When will nutrition courses actually teach proper nutrition?

[IDRISCKY]

I didn't know a diet that gives you pre-diabetes/diabetes was basic nutrition.

 

[StrikerStatus]

False. There are many PhDs running around who hold prestigious positions and yet are most certainly idiots.

Idiot. def: a person of subnormal intelligence. If you have your PhD, you certainly are not below intelligence in your field. Other walks of life; completely subjective; an ex-girlfriend's grandfather is an Electrical Engineer PhD and almost burned down a house vacuuming hot coals from a fireplace.

It takes dedication, intellect, and time to receive a PhD. They may be retarded in certain aspects, but there are certainly not complete idiots if they can receive their doctoral degree. They may be idiots by your/Sherdog standards; but in the world of academia, both of those mean nothing.

(I have had my fair share of PhD professors who made me wonder how they ever passed any class in their life. Truth is, many of these professors seems to lose drive and initiative once they get a solid prof/research position at a university. Sucks for us.)

 

[T_Money_]

Idiot. def: a person of subnormal intelligence. If you have your PhD, you certainly are not below intelligence in your field. Other walks of life; completely subjective; an ex-girlfriend's grandfather is an Electrical Engineer PhD and almost burned down a house vacuuming hot coals from a fireplace.

It takes dedication, intellect, and time to receive a PhD. They may be retarded in certain aspects, but there are certainly not complete idiots if they can receive their doctoral degree. They may be idiots by your/Sherdog standards; but in the world of academia, both of those mean nothing.

(I have had my fair share of PhD professors who made me wonder how they ever passed any class in their life. Truth is, many of these professors seems to lose drive and initiative once they get a solid prof/research position at a university. Sucks for us.)

Yup, they are definitely idiots. Probably more idiots than ones qualified to teach someone else. And I'm talking about in their respective fields.

 

[Sinister]

That's a little harsh. I always hated blanket statements, and no teacher should give one. It all depends; in my sports nutrition class, my professor goes over different calorie needs as with what the sport demands. It an alright class. She herself preaches a 45-65%C/20-25%F/20-25%P, and for many active persons with no underlying problems, that is fine.

Professors usually (from what they have told me) base their upper division courses off of a tangent that they did research on in graduate school. I am lucky in the fact that my exercise physiology and biochemistry professors still do active research and are always continuing education.

Point is, your professor is obviously not an idiot if he has a PhD and is running your class at a university. Realize that you are in basic nutrition; so guess what you will learn?

I think the problems some (and definitely myself) are referring to lie in the fundamentals of nutrition. It's not that the course structure is bad, it's that the information is fundamentally flawed, and it is. I don't blame the teachers for this because they didn't initiate it, nor are many of them even aware of how it all happened. But there is something to be said for the perpetuation of it, and for those who don't explore beyond what it takes to get their degree.

Physiology and biochem, being more specialized, is more of a constant state of experimentation/exploration. But I've found that by my experience, attempting to speak to someone who is schooled and set (note the importance of the term "set") on the flawed basic information is a lot like trying to talk to your average GP about enhancing testosterone production or maximizing thyroid function. The moment you go outside of what is the conventional wisdom, you are the devil.

That said, the old 30-30-40 macro breakdown (and slight variations thereof) is a bit of a relic, there's a plethora of evidence that nutritional regimens that vastly break away from that breakdown can be more optimal, relative to the Sport in-question of course.

 

[newhalp]

I am in good health.

Here are my nutritional breakdowns for the last 7 days:

42% fat
31% protein
27% carbohydrates

Works for me!

 

[Loomy]

False. There are many PhDs running around who hold prestigious positions and yet are most certainly idiots.

I used to think that too, before I realized the truth is much more dire: everybody is an idiot 8)

actually it is easy for me to put down a doctor for not knowing everything. but really, doctors still know more about their field than non-doctors... (even if I know something he doesnt)... so where does that leave us. he's an idiot and I'm more of an idiot? frick.

besides, I thought professors signed up to do research and teach research. I don't even think it is his job to know, and certainly not to TELL you, what people "should" (as asked in the original post) do. I don't think I ever had a class saying don't smoke. I think I heard, smoking does this and that. applications vs information.

