# Deconstruction of Health Articles



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

I think it would beneficial to a lot of people here, including myself if one of the science minded members could post up (or a submission) a weekly health related news story and then deconstruct it to show what the actual truth is behind the headline.

If you think it's a good idea then nominate someone who you think would be perfect for the job.

I nominate: @dtlv @bayman


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Well this is a popular idea... maybe if I'd titled this thread "Deconstruction of Heat Magazine Articles" it would probably be on page 10 by now. I thought this was a body-building forum!

I don't want to leave, do you guys know of any other forums where there is a strong focus on nutrition and training by educated members? PM me.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

rectus said:


> Well this is a popular idea... maybe if I'd titled this thread "Deconstruction of Heat Magazine Articles" it would probably be on page 10 by now. I thought this was a body-building forum!
> 
> I don't want to leave, do you guys know of any other forums where there is a strong focus on nutrition and training by educated members? PM me.


slimming world .

laterz bro .


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Think it's a very good idea, as so many go way over my head (not hard I know).

Just the conclusions & findings broken down so we can digest them. Some of them have good headings, I read them & am no wiser.

Then go down the gym & pretend we know lots too.


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

rectus said:


> Well this is a popular idea... maybe if I'd titled this thread "Deconstruction of Heat Magazine Articles" it would probably be on page 10 by now. I thought this was a body-building forum!
> 
> I don't want to leave, do you guys know of any other forums where there is a strong focus on nutrition and training by educated members? PM me.


heat magazine have a great nutrition and traning section

if you click on their home page, scroll down past the big busty women section it's right before the animals who look like celebrities board


----------



## User Name (Aug 19, 2012)

rectus said:


> I don't want to leave, do you guys know of any other forums where there is a strong focus on nutrition and training by educated members? PM me.


Mens Health? :rolleye:


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

rectus said:


> Well this is a popular idea... maybe if I'd titled this thread "Deconstruction of Heat Magazine Articles" it would probably be on page 10 by now. I thought this was a body-building forum!
> 
> I don't want to leave, do you guys know of any other forums where there is a strong focus on nutrition and training by educated members? PM me.


Meeeow


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

in all fairness its easier to say what people need and ignore the rest.

focus on compound movements with a frequency of each body part for 2x a week.

Start with 2 lower rep compound movements each workout with the aim of increasing the weight lifted from the previous session. Fill in the rest ofthe workout with higher rep work compounds and isolations targetting weakness. Aim for the for the most volume you can handle and recover FULLY for your next work out. Best to avoid failure too often to facilitate this.

for diet. Eat 1g protein per lb body weight, 60-80 grams of good quality animal fats (ideal fish) and fill in the of your macros how you wish with the best quality food you can and aim for the correct number of calories to gain muscle with minimal fat gains or loss far with minimal fat loss.

thats it. You never need buy a fitness magazine again.

Of course there will be variations that work better for others, but if you start from there as your base point and experiment with instinct/trial and error you will do far better than what you will read in most cases


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

rectus said:


> I think it would beneficial to a lot of people here, including myself if one of the science minded members could post up (or a submission) a weekly health related news story and then deconstruct it to show what the actual truth is behind the headline.
> 
> If you think it's a good idea then nominate someone who you think would be perfect for the job.
> 
> I nominate: @dtlv @bayman


Health articles as opposed to bodybuilding ones? That would surely be good, but bear in mind that most people here are either less concerned with health than aesthetic goals and so have limited interest, or are interested but don't have the same understanding of health issues outside of bodybuilding related science to be able to confidently analyse the articles.

That said the general bunk in most articles is easily spotted when references and claims made are checked against each other... what shocks me is how many times authors write definitively upon a topic, but when you check the studies claimed to say one thing the conclusion by the researchers themselves or the greater body of evidence is often totally different.

Some well regarded 'scientific' sites and bloggers are very guilty of using references badly like that... you can usually tell the ones who bullsh!t by the writing style... some other common signs that an article might be shyte -


Use definitive terms such as 'proof' and talk as if conclusions are definitive with science having nothing left to investigate or disgaree over - "carbs are proven to be the cause of diabetes"...or "scientists have long time abandoned the theory that saturated fat intake is a factor in heart disease"

Use of conversational writing designed to impress and to pad the article out - "I was talking with wonder scientist mr x bsc phd about this and he explained it to me over breakfast on a beautiful LA morning..."

Appealing to paranoia and the idea you have just been given some secret knowledge to make a point sound more valid - "of course the FDA are in league with big business GM food suppliers so don't want you to hear this...".... or "many scientists are not yet aware of this definitive work and still think things are as they were in the seventies text books they learned from"

No or little mention of evidence for alternate interpