When will nutrition courses actually teach proper nutrition?

[StrikerStatus]

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.

True. That is why people like Alan Aragon and Lyle McDonald who post real experience WITH the academic background makes their work much more weighted. That is also why I hate hearing someone give nutritional advice and their degree is in ethics (hypothetical situation).

It is also true what you say about people who revolutionize areas. People who do go against the grain either get chopped up by the blades of dogma or change minds. I am more against the notion that PhDs have nothing to give. PhDs are people, and people are motivated by many things and I hate the lumping of people. My main point, was that it takes intelligence to receive a PhD.

Maybe I am slightly defensive because I am blessed with intelligent and down-to-earth professors who have done and do research.

(I know things can get misconstrued on the internet, I hope nothing is coming across are rude towards you or X. I thoroughly enjoy the discussions we can have on here.)

 

[Sinister]

Nah man, it's all in good form. As I said in reference to T_Money, this sort of discourse is what is needed.

But you reveal that your viewpoint is not that far from many others' here. Most do understand the value of a PhD (or any degree for that matter), the diligence and focus it takes to gain such a thing. I've just always viewed academic achievement much like a black belt in Martial Arts, it's only to imply one has a good grasp of basic principles, and the REAL journey of self-discovery in the respective field has only just begun.

But it's definitely a two-sided coin, and I'm glad you got the better side with your instructors. Many of us aren't that fortunate.

 

[XTrainer]

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?

At no point did I even come close to saying that.

Come on man. What do you mean by reality? What do I mean by reality? There is only one thing that word can possibly mean...that which actually is. 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.

NO. This mentality is problematic. I have no doubt that many PhDs know a lot of things that are in fact both true and useful. There are also a lot of PhDs who either know little that is true, or little that is useful. But the point is, one's degree/diploma/credits are NOT what makes one right or wrong. This is classic "appeal to authority" argument and it is the favored defense of some on the most inane ideas that dominate the "conventional wisdom" discourse.

An education informs conclusions, but it does not filter the bad out from the good.

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.

If you read my previous posts carefully, you will see that I dispute none of that.

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.

Who said anything about disrespect? Profs get the same respect I give anyone else.

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.

There you go again, why must he be a PhD Exercise Physiologist? :icon_chee Maybe he reaches the right conclusions, maybe he doesn't, but the fact that he has a PhD has no direct bearing on that. There are AMPLE examples of PhDs giving stupid training advice, and guys who didn't go to college actually producing great athletes. Obviously, formal education is not the key factor...coming to the right conclusions about the given subject is...and a formal education does not automatically translate into correct conclusions.

So is education useless? Of course not. I've been wasting my money if that was so But at the end of the day, the arguments of PhDs must be held to the same stringent standards of scrutiny as those of anyone else...none of this "he's a doctor so he must be right" business.

...

 

[StrikerStatus]

There you go again, why must he be a PhD Exercise Physiologist? Maybe he reaches the right conclusions, maybe he doesn't, but the fact that he has a PhD has no direct bearing on that. There are AMPLE examples of PhDs giving stupid training advice, and guys who didn't go to college actually producing great athletes. Obviously, formal education is not the key factor...coming to the right conclusions about the given subject is...and a formal education does not automatically translate into correct conclusions.

So is education useless? Of course not. I've been wasting my money if that was so But at the end of the day, the arguments of PhDs must be held to the same stringent standards of scrutiny as those of anyone else...none of this "he's a doctor so he must be right" business.

Haha, sorry man about the PhD Exercise Physiology. I am biased and have to keep picking that major! I must be losing it with midterms! I am an Exercise Physiology Pre-Med and I have awesome professors who do great research and participate in sports. That is not fair assuming all are like that. Yes, there is ample examples of bad PhDs giving advice, they are not immune. Hell, I had a family friend who is a Plastic Surgeon talk to me about hormones and he wanted me to take testosterone for gains and estrogen for my skin............not going to happen. I just felt that this was taking a turn towards PhD=useless; and that was reading too much into what you were saying X. I reread your post and I did not scrutinize it enough and made some assumptions.

This reminds me of an episode of Hell's Kitchen. A man is yelling at the concierge about how long it is taking and the concierge questions his intelligence. He responds with, "I have a Masters in Music! Do you know how hard that is!?!?!?!?!?!111?". No, no one is above acting like an idiot regardless of status, I know plenty of successful Drs/DTS/ODs who are everyday morons (outside of profession). I believe Sinister, yourself, and me are all on the same page. Good discussion guys, thanks for the time.

