Is leangains.com broscience ?

[CoolDehLa]

I've read this article/blogpost and especially this part struck me as strange

3. Few people have the knowledge or interest needed to interpret the scientific evidence and draw their own conclusions. In order to do this you would need an academic background that included critical examination of studies and study methodology as part of the learning process.

However, an academic background, or an extensive education in nutrition or physiology, seems to correlate very poorly with truthfulness and objectivity in the field of dietetics in my experience. The advice and claims I have seen made by many RDs (Registered Dietitians) has been so shamelessly wrong that I put little stock in anything they have to say. The same goes for many "diet gurus" and so-called health experts with a solid list of academic credentials.

This guy basically says: don't listen to academics, listen to me, i've read the papers and i'm telling the truth.

...

This guy fo real ?
Why would I listen to him ?

[Apex702]

I've read this article/blogpost and especially this part struck me as strange



This guy basically says: don't listen to academics, listen to me, i've read the papers and i'm telling the truth.

...

This guy fo real ?
Why would I listen to him ?

That is not what he is saying. He is simply stating that there are scholars that are wrong, and there are self-educated individuals that are correct.

A formal education does not always constitute appropriate knowledge.

[WonderPug]

He's speaking of a logical fallacy know as: argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority).

[SuffolkPunch]

He obviously harbours his own beliefs which have not (yet) been proven by studies. This is not the same as broscience - where you state something as fact when you can't prove cause and effect.

[CoolDehLa]

That is not what he is saying. He is simply stating that there are scholars that are wrong, and there are self-educated individuals that are correct.

A formal education does not always constitute appropriate knowledge.

It seems that the whole scientific community is wrong. He says:

However, an academic background, or an extensive education in nutrition or physiology, seems to correlate very poorly with truthfulness and objectivity in the field of dietetics in my experience.

This is really a crude statement don't you think ?
Why should I follow this guy btw ?

He's speaking of a logical fallacy know as: argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority).

Not everyone can be an expert on anything. Sometimes, you have to stick to authority.
If I listen to him, won't it be a logical fallacy also ? I doubt most people who listen to him and follows him checked all the science behind it, let alone are qualified to judge it.

I'm just looking for reasons to follow him and somehow, he seems like a lone nut here.

[WonderPug]

Not everyone can be an expert on anything. Sometimes, you have to stick to authority.

And that's the definition of the logical fallacy noted above.

[Xfaxtor]

It seems that the whole scientific community is wrong
This is really a crude statement don't you think ?
Why should I follow this guy btw ?

Not everyone can be an expert on anything. Sometimes, you have to stick to authority.
If I listen to him, won't it be a logical fallacy also ? I doubt most people who listen to him and follows him checked all the science behind it, let alone are qualified to judge it.

I'm just looking for reasons to follow him and somehow, he seems like a lone nut here.

LoL then dont "follow" him. Im sure he wont mind. You could always educate yourself on the matter of nutrition and then make your own choices instead of blindly "following" someone without really understanding why...


But hey, thats just advice, you do what the fuk you wanna o

[SuffolkPunch]

You know what bro, do what works for YOU. If you like the idea of leangains, try it for a long enough period to make an objective comparison to what you did before.

I personally learned superb appetite control from LG but got very little extra from messing with macros on a day by day basis - which is what is predicted by known research... OTOH, experimenting with a CKD diet has had a profound effect on me - better than steroids (probably) long may it continue.

[Apex702]

It seems that the whole scientific community is wrong. He says:



This is really a crude statement don't you think ?
Why should I follow this guy btw ?



Not everyone can be an expert on anything. Sometimes, you have to stick to authority.
If I listen to him, won't it be a logical fallacy also ? I doubt most people who listen to him and follows him checked all the science behind it, let alone are qualified to judge it.

I'm just looking for reasons to follow him and somehow, he seems like a lone nut here.

In his experience he has met individuals, while formally educated, were incorrect in their assertions pertaining to nutrition.

Why is this so difficult to believe?

He also alludes to the possible factor of financial motivation of certain individuals i.e. using a degree in nutrition in order to "sell" something.

He does not state that all educated in the field of nutrition are wrong and he is right.

[CoolDehLa]

And that's the definition of the logical fallacy noted above.

So you don't believe evolution is true ? Or global warming ? or e=mc2. I dont know the science behind it, but I accept it as true. You think your average joe delved into all this ? Nope.

How can people act upon things if they are not educated ? I have no reason to follow this guy other than the fact that he says: follow me, i'm telling the truth. Isn't that crazy ?

However, when academics say it and they are scientists, I do have reason to believe them cause science is the only source for truth.

Problem is that this guy is also saying his message is backed by science AND that academics don't tell the truth.
Now I don't know who to believe....how would you resolve this ? (actually, there are dozens of blogs who all preach different dieting styles, how would you deal with that ? Which would you choose from ?).

