Personality Cafe banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
2,004 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I really can't believe this sudden "turn around" in articles and what I'm hearing on the news about "oh, didn't you hear? Fat is actually good for you now! We were wrong!".

-.-

If anyone has a reasonable understanding of human biology and what their body needs, and has actually experienced effects of diet changes and exercise, they'd realise fat is extremely important.

If you want to get healthy, read science books, listen to your body, and you'll get healthy.

You don't need assholes getting you to go on ridiculous diets.
 

·
exploring space
Joined
·
10,446 Posts
To what kind of articles are you referring?
The "listen to your body" is not a good way to go especially in the beginning. People are far removed from what their body asks them and it needs a lot of time to understand it. Plus, many times it's not really asking for what we think it does.
Textbooks are necessary especially for basic knowledge, but to get the latest updates in research you'd have to read scientific articles.
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
2,004 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
To what kind of articles are you referring?
The "listen to your body" is not a good way to go especially in the beginning. People are far removed from what their body asks them and it needs a lot of time to understand it. Plus, many times it's not really asking for what we think it does.
Textbooks are necessary especially for basic knowledge, but to get the latest updates in research you'd have to read scientific articles.
The problem is, all these "updated" things often conflict with other scientific studies. Specialist/dietitian/nutritionists, who are the supposed to be the people with insight into these subjects, often disagree, and you will not know who to listen to, and quite often there's holes in the research.

I don't think textbooks are just about basic knowledge, but the only thing you can really rely on is core knowledge on the human body, and what it needs, and then see what works for you.

These articles dictate that you have to do certain things to get certain results, yet along comes someone who defies the article that states you NEED this, or you NEED that.

Almost every athlete, bodybuilder, strongman have made mistakes and injured themselves and have learned from it. A lot of it is just experiencing and figuring out what your body can handle and what helps it function better, and you can't really learn that from a textbook, it has to be come from experience.

P.S. The articles I'm referring to are articles on news/gossip sites, magazines, and even sites that might regularly talk about science from supposed educated people with PHD's. But if you find that the study from this informed person contradicts what another educated person says, what do you do then?

You can pic up tips from them every so often, but when you start to go past biology and your own body, it starts getting ridiculously technical, and even people with degrees can't agree on certain things.
 

·
exploring space
Joined
·
10,446 Posts
The problem is, all these "updated" things often conflict with other scientific studies. Specialist/dietitian/nutritionists, who are the supposed to be the people with insight into these subjects, often disagree, and you will not know who to listen to, and quite often there's holes in the research.

I don't think textbooks are just about basic knowledge, but the only thing you can really rely on is core knowledge on the human body, and what it needs, and then see what works for you.

These articles dictate that you have to do certain things to get certain results, yet along comes someone who defies the article that states you NEED this, or you NEED that.

Almost every athlete, bodybuilder, strongman have made mistakes and injured themselves and have learned from it. A lot of it is just experiencing and figuring out what your body can handle and what helps it function better, and you can't really learn that from a textbook, it has to be come from experience.

P.S. The articles I'm referring to are articles on news/gossip sites, magazines, and even sites that might regularly talk about science from supposed educated people with PHD's. But if you find that the study from this informed person contradicts what another educated person says, what do you do then?

You can pic up tips from them every so often, but when you start to go past biology and your own body, it starts getting ridiculously technical, and even people with degrees can't agree on certain things.

Nutrition research is a relatively new field that is growing a lot in the past 10-20 years. It's reasonable that we get conflicting studies because the results of each study are based on the characteristics of the sample, the methodology, the statistic analyses etc. And the results cannot always be interpreted using our current knowledge on physiology and biochemistry or other fields.
Unfortunately, unless, and sometimes even if,you have background in how to read and interpret scientific articles but also of the field, it can be very confusing, to downright impossible to draw conclusions just by reading scientific articles.
Which is why the best way to go is to read nutritional guidelines by big organizations that have gathered all the knowledge from the studies and have done a summary of what works and what doesn't. These are graded A, B, C etc depending on the strength of evidence so far.
Textbooks are exactly the same way, they get updated with the latest research and guidelines, but the problem with them is that they can be outdated by the time the new edition comes out, so you can mostly rely on them for the basics.
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
2,004 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Nutrition research is a relatively new field that is growing a lot in the past 10-20 years. It's reasonable that we get conflicting studies because the results of each study are based on the characteristics of the sample, the methodology, the statistic analyses etc. And the results cannot always be interpreted using our current knowledge on physiology and biochemistry or other fields.
Unfortunately, unless, and sometimes even if,you have background in how to read and interpret scientific articles but also of the field, it can be very confusing, to downright impossible to draw conclusions just by reading scientific articles.
Which is why the best way to go is to read nutritional guidelines by big organizations that have gathered all the knowledge from the studies and have done a summary of what works and what doesn't. These are graded A, B, C etc depending on the strength of evidence so far.
Textbooks are exactly the same way, they get updated with the latest research and guidelines, but the problem with them is that they can be outdated by the time the new edition comes out, so you can mostly rely on them for the basics.
Fair points, and I'm not completely against reading into informed, trustable scientific sources and their articles, but it's not necessarily these articles people are reading into, they're listening to news shows, and online articles on websites linked in google news.

Like - HEADLINE - FAT IS NOW GOOD FOR YOU.

Typical response - OMFG GAIZE, GAIZE, DID U HEAR? THIS SHIT! THIS SHIT RITE HERE BRAHS.

Most people read into celebrity diets, stupid vegan youtube floggers, buzzfeed articles etc. That's what I'm referring to. And they mostly talk a lot of crap.

Most people are not researching and trying to understand the few vital articles, they're basing their ideas on health from retarded internet articles from wannabe gurus.
 

·
Mastodon Hunter
Joined
·
8,093 Posts
Um... Fat IS good for you. Necessary, in fact. But as with all things, moderation is key.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,146 Posts
Well there's sarcasm there, what's your view?
View about what, exactly?
"fat causes heart disease" is a misquote about a study about "being fat causes heart disease" by the way.
Also goviment =/= scientists.
Just that the givment is science's most prevalent funder.
Probably.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
View about what, exactly?
"fat causes heart disease" is a misquote about a study about "being fat causes heart disease" by the way.
Also goviment =/= scientists.
Just that the givment is science's most prevalent funder.
Probably.

Mmmhmm, yeah just pointing out other factors that influences public opinion.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top