Disqus - Friends of BillyOblivion

Re: The State of Evidence-Based Fitness

evidencebasedfitness — Tue, 21 May 2013 20:10:01 -0000

There's a market for boob jobs, but you don't see any debates on, "Would you hire a plastic surgeon with no boobs to do your boob job?" Even with unscrupulous surgeons (both plastic and otherwise doing breast augmentation), people generally will trust that their surgeon is making the recommendation that is right for them. Word eventually gets out about the ones that maybe aren't so great (who may also have the loudest voices), but it's not really a dyad. Even as a trainer, you can't expect that clients know as much about human physiology as it pertains to training or nutrition as you do. That's _why they're hiring you_.

There's always a "buyer beware" for everything; it's just less pronounced in a culture where "not-professional" is (hopefully) not as prevalent.

Re: The State of Evidence-Based Fitness

evidencebasedfitness — Tue, 21 May 2013 20:10:28 -0000

Thanks for the support! Much appreciated.

Re: 30 seconds of idiocy. The cure for cancer is delayed by decades.

evidencebasedfitness — Wed, 22 May 2013 08:37:20 -0000

I'm usually missing many points.

However, as a researcher, it's really difficult to operate on a day-to-day basis, or even a grant-to-grant basis with a 'the government (or funding body) has ulterior motives' mindset. There are always certain realities in working with an organization whose ultimate leadership has the primary goal is to stay in power every 4 years, but too much cynicism in 'the system' begets an insurmountable sense of pessimism, which is really unsustainable in an occupation where optimism is what fuels the entirety of your work. No researcher starts a project with the feeling that it's going to yield unexpected/undesired results. We all embark on research projects (or we should) because we have a burning desire to answer a question, or to solve a problem. We are always optimistic that what we do will move us forward.

If you believe that the light bulb company is out to get you and is making short-lived light bulbs on purpose, why bother changing any light bulbs?

Re: 30 seconds of idiocy. The cure for cancer is delayed by decades.

evidencebasedfitness — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:30:23 -0000

So then, my queston would be, "If you can't get access to the full paper, then why share at all?" It's like going shopping in the Porsche store (if you're not exorbitantly rich.) You're not there to buy anything. You don't have the means to access a Porsche (and that's a general "you", since for all I know you're a bajillionarie.) You're there because it's fun to look at the cars, to sit in them and dream about the day that you might buy one. It's just fun to do.

There's nothing wrong with reading abstracts, or magazines for fun. If you choose to do it as a leisure activity, on the same level that you watch the Discovery Channel, or Game of Thrones, that's your decision. The problem arises when you decide to give your valuable energy over to what is entertainment, and not actually bona-fide informed advice.

Do you stop and stare at every cigarette butt on the sidewalk just because it's there? Unless it's a part of an interesting sculpture, probably not. Accessibility doesn't mean it deserves your attention. Lack of access to full studies doesn't prevent the general public from not paying attention to commercial junk.

I'm not sure how access to full-text would draw attention away from commercial junk. Full-text itself isn't really accessible reading (in terms of the ability to discern what studies are useful or not useful to any given individual.) So even if full access was fully available to everyone _AND_ if everyone knew how to read and interpret it, it wouldn't prevent viral sharing.

Re: 30 seconds of idiocy. The cure for cancer is delayed by decades.

evidencebasedfitness — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:32:22 -0000

Blogging is both the greatest and worst thing ever. I love that anyone can publish their thoughts and opinions. But this blurring of science as entertainment and science as information is killing me. :)

Re: 30 seconds of idiocy. The cure for cancer is delayed by decades.

evidencebasedfitness — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:35:02 -0000

Totally agree, Brian. Social media has become a mal-placed proxy for social proof.

Re: When is a calorie not a calorie? To get to the other side (Yup, just another bad joke.)

evidencebasedfitness — Sun, 23 Jun 2013 22:08:26 -0000

Yup, no problem.

Re: MOAR PROTEIN??

evidencebasedfitness — Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:37:01 -0000

I think giving people a minimum target is useful if they're not meeting it. What I'm opposed to is setting that minimum target higher than it probably needs to be, depending on the goal of the program/intervention. This study obviously does not address clients who might be looking to gain muscle (nor was that its goal). But in the context of someone who's looking to enter an energy deficit (for whatever reason), I think it does stress the importance of meeting a minimum protein intake that is higher than the RDA (but not to go crazy over it, since I think 0.7g/lb is pretty easily achieved for most--I think some people have to work at getting 1g/lb. It doesn't just happen passively.) The questions left unanswered here though, are 1) the moving minimum as weight fluctuates; as well as 2) whether the losses of fat-free mass result in any (dare I use the loaded word) "functional" consequences. We assume that fat-free mass loss is bad; but as we know from muscle atrophy studies, this is fairly recoverable (bone might be a different issue from the zero-G studies).

This then ties into the psychology of weight-loss and what any individual will tolerate/adhere with; which opens up a whole new can of worms.

Re: MOAR PROTEIN??

evidencebasedfitness — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:37:29 -0000

i think there's still too much hype around the fear of having "limited substrate" (i.e. if you're not consuming enough 'building blocks' then you're not growing as fast as you could.) The problem is that muscle protein accretion happens at a much slower rate (unless you're on drugs) than the "Gain 10 pounds in 10 weeks!" people would have you believe; and so I'm not convinced that the limiting factor, if you're "not gaining muscle" is limited protein. I think getting the 0.7g/pound is enough, which is as valid of an opinion as anyone else's at this point.

Re: Hey, ass-hat with the abstract link. Yeah. You.

evidencebasedfitness — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:22:01 -0000

The problem with an abstract is that it's not complete information. The problem with incomplete information, whether it's in abstract form or science-media form is that it has a much higher potential to cause misinformation and, quite possibly, measurable harms.

The problem is that neither vehicle is supposed to be anything other than enticement, and entertainment. You don't watch Orange is the New Black to learn about prison culture--you watch it to be entertained. It's the same thing with abstracts and a lot of science-media. Where things have fallen apart is the mistaken linkage that has been created where consuming science-entertainment has become confused with education and informing. Making a decision based on an abstract because it's the only thing available to you is like choosing to eat a breakfast bar based on the slogan on the wrapper.

I agree: there are plenty of academics WITH full access who can't interpret their way out of a paper bag. And therein lies the rub. I recently went through a period where I didn't have full-access to journals and had to make a talk where I needed extensive referencing. I'm not _the best_ methodologist in the world, but I'm pretty damn good. And even with my background, there was virtually nothing I could do with the 'resources available to me'. My time was better spent not by continuing to read abstracts, but to figure out a way to get the resources I needed.

While I laud the qualities of benign intent, transparency, honesty and critical thinking, I put getting the right answer above all of it. A writer with impeccable intent, transparency and integrity who still gets the answer wrong because they don't have the resources to get the right answer is still, at the end of the day, wrong. And wrong belongs in the same basket as wrong.

It's not a pleasant reality, nor a warm-fuzzy response; but when you lose your full-access, you will, unfortunately, be ill-equipped to really wear your science hat, just as I was when I also did not have full-access.

Re: Hey, ass-hat with the abstract link. Yeah. You.

evidencebasedfitness — Fri, 04 Oct 2013 12:47:20 -0000

Actually, I'm not implying that people are either right or wrong. I'm stating it outright.

The authors' conclusions are not always supported by their data even in a full version of the manuscript, never mind an abstract. Yes, you can read an abstract and see what the authors wrote about whether or not they proved something in their study. This conclusion is about as useful as a paper's introduction--which is to say basically not at all. Abstracts were never meant to be consumed in isolation.

No matter how open-minded you are, how noble your intentions or how ardent your skepticism, you cannot critically evaluate without a full picture. You're a blind man trying to figure out what an elephant looks like from the point of view of the trunk.

Sure, someone who's seen an elephant can then come along and say, "Actually, no, an elephant is actually not like a snake at all," but the damage has already been done. Even if the blind man who has proclaimed, "An elephant is long and slender like a snake!" then goes forth and says, "No no, I was wrong and an elephant, in fact, only has a nose like a snake," it's now muddied waters. There's enough confusion as it is between people who have access to full elephants, without introducing trunk-only viewpoints.

The whole point of this post was to illustrate how one highly-propagated byline taken from an abstract was actually completely not-correct, nor justified. I don't think anyone maliciously set out to deceive an entire populace of people who basically wanted to hear that eating high-protein diets is good for you, nor was it a malicious action to disprove low-protein proponents. It's just put out there that there's a study that shows a high protein diet helps you lose fat and keep muscle mass. Only, this study doesn't' show that AT ALL. Perfectly open-minded fitness professionals made their Internet-bytes and promulgated it with the best of intentions. And only after you read the study, do you realize it's NOT actually useful. It's not useful information for ANYONE other than a small subset of scientists. Who was helped in this tweet/facebook wave? No one. (Okay, fine I got a blog post out of it. So, me.)

As for "qualified professionals", this is the Internet. And in case you haven't noticed, pretty much all voices are equal on the Internet. My voice is the same as fuwuqads839. My job isn't to keep people in check any more than it's my job as a surgeon to correct unqualified "surgeons'" mistakes. If you can't do the operation properly, you shouldn't be doing it at all.

