Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: do triglycerides cause insulin spike? page 3

  1. #21
    jackson44's Avatar
    jackson44 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    185
    Shop Now
    I was wondering the same thing about who you are! Lucky for me, I got to learn from you and caught you on the long weekend. Glad you jumped in and hope you respond more.

    Again, much appreciation for the time you are taking to answer my questions.

    Thank you!

  2. #22
    Artbuc's Avatar
    Artbuc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    479
    Quote Originally Posted by The Scientist View Post
    I do research on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at a large research hospital, and teach Genetics and Anatomy and Physiology courses at a nearby university. I read posts around here on occasion and am frustrated with the confusion, but am usually too busy to respond. I have a long relaxing weekend on my hands and thought it seemed like a good time to jump in.
    Thank-you so much for jumping in! Your intellectual honesty is a breath of fresh air. So many folks here and on other forums are well intended for sure, but they often make strong unequivocal statements which are simply not true or at least not proven. This happens quite frequently in discussions about lipidogy and heart disease.

  3. #23
    The Scientist's Avatar
    The Scientist is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Artbuc View Post
    Thank-you so much for jumping in! Your intellectual honesty is a breath of fresh air. So many folks here and on other forums are well intended for sure, but they often make strong unequivocal statements which are simply not true or at least not proven. This happens quite frequently in discussions about lipidogy and heart disease.
    I know what you mean – scientists are often not much better. They just have more complicated unjustified claims. The tendency toward confirmation bias is difficult to avoid. I know that I have to consciously tell myself to avoid it frequently. That said, communicating science to people is enjoyable for me, so I am happy to help. The people here are at least much more sincere and interested than many of the students that show up in my classes.

  4. #24
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by The Scientist View Post
    I do research on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at a large research hospital, and teach Genetics and Anatomy and Physiology courses at a nearby university. I read posts around here on occasion and am frustrated with the confusion, but am usually too busy to respond. I have a long relaxing weekend on my hands and thought it seemed like a good time to jump in.
    What is it you see here mostly that causes confusion? We see so much bro-science, it's hard to separate from reality sometimes.

  5. #25
    The Scientist's Avatar
    The Scientist is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by otzi View Post
    What is it you see here mostly that causes confusion? We see so much bro-science, it's hard to separate from reality sometimes.
    A forum like this is a difficult place for scientific discussion for one big reason: (almost) nobody here has actually thoroughly read and understood the scientific literature related to the topic they are discussing. It is just one big game of telephone where everyone is trying to repeat what they heard from someone else. Even if what they read is correct, and they understood it (which is often not the case), they now have to apply that information to new problems which is nearly impossible to do if you don't know the science inside and out. I made it through 4 years of a PhD learning how to dissect these experiments and now my full time job is dependent on me thoroughly reading all the relevant science about lipid metabolism – and I still feel like I am still scratching the surface sometimes.

    The good news is that using the evolutionary filter that the paleo approach suggests seems to align with the actual data in nearly all cases. So... understanding the science behind it all is interesting and important, but we can get by without for now and be alright.

  6. #26
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    798
    Quote Originally Posted by The Scientist View Post
    A forum like this is a difficult place for scientific discussion for one big reason: (almost) nobody here has actually thoroughly read and understood the scientific literature related to the topic they are discussing. It is just one big game of telephone where everyone is trying to repeat what they heard from someone else. Even if what they read is correct, and they understood it (which is often not the case), they now have to apply that information to new problems which is nearly impossible to do if you don't know the science inside and out. I made it through 4 years of a PhD learning how to dissect these experiments and now my full time job is dependent on me thoroughly reading all the relevant science about lipid metabolism and I still feel like I am still scratching the surface sometimes.

    The good news is that using the evolutionary filter that the paleo approach suggests seems to align with the actual data in nearly all cases. So... understanding the science behind it all is interesting and important, but we can get by without for now and be alright.
    Man... TRUTH.

  7. #27
    Drumroll's Avatar
    Drumroll is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,474
    Eh, I'm willing to let people make their claims, unbiased, biased, uneducated, educated, or what all have you.

    If I have any questions about the basis of the claims being made by anyone, I am not so lazy that I can't attempt to at least do some basis research into the matter on my own. I think the biggest problem with scientific discussion here is not the claims people make being uneducated, but the unwillingness of some of the people to question this.

    They want us to encapsulate the answers to them in quick, perfect, little bullet points that make the aswer 100% clear with absoultely no confusion. But frankly, this is impossible. People have to be willing to go out and do a little research for themselves and be willing to question the answers we (even the most qualified amongst us) give them. If they don't, then they will not be getting everything from this forum that is has the potential to offer them.

    Imagine that... Maximizing benefits and discussion and education takes a little effort.

  8. #28
    The Scientist's Avatar
    The Scientist is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumroll View Post
    Eh, I'm willing to let people make their claims, unbiased, biased, uneducated, educated, or what all have you.

    If I have any questions about the basis of the claims being made by anyone, I am not so lazy that I can't attempt to at least do some basis research into the matter on my own. I think the biggest problem with scientific discussion here is not the claims people make being uneducated, but the unwillingness of some of the people to question this.

    They want us to encapsulate the answers to them in quick, perfect, little bullet points that make the aswer 100% clear with absoultely no confusion. But frankly, this is impossible. People have to be willing to go out and do a little research for themselves and be willing to question the answers we (even the most qualified amongst us) give them. If they don't, then they will not be getting everything from this forum that is has the potential to offer them.

    Imagine that... Maximizing benefits and discussion and education takes a little effort.
    I hate to be cynical, but I just don't agree. I don't think that the average person has the combination of time/resources/education/intellect to really make an educated decision based on the science. There is just too much of it and it is too dense. It really comes down to which "expert" they are going to trust, and what makes them feel the best when they apply the advice they decide to try out.

  9. #29
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by The Scientist View Post
    I hate to be cynical, but I just don't agree. I don't think that the average person has the combination of time/resources/education/intellect to really make an educated decision based on the science. There is just too much of it and it is too dense. It really comes down to which "expert" they are going to trust, and what makes them feel the best when they apply the advice they decide to try out.
    With PubMed, Google Scholar, and Wikipedia I can find a lot of facts. I can spend hours researching topics like cold thermogenesis, uncoupling proteins, or insulin sensitivity. Trouble is, you can find a study to support just about anything and you often find conflicting studies, or even old studies that have been invalidated. I don't feel having these assets at my fingertips makes me a scientist or doctor, it makes me well informed, but I admit sometimes I get to chasing things down and end up deep in a rabbit hole I have a hard time getting out of.

    Appreciate you stopping by and maybe enlightening us on a few subjects.

  10. #30
    Artbuc's Avatar
    Artbuc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    479
    Quote Originally Posted by otzi View Post
    With PubMed, Google Scholar, and Wikipedia I can find a lot of facts. I can spend hours researching topics like cold thermogenesis, uncoupling proteins, or insulin sensitivity. Trouble is, you can find a study to support just about anything and you often find conflicting studies, or even old studies that have been invalidated. I don't feel having these assets at my fingertips makes me a scientist or doctor, it makes me well informed, but I admit sometimes I get to chasing things down and end up deep in a rabbit hole I have a hard time getting out of.

    Appreciate you stopping by and maybe enlightening us on a few subjects.
    Ortiz, I feel exactly the same way. I am not a scientist but I am a chemical engineer and have some appreciation for the scientific process, data analysis and biochemistry. When I first discovered MDA I thought I had found the source of fundamental truth and knowledge about my main interest which is the connection between serum cholesterol and heart disease. It took quite a while to figure out that the fundamental knowledge I am seeking does not exist. I am concerned when people come here, post their lipid numbers and ask if they should be concerned. They get responses like "don't worry, your ratios are great" or "total cholesterol doesn't mean anything" or "you probably have big, fluffy LDL's which are totally harmless". Unless you really dig in as you discussed, you may be inclined to assume this feedback is 100% reliable because it is often stated in such unequivocal terms. You almost never hear someone frame a response the way The Scientist did. Heck, I almost did the LDL-P test by LipoScience and actually posted about my unenlightened CW doctor who did not recommend that test because it is not reliable. I listened to Dayspring, et al and they seemed so confident in their views and seemed to be such experts. They had me totally bamboozled.
    Last edited by Artbuc; 11-24-2012 at 01:48 AM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •