BONK Training??

Alex_Simmons/RST

proposing to re-write the laws of thermodynamics are we?

here's a fairly straightforward item from the dummies.com site.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/b ... rning.html

An excess of calories will be deposited as fat, mostly around the gut, under the skin and a little in the muscles.

fatbee

Hi Alex

thanks for the reply

In answer to your question "proposing to re-write the laws of thermodynamics are we?" Er, no. I wasn't proposing to right now. Maybe I'll do that later.

I can't get your hyperlink to the dummies site to work right now - I'll keep trying. In the meantime would you please answer my question? I'll put it more simply and relate it to your last statement:

"An excess of calories will be deposited as fat, mostly around the gut, under the skin and a little in the muscles."

Would this "excess of calories" be deposited as fat if the person in question had eaten both that excess and the underlying basal metabolic requirement, ENTIRELY AS FAT ?

I'd be very grateful indeed if you would take the time to answer,

thanks in advance

fb

DaveyL

Hey, fatbee's back!

Still waiting for your answer to my query at the bottom of this page:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... c&start=20

bahzob

Lot of theory here. Suggest anybody interested in this topic also back it up with a bit of practice and, at least for a month or so, keep an accurate food/exercise diary.

This will help give an insight into theory and also, importantly, how this may or may not apply to your specific case. One things for sure: whats true for one individual aint the case for another.

(good Horizon episode on this here: took group of students who seemed to be naturally thin and looked at effect of high cal/no exercise diet on them. Large variance in results + interesting insight on effect of genes and believable case for further investigation in terms of virus linked to fat gain (which is whole other argument of course)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hbsk2/Horizon_20082009_Why_Are_Thin_People_Not_Fat/ (but sorry for those not in UK as dont think you will be able to view it unless someones copied it onto Youtube).

FWIW heres my findings from keeping a pretty meticulous diary for over a year now:
- Simplest predictor of weight loss is overall calories taken in less than those burned.
--- That said in my case I seem to have a natural BMR 300kcal per day under "normal" (so to stay flat weight wise I need to eat 300cals per day less than predicted on basis of cals burned) (This is a bummer from POV of keeping to target weight but may be explanation why I can ride long distance comfortably with relatively little food and never bonk)
- No major sustainable variance in this due to different exercise types (despite trying specific early morning fat burn routines like OP and doing alls sorts of cycling from easy tours to 12 hourTTs to road racing to hard interval training)
- Biggest reason for putting on weight before food diary was simple lack of awareness of how many calories are actually in food, in real portions. Simple e.g. is breakfast cereal: boxes give cals for a nominal 30g portion. In my bowls this barely covers the bottom and more typical is 50g.
- Explicable and inexplicable spikes occur, probably due to fluid retention. So effect of any diet/exercise combination only starts to make sense in medium term over several months.

Alex_Simmons/RST

fatbee wrote:

Hi Alex

thanks for the reply

In answer to your question "proposing to re-write the laws of thermodynamics are we?" Er, no. I wasn't proposing to right now. Maybe I'll do that later.

I can't get your hyperlink to the dummies site to work right now - I'll keep trying. In the meantime would you please answer my question? I'll put it more simply and relate it to your last statement:

"An excess of calories will be deposited as fat, mostly around the gut, under the skin and a little in the muscles."

Would this "excess of calories" be deposited as fat if the person in question had eaten both that excess and the underlying basal metabolic requirement, ENTIRELY AS FAT ?

I'd be very grateful indeed if you would take the time to answer,

thanks in advance

fb

Why? consume more than you use and you'll put the excess on as fat. Perhaps in a one off sitting there will be fluctuations, but ultimately, consume more calories than you use and over time you'll add fat.

Train smart, train hard to get fitter and be able to burn more calories (by riding at a higher average power overall).

Eat sensibly to lose/gain/maintain body mass as required - a well balanced diet with all the nutrients needed and with plenty of carbs to fuel the smart/hard training (for cyclists).

Now let us know when you've re-written the laws of thermodynamics.

fatbee

"Why?" Why what? Why answer the question? Well just out of politeness if nothing else. That would be nice.

Oh go on. Please! I'll ask just one more time :

You say “consume more than you use and you’ll put the excess on as fat”

And I’m asking you – is that always true, even if all those calories were consumed as fat?

You also say “ultimately, consume more calories than you use and over time you’ll add fat”

And again I’m asking you – “ultimately”, is that always the case? What if, “over time”, all calories ingested had been in the form of fat?

Come on Alex. Step up to the plate! Put your money were your mouth is. Simple answer.

YES OR NO ?

stjohnswell

Why can't we all just get along?

fatbee

May I take it stj, that you’d like me actually to answer that?

Or would it be OK if I repeatedly posted responses in which I evaded the question ?

fb xxx

Jajacp

The article may have been called 'bonk training', but surely no-one's actually going to bonk on 20-90mins of moderate riding before breakfast are they? It should be called ' How to utilise fat without bonking.'

bahzob

Out of interest the "bonk" method is also promoted by Training Peaks, though as per above its not really "bonk" training.

http://blog.trainingpeaks.com/2008/11/ask-the-experts-ben-greenfield-on-fast-fat-loss.html

Also most recent edition of Cyclesport had article on training from Garmin team, probably one of the more advanced in terms of applying sports exercise theory to pro team practice.

Amongst the drills was a 5 hour ride aimed to get body used to burning fat. (First hour at high tempo pace to use up carbs, then 3 hours steady then final hour tempo at very high (130rpm) revs. Carbohydrate intake restricted throughout).

Not saying either of above support one or other argument. Am saying that field is complex and doesnt lend itself to easy answers. Also whatever general principles exist, the variability between people is such that they will only make sense in context of specific individual. Horizon episode I cited above is e.g. of this. In sample of naturally thin students, on a 4 week diet of 5000kcals per day and near zero exercise: weight gain varied from 5.5% to 9.5%. Also reaction to excess cals was different. One student gained 8% in weight but only 2% was fat. Appearance was unchanged and BMR went up 30%. Speculation was that due to increase in muscle caused by gene reaction to over eating (nice one to have..)

Also post study all sample found it easy to shift the weight they had put on (supporting theory that each individual has a fundamental biology that will determine weight/fat%/BMR).

DaveyL

fatbee wrote:

May I take it stj, that you’d like me actually to answer that?

Or would it be OK if I repeatedly posted responses in which I evaded the question ?

fb xxx

You mean the way you're evading mine?

fatbee

Sorry Davey

Please remind me again of your question and I'll answer it.

Promise!

stjohnswell

Here is another intresting study on fat metabolism.

Throughout a 3hr period of thigh excercise, trained athletes FFA uptake is linear. In untrained FFA uptake becomes saturated after 2hours and glucose uptake becomes significantly higher during the last hour.

This suggests an eventual switch back towards CHO metabolism, which I suppose is why I munch a bar every 90 minutes in early season training, but don't take much out with me in the summer when I'm fitter.

DaveyL

fatbee wrote:

Sorry Davey

Please remind me again of your question and I'll answer it.

Promise!

Read my post on the second page of this thread and follow the directions. It's not difficult.

I recall during your appearances on here before, you have been asked to provide references to back up some of your claims, and have been "too busy" to dig them out. So I won't hold my breath.

fatbee

Hi Davey

as I said to Alex, the computer I'm on doesn't like hyperlinks - something to do with the KVM switcher and Internet Explorer apparently - and we're not allowed to use other browsers. Using the mouse's scroll wheel or the browser’s “back" button are out too.

But having typed in the URL, I can address your former point about insulin being catabolic. It isn’t. It’s highly anabolic. That’s why some misguided souls use it as others do steroids. Poor old Pantani was alleged to be one such.

Insulin has many functions, one of which is to shuttle-in amino acids in the process of building muscle, which is one of the things achieved by correct use of “recovery” drinks which as you know, contain both carbs and proteins. So it’s definitely an anabolic agent.

Another of its functions BTW, is to switch-off the liver’s production of keytone bodies as blood ph rises in the absence of carbohydrates. Which is why low-carb diets are NOT dangerous for healthy people, in the way that some (certain tabloid newspapers and the saintly Ardle, Katch & Katch being, as I understand it, among them,) would have you believe they are.

As far as exogenously administered insulin resulting in fat-gain in fasting subjects, yes I will have to go away and dig stuff out, and yes, it will take time. So please don’t hold your breath. I’m very sorry if you did so last time.

Best wishes to all

fb

fatbee

Sorry, that should've read McArdle.

DaveyL

What are "keytone bodies"?

fatbee

:oops:

No idea!

They might be similar to KETONE BODIES

which is what I would've written if I could tipe or spel.

DaveyL

Don't know what they are either.

NJK

fatbee wrote:

:oops:

No idea!

They might be similar to KETONE BODIES

which is what I would've written if I could tipe or spel.