The idea that as a fitness "professional", your sense of wonder (though laudable) is sufficient justification to spout gets at the root of the lack of professionalism in the fitness and nutrition industry. If you're a professional, then it's your duty to ensure that what you're saying is actually justified; not just entertaining.

Re: The State of Evidence-Based Fitness

evidencebasedfitness — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:13:48 -0000

I would absolutely hire someone dressed like a nerd as a Fashion Consultant if they were dressing people well. You don't hire a professional of any kind based on their personal expressions: you hire them based on their knowledge, skill and ability to produce what it is you want.

Some people who want plastic surgery want to look like models and actors. My ability as a surgeon is not dependent on their faulty expectations. Part of being a successful surgeon is being able to appropriately select your patients. That means selecting patients whose expectations are realistic and within your ability (or having the ability to successfully educate a potential client on modifying their expectations, e.g. Some breast asymmetries aren't size problems, but rib cage problems; the appearance of looking 'tired' isn't always a problem with the lower eyelids, but the cheek.)

A client with unrealistic expectations (whether genetically-based, i.e., "I want to look like Angelina Jolie" or individual, i.e. "I want to be 250lbs ripped at 5'9 without using drugs") is someone you should be turning away, "I'm sorry, I can't give that to you." You're being hired not only for your knowledge of how to make someone "transform" but also your knowledge of realistic goal setting. The desire and motivation is their job. The knowledge is your job. You can't control your client anymore than I can control a patient outside of the operating room. What I CAN control, however, is balancing the situation that is present with the best result I can give (sometimes you have to go for a less radical operation and a less dramatic result because the patient has vacation-time constraints, for example.) Sometimes that means recognizing it's beyond my ability. A good trainer will take what they have and make the best of it. And that shows in their work, regardless of what they look like.

If you, as a trainer, are so indiscriminate (or unknowledgeable) that you can't determine whether your ability meets your clients expectation of results, then there is much learning to still be done. That's one of the ways the professional distinguishes themselves from the hack--they don't take on jobs they know (or are pretty sure) they can't deliver.

Yes, trainers need to make a living. Yes, trainers have mouths to feed (even if it's their own.) Balancing one's integrity and professionalism with one's needs is a definite challenge. Some people rise to the challenge, and others make excuses.

Re: The State of Evidence-Based Fitness

evidencebasedfitness — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 18:13:23 -0000

If genetics plays that large of a role for training effect, as you suggest, then there's no point in having a trainer at all, because people will either succeed or fail IN SPITE of what you do. Essentially, what you're suggesting is that the trainer is actually the confounding variable between genetics and result, and therefore doesn't (by definition) lie in the causal pathway at all. If that's actually the case for looking at one trainer's result vs another's, then we can safely shut down the entire fitness industry, because your knowledge means nothing.

As for the surgery bit, the operation itself is the easy part. Post-operative care is paramount for surgical success. There's no operation that can consistently succeed if the patient doesn't actually follow post-operative instructions. You can do the perfect operation and it can (and does) get screwed up in the post-operative period; thus the need for taking multiple factors into consideration when selecting a patient for surgery.

However, back to the original argument. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the analogy can't be applied. Are you suggesting that the argument, "You shouldn't hire a trainer who doesn't look like a fitness model," is a valid one?

Re: Gymnastics makes you short.

evidencebasedfitness — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 01:22:38 -0000

Didn't read past the title, did you? :)

Re: My tennis elbow protocol: For posterity’s sake.

evidencebasedfitness — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 11:00:49 -0000

I guess it depends on which study you're referring to. I'm referring to the study by the group with Oberg, which is definitely fast and definitely not pleasant.

Re: Beta-alanine: The Harris Study (this is what grad students are actually used for)

evidencebasedfitness — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:22:43 -0000

Baking soda has quite a bit of sodium in it, so that's one good reason not to use it. Anecdotally, the athletes I've known to try it have hated the experience. It's not a pleasant one. I don't recommend BA or baking soda though.

Re: Yummy (?) but not special Part II: Bulletproof Coffee

evidencebasedfitness — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:15:31 -0000

If you're deriving psychological benefits from doing something that probably doesn't hurt you (other than your pocket book) and enjoying the experience, then there's nothing wrong with that. (See the tickling fetish post) I'm also not convinced that saturated fat is a "bad food" (whether there are causal associations or not is not really clear and I would be more conservative than to say definitively doesn't cause heart disease), but I think it's important to differentiate between measurable benefits vs "things you enjoy" is all.

Re: Yummy (?) but not special Part II: Bulletproof Coffee

evidencebasedfitness — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:19:47 -0000

I haven't seen a source for this, however, regardless of its reduced presence or absence, the outcome data doesn't change. In fact, if there _some_ in the grass-fed milk and virtually _none_ in the conventional-fed milk, it shifts the bias even more to the 'no effect' of using grass-fed over conventional-fed milk, and also shifts the estimate of what CLA (in small quantities) towards the 'no effect' side (i.e. evidence that CLA does not provide any benefit in any isoform). One could then argue that there is not a high enough dose of CLA in grass-fed milk to produce an effect, in which case, then it may as well not be there at all.

Re: Yummy (?) but not special Part II: Bulletproof Coffee

evidencebasedfitness — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:52:54 -0000

I'm not a regular caffeine user (coffee or otherwise), so I've never experienced the feeling that comes with starting one's day regularly with coffee. But, I do intermittently fast, which is quite easy to do when you're crazy busy without feeling less energetic (at least for me). I think if you're dependent on coffee to get through a period of not-eating then you're either trying to take on more not-eating than you're ready for, or it's just not a great strategy _for you_. I don't agree that taking butter + MCT's in black coffee doesn't 'count' as breaking a fast though.

Re: Yummy (?) but not special Part II: Bulletproof Coffee

evidencebasedfitness — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:04:36 -0000

As with all toxins, it's all very dose-dependent. Unfortunately, that blog post just references back to the BPE website, so it's kinda circular. My dad is lactose-intolerant (not that lactose is a toxin). He _could_ buy lactose-free milk, but instead, he just doesn't consume dairy in quantities that cause him GI distress. I think if you're that worried about aflatoxin in any amount and if you believe the vast majority of aflatoxin comes from your coffee (but are fine with the supposedly smaller amounts in other foods), then perhaps you could just stop drinking coffee? There's minimum allowable levels of all sorts of 'bad' stuff in your foods, Bulletproof Diet/Coffee or not. I'm pretty sure more people die directly from Salmonella and E. Coli contamination of meats than are affected by mycotoxins (though I would have to look this up to be absolutely certain.) Should we then eliminate meat? Is aflatoxin really where the line gets drawn? Where does 'bad stuff' elimination stop?

Re: Yummy (?) but not special Part II: Bulletproof Coffee

evidencebasedfitness — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:06:39 -0000

Thanks for the link to that. That has got to be one of the most orthorexic diets I have ever seen.

I'd be interested in seeing how mycotoxin levels vary as well. I was unable to find any primary literature on it in my searches, though I didn't go through any of the agricultural databases.

Re: Yummy (?) but not special Part II: Bulletproof Coffee

evidencebasedfitness — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:26:14 -0000

Ah sorry about that. Yes, I do recall seeing that post when I was delving as well. I'm not even sure that 'crap coffee from Africa' is even worth worrying about, depending on how extreme one's coffee consumption is.

Thanks for the link!

Re: Yummy (?) but not special Part II: Bulletproof Coffee

evidencebasedfitness — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:47:37 -0000

An allergy to hold hasn't got anything to do with grass-fed butter or MCT's, for one.
And for another, "avoiding an allergy to mold" isn't anywhere on their claims for why one should buy BP coffee. Like I've mentioned, my dad is lactose-intolerant, so he's quite adamant about not drinking a pint of milk, but that doesn't mean milk is unpleasant for everyone and that everyone should start buying lactose-free milk. Thirdly, if you were severely allergic to a contaminant in a food-item that is basically completely nutrient-free, albeit with some interesting aromatics and stimulants, wouldn't you just forego said substance instead?

What I don't understand is that if you have symptoms like a 'brain-fog' (whatever the hell that is) so severe after drinking something, that you wouldn't be able to just let go of the causative agent. It's like trying to find a tequila that doesn't make you want to vomit if you've already had a bad experience with it (e.g. "I ONLY drink Patrone Platinum, because it's a more pure tequila and all the other ones make me throw up." "Uh, why not drink gin instead?")

Re: Yummy (?) but not special Part II: Bulletproof Coffee

evidencebasedfitness — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 23:31:07 -0000

I think the jitteriness and crash are well-documented phenomenon of caffeine (without the coffee). I don't think there's anything in the coffee itself that causes it, otherwise, people drinking decaffeinated products (coffee, tea, Canadian Mountain Dew) would have the same reactions.

Re: Another beta-alanine study. Don’t buy the hype.

evidencebasedfitness — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 07:58:03 -0000

Saying, “It works for me,” is exactly like saying, “I have a tickling fetish.”

http://evidencebasedfitness...