ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, May 05, 2017

The strength of an argument

In a recent article, well-known strength guru Mark Rippetoe quoted my recent comments about the known unreliability of science in light of the recent series of scandals concerning fraudulent peer review. This generated a modicum of, if not hilarity, at least hysteria.
The blogger Vox Day in his recent column makes an excellent point about published “science” and the peer-review process that generates it. In the field of the “exercise sciences” in particular we find an astonishing paucity of truly useful information with which to improve human performance. Instead, we rely on what is essentially an “engineering” approach – the application of physiology (the general-kind, not the exercise-kind), arithmetic, logic, analysis, and experience tempered by observation and constant adjustment for process optimization to the problem of how to improve human performance. The application of these engineering principles to the problem of human performance has yielded the Starting Strength Method, which is testable, reliable science.
One thing that many people, both scientists and uncredentialed laymen fail to understand is that science is not, fundamentally, about knowledge. It primarily concerns understanding. What Rippetoe is saying here is that in the field of exercise science, men like him know what works and what doesn't. The paucity of "truly useful information" to which he refers is the deeper scientific understanding required to further improve upon what is already known.

The primary utility of science is not being able to say that something works, much less to make something work, but rather, to explain why it works. Or, conversely, to explain why something should work if the theory is put into application. This, of course, is why it is so easy for non-scientists to detect scientific fraud; when the theory is put into application and it fails, this is fairly strong evidence that the theory, i.e. the science, is incorrect.

Engineering is the acid test of science.

However, as I said, many people don't understand what science is, or comprehend its limits. To them, it is simply a form of secular magic that must be completely trusted or it will stop working. Which, one presumes, might explain the hysterical reaction from several of Rippetoe's readers to the mention of my name like a vampire unexpectedly encountering garlic.
Vox Day? Who is this clown and how does he have an opinion about the peer review process for publishing scientific articles? Many journals publish reviewer comments as well as the author response. If you want to understand peer review without actually doing science and going through the publishing process, look at the reviews for an article in an open source journal. Here is an example: https://elifesciences.org/content/5/e20797 (scroll down to 'Decision letter' and 'Author response'). Vox Day wouldn't understand a single sentence of this correspondence, so his criticism of the peer-review process as well as his interpretation of the distinction between science and engineering is useless. Science is not about 'credentials'; it is about experimental DATA! The real currency of science is data—a Nobel Laureate's theory can be proven wrong by a first-year grad student with data. 
That all sounds very nice in theory, but like every other human endeavor, science is given to corruption and fraud. Nor does his handwaving refute anything that I said, or anything that the article to which I linked - and which he obviously did not read - said. Furthermore, his statement that science is about DATA, not credentials, is precisely why my terms for the different aspects of science are necessary. Scientody may concern data, but one won't get very far in scientistry without credentials these days.

It's also telling that while he feigns not knowing who I am, he seems to have a surprisingly strong opinion on the limits of my understanding. Of course, we all know what the real issue is for the science fetishists. As always, they prove my point about the intrinsic unreliability of any human endeavor:
Vox Day is a really really bad example (or good, in the sense that he is extremely informative). Look at his stance on evolutionary biology -- something I know a little about (not my field of science, I am a mathematician and computer scientist, but I've dabbled around). Because some people make errors in peer review, he sees this as *evidence* that the world was created 6000 years ago or so. (I may be misrepresenting and overstating his stance; this is for the purpose of illustrating his logic). Quoting a person who -- by my humble opinion -- is in dire need of psychiatric intervention is a bit of a disappointment to me.
The problem with his "logic" is that not only is that not my stance on evolutionary biology, but I don't believe there is any evidence that the world was created 6,000 years ago. I am not a Young Earth Creationist, I have never subscribed to Bishop Ussher's estimate for the age of the Earth, and the so-called "logic" being illustrated has literally nothing to do with me or my simple observation that professional science is riddled with fraud and corruption. It's really rather remarkable how these fetishists can work the Scopes Trial into anything that so much as tangentially references any aspect of science.

It's even more remarkable that, on the mere basis of "dabbling around", this gentlemen feels capable of assuming his own expertise in the very different fields of both evolutionary biology and psychiatry. But then, just as laymen seldom understand the limits of science, scientists seldom understand how foolish they look when they venture forth from the boundaries of their little specialties. No more so than when they unwisely, and apparently without even realizing it, wander into the realm of philosophy.
Vox Day’s comment makes it clear that he forms and expresses strong opinions about topics on which he has very limited, superficial knowledge—a quick ‘google scholar’ search shows that he has never published a scientific article. He didn’t even provide evidence or examples for any of his claims. He is the pretty much the exact opposite of the type of person I respect.
The science fetishist always values evidence, valid or not, over mere truth. Which is ironic, given that the very metric upon which he relies, is, as was pointed out in the original post, not just intrinsically flawed, but known to be susceptible to fraud. What value is it to have published a scientific article when they are, statistically speaking, about as likely to be credible as a coin toss?

In any event, Rippetoe was having none of it, and indeed, seemed to be amused by the weird and feeble protests being offered.
I have huge admiration for Rip and was crushed to seem him propagate an anti-science message.

Here is the quote from the evil arch-nemesis of science Vox Day I used to introduce the piece:

All of the arguments about the presumed reliability of science are ridiculous and easily shown to be false. Science is no more “self-correcting” than accounting. Peer review is more commonly known as “proofreading” by the rest of the publishing industry and is not even theoretically a means of ensuring accuracy or correctness. And scientists are observably less trustworthy than nearly anyone except lawyers, politicians, and used car salesmen; at least prostitutes are honest about their pursuit of “grants” and “funding.” These days, the scientific process is mainly honored in the breach by professional, credentialed scientists. And we have a word for testable, reliable science. That word is “engineering.”

What is it about this entirely accurate summary of the situation within the vast majority of the academic/governmental science establishment that leads you to be "crushed" by my use of this as analogy to what we're doing in contrast to the ExFizz people?
I don't need to read a peer-reviewed scientific article to know that Mark Rippetoe knows whereof he speaks. Nor do I need to publish a peer-reviewed scientific article to speak the truth. These science fetishists are committing an all-too-common philosophical error when they try to substitute the measure of a thing for the thing itself.

Of course, those who have read SJWAL know perfectly well what was actually being communicated beneath all the rhetoric as well as the purpose for it. This was merely an impromptu divide-and-discredit campaign meant to prevent the more dangerous party from being "qualified" by the more popular party.

Labels: , ,

201 Comments:

1 – 200 of 201 Newer› Newest»
Blogger SteelPalm May 05, 2017 6:40 AM  

As I noted in the other thread, Starting Strength is one of the most popular and influential powerlifting books of the past few decades, and Mark is a solid guy. Very cool that he mentioned you.

However, I was surprised at some of the SJW-esque responses in that topic, given how generally right-wing and anti-PC the powerlifting community is, in my experience.

And yeah, add me to the list of scientists who agrees that a lot of journals and their "peer review" is questionable, with all sorts of crap getting through.

And that's not even getting into the worsening problem of dry labbing.

Blogger RobertDWood May 05, 2017 6:40 AM  

This speaks of Rips integrity that he sourced it back to the original author, unlike many other people who take your commentary, convert it to their own, and then dismiss the notion that they are familiar with Vox and the Ilk

Blogger Jimmy May 05, 2017 6:41 AM  

Rip quotes Vox Day! Oh Noooooes. As if we don’t know what that crazy Texan is like.

Blogger VD May 05, 2017 6:43 AM  

And that's not even getting into the worsening problem of dry labbing.

What is that? It sounds disturbingly like something that might happen at the wrong sort of Humane Society.

unlike many other people who take your commentary, convert it to their own, and then dismiss the notion that they are familiar with Vox and the Ilk.

It's always particularly funny when they use my precise numbers. "Oh, so you just happened to count to precisely 1,763 on your own too?"

Anonymous Starbuck May 05, 2017 6:59 AM  

If science was a control system I was working at my job (Turbine Control Technician) the engineer and I would throw the software away. Re-examine the hardware layout. Re-write the software from scratch. Why? You ask? Because, the software is always messed up, isn't self correcting and the software programmer is making it worse.

The problem with science isn't science. It's people. Everyone trusts it like it's a god. Even if the god is changing everything because it isn't right and is never right. (Ok, that might be a bit harsh...)

It's just frustrating that I have lived long enough for eggs to be good, then bad, then good again, then bad and once again be good. Isn't this a little ridiculous? Too much politics I think.

Blogger Midnight Avenue J May 05, 2017 7:02 AM  

Dry labbing: "supplying fictional yet plausible results in lieu of performing the assigned experiment"

Ouch. First year chem students who aren't serious about their studies do this all the time. But to know actual credentialed scientists! do this is troubling. It call the entire process from undergrad weed-em out courses up to post-doc research into question.

Somehow I think you'd find more academic honesty at a podunk CC than any major uni or corporation. Meth labs probably have more integrity.

Anonymous Looking Glass May 05, 2017 7:03 AM  

Well, our discussion on IQ yesterday just never ends, does it?

Rip's a good guy. And I highly recommend Starting Strength. The "no-BS" approach has been really useful and it makes the teachings in the book very clear.

Anonymous Looking Glass May 05, 2017 7:05 AM  

@5 Starbuck

"Science!" is one of their gods. All socialism derivatives are fundamentally pantheistic in nature. And it's a pathetic god, at that.

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 05, 2017 7:07 AM  

The irony of mental midget Mark Rippetoe, who epitomizes the pseudoscientific Bro-logic approach to weight training (Barbbell=Good! Non-Barbbell=BAD! Squat/Deadlift/Bench/Press/Clean = GOOD! Non-Squat/Dead/Bench/Press/Clean = BAD!) citing Vox to support his argument is hopefully not lost on most. For edutainment, I advocate reading RipDroppings at startingstrength.com and then heading over to baye.com to see what real intelligence on the subject, minus the extraverted macho bombast, actually reads like.

Anonymous A Texan May 05, 2017 7:10 AM  

As a former staff person at a lower tier university, I can say most of what the academics produce is mostly crap. Even as an engineer grad student a couple decades ago, I wondered who had time to read all this junk even if it were useful? Most of the stuff published is tripe so the professors can pad their vitae and angle for more federal government grants that fund this stupidity.

I'm sure there is good science and good practical stuff being done out there, it's just not everywhere.

Blogger Shell May 05, 2017 7:12 AM  

+1

Blogger Doom May 05, 2017 7:12 AM  

Strong men are strong men. Perhaps not always at the same level, but all see bull for what it is. There will always be a bit of slop on all sides. Look for the side with less, which is aiming for less, slop. Especially if they are chasing the one who has no slop. There is only one King, baby. *grins*

Go get em'. Gotta love when they try to prissly present as righteous. A fags a fag, of whatever nature. *ptuhh*

Blogger VD May 05, 2017 7:15 AM  

The irony of mental midget Mark Rippetoe... citing Vox to support his argument is hopefully not lost on most

Outgrouping fail. You just don't understand how this works, do you.

Blogger FALPhil May 05, 2017 7:19 AM  

Exploding heads is always fun to watch, especially with a side order of hypocrisy. Reading the responses to Rip's post was the most entertainment I have had all week.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl May 05, 2017 7:24 AM  

A Texan wrote:As a former staff person at a lower tier university, I can say most of what the academics produce is mostly crap. Even as an engineer grad student a couple decades ago, I wondered who had time to read all this junk even if it were useful? Most of the stuff published is tripe so the professors can pad their vitae and angle for more federal government grants that fund this stupidity.

I'm sure there is good science and good practical stuff being done out there, it's just not everywhere.


I can attest to that too. Most of the published stuff out there is done merely to keep their cushy tenure jobs on top of that. In my experience of studenting and working at universities and colleges, the "scientists" were as Left-wing as anyone in the Humanities (with some exceptions: astronomers, engineers, a couple geologists).

