Nutrition Books?

Nutrition
22

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I know I said I’d leave this thread but it dawned on me: if my stuff is all so simple, perhaps you could’ve saved me years of turmoil studying the following academic courses, some of which were unforgiving subjects that you couldn’t BS at all, or my masters thesis that I had to present to several Phd’s (one of whom used to write for THIS SITE):

preparatory math
general chemistry
organic chemistry
biochemistry
microbiology
contemporary nutrition
nutrition communication
medical nutrition therapy
nutrition counseling
energy and exercise
community nutrition
research methodology
masters thesis (literature review I did)
food and culture
food science
food technology
issues, trends, and challenges in nutrition (here I thought we RD’s were so behind the times on everything)
basic nutrition
advanced human nutritiion and metabolism
foodservice management

Some of these courses were given in two separate semesters (eg, nutr & metab I and II, chem I and II). Again, I could’ve been saved all this time and aggravation had I known my profession and understanding of nutrition science was all so simple.

PS: I don’t know of ONE profession (law, medicine, personal training, sales, whatever) that doesn’t have some incompetent or lame people.

I actually DON’T want to argue or fight with anyone here or get snobby but I see no reason why my field has to be broguht up in a negative light out of nowhere. [/quote]

Lol - shut it dude - you’re an RD for God’s sake - you don’t know SHIT!! ; )

Ha ha at the dumbfuckery in this thread - love ya bro!! : )

Seriously though - it’s a tough curriculum - I’ve taken many of those courses myself, and it does get seriously fucking old listening to self proclaimed experts shitting on the education process. Because you know - board certified professionals are OBVIOUSLY fucking retards, right?

23

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I know I said I’d leave this thread but it dawned on me: if my stuff is all so simple, perhaps you could’ve saved me years of turmoil studying the following academic courses, some of which were unforgiving subjects that you couldn’t BS at all, or my masters thesis that I had to present to several Phd’s (one of whom used to write for THIS SITE):

preparatory math
general chemistry
organic chemistry
biochemistry
microbiology
contemporary nutrition
nutrition communication
medical nutrition therapy
nutrition counseling
energy and exercise
community nutrition
research methodology
masters thesis (literature review I did)
food and culture
food science
food technology
issues, trends, and challenges in nutrition (here I thought we RD’s were so behind the times on everything)
basic nutrition
advanced human nutritiion and metabolism
foodservice management

Some of these courses were given in two separate semesters (eg, nutr & metab I and II, chem I and II). Again, I could’ve been saved all this time and aggravation had I known my profession and understanding of nutrition science was all so simple.

PS: I don’t know of ONE profession (law, medicine, personal training, sales, whatever) that doesn’t have some incompetent or lame people.

I actually DON’T want to argue or fight with anyone here or get snobby but I see no reason why my field has to be broguht up in a negative light out of nowhere. [/quote]

Lol - shut it dude - you’re an RD for God’s sake - you don’t know SHIT!! ; )

Ha ha at the dumbfuckery in this thread - love ya bro!! : )

Seriously though - it’s a tough curriculum - I’ve taken many of those courses myself, and it does get seriously fucking old listening to self proclaimed experts shitting on the education process. Because you know - board certified professionals are OBVIOUSLY fucking retards, right? [/quote]

I get it, many people rip on RDs so I’m sure it gets old when a few of you on here are of a better mindset and really get this whole nutrition thing.

But, does it not bug you as a whole your profession has been way behind the times?

It bugs me when trainers out there do dumb shit, but at least most of the time the dumb shit isn’t harming one’s health :wink: (though certainly is has and can).

Skynett, you’re a smart dude that in interactions in the past I have respect for, so know that it’s not a personal attack on your or brick as individuals, but as a whole.

Shit in this country has to change dietary info wise, and some RDs still hold on to dumb shit. In fact, I’ve had to stop letting them speak at my senior center because the last one that came in talked about controlling BP mainly through salt restriction, and even then after I gave a talk about red meat and eggs being perfectly healthy, she got up on stage right after and in a high BP talk decided to say “limit red meat consumption because it can increase cancer risk”…

24

JehovaFitness, ive never had a problem with your posts this far, but lately i think youre going off the deep end with alot of your posts.

alot of your beliefs are based upon stuff by guys like taubes, who by the way, doesnt even recommend exercise as he thinks its a foolish way to lose weight and just “makes the body want to eat more”. look at the guys who recommend your “paleo” way of eating. taubes doesnt even look like he works out. mark sisson is lean yes, muscular, no. the author of protein power, michael eades, doesnt look like he lifts. the author of wheat belly, william davis, doesnt even look he exercises. jonny bowden is thin yes, but again does not look like he lifts.

