Quote:
Originally Posted by richielancair  Dude, WOW relax, this is a discussion.
It's going to be alright. |
That's an interesting remark.
With the facts in mind that a) you don't know me, b) you don't know my writing style and c) you can't read 'tone' over the net... I'd say this is a case of assuming something exists that doesn't.
I'm relaxed, so I'm quite perplexed by what could be WOWing you. Stick to the facts and don't worry about me. Those fallacious tactics don't fly around here.
Let me put my super-duper thinking cap on!!!!111
Quote:
|
No one knows how gravity works. No one has seen gravity. We can not prove gravity without seeing results. They are building an atom smasher in France and Denmark to see if they can see it.
|
Oh joy, a ridiculous attempt to rationalize your way out of this by testing my understanding of science and enlighten me about the differences between a hypothesis and a theory and prove that falsifiability does in fact exist when it's nonexistence is something I never claimed.
Let me just break this down for you so far:
You: The starvation response kicks in every 2-3 hours so it would be ideal to eat in a pattern that minimizes this.
Me: No, you are oversimplifying the human body.
You: Gravity is theorized to exist but it can't be seen so we don't know if it's real. Metabolism is the same, so prove to me it's existence.
That's about where we stand now, I think you will agree.
Now for the next "Me:"
What do you know about parsimony? Up to this point, it doesn't seem like a whole heck of a lot.
You're right, all these theories are falsifiable. The theory of gravity was falsified by Einstein. Any theory is falsifiable. You can have a cookie or a trophy if that's what you're after. I haven't seen anyone suggest the contrary but you seem pretty stuck on the idea that it came up.
I can't prove to you that metabolism = X. Your sophistry is trying to paint me into a corner by asking silly questions that are not answerable in a way that would satisfy an end to the debate using your skewed standards since all we're working off of is theoretical. What it comes down to in a case such as this then is you present a case and I present a case.
Parsimony plays a large role at this point in the eyes and minds of anyone who thinks critically.
You've repeated your case exactly twice now with nothing special. As noted above, a bit of sophistry mixed with some lame attempt to suggest all mammals respond the same to a given stressor.
My case is quite simple. I use logic and critical analysis to deduce a hypothesis of what happens in different situations; in this case we'll say 3 vs. 6 meals.
I overlay this with my education of human physiology and the net result is confidence in my working model.
In the real world, I'm able to observe the following:
1) People respond differently to different meal patterns. Some thrive on frequent feedings. Others thrive on infrequent feedings.
2) I've reached single digit body fat levels a number of times using varying tactics... frequent and infrequent feedings. In neither case did a starvation response kick in intraday hinting an efficiency in our metabolic regulation systems to the extent that you suggest exists.
3) I've had the opportunity to apply these same varying tactics to a respectable sample size given my career. Net outcomes were similar further solidifying my hypothesis.
4) Science is shabby in this area, but it exists where no difference is observed between frequent vs. infrequent feedings as it relates to metabolic rate. A few exist below:
Entrez PubMed Entrez PubMed Entrez PubMed Entrez PubMed Entrez PubMed
5. We have interesting stuff emerging with intermittent fasting. One guy making some noise, of many, can be seen here...
Leangains - Intermittent Fasting for Strength Training and Fat Loss. It's not something I personally subscribe to... however it further solidifies the idea that a) the horrid starvation response isn't as 'reactive' as you suggest and b) different strokes for different folks... the human body doesn't respond universally identical to the stress of hypocaloric eating.
6. You can do yourself some good and educate yourself about human metabolic response to starvation. I'll even spoon feed you:
The Biology of Malnutrition
7. While your reading, you might as well check this out too:
Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
8. And this:
Ignoratio elenchi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm sure I could come up with more but what's the point? I have human data suggesting the starvation response doesn't respond as you explain. Data that is observable and repeatable on a consistent basis across various populations. You have some wanking about theories and falsifiability and some studies on cows and rats (which you didn't present by the way). I'm certainly down for a good debate but so far you aren't really bringing anything to the table here. If you expect to sway my opinion or those of the masses reading this... I suggest you show something a little more concrete. In the meantime, your sophistry is equivalent to me saying, "The sky is red, prove me wrong."
That's not any way to prove a point.
A theory explains or models a real world observation, right?
You stated that the metabolism slows down or the starvation response turns on every 2-3 hours if not 'stoked' by eating more food. Give me a real world, observable instance where this occurs in humans please. It doesn't have to be peer-reviewed research... simply observation will suffice at this point.
Your whole crackpot, idealistic approach to explaining this shits the bed since you don't seem to have real world experience with a) working with people and weight loss IN THE REAL WORLD and b) the fact that people have lost weight and looked and functioned great eating 2 meals per day and others have done the same eating 6 meals per day.
Quote:
When cows are allowed to graze all summer they become lean and their metabolic rate increase. During the winter when fed hay on 8 hour intervals their metabolic rate decreases and they become fat.
Lab rats experience the same thing.
|
Funnily enough I thought we were talking about humans. When did the subject change?
Quote:
|
Cows, lab rats and humans are all mammals.
|
Haha, you don't do much research do you?
You are seriously misinformed and I don't mean disrespect at all.
Do some research on Leptin just as one (big) example of how not all mammals are created equal.
Quote:
|
These are results, like gravity, of something that exists, that we can not prove without results.
|
I never said the starvation response doesn't exist. I also never claimed that it's exact workings can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Assumption is the mother of all F-ups and you are littered with them. I simply implied that based on what we know to be true paired with what's observable in the real world (results) we can make a very good wager that human metabolism doesn't function in a way similar to your proposal.
Quote:
|
Now it is your turn to share.
|
I've shared nothing less than you've shared.
Stop trying to dictate the discussion.
Quote:
Relax, you can't get this wrong. There are no wrong answers. Ready?
1) How do you think that metabolism works?
2) How do you know, or is it a theory also?
3) How do you know that metabolism doesn't work the way I described?
|
You've got to be kidding me. I'm sure in your world this seems like you're destroying me. You are mentally equipped beyond any to deal with in depth conversation about the subject at hand.
The only thing you're doing though is sounding arrogant with no leg to stand on.
Quote:
|
Relax, this isn't a test. Just give us your best shot at explaining it. No one is going to make you wrong, you're okay. This is an exchange of ideas, we just want to know what you are thinking. Okay?
|
You can't be serious.
If you're seriously interested on my take regarding the adaptational responses to underfeeding the human body, do a search for posts made by me with the words starvation and response in them.
I've explained this in detail more times than I care to repeat on this forum. Your tactics of debate are not enticing in the least and your incessant need to control the discussion doesn't rub me in a way that solicits a response to your ridiculous questions.
Quote:
|
Try it, you'll see it will be fun. Don't think so hard, man.
|
Thinking and critical thought/analysis is what helps me not sound like you do in this thread...
I highly doubt I'm going to start taking advice from you.
