Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
This is just another example of a type of individual who shouldn't be in the training and nutrition game. If, in the face of overwhelming evidence, someone in a science-based field can't fathom that perhaps they are wrong in their presumptions, they need to take a serious look at themselves and how they treat their clients.
Fred, seriously, what do you care about?
Optimal results or being right?
That's all this comes down to.
And come on. You're a grown adult running around like a child in saying "oh, those meanie poo teenagers on JP Fit." I doubt anyone posting in this thread is under the age of 20, and most likely everyone here is a college grad.
Grow up. Figure out what comes first in your life, and if it's your ego, as it seems to be, I just feel sorry for you.
Fred pulled the ultimate Internets - call your opponents mean for requiring evidence, then sulking off to a heavily-censored forum to complain about it.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Well I just made a few detailed replies to Fred over on his forum.
Wow James - I can't believe you had the "kahoonas" to debate him on that forum Is his forum some "magical" place that unlocks evidence to support his ideals?
After reading kfisherx's post, I tend to agree - I genuinely was trying to understand where he was coming from and how his enlightened knowledge of the 2nd law of thermodynamics applied to his argument (not to mention addressing the other questions asked of him - as summarized by Alan).
I'm sure he's consulted his buddies Taubes and Eades on the matter and they've armed him with the conjecture that he already presented and now he's painted himself into a corner he can't get out of. And when the going got tough, he knew he always had the back door of "not wanting to deal with insults". He pulled the same thing with Anthony Colpo.
In the original debate, he said he had several studies to support his claim that when protein is matched, low carb was superior. The problem? They weren't in electronic form/he couldn't find them/his dog ate them... you get the picture.
bwahahaha... just read the thread James! I just about spit an insulinogenic beverage all over my spacebar!
Quote:
He feels the same about caloric restriction staunchly holding onto the already shattered idea that there is no metabolic advantage to low carb diets. There absolutely is and the 2nd law of TD tell us that this is possible.
There absolutely is a metabolic advantage....possibly.
bwahahaha... just read the thread James! I just about spit an insulinogenic beverage all over my spacebar!
.
There's another thread over there (this one) where Fred tried to use epidemiological evidence (of course, he just references a book and no individual papers) to support his contention that exercise makes you hungry. But he contradicts himself because on his blog he writes that epidemiological evidence cannot establish cause and effect. I guess he finds epidemiological evidence quite valuable...but only if it supports what he already believes.
There absolutely is a metabolic advantage....possibly.
The concept of "metabolic advantage" is real. Efficiency of digestion and TEF are two ways that can make the effect of 300 calories of one food different than the effects of 300 calories of another food. This does not contradict calories in/calories out, but rather are variables in the overall equation. However, what many low carb gurus say is that with a proper low carb diet, there is a metabolic advantage to the point that fat simply cannot be stored when carbs are not present, which is not supported.
Nobody's ever argued that there aren't nutrient needs that need to be accounted for independently of calorie intake.
Both protein and essential fats are needed by the body, and the amounts will depend on what the goal is. If you're trying to retain LBM while losing fat, protein certianly does have an advantage.
But that's not what we're arguing; what we're saying is effectively "once nutrient needs are accounted for, the rest of your calorie intake doesn't matter as long as you're in a net deficit".
The LC guys start frothing at the mouth and claim that there's some metabolic magic, which is why Fred can't answer my question about how insulin causes spontaneous accumulation of mass.
If insulin causes fat gain, then you should be able to show me people getting fat eating high-carb but hypocaloric diets. You should be able to show me fat people that have starved to death.
OK so what about the research showing "metabolic advantage"? Here's the problem: they take research that compares low-carb/high-protein diets, and then compare that to low-protein/high-carb diets.
Well, uh, yeah of course there's an "advantage" to that - one group is eating higher protein!
So why is the "low-carb" term getting the attention?
And that hasn't even gotten into the real problem of self-reported calorie intake; that's just worthless.
The way I see it, Hahn is wanting to bicker about the color of the drapes, and completely ignoring that his foundation is cracked; once you get to the core of the matter, i.e., how insulin is creating mass from nothing, the logic falls apart.