even Berardi was much bigger when he was a “bodybuilder” and eating the standard bodybuilders diet. have you seen his pictures lately that he posts since he eats according to the precision nutrition book (which i also have). he is much, much smaller, yes he is lean, but he does not look like a bodybuilder IMO, so why listen to him.

i can keep going, but besides somebody like MODOK, all these “paleo” carbs and grains are death guys do not even look like they lift. thats fine if you want to look like the general population, but when you are espewing all these “anti carb, RD’s dont know shit, calorie counting is rubbish, just eat” messages to a BODYBUILDING site, it pisses alot of people off.

on a site filled with guys who want to workout to get bigger, leaner, and stronger, how can you take the dietary advice of some schmuck (taubes) who thinks exercise is useless. yes, i have his book.

how can you deny the advice of somebody like brickhead who looks big and ripped AND hes an RD. every RD i was taught by in college knew their shit and worked with athletes as well. because a certain author on this site made a joke about all RD’s being fat once, everybody thinks RD’s are useless now?

in the words of dave tate, “if you wanna look like a bodybuilder, do what theyre doing, cause theyre ALL doing the same shit!”

hey if you wanna look like gary taubes or william davis, by all means go ahead and eat like them, but PLEASE stop getting into useless arguments and clogging up good threads with intelligent guys like brickhead, skynett, facko, ryancxbg, and everybody else who may count calories and wants to look like a BODYBUILDER.

25

I understand EXACTLY what you mean, but in the end it’s just a matter of not tarring the WHOLE profession with the same brush, you know?

Clinical dietetics has virtually nothing to do with bodybuilding - and yes - the ADA can be woefully behind the times, but in the end you have to realize that the generalization is the biggest issue here.

Some dieticians are fat and have never seen a gym in their lives - has nothing to do with Medical Nutrition Therapy. On the other hand, many RD’s (like Brick) are extremely knowledgable beyond the scope of general, institutionalized dietetics - so it is very insulting to a guy like him when you diss the entire professsion - that’s all I mean.

26

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
JehovaFitness, ive never had a problem with your posts this far, but lately i think youre going off the deep end with alot of your posts.

alot of your beliefs are based upon stuff by guys like taubes, who by the way, doesnt even recommend exercise as he thinks its a foolish way to lose weight and just “makes the body want to eat more”.[/quote]

  1. Taubes is not against exercise for health, rather weight loss, and actually he’s right. There are a few studies on this, and I’ve seen it at the gym all the time.
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1008234#t=articleMethods
    Precision Nutrition also referenced a study once from a college in TX which came to the same conclusion

  2. I may go against the grain quite often, and realize I’m not always 100% right, there are some things out there that I’m quite sure that in 5 yrs I may change my mind, as I’ve changed my mind based upon the current evidence on certain current issues. I like to think I can reserve the right to do so :wink:

27

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
JehovaFitness, ive never had a problem with your posts this far, but lately i think youre going off the deep end with alot of your posts.

alot of your beliefs are based upon stuff by guys like taubes, who by the way, doesnt even recommend exercise as he thinks its a foolish way to lose weight and just “makes the body want to eat more”.[/quote]

  1. Taubes is not against exercise for health, rather weight loss, and actually he’s right. There are a few studies on this, and I’ve seen it at the gym all the time.
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1008234#t=articleMethods
    Precision Nutrition also referenced a study once from a college in TX which came to the same conclusion

  2. I may go against the grain quite often, and realize I’m not always 100% right, there are some things out there that I’m quite sure that in 5 yrs I may change my mind, as I’ve changed my mind based upon the current evidence on certain current issues. I like to think I can reserve the right to do so ;)[/quote]

ok but again you are linking me to a study on obese seniors that are over 65 years old. this is irrelevant to the discussions on T-Nation.

28

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
JehovaFitness, ive never had a problem with your posts this far, but lately i think youre going off the deep end with alot of your posts.

alot of your beliefs are based upon stuff by guys like taubes, who by the way, doesnt even recommend exercise as he thinks its a foolish way to lose weight and just “makes the body want to eat more”.[/quote]

  1. Taubes is not against exercise for health, rather weight loss, and actually he’s right. There are a few studies on this, and I’ve seen it at the gym all the time.
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1008234#t=articleMethods
    Precision Nutrition also referenced a study once from a college in TX which came to the same conclusion