Which university do you work in? As a leading researcher in the field of Insulin/Weight loss you should really state your organisation and the journal papers that you have written them in.

It just sounds like you rant without giving advice?

fatbee

DaveyL

Ketone bodies are one of the ways in which your system fuels itself in times of low insulin – like fasting or starvation or when on a low-carbohydrate diet, (or indeed to some extent when bonk-training.) They are involved in the process called LIPOLYSIS, when the body uses stored fat as fuel (popularly aka “losing weight”) :

Stored fat, in the form of fatty acids, are bound-up in TRIGLYCERIDES in your fat cells, but are too big to slip through the cell membranes and get used as fuel. They have to be broken down to smaller FREE-fatty-acids (“FFAs”) in order to be of use. Ketones, of which there are three types, are, if you like, a by-product of this, and the heart (to some extent) and the brain (to a considerable extent) can use them as fuel. Of the three types of “ketone body”, beta-hydroxybutyrate (which I think if you’re being picky isn’t strictly a ketone but a carboxylic acid) and acetoacetate, can be re-converted to acetyl-CoA whence they came, whereas the third, acetone, cannot. That which is unused is excreted in your breath and pee.

This a) can be detected on the breath of such a dieter (the famous “Atkins breath”) and much more importantly b) is how excess calories can leave the body although neither used as fuel nor stored as fat – Alex_Simmons/RST and Ric_Stern/RST please take note and stop throwing laws of thermodynamics at me.

NJK

I don’t know whether you’re being sarcastic or whether you genuinely suppose me to be an academic. I don’t mind either way, but for the record I’m not. I am a humble unqualified freelance who’s done a few weeks research for a TV programme which I’m afraid is currently shelved. (The company we pitched it to is right now a financial basket case as you may have read.) This reading has lead me to the opinion not only that losing excess body fat is absolutely not simply a matter of caloric balance, but also that the type of substrate ingested IS of crucial importance, and thus that in this matter, Alex and Ric are just plain wrong. If they’re not and I am (and the balance of probability would suggest that what with them being qualified and professional and me neither,) then it should be the work of a few minutes for them to post here, and using scientific fact and principle, demonstrate this. You will note ladies and gentlemen of the jury though, that neither has.

As for my “rant”, have I ranted? If so I’m very sorry. Point out to me where please, and I’ll try very hard not to do it again. Honest! And “without giving advice”?? Surely I have given advice? Not that anyone has to read it let alone take it of course :

Weight loss is not simply a matter of using more calories than you take in, and ingesting carbohydrates whist exercising specifically to lose weight (not just training for competition and hoping to shed some flab as a sideline – that can and will sometimes happen,) will slow at best, and stop completely at worst, your body’s inclination/ability to burn stored fat as fuel. So when KKspeeder says “I do believe you need to eat about 30-40 grams per hour of carbohydrate consumption in order to properly burn fats for fuel”, she/he is not only incorrect, the advice being given is directly counterproductive, if burning fat is the number one priority.

Only trying to help. Really.

NJK

fatbee wrote:

DaveyL

Ketone bodies are one of the ways in which your system fuels itself in times of low insulin – like fasting or starvation or when on a low-carbohydrate diet, (or indeed to some extent when bonk-training.) They are involved in the process called LIPOLYSIS, when the body uses stored fat as fuel (popularly aka “losing weight”) :

Stored fat, in the form of fatty acids, are bound-up in TRIGLYCERIDES in your fat cells, but are too big to slip through the cell membranes and get used as fuel. They have to be broken down to smaller FREE-fatty-acids (“FFAs”) in order to be of use. Ketones, of which there are three types, are, if you like, a by-product of this, and the heart (to some extent) and the brain (to a considerable extent) can use them as fuel. Of the three types of “ketone body”, beta-hydroxybutyrate (which I think if you’re being picky isn’t strictly a ketone but a carboxylic acid) and acetoacetate, can be re-converted to acetyl-CoA whence they came, whereas the third, acetone, cannot. That which is unused is excreted in your breath and pee.

This a) can be detected on the breath of such a dieter (the famous “Atkins breath”) and much more importantly b) is how excess calories can leave the body although neither used as fuel nor stored as fat – Alex_Simmons/RST and Ric_Stern/RST please take note and stop throwing laws of thermodynamics at me.

NJK

I don’t know whether you’re being sarcastic or whether you genuinely suppose me to be an academic. I don’t mind either way, but for the record I’m not. I am a humble unqualified freelance who’s done a few weeks research for a TV programme which I’m afraid is currently shelved. (The company we pitched it to is right now a financial basket case as you may have read.) This reading has lead me to the opinion not only that losing excess body fat is absolutely not simply a matter of caloric balance, but also that the type of substrate ingested IS of crucial importance, and thus that in this matter, Alex and Ric are just plain wrong. If they’re not and I am (and the balance of probability would suggest that what with them being qualified and professional and me neither,) then it should be the work of a few minutes for them to post here, and using scientific fact and principle, demonstrate this. You will note ladies and gentlemen of the jury though, that neither has.

As for my “rant”, have I ranted? If so I’m very sorry. Point out to me where please, and I’ll try very hard not to do it again. Honest! And “without giving advice”?? Surely I have given advice? Not that anyone has to read it let alone take it of course :

Weight loss is not simply a matter of using more calories than you take in, and ingesting carbohydrates whist exercising specifically to lose weight (not just training for competition and hoping to shed some flab as a sideline – that can and will sometimes happen,) will slow at best, and stop completely at worst, your body’s inclination/ability to burn stored fat as fuel. So when KKspeeder says “I do believe you need to eat about 30-40 grams per hour of carbohydrate consumption in order to properly burn fats for fuel”, she/he is not only incorrect, the advice being given is directly counterproductive, if burning fat is the number one priority.

Only trying to help. Really.

Maybe you should put a link up for the papers you have gathered this information from. Many well qualified nutritionists should be interested.

I for one do not believe everyone is the same and will put on the same amount of fat or muscle from an increase in the same amount of calories.

In the overall big picture weight loss is using more calories than you take in. I think your ideas may work with the sedentary person who has just started exercise especially as there goal isn't performance related and the amount of calories burned during each session would be low.

fatbee

Thanks for the reply NJK. I completely agree that people differ greatly in their response to a given calorie balance, be it positive or negative. My belief is that when it comes to one’s insulin system and carbohydrate metabolism, there is a wide range of response to carbs, and that a lucky 20-25% of us (I’m not one sadly) are blessed with a metabolism that makes it somewhere between difficult and impossible for them to get significantly fat, and conversely relatively easy for them to lose fat should they need or want to. We all know at least one of those don’t we ? You know the type – three square meals four times a day, constantly snacking, chain-drinking cups of tea with milk and fifteen sugars, little or no exercise, and yet as thin as a rake.

Ric and Alex would say that obesity is just down to “overeating” but what does that mean? I have a mate from the camp above whose diet would see me if I ate the same way, twenty-something stone in no time. But he’s slim, fit and very healthy (does NO exercise BTW.) So Ric and Alex presumably wouldn’t accuse him of overeating, but they would me if I did likewise. How does that work? “Overeating” is here being defined as “eating an amount of food that makes you overweight” It’s self-referential and pointless. The truth is that overeating is an effect not a cause. It is a symptom not the complaint.

But when it comes to “In the overall big picture weight loss is using more calories than you take in” I can’t agree with you. Let’s do some science here. In science, something is observed, a phenomenon, that appears to require some explanation, and that explanation is provided in the form of a hypothesis. That hypothesis is then subjected to scrutiny (or at least it ought to be,) in the form of apparent anomalies that the hypothesis, if it is right, must be able either to explain or reject. If it cannot, then your hypothesis is most likely wrong.

The phenomenon here is human obesity, and the hypothesis is that obesity is caused by positive caloric balance, or “overeating” as Ric would have it, or in NJK says “In the overall big picture weight loss is using more calories than you take in”.

If your hypothesis is right, then the following are impossible
a) To put on fat with no change in calories in and/or out
b) To lose fat with no change in calories in and/or out
But sadly for your hypothesis, they’re both possible and proved.

a) Shortly after insulin was discovered, scientists and doctors began injecting it into underweight patients who could not be persuaded to eat enough extra food to put on weight. Without any change to diet or activity levels, most gained weight spectacularly quickly. Decades later injected insulin was briefly used as therapy for severe depression, again many patients exhibited significant weight gain with no change in diet or activity.

b) Talk to most Type I Diabetics about the period after they’d developed the condition, but before they were diagnosed and treated. Most will tell you that the weight just started to falloff them with no change in diet or exercise. According to your hypothesis this is impossible. But it happens. And I don’t know of a single person walking the surface of the earth today with a bona fide medical qualification that would dispute it. In many cases, the weight loss accompanies a significantly increased calorie balance. This happened to my wife 25 years ago. Putting her initial weight loss down to the stress of a new job (even though it was less active than her old one) she ate for England, sweets, cakes chocolate by the bucket-load. Result? She lost stones in weight. Please try to explain away that as “less-in-than-out”.

No, sorry gentlemen, but YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS WRONG.

dilemna

There's an old maixm:

Eat like a king at breakfast, eat like a prince at lunch and fast like a pauper at supper.

I have adopted this for the last few years and as a result am leaner, have more strength and stamina. There is nothing worse IMHO than stuffing your face before a period of sustained inactivity especially if you are not energetically inclined, hence fat people. For me running or bike training at the end of the day/evening having eaten balanced meals with all food groups during the day works really well using up all surplus carbs and fat. After this if I feel the need to eat it is only a very light protein based snack. I say protein based snack as while you are at rest your body is using protein to maintain the muskills that you have been using during the day. Your body doesn't have oodles of carbs to break down and fat to digest at the end of the day or while you are asleep which is the typical eating pattern of most fatties.

Assuming you're on a super duper healthy training diet the greatest variable and ultimate decider in all this debate seems to me to be the brain - pyschlogical stamina. Then there is a person's genetic predisposition to sporting ability some simply have it some just don't will never have it. However hard you train you just ain't going to cut it. Where as those with extreme mental stamina and better tools (% of fast twitch and slow twitch muscle etc) genetic superiority get to the finish line quicker and be champions. Some feel the need for a little artificial help on the way but I won't go there.

Eat well, a balanced diet and get lots of sleep.

NJK

fatbee wrote:

Thanks for the reply NJK. I completely agree that people differ greatly in their response to a given calorie balance, be it positive or negative. My belief is that when it comes to one’s insulin system and carbohydrate metabolism, there is a wide range of response to carbs, and that a lucky 20-25% of us (I’m not one sadly) are blessed with a metabolism that makes it somewhere between difficult and impossible for them to get significantly fat, and conversely relatively easy for them to lose fat should they need or want to. We all know at least one of those don’t we ? You know the type – three square meals four times a day, constantly snacking, chain-drinking cups of tea with milk and fifteen sugars, little or no exercise, and yet as thin as a rake.

Ric and Alex would say that obesity is just down to “overeating” but what does that mean? I have a mate from the camp above whose diet would see me if I ate the same way, twenty-something stone in no time. But he’s slim, fit and very healthy (does NO exercise BTW.) So Ric and Alex presumably wouldn’t accuse him of overeating, but they would me if I did likewise. How does that work? “Overeating” is here being defined as “eating an amount of food that makes you overweight” It’s self-referential and pointless. The truth is that overeating is an effect not a cause. It is a symptom not the complaint.

But when it comes to “In the overall big picture weight loss is using more calories than you take in” I can’t agree with you. Let’s do some science here. In science, something is observed, a phenomenon, that appears to require some explanation, and that explanation is provided in the form of a hypothesis. That hypothesis is then subjected to scrutiny (or at least it ought to be,) in the form of apparent anomalies that the hypothesis, if it is right, must be able either to explain or reject. If it cannot, then your hypothesis is most likely wrong.

The phenomenon here is human obesity, and the hypothesis is that obesity is caused by positive caloric balance, or “overeating” as Ric would have it, or in NJK says “In the overall big picture weight loss is using more calories than you take in”.

If your hypothesis is right, then the following are impossible
a) To put on fat with no change in calories in and/or out
b) To lose fat with no change in calories in and/or out
But sadly for your hypothesis, they’re both possible and proved.

a) Shortly after insulin was discovered, scientists and doctors began injecting it into underweight patients who could not be persuaded to eat enough extra food to put on weight. Without any change to diet or activity levels, most gained weight spectacularly quickly. Decades later injected insulin was briefly used as therapy for severe depression, again many patients exhibited significant weight gain with no change in diet or activity.

b) Talk to most Type I Diabetics about the period after they’d developed the condition, but before they were diagnosed and treated. Most will tell you that the weight just started to falloff them with no change in diet or exercise. According to your hypothesis this is impossible. But it happens. And I don’t know of a single person walking the surface of the earth today with a bona fide medical qualification that would dispute it. In many cases, the weight loss accompanies a significantly increased calorie balance. This happened to my wife 25 years ago. Putting her initial weight loss down to the stress of a new job (even though it was less active than her old one) she ate for England, sweets, cakes chocolate by the bucket-load. Result? She lost stones in weight. Please try to explain away that as “less-in-than-out”.

