Fitness and nutrition "debunk" sources

[Kenny Croxdale]

PSMF diet

Ultra Low Calorie Diet

The Protein Sparing Modified Diet is an Ultra Low Calorie Diet, as you know.
Any diet that dramatically decreases calories will produce weight loss.

The Twinkie Diet

Mark Haub's (Nutrition Prof at Kansas) went on the Twinkie Diet to demonstrated to his class decreasing calories is the first step to lowing weight. Haub lost 27 lbs by limiting his calorie and consuming junk food.

Low Carbohydrates On Protein Sparing Modified Diet

Dramatically decreasing Carbohydrates on the Protein Sparing Modified Diet initially produces fat Weight Loss due to Water Weight Loss.

Secondly, individual who are Insulin Resistance who limit Carbohydrate Intake weight loss occurs because the body is no longer storing as much glucose (carbohydrates) as fat.

As one nutritionist stated, "Insulin is a Fat Maker..."

High Protein Intake

High Protein has a diuretic effect.

Combining a High Protein Diet with Low Carbohydrate Intake exacerbates water weight loss.

That water weight loss dramatically decrease electrolytes. especially sodium.

That is one of the reason that individual on a Ketogenic Diet or a Protein Sparing Modified Diet are recommended to increase their sodium intake.

Summary

1) An Ultra Low Calorie is unsustanable.

2) The "Yo-Yo" Rebound effect is going to occur. Often individual will gain back the weight they lost plus more.

3)....

crash diets are pretty awful.

Weight Loss Solution

1) The body will adapt to any caloric weight loss plan.

2) Periodized Weight Loss

Periodization Training is one of the primary keys to long term progress.

The same application applies to Weight Loss Plans.

The MATADOR Weight Loss Research. posted multiple time on the StrongForm, has gone into this.

 

[Hung]

I did Lyle's "Rapid Fat Loss" which is just a PSMF diet before my wedding.
Lost 15lbs.
Gained 20lbs in a week.

The problem was I bought my outfit for my wedding during the -15lb phase. and the wedding week was on the 20lb gain back phase.
Things were tight.

And that is when I learned crash diets are pretty awful.
Which to be fair, the first half of his booklet is all about how this is an awful idea and don't do it.

Sounds like marriage is a horrible idea

 

[WxHerk]

Thanks @WxHerk. I appreciate the reply.
My sister is obese and lost loads. Got really trim but then rebounded unfortunately.
I'm at 47 years old and social media keeps reminding me that I'm a bit bigger around the waist now.
Keen to find a way of trimming down. My wife and I have cut back the booze to once a week which feels like a positive first step.

Keeping a food log was a big factor in my success. I was training with Al Ciampa and helping him with a “Train the Trainer” program at Keesler Air Force Base. Al had me keep a food log. I also was seriously Intermittent Fasting, eating one time a day: usually ~7:00 p.m. I didn’t keep a food log anymore as I would eat ~2 lbs of meat and a sweet potato or two.

That said, I would definitely keep a good log and record everything you eat and drink. You will see where the excess calories are and how many you are consuming, plus you will be a bit more hesitant to consume lesser quality items knowing they will be recorded and “staring back at you.”

 

[HarryBergers]

I would consider a good debunk walking through a study with it's supplemental material and demonstrating how the study says something it shouldn't. I've seen Gray Steel(associated with starting strength) dismantle popular fitness articles and some guy that goes by "Fire in a bottle" on YouTube likes making old diet studies look as badly written as they were. "Low carb down under" channel has many great presentations, also.

Edit: these days debunk is being commonly taken to mean "alternative explanation" and attacking credibility more than putting the work in and showing how something is false.

 

[bluejeff]

these days debunk is being commonly taken to mean "alternative explanation" and attacking credibility more than putting the work in and showing how something is false.

Good point!

 

[watchnerd]

Glaring omission:

Liver King

 

[watchnerd]

Sounds like marriage is a horrible idea

The tax benefits are nice, though.

I'd be paying a lot more taxes if I was single.

 

[Anna C]

Dr. Layne Norton with a post today on "When people ask me why I am so passionate about calling out BS in the fitness industry… THIS IS WHY"

 

[bluejeff]

Dr. Layne Norton with a post today on "When people ask me why I am so passionate about calling out BS in the fitness industry… THIS IS WHY"

I'm not sure if the posts/stories are still around, but I have seen similar sorts of testimonials shared from clients of certain "famous" social media fitness influencers about how their injuries got worse on the programs they were sold. Then, when they tried to contact the "individual" who sold them the program /coaching, they were given the response (paraphrasing) "you aren't doing the program right." Then, when they push the issue, without legit help from these people, they just got blocked. In fact, there are a number of influencers who just block people when their ideas are contested. Layne is one of the few I see who is always debating people in the comments, and not afraid of a debate. In fact, I'm pretty sure he has been blocked by most of the other influencers he has criticized.