Which is why he took his ball and went home - he can't actually respond to that question with a direct answer.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
The concept of "metabolic advantage" is real. Efficiency of digestion and TEF are two ways that can make the effect of 300 calories of one food different than the effects of 300 calories of another food.
Which is exactly why when you compare the TEF of isocaloric protein-matched diets, the one with MORE CARBS will tend to have a slight "metabolic advantage" over the one with less carbs. In most cases, the TE of carbs is greater than the TE of fat. This is elementary stuff.
Which is exactly why when you compare the TEF of isocaloric protein-matched diets, the one with MORE CARBS will tend to have a slight "metabolic advantage" over the one with less carbs.
I am aware of this. I was never saying the low carb diet as described by Hahn had a metabolic advantage over all other diets, just that certain metabolic advantages exist depending on macronutrient intake.
Except that the metabolic advantage nuts ignore the protein treatment imbalance that pervades the research, and erroneously blame carbs. Some highly credentialled and (seemingly) intelligent people do this. And most of these folks have egos too large to admit error, fearing that this would compromise their perceived position of authority... Lame.
First of all you write like a teenager which tells me there's not a lot going on upstairs for you. Intelligent, thinking people don't post what you posted above. That's a hard fact of lfe.
No, intelligent thinking people do not post what you continue to post all over the internet.
Quote:
2nd, because you can't comprehend what I write isn't my problem. It's yours.
Yet the constant stream of people saying the same thing as me doesnt give you a hint... wouldnt surprise me, nothing like blaming others or uncontrollable things for your deficiencies. Like blaming genetics for being weaker than a girl.
Quote:
The studies and papers I have provided I doubt you even read as they are VG pieces of science. I don't 'appeal to authority.' I quote expert information in order to help you all understand my position. Is citing studies an appeal to authority? Quoting Einstein? Strawman arguments occur when someone deliberately picks apart another argument and twists it into another. I've not done that.
If you believe they are very good pieces of science, I suggest you partake in some actual post graduate research in the relevant areas. Perhaps then you would stop with the strawmen.
Quote:
Also, there are, what, a dozen or so people here and I can't answer every single query or question. I'm a busy guy.
dodging
Quote:
But it's folks like you who ruin it for others. And what I mean by that is I've no time to spend on a board like this one if it is littered with people like you.
You have no answers, nobody believing your spiel, and nobody thinking that your book is a good idea, better pick up your ball and run home
Quote:
Sorry mike and James, but the bulk of this board is at teenager level. I've got better things to do. See ya.
or in better words, this board contains people with an education in the area and are not suckered into my pathetic ramblings and low quality posts, I better run on home...
The concept of "metabolic advantage" is real. Efficiency of digestion and TEF are two ways that can make the effect of 300 calories of one food different than the effects of 300 calories of another food. This does not contradict calories in/calories out, but rather are variables in the overall equation. However, what many low carb gurus say is that with a proper low carb diet, there is a metabolic advantage to the point that fat simply cannot be stored when carbs are not present, which is not supported.
Sigh...
Efficiency of digestion and/or tef are not an indication of metabolic advantage. They are an indication that the caloric estimates known as the
Atwater factors are old and innacurate.
Efficiency of digestion and/or tef are not an indication of metabolic advantage. They are an indication that the caloric estimates known as the
Atwater factors are old and innacurate.
Sorry, I was unaware of this. Why wouldn't a better TEF be considered a metabolic advantage of a certain food?
Sorry, I was unaware of this. Why wouldn't a better TEF be considered a metabolic advantage of a certain food?
Basically because 100+ years of research have provided more data. The link Alan put throuhg covers a fair proportion of it, and the current main protagonist, Livesey from the UK.
Ultimately all nutrients provide different energy and are metabolised differently, and for some of these using the standard atwaters do not accurately portray the energy available to the body. CHO and fat are the closest.
Does erythritol provide a metabolic advantage over other carbohydrates? what about cellulose? or do they just have a different level of available energy due to differences in metabolism.