No, sorry gentlemen, but YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS WRONG.

I think your missing the point.

Your using people with special cases and medical conditions as if it is the norm.

In most people what you are saying isn't true otherwise why would so many more qualified people than you be arguing the calories in/calories out argument.

Maybe you should write a book or argue your point of view against top researchers.

I think Contador was using the bonk training method today. He will be going faster next week, right?

chrisw12

Fatbee,

very interesting stuff, but can you clarify something?

whichever way you look at it you can't disobey the first rule of thermodynamics. as it applies here.

ENERGY in > ENERGY out : then we have weight gain.

I can't see how you can dispute that, I don't even think it's scientific, it's mathematical so beyond reproach!

I think though what you are arguing about is that the energy out side is very complex and will vary depending on genetics and hormonal state?

fatbee

Hi chris

As I’ve just said, you can, in the case of an undiagnosed type one diabetic (and using this as just an example of the pivotal role of insulin,) absolutely have a situation where ENERGY in > ENERGY out (in the very simplistic sense of food-and-drink-in minus activity,) and yet there is weight loss not weight gain. This a fact. And the same will happen if somebody consumes all their excess and basal calories in the form of food that does not stimulate insulin secretion. Which is why it is so significant that Alex will not come out of hiding to answer my question.

As far as the first law of thermodynamics is concerned, it is, IMO, being rather simplistically applied here, but expressing it in the common “Energy can be changed from one form into another, but it can neither be created nor destroyed” sort of form. I’m not saying that energy is being destroyed: As I’ve just said, in cases where absence of insulin prevents excess food calories being converted to adipose tissue, that “food energy” is expelled in the breath, urine and stool. It still has energy (i.e. caloric value) although you probably wouldn’t want to eat it!

And when you say “I think though what you are arguing about is that the energy out side is very complex and will vary depending on genetics and hormonal state?”

No I’m not. I’m sure that the “energy out side” is very complex, but that is absolutely not what I’m talking about. I’m saying that the energy-out side is of anywhere between secondary and complete non importance compared to insulin and carbohydrate metabolism. And that genetics do bring about variations in that system in different people. But as far as “hormonal state” is concerned, insulin is the overwhelmingly dominant hormone here, and since that is governed largely by how much carbohydrate you consume , when Alex says it matters not what sort of food you eat, only how much of it, he is fundamentally wrong.

NJK

“I think your missing the point. “

No, with respect I think you are.

“Your using people with special cases and medical conditions as if it is the norm.”

Er, no I’m not. I’m using them as challenges to the “energy balance” hypothesis, challenges which I suggest it fails to meet.

“In most people what you are saying isn't true”

Wrong again. What I’m saying is true in all people. You, me and everyone else, have one mechanism by which we put on fat and one only. No other exists. And that mechanism is governed by insulin. No other game in town. And this has been the case throughout human history and that of our evolutionary predecessors for millions of years.

“otherwise why would so many more qualified people than you be arguing the calories in/calories out argument. “

Yes, well this is, I will concede, where I do start to look a complete tw@t (if you didn’t think me one already!) and my position does look pretty ridiculous! But what can I say? Criticise my science not my qualifications. Or not as you please.

I could talk about vested-interests, professional reputations and livelihoods, funded (for which read tainted) research, bad science, big business and the new world order, turning round super-tankers, and much more. But that’s probably best left for another day.

I’ll just say that if you do enough research, you will find that for most of the history of modern science/medicine, the “carbs cause fat” theory was at different times, either accepted orthodoxy or at least afforded equal support and respect to the “calories cause fat” school, and that the overwhelming dominance of the caloric balance explanation of obesity, is a relatively modern phenomenon, with surprisingly little good science to support it.

I’ll leave you with two quotes, I can’t remember who said ‘em, and I’ve probably got ‘em a bit wrong. But it’s the thought that counts!

“All Great Truths Begin As Blasphemies”

and

“The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

Laters!

chrisw12

I'll read all of that tomorrow, but I like your last quote, it reminds me of the sport scientist attending a maths class on primes and stating that all odd numbers are prime (since 3,5,7 are), the ugly fact in this case being 9.

fatbee

Just thought of another quote that probably applies here . . .



"FOR EVERY HUMAN PROBLEM, THERE IS A SOLUTION WHICH IS NEAT, PLAUSIBLE AND WRONG"

DaveyL

For some reason I've just been minded of religion - happy to take potshots at science whilst refusing to apply the same rigorous criticism to their own views...