^^^ Everyone knows that mitochondria best hypertrophy with high rep kettleballs in rooms of about 103 degrees. Duh man
But all fun aside, the pseudo-science that fills these last 12 pages makes to where I can actually feel by IQ lowering as I scroll.
"Believe it or not: "science" is subjective"
Actually no, it isn't. Whether or not Moby Dick is literary genius is subjective. Good scotch is subjective. Whether or not your mitochondria require high fructose, broken down, to function well can be studied, broken down, and analyzed to the point that reasonable conclusions can be made. When one makes a scientific statement, one is making a statement about a naturally occurring reality that they have hypothesized, studied, and verified repeatedly.
Science is always under debate, but it is most certainly not subjective. As a proverb says "Mathematics is not an opinion."
Science isn't subjective, but it's wrong a lot, distorted, and cherrypicked and most of these people are gullible enough to believe anything. Any jackass can search for any article on pubmed claiming x is harmful, but they often fail to read the whole article which, is, more than likely in a made up clinical setting with a small sample size of rodents in a short testing phase. Being fed pure crystalline fructose in unreasonable concentrations is a rather absurd for drawing a conclusion that eating fruit is harmful at all.
I can find hundreds of thousands of similar trials showing that consumption of meat is harmful as well, doesn't make it true.
I used the inverted commas intentionally. A lot of the time it's not Science, it's agenda-fuelled studies. Or, even when a study is earnest, it can still be incorrect. Remember when the Atom was the smallest particle in existence?
Truth is not subjective, but no one knows the truth.
Last edited by YogaBare; 08-22-2013 at 04:42 PM.
"I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.
In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."
- Ray Peat
I would not get into a debate about superseded scientific theories with Lazarus, he still believes in an archaic theory of insulin, and thought that t4 was the active thyroid hormone.
So your point is that you want this to be a discussion about how bad polyunsaturated fats are? I'm not arguing with you there. (of course, I recently read a pro-vegan arguement against saturated fats saying that because saturated fats were solid at room temperature then you know, *of course* they clog your arteries simply by their viscious nature).
But coming back to the original topic, an RQ of 70 is better if you are worried about fat, since that's when your metabolism is burning fat.Originally Posted by Peter Attia
Last edited by magicmerl; 08-22-2013 at 05:10 PM.
Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.
Griff's cholesterol primer
5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
bloodorchid is always right
Yes, I agree completely with what you said. I just have a lot of sensitivity toward an "anything goes" attitude when it comes to our bodies. Something is either the truth or it is not. There is too much "study X must mean this", even though actual studies of that next theory have been done to disprove it.
For the ever embarrassing himself Derp...3 days off block unfortunately. I always forgive.
You don't know at all what I think about insulin, past your interpretation of some deliberately simplified explanations I have given in the past....and AGAIN with the post about T3. My God. You misunderstood what I said and then took it as fact, then defeated a straw man point I never made. Move on.
As for my "archaic" ideas, which aren't so at all....they have helped actual people, hundreds of them, who have come to me to get help from diabetes. Once your loony "guy with a website" ideas do that, I will feel a need to listen.
I can't handle the personal attacks on here. It's so juvenile.
You say you are small, but how small is that? I ask because according to one calculator my maintenance calories are about 1460 a day and that includes an average of one hour a day exercise. This means to burn fat, even with my activity level, I need to eat less than that!
I think macros can be important but at the end of the day if you're eating more than you're burning you won't burn fat!
Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.