By Brad Pilon
The controversy over the various nutritional theories arises over the semantics and constraints of the language of science.
This may sound sharp words which I admit might almost seem elitist, so let me try to explain ...
The argument that "a calorie is a calorie" or that "not all calories are created equal" is a language error. Either that or an illustration of a lack of understanding.
A calorie is a measure of energy. So a calorie by definition must be a calorie as an inch is by definition an inch and a pound is by definition a pound.
What is usually meant when someone says "not all calories are created equal" is that "not all macronutrients are the same" which is a legal statement. The problem arises again in the language ... someone thinks "not all macronutrients are equal" (which is true) but says "not all calories are equal" (not true) ... and you can see from where comes confusion.
The war full online discussions arises because each part is following an argument that has a single face. A calorie is a calorie (truth) and not all macronutrients are the same (also true).
The language confuses people. And as both sides are technically correct, the only logical conclusion is that people on the other side is just crazy, or jaded, or deceived. It's like if I could argue that car tires are round, and you should deny vehemently that are round because they are made of rubber. We can argue all day, but we will not get anywhere until we realize that both are right, and we're talking about different properties of the tire (and as they are made)
The other issue relates to nutrition in critical thinking. Trying to clarify who is and who is not absolute.
We tend to confuse our absolute assumptions. This leads to an erroneous logic or even extremely correct logic, but simply based on an incorrect assumption.
An assumption is something we take for granted, presupposed. Usually it is something we have learned previously and were not questioned. It's part of our belief system.
We all make hundreds of assumptions every day without thinking about it. Many of these assumptions are sound and justifiable. Many other however, are not.
Everyday assumptions are necessary to navigate the world. For example, only when we feel safe driving green cross, assuming that the cars waiting at red lights actually going to wait and will not be loaded directly into the intersection against red.
The controversy over the various nutritional theories arises over the semantics and constraints of the language of science.
This may sound sharp words which I admit might almost seem elitist, so let me try to explain ...
A calorie is a measure of energy. So a calorie by definition must be a calorie as an inch is by definition an inch and a pound is by definition a pound.
What is usually meant when someone says "not all calories are created equal" is that "not all macronutrients are the same" which is a legal statement. The problem arises again in the language ... someone thinks "not all macronutrients are equal" (which is true) but says "not all calories are equal" (not true) ... and you can see from where comes confusion.
The war full online discussions arises because each part is following an argument that has a single face. A calorie is a calorie (truth) and not all macronutrients are the same (also true).
The language confuses people. And as both sides are technically correct, the only logical conclusion is that people on the other side is just crazy, or jaded, or deceived. It's like if I could argue that car tires are round, and you should deny vehemently that are round because they are made of rubber. We can argue all day, but we will not get anywhere until we realize that both are right, and we're talking about different properties of the tire (and as they are made)
The other issue relates to nutrition in critical thinking. Trying to clarify who is and who is not absolute.
We tend to confuse our absolute assumptions. This leads to an erroneous logic or even extremely correct logic, but simply based on an incorrect assumption.
An assumption is something we take for granted, presupposed. Usually it is something we have learned previously and were not questioned. It's part of our belief system.
We all make hundreds of assumptions every day without thinking about it. Many of these assumptions are sound and justifiable. Many other however, are not.
Everyday assumptions are necessary to navigate the world. For example, only when we feel safe driving green cross, assuming that the cars waiting at red lights actually going to wait and will not be loaded directly into the intersection against red.
(Accidents happen when our assumptions are incorrect)
In research, the assumptions are things that are taken for granted in the study: judgments made by the researcher that stated that certain elements of the investigation are considered as truth.
Some Examples
Atwater factors, you know our estimated (and rounded) amount of calories per gram of protein, carbohydrates and fats (4, 4, and 9 calories respectively) are in fact estimates. Were established over 100 years and are estimates based on the average of a large number of foods, which were then rounded so they were nice and no decimal places.
But if we assume the Atwater factors as absolute, can upset the rest of our logic.
For example, the protein 4 calories per gram is an extremely rough estimate. Sometimes the number may be measured near and in extreme cases, can be below 3 calories per gram, depending on the construction of amino acids of said protein.