  2. I may go against the grain quite often, and realize I’m not always 100% right, there are some things out there that I’m quite sure that in 5 yrs I may change my mind, as I’ve changed my mind based upon the current evidence on certain current issues. I like to think I can reserve the right to do so ;)[/quote]

ok but again you are linking me to a study on obese seniors that are over 65 years old. this is irrelevant to the discussions on T-Nation.
[/quote]

Uggh, you’re killin me :wink:

Or take a look at 10 random people next time you’re at the gym on the treadmill, let me know when you notice more than 1 of them, if even 1 that in 6 months you notice a difference

29

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
JehovaFitness, ive never had a problem with your posts this far, but lately i think youre going off the deep end with alot of your posts.

alot of your beliefs are based upon stuff by guys like taubes, who by the way, doesnt even recommend exercise as he thinks its a foolish way to lose weight and just “makes the body want to eat more”. look at the guys who recommend your “paleo” way of eating. taubes doesnt even look like he works out. mark sisson is lean yes, muscular, no. the author of protein power, michael eades, doesnt look like he lifts. the author of wheat belly, william davis, doesnt even look he exercises. jonny bowden is thin yes, but again does not look like he lifts.

even Berardi was much bigger when he was a “bodybuilder” and eating the standard bodybuilders diet. have you seen his pictures lately that he posts since he eats according to the precision nutrition book (which i also have). he is much, much smaller, yes he is lean, but he does not look like a bodybuilder IMO, so why listen to him.

i can keep going, but besides somebody like MODOK, all these “paleo” carbs and grains are death guys do not even look like they lift. thats fine if you want to look like the general population, but when you are espewing all these “anti carb, RD’s dont know shit, calorie counting is rubbish, just eat” messages to a BODYBUILDING site, it pisses alot of people off.

on a site filled with guys who want to workout to get bigger, leaner, and stronger, how can you take the dietary advice of some schmuck (taubes) who thinks exercise is useless. yes, i have his book.

how can you deny the advice of somebody like brickhead who looks big and ripped AND hes an RD. every RD i was taught by in college knew their shit and worked with athletes as well. because a certain author on this site made a joke about all RD’s being fat once, everybody thinks RD’s are useless now?

in the words of dave tate, “if you wanna look like a bodybuilder, do what theyre doing, cause theyre ALL doing the same shit!”

hey if you wanna look like gary taubes or william davis, by all means go ahead and eat like them, but PLEASE stop getting into useless arguments and clogging up good threads with intelligent guys like brickhead, skynett, facko, ryancxbg, and everybody else who may count calories and wants to look like a BODYBUILDER.[/quote]

This may be one of, if not the best, posts I’ve ever read on this site.

30

^^^^

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
This may be one of, if not the best, posts I’ve ever read on this site.[/quote]

+1.

I suspect JFit’s been stuck training too many average folk at commercial gyms and it spills over. :wink:

Its basically COMPLETELY different nutrition discussions with fellow, like-minded lifters and the dumbed-down masses.

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Taubes is a PHYSICIST. Pollan is a JOURNALIST. Bowden is has a masters in PSYCHOLOGY. Sure it does no harm in reading from a variety of professionals . [/quote]

Also love this. Always maintain perspective, always keep learning.

31

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
It bugs me when trainers out there do dumb shit, but at least most of the time the dumb shit isn’t harming one’s health :wink: (though certainly is has and can).[/quote]
New Thread Idea: A compilation of the advice from Bob Harper, jillian Michaels, and Tracy Anderson that ranges from simply inefficient to flat-out harmful. (Hint: It’s gonna be a big thread.)

[quote]BuiltLikeABrickOuthouse wrote:
I’m a registered dietitian with an undergrate degree in nutrition and a masters in nutrition and exercise physiology.[/quote]
I’m baffled that anyone found a way to disagree with any of your suggestions after you wrote this. Just another day on the Internet, I guess.

32

[quote]chillain wrote:
^^^^

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
This may be one of, if not the best, posts I’ve ever read on this site.[/quote]

+1.

I suspect JFit’s been stuck training too many average folk at commercial gyms and it spills over. :wink:

Its basically COMPLETELY different nutrition discussions with fellow, like-minded lifters and the dumbed-down masses.

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Taubes is a PHYSICIST. Pollan is a JOURNALIST. Bowden is has a masters in PSYCHOLOGY. Sure it does no harm in reading from a variety of professionals . [/quote]

Also love this. Always maintain perspective, always keep learning.

[/quote]

What exactly is what I’m saying not relevant to most posters on this site? Curious, would like to defend myself against blanket statements :wink:

Is it my stance on calorie/macro counting, trusted dietary info sources? Really, not getting upset here, really curious

33

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
It bugs me when trainers out there do dumb shit, but at least most of the time the dumb shit isn’t harming one’s health :wink: (though certainly is has and can).[/quote]
New Thread Idea: A compilation of the advice from Bob Harper, jillian Michaels, and Tracy Anderson that ranges from simply inefficient to flat-out harmful. (Hint: It’s gonna be a big thread.)

[quote]BuiltLikeABrickOuthouse wrote:
I’m a registered dietitian with an undergrate degree in nutrition and a masters in nutrition and exercise physiology.[/quote]
I’m baffled that anyone found a way to disagree with any of your suggestions after you wrote this. Just another day on the Internet, I guess.[/quote]

Who disgreed with his book suggestions? I disgreed with his stance that essentially said (or at least I thought said) to not look to Gary Taubes, Pollan or Bowden for nutriitional advice.

Apparently, I misread or read too deeply into his reply. I apologized as well :wink:

34

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Taubes is a PHYSICIST. Pollan is a JOURNALIST. Bowden is has a masters in PSYCHOLOGY. Sure it does no harm in reading from a variety of professionals but your post makes it seem as if you want to get a head start reading material from within our field, those with actual credentials and demonstrated competence in our field. [/quote]

I’ll admit too, that I did not read this full post the first time, I assumed it was going in a different direction based upon the way it started.

See, people can stand up and admit when they goof on the interwebz, I bow down to all in this thread

35

This thread is no longer about book recommendations, but i find it very interesting none the less. I’ve always wondered how Taubes can be so definitive when voicing that exercise is ineffective for weight loss. If anything “Good Calories Bad Calories” has allowed me insight into the politics of establishing dietary recommendations and the flaws of observational epidemiology/ poorly controlled and designed studies. I think i will finish the book for that reason, and pile upon my understanding of nutrition with authors that challenge Taubes.

36

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
What exactly is what I’m saying not relevant to most posters on this site? Curious, would like to defend myself against blanket statements :wink:

Is it my stance on calorie/macro counting, trusted dietary info sources? Really, not getting upset here, really curious[/quote]

Here’s what I was trying to say: remember how you suggested prob 95% of the population – ie. those with very modest physique-related goals – would likely be just fine without paying obsessive attention to macro/kcal counts, fine details, etc.

Well, that other 5%, is well-represented here.

And because each group’s goals/habits/baseline nutritional knowledge are quite different, generally worthwhile discussions with each group are basically COMPLETELY different.

[quote]lzqosoz94 wrote:
If anything “Good Calories Bad Calories” has allowed me insight into the politics of establishing dietary recommendations and the flaws of observational epidemiology/ poorly controlled and designed studies. I think i will finish the book for that reason, and pile upon my understanding of nutrition with authors that challenge Taubes. [/quote]

Agreed, great for perspective and those developing their analytical eye, but again, ‘Why We Get Fat’ is by far the better read for the masses.

37

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
What exactly is what I’m saying not relevant to most posters on this site? Curious, would like to defend myself against blanket statements :wink:

Is it my stance on calorie/macro counting, trusted dietary info sources? Really, not getting upset here, really curious[/quote]

Here’s what I was trying to say: remember how you suggested prob 95% of the population – ie. those with very modest physique-related goals – would likely be just fine without paying obsessive attention to macro/kcal counts, fine details, etc.

Well, that other 5%, is well-represented here.

And because each group’s goals/habits/baseline nutritional knowledge are quite different, generally worthwhile discussions with each group are basically COMPLETELY different.

[quote]lzqosoz94 wrote:
If anything “Good Calories Bad Calories” has allowed me insight into the politics of establishing dietary recommendations and the flaws of observational epidemiology/ poorly controlled and designed studies. I think i will finish the book for that reason, and pile upon my understanding of nutrition with authors that challenge Taubes. [/quote]

Agreed, great for perspective and those developing their analytical eye, but again, ‘Why We Get Fat’ is by far the better read for the masses.

[/quote]

I think we first need to establish each person’s nutrition age. Meaning, of the 5% how many of those are truly mastering the basics on a consistent basis for extended periods of time? Meaning, are they eating protein+veggies at every meal, with some other things at certain other meals.

Seems most that post on this site come on here as complete newbs with a detailed diet that will follow for say 4 weeks, then fizzle out. it’s too much, most people can’t sustain such eating in a micromanaged fashion.

However, how about telling those nebs, stop counting macros and shit and eat 2 palm sizes of meat/protein at every meal, eat 2 fists of veggies at every meal, eat 1/4 c nuts as some meals… See, this is so much more simplistic and allows for easier adherence than someone getting bogged down worrying if they get 200g protein, or 220g.