Look, if you are into a scientific discussion, both are experts, then the logical fallacy holds that you can't just say: "well einstein said it".
But common folks like us, we are not experts, so we have to depend on authority. Is there a better alternative ?

[CoolDehLa]

LoL then dont "follow" him. Im sure he wont mind. You could always educate yourself on the matter of nutrition and then make your own choices instead of blindly "following" someone without really understanding why...


But hey, thats just advice, you do what the fuk you wanna o

I want a great physique and I want it fast as possible.
I also don't want to phuck up my body with weird diets from a lone nut in some blog just because he said so.
I thought expert miscers cold shed some light here. I sure as hell can't go to my doctor, cause the guy says they are not telling the truth! See my dilemma ?

[CoolDehLa]

You know what bro, do what works for YOU. If you like the idea of leangains, try it for a long enough period to make an objective comparison to what you did before.

I personally learned superb appetite control from LG but got very little extra from messing with macros on a day by day basis - which is what is predicted by known research... OTOH, experimenting with a CKD diet has had a profound effect on me - better than steroids (probably) long may it continue.

yes, I thought of this also before, just do it and see if it works. But isn't that dangerous ? brb fasting for 16 hours every day ? Don't wanna phuck up my body...

[Apex702]

yes, I thought of this also before, just do it and see if it works. But isn't that dangerous ? brb fasting for 16 hours every day ? Don't wanna phuck up my body...

Did it for 8 months. Still alive. Also, he links scientific studies that fasting can actually be beneficial and not detrimental.

What a whack job.

[CoolDehLa]

Did it for 8 months. Still alive. Also, he links scientific studies that fasting can actually be beneficial and not detrimental.

What a whack job.

But how do I know he is not being selective with the studies ? I'm sure as hell not qualified to judge it.

I guess nobody really has answer to my question. We all blindly follow someone in this world

[rand18m]

I ate one meal a day for twenty years, guess I was following leangains, or IF, or whatever the hell it's called, and didn't know it!!

Damn, I was ahead of my time and had no idea!! LOL

[CoolDehLa]

To give an example. He is citing this study to make the claim that meal frequency does not lead to a higher TET.(whatever the phuck that means).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

This study says (can only lead the abstract)

Abstract
Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.

Okay great, it seems settled. But where are the responses to this article. What's the opinion of the scientific community on this ? For all we know, this study could be blasted by it's peer for whatever reasons. Can anyone show me where I find the citations to this study ?

[k9pit]

yes, I thought of this also before, just do it and see if it works. But isn't that dangerous ? brb fasting for 16 hours every day ? Don't wanna phuck up my body...

I don't do LG simply because I'm not about to alter my whole life around feeding windows. But with that said, you can't argue with the results *many* get from it. Also people including myself have been getting results without it. The results come either way if you are dedicated to however you go about things.

Actually not dangerous to "fast" like that. Many people only eat 3 times a day anyway and basically fast for 12-13 hours when you factor in sleep.

The bottom line is once you get the basics of nutrition covered and which foods your body responds best too, you can experiment around with "how you want to go about" eating...whether it's a feeding "window" which may actually consist of X # of meals, the typical 3 larger meals a day with 3 snacks, or 2 big meals, and so on. At the most simplistic level, you can say Cals in vs Cals out (although it's more complex than that). But just because you eat 1500 calories in one sitting, and don't eat for 10 more hours your body isn't gonna wither up and die. Your body is going to take the time to process most of if not all.

Have you ever ate a pizza to yourself and was not hungry for the rest of the day? I have. I'm not saying pizza is the way to go but many times due to work, I'd basically be focused on other stuff and fast all day due to simply not having the time to eat, then be hungry as hell, order up a pizza eat half (i.e., ~1300 kcals) and be stuffed for the day.....and that's a hell of a deficit on the day. I haven't done that in a while, but I'd basically end up drinking a protein shake just to up the protein on that day because it was no way I was gonna force any more food down.

This may sound stupid, but look at animals.....like the bear....a bear stocks up and eats big before his long ass hibernation/fast...he doesn't starve and die during hibernation. And the bears aren't all waking up skinny as **** after either.
Back in the day, humans didn't have grocery stores and we survived as a species as well off of hunting and preserving.

Also, none of this **** is holy grail. The science changes every X years of what is the "best" way.
You have to figure out what works for your body and stick with that for consistent results. I look at the science, talk to people with results, experiment, figure out which bits and pieces of both actually work for me, incorporate those, ride with that and move forward.

[rand18m]

But how do I know he is not being selective with the studies ? I'm sure as hell not qualified to judge it.

I guess nobody really has answer to my question. We all blindly follow someone in this world

The point is that when it comes to nutrition everyone wants to overcomplicate it when it's not necessary to do so. In reality it's quite simple, but nobody seems to be happy with the basics.