 

[T_Money_]

I think the problems some (and definitely myself) are referring to lie in the fundamentals of nutrition. It's not that the course structure is bad, it's that the information is fundamentally flawed, and it is. I don't blame the teachers for this because they didn't initiate it, nor are many of them even aware of how it all happened. But there is something to be said for the perpetuation of it, and for those who don't explore beyond what it takes to get their degree.

Physiology and biochem, being more specialized, is more of a constant state of experimentation/exploration. But I've found that by my experience, attempting to speak to someone who is schooled and set (note the importance of the term "set") on the flawed basic information is a lot like trying to talk to your average GP about enhancing testosterone production or maximizing thyroid function. The moment you go outside of what is the conventional wisdom, you are the devil.

That said, the old 30-30-40 macro breakdown (and slight variations thereof) is a bit of a relic, there's a plethora of evidence that nutritional regimens that vastly break away from that breakdown can be more optimal, relative to the Sport in-question of course.

Not only are the fundamentals flawed, but the courses I've taken have all been taught by fatass middle-aged bitches who will undoubtedly be diabetic and/or MSX. And most dieticians are employed in hospitals so what they teach is how to "treat" someone w/ a specific disease and not how to optimize a diet for a normal person. I mean hell, 60% carbs may not even be that big of a deal for a super active athlete with good genes, but considering probably 90% of America is the opposite (sedentary w/ normal genes) their recommendations are fucking retarded. Wouldn't trusting bad information + having no real world experience + making horrible recommendations to people that trust you = idiot? It sure as fuck does in everything else in life. If a doctor decides to pick up a book on blood letting, refuses to look at contradictory info, tries it and gets no good results, and goes on recommending it, would you guys be so forgiving?

 

[Sinister]

Like I said, though, a lot of these people honestly believe they're correct and not vindictively. They have tons of literature, and "reputable" organizations that back them up. According to them, the obesity and diabetes epidemics are pure mystery. Don't get me wrong, I hate the poor information as much as you...but we're not going to get the kind of change in thought needed with vehemence. That dentist who pulled the "med school" card on me...he came off as a total prick (didn't even ask about any schooling I may have had), but the moment I started talking about mechanisms behind protein synthesis he had nothing to say aside from "really?"...and "oh."

I don't consider myself forgiving per se, but a wise person once told me that the trick to getting around rules (and this shit is considered RULE in many institutions), is to first understand how the rule came to be, and why it continues to exist. Unfortunately it's not just a matter of stupidity or maliciousness, but a very bad mix of both. To be able to break the incorrect patterns of thought, we must first know more about why they exist than the perpetuators do.

 

[T_Money_]

Good post.

 

[Sinister]

You, too. Discourse like this is exactly what's needed.

 

[JSN]

i just which the gist of almost all nutritional guidelines where behavioral. it's really not hard to throw together any diet on paper that should be really good, just like it's really easy to look at a heroin addict and say, "hey i know- you should stop the heroin." ~98% of the battle is implementing a good diet with the amount of free time most people have and the lack of access to good sources.

 

[Morozevich]

Universities basing exams on misinformation? This happens in just about every subject, but concrete courses such as mathematics. Especially psychology and history.

Reading a history book nowadays is no different than reading an alternate reality book, IMO. Universities have always been interesting in promoting an agenda rather than teaching the truth.

 

[Farouche]

We are seeing, at various points in this thread, how easy it is to slip into a bland, over-arching brand of anti-intellectualism when you talk about subjects such as these.

There is no doubt academics are wrong about things; it would surprising, ludicrous even, if that were not the case. There is no doubt groupthink happens, because it happens in every group, including this forum. But, on balance, I'll trust the guy who has chosen to dedicate his life pursuing something he loves instead of chasing after the money (and has the accomplishments to back it up), and this describes almost every professor I know. Most profs are good people. Nearly all of them are intellectually honest, but they have a lot invested in what they are teaching. If you think one is wrong about something specific, approach the situation tactfully, and you might be surprised at the response you get.

On the other hand, every student enters a class with prejudices, and when those prejudices are not immediately confirmed, some start spouting off about professorial biases - liberal, blah blah blah. Such is the age we live in.

 

[T_Money_]

how easy it is to slip into a bland, over-arching brand of anti-intellectualism .

I would say this would be an accurate description of my college experience thus far, especially the anti-intellectualism part. And no, I don't have any beef with any profs, I have a 3.75 and my profs either don't know who I am or like me. And even most of the ones that like me, I don't think have any business teaching.