 

[Boris Bachmann]

Dr. Layne Norton with a post today on "When people ask me why I am so passionate about calling out BS in the fitness industry… THIS IS WHY"

I don't know Layne at all to dislike him, but I get there w. most influencers eventually - a guru-killing guru claiming to stomp out BS is still a guru.

I feel like I've said this a lot recently, nothing is "free" - you give influencers your views, your time, your 'likes', your 'shares'. Those aren't small things.

 

[bluejeff]

a guru-killing guru claiming to stomp out BS is still a guru

I'm not here to defend Layne Norton, but from what I've seen of his content, it's not "guru content." Sure he has stuff you can buy: apps, programs, etc.... but he's one of the few who will break down studies and actually include terminology like "sometimes, in some cases, in [x] specific cases, ...might lead to [x] outcome...." etc. Imo the guru type is the one who makes statements like they are the "one true statement."

I am reminded of past debates between certain well-known atheists vs fundamental religious figures. Often the fundamentalist would accuse the atheist that "scientists act like they know everything," to which the atheist(s) would often reply, "that not how science works. Show me solid evidence and I will consider changing my mind." The scientific method is about testing hypotheses and refining ideas to gain better and deeper understanding, not writing laws in stone and never challenging them.

In the fitness/diet space, there is a sort of feud between the "evidence based" crowd and the (for lack of better terminology) "anecdotal" crowd. The former tends to say you need studies to back your claims, the latter tends to say "my clients and my client track record say otherwise." Studies have limitations and details that matter...AND so do anecdotes. Studies are useful to see what happens when you try to control for a variable, and, imo, anecdotes are good for seeing what trends tend to give results.

For example, tons of people have gotten jacked by doing 3-5 sets of 10-15 reps for a few exercises per body part (like chest and tris, back and bis, etc), close to failure, once or twice a week, with some simple cardio, and eating a lot. Some of the more jacked people I have seen/met followed a very straightforward plan like that. It seems like it works for a lot of people...BUT maybe not everyone. Or maybe the people it's not working for are in fact not "following the prescription." There are also studies showing that doing two sets of five of a pretty heavy weight, five days per week, resulted in very similar gains.

 

[Anna C]

In the fitness/diet space, there is a sort of feud between the "evidence based" crowd and the (for lack of better terminology) "anecdotal" crowd. The former tends to say you need studies to back your claims, the latter tends to say "my clients and my client track record say otherwise." Studies have limitations and details that matter...AND so do anecdotes. Studies are useful to see what happens when you try to control for a variable, and, imo, anecdotes are good for seeing what trends tend to give results.

I think that's why I value the sources in the original post (and some of the new ones shared - much appreciated)

They not only objectively evaluate the evidence, but they also live, breathe, coach, and teach this material. So they have the anecdotes to go along with what they believe to be true, but the also subject their own thought process to scrutiny based on the evidence at hand.

I've seen different representations of "levels of knowledge" but just making some up that might apply here, from lowest to highest:

1. - exposed to basic information about a subject
2. - direct experience in a subject area (a few anecdotes)
3. - exposed to / study a broader range of information about a subject (i.e. formal education or disciplined self-study)
4. - build more broad and varied experience (more anecdotes...)
5. - analyze existing research
6. - be able to answer others' questions about a subject
7. - design experiments about a subject (do research; formal or informal)
8. - understand flaws in others' arguments, claims, or methods about a subject
9. - be able to articulate exactly why others' arguments, claims, and methods are incorrect/invalid/misleading
10. - spread knowledge to others in such an enlightened and articulate way that it's unnecessary to directly address incorrect information

10 is great, and the best speakers and educators can sometimes spend their time there, and it is truly enlightening and uplifting if they've done their due diligence at all the lower levels and they're not just faking it.

I think a lot of people skip 8 and 9 and go straight to 10... and that's fine... many people just don't enjoy engaging with topics that way. I think StrongFirst is a good example of that. "We don't say you're wrong, we just know what we do works." Also, 8 and 9 can be done internally; they don't have to be done outwardly or publicly to be effective in getting to 10.