Why does this matter? because if we assume that the 4 calories (per gram) are absolute, but then we see weight gain or loss is not justified by our accounts, we have no other choice but to theorize possible reasons for the additional weight loss.
Note-explanatory by Maokoto Example: For example, if we estimate that the 60 grams of protein you eat one a day, 240 calories out exact (60 × 4) and are actually 200 (as some of those grams can be below of the 4 calories), believing that the 240 is an absolute truth might think that the person has lost a bit longer than expected because it has also been taking you blue, when in fact is simply that the protests had fewer calories than we have assumed.
The other problem with the Atwater factors is the secondary assumption that all energy is estimated to contain food will go into our bloodstream and therefore will be incorporated into our body systems. In other words, not just in our mouths and intestines, but really in our bodies.
This is also an incorrect assumption as seen in the recent investigation with Almonds. But if you ignore the concept of "metabolizable energy" (energy that actually is available to your body) then you have to look for other possible explanations for this discrepancy.
Another example is the suggestion that "obese people as the same amount of calories that people are not obese." This was proven once through research, and was later invalidated by another investigation that followed. But if you do not know that that override succeeded (or simply choose to ignore), then what do you have? If you assume that increased caloric intake is not associated with obesity have no choice but to theorize about other possible reasons for weight gain than excess calories beyond the necessary.
In both examples we allow our assumptions exceed our logic and critical thinking.
In recent research on metabolic adaptation to weight loss was found that the metabolic rate fell to 500 calories per day more than could be predicted by weight loss. What is interesting is that at the end of the test the subjects' metabolic rate was exactly what one would expect given its lean muscle mass. So in this case was not an adaptation of 500 calories but a difference of 500 calories. The discrepancy was between your actual metabolic rate and metabolic rate estimated.
In this case the assumptions were that A) The high metabolic rate of the subjects was normal (although it was as high as 2,700 calories) and B) The predictive calculations were correct.
The problem becomes even more tangled when you realize that the original erroneous assumption just buried in a sea of theory, some of which make sense, and some not. The issue is that it becomes more and more difficult to trace the issue back to the original erroneous assumption.
So What Can We Do?
Identifies and facing your assumptions, and consider the assumptions of others.
In the Middle Ages was the implicit belief that the Earth was the center of the universe.
The atom was originally defined as the smallest unit of matter indivisible. The assumption was that an atom could never be subdivided. This belief hindered the advancement of science until JJ Thomson discovered the existence of a subatomic particle, the electron in 1887.
So there are things that we are 100% certain to be true and sometimes not.
There is nothing wrong with the assumptions, are central to how we function as a species. Automatically make inferences from our assumptions to gain a base of understanding and action. We do so quickly and automatically that sometimes we do not account for their origin. We think dark clouds and rain. We see an online fitness guru with a six pack and concluded that its program of diet and exercise is what made him determined.
The problem arises not from the assumptions but did not realize our assumption. We need to realize that the conclusions we make are strongly influenced by our views and assumptions we have made about people and situations.
Some Tips
* Start by recognizing that you and everyone has recorded assumptions about any situation.
* Add many basic questions to identify and challenge those assumptions.
* Constantly ask yourself "What would happen if this rule rompiésemos deliberately?"
* Make like you're from a different planet and challenge assumptions from the most ignorant view. Why am I doing this?
* Reduces the situation to its simplest components to remove from your environment.
* Try to think of exceptions. Does this assumption apply universally?
* Restate the problem in completely different terms.
We need to take control of our thinking, not letting others do.
Case Study - We have lots of reproducible evidence that the bodybuilding lifestyle causes people to be free of fat and have a muscular appearance. If it is successful, most people can prepare to take a good look for a fitness or bodybuilding competition. You can not win, but will look good.
This is an observation that is easy to perform.
The hard part is determining which parts of the bodybuilding lifestyle are responsible for this effect, and which are not. And that's where our conclusions are disrupted by our assumptions and our point of view. Therefore we must be careful.
See all information and evidence available worldwide.
Has there been people who have come to be exceptionally strong while still eating carbs? Has there been any group of people who have achieved impressive amounts of muscle without eating copious amounts of protein? We have seen put on a young, old, male and women? These are the kinds of questions we must ask ourselves to confront our assumptions.
