The Dive Bar

Status
Not open for further replies.
MASShole said:
But do you P90X?

And sorry, I did a genetic analysis on you, and you will never bench above 315.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what P90X is. That thread is too damn boring to figure it out.

But what did my genetic analysis say about my cat-like balance, charm, class, and charisma?
 
It says that this guy doesn't use the P90X.

Most-Interesting-Man.jpg
 
i dont always work out, but when i do i prefer free weights.
 
Origins said:
Why Some People Won't Be Fit Despite Exercise - The New York Times

Apparently God, Chuck Norris, evolution or whatever you believe got us to where we are today saw fit to make 10% of people not adapt to external stimuli.

Why do I get the sense that this was a poorly controlled study and that this scientist and this journalist are both talking out of their asses?
Click to expand...

Because it is. If the results were true, it would have an impact on almost every study concerning exercise, and it would have been old news. But that's clearly not the case. Furthermore it states that for some people it's impossible to lose fat, which means either their bodies violate thermodynamics, or they have some kind of fucked up condition preventing their body from using stored fat as energy. And I have a very hard time believing that natural selection would allow 10% of the population to have such a condition.

And that's if it's even a "valid" study. Newspapers will report on things they find in other papers, or online, etc., and next thing you know you have "the onion" being used as a reliable source, or wikipedia validating a Journalist, who is then cited as a source for that bit of information, or a tabloid in Hong Kong creating leading to all kinds of misinformation in other newspapers around the world. And all of the above are true cases, that I know of off the top of my head. The point is that newspapers have dodgy fact checking at best, and that we should all check our facts and consider the source of any information.
 
FiveFeezy said:
I hit a new PR on the bench press today. Just thought I'd show that off a little. :wink:




WAR TEAM OBLIVION! With all kinds of muscle confusion and elite fitness going on!
Click to expand...


no spotter bro?
 
Yeah, no spotter. But the rack has two lower hooks that I can get the bar to if I can't get it up all the way. I've always been able to get it at least to that height.
 
Tosa said:
Because it is. If the results were true, it would have an impact on almost every study concerning exercise, and it would have been old news. But that's clearly not the case. Furthermore it states that for some people it's impossible to lose fat, which means either their bodies violate thermodynamics, or they have some kind of fucked up condition preventing their body from using stored fat as energy. And I have a very hard time believing that natural selection would allow 10% of the population to have such a condition.

And that's if it's even a "valid" study. Newspapers will report on things they find in other papers, or online, etc., and next thing you know you have "the onion" being used as a reliable source, or wikipedia validating a Journalist, who is then cited as a source for that bit of information, or a tabloid in Hong Kong creating leading to all kinds of misinformation in other newspapers around the world. And all of the above are true cases, that I know of off the top of my head. The point is that newspapers have dodgy fact checking at best, and that we should all check our facts and consider the source of any information.
Click to expand...

The wikipedia article about aerobic exercise you linked in that other thread had that little gem of wisdom in there with that article as the lone source for it.
 
Origins said:
The wikipedia article about aerobic exercise you linked in that other thread had that little gem of wisdom in there with that article as the lone source for it.
Click to expand...

Well ignore that bit. I linked the article because it answered the question sufficiently well, and I didn't want to just copy-paste it. Like anything else you read, you have to be critical and think about it. Despite all the issues with newspapers or wikipedia I mentioned previously, I still read them. Very few things are 100% accurate.
 
Tosa said:
Well ignore that bit. I linked the article because it answered the question sufficiently well, and I didn't want to just copy-paste it. Like anything else you read, you have to be critical and think about it. Despite all the issues with newspapers or wikipedia I mentioned previously, I still read them. Very few things are 100% accurate.
Click to expand...

Yes, very true. I wasn't trying to say that you gave a bad link or anything like that.

I just don't understand why so many "scientists" with fucking PhD's in their field seem to have such a poor understanding of the scientific method. Is it just that they have insufficient funding to set up solid studies so they just take what they can get? Is there some other reason that so many horrible experiments get churned out of university laboratories so often?
 