I always feel that I want to get to at least 6 in something that interests me. That's one of the reasons I enjoy engaging here on the forum, and I think many others here do too. Actively answering questions is a great way to learn and understand things yourself. Further, to really be able to do 6 in this interesting field of fitness and training, I also strive to be able to do 8 and 9, even if I don't spend a lot of time doing it. This field of fitness and training is somewhat unique in that there is such a flood of information out there of various qualities. So it helps to have people out there actively doing 8 and 9, and doing it well.

And there certainly are times we can all be a 10 in something that we truly know and understand.... “If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it.” - Margaret Fuller. Thank you to all of you here on the forum who do that!

 

[ali]

Good for him. Not sure being really aggressive is a good strategy but needs must given the situation...

Go to his blog, read his books: profane, irreverent and very, very funny, go to Anthony Warner, www.angry-chef.com

He stopped attacking the diet madness for his mental health I think and moved onto looking into everything in the food chain. He's a brilliant writer.

A lot of pushback to, let's say mainstream health advice, is a result of a mistrust in science, especially so with medicine and health. Failing health care systems, the expense of it, the huge profits, corruption and potential fraudulent scientific practice is an open door to alternative therapy and alternative 'facts'. And we see this with covid, anti-vaxx and let's say Big Pharma, opiate misuse and outright fraud.

There is a problem and broadly the scientific community has been too slow to counter this mistrust. Read Science Fictions by Stuart Ritchie for a deep exploration of the issues. So, to pushback we have influencers and websites that function on this narrative: mainstream health advice is corrupted and science is flawed. Yet they have the audacity to promote a belief, a product or a lifestyle with claims that it is supported by science and 'sell' it as such. Science bad, my science good.....and so consumers are left banging their heads.

In other science, there is debate, uncertainty and healthy scepticism conducted in a humble and honest manner. Internet nutritional science is political. And, the politics of our time is based on who has the loudest voice wins. There's nutritional science and Internet nutritional science. It is hard to tell the difference.

We are all susceptible to the crafty marketing, all gullible to the latest narrative and tribal group-think algorithms.

This is from Neil Degrasse Tyson. There are variations of it but this ttilogy is a useful way to start breaking down information....to debunk yourself.

Objective truth: it's true whether you believe it or not.
Personal truth: it's true to you and you may share beliefs. Some might say Faith.
Political truth: say it often enough, loud enough, convince others, it becomes true.

Helpful device. Identify the type of truth....is it more a belief system? Which is fine in and of itself. We all have different social and cultural norms. But, why are the claims so vociferously voiced and why attack the other side in making a case? Is it a political truth then?
Is there a denial of objective truth? What is objective reality?

Take a step back and laugh if all else fails.

 

[Essexman]

Good ones! Thank you!

I bought Ben Carpenter's book and I've seen him on Sohee's channel but I never thought to look for his. The others look great as well.

Have you finished Ben's book? I've been meaning to buy it myself.

 

[Anna C]

Have you finished Ben's book? I've been meaning to buy it myself.

I have not. But I'm going to get back on it. I'm currently on a fat loss path myself -- down 8 lbs in 8 weeks, so it will go well along with that continuing effort. The book is 364 pages of text and then 58 pages of citations, so there is plenty of evidence there to go along with what he's written! It is very thorough and also easy to read.
website
book: Everything Fat Loss

 

[Steve Freides]

If I may be forgiven for questioning the question, I don't watch TV, I don't follow anyone on Instagram, I don't listen to podcasts but very rarely, etc. (I do watch documentaries sometimes, e.g., Stanley Tucci's series, "Searching for Italy" is just wonderful. My wife finds these things for us to watch together on her laptop.) You may ask why.

It's been my experience as both music student and music teacher that most of time no good comes from a student having multiple teachers for the same thing. There is a lot to be said for selecting a source for your guidance and then following that guidance until you're achieved some level of mastery of it. I know a lot of you feel competent to listen to multiple sources of information in the world we're talking about, health and strength and conditioning and fitness and all that, and sort things out for yourselves, but I don't. In the old days in Europe, if in your youth you showed promise as, e.g., a classical singer, you'd often move in with your teacher so that you never practiced without their guidance. Did such people need more sources of information or instruction?

I feel like I live in an information glut. There's a study to support just about every position on every topic one can imagine. Facts have become fungible. I'm OK being called old-fashioned in my approach, but more isn't always better, and that newer isn't always better, either. I have one newspaper subscription, one magazine subscription. Diet advice comes from one source, the Warrior Diet which I read 20 years ago. I strive to be a better coach and teacher, and a better athlete and music performer, every day, but it's mostly an internal process for which I don't need multiple sources of outside input.