Also, the "scientist" comment/response is great for how to construct a stupidly fallacious argument. How many fallacies are in his response? But then again, with out logical fallacies, SJWs would have no arguments at all...

Anonymous Yann May 05, 2017 7:24 AM  

Science is not about 'credentials'; it is about experimental DATA!

If that's true, then why most of climate papers don't release the raw data, even when somebody asks for that data, and however they're accepted in the peer 2 peer review?

Somebody needs to think twice before speaking.

Anonymous VFM #6306 May 05, 2017 7:30 AM  

What would Mark Rippetoe know about strength? He's not a scientist!

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 05, 2017 7:33 AM  

Vox: Have you actually read Rippetoe's brain-droppings? I, sadly, have.

Anonymous white guy May 05, 2017 7:40 AM  

For those who might 'doubt' the mental midget of Mr. Rippatoe, I used his 'bro-science' starting strength method last year after being out of the gym for 17 years. I went from a deadlift of 135 lbs to 375 lbs in 9 months at age 41 with a T level below 300! As a PE I recognize other engineers really quickly (even if they don't have a degree in engineering. Mark and crew are true physiology engineers, they know their shit. Mo need for "Science!" at all.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 05, 2017 7:40 AM  

Bone Daddy Dawg,

Let me guess...you're a Smith Machine beast and Rippetoe hurt your feelings?

Anonymous Anonymous May 05, 2017 7:44 AM  

s/Rippletoe/Rippetoe

Anonymous white guy May 05, 2017 7:46 AM  

No, Bone Daddy Dawg, IRL is Drew Baye who needs more site traffic to buy his books!

Blogger SteelPalm May 05, 2017 7:50 AM  

@4 VD

What is that? It sounds disturbingly like something that might happen at the wrong sort of Humane Society.

Heh. It's when research papers use made-up data without even conducting the experiments/measurements they claim to have done.

Potentially a huge scandal if uncovered, but there are instances of people getting away with it, as well as certain fields where it's harder to prove.

Anonymous MaskettaMan May 05, 2017 7:54 AM  

Rippetoe has always been admired by the darker web fitness communities. If you want to see the kind of no-mercy-for-nincompoops attitude he carries, look up "The Iron Plate Problem with Mark Rippetoe." It's a good time.

Blogger JP May 05, 2017 7:56 AM  

Apparently "dabbling in science" means liking the I Fucking Love Science facebook page. Because how else does one "dabble" in evolutionary biology?

Blogger Cluebat Vanexodar May 05, 2017 8:02 AM  

Living in their heads "rent-free".
You are a high-value target. Conduct yourself accordingly.

Blogger RobertDWood May 05, 2017 8:03 AM  

+1 for a great two minute video

Blogger Basil Makedon May 05, 2017 8:03 AM  

People do worship Science as a god when it is merely a tool. Potentially a powerful tool, but only a tool.

I supposed in the end it is inevitable that some worship tools, after all we've had fire worshiping societies for thousands of years.

As an aside, I do like the term "scientistry" it rhymes with dentistry and conveys that same element of impending pain and unpleasantness when one considers it.

Blogger KJE May 05, 2017 8:03 AM  

Rippetoe, Paul Carter, and Jamie Lewis are the kind of dark triad men for weight training that this nation needs more of.

Anonymous JAG May 05, 2017 8:04 AM  

Tangentially related to this topic of science is that Bill Nye the Leftist Narrative Guy has memory holed a segment of his own show from the 90s where, ironically, he presented the actual science of XX and XY chromosome pairs.

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 05, 2017 8:06 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous 6184 May 05, 2017 8:09 AM  

Bone dawg daddy is probably a butthurt CrossFit devotee. #idontneedgoodform

Anonymous 6184 May 05, 2017 8:10 AM  

@bdd -> do you even lift, bro?

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 05, 2017 8:11 AM  

Stg58/Animal Mother:

No, I think the last time I used a Smith for quad work was sometime in the 1990s, having read that Dorian Yates favored it. That having been said, you do remind me of a Rippetoe brain-dropping. On squats vs. leg-presses, "Squats are FAR safer." (http://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/mark-rippetoe-q-and-a/62807-leg-press.html ) 1) While I don't have the stats in front of me, I have seen stats on free-weights vs. machine equivalents, and this is (unsurprisingly) wrong, 2)The observation of Michael Allen Smith (under "Gym Survivorship", here https://criticalmas.com/2012/06/i-no-longer-give-a-squat-about-the-squat/) is absolutely true in my experience, as are those of Bill DeSimone, here: https://youtu.be/e34h3VIjEj4

The squat was actually one of my better (best?) free-weight exercise, my best squat session was 405lbs slightly below parallel for 19 reps (not great, but starting from about 40% of that for maybe 4 reps a years earlier). Unfortunately, like many I found that the side-effects of heavy squats and deadlifts included things like facet-joint arthritis* in my lower back, which I could have presumably prevented had I been aware of Bill DeSimone's observations and stuck to alternatives like hip-belt squats, leg presses, Nautilus Duo Squats, etc. that placed more of the weight on the pelvis and less on the spine.

*For those who have this, radiofrequency ablation can work miracles.

Blogger JP May 05, 2017 8:12 AM  

HOW CAN YOU SCIENCE?

Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 8:14 AM  

Just yesterday my wife and I discussed "research" that "proves" that class size doesn't matter in schools. My comment ran, "So these clowns claim that a 1:1 student-teacher ratio is the same as 6-0:1? Whenever (especially social) science claims to have proven something that completely violates your common sense notions, it's all but certainly BS and should be called out as such. The education field is 99.9999% this kind of crap.

Science is held up as a system where truth is separated from crap via a kind of open-source vetting.

Just like everything else we see today, the pathological trust of a social mood mania turned it into simply another avenue of "don't worry, be happy, trust us we have Doctoral Degrees."

We live in the Age of Con Artistry because we produced a society of Perpetual Children who Trust Everything.

Beating my favorite drum, the emergence of skepticism about the veracity of science is another signal that social mood's manic high is beginning to turn down.

By the time we get to eventual nadir, trust will be so bombed out (perhaps literally) that people will have difficulty even trusting themselves, and even honest science will be tossed out with the charlatans.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 05, 2017 8:15 AM  

Vox: Have you actually read Rippetoe's brain-droppings? I, sadly, have.

"Shaming Rippetoe into disavowing Vox didn't work; we might as well try it the other way."

Anonymous 6184 May 05, 2017 8:17 AM  

The answer is "yes" I see. I withdraw the #crossfit blood-libel. Mea culpa

Anonymous 6184 May 05, 2017 8:20 AM  

"Because how else does one "dabble" in evolutionary biology?"

This is redundant, EvoBio is virtually nothing but "dabbling" by its practicioners. The field is nothing but a bunch of "just so" stories and semi-retired inference from unreasonable speculation and assumption.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 05, 2017 8:21 AM  

Bone Daddy Dawg,

Just because you got arthritis doesn't mean everyone will who does squats. And I guarantee there is no scientific body of evidence or testable, repeatable results to prove or disprove this hypothesis of "barbells bad!" Coincidentally, you bust on Rippetoe for challenging scientific orthodoxy in favor of observations, yet you use Bill DeSimone's observations in your rebuttal.

The question should be "Is barbell work bad for me" instead of staying barbells are bad, period.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat May 05, 2017 8:22 AM  

Because some people make errors in peer review, he sees this as *evidence* that the world was created 6000 years ago or so. (I may be misrepresenting and overstating his stance; this is for the purpose of illustrating his logic).

Summary: SJWs Always Lie.

I find it astonishing that the first thing this SJW tells us all "I am lying to 'illustrate' his logic." The base concept that it's OK to lie to make a truth permeates the humanist worldview, and it disgusts me.

Of course it's an outgrouping fail. You're a vocal Christian, so you must be a YEC. I suppose in their minds, you tolerate YEC posters so you must be a closet YEC yourself. Don't they know that YECs are like vegetarians; a real one can't resist going 5 minutes without telling the world we are one?

Modern scientody and scientage is just as much a result of Christian Western Civilization as morals and English Common Law. Without the Christian worldview of a stable universe with a stable creator, you don't have science in the first place. It's absurd and delusional how anti-God and anti-Christ many scientists, and scientistry as a profession and religion, have become.

Anonymous Anonymous May 05, 2017 8:26 AM  

Vox, you 3 times call him "Rippletoe", but I believe his real name is "Rippetoe", NOT "Rippletoe".

Blogger Nate May 05, 2017 8:26 AM  

BDD

Leg presses produce one thing and one thing only. Spine Surgery.

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 05, 2017 8:32 AM  

white guy:

1)If you are not able to recover optimal testosterone levels by addressing anything that might be suppressing them temporarily, look into TRT. The benefits of high-normal testosterone levels go far beyond lifting heavier weights and improved body composition. Nelson Vergel and John Crisler are two people to google.

2) Congratulations on your weight training progress. If your top goals in weight training are to improve your physique and your health, I would urge you--going forward--to think about how you can maximize the stress on the target muscles while minimizing the wear-and-tear to joints/connective tissue. In some cases, this may require dumping popular exercises for less popular ones, in other cases, it may require altering how you perform an exercise in a way that may lower your "numbers", at least at first. A post that explains this far better than I could:

http://baye.com/get-better/

Blogger Samuel Nock May 05, 2017 8:32 AM  

Midwit concern troll: "Science is not about credentials. And this guy Vox Day doesn't even have any credentials."

Do these people even listen to themselves before they hit 'send'?

Blogger Nate May 05, 2017 8:33 AM  

machine vs bar

I've long held the opinion that the bar vs machine argument is a waste of time. is the bar more efficient? this is undeniably true. Is lifting on a machine better than not lifting at all? yes. also undeniably true. If machines get people lifting who otherwise would not be lifting at all... then machines are good.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 05, 2017 8:35 AM  

Some machines are good. The bar is very good.

Blogger Student in Blue May 05, 2017 8:35 AM  

Vox, you 3 times call him "Rippletoe", but I believe his real name is "Rippetoe", NOT "Rippletoe".

Vox needs to clearly turn off his autocorrect. :P

Blogger Orville May 05, 2017 8:35 AM  

I think my new insult will now be "you sir, are a scholar and a gentleman". To me, knowing "how to do it" is always better than knowing "why it works".

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2017 8:37 AM  

> (scroll down to 'Decision letter' and 'Author response'). Vox Day wouldn't understand a single sentence of this correspondence,

Following his directions, I'm pretty sure Vox can understand the entirety of these two paragraphs:

"Thank you for submitting your article "Structure and dynamics underlying elementary ligand binding events in pacemaking channels" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been favorably evaluated by Richard Aldrich (Senior Editor) and three reviewers, one of whom, Kenton J Swartz (Reviewer #1), is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors.

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission."

> (I may be misrepresenting and overstating his stance; this is for the purpose of illustrating his logic).

May? Only may?

> He is the pretty much the exact opposite of the type of person I respect.

We know. We know quite well what kind of person you "respect". That's why we want nothing to do with you and recommend profession help as soon as possible.

Any bets as to how many of these posters had never been seen at Mark's site before and probably won't be seen again?

Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 8:38 AM  

As I've stated before, experience in a Physiology lab at a medical school basic science under the past-president of the American Physiological Society taught me all about how much BS is taken as fact and how "self-correction" is a joke.

When you see, with your own eyes, that the "textbook" is dead wrong, what are you to conclude? When the ego of the textbook's author prevents his consideration of a professional rival's corrective results, you know that there is no such thing as Pure Science.

One test of truth vs BS for me is data-fitting. When the CDC removed Kaposi's Sarcoma from the constellation of diseases under the AIDS umbrella (because too few KS patients lit up an "HIV" test), I knew the entire paradigm was baloney.

Perhaps Stickwick can set me straight, but Halton Arp's book on redshift, with its very straightforward reproduction of one radio-telescope image after another showing clearly visible interactions between extra-galactic entities of dramatically differing redshifts...and Arp's claims that mainstream astrophysicists refused to even discuss these plain-as-day pictures, convinced me that what we think we know about our universe is probably not so.