Just my thoughts, people like Stu, even PX (if he wanted too), and several others would be fine with focusing on the details, most others not so much.

38

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
JehovaFitness, ive never had a problem with your posts this far, but lately i think youre going off the deep end with alot of your posts.

alot of your beliefs are based upon stuff by guys like taubes, who by the way, doesnt even recommend exercise as he thinks its a foolish way to lose weight and just “makes the body want to eat more”. look at the guys who recommend your “paleo” way of eating. taubes doesnt even look like he works out. mark sisson is lean yes, muscular, no. the author of protein power, michael eades, doesnt look like he lifts. the author of wheat belly, william davis, doesnt even look he exercises. jonny bowden is thin yes, but again does not look like he lifts.

even Berardi was much bigger when he was a “bodybuilder” and eating the standard bodybuilders diet. have you seen his pictures lately that he posts since he eats according to the precision nutrition book (which i also have). he is much, much smaller, yes he is lean, but he does not look like a bodybuilder IMO, so why listen to him.

i can keep going, but besides somebody like MODOK, all these “paleo” carbs and grains are death guys do not even look like they lift. thats fine if you want to look like the general population, but when you are espewing all these “anti carb, RD’s dont know shit, calorie counting is rubbish, just eat” messages to a BODYBUILDING site, it pisses alot of people off.

on a site filled with guys who want to workout to get bigger, leaner, and stronger, how can you take the dietary advice of some schmuck (taubes) who thinks exercise is useless. yes, i have his book.

how can you deny the advice of somebody like brickhead who looks big and ripped AND hes an RD. every RD i was taught by in college knew their shit and worked with athletes as well. because a certain author on this site made a joke about all RD’s being fat once, everybody thinks RD’s are useless now?

in the words of dave tate, “if you wanna look like a bodybuilder, do what theyre doing, cause theyre ALL doing the same shit!”

hey if you wanna look like gary taubes or william davis, by all means go ahead and eat like them, but PLEASE stop getting into useless arguments and clogging up good threads with intelligent guys like brickhead, skynett, facko, ryancxbg, and everybody else who may count calories and wants to look like a BODYBUILDER.[/quote]

This may be one of, if not the best, posts I’ve ever read on this site.[/quote]

+2

39

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
My apologies man, seems as though we do have more in common, it was late and I guess I read your post about some of those authors in the “wrong light” ;)[/quote]

It’s alright. I didn’t see this post as I was writing the one after it. Again, I don’t have the inclination of starting e-beefs at this point of my life, so if I came across as sarcastic in the post after it, I was just using sarcasm as a means to express myself, not towards you per se; I’m sorry if it came across that way, but most people get sensitive if their field is criticized by people uninvolved. For example, from a rational, mature standpoint, I know little about law, almost nothing actually. But from an emotional perspective I might think, “Lawyers: vultures!” “Salesman: some pushy guy trying to get me to do something I don’t want to.” “Financier: someone who throws money around.” The truth is I’m not involved in these fields and know little about them or their importance in society. You get my point I’m sure.

I’ll probably be back to write some more in this thread.

Again, I just want to make it clear that I have no intention of insulting or fighting with people now that I’m on the site again. My immature shenanigans are a thing of the past. If I use some sarcasm, please take it as a means of using sarcasm to express myself, nothing more.

40

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Taubes is a PHYSICIST. Pollan is a JOURNALIST. Bowden is has a masters in PSYCHOLOGY. Sure it does no harm in reading from a variety of professionals but your post makes it seem as if you want to get a head start reading material from within our field, those with actual credentials and demonstrated competence in our field. [/quote]

I’ll admit too, that I did not read this full post the first time, I assumed it was going in a different direction based upon the way it started.

See, people can stand up and admit when they goof on the interwebz, I bow down to all in this thread[/quote]

Again, it’s OK; not a big deal.

41

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
It bugs me when trainers out there do dumb shit, but at least most of the time the dumb shit isn’t harming one’s health :wink: (though certainly is has and can).[/quote]
New Thread Idea: A compilation of the advice from Bob Harper, jillian Michaels, and Tracy Anderson that ranges from simply inefficient to flat-out harmful. (Hint: It’s gonna be a big thread.)

[quote]BuiltLikeABrickOuthouse wrote:
I’m a registered dietitian with an undergrate degree in nutrition and a masters in nutrition and exercise physiology.[/quote]
I’m baffled that anyone found a way to disagree with any of your suggestions after you wrote this. Just another day on the Internet, I guess.[/quote]

Thanks for the complimentary name! I’m working on meeting the title, but I consider myself just an average guy trying to get bigger and stronger. :slight_smile: