how my cholesterol would have reacted; This is where education becomes very important.

Now, he clearly states that a sedentary person would have gained a tremendous amount of body fat, yet was actually able to lose some due to his exercise routine. Now imagine if he had been on this same exercise plan while eating a clean diet. Can you confidently say he wouldn't have seen better gains with the clean diet than he did on the McDonald's diet?

The way I see it, his exercise routine in this case was working both to help lose fat as well as prevent the extra 30-40 pound fat gain. Now if he were on a clean diet, his exercise could be working solely to help lose fat instead of simultaneously preventing a 30-40 pound fat gain, as this gain would not be an issue on a clean diet. I think you would find that he would make much better and healthier gains on the clean diet, but keep in mind I am just speculating, and very primitively at best. I would, however, be interested to see him repeat the same experiment on a clean diet and compare the results.

More importantly, however, note for example that his blood pressure increased over the duration of the diet, likely due to the insane sodium intake that would accompany eating McDonald's every day. And on top of this, imagine all the processed sh*t that came from eating all that McDonald's food. What if someone who already had average or high blood pressure took your advice and ate whatever they wanted? They probably wouldn't be as well off as this guy was. Point being: this is a clear cut example of how calorie source is VERY influential when it comes to nutrition. Weight loss, and possibly even fat loss, may not be as dependent on calorie source as some people think, but a great deal of other aspects of your nutrition are.

Many people have asked me if it matters where their calories come from. At the most basic, eating exactly the number of calories that you burn and if you are only talking about weight, not fat loss, the answer is no -- a calorie is a calorie. A protein calorie is no different from a fat calorie -- they are simply units of energy. As long as you burn what you eat, you will maintain your weight; and as long as you burn more than you eat, you will lose weight. But if we're talking nutrition, it definitely matters where those calories originate. We will be posting information regarding nutrition soon.

And I thought I would quote this paragraph as well, seeing as it supports exactly what I stated above. While the guy was still able to lose fat on the McDonald's diet, he clearly acknowledges that this is not necessarily the best, or even a good, way to do so. The intent of Medhi's nutrition guidelines is not only to help you lose fat and/or build muscle, it is to get you out of the habit of relying on quick processed foods to satisfy your hunger and into the habit of taking the time to give yourself quality nutrition. You may very well be able to lost fat eating whatever you want, but there are a great deal more advantages to eating whole foods than just losing fat.