To provide an accurate measurement of energy intake, we need to have quality data on what energy each food, and or nutrient provides.
I say food because differences in amino acid profile, sugar types/structure, fatty acid types and the overall matrix of the food can influence what actual energy is available. (for a simple example, a monosaccharide contains less energy per gram than a polysaccharide formed from the same sugar).
Sorry, I was unaware of this. Why wouldn't a better TEF be considered a metabolic advantage of a certain food?
Adding to Aaron's comments, better appetite suppression & less fridge foraging are often construed by the zealots as a 'metabolic advantage', when in fact it's better satiety due to higher protein intake - not lowered carbs per se.
Feinman & Fine assert that a low-carb diet increases protein turnover for gluconeogenesis. They hypothesize that this inefficient, calorically expensive process should offer an advantage to dieters. F & F have discussed this through a series of papers droning on about theoretical bioenergetics. However, their waxings simply haven't panned out in the majority of long-term interventions & metabolic ward studies. This is something that people looking for the magic scapegoat (carbz) refuse to accept. It violates their belief system, and challenging someone's dietary beliefs is akin to challenging someone's religion.
Josh, the TEF of P is "there" because protein doesn't really have 4 cals per gram. With "TEF," it's 4 cals per gram with a 30% bump for TEF. But, it's been historically wrong to say 4 cals per gram. P should be more like 5.2g, which is that extra 30% (ish) benefit of P's "thermic effect."
Similar mismeasures/counts exist with fiber (and fiber rich foods), highly processed (as in softer/ground/etc) foods, etc.
Josh, the TEF of P is "there" because protein doesn't really have 4 cals per gram. With "TEF," it's 4 cals per gram with a 30% bump for TEF. But, it's been historically wrong to say 4 cals per gram. P should be more like 5.2g, which is that extra 30% (ish) benefit of P's "thermic effect."
The value of 4 calories/gram for all protein foods that is currently in use already takes into account Thermic Effect? I always thought that the 30% or so TEF could be subtracted from that value in terms of energy expenditure.
The value of 4 calories/gram for all protein foods that is currently in use already takes into account Thermic Effect? I always thought that the 30% or so TEF could be subtracted from that value in terms of energy expenditure.
I think I did the math in reverse, btw. I think it's approx 2.8 cals per gram for P if you consider that "TEF."
Now Fred is on his forum, accusing me of claiming the MA doesn't exist, which is a statement that I've never made. And when challenged on it, he says that he doesn't have time to go look for the statement but he "knows" that I said it.
Now Fred is on his forum, accusing me of claiming the MA doesn't exist, which is a statement that I've never made. And when challenged on it, he says that he doesn't have time to go look for the statement but he "knows" that I said it.
You are really taking it to him... I've never seen so much evasion in all my life. I see he get Regina Wilshire to help him out and she agrees that the evidence does not support MA as it is. To be fair, she presented what seems to be valid study controls which would give us a more definititve perspective of the MA issue she thinks we would better equip us to understand if there is truly an MA. I see though that you had some misgivings about those as well.
Fred seems to be stuck on some bizare "rule" that we can't use anything but metabolic ward studies to prove anything once we've used them. I may make a cameo there and offer him the point blank questions. We'll see what kind of tactics he pulls this time.
Quick tip when debating guys like this: don't let them control the argument.
He's trying to dismiss your points and argue on his own terms. Don't let him do that.
As long as he refuses to answer how insulin can make someone fat on a hypocaloric diet, don't give him room to wiggle. He'll shift the goalposts and drop red herrings left and right if you don't.
His entire argument is resting on that one axiom - "insulin makes you fat"; as long as he can hold on to that, he can argue the rest of the details. Take that down, and he's got nothing.
So keep him on point, and remind him of that every time he ignores a point or tries to change the subject. Arguing validity of studies etc. is just a distraction tactic to avoid the fact his whole argument rests on that unfounded assumption.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Is his forum some "magical" place that unlocks evidence to support his ideals? 
Linear Mode