@Anna C, I can't imagine even being aware of all the sources you mentioned in your first post in this thread. Just as I reject the idea that newer is always better, I reject the idea that the old ways are always better because they aren't, but my choice is to rely on a few sources I trust. Am I missing some things? Yes. Am I OK with that? Yes.

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

-S-

 

[Anna C]

If I may be forgiven for questioning the question, I don't watch TV, I don't follow anyone on Instagram, I don't listen to podcasts but very rarely, etc. (I do watch documentaries sometimes, e.g., Stanley Tucci's series, "Searching for Italy" is just wonderful. My wife finds these things for us to watch together on her laptop.) You may ask why.

It's been my experience as both music student and music teacher that most of time no good comes from a student having multiple teachers for the same thing. There is a lot to be said for selecting a source for your guidance and then following that guidance until you're achieved some level of mastery of it. I know a lot of you feel competent to listen to multiple sources of information in the world we're talking about, health and strength and conditioning and fitness and all that, and sort things out for yourselves, but I don't. In the old days in Europe, if in your youth you showed promise as, e.g., a classical singer, you'd often move in with your teacher so that you never practiced without their guidance. Did such people need more sources of information or instruction?

I feel like I live in an information glut. There's a study to support just about every position on every topic one can imagine. Facts have become fungible. I'm OK being called old-fashioned in my approach, but more isn't always better, and that newer isn't always better, either. I have one newspaper subscription, one magazine subscription. Diet advice comes from one source, the Warrior Diet which I read 20 years ago. I strive to be a better coach and teacher, and a better athlete and music performer, every day, but it's mostly an internal process for which I don't need multiple sources of outside input.

@Anna C, I can't imagine even being aware of all the sources you mentioned in your first post in this thread. Just as I reject the idea that newer is always better, I reject the idea that the old ways are always better because they aren't, but my choice is to rely on a few sources I trust. Am I missing some things? Yes. Am I OK with that? Yes.

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

-S-

I like your perspective, and it is certainly valid and wise!

I think my perspective comes from two things:

1. In order to communicate to others, it's necessary to understand their beliefs and how they have arrived at them. Being aware of what's out there, good information and bad information, is helpful towards that.
2. Sorting through information is how I process things. Not everyone is that way. In Meyers Briggs terms, for those who are familiar, I'm a hard "ISTJ."

 

[Don Fairbanks]

I like your perspective, and it is certainly valid and wise!

I think my perspective comes from two things:

1. In order to communicate to others, it's necessary to understand their beliefs and how they have arrived at them. Being aware of what's out there, good information and bad information, is helpful towards that.
2. Sorting through information is how I process things. Not everyone is that way. In Meyers Briggs terms, for those who are familiar, I'm a hard "ISTJ."

I don't remember my MB results, Introvert mixed with ?, but I do get asked, " What do you think of this supplement, exercise, podcast ,paper,
diet, system, book?" etc. A Lot. It adds up. Soon I have all types of sources/info. pilled up/bookmarked, some of which I'll try. Basically 40+ years and counting of this.

 

[bluejeff]

we have influencers and websites that function on this narrative: mainstream health advice is corrupted and science is flawed. Yet they have the audacity to promote a belief, a product or a lifestyle with claims that it is supported by science and 'sell' it as such. Science bad, my science good

So much this ^ It drives me nuts sometimes.

As someone in a university physics program, I just want to grab and shake all the people claiming something is “quantum,” or that’s vibrations do blah blah blah. It’s just so evident they have never come within 100 miles of the actual science and theories, let alone the math from which they came. Instead they resort to “science has shown….”

Shown what? What are the studies? What experiments? Can you explain the mechanism of action? Is it repeatable?

 

[HarryBergers]

So much this ^ It drives me nuts sometimes.

As someone in a university physics program, I just want to grab and shake all the people claiming something is “quantum,” or that’s vibrations do blah blah blah. It’s just so evident they have never come within 100 miles of the actual science and theories, let alone the math from which they came. Instead they resort to “science has shown….”

Shown what? What are the studies? What experiments? Can you explain the mechanism of action? Is it repeatable?

15 years after these courses I'm still surprising myself just how surprising interactions like these can be.

At the same time, it's been very frustrating seeing the poster children for science, Michio, Neil, Bill and Brian all push a layman compatible, folksy version of physics. Or, the victims of these people believing that math itself is science, eg string theory.

Just wait until you're the one that is regarded as the kook because you're understanding surpasses.. the 4th grade level explanations television, radio etc give the masses.