They are all suspect for some reason of either the way their food is grown, or the way their food is sold, or the way their food is cooked, or the time in which they eat their food, or the macro nutrients inside the food, or lack of nutrients inside their food, or other such nonsense! But it makes money for many so don't expect anything but food born hysteria from now on!

[Apex702]

To give an example. He is citing this study to make the claim that meal frequency does not lead to a higher TET.(whatever the phuck that means).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

This study says (can only lead the abstract)


Okay great, it seems settled. But where are the responses to this article. What's the opinion of the scientific community on this ? For all we know, this study could be blasted by it's peer for whatever reasons. Can anyone show me where I find the citations to this study ?

The study is peer-reviewed. Which means its merits and conclusions have been reviewed by several peers in the scientific community. Only after its reviewed and authenticated is it published.

[CoolDehLa]

The study is peer-reviewed. Which means its merits and conclusions have been reviewed by several peers in the scientific community. Only after its reviewed and authenticated is it published.

Yes, this I know. I'm an academic student in social sciences, so I know how the 'scientific process' works. And I know that not all published studies are 'true'. How do I know this is not just but one study ? Now i CAN check this out myself, but won't cause it's boring as shet, it does not interest me.

This topic is really about trust issues. Should I trust the blogger or should I trust the dietitians with academic credentials.

[Z Gatrel]

Try it. Best way to see if something works or not is through experience.

[Apex702]

Yes, this I know. I'm an academic student in social sciences, so I know how the 'scientific process' works. And I know that not all published studies are 'true'. How do I know this is not just but one study ? Now i CAN check this out myself, but won't cause it's boring as shet, it does not interest me.

This topic is really about trust issues. Should I trust the blogger or should I trust the dietitians with academic credentials.

So, I'm not a student nor have I attended college, but let me ask you, where do scholars ascertain their knowledge from? Does every scholar do their own experiments I wonder, or do they perhaps base their decisions on applicable peer-reviewed research?

It's probably the latter and if that is the case I would imagine that because of the "process" you can presume that most studies are likely reviewed with the utmost scrutiny, otherwise, the educational system would be rather unreliable.

Then again, that is what some "blogger" is essentially saying.

[CoolDehLa]

An academic does his own research, including experiments. If you don't publish x studies in a year, the university might fire you. This is how most universities work to my knowledge.

Someone who works in the 'real world', like dietitians, they use the scientific data to help the needs of their clients (mostly weight loss).
Ofcourse, the clients don't know if the dietitian really uses science, for all we know, we can only hope.

[t12jm]

If you read enough of his material, you'll find he prefaces anything that isn't able to be proven with "my own theories" or something. Specifically, all the "benefits" of fasting outside of compliance. They have no basis in current scientific knowledge, and I think he does a pretty good job of making it clear that they're simply theories which haven't been proven in any way.

His legion of followers are [sometimes] a different story.

[Aes_RocK]

Martin's whole approach seems based on Science, he even goes out of way to cite Scientific and peer reviewed research papers (although everyone should do this...). That makes it less bro sciency to me. Also, He doesnt claim anything to be the end all be all fact, he provides proof and applies it to his own life. He has pictures on his site showing some of his clients who have had great results.

Personally, my advice is to not follow any diet unless you research it yourself. Martin's (leangains.com) method is to make dieting more convenient for big eaters. Fasting for 16 hours and eating for 8 allows you to cram in big meals while still allowing you to stay bellow maintenance. The fasting portion isnt long enough to force your body into "starvation" mode and has no real impact on hormone levels.

[chuntbaby]

I do IF but I don't follow his training protocol or his low carbs on off days stuff either

I like to fast to eat big meals and control hunger better plus it gives me more time in the mornings and i don't get hungry half way into class

personal preference rules all

[GetFit10]

An academic does his own research, including experiments. If you don't publish x studies in a year, the university might fire you. This is how most universities work to my knowledge.

Someone who works in the 'real world', like dietitians, they use the scientific data to help the needs of their clients (mostly weight loss).
Ofcourse, the clients don't know if the dietitian really uses science, for all we know, we can only hope.

they do their own research, but much of it may be based of what others have found or are challenging the views of others. Why else would there be a work cited page. If it was all their own work no citations would be needed.

[ErikTheElectric]

In on 8 + page thread.

[azn3r1c]

OP, the guy juiced.

[CoolDehLa]

they do their own research, but much of it may be based of what others have found or are challenging the views of others. Why else would there be a work cited page. If it was all their own work no citations would be needed.

This is true, you always work on what is already known. You may try to refute it or extend the research.

To my knowledge, the blogger cites studies that that is congruent with his beliefs. So when he objects to 'academics', I think he's thinking of dietitians instead of the scholars, cause the science is there and he uses the same source everyone else does. He just interprets them differently than 'most of dietitians'. He interpret them as it should be, so he says

I've formed this opinion reading the blogpost in the Op, my opinion is tentative for now.