 

[Sinister]

i just which the gist of almost all nutritional guidelines where behavioral. it's really not hard to throw together any diet on paper that should be really good, just like it's really easy to look at a heroin addict and say, "hey i know- you should stop the heroin." ~98% of the battle is implementing a good diet with the amount of free time most people have and the lack of access to good sources.

There's as much compelling evidence to suggest it's not JUST behavioral as there is that suggests that nearly any "good" diet is actually "good." Regarding the lack of health in America, there's a lot more to it than just fat people = lazy. Sure we all know a lazy fat guy or two, but I know twice as many who work harder than a lot of lean people. However, that said, I'm with you on the notion that each person must choose their own destiny. If you don't want to be fat or unhealthy, there's a way to make it happen.

We are seeing, at various points in this thread, how easy it is to slip into a bland, over-arching brand of anti-intellectualism when you talk about subjects such as these.

There is no doubt academics are wrong about things; it would surprising, ludicrous even, if that were not the case. There is no doubt groupthink happens, because it happens in every group, including this forum. But, on balance, I'll trust the guy who has chosen to dedicate his life pursuing something he loves instead of chasing after the money (and has the accomplishments to back it up), and this describes almost every professor I know. Most profs are good people. Nearly all of them are intellectually honest, but they have a lot invested in what they are teaching. If you think one is wrong about something specific, approach the situation tactfully, and you might be surprised at the response you get.

On the other hand, every student enters a class with prejudices, and when those prejudices are not immediately confirmed, some start spouting off about professorial biases - liberal, blah blah blah. Such is the age we live in.

I don't know if you're insinuating the general notion that Professors, or the very highly educated, have simply dedicated their lives to what they love and aren't in it for the money. At the very least that's rarely the case in America. In fact a lot of the people who began this strain of misinformation being discussed were very brilliant, and held instructional or authoritative positions in this Country. Big names, big fame, big money, lots of accolades, in the subjects they loved. However, a couple of them got what I like to refer to as "legacy" syndrome. It's not an uncommon occurrence, at least here. To stay competitive as they age a lot of these people have to continually prove they're the best and the smartest in their respective fields, so it's important they do something monumental to cement a legacy.

There's many cases where this has consumed the otherwise inquisitive and scientific intellects of very highly-regarded individuals. So much so that on the path to pursuing their legacy, they begin to comb through data that affirms their theories and simply ignore data that refutes it. I have a good friend who is a physiologist, who is working under a physiologist who seems to be doing this very thing right this second. And the problem is it's almost impossible to tell them their data is poor, because after all, they're the best and the smartest, and have accolades to back it up.

It just so happened that information on nutrition in America degenerated from a very similar process. People don't know off-hand who Ancel Keys and Louis Newburgh are, but almost every time I speak to any layperson about nutrition, something each of these men put into our society comes out of their mouths. And such degeneration of information was based on very little more than a group of men wanting to stay in their positions. At every turn anyone who opposed them either had their data buried in the medical literature, or was crucified in the media. I wish it weren't so, but it is, and a whole Country suffers continuously for it. Sad as it is, it's not altogether uncommon when dealing with people of power and influence.

 

[XTrainer]

Idiot. def: a person of subnormal intelligence. If you have your PhD, you certainly are not below intelligence in your field. Other walks of life; completely subjective; an ex-girlfriend's grandfather is an Electrical Engineer PhD and almost burned down a house vacuuming hot coals from a fireplace.

How do you define "intelligence?" Is the mere possession of thorough "book knowledge" of a particular subject, regardless of whether said knowledge is accurate with respect to reality, enough to qualify one as "intelligent?"

If so, yes, virtually all PhDs are intelligent.

But that's a cheapened definition of "intelligence" that I don't subscribe to.

 

[XTrainer]

I used to think that too, before I realized the truth is much more dire: everybody is an idiot 8)

The term "idiot" implies that there are higher states of existence than "idiocy." We can't all be idiots any more than we can all be below average.

actually it is easy for me to put down a doctor for not knowing everything. but really, doctors still know more about their field than non-doctors... (even if I know something he doesnt)... so where does that leave us. he's an idiot and I'm more of an idiot? frick.

What "field?" Who knows more about nutrition, diet, sports-related injuries, training, etc: A general practitioner or the coach who has spent his life building great athletes? It's far from clear cut.

besides, I thought professors signed up to do research and teach research. I don't even think it is his job to know, and certainly not to TELL you, what people "should" (as asked in the original post) do. I don't think I ever had a class saying don't smoke. I think I heard, smoking does this and that. applications vs information.