My guess is that now favorite male gymnasts get their incredible physical doing gymnastics. See how this photo is used as evidence to promote body weight training today.
The assumptions are that:
A) The gymnasts are like the rest of us (no genetic advantage).
B) That they only train gym (do not train with weights).
C) That the bodyweight exercises available to man or woman means are similar to those used by the gymnast exercises.
D) The time spent (gymnasts begin at ages 4 and 5 years and specialize at 8 or 9) is not relevant, we can "catch".
E) That one-hour workout 4 or 5 times a week is similar to the 3 or 4 hours 5 days a week most of the young gymnasts support.
Now, I'm not suggesting that all these assumptions are wrong, but are things we need to face constantly to make better use of our time in pursuing a lean and fit.
The best way to simplify your approach to getting the body you want to avoid the potholes and identifying that separate you from your goal is to constantly challenge your assumptions.
It is also what will keep you from falling victim to the relentless and endless tide of deception in fitness and nutrition reaching the inbox of your email every morning.
What assumptions are made in these memes?
* That it is different men.
* That both are the same age.
* What if it were not for the work they do, they would have a similar appearance.
* That the look of the sprinter is that everyone wants
* That there is nothing that influences (nutrition, weight training, drugs, genetics)
* That the marathon not sprint and sprinter does not run marathons.
* That women is different.
* What are the same age.
* That the poses are comparable.
* That they have the same nationality.
* That woman on the right squat.
* That woman on the left does not make them.
* What if the woman on the left sentadilleara would be able to look like the woman on the right.
* There are no other factors at play.
* That she does squats (could be a runner's Cross 17).
* It is hard doing squats.
* That squats gave the large muscles of your legs.
* That the squats have something to turn to its low fat and beauty.
* That if you did not do squat (assuming does) not have that aspect.
Extracted and translated from the article "Confront your Assumptions" by Brad Pilon.
But if we assume the Atwater factors as absolute, can upset the rest of our logic.
For example, the protein 4 calories per gram is an extremely rough estimate. Sometimes the number may be measured near and in extreme cases, can be below 3 calories per gram, depending on the construction of amino acids of said protein.
Why does this matter? because if we assume that the 4 calories (per gram) are absolute, but then we see weight gain or loss is not justified by our accounts, we have no other choice but to theorize possible reasons for the additional weight loss.
Note-explanatory by Maokoto Example: For example, if we estimate that the 60 grams of protein you eat one a day, 240 calories out exact (60 × 4) and are actually 200 (as some of those grams can be below of the 4 calories), believing that the 240 is an absolute truth might think that the person has lost a bit longer than expected because it has also been taking you blue, when in fact is simply that the protests had fewer calories than we have assumed.
The other problem with the Atwater factors is the secondary assumption that all energy is estimated to contain food will go into our bloodstream and therefore will be incorporated into our body systems. In other words, not just in our mouths and intestines, but really in our bodies.
This is also an incorrect assumption as seen in the recent investigation with Almonds. But if you ignore the concept of "metabolizable energy" (energy that actually is available to your body) then you have to look for other possible explanations for this discrepancy.
Another example is the suggestion that "obese people as the same amount of calories that people are not obese." This was proven once through research, and was later invalidated by another investigation that followed. But if you do not know that that override succeeded (or simply choose to ignore), then what do you have? If you assume that increased caloric intake is not associated with obesity have no choice but to theorize about other possible reasons for weight gain than excess calories beyond the necessary.
In both examples we allow our assumptions exceed our logic and critical thinking.
In recent research on metabolic adaptation to weight loss was found that the metabolic rate fell to 500 calories per day more than could be predicted by weight loss. What is interesting is that at the end of the test the subjects' metabolic rate was exactly what one would expect given its lean muscle mass. So in this case was not an adaptation of 500 calories but a difference of 500 calories. The discrepancy was between your actual metabolic rate and metabolic rate estimated.
In this case the assumptions were that A) The high metabolic rate of the subjects was normal (although it was as high as 2,700 calories) and B) The predictive calculations were correct.
The problem becomes even more tangled when you realize that the original erroneous assumption just buried in a sea of theory, some of which make sense, and some not. The issue is that it becomes more and more difficult to trace the issue back to the original erroneous assumption.
So What Can We Do?
Identifies and facing your assumptions, and consider the assumptions of others.
In the Middle Ages was the implicit belief that the Earth was the center of the universe.
The atom was originally defined as the smallest unit of matter indivisible. The assumption was that an atom could never be subdivided. This belief hindered the advancement of science until JJ Thomson discovered the existence of a subatomic particle, the electron in 1887.
So there are things that we are 100% certain to be true and sometimes not.
There is nothing wrong with the assumptions, are central to how we function as a species. Automatically make inferences from our assumptions to gain a base of understanding and action. We do so quickly and automatically that sometimes we do not account for their origin. We think dark clouds and rain. We see an online fitness guru with a six pack and concluded that its program of diet and exercise is what made him determined.
The problem arises not from the assumptions but did not realize our assumption. We need to realize that the conclusions we make are strongly influenced by our views and assumptions we have made about people and situations.
Some Tips
* Start by recognizing that you and everyone has recorded assumptions about any situation.
* Add many basic questions to identify and challenge those assumptions.
* Constantly ask yourself "What would happen if this rule rompiésemos deliberately?"
* Make like you're from a different planet and challenge assumptions from the most ignorant view. Why am I doing this?
* Reduces the situation to its simplest components to remove from your environment.
* Try to think of exceptions. Does this assumption apply universally?
* Restate the problem in completely different terms.
We need to take control of our thinking, not letting others do.
Case Study - We have lots of reproducible evidence that the bodybuilding lifestyle causes people to be free of fat and have a muscular appearance. If it is successful, most people can prepare to take a good look for a fitness or bodybuilding competition. You can not win, but will look good.
This is an observation that is easy to perform.
The hard part is determining which parts of the bodybuilding lifestyle are responsible for this effect, and which are not. And that's where our conclusions are disrupted by our assumptions and our point of view. Therefore we must be careful.
See all information and evidence available worldwide.
Has there been people who have come to be exceptionally strong while still eating carbs? Has there been any group of people who have achieved impressive amounts of muscle without eating copious amounts of protein? We have seen put on a young, old, male and women? These are the kinds of questions we must ask ourselves to confront our assumptions.
My guess is that now favorite male gymnasts get their incredible physical doing gymnastics. See how this photo is used as evidence to promote body weight training today.
(Probably not gotten it dominated by a couple of times a week)
The assumptions are that:
A) The gymnasts are like the rest of us (no genetic advantage).
B) That they only train gym (do not train with weights).
C) That the bodyweight exercises available to man or woman means are similar to those used by the gymnast exercises.
D) The time spent (gymnasts begin at ages 4 and 5 years and specialize at 8 or 9) is not relevant, we can "catch".
E) That one-hour workout 4 or 5 times a week is similar to the 3 or 4 hours 5 days a week most of the young gymnasts support.
Now, I'm not suggesting that all these assumptions are wrong, but are things we need to face constantly to make better use of our time in pursuing a lean and fit.
The best way to simplify your approach to getting the body you want to avoid the potholes and identifying that separate you from your goal is to constantly challenge your assumptions.
It is also what will keep you from falling victim to the relentless and endless tide of deception in fitness and nutrition reaching the inbox of your email every morning.
What assumptions are made in these memes?
* That it is different men.
* That both are the same age.
* What if it were not for the work they do, they would have a similar appearance.
* That the look of the sprinter is that everyone wants
* That there is nothing that influences (nutrition, weight training, drugs, genetics)
* That the marathon not sprint and sprinter does not run marathons.
* That women is different.
* What are the same age.
* That the poses are comparable.
* That they have the same nationality.
* That woman on the right squat.
* That woman on the left does not make them.
* What if the woman on the left sentadilleara would be able to look like the woman on the right.
* There are no other factors at play.
* That she does squats (could be a runner's Cross 17).
* It is hard doing squats.
* That squats gave the large muscles of your legs.
* That the squats have something to turn to its low fat and beauty.
* That if you did not do squat (assuming does) not have that aspect.
Extracted and translated from the article "Confront your Assumptions" by Brad Pilon.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar
How do you think the Post Above,? Give your comment! Because you will make your blog comments infoandtipsonfitness.blogspot.com The Good, and More Useful