Origins said:
Yes, very true. I wasn't trying to say that you gave a bad link or anything like that.

I just don't understand why so many "scientists" with fucking PhD's in their field seem to have such a poor understanding of the scientific method. Is it just that they have insufficient funding to set up solid studies so they just take what they can get? Is there some other reason that so many horrible experiments get churned out of university laboratories so often?
Click to expand...

Well it's partly a funding issue, who an issue of who's providing the funds. There's also the matter than a PhD doesn't necessarily mean you're smart (which is something I've heard people with PhDs say on occassion).

But most significantly (at least IMO), that most people only ever read studies when they're reported on in a newspaper, or somebodies interpretation of a study in some article. So the study itself may be fine and reasonable, but the person who's writing about it misrepresents it. It's like a study may only tenously suggest something, but it gets reported on as some shocking discovery or what have you. For example, look at all the nonsense around the Tabata study. A perfectly good, reasonable study...and somehow all kinds of people who you'd hope would know better completely miss the point.
 
A PhD or any degree for that matter is more indicative of perceived work done than it is intelligence or even knowledge learned. Even if we assume a student did all of their own work with no cheating or short cuts, you would hope someone that took all those classes, went to all those classes, took all those tests, wrote all those papers, read all those books, and did all that research learned something and is smart but those are two different things and there are no guarantees.
 
Last edited:
Origins said:
Why Some People Won't Be Fit Despite Exercise - The New York Times

Apparently God, Chuck Norris, evolution or whatever you believe got us to where we are today saw fit to make 10% of people not adapt to external stimuli.

Why do I get the sense that this was a poorly controlled study and that this scientist and this journalist are both talking out of their asses?
Click to expand...

Read at the bottom:
Dr. Paul Thompson, a cardiologist, helped conduct a study of muscle development after his marathon training didn't result in big muscles, despite his efforts.
Click to expand...

Bits of unintentional comedy are always the best!
 
I work with PhDs and most of them will tell you it's just perseverance and not intelligence.
 
Tosa said:
Because it is. If the results were true, it would have an impact on almost every study concerning exercise, and it would have been old news. But that's clearly not the case. Furthermore it states that for some people it's impossible to lose fat, which means either their bodies violate thermodynamics, or they have some kind of fucked up condition preventing their body from using stored fat as energy. And I have a very hard time believing that natural selection would allow 10% of the population to have such a condition.

And that's if it's even a "valid" study. Newspapers will report on things they find in other papers, or online, etc., and next thing you know you have "the onion" being used as a reliable source, or wikipedia validating a Journalist, who is then cited as a source for that bit of information, or a tabloid in Hong Kong creating leading to all kinds of misinformation in other newspapers around the world. And all of the above are true cases, that I know of off the top of my head. The point is that newspapers have dodgy fact checking at best, and that we should all check our facts and consider the source of any information.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, the dude quoted as saying "10% of the people he studied could never improve their fitness with exercise" (dr. Bouchard C), has participated in over 100 published papers over the last 30+ years. Practically all of those studie are related (some way or another) to the heredity of "trainability" and performance traits.

Here's the links to just some of them:
Sensitivity of maximal aerobic power to training is genotype-dependent.(1984)
Cardiac dimension changes with endurance training. Indications of a genotype dependency.(1985)
Heredity and changes in hormones and metabolic rates with short-term training.(1986)
Heredity and overfeeding-induced changes in submaximal exercise VO2.(1987)
Genetic effect in resting and exercise metabolic rates.(1989)
Using MZ twins in experimental research to test for the presence of a genotype-environment interaction effect.(1990)
Mitochondrial DNA sequence polymorphism, VO2max, and response to endurance training.(1993)
The response to exercise with constant energy intake in identical twins.(1994)
The HERITAGE family study. Aims, design, and measurement protocol.(1995)
A major gene for resting metabolic rate unassociated with body composition: results from the Qu
 
I'm ready for the weekend. Anyone on here shoot pool?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,062
Messages
55,464,425
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top