PS: Google is really f-ing up Youtube with commercials. Die, Google, Die.

Blogger Orville May 05, 2017 8:41 AM  

I find that squats give me much better results than leg presses. No dry squatting in this study.

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 05, 2017 8:41 AM  

Stg58/Animal Mother:

I highly recommend you watch the video I posted by Bill DeSimone (https://youtu.be/e34h3VIjEj4 ) I also suggest you read his book https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A91W07Q/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2017 8:45 AM  

> Do these people even listen to themselves before they hit 'send'?

That would require a degree of introspection and self understanding which is completely beyond them.

> Is lifting on a machine better than not lifting at all? yes. also undeniably true. If machines get people lifting who otherwise would not be lifting at all... then machines are good.

Careful, Nate. Next you'll be arguing that a .22 is better than no gun at all. :)

Speaking of machines, the place my wife is spending her winter months has a weight machine. She found she liked exercising on it so much (and given that our treadmill has pretty much worn out) that we decided to see what we could find to use at home. We found this model https://www.walmart.com/ip/Marcy-150-lb.-Stack-Gym/21896576 for a reasonable price and decided to give it a try. It seems to be working well so far. Obviously the 150 lb. weight limit would be insufficient for most people, but for her it's ideal.

Blogger Nate May 05, 2017 8:47 AM  

"Careful, Nate. Next you'll be arguing that a .22 is better than no gun at all. :)"

a .22 is no gun at all.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 05, 2017 8:47 AM  

BDD,
Your assumption about me is dead wrong. I've never read Starting Strength and never visited Mark's site. I learned the trade from a former Texas deadlift state record holder and CSCS.

So I'm not one of Rippetoe's brain droppings, or whatever the hell you call it.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2017 8:48 AM  

> PS: Google is really f-ing up Youtube with commercials.

Deliberately. They want you to pay a monthly fee to get the commercial free version.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2017 8:51 AM  

> ... a .22 is no gun at all.

In which case you definitely won't want this: http://www.shootingtimes.com/handguns/handgun_reviews_sw_17647/

Blogger Johnny May 05, 2017 8:52 AM  

Most well educated people are educated through a study of the various scientific areas. That is now commonplace. But you do not get to be an scientist through education, it comes with employment. The scientifically educated person who takes to selling insurance becomes an insurance salesperson, not a scientist. Or depending skill and opportunity they may become a romance novelist or truck driver. To become a scientist they have be hired. The title scientist is an indication of employment. It is a job.

The second reality is that we now have a large scientific bureaucracy that resides in our universities. Compare the social interests of that community with how they choose to define science and the fit is excellent. As for proof, pay attention to what they tell you as they tell you. It is consistently self serving. Outsiders need apply as they are not qualified [exclusivity], it needs more research [employment], and so on and so on.

Blogger VD May 05, 2017 8:52 AM  

I believe his real name is "Rippetoe", NOT "Rippletoe".

Sweet Darwin! Next you're going to tell me Mandela didn't die in prison in the 80s!

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 05, 2017 8:53 AM  

Nate: There are crappy BB exercises, some crappy machines, some wonderful BB exercises and some wonderful machines. I hope to someday try and use ARX machines; apparently they are both more productive and safer than anything else ever developed: https://youtu.be/wviX56K6Y14

Blogger Stilicho May 05, 2017 8:54 AM  

Some machines work well for specific exercises or targeting specific muscles/movements. There are a couple of hammerstrength machines for squats and bench that are great. While you lose some of the effect from balancing a free barbell, the angles and range of motion are great and you can actually use proper form with them. They also don't require a spotter when going heavy. The smith machine is more limited, but is use for some lifts that can be properly restricted to a single plane. Nautilus style machines are worthless and have probably caused harm to users far in excess of any marginal benefit they provided.

Of course, the problem is, as Ronnie Coleman said: everybody wants to be big, but nobody wants to lift no heavy-assed weights...

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 05, 2017 8:55 AM  

Wait I thought the bar was bad, BDD!

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 05, 2017 8:57 AM  

Stilicho, you're totally wrong! Bone Daddy has a weird, obscure form of arthritis, so the bar is bad!

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 05, 2017 8:57 AM  

"BDD,
Your assumption about me is dead wrong. I've never read Starting Strength and never visited Mark's site. I learned the trade from a former Texas deadlift state record holder and CSCS.

So I'm not one of Rippetoe's brain droppings, or whatever the hell you call it."

I never made these assumptions; I was replying to your comments:

"Just because you got arthritis doesn't mean everyone will who does squats. And I guarantee there is no scientific body of evidence or testable, repeatable results to prove or disprove this hypothesis of "barbells bad!" Coincidentally, you bust on Rippetoe for challenging scientific orthodoxy in favor of observations, yet you use Bill DeSimone's observations in your rebuttal.

The question should be "Is barbell work bad for me" instead of staying barbells are bad, period. "

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 05, 2017 9:00 AM  

You told me I was one of Rippetoe's brain droppings. See here's your problem, BDD. You rolled up in the Wolf Pack and started immediately throwing your weight around, as if we need to start paying attention to you. Who are you? Are you someone we should listen to? Are you another expert drive by commenter?

Blogger Matthew May 05, 2017 9:00 AM  

dc.sunsets wrote:Perhaps Stickwick can set me straight, but Halton Arp's book on redshift, with its very straightforward reproduction of one radio-telescope image after another showing clearly visible interactions between extra-galactic entities of dramatically differing redshifts...and Arp's claims that mainstream astrophysicists refused to even discuss these plain-as-day pictures, convinced me that what we think we know about our universe is probably not so.

INCOMING

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 05, 2017 9:02 AM  

YAAASSSSS

Blogger Matthew May 05, 2017 9:06 AM  

If Stickwick had a blog, we would make this her Japanese invasion.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2017 9:06 AM  

> ...convinced me that what we think we know about our universe is probably not so.

Most of what we know is, at the very least, extremely incomplete. That's something the "I f*****g live science" crowd seems incapable of accepting.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 9:10 AM  

Theoretical physicist Alan Cromer's discussion of the Cold Fusion debacle in his book Uncommon Sense is instructive WRT scientists getting outside their area of expertise.

I especially enjoyed his disassembly of the Chemists' explanations for what was occurring when Cromer pointed out that if what they claimed was true, everyone in the room with them would have received a lethal dose of gamma rays. (IIRC)

Blogger Timmy3 May 05, 2017 9:19 AM  

Peer review doesn't review the data. ("The real currency of science is data") They are such liars.

Anonymous Looking Glass May 05, 2017 9:20 AM  

@dc.sunsets

Okay, let me see if I can find a browser that'll post a comment. Chrome just ate my previous ones.

Basically, Red-shift is one of those "don't look too closely" situations. And it has been for a while. A sustained assault on Red-shift resets everything we've studied outside of the Solar System to 0. But, that doesn't mean the Electric Universe Theory is, itself, also correct.

It's really weird to explain that Cosmology is mostly a lot of really high-level mathematics that almost no one else is capable of checking. Added with some telescope observations. The entire field is always one step shy of sophistry. And then there's String Theory!

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 05, 2017 9:22 AM  

Stilicho:

"Nautilus style machines are worthless and have probably caused harm to users far in excess of any marginal benefit they provided."

As you are probably aware, Nautilus was founded by Arthur Jones, whose son, Gary, then went on to found Hammer Strength, using leverage to provide some of the variable resistance that Nautilus achieved by means of a cam.

Unquestionably, after Arthur Jones sold the company and went on found MedX (in 1986), the quality of the machines went downhill. But I've found very few modern machines that compare to the Nautilus machines made in the 1970s and early-1980s.

A personal favorite:

https://youtu.be/FoPGgEmitiw

Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 9:23 AM  

@70 But "extremely incomplete" doesn't stop people from 1) teaching their paradigm like it's rock solid and 2) somehow forgetting to put in any caveats about unknown unknowns.

I have two science degrees; maybe I slept through all the times a lecturer mentioned such limitations and qualifiers, and they must have been printed in textbooks in a color to which I'm colorblind.

BTW, this is nothing new. Back in 1983 the guy I worked for traveled to Washington DC to testify before Congress, begging them to not jump on the anti-vivisection bandwagon of that day and restrict animal experimentation. The rallying cry of the opposition was, "Use computer models instead of animals."

VD and all the others here who know 1000x more than I do about computers can stop laughing.

I reiterate my personal metaphor for knowledge:
1. I'm in a darkened warehouse, the sum of all possible knowledge, and my personal knowledge is represented by a flashlight. The area I can illuminate is what I know.
2. I can't see the ceiling or any wall, but my sense of the size of the warehouse is that it's vast.
3. When I acquire more knowledge, my flashlight gets brighter so I can illuminate more of the area.
4. The paradox is, as I illuminate more, my sense of the size of the total warehouse rises exponentially. My increase in knowledge comes with the realization that my fraction of the total actually shrank.

I have encountered very, very few people who seem to grasp this paradox. The more they know, the closer they think they are to the total.

Now that is arrogance.

Blogger Midnight Avenue J May 05, 2017 9:23 AM  

D.C. Thanks for those names and titles I have a new nerd rabbit hole to plumb.

This issue of "dabbling" and commenting on areas outside of expertise may be the heart of the problem. It's hard to take NdGT seriously about anything at all except the day to day administration of the Hayden Planetarium, but when he begins to assume expertise about evolution due to his assumed gravitas as an expert because astrophysicist, I get squeamish. And people eat it up. He's a showman for sure, and people are hypnotized by it.

Emperors new clothes. Everyone is so afraid to be wrong so no one gets called out on being wrong.

I've worked on the research and practical sides of the public and university education system. Generations of easily dazzled children are continually pushed through the system thinking they're so smart because they parrot the left points.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer May 05, 2017 9:24 AM  

A few years ago I was reading a book on dog training by someone with a Phd in Animal Behavior or some other discipline that would credential her as a "scientist." At one point in the book she disparaged dog trainers with a wide following who teach people dog training techniques without proper grounding in science, in other words, without academic credentials. It was quite obvious she was referring to Cesar Milan who had a prime time television show at the time and was raking in the big bucks. His credentials were that he was good at what he does, which is actually more about changing the owner's behavior than training the dog.

There is a hilarious episode of South Park that plays on that concept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRCJ9l-2FIc

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 05, 2017 9:26 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2017 9:28 AM  

> But "extremely incomplete" doesn't stop people from 1) teaching their paradigm like it's rock solid and 2) somehow forgetting to put in any caveats about unknown unknowns.

Of course not. It was covered in my undergraduate engineering courses, but that was back in the 70's.

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 05, 2017 9:28 AM  

Stg58/Animal Mother:

"You told me I was one of Rippetoe's brain droppings."

I told you you were something Mark Rippetoe either wrote or said?

I don't recall that exchange. I was attempting to communicate civilly with you, but I don't think this is going to work, so let's just discontinue this attempt at dialogue.

Blogger Richard Stone May 05, 2017 9:28 AM  

BDD

I used the Baye Method with machines for a year, no progress. The Baye method essentially boils down to saying weight it not that important, but only intensity. It's just wrong, no matter how intense, or how long, you bench 135, you're not adapting your muscles to bench 315, and you'll never get there.

I used Rip's method for a year, followed by Wendler's 5/3/1 and gained around 30% strength in all my core lifts. If you actually look at the book, there's an insane amount of info on mechanics to avoid injury.

n=1 says Rip is right.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 9:32 AM  

@73 As I understand it, cosmology looks like economics. As the money and prestige moved to those who relied on mathematical constructs and away from simple observation, the entire field of study became estranged from the real world.

Distance red-shift theory appears to simply assume away what radio-telescopes produce, much like an economist can "prove" why a rise in the minimum wage doesn't reduce employment.

W..T..F.

As I wrote in @36 Whenever (especially social) science claims to have proven something that completely violates your common sense notions, it's all but certainly BS and should be called out as such.

I may be wrong. But my bias is already toward rejecting anything that even HINTS of waving away (in disdain) things I can see with my own eyes. I had way too much of that experience already in my life.

This goes DOUBLE for the whole "Schroedinger's Cat" crap. When you tell me that something isn't A or B until I look at it, my first impulse is to lay hands on you. (Thankfully, I'm not that impulsive.)

Blogger Midnight Avenue J May 05, 2017 9:36 AM  

This is like saying I can't provide floral arrangements for a wedding because I'm not a licensed florist. No matter how pretty they are or how much the bride wants MY flowers, no credentials means no job.

That's what it boils down to. Same reason homeschool is so assiduously scorned, why Masters degrees are becoming the norm. Why parents are leaving the rearing of kids to experts in schools instead of being the example. Worship.

I used to use that term, worship, in a teasing or ironic way, but I've come to see just how correct and fitting it is. And it leads to a huge lack of faith in ones own abilities and aptitude. In fact, that almost seems counted upon as a benefit by some who don't want the plebes making decisions beyond chocolate or rainbow sprinkles.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2017 9:37 AM  

> My increase in knowledge comes with the realization that my fraction of the total actually shrank.

Well, that's a slight misstatement. You actually are closer to the total, it's just that you now have a better understanding of how large the total actually is.

But as you note, our knowledge still hasn't even expanded to the point where we can see the walls or ceiling. We still don't even know what the potential limits are yet.

Blogger Richard Stone May 05, 2017 9:39 AM  

"That's what it boils down to. Same reason homeschool is so assiduously scorned, why Masters degrees are becoming the norm. Why parents are leaving the rearing of kids to experts in schools instead of being the example. Worship.
"

It's an apt word. Thee's still the assumption schooling makes one smarter, regardless of innate ability. We're stuck in a society that worships blank-slate mythology.

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 05, 2017 9:41 AM  

Richard Stone:

"I used the Baye Method with machines for a year, no progress. The Baye method essentially boils down to saying weight it not that important, but only intensity. It's just wrong, no matter how intense, or how long, you bench 135, you're not adapting your muscles to bench 315, and you'll never get there."

What Drew Baye was attempting to communicate was that one should not sacrifice form in order to "put up better numbers". Not that one should not try to lift more reps or heavier weights when possible. This is exactly what Dorian Yates emphasizes also:


https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/dorian_yates_training_insight.htm

"My philosophy was to use the weight as a tool to put as much stress on the working muscle as I could, not just simply lift the weight from A to B: that is power-lifting, which is a totally different game. I train quite a few people now. They come into my gym and I tell them we are going to do a certain exercise: bent over rows for example. I usually ask, "What is the usual max weight you would use?" The usual reply is, "300 pounds," or some excessive weight. I have those people using 150 to 200 pounds and getting a much better workout. I make them do it properly and focus on different mechanics, the correct conditioning and correct control - no momentum - so all of the stress is going on the muscle and they have the best workout ever.

They are not throwing around the kinds of weights they are used to doing, because that's what they are doing with them: throwing them around. They are using other muscle groups, using momentum to get the weights moving and the muscle that they are targeting is not benefiting as much as it should be.

So people sometimes get the wrong idea about my training: is it Heavy Duty? I never called it Heavy Duty, which is what Mike Mentzer called it. People think it is heavy, high intensity and it is all about the heaviest possible weight. Well yes, if you watch my DVD I'm using what could be considered heavy weights, but they are used in a controlled manner. I could use more weight if I wanted to, but I would get less out of it. "

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 05, 2017 9:41 AM  

Bone Daddy,

You don't remember? Let me help you. It was literally the first thing you said to me.

"No, I think the last time I used a Smith for quad work was sometime in the 1990s, having read that Dorian Yates favored it. That having been said, you do remind me of a Rippetoe brain-dropping."

Blogger Troy Lee Messer May 05, 2017 9:41 AM  

There r 2 vaginas at my obviously converged non-profit that r complete makework. Old. Oberweight. 3/10 in looks

I tell people i am Boxer from Orwell. No one gets the reference. How is this not dystopia?

Blogger mrparabolic May 05, 2017 9:41 AM  

"forms and expresses strong opinions about topics on which he has very limited, superficial knowledge"

This commenter is incapable of self reflection. He is the pretty much the exact opposite of the type of person he respects.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 9:43 AM  

Well, that's a slight misstatement. You actually are closer to the total

Numerically closer, yes, but I used the term "fraction" so I contest your calling it a misstatement. At most, we have a difference of opinion regarding whether my perception of the total amount of knowledge's rise is arithmetic and proportional to my personal increase or if, as I stated, it is an exponential function.

My middle son is an ME (qualified for his PE last fall at 28, don't know if that's good, bad or indifferent) and given the nearly comic precision of his entire presentation, I had to call you out, as an engineer, on this element of minutia. [grin] [bigger grin]

Anonymous basementhomebrewer May 05, 2017 9:45 AM  

I think the real question here is if Rips daughter can bench more than him.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2017 9:47 AM  

> When you tell me that something isn't A or B until I look at it, my first impulse is to lay hands on you.

The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment isn't about the cat at all. It's about the nature of atomic and sub-atomic physics. And it's at that level that you supposedly can't tell the state of something without observing it. And once you do observe something, that alters the state of what you observed.

Blogger Nate May 05, 2017 9:51 AM  

" It's just wrong, no matter how intense, or how long, you bench 135, you're not adapting your muscles to bench 315, and you'll never get there.""

agree.

But who is stronger... the guy who can lift 135 pounds for 8 hours a day 5 days a week.... or the guy who can bench 315 twice.

Because neither of the guys can do what the other can do.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2017 9:54 AM  

> At most, we have a difference of opinion regarding whether my perception of the total amount of knowledge's rise is arithmetic and proportional to my personal increase or if, as I stated, it is an exponential function.

As I understand it, it should be exponential, but isn't your personal increase also growing exponentially as the light increases?

> I had to call you out, as an engineer, on this element of minutia.

Fair enough. :)

Blogger Richard Stone May 05, 2017 9:54 AM  

"What Drew Baye was attempting to communicate was that one should not sacrifice form in order to "put up better numbers". Not that one should not try to lift more reps or heavier weights when possible. This is exactly what Dorian Yates emphasizes also:
"

And Rip recommends the same. So what again do you have against him?

I can lift to failure at 135 if I do enough reps. That should be roughly equivalent to doing 315 to failure according to his logic. He wants it both ways.

From his site:

"Your results from exercise have more to do with your intensity of effort — how hard you work relative to your momentary ability — than the amount of weight you lift, the number of repetitions you perform, or the specific repetition method you use. To stimulate your body to produce the greatest possible increases in muscular strength and size you should perform every exercise to the point of momentary muscular failure (MMF), completing as many repetitions as possible in good form."

His recommendation to go until failure every workout is also wrongheaded. I hit the weights so hard I could barely walk home, but no progress. Using 5/3/1 and being tired but still functional led to significantly more real strength gains. There's diminishing returns in reps, where you're not training for strength, but endurance.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Grass May 05, 2017 9:55 AM  

"To them, it is simply a form of secular magic that must be completely trusted or it will stop working."

It's like Randy Marsh and the Internet.

"As a former staff person at a lower tier university, I can say most of what the academics produce is mostly crap. Even as an engineer grad student a couple decades ago, I wondered who had time to read all this junk even if it were useful?"

Funny: I thought the same thing as a master's student in an unrelated field.

"Most of the stuff published is tripe so the professors can pad their vitae and angle for more federal government grants that fund this stupidity."

I'll never forget my graduate student capstone. We were advising a certain federal three letter agency by doing it unclassified assessment of the budget cuts on them. First words out of my advisor's mouth was I know most of you well and I know the group will get along well. However, keep in mind I need to be able to do this next year. The message was clear: you can only say so much of what needs to be said before you piss off the client. I'm so glad I did not get my PhD and just stopped at a terminal master's.

"People do worship Science as a god when it is merely a tool. Potentially a powerful tool, but only a tool. "

When I was in undergraduate, there was a huge scandal at my university involving a professor in the nuclear engineering department who claimed to have created bubble fusion. None of his experiments were reproducible etc. As far as I remember, as late as senior year he was still there.

Blogger Richard Stone May 05, 2017 9:59 AM  

"But who is stronger... the guy who can lift 135 pounds for 8 hours a day 5 days a week.... or the guy who can bench 315 twice.

Because neither of the guys can do what the other can do."

Depends what they are training for. That being said, muscle hypertrophy, which is accomplished easier by lifting heavier weights, makes training for muscle endurance later much easier.

Blogger Nate May 05, 2017 9:59 AM  

"There's diminishing returns in reps, where you're not training for strength, but endurance."

all depends on your goals. You need to know what method works for what you are tryign to achieve. Body building and power lifting are not the same. In the same way there are different kinds of strength and different means to achieve them.

Blogger Johnny May 05, 2017 10:02 AM  

>>36. dc.sunsets
>>Whenever (especially social) science claims to have proven something that completely violates your common sense notions, it's all but certainly BS and should be called out as such.

If it really matters look into it in detail. For starters read the full writing not just the conclusions. Don't just reject it. The unlikely is sometimes true. But if it does not matter so much or time is scarce, rejection is sound. Currently in particular there is a fabulous load of bunk out there getting published.

Anonymous Viiidad May 05, 2017 10:03 AM  

"I have encountered very, very few people who seem to grasp this paradox. The more they know, the closer they think they are to the total.

Now that is arrogance."

My father was talking with a Chinese atheist once. He stopped, got a piece of paper and drew a circle. "If this circle represents all knowledge, how much of it would you say you possess?"

The man took a moment, then drew a dot inside the circle.

"Right," my dad continued. "Therefore, is it not possible that God exists somewhere outside that knowledge? Unless you were God Himself, you could not know for certain He does not exist."

Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 10:03 AM  

@92 And once you do observe something, that alters the state of what you observed.

You and every member of the Mega Society can repeat that like a good filibuster, and insinuate 24/7/365.25 for a thousand years that I'm simply too stupid to grasp it, and it won't change the illogic one iota.

I think Lewis Little's Theory of Elementary Waves has more credibility. At least it doesn't demand I accept backwards causality.

We live in a Newtonian world. AFAIC, everything beyond that is sophistry until it shows up as engineering.

Blogger Nate May 05, 2017 10:05 AM  

the human body is a fascinating machine. one of the more interesting things I've seen was a fat guy... who dug post holes all day for a living out in the alabama sun.

Think about that. I watched this guy dig 100 post holes in a day. and he was fat. like BMI of 40 fat.

fantastic endurance. dude worked all day and hardly took breaks. yet there he was. Fat. His boss told me he'd been working for him for years doing the same work.

bizarre.

Anonymous Viiidad May 05, 2017 10:05 AM  

"That being said, muscle hypertrophy, which is accomplished easier by lifting heavier weights, makes training for muscle endurance later much easier."

True. Some years ago I was able to increase my running endurance rapidly via doing short, all-out sprints a few times a week. In a couple of weeks I could easily jog a mile. Previous longer jogs did not get my endurance levels up nearly as fast.

Blogger tz May 05, 2017 10:07 AM  

juxtaposed at RoK Lab girls lying about evidence
But, Science!

Blogger Nate May 05, 2017 10:09 AM  

"True. Some years ago I was able to increase my running endurance rapidly via doing short, all-out sprints a few times a week. In a couple of weeks I could easily jog a mile. Previous longer jogs did not get my endurance levels up nearly as fast."

and yet Usain Bolt can't run a mile. In my tennis playing days we ran tons of sprints. I could run sprints all day. That's what tennis is after all.