 

[XTrainer]

Yes, I think we are on the same page now, thank you for the mature post.

 

[Sinister]

For the record, when I mentioned that just because a person gives bad information doesn't mean they're an idiot...where that turns around is the purposeful perpetuation of bad information and refusal to engage in discourse about it. That = idiocy of the highest order. If it's one thing I can't stand, it's selective ignorance.

 

[StrikerStatus]

Agree Sinister. I believe too many people are afraid of the notion they might be wrong and will not even entertain the idea. I for one, would want to know to correct it and move forward.

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."

 

[Btwestyo]

It's a problem hardly limited to nutrition courses. So far, my classes such as economics have been fine, because a lot of it strictly math-based, and models are understood to be merely theories, and we routinely discuss the weaknesses of theories. Foreign languages aren't problematic either.

Other than that, most of my professors have participated in a strange, liberal (in the perverted contemporary, not the classic, sense of the word) "groupthink" that is hard to define. On nearly any issue, I can tell you exactly how it will be presented and what the discussions will be premised on. We are rarely taught to question their premises: It's almost like they're saying, "Well, if most of academia agrees with us, we must be right, and who are you to say otherwise?"

So, you get the same problems that come up in nutrition course: Basically a bunch of people who are wrong, or at least have gone unchallenged, back each other up without ever really proving anything, and questioning them leads to an ad populum counterargument.

What classes besides nutrition are you referring to? I've only seen nutrition as a field where the professors are just wrong. I'm a physics major and all the professors that teach my physics/math classes are very respected for research so I cant relate to the "misguided" professors.

 

[XTrainer]

Well, math is an exact science, so kind of hard to be wrong and get away with it. I doubt there are many BSing math profs out there.

Physics is even more grounded in math than economics, which I mentioned was just fine, in my experience...in either subject, there's a lot of indisputable math, and theories are just that: Theories. Their merits and flaws are subjects of discussion, they're not held up as "holy truths."

In short, I doubt you'll see many "misguided professors," as you put it, in math-based subject areas.

Perhaps surprisingly, my philosophy professor falls into the same category, because he is logical and able entertain a thought/play devil's advocate without imposing ideas on the class...and he freely admits it when students punch holes in the logic of his arguments. He provokes thought without telling us what to think.

 

[T_Money_]

Ran across this while reading today and thought it applied to this topic. In the context of the essay, Rand is talking about college deans choosing who to give government grants to, but I think it is an ample analogy to the frustration I have with college professors. Especially in nutrition, many professors seem far more concerned with the acceptance of their colleagues than in discovering the truth. I also found it quite appropriate for StrikerStatus to ask X "what reality he's talking about" as if there are more than one.

"The awarders may hide behind the notion that, in choosing recognized "leaders," they are acting "democratically" and rewarding men chosen by the public. But there is no "democracy" in this field. Science and the mind do not work by vote or by consensus. The best known is not necessarily the best (nor is the least-known, for that matter). Since no rational standards are applicable, the awarders' method leads to concern with personalities, not ideas; pull, not merit; "prestige," not truth. The result is: rule by press agents."

Ayn Rand. Philosphy: Who Needs It. p 227

The essay is entitled "The Establishing of the Establishment."

 

[JSN]

i have always found ayn rand one big ball of irony. it's weird that humanity's greatest champion prometheism was a complete mediocity.

 

[T_Money_]

i have always found ayn rand one big ball of irony. it's weird that humanity's greatest champion prometheism was a complete mediocity.

Can you elaborate. I can't tell if you mean Rand or Objectivism or America or what?

 

[JSN]

rand, and her contributions to philosophy and literature.

 

[T_Money_]

rand, and her contributions to philosophy and literature.

Not really sure what you mean, unless you mean in sales/philospy prof's teaching her, in which case I don't see why you'd be surprised.

 

[JSN]

wha? i'm talking about how bad of a writer she was, and how insignificant of a philosopher, which is really saying something since it's an insignificant field.

 

[XTrainer]

Ran across this while reading today and thought it applied to this topic. In the context of the essay, Rand is talking about college deans choosing who to give government grants to, but I think it is an ample analogy to the frustration I have with college professors. Especially in nutrition, many professors seem far more concerned with the acceptance of their colleagues than in discovering the truth. I also found it quite appropriate for StrikerStatus to ask X "what reality he's talking about" as if there are more than one.

"The awarders may hide behind the notion that, in choosing recognized "leaders," they are acting "democratically" and rewarding men chosen by the public. But there is no "democracy" in this field. Science and the mind do not work by vote or by consensus. The best known is not necessarily the best (nor is the least-known, for that matter). Since no rational standards are applicable, the awarders' method leads to concern with personalities, not ideas; pull, not merit; "prestige," not truth. The result is: rule by press agents."

Ayn Rand. Philosphy: Who Needs It. p 227

The essay is entitled "The Establishing of the Establishment."

I completely agree with Rand here...which is why what you said confuses me. Did you mean "inappropriate?" Because, indeed, there is one reality, and that is (necessarily) what I was referring to.

rand, and her contributions to philosophy and literature.

Of course, an any reader of Rand would instantly recognize that your opinions of her have no bearing on her objective greatness

What, exactly, don't you like about her/her philosophy?

 

[JSN]

it would be hard to sum any reasonable critique against a huge mess on inconsistent ideas, but for starters it's based to (way too) simple logic based on dogmatic assertions that don;t hold much fruition. i've seen her ramble on about morality need be based upon utilitarian usefulness, which is contrary to very basic motivations that human beings express or are happy with, she espoused capitalism in the libertarian sense yet her hero in the fountainhead was a man who's actions and "perfection" could only be realized through a weird system in which he's granted rights in a state imposed manner, this system is supposed to lead to happiness... i don't really feel like rereading her driven in order to structure a comprehensive critique. it wouldn't be worth it anyways.

anyhoo i was more pointing out the simple irony that she was an objectively bad novelist, with absolutely no sense of subtlety or structural consistency writing in honor of greatness.

 

[T_Money_]

I completely agree with Rand here...which is why what you said confuses me. Did you mean "inappropriate?" Because, indeed, there is one reality, and that is (necessarily) what I was referring to.

I meant appropriate. Appropriate for the guy saying that some phDs have no common sense but "book smarts," or whatever it was, to ask which reality was being discussed.

 

[XTrainer]

I don't identify myself as a Rand disciple or objectivist (though I agree with her often), but I think you are wrong about some important points.

1. Rand was no a utilitarian in the philosophical sense of the word, which is a typical justification for collectivization...by sacrificing the individual, we can achieve greater good for many people. Rand would have positively railed against that idea.
2. The idea of a man being "granted" rights by the government is also antithetical to Rand's thinking...to her, (and me), rights are inherent/intrinsic and the government's job is to protect them. The government does not give them to us. What rights do you think Roark was granted?
3. Rand does not advocate a "system" in the sense most people conceive a system...I am not sure what you mean by the term here.

 

[T_Money_]

it would be hard to sum any reasonable critique against a huge mess on inconsistent ideas, but for starters it's based to (way too) simple logic based on dogmatic assertions that don;t hold much fruition.

This doesn't make any since to me. Too simple logic? As if it were more complicated the "logic" would come to a different conclusion? I don't even know what "dogmatic assertions that don't (come?) to fruition" means?


i've seen her ramble on about morality need be based upon utilitarian usefulness, which is contrary to very basic motivations that human beings express or are happy with,

Again this doesn't make since to me. Useful things are against human motive? We are motivated by useless things?

she espoused capitalism in the libertarian sense yet her hero in the fountainhead was a man who's actions and "perfection" could only be realized through a weird system in which he's granted rights in a state imposed manner, this system is supposed to lead to happiness...

I've never read the fountain head but if what you are saying is accurate, that really does make no sense at all.

i don't really feel like rereading her driven in order to structure a comprehensive critique. it wouldn't be worth it anyways.

anyhoo i was more pointing out the simple irony that she was an objectively bad novelist, with absolutely no sense of subtlety or structural consistency writing in honor of greatness.

The only rand books I've read our Capitalism, The Anti-Industrial Revolution, and Philosphy (non-fiction). I found them to be well written. I started to read Atlas Shrugged (fiction) and I agree it is poorly written. I'll probably try reading it through soon though.