So professors can spew all the the bull they want and we shouldn't call them on it because we're "more idiot" than they are? No way.

We are seeing, at various points in this thread, how easy it is to slip into a bland, over-arching brand of anti-intellectualism when you talk about subjects such as these.

I'm only against "intellectuals," if we must use the term, when they're wrong or deceptive. Benign intentions don't make a difference, BTW. In fact, the intellectual crowd is composed largely of self-righteous do-gooders...their feelings don't change reality, however.

There is no doubt academics are wrong about things; it would surprising, ludicrous even, if that were not the case. There is no doubt groupthink happens, because it happens in every group, including this forum. But, on balance, I'll trust the guy who has chosen to dedicate his life pursuing something he loves instead of chasing after the money (and has the accomplishments to back it up), and this describes almost every professor I know. Most profs are good people. Nearly all of them are intellectually honest, but they have a lot invested in what they are teaching. If you think one is wrong about something specific, approach the situation tactfully, and you might be surprised at the response you get.

A man's "dedication" to a subject has no bearing on reality itself. Lots of men dedicate themselves to very stupid things. We're not obligated to follow these men because of the strength of their dedication. I am always surprised how readily people will surrender their own sense of reason...

On the other hand, every student enters a class with prejudices, and when those prejudices are not immediately confirmed, some start spouting off about professorial biases - liberal, blah blah blah. Such is the age we live in.

It goes both ways--professors and students both have their biases. However, it's irrelevant if students have biases, since, if their biases lead them to false conclusions, only the individual student is hurt, and it is his own fault.

Professorial biases are another story-Those views get imposed on the whole class...if those biases lead to wrong conclusions, not only is everyone wrong, but it is all the sadder because the students' only fault was trusting the authority figure they came to learn from.

My replies in RED

 

[StrikerStatus]

How do you define "intelligence?" Is the mere possession of thorough "book knowledge" of a particular subject, regardless of whether said knowledge is accurate with respect to reality, enough to qualify one as "intelligent?"

If so, yes, virtually all PhDs are intelligent.

But that's a cheapened definition of "intelligence" that I don't subscribe to.

Are you honestly going to say that someone with a PhD in Nutrition or Exercise Physiology, who has performed research, teaches something that doesn't jive with Sherdog Paleo is an idiot? Come on man. What do you mean by reality? Most of what is taught is based of epidemiological studies on reality. I agree there is a lot of nutrition dogma that needs to be updated. My major gripe, is people that think most PhDs are know-nothings, and the real experts have no credentials. Diplomas and credits mean something. They are not useless.

Even if some PhDs are purely book knowledge, that does not mean they are dumb by any means; thats 90% of academia. There is always going to be a gap in reality vs. lab, but I truly believe that in some shape or form, PhDs are intelligent.

 

[StrikerStatus]

So professors can spew all the the bull they want and we shouldn't call them on it because we're "more idiot" than they are? No way.

100% with respectful discourse. I usually stay after class for twenty minutes asking questions.

What "field?" Who knows more about nutrition, diet, sports-related injuries, training, etc: A general practitioner or the coach who has spent his life building great athletes? It's far from clear cut.

True. Completely agree. You go to a GP for a sore throat, not a program. All they will say is "150 MET minutes per week". Inverse time: who knows more? The internet guru who says that their lifestyle and training is the way to cure what is wrong with society or a PhD Exercise Physiologist who researches the subject and comes to a pier-reviewed conclusion? Not all "book" trained individuals are useless.

 

[Sinister]

The internet guru who says that their lifestyle and training is the way to cure what is wrong with society or a PhD Exercise Physiologist who researches the subject and comes to a pier-reviewed conclusion? Not all "book" trained individuals are useless.

To be fair, some people are referred to as internet guru's, or just plain gurus, when in practical reality some of them can have more practical experience and schooling than a person thinks. Anonymity on the internet works both ways, we can't assume what a guy knows, and we also can't assume what a guy doesn't know.

IMO it's all about the quality of the information. Either it's good or bad. And information being good or bad isn't always a marker of how smart a person is or isn't. A lot of people who ended up revolutionizing a vast many industries, historically, were considered mediocre and insignificant in the study of said industries.