I could never even remotely come close to jogging a mile.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 10:17 AM  

@99
1. "Sideline cash is bullish."
How, when the purchaser's dollar leaves the market with the seller? Net movement of "cash" is ZERO.
2. "War is good for stocks & economic activity."
Bastiat's been dead for 150 years and still we get this from people smarter than me.
3. "A dollar borrowed by Uncle Sam (or GE, or anyone) is spent into the economy, cascading through it to produce GDP, while the resulting debt becomes an asset--i.e., a receivable--so wealth grows by both GDP and in the Asset Market."
Sure. That's sustainable forever. (facepalm.)
4. "Watch the economy's entrails (Fed reports, BLS, etc.) to see where stocks are headed."
This despite the observable fact that stocks LEAD changes in the economy.
5. "Stock prices discount the future."
Sure, investors in the aggregate can forecast the future. Nice crystal ball you've got there, mind if I borrow it?
6. "When stocks go down and bonds go up, it's because money is moving from the former to the latter."
Recall #1: NO NET MOVEMENT OF MONEY! When a market rises or falls, it is the actions of a tiny fraction of market participants whose agreement on a price different from the prior price moves the market. The vast majority of market participants do NOTHING, yet the wealth value of their holding rises or falls. From where or to where does this value move? NO WHERE. The ether. It's no more than group-think, i.e., mass psychology. How many people really grasp this?

We are surrounded by, practically drowning in beliefs for which open falsification is everywhere.

There are times when I suspect that the quantity of what "most people understand" that just "ain't so" exceeds the total quantity of actual understanding.

Anonymous Viiidad May 05, 2017 10:17 AM  

Maybe it's my Thal/Melonhead/Starchild mix.

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 05, 2017 10:22 AM  

Richard Stone: Without knowing more, it is impossible to know how I would have advised you to change your training, however, when you write " I hit the weights so hard I could barely walk home, but no progress." my first guess would be that you were training too much in each session, and I would not be surprised if you were also training too often.

Blogger mrparabolic May 05, 2017 10:23 AM  

dc.sunsets,

You can at least understand how observing something might change its state, right? If you observe an animal in the wild, your presence may change the animal's behavior. If you shine a light on something photosensitive, that light is going to change the state of the thing you are observing. It shouldn't be too hard to believe that it is impossible to observe the smallest, most sensitive particles in the known universe without potentially modifying their state.

I do think a lot of the metaphysics that comes out of this is wild speculation, but I can understand how it could be impossible to observe a subatomic particle without perturbing its state. And, in my mind, it doesn't require reversing causality.

Anonymous Last Redoubt May 05, 2017 10:25 AM  

@102. Nate

That might be explained by diet, and genetics related to fat accumulation.

Good Calories, Bad Calories - and the shorter "Why We Get Fat" that was the TLDR version - had some eye opening info on the actual study results relating to "fat is bad for you" and other factors.

Insofar as sprints vs endurance, it's worth looking into HIIT and Tabata training and the improvements it gained even for people who already did a lot of endurance training.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 05, 2017 10:28 AM  

SteelPalm @1 However, I was surprised at some of the SJW-esque responses in that topic, given how generally right-wing and anti-PC the powerlifting community is, in my experience.

That suggests that SJWs are constantly lurking Rippetoe's site too, waiting for any opportunity to discredit him.

@101 It makes more sense when you think of observation as a form of interaction. You might observe a molecule when it emits a photon or when you use a sensor to detect its dipole moment. But any observation/interaction you can think of requires the transfer of energy and the alteration of the quantum state of the target of your observation.

Intuitively this seems absurd because it isn't the way we experience the world. On a macroscopic level, the effects of our observations are negligible.

Anonymous Sheiko29 May 05, 2017 10:34 AM  

All this talk of powerlifting, and not a single mention of Boris Sheiko (PBUH). I am disappoint.

Starting Strength is a fine starting point. I saw Wendler mentioned as well. Another great coach with a good and wonderfully simply program. Took me to just shy of 1400.

Never heard of Baye.

Blogger JohnofAustria May 05, 2017 10:34 AM  

Oh sweet, a topic I actually know!

One thing Vox and Rip have both discovered with the "engineering approach" is that the things the science establishment can produce and verify are at best, limited to simple variables and the nature of short-term results. There's no way to quantify all the data and variables necessary for understanding systems.

So a study about which exercise is best for increasing quad size *cannot* tell you anything about a multi-year training system that will make the trainee stronger, more muscular, healthier, more athletic, etc. It can't tell you in what order to layer-in complexity, or what sorts of adjustments work best for different goals of seemingly similar systems.

All the strength and conditioning programs that have long-term success followed the basic path Rip described. Apply sound principles and use logic and observation to adjust. Successful application is all that matters.

Anonymous Looking Glass May 05, 2017 10:37 AM  

@111 Noah B The Savage Gardener

Web-trolling robots. It lets a small group of people infest 10,000s of websites. We even see it here. You'll have a contentious subject post go up and get a bunch of regulars commenting. Put Trump + Wall in a post? Multiple clear Influence Agents in the first 10 comments.

At the same time, it could just be an annoying troll that's infested their forum and Vox's mention triggered him.


As for the Observer issue, maybe we could troll the Lefties with being "Light Murderers" and "Optically Privileged". That could be hilarious to get see if any of them bit on that.

Blogger JohnofAustria May 05, 2017 10:38 AM  

@112, Sheiko is another fine example of engineering developing understanding. You cold not have pieced together enough data in a century of sports physiology studies to match the understanding of improving human performance he got by just doing it.

Blogger Midnight Avenue J May 05, 2017 10:41 AM  

Sheiko is definitely in the PL pantheon. His program for youth and amateurs is another good place to start.

I find SS and 5/3/1 just work better for me. Sheiko is strictly about PL, 5/3/1 is also about PL but not necessarily about competition lifting. I like SS because you can use it as a PL program but it's primarily about getting beginners strong with the basics. Strips the confusion.

I like Dan John for the same reason. Multiple paths to get strong, simplest is usually best, move on from there.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2017 10:44 AM  

> You and every member of the Mega Society can repeat that like a good filibuster, and insinuate 24/7/365.25 for a thousand years that I'm simply too stupid to grasp it, and it won't change the illogic one iota.

That's not my position, dc. That's the accepted theory. I carefully didn't say whether I agreed with it or not. :)

Note that in any case, it only applies at the atomic level and below. Beyond that it gets swamped by the probability effects.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti May 05, 2017 10:44 AM  

AFAIC, everything beyond that is sophistry until it shows up as engineering.

We actually went over this in a previous thread. There is plenty of concrete engineering that has been produced through the demonstration of Bell's Inequality (the theoretical formalization of the principle of the absence of local realism that is at the heart of the Copenhagen and all other anti-realist interpretations of QM, which are by far the best fit with the data).

Blogger Nate May 05, 2017 10:45 AM  

"That might be explained by diet, and genetics related to fat accumulation."

I agree. Seeing it seemed a stark rebuttal to the "calories are all that matter" camp. I mean there is no way the man could eat more calories than he was burning through the day. Also while the dude was seriously fat... he also had a damn lot of muscle mass. Just having that much muscle would burn a lot of calories.. much less all the work he did every day.

I obviously can't talk to much about his eating habits. All I know is what I saw. And what I saw was.. he drank water and gatorade all day.. ate a fastfood breakfast and had a six inch subway sub for lunch.

the dude is a walking testimony to the uselessness of conventional wisdom and scientific consensus.

Blogger GracieLou May 05, 2017 10:46 AM  

The Viking ape I was married to subscribed to strength magazines. Occasionally one would feature "Catastrophic Lifting Accidents!" The worst ever involved a leg press:

One day a steroid monster loaded up a leg press machine. He proceeded to lift. A muscle tore in one leg thereby putting all the monster weight on the other leg which folded up like an accordion, bones and all. I can't remember if they actually had to amputate his leg to save his life or if it was a close call.

Horrible. That and the one where the guy's butthole fell out still gives me nightmares (and that was a squat, they're both dangerous, be careful!).

Blogger Midnight Avenue J May 05, 2017 10:50 AM  

@ 119 Nate,

This is why I have sympathy for a lot of fat people. For a lot of them, simply putting down the fork and moving more just doesn't work. Something else, multiple somethings, are going on.

For most overweight people putting down the fork and moving more does work. It's actually about eating better, not less, in most cases.

Obvious gluttony excluded of course, chicks who eat with the purpose of getting fat (and their "feeders") are gross, as are the whales who just don't care and think they're beautiful despite the endless stream of pastry and soda they swallow.

Anonymous The Gray Man May 05, 2017 10:52 AM  

I love Rippetoe - he is smart and knows his stuff.

I will say the internet really messed a lot of people up with gym-going, though. A lot of people want to look good and get ripped in the gym, but doing Starting Strength (or the "Strong Lifts" program, alternatively) just gets you strong -- you don't necessarily build a lot of hypertrophy outside of your legs if all you do is bench/squat/row/deadlift.

That said, Rippetoe has never claimed his program does anything except get you strong, so he knows what he is talking about and does not mislead any.

Blogger praetorian May 05, 2017 10:53 AM  

> comparing body building w/ strength training unironically

Our new /fit/ guy is funny.

Blogger Midnight Avenue J May 05, 2017 11:00 AM  

@ 122,

Instagram is full of women who are ripped and muscular. Not man-muscular though you see that, too. Personally I don't care for an over muscled physique but it's becoming the normal goal for a lot of women.

That requires more than just lifting though. Tons of HIIT and cardio and the number one piece of the puzzle: highly structured and restricted diet. Not a lot of people have the time or patience for it.

How to eat is another area of training research that has 1000 answers for 1000 questions. As stated in the OP, science is about understanding. But in some cases we are snowflakes and one persons diet is not going to work for everyone. I'd rather try a few methods and find what works than trust one of 1000 scientists and hope I gambled on the right one.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 11:17 AM  

@109 You're equating observing something that can react to your observation by NOTICING YOU with changing the intrinsic state of something.

What about your presence as an observer does a subatomic particle NOTICE? Via what path?

No. I contest your analogy on applicability alone.

This is one of those areas where, while I readily accept that I don't have the right answer, the widely-accepted answer appears wrong to me.

I spend a lot of time in that condition.

Blogger bosscauser May 05, 2017 11:17 AM  

Obviously, Vox doesn't have the politically correct credentials....

What's the world coming to?

Gab.ai/GaryCauser

Blogger jaericho May 05, 2017 11:19 AM  

Aaaaaaaaand now I realize why fitness forums are so popular.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti May 05, 2017 11:21 AM  

What about your presence as an observer does a subatomic particle NOTICE? Via what path?

It's because the cognized object and cognizing subject are ontologically inseparable. Bohr develops this point somewhat (unfortunately, maddeningly devoid of much detail) in Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2017 11:27 AM  

> What about your presence as an observer does a subatomic particle NOTICE? Via what path?

How do you observe a subatomic particle? What effect does that have on the particle you're observing? Please note that a photon of light is a subatomic particle.

Blogger Jose May 05, 2017 11:32 AM  

Rippetoe vs Baye? Machines don't work? Science is wrong, revelation, via muscle size, is right? BOHICA!

(Apparently I'm psychic. Or maybe there's something else going on, like the same error across many domains. But here it is, my response to this thread, posted yesterday on the IQ one.)

I never thought that "show, don't tell" was a difficult concept, but maybe an example will help.

There's a forum for strength athletes, the Testosterone Nation Forum, and there are basically two types of people who participate in it.

A - Some participants either use their real name (like I do) or their well-established internet name (like powerlifter MegSquats) linked to a real identity that's widely known (many are personal trainers trawling for business). These people tend to post workout footage, links to papers in exercise and sports medicine journals, and argue reasonably. Sometimes they post photos from actual meets they participate in.

B - Participants using a pseudonym that isn't linked to a real identity, on the other hand, don't post workout footage, but they all "have": the physique of Dorian Yates, the combined strength of Brian Shaw and Zydrunas Savickas, the agility of an Olympic gymnast, and something like a guy called Rocco Siffredi (sport unknown). They post a lot about their gym feats ("I benched 850Lbs raw in the gym today, at 200Lbs bodyweight!!!!!"), no footage included, and give questionnable advice ("pre-exhaust the core with 1000 crunches before squats for maximum calf development").

Now, using that IQ thingamajig to do a little thinkery: which of these subsets, A or B, is likely to actually lift?

Show, don't tell.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti May 05, 2017 11:32 AM  

How do you observe a subatomic particle? What effect does that have on the particle you're observing? Please note that a photon of light is a subatomic particle.

Right, this is the basic point that Bohr develops.

What is the instrument of knowledge, in a subatomic measurement? A photon.

What is a photon? Energy.

How does the photon accomplish the measurement? By interacting with the subatomic object.

What happens when this interaction takes place? An energy transfer.

(This is somewhat oversimplified, but correct enough for our purposes here).

The point is that there is literally no way for the instrument of knowledge to interact with the object of knowledge, without somehow altering that object of knowledge. As long as you're dealing with causality, every measurement is a causal process, which means it has an effect on the system that you're measuring. If you're no longer dealing with causality, then you're no longer dealing with empirical observations, and have left the realm of "science."

Blogger frigger611 May 05, 2017 11:43 AM  

Well, this hilarious exchange between weightlifters seems quite apropos. TheJosh struggles with number of days in a week, and how to average...

http://brobible.com/life/article/meathead-weightlifters-fight-days-week/

Blogger tuberman May 05, 2017 12:02 PM  

I missed this thread because I went to work out.

Anonymous Viiidad May 05, 2017 12:04 PM  

Nate wrote:"That might be explained by diet, and genetics related to fat accumulation."

I agree. Seeing it seemed a stark rebuttal to the "calories are all that matter" camp. I mean there is no way the man could eat more calories than he was burning through the day. Also while the dude was seriously fat... he also had a damn lot of muscle mass. Just having that much muscle would burn a lot of calories.. much less all the work he did every day.

I obviously can't talk to much about his eating habits. All I know is what I saw. And what I saw was.. he drank water and gatorade all day.. ate a fastfood breakfast and had a six inch subway sub for lunch.

the dude is a walking testimony to the uselessness of conventional wisdom and scientific consensus.



Right. The type of calories, plus genetics, has to make a difference.

Maybe there's something in the "body can't get rid of trans-fats" thing.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 05, 2017 12:12 PM  

@119, @134 Still the most likely explanation is that the guy is eating a lot in the evenings, or binging occasionally. It's a hard fact that you're going to lose weight if you burn more calories that you consume, but of course that one bit of knowledge isn't the whole story.

Blogger tuberman May 05, 2017 12:14 PM  

People lift in cycles...do 5/3/1 HEAVY for too many weeks in a row and the oxidative stress will let you know it is time to rest, or at least go to an easier cycle. Your central nervous system will start to scream, "No More!"

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 05, 2017 12:17 PM  

Sure, that's where periodization comes in.

Blogger spacehabitats May 05, 2017 12:21 PM  

"Science" is frequently used by the brainwashed, high IQ, college grad SJW to reject common sense in favor of the state religion, political correctness. Peer review, especially in the social sciences, is practically a guarantee that the "conclusions" of the study will be worthless if not downright toxic.

Anonymous Athor Pel May 05, 2017 12:50 PM  

"51. Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 8:38 AM
...
Perhaps Stickwick can set me straight, but Halton Arp's book on redshift, with its very straightforward reproduction of one radio-telescope image after another showing clearly visible interactions between extra-galactic entities of dramatically differing redshifts...and Arp's claims that mainstream astrophysicists refused to even discuss these plain-as-day pictures, convinced me that what we think we know about our universe is probably not so.
"



I am quite used to having my false assumptions of reality punctured. But this one felt a little like a gut punch.

Blogger Nate May 05, 2017 1:01 PM  

" It's a hard fact that you're going to lose weight if you burn more calories that you consume"

I am currently rigorously testing this.

I've maintained at least a 1000 calorie a day delta for over a month.

Based on your understanding... what would you predict my weight loss would be in that time?

Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 1:02 PM  

I am quite used to having my false assumptions of reality punctured. But this one felt a little like a gut punch.

I'm an ant, riding a leaf that floats down a mighty river. I don't argue about that which I believe is beyond our knowledge, other than to suggest that sometimes what I'm told simply sounds like faith.

Faith is good. Faith is unavoidable. We all believe some things, many things, we cannot personally prove.

But when I see people begin to suggest they UNDERSTAND things that are so far away that they cannot possibly, EVER be investigated in person or even via a tool like a satellite, I become quite skeptical.

I wonder how many people today toil away the years of their lives in occupations where they're doing nothing but putting additional stories on a building that has no foundation at all?

Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 1:04 PM  

@139 What if the universe is eternal?

Anonymous Bellator Mortalis May 05, 2017 1:08 PM  

And now for something completely different: Heavy Hands!
Heavy Hands is a good exercise for older people (55+) simply because it puts less stress on older joints. I can do that while walking around a lake (about 2 miles). It exercises the arms, strengthens the core (because of the dynamic movement of the weights while moving) and the legs.
Does it build "big" muscles like squats and other heavy weights? No. Does it build strong, well defined muscles with great endurance? Yes.
Is one "better" than the other? Depends on how old you are and how many accumulated wounds and injuries you have.

Blogger Karl May 05, 2017 1:10 PM  

semi-OT. I almost literally got popcorn for the comments thread on this WaPo article about Somali anti-vaxxers.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/anti-vaccine-activists-spark-a-states-worst-measles-outbreak-in-decades/2017/05/04/a1fac952-2f39-11e7-9dec-764dc781686f_story.html

Anti-vaccine activists spark a state’s worst measles outbreak in decades

MINNEAPOLIS — The young mother started getting advice early on from friends in the close-knit Somali immigrant community here. Don’t let your children get the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella — it causes autism, they said.

Suaado Salah listened. And this spring, her 3-year-old boy and 18-month-old girl contracted measles in Minnesota’s largest outbreak of the highly infectious and potentially deadly disease in nearly three decades. Her daughter, who had a rash, high fever and a cough, was hospitalized for four nights and needed intravenous fluids and oxygen.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 1:19 PM  

@144 Karl, when you can show me the controlled data studies on the safety of aluminum adjuvents, I'll pay a little attention to the rest of your rant.

It happens that this is a GREAT forum to discuss the "trust us, we're from the CDC" kind of crap that passes for science these days.

While you're at it, we should discuss my favorite subtopic on this: How the CDC et.al., conflate pneumonia deaths ~35,000/yr with deaths attributed to influenza ~1,700/yr in order to "market" the annual multivalent influenza vaccine.

In my experience, when the salesman is lying to you about one thing, he's lying to you about the WHOLE thing.

Blogger Karl May 05, 2017 1:26 PM  

I'm not ranting. I'm enjoying watching the march for science tie themselves in knots to not criticize the Somali non-vaccinators and instead blame the evil white guy - Wakefield - for giving them the crazy idea that MMR is related to autism.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2017 1:29 PM  

> How the CDC et.al., conflate pneumonia deaths ~35,000/yr with deaths attributed to influenza ~1,700/yr in order to "market" the annual multivalent influenza vaccine.

I've gotten the flu vaccine three times. I've gotten sick from it all three times, once with the worst case of flu I'd ever had up to that point.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 05, 2017 1:32 PM  

"It's a hard fact that you're going to lose weight if you burn more calories that you consume"

The problem being that "burn" includes a lot of things beyond exercise, and the human body is so good at compensating and maintaining homeostasis that that "hard fact" gets pretty soft in practice.

I've lost weight on 3000+ calories/day and no exercise. I've gained weight on 2000 calories/day plus exercise. Different foods trigger different hormones activate different processes within the body and the individual cell, and there's way more going on than simply storing energy.

The calorie-counters will tell me I'm lying or too stupid to count rather than give up their dogma, but their dogma is wrong. See Good Calories, Bad Calories, as someone mentioned earlier. See the overfeeding studies where people ate 4000-10000 calories while remaining sedentary, with most not gaining anywhere near the expected weight. Check out lipodystrophy, a condition where people gain weight in one part of their body while wasting away in others, and try to figure out whether they're eating too much or too little.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT May 05, 2017 1:45 PM  

I would rather have a blog post peer reviewed and approved of by the Dread Ilk than have a paper published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals.

Surviving Vox and the Ilk at least means my logic is spot on. Surviving a journal just means I knew the right people or pushed the right narrative.

Blogger Sheila4g May 05, 2017 1:52 PM  

Obviously some of this thread is only applicable to men who are lifting extremely heavy, but {solipsism alert} let me ask about meee! Seriously, though - I'm a 58 year old female who has lifted, on and off, for 30 years. Most recently been lifting regularly for about 2. Upper body I don't have any real issues - use almost exclusively BB/DB {with occasional machine warm up and/or cable finishers} for back, chest, shoulders, and arms. Since I'm a classic pear shape, my problem/concern is lower body. I know diet is more than half the battle, and I don't want to get bigger, but slimmer. My knees can no longer take the walking lunges or squats I used to do. Leg days include leg presses {not counting weight of sled, I currently start at 180 lbs of plates and finish with 240, reps between 10-15}, carefully done squats/limited lunges with moderate weight {20-50 lbs} on the Smith machine, machine hamstring and quad work, BB straight leg and Sumo deadlifts, hip extension on Smith machine, and cable kickbacks. Cardio varies {15 min warm up on elliptical; after weights I do either run/walk intervals, or ARC machine for 20-35 mins. I'm extremely conscious of form and not using momentum {as I watch poseurs fling around heavy weights as well as women checking their phones and occasionally pushing a 10 lb dumbbell}. Any suggestions for tweaking my workout and/or leaning out my lower body?

Blogger Midnight Avenue J May 05, 2017 2:21 PM  

Sheila start working 2-3 HIIT workouts a week. If any gyms near you offer Grit or Sprint by Les Mills, take those classes. Or get a Tabata timer app (tons of free ones) and start doing Tabata on the treadmill twice a week. Key is to completely STOP on non-work intervals with Tabata and go all out on work intervals.

You'll eat up body fat quickly that way. And get more protein in your diet, less bread, starchy carbs and fruit limited daily. Not no carb or low carb just smart carbs. It's easy to overeat them, and at your age they really wreak havoc on body fat.

Try dropping your reps to the 6-8 range and lift heavier then do a lighter high rep set as a finisher. Like 20 reps at 50% max for each exercise. You'll die and love it.

Blogger SirHamster May 05, 2017 2:29 PM  

The problem with his "logic" is that not only is that not my stance on evolutionary biology, but I don't believe there is any evidence that the world was created 6,000 years ago. I am not a Young Earth Creationist, I have never subscribed to Bishop Ussher's estimate for the age of the Earth, and the so-called "logic" being illustrated has literally nothing to do with me or my simple observation that professional science is riddled with fraud and corruption.

I would classify the Bible as documentary evidence of a younger Earth, of which Bishop Ussher's timeline is a simple interpretation of the recorded history.

Not that simple makes it true, but it's a factor to consider when compared to alternative interpretations which try to fit in day-ages or relativity.

All that said, the original SJW accusation that your critique of science-worship has anything to do with YEC is a lie.

Blogger SirHamster May 05, 2017 2:38 PM  

Bone Daddy Dawg wrote:Without knowing more, it is impossible to know how I would have advised you to change your training ...

Why should anyone be looking to you for advice, when you don't take your own words seriously?

Bone Daddy Dawg wrote:Stg58/Animal Mother:

No, I think the last time I used a Smith for quad work was sometime in the 1990s, having read that Dorian Yates favored it. That having been said, you do remind me of a Rippetoe brain-dropping.


Bone Daddy Dawg wrote:I don't recall that exchange. I was attempting to communicate civilly with you, but I don't think this is going to work, so let's just discontinue this attempt at dialogue.

If 1.5 hours is enough to make you forget your own words, your brain muscle is clearly not up to par.

Blogger Volksgemeinschaft May 05, 2017 2:53 PM  

Nate May 05, 2017 1:01 PM

" It's a hard fact that you're going to lose weight if you burn more calories that you consume"

I am currently rigorously testing this.

I've maintained at least a 1000 calorie a day delta for over a month.

Based on your understanding... what would you predict my weight loss would be in that time?



Water Fasting is extremely effective, you will average loosing one pound a day. It's much easier to do when the weather is warm.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 05, 2017 3:02 PM  

@140 Conventional nutrition metrics say that you'd lose about 8.5 lbs if you're moderately active. But as Cail points out, the body is good at compensating for changes in nutritional intake, and calorie burn depends on several factors. I would be surprised to hear that you lost any less than 4 lbs.

But regardless of your particular case, the energetics have to work out one way or another. We're talking about the First Law of Thermodynamics here.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 05, 2017 3:08 PM  

Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:But regardless of your particular case, the energetics have to work out one way or another. We're talking about the First Law of Thermodynamics here.No, no we're not. The human body is not a furnace, where every calorie in is burned immediately and in the same way.

One of my neighbors had a tumor removed on her thyroid a few years ago. Now she has to maintain a diet below 1000 calories per day in order not to gain weight. She's an active woman who runs and does cardio.

The human body is not a furnace and there are many processes and feedback loops we don't understand.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 05, 2017 3:12 PM  

@156 Yes we are, Snidely. The First Law applies to everything in the known universe, not just furnaces.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 05, 2017 3:25 PM  

@147 James Dixon,
I was a pharma rep for 15 years. I am intimately familiar with how this stuff is marketed.

MMWR tracks pneumonia deaths (by far the largest cause of death due to bacteria/viruses) and influenza deaths. It is a simple case of looking up the data on line to see that every breathless MSM "get your vaccination or you'll DIE of the flu" report is a lie.

Very few people, almost 100% of them very young (and not capable of benefiting from ANY vaccine) or very old, die of influenza each year. The rest of us have almost nothing mortal to fear from it.

Most of the "flu" reported is NOT confirmed as influenza A in a lab, anyway. It's just assumed to be "the flu," when in fact the same symptoms are caused by a host of similar viruses.

The Pandemic of 1918, the Big Bugaboo, occurred prior to useful antibiotics, almost all the deaths were caused by secondary BACTERIAL pneumonia (which is quite treatable now) and aspirin came into wide use around that time and aspirin depletes the body of vitamin C, an essential vitamin for....you guessed it....fighting an infection.

1918 was a one-off. But we STILL see all this trotted out every year to scare people into getting the jab, not to mention SELL LOTS OF CRAP.

Like I said, if the salesman lies about one aspect of the product, only a moron assumes the rest of the spiel is honest.

And I spent 25 years in sales.

PS: No one notices a study published about 10 years ago in Archives of Internal Medicine where an actual controlled study was done among nursing home patients (the most vulnerable to deaths due to influenza-caused secondary pneumonias.) Results: No difference between flu or pneumonia deaths, but IIRC all-cause mortality was a bit higher in the vaccinated group.

We are drowning in BS, used to sell crap, masquerading as science, spun by con artists.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 05, 2017 3:31 PM  

Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:@156 Yes we are, Snidely. The First Law applies to everything in the known universe, not just furnaces.
The First law does apply, in that more heat cannot come out of a fuel than is present in that fuel.
That, however, has nothing to do with body weight or human physiology.
How many calories equal a pound of fat? It's not the number you would get by burning the fat, it's a different number.
how many calories will you shed via the gut when you don't need them? The answer varies depending on the hormonal state of the body and the type of calories.

It's virtually impossible for a person of normal endocrine function to gain weight on a zero-carb diet, for instance.

Stupid advice like yours is why America is overweight.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 05, 2017 3:34 PM  

The First Law applies to everything in the known universe, not just furnaces.

Of course it does; it's just not that relevant when talking about the human body and weight gain/loss, because there are too many things we can't measure. The variables are too variable. Heck, we can't even measure very well the things we think we can measure -- food labels are allowed to be up to 10% off, and the numbers are rounded besides. A 10% difference is more than enough to cancel out that jog you took before lunch.

It's like if I say putting more gas in your car will make it go more miles. Sure, if you don't get stuck sitting in traffic idling for a while, and a dirty air filter doesn't reduce your mpg, and you don't go for a drive in the mountains, and.... All other things being equal, it will go more miles. All other things being equal, cutting calories will have to be accounted for somewhere, but all other things probably won't be equal, and the chance that it'll be accounted for by removing fat from storage and burning it is only one of the possibilities.

Blogger frigger611 May 05, 2017 3:36 PM  

@158

dc, we need you and other honest folks to write a book of collected true horror stories from science and medicine titled something like "Please, do NOT trust us!"

Blogger SirHamster May 05, 2017 3:39 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:The First law does apply, in that more heat cannot come out of a fuel than is present in that fuel.

That, however, has nothing to do with body weight or human physiology.

How many calories equal a pound of fat? It's not the number you would get by burning the fat, it's a different number.

how many calories will you shed via the gut when you don't need them? The answer varies depending on the hormonal state of the body and the type of calories.


Something I don't see in the thermodynamic approach is an accounting of the energy content of input (food) and output (waste products). Is the energy transferred to the human a simple subtraction of those two numbers?

Feces burns, it's got energy in it.

Heck, they don't even know how to measure the energy content of food. They measure the components of carb/protein/fat and assume a static number for each of those 3 types.

Those may be excellent rules of thumb, but rules of thumb and accounting do not mix.

Blogger tublecane May 05, 2017 3:40 PM  

@73-And then there's particle physics!

The rest of the sciences have physics envy, but really that's for stuff that happened 80+ years ago. Fundamental physics has been in a rut for generations on most fronts (though not all), and is in the business of dreaming up new epicycles. For which losing concern we have to subsidize billion dollar toys.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 05, 2017 3:47 PM  

@159 How many calories equal a pound of fat? It's not the number you would get by burning the fat, it's a different number.

That's because fat is oxidized in the body via biochemical processes, and not all of the energy that's available via direct oxidation can be captured by those processes.

how many calories will you shed via the gut when you don't need them? The answer varies depending on the hormonal state of the body and the type of calories.

This has nothing to do with anything I've said. It's a red herring. The number of calories consumed is only an upper bound on the number of calories that can be utilized by the body. Someone with digestive dysfunction could consume 5,000 calories a day and still starve, or nearly starve. I once knew a woman with such a condition. Ate constantly, stick thin.

Stupid advice like yours is why America is overweight.

I didn't give any advice in this thread. And if you would bother to read what I actually wrote you would see that I was clear to note that calorie consumption and expenditure isn't the whole story. It's just a simple truth that many people find upsetting.

Blogger tublecane May 05, 2017 3:49 PM  

@82-Bear in mind that originally Schrodinger was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of "superpositions" in the Copenhagen model of quantum mechanics. Obviously, something cannot be both alive and dead (except vampires and zombies). That was the point.

That message has been somewhat lost, admittedly.

Blogger tublecane May 05, 2017 3:59 PM  

@92-"The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment isn't about the cat at all."

That's a weird statement. Of course it is. If it were about elementary particles, no one would remember it. The beauty of that thought exercise is that it takes the abstruse nature of quantum mechanics and plops it into the everyday world of cats.

Whereas it's easy to think of photons or whatever existing in multiple states until something notices them, it's not very easy to do with the life of a cat.

Blogger tublecane May 05, 2017 4:17 PM  

@131-While that makes sense as you lay it out, the brilliance of the Schrodinger's cat thing is that you must also believe that opening a box can kill a cat or save its life. You can understand how normal people aren't willing to accept such unreality.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT May 05, 2017 4:30 PM  

@82 - This goes DOUBLE for the whole "Schroedinger's Cat" crap. When you tell me that something isn't A or B until I look at it, my first impulse is to lay hands on you. (Thankfully, I'm not that impulsive.)

Road traffic in SimCity isn't A or B. It's a function sitting in RAM until another function calls upon it to deliver A or B.

Along the same lines, there are no causality violations in QM if 'there is no spoon.' If a software simulation is a close analogy of this construct of God's we call our universe...if everything is a set of functions and probabilities until queried by some other set of functions...then quantum weirdness like the double slit experiment actually starts to make sense.

I'm not saying this is the correct explanation. I'm simply pointing out at least one explanation for quantum weirdness that is consistent with things we can 'see with our own eyes' at the macro level.

Of course it would be a mistake to assume that the universe at the extreme micro level must be consistent with our macro experiences, logic, or intuition. Yes, skepticism is warranted when SCIENCE! claims X yet X flies in the face of our day-to-day observations. True science requires skepticism and every theory should be under attack, forced to prove itself again and again. But we can't exclude the possibility that there are things about this universe which are seemingly impossible according to our limited understanding.

In short: maybe, for a moment, the cat really is both alive and dead, and that's just how it is whether we like it or not, and whether the cat likes it or not.

Blogger Jose May 05, 2017 4:36 PM  

tublecane wrote:@82-Bear in mind that originally Schrodinger was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of "superpositions" in the Copenhagen model of quantum mechanics. Obviously, something cannot be both alive and dead (except vampires and zombies). That was the point.

That message has been somewhat lost, admittedly.


Actually, Schrodinger called the example "burlesque," as per his original paper:

https://twitter.com/josecamoessilva/status/827988964174753793

(Despite my comment in that tweet, a German friend told me to invade Poland, I mean that "burleske" does translate more correctly to "burlesque" than to "ridiculous.")

Anonymous polyhedron May 05, 2017 5:04 PM  

Barbbell=Good! Non-Barbbell=BAD! Squat/Deadlift/Bench/Press/Clean = GOOD! Non-Squat/Dead/Bench/Press/Clean = BAD!

You clearly haven't read the book. (And it's three b's, not two: 'barbbbell'.)

Anonymous Stickwick May 05, 2017 5:20 PM  

dc.sunsets: Perhaps Stickwick can set me straight, but Halton Arp's book on redshift, with its very straightforward reproduction of one radio-telescope image after another showing clearly visible interactions between extra-galactic entities of dramatically differing redshifts...and Arp's claims that mainstream astrophysicists refused to even discuss these plain-as-day pictures, convinced me that what we think we know about our universe is probably not so.

Arp was an interesting man who made some valuable contributions to astrophysics, but he was wrong about cosmological redshift. The first thing you have to understand is that it was Arp who represented the mainstream… from fifty years ago. Since the time of Aristotle, the prevailing paradigm was an eternal, static, unchanging universe. That was the dominant cosmology right up until the 1960s. The big bang represented a major shakeup to conventional cosmology, and while most scientists were convinced it was legit, there were some in the astro community who resisted it. Why? Because they were atheists, and a beginning to the universe was uncomfortably close to Genesis.

The “new” mainstream, aka those who held to big bang cosmology, ignored Arp, because they were pretty sure he was wrong. The new convention in astrophysics better explained what was being observed. Still, it was probably important to show in a definitive way that Arp was wrong.

With the advent of huge sky surveys, like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (which I use for my own research), it became possible to easily test Arp’s assertion that quasars are ejected black holes and their redshifts are not cosmological in nature. The result? He was dead wrong.

Have a look at this plot. The circles show a large sample of quasars (also called “active galaxies”) randomly distributed in space. The lines show different models, including three different versions of Arp’s and one showing the now conventional model. The data are by far best fit by the conventional model.

It’s sort of understandable that up until now people thought Arp might’ve been right. He did point out some interesting coincidences of galaxies and quasars with differing redshifts. But that’s to be expected given the truly astronomical number of galaxies and quasars we observe in space. There are over 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, and a large fraction of those host quasars. In fact, I just downloaded an update to the Sloan survey that included spectra for over 100,000 quasars. Given those kinds of numbers, you would expect to find chance superpositions in the sky. What Arp observed was just that — chance superpositions of objects that were in fact separated by enormous distances.

Anonymous Stickwick May 05, 2017 5:25 PM  

Matthew: If Stickwick had a blog, we would make this her Japanese invasion.

I do have a blog. Here.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 05, 2017 5:31 PM  

@172 Nice.

Blogger tublecane May 05, 2017 5:36 PM  

@169-A burlesque is a parody which mocks through absurdity.

OpenID rufusdog May 05, 2017 6:15 PM  

Be cautious anymore with internet advice for weight lifting, mountains of BS out there, much of which will get you injured.

I like Rip, his workout was always too much for my joints…but I always thought it was the combo of working out and working that would get me, maybe the workout alone would have been ok.

Drugs are the elephant in the room with much of this stuff, when you look at CrossFit badass and think “how is she doing that”, hours of hard work, good genetics, and piles of drugs is the likely answer.

My mom struggled with weight for years, never gross fat, but always wanting to be thinner than she was. She was diagnosed with RA two years ago, switched to a mostly vegetarian diet to battle the RA, the weight fell off and stayed off. Having watched that I am convinced weight loss is simply a matter of will power and motivation. The missing ingredient for most people is sufficient motivation. RA=sufficient motivation.

Blogger frigger611 May 05, 2017 6:20 PM  

@171, Stickwick

I always look forward to your posts, and this made me laugh,

"But that’s to be expected given the truly astronomical number of galaxies"

as I often tell my friends - "I go to church religiously"

Blogger tuberman May 05, 2017 6:30 PM  

Stickwick, if I was mentoring some kids (say 7th & 8th grade, very smart) what would be some of the best books for catching up on astrophysics?

Blogger Alexandros May 05, 2017 6:43 PM  










Nate wrote:" It's a hard fact that you're going to lose weight if you burn more calories that you consume"

I am currently rigorously testing this.

I've maintained at least a 1000 calorie a day delta for over a month.

Based on your understanding... what would you predict my weight loss would be in that time?


By delta, is that the negative of calories minus bmr per week? I'm not an expert, but the calculation I always hear is that negative 3500 calories is about one pound of fat.
Slightly related to that, I think a lot of the confusion comes from people not re-calculating their bmr automatically as time goes on; this is even more important for gaining muscle than it is for losing weight since doing the former is hard to quantify without expensive tests (even when strength goes up, muscles don't necessarily grow bigger).

Anonymous One Deplorable DT May 05, 2017 7:00 PM  

@172 - bookmarked.

Anonymous Stickwick May 05, 2017 7:16 PM  

Well, now I'm kind of embarrassed, because I haven't been keeping up with my blog. Very busy writing books and doing science. Anyway...

frigger611: "But that’s to be expected given the truly astronomical number of galaxies”

I was tempted to use “governmental” instead of astronomical, but we were only talking billions, not trillions.

tuberman: Stickwick, if I was mentoring some kids (say 7th & 8th grade, very smart) what would be some of the best books for catching up on astrophysics?

Your best bet is probably a used astronomy textbook (not more than 10 years old). Something with lots of pictures. OpenStax has a free up-to-date astronomy textbook that you can view in full color online or download onto a tablet. I'm thinking of adapting my astro curriculum to it.

Blogger Jose May 05, 2017 7:37 PM  

Yeah, about that "science is not self-correcting" thing... Science (the journal) just announced a retraction on its website and on twitter:

https://twitter.com/sciencemagazine/status/859873041110753280

That's one of the many differences between a top-tier journal and a CV-padding pay-for-pub listing service ("Tumor medicine," was it?) that had hundreds of papers retracted.

Anonymous Avalanche May 05, 2017 7:39 PM  

OP: "this gentlemen feels capable of assuming his own expertise in the very different fields of both evolutionary biology and psychiatry"

OMG! -- synchronicity is, just-like, totes real, isn't it? {wink} My web client JUST THIS WEEK posted a column ON experts and expertise and: "Expert Disagreement" here: http://www.psandman.com/col/disagreement.htm

From his Summary (and I believe it applies well your 'dabbler' above):
QUOTE:
The fact that experts so often conflate technical questions with values and policy questions is especially problematic. Experts elide from technical expertise to nontechnical opinion, mixing the two without making the distinction. They pretend or imagine that their nontechnical opinions are grounded firmly in their technical expertise. They pretend or imagine that their technical opinions are not grounded, even a little, in anything nontechnical – in values, policy preferences, ideology, affiliation, etc. And they treat their nontechnical disagreements with other experts as if they were technical disagreements, defending their values and policy preferences as “sound science” and attacking competing values and policy preferences as unsound science.

Even when an expert has independently assessed the evidence regarding a question, other factors are always at work, inevitably affecting what conclusions that particular expert reaches. Calling these factors “biases” isn’t a criticism; it simply reflects the inescapable truth that experts are not blank slates. By the time you know enough to be considered an expert, you view every new question through the lens of your prior knowledge, feelings, and experiences; your opinions, values, and biases; your approach as an expert. At the very least, you have already staked out your preferred methodologies. You may be completely neutral vis-à-vis the new situation you’re being asked to assess, but you are nothing like neutral vis-à-vis your views on how to assess that situation. Some of the factors that bias expert opinions are widely seen as biases, such as financial self-interest and ideology. Others typically fly under the radar: friendship, peer pressure, reputational consistency, simple consistency, etc.
END QUOTE

Blogger frigger611 May 05, 2017 7:55 PM  

@180

Stickwick , you need to go into comedy! That was gold!

"I was tempted to use “governmental” instead of astronomical"

I think "governmental" is a very good substitute for the awkward "bajillions and gazillions." I think a Trademark is in order.

But just to clarify - "governmental" doesn't exceed infinity, does it? (Asking for a friend. Who is in congress...)

Blogger tuberman May 05, 2017 8:13 PM  

180. Stickwick

Thanks

Anonymous bobbybobbob May 05, 2017 8:21 PM  

Starting strength was developed with young men hoping to play American Football in mind: kid needs to put on 10 pounds to be effective on the line. It's probably great for that. It's pretty much useless for any other athletic or aesthetic goal, yet it gets promoted for everything.

Anonymous Avalanche May 05, 2017 8:35 PM  

@150 "but {solipsism alert} let me ask about meee!"

(Atta girl, Sheila -- you go git 'em!)

Blogger tuberman May 05, 2017 8:45 PM  

150. Sheila4g

Estrogen is the problem, the bad estrogen, as it keeps weight on the lower body of women. Google the three types of estrogen (or use alternative searcher), and find out how to lower that form and keep the healthy estrogen levels up.

Blogger tuberman May 05, 2017 9:00 PM  

"Starting Strength" is an excellent foundation book for all kinds of athletic desires. Does one need specific training also for all kinds of specific directions? You bet, it just sets a good foundation!

Blogger sappbe May 05, 2017 9:14 PM  

I've not read all the comments, but as man whose squat and deadlift went up a total of around 700 lbs following the Starting Strength message I can't be happier to see the truthal convergence of Voz and Rip

Blogger Jose May 05, 2017 9:23 PM  

Team Elitefts on this topic (science as seen by lifters):

https://www.elitefts.com/training-logs/the-problem-with-science/

And at the risk of giving many here anaphylactic shock, you could always use the alleged high IQs of this crowd and read "Body by Science" by Doug McGuff and John Little

Blogger Lazarus May 05, 2017 10:08 PM  

rufusdog wrote:Having watched that I am convinced weight loss is simply a matter of will power and motivation.

Given that no matter what you do, the outcome is death, sometimes a lingering and horrifying death, motivation requires a short time preference. I.e., don't look up, head down, and sveeep,sveep! (Russian curling shout reference)

Anonymous Sheiko29 May 05, 2017 11:17 PM  

I've only ever seen SS promoted as a starting point. No one expects it to aid in any particular aesthetic goal. Though I have it on good authority traps are the new abs.

The great thing about powerlifting it is very, very obvious what is working and what is not. Listen to the guys putting up 1500+ totals. Disregard the 1000 lbs. club. Give special deference to guys names Boris or Konstantīns.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 06, 2017 3:48 AM  

dc.sunsets wrote:I reiterate my personal metaphor for knowledge:

1. I'm in a darkened warehouse, the sum of all possible knowledge, and my personal knowledge is represented by a flashlight. The area I can illuminate is what I know.

2. I can't see the ceiling or any wall, but my sense of the size of the warehouse is that it's vast.

3. When I acquire more knowledge, my flashlight gets brighter so I can illuminate more of the area.

4. The paradox is, as I illuminate more, my sense of the size of the total warehouse rises exponentially. My increase in knowledge comes with the realization that my fraction of the total actually shrank.


Nice one!

My personal metaphor is of my knowledge and understanding as like an amoeba, with protuberances where I have expertise, and where my awareness of what I don't know is the surface area.

Mine hhas the advantage of including the newspaper problem (getting mad at all the inaccuracies in one article on something you know a lot about, then turning the page and believing an article on something else).

But I do like yours for emphasizing the lack of constraints; we have never seen the warehouse walls and have no rational reason to believe that we ever will, so their very existence is mere speculation.

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 06, 2017 8:44 AM  

Sheila4g:

What specifically are you trying to accomplish, in terms of gaining/losing fat in specific areas?

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 06, 2017 8:57 AM  

Nate:

Be aware that the number of calories "burned per day" is a rapidly declining number in most who are dieting strictly and that it will plummet more rapidly than scale weight will suggest after you start dieting.

For a fun exploration of what happens with extreme and prolonged dieting, read The Great Starvation Experiment by Todd Tucker.

Anonymous Avalanche May 06, 2017 8:59 AM  

@190 "read "Body by Science" by Doug McGuff and John Little"

Second, third, and fourth on read "Body by Science"! Doug also have beaucoup de vids online -- including great lectures.

This lecture, NOT on lifting, esp. should hit Alt Righters where we live! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j8qDwR56DA "Fitness, Health, and Liberty" Doug McGuff M.D.

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 06, 2017 9:22 AM  

bobbybobbob:

I agree. An example of what I object to is found here: https://youtu.be/MZn0OJvBv7c

Caption: "Rip explains how the leg press can be used to quickly and effectively get the detrained public strong enough for barbell squats."

As one who progressed from a safe and effective quad & glute exercise (leg presses) to an effective but less safe quad & glute exercise (squats), injured myself repeatedly & then headed back to the leg press & other safer variants, I very much wish I could have "skipped step 2" and I have newfound respect for those in the training world who make injury avoidance of prime importance.

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 06, 2017 9:31 AM  

Avalanche:

That is IMHO the best talk available on that topic; Karen De Coster's brief write-up is also memorable: http://karendecoster.com/the-early-stages-of-obamacare.html

If you like Doug McGuff, Michael Petrella's Youtube Channel may be of interest; here is an interview with natural bodybuilder and trainer Joshua Trentine regarding slow, controlled HIT:

https://youtu.be/sq1muFKlZ2s

BTW--there are pauses for commercial breaks (for broadcast purposes) in the video. Just wait them out.

Blogger Bone Daddy Dawg May 06, 2017 9:57 AM  

GracieLou:

While the "butthole" pic was a memorable photoshop forgery, On May 2, 2002 bodybuilder Jean-Pierre Fux did suffer catastrophic injuries to both of his legs while attempting to perform a set of squats with 675lbs during a photoshoot for FLEX magazine: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=141290741

Why he chose to do squats within a rack, but not use the safety bars, I do not know.

If there was some other leg press accident you were referring to instead, I don't think I've seen that.

Blogger M Cephas May 06, 2017 10:26 PM  

"when the theory is put into application and it fails, this is fairly strong evidence that the theory, i.e. the science, is incorrect."

Of course in much of science, when something doesn't work, instead of admitting the theory is wrong, or that they may need to rethink their foundational beliefs, they invent things to make the equations work, or invent them to explain away the results of an experiment they don't like.

Like in the case of dark energy that they can't detect, or see, but they just know it has to be there or else their theory is wrong. Or the Lorentz contraction because the Michelson-Morley experiment showed a result that went against the Copernican principle.

1 – 200 of 201 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts