[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How you look or how you’ve made other people look should determine what advise, if any, you give on diet.
[/quote]
And all along I thought it was scientific merit… Guess I stand corrected.
[/quote]
Science is/can be a part of it, sure. It’s not the end all be all you make it out to be though.
Science is wrong, all the time.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Your paragraph is a bunch of meaningless bullshit.
[/quote]
And that’s why Dr. Rudy Leibel’s research is so meaningless… Because one fat man lost 50 lbs and he says so…[/quote]
And what have you accomplished with your knowledge?
You said yourself that you’re not measurably healthier now than you were before. So what do you have to offer?
EDIT: and as of yet, none of your experiments seem to even have much “scientific merit”, nevermind purely n=1 results.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Like has been said STFU, lift, eat and come back when you look like you know WTF you are talking about. [/quote]
Yes, because how you look determines if you can help provide guidance on reducing insulin resistance. Spot on.
[/quote]
No, because having an MD, DC, DO, DPT, RN, RD, PhD, etc after your name means you can do those things. Or at least to have served under a mentor and gained a ton of experience. You’ve done none of the work and want all of the glory.
Just because something is scientifically based doesn’t mean it works 100% of the time. What happens if one of these folks who is insulin resistant becomes acutely hypoglycemic following your diet? Nothing, right? Because they just should’ve known you’re not an licensed expert and your advice was just…advice.
I mean, lol, a couple of decades ago eating only red meat would of been going against current science…
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Why do you keep applying your diet to those with metabolic/endocrine damage? You are seriously way out of line with this crap.[/quote]
I’ve not once applied this diet to metabolic/endocrine damage. These are separate conversational topics. Metabolic/endocrine damage are examples where many simplifications of health matters aren’t adequate and this demographic includes a large portion of Americans.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Just because something is scientifically based doesn’t mean it works 100% of the time. What happens if one of these folks who is insulin resistant becomes acutely hypoglycemic following your diet? Nothing, right? Because they just should’ve known you’re not an licensed expert and your advice was just…advice.
[/quote]
What happens when people follow a doctor’s advice and they die? What happens if that advice was really bad or it was from a needless prescription medication?
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How you look or how you’ve made other people look should determine what advise, if any, you give on diet.
[/quote]
And all along I thought it was scientific merit… Guess I stand corrected.
[/quote]
Scientific merit is rewarded with degrees and grant money. You have neither. So why are you giving dietary advice?
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How you look or how you’ve made other people look should determine what advise, if any, you give on diet.
[/quote]
And all along I thought it was scientific merit… Guess I stand corrected.
[/quote]
Scientific merit is rewarded with degrees and grant money. You have neither. So why are you giving dietary advice?
[/quote]
That’s exactly right. Scientific merit is just pieces of paper. No one without a degree and grant money can be right.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Just because something is scientifically based doesn’t mean it works 100% of the time. What happens if one of these folks who is insulin resistant becomes acutely hypoglycemic following your diet? Nothing, right? Because they just should’ve known you’re not an licensed expert and your advice was just…advice.
[/quote]
What happens when people follow a doctor’s advice and they die? What happens if that advice was really bad or it was from a needless prescription medication?
[/quote]
They got screwed and that sucks.
You have continually pointed to poor/bad actions others, with greater qualifications than you, have taken as if that somehow justifies your actions. It does not. Just because some nutritionists, with PhDs, give poor advise doesn’t mean you are all of a sudden qualified to give nutritional advise because you read other people research. I don’t understand how you don’t understand this.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How you look or how you’ve made other people look should determine what advise, if any, you give on diet.
[/quote]
And all along I thought it was scientific merit… Guess I stand corrected.
[/quote]
Scientific merit is rewarded with degrees and grant money. You have neither. So why are you giving dietary advice?
[/quote]
That’s exactly right. Scientific merit is just pieces of paper. No one without a degree and grant money can be right.[/quote]
Have you been trained to read and interpret scientific research?
Professor X was a more entertaining troll.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Just because something is scientifically based doesn’t mean it works 100% of the time. What happens if one of these folks who is insulin resistant becomes acutely hypoglycemic following your diet? Nothing, right? Because they just should’ve known you’re not an licensed expert and your advice was just…advice.
[/quote]
What happens when people follow a doctor’s advice and they die? What happens if that advice was really bad or it was from a needless prescription medication?
[/quote]
That’s a really good point. I should start an insurance firm to cover damages from all the unqualified unlicensed medical “advice”. As long as you pay me X amount per month, you can dispense as much pseudoscience as you want. I’m thinking $50k a month is probably a good start.
Anyone can interpret the tax code and do their own tax return, but tax accountants with CPA license’s and MST degrees are far better equipped to do it right.
That is the point everyone is trying to make.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Just because something is scientifically based doesn’t mean it works 100% of the time. What happens if one of these folks who is insulin resistant becomes acutely hypoglycemic following your diet? Nothing, right? Because they just should’ve known you’re not an licensed expert and your advice was just…advice.
[/quote]
What happens when people follow a doctor’s advice and they die? What happens if that advice was really bad or it was from a needless prescription medication?
[/quote]
That’s a really good point. I should start an insurance firm to cover damages from all the unqualified unlicensed medical “advice”. As long as you pay me X amount per month, you can dispense as much pseudoscience as you want. I’m thinking $50k a month is probably a good start.[/quote]
Way to low.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
They got screwed and that sucks.
You have continually pointed to poor/bad actions others, with greater qualifications than you, have taken as if that somehow justifies your actions. It does not. Just because some nutritionists, with PhDs, give poor advise doesn’t mean you are all of a sudden qualified to give nutritional advise because you read other people research. I don’t understand how you don’t understand this. [/quote]
I understand it. I’m not qualified by your standards got it.
My whole point is just because of that doesn’t mean my advice is any worse than the majority of advice given.
For the love of god man, what the fuck are you trying to prove?
A. No one is going to follow a diet that consists of eating only raw meat and raw animal organs.
B. It is so insanely dangerous and unpractical that it’s pointless to prove anyway.
C. You’re lifts and body are not being positively impacted.
D. You’ve contracted cognitive dissonance from meat consumption.
Not one person has offered positive support of this diet / training strategy after 725 posts, save yourself. This is a group of people who are fairly knowledgeable on the subject. You mistake ‘expert dieter’ for someone that can eat the same thing, or nasty shit for a sustained period of time. You misuse terms like Treatment and Prevention. You have no formal training or experience. I mean, come on man.
Here’s how I would put everything in the 725 posts together: Stop your current plan. Try eating balanced meals and do compound lifts. See if you’re next two months produce better results that the previous two months. Come back with your findings.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Just because something is scientifically based doesn’t mean it works 100% of the time. What happens if one of these folks who is insulin resistant becomes acutely hypoglycemic following your diet? Nothing, right? Because they just should’ve known you’re not an licensed expert and your advice was just…advice.
[/quote]
What happens when people follow a doctor’s advice and they die? What happens if that advice was really bad or it was from a needless prescription medication?
[/quote]
That’s a really good point. I should start an insurance firm to cover damages from all the unqualified unlicensed medical “advice”. As long as you pay me X amount per month, you can dispense as much pseudoscience as you want. I’m thinking $50k a month is probably a good start.[/quote]
Way to low.[/quote]
Well, it’s a good start as far my income is concerned. It’s not like I’m a licensed insurer either.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How you look or how you’ve made other people look should determine what advise, if any, you give on diet.
[/quote]
And all along I thought it was scientific merit… Guess I stand corrected.
[/quote]
Scientific merit is rewarded with degrees and grant money. You have neither. So why are you giving dietary advice?
[/quote]
That’s exactly right. Scientific merit is just pieces of paper. No one without a degree and grant money can be right.[/quote]
Have you been trained to read and interpret scientific research?[/quote]
If I have or haven’t is that tied to my ability to be able to interpret it? I know plenty of trained people in their jobs that suck a lot more than the people without official training…
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
They got screwed and that sucks.
You have continually pointed to poor/bad actions others, with greater qualifications than you, have taken as if that somehow justifies your actions. It does not. Just because some nutritionists, with PhDs, give poor advise doesn’t mean you are all of a sudden qualified to give nutritional advise because you read other people research. I don’t understand how you don’t understand this. [/quote]
I understand it. I’m not qualified by your standards got it.
My whole point is just because of that doesn’t mean my advice is any worse than the majority of advice given.
[/quote]
They aren’t just my standards and you lack credibility, whether the advise is spot on or not. That is my point.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
They got screwed and that sucks.
You have continually pointed to poor/bad actions others, with greater qualifications than you, have taken as if that somehow justifies your actions. It does not. Just because some nutritionists, with PhDs, give poor advise doesn’t mean you are all of a sudden qualified to give nutritional advise because you read other people research. I don’t understand how you don’t understand this. [/quote]
I understand it. I’m not qualified by your standards got it.
My whole point is just because of that doesn’t mean my advice is any worse than the majority of advice given.
[/quote]
You’re not qualified by any standards