Everyone’s bullshit detectors are blaring when you say things like, “I just want to conduct experiments in meaningful ways.” You’re looking to sell this garbage, plain and simple. If you were interested in the research then you would do meaningful research. You would get the credentials and run the studies and get your data peer reviewed.
Because you refuse to follow the action steps required for meaningful research, that makes you a very dangerous person. Luckily for us all, you have a very tiny soapbox and very few will be exposed to your literature.
I think you’d be better off calling the Discovery channel (or something like that) and telling them you’d be willing to eat anything they tell you to for months at a time if they give you a TV show.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
You’re looking to sell this garbage, plain and simple. If you were interested in the research then you would do meaningful research. You would get the credentials and run the studies and get your data peer reviewed.
Because you refuse to follow the action steps required for meaningful research, that makes you a very dangerous person. Luckily for us all, you have a very tiny soapbox and very few will be exposed to your literature.
[/quote]
Fully agree with this. I expect OP to reply with some excuse along the lines of not going that route because the system is rigged against people like him, or something, perhaps arguing that no one will/would take him seriously, so he’s forced to go the independent route.
He might even throw in a quote about how some of the world’s all-time great innovators and scientists were once shunned and thought of as whack jobs themselves until time or technology proved them right.
Ultimately, I don’t feel TOO bad for anyone that reads one of OP’s e-books and decides to follow his advice, because we’re all responsible for our own health (IMO) and must take some responsibility for our actions. Anyone that follows this guy’s advice ought to know that it’s a little bit out there.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Everyone’s bullshit detectors are blaring when you say things like, “I just want to conduct experiments in meaningful ways.” You’re looking to sell this garbage, plain and simple. If you were interested in the research then you would do meaningful research. You would get the credentials and run the studies and get your data peer reviewed.
Because you refuse to follow the action steps required for meaningful research, that makes you a very dangerous person. Luckily for us all, you have a very tiny soapbox and very few will be exposed to your literature.
I think you’d be better off calling the Discovery channel (or something like that) and telling them you’d be willing to eat anything they tell you to for months at a time if they give you a TV show. [/quote]
The third paragraph is probably good advice here… from the looks of this, you’re willing to eat just about anything. I don’t mean that in a negative way… A lot of people would watch that stuff…
I bet lots of people would sign up for a live in study of 4 weeks for 3-4K eating 1x every 3 days. Getting the grant money on the other hand… I’m also not sure of the ethical complications feeding humans raw meat.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Getting the grant money on the other hand…[/quote]
No chance. Zero.
And here’s where I feel a tinge of, uh, something, for the OP. Anyone trying to test a way-out-there hypothesis does have a hugely uphill battle to get funding to support that research. So I know why OP is going about this in the fashion that he is…he would never be able to conduct a study on this if it had to be NIH-funded or IRB-approved.
With that said, that’s the way it should be. We waste enough money trying to research things that do have decent science behind them.
Whoah, I just gave this a lookover for the first time really, and after seeing Why is the “ideal” diet disputed? I can answer it and save you all a bunch of time and money. Individuality. That and the fact that there are more than one way to skin a cat. Done and done. Many diets all with differents Pros and Cons. Pick one that fits into your lifstyle and genetic predispositions and tah-dah! Plain and simple.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Everyone’s bullshit detectors are blaring when you say things like, “I just want to conduct experiments in meaningful ways.” You’re looking to sell this garbage, plain and simple [/quote]
^Ding Ding Ding! -lol. The reason I believe the OP is getting so much static (aside from the obviously silly stuff he’s suggesting), is because there are a good number of actually intelligent trainers on this site. Heck, I’ve been saying that for years now. People with actual life experience and credentials don’t always take kindly to stupidity.
Telling people who have seen it all (or most) and done it all (or most) that despite your not having done or seen much yourself, you’re the guy with the outrageous solution that every other professional in the field, who dedicate their lives to the study and pursuit of improving, has been continually missing.
This whole thread is an obvious marketing ploy, no such thing as bad publicity etc. One can always hope for some subset of the many fringe lunatics out there to jump on one’s bandwagon.
Every single nutrition author I’ve ever read material from uses anecdotal evidence. Many of them conduct personal experiments and write about them too. Dr Berardi is one of them. Nate Green wrote about his personal experiments cutting and regaining weight. These personal experiments and anecdotal evidence aren’t published.
So how is that me running an experiment and not have it formally published is so worthless and these author’s experiments aren’t?
Any n=1 experiment is plagued with lots of issues by itself.
Then, when you introduce more variables (like, say, changing your squat form in the middle of it), it makes it even harder to draw any conclusions from. There’s a part of me that would have respected him more as a “scientist” if he flat out refused to change his exercise routine until the experiment concluded, no matter how bad it was.
Many of the important technologic breakthroughs that came from the fringes were because someone was trying to solve a problem that was otherwise deemed unsolvable. There was some need/desire that the technology and/or science met.
Even if he had a more sound set of experiments and things were much better controlled, the “knowledge” gained from it isn’t very useful. It would be a very different thing if he was trying to do something like measure human performance on a diet of purely fast-growing fast-reproducing microorganisms; e.g., algaes and some fungi. That at least has some potential practical application.
All anyone really learns from this is… if you really really had to live off irregular feedings of high-quality skeletal and organ meats, and nothing else, it wouldn’t kill you immediately.
And then there’s the underlying psychological motivation that I’m still trying to dig into. Is his job that bad he needs this as an outlet for validation and to create/maintain his sense of identity? Why does he feel he needs to “suffer” to succeed? Why is he allowing this to disrupt the harmony of his home life? Does the rest of his life provide insufficient intellectual stimulation for him?
Ultimately, a career change, a mistress or three and some counseling will probably do him more good than anything coming from this “experiment”.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Whoah, I just gave this a lookover for the first time really, and after seeing Why is the “ideal” diet disputed? I can answer it and save you all a bunch of time and money. Individuality. That and the fact that there are more than one way to skin a cat. Done and done. Many diets all with differents Pros and Cons. Pick one that fits into your lifstyle and genetic predispositions and tah-dah! Plain and simple.[/quote]
So then what are the pros and cons of different diets that people need to evaluate? How does someone determine which one is the best fit for them? The whole “pick one” advice doesn’t do the average obese person much good who has probably been doing that for years already…
So let’s take cholesterol for an example… In my prior cholesterol experiments I stabilized my cholesterol with a banana only diet to 143 mg/dL ± 3% deviation across 2 years and six different confirmed measurements. Cholesterol is in part a function of dietary saturated fat and dietary cholesterol intake. Eating 36 eggs a day raised my cholesterol to 346 mg/dL and eating 4.5 lbs of beef a day it was at 324 mg/dL. Anytime I stopped eating saturated fat and cholesterol it dropped to under 200 mg/dL in less than 4 weeks.
So one outstanding question that boggles me is how can people get cholesterol levels in the 400’s eating less than 60g of saturated fat and 1,000 mg of cholesterol daily when cholesterol stabilizes within 2 - 4 week? And just as an FYI that time frame is supported by a lot more than just my experiments but I’m sparing the details for now.
I have a theory that serum cholesterol buildup may be due to the body’s inability to process it in a timely fashion similarly to glucose. And just like glucose cholesterol has a genetic condition for this called familial hypercholesterolemia.
During my cholesterol experiments there was a day that I tried to spike my cholesterol by eating 3 lbs of beef and 20 eggs on a single day. I had my cholesterol stabilized to 143 mg/dL and the next day after eating this my cholesterol didn’t budge. I then tested it again at one week to verify and it was still stabilized at one week. So what gives? How can I eat that much saturated fat and cholesterol and it does nothing? I tried again with 4 days of spiking and it budged significantly.
Now many people argue only 15% - 25% of cholesterol is from diet, but that’s false it’s just a statistical mean from the average person and average diet not a hard limit. Plus I’ve got proof that mine changes radically with extreme diets. Going back to the glucose comparison I have desired to see what would happen with a fasting pattern like this. If the fasting and lack of intake would allow my body to process it better.
I’ve got several blood draws with comparable average intakes to this diet. I want to see how they match up.
I’m not seeking fame… I’m just interested and most modern studies on diet (particularly cholesterol) don’t control variables well at all. Just sharing with health enthusiasts interested…
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
goddammit this guy and this thread.
just lift and eat. The more you lift hard the more you get to eat WTF you want to.
(squat + bench + DL) * (fat + carbs +protien) = Big and strong.
Is this when we really miss having Professor X around? Can anyone imagine what this thread would be like with him involved?
Don’t get me wrong I’m nor expert, I’ve just been able to get a lot bigger and stronger over 6 yrs.
OP, go read some Jim Wendler books/articles.[/quote]
Hahahahahahaahha dont know why but this just cracks me up man. You have really grown over on me over the years man.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
How about someone weigh in on this part?
So let’s take cholesterol for an example… In my prior cholesterol experiments I stabilized my cholesterol with a banana only diet to 143 mg/dL ± 3% deviation across 2 years and six different confirmed measurements. Cholesterol is in part a function of dietary saturated fat and dietary cholesterol intake. Eating 36 eggs a day raised my cholesterol to 346 mg/dL and eating 4.5 lbs of beef a day it was at 324 mg/dL. Anytime I stopped eating saturated fat and cholesterol it dropped to under 200 mg/dL in less than 4 weeks.
So one outstanding question that boggles me is how can people get cholesterol levels in the 400’s eating less than 60g of saturated fat and 1,000 mg of cholesterol daily when cholesterol stabilizes within 2 - 4 week? And just as an FYI that time frame is supported by a lot more than just my experiments but I’m sparing the details for now.
I have a theory that serum cholesterol buildup may be due to the body’s inability to process it in a timely fashion similarly to glucose. And just like glucose cholesterol has a genetic condition for this called familial hypercholesterolemia.
During my cholesterol experiments there was a day that I tried to spike my cholesterol by eating 3 lbs of beef and 20 eggs on a single day. I had my cholesterol stabilized to 143 mg/dL and the next day after eating this my cholesterol didn’t budge. I then tested it again at one week to verify and it was still stabilized at one week. So what gives? How can I eat that much saturated fat and cholesterol and it does nothing? I tried again with 4 days of spiking and it budged significantly.
Now many people argue only 15% - 25% of cholesterol is from diet, but that’s false it’s just a statistical mean from the average person and average diet not a hard limit. Plus I’ve got proof that mine changes radically with extreme diets. Going back to the glucose comparison I have desired to see what would happen with a fasting pattern like this. If the fasting and lack of intake would allow my body to process it better.
I’ve got several blood draws with comparable average intakes to this diet. I want to see how they match up.
I’m not seeking fame… I’m just interested and most modern studies on diet (particularly cholesterol) don’t control variables well at all. Just sharing with health enthusiasts interested… [/quote]
Your still here? Really?
Fuck who puts the ball in your mouth and puts you in the box when you get home from work?
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Whoah, I just gave this a lookover for the first time really, and after seeing Why is the “ideal” diet disputed? I can answer it and save you all a bunch of time and money. Individuality. That and the fact that there are more than one way to skin a cat. Done and done. Many diets all with differents Pros and Cons. Pick one that fits into your lifstyle and genetic predispositions and tah-dah! Plain and simple.[/quote]
So then what are the pros and cons of different diets that people need to evaluate? How does someone determine which one is the best fit for them? The whole “pick one” advice doesn’t do the average obese person much good who has probably been doing that for years already…[/quote]
Of course it does. Beating obesity is, in no small part, about reprogramming your behavior patterns that got you there in the first place. If you told me that my best chance at hitting my goal weight was to eat a few pounds of raw meat every three days I would say “fuck that, being fat is better than eating raw meat by the pound”.
And I would be right.
You are never going to reprogram those bad behavior patterns if you cannot find good behavior patterns that you can actually stick with. That inevitably means choosing a suboptimal diet that you can actually execute, unless you hire someone like Stu or Shelby Starnes to tell you what to eat and manage your food intake at an extremely granular level.
Most of us won’t ever take that sort of approach. Most of us will find success with…
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Pick one that fits into your lifstyle and genetic predispositions and tah-dah![/quote]
Speaking for myself, I should probably hire someone to follow me around on the weekends and slap the beers out of my hand, but that’s MY problem, not yours.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
You are never going to reprogram those bad behavior patterns if you cannot find good behavior patterns that you can actually stick with. That inevitably means choosing a suboptimal diet that you can actually execute…[/quote]
You missed the entire point. If you tell someone just pick one, how are they supposed to evaluate and choose one? The majority of obese people do just that… They pick one… They fail… Repeat. Some of them pick a diet and adhere to it, but the diet itself fails them (usually due to really bad dieting advice which is out there and by the way I’ve never recommended to anyone they follow my extreme diets). Do they just start randomly picking diets and give it a go?
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
You are never going to reprogram those bad behavior patterns if you cannot find good behavior patterns that you can actually stick with. That inevitably means choosing a suboptimal diet that you can actually execute…[/quote]
You missed the entire point. If you tell someone just pick one, how are they supposed to evaluate and choose one? The majority of obese people do just that… They pick one… They fail… Repeat.
[/quote]
Better they pay you to tell them which one to do, right?
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Fuck who puts the ball in your mouth and puts you in the box when you get home from work? [/quote]
Got to love those non-personal, respectable insults. HA!
[/quote]
Cool, I thought you had me on ignore.
Hey you insult the medical professionals on here so turn about is fair play. I would not try to insult an IT guy about their job, so I am left talking about your endless display of S&M.
I miss SS or others who could do wonders with photoshop.
