Good cause to be honest with you i felt kinda bad for you getting upset. Hopefully now we'll continue as normal. 
This place sucks now (where is everyone?)
- Thread starter Streamline
- Start date
- Status
i guess you havent discovered how easy things are accessed on the internet then.
My work has all the good stuff blocked. I have to take what I can get.:jumping:
on that note...I'm going to go off something Karky said a little while back in this thread...something about the lack of complex discussions about discussions. I too have felt this to an extent, but I realize that most people aren't going to ask the "sciency" questions if they don't know to ask.
I can understand people come on here and want a decent program for gaining muscle, or losing fat, or getting a healthy recipe, but no one is going to ask specific questions as to WHY these programs work. Why does NROL work, or Westside Barbell (do they really work?) why does eating this amount of protein good for you...etc? Most people get the information that were looking for, then running with it without understanding the specifics, and this makes it hard to have a complex, deep down science discussion on fitness...or nutrition.
I can understand people come on here and want a decent program for gaining muscle, or losing fat, or getting a healthy recipe, but no one is going to ask specific questions as to WHY these programs work. Why does NROL work, or Westside Barbell (do they really work?) why does eating this amount of protein good for you...etc? Most people get the information that were looking for, then running with it without understanding the specifics, and this makes it hard to have a complex, deep down science discussion on fitness...or nutrition.
Yeah, my point exactly.
Look in my journal, I asked my lecturer about frank starlings law.
Whoa, things got crazzzzy in here!
Science and experience aren't even the same thing. To compare them is to say oranges are better than apples.
In any case, Science is the accumulation of experience from a **** load of people who HAVE experience.
Therefore Science > Experience in regards of reliability.
You can take a dumb **** and put him on a workout routine for 5 years and he will come out ripped and strong just like you can take someone with a PhD and 4 degrees who can do it himself in a fifth of the time without any assistance.
I'm tired of this Experience > Science BS.
/rantoff
In any case, Science is the accumulation of experience from a **** load of people who HAVE experience.
Therefore Science > Experience in regards of reliability.
You can take a dumb **** and put him on a workout routine for 5 years and he will come out ripped and strong just like you can take someone with a PhD and 4 degrees who can do it himself in a fifth of the time without any assistance.
I'm tired of this Experience > Science BS.
/rantoff
I say it depends. For example, if the government is to set some sort of dietary/training recommendation, they should base it on science, since that will be what applies to most of the people.
However, let's say I read from science that training method A is better than method B, but I have tried both method A and B in the past, and my experience tells me that method B works better than method A for me. In this case, it would be better for me to follow my experience since that is obviously what applies to me.
For me, when I try to decide how to eat or train, I go by science first, what does science tell us, then I try out the different things that science tells us and see what works best. Sometimes I might also get input from people with experience in the field of training and/or nutrition who say that X method seems to work very well, however there doesn't seem to be any science behind it. I might try that method to see if it works for me. Experience can tell us things science can't. The point is, science can't tell us everything because we don't know everything, so if you only go by science you will never find a method that is better than what we know of today. You will never try tomorrows new and improved scientifically proven method of training one day (or year, etc) early to reap the benifits.
catch my drift?
You can never knock the science, because it has given everyone the foundations on HOW the body works. There's tremendous science that goes into the body, the more you understand the basics and the science, the more you can apply that to yourself, or others if you're a trainer.
I do agree that everyone is different and some of the specifics may not apply to one person to the next, and this is where the art of fitness comes into play. Chillen is a prime example...he knows how his body works and reacts, so coordinates his routine respectively, but there was a foundation, and that foundation had to come from somewhere, ie. the science. It's not to say that science is wrong.....just slow.
I do agree that everyone is different and some of the specifics may not apply to one person to the next, and this is where the art of fitness comes into play. Chillen is a prime example...he knows how his body works and reacts, so coordinates his routine respectively, but there was a foundation, and that foundation had to come from somewhere, ie. the science. It's not to say that science is wrong.....just slow.
Exactly.
It depends.
It isn't one > the other or one < the other.
When people say one is better then the other you can understand why it could be insulting to people who have studied science all their life or have a lifetimes worth of experience.
There is no better.
You take science, then you try it and conclude what works for you. Without science you wouldn't know where to begin and without experience you wouldn't know what works for you.
We need more opinions on things like this, I encourage you all to indulge yourself in filling up this BS thread with colorful rants/comments/opinions, we can't let this place die down can we?
Oh, crap, this isn't the BS thread.
It depends.
It isn't one > the other or one < the other.
When people say one is better then the other you can understand why it could be insulting to people who have studied science all their life or have a lifetimes worth of experience.
There is no better.
You take science, then you try it and conclude what works for you. Without science you wouldn't know where to begin and without experience you wouldn't know what works for you.
We need more opinions on things like this, I encourage you all to indulge yourself in filling up this BS thread with colorful rants/comments/opinions, we can't let this place die down can we?
Oh, crap, this isn't the BS thread.
My Chemistry/Nutrition professor told me...
You will die if you go into ketosis....
You will die if you don't eat carbs....
65% of your calories HAVE to come from carbs..
And she has a PhD.
Sorry.
But...
I'd rather listen to someone with actual experience of the goal I am trying to achieve over the one who read something out of a book.
You will die if you go into ketosis....
You will die if you don't eat carbs....
65% of your calories HAVE to come from carbs..
And she has a PhD.
Sorry.
But...
I'd rather listen to someone with actual experience of the goal I am trying to achieve over the one who read something out of a book.
ILove muscle, I wasn't referring to you "getting the attention" I was referring to the original poster, streamline, and his first post stating that nobody posts good conversation any more...or that nobody posted period... or whatever the hell he said or meant. My comment about getting the attention was not intended for you or your pics. Sorry I should've been more clear.
There are many schools of thought also in the science field. One will say something doesn't work, the other will say it does. This is a prime example of one. It happens all the time. Each argument has mutiple sides to it. You can't use this ONE example to show that science is wrong. I can find about a dozen professionals off the top of my head that will debunk your professor using scientific research AND experience.
Phate, I'm not saying one is better than the other, however, you seem to making that claim. Everywhere you go, you have take everything you hear with a grain of salt, and come to your own conclusions, but have an open mind about it.
Your chemistry/nutrition professor is either a liar or dumb, Phate, because that is almost certainly not the case. There exists loads and loads of anecdotal and experimental evidence to the contrary of what she claims (some stretching back in excess of 40,000 years!), and almost none to support it.
There have existed and up until very recently did exist, many cultures that lived long, healthy lives on diets consisting of very little if any carbohydrates. Even most (retarded, in my experience) first-year bio or organic chem students know that, physiologically speaking, carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient. The body can provide itself with everything it needs from protein and fats alone.
Whether this is the optimal choice (and I would say that it clearly is not) is another matter.
There have existed and up until very recently did exist, many cultures that lived long, healthy lives on diets consisting of very little if any carbohydrates. Even most (retarded, in my experience) first-year bio or organic chem students know that, physiologically speaking, carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient. The body can provide itself with everything it needs from protein and fats alone.
Whether this is the optimal choice (and I would say that it clearly is not) is another matter.
I totally agree with you 100%. Your body can and will survive off a ketogenic diet. Also, I do not agree with Phate's professor. She should do a little more looking around at what other professional in her field are saying on this topic.
She said that if your body goes into ketosis, eventually you will die because your body can't convert protein/fat efficiently enough to keep your brain and organs going
she said that carbs are one of the essential energy yielding nutrients ( along with fats, proteins, minerals, vitamins, and water )
She seems to be pretty smart...she just has a old out-dated way of thinking.
I thought about raising my hand. But I knew that she would just throw some technical terms at me I wouldn't understand even though I knew I was right and didn't want to risk pissing her off and wanting to fail me.
she said that carbs are one of the essential energy yielding nutrients ( along with fats, proteins, minerals, vitamins, and water )
She seems to be pretty smart...she just has a old out-dated way of thinking.
I thought about raising my hand. But I knew that she would just throw some technical terms at me I wouldn't understand even though I knew I was right and didn't want to risk pissing her off and wanting to fail me.
Smart people make damn sure they know what they're talking about before dealing in absolutes, imo. And even then, they realize that what they're saying is only "absolute" in the sense of being the most generally applicable.
Carbs simply aren't an essential nutrient, as before. Your body can convert protein and fats just fine. The only part of the human body that requires carbs specifically is the brain, and it can quite easily be supplied by converting proteins. I think what she means to say is that if you're ketogenic and you don't eat enough protein, you will **** yourself up. Only, she's very bad at words, like most science professors (believe me, I have some experience with this. I spend half my days having to fix their ****. For which I am paid much, much more than they are for creating it, as per the economic principle of scarcity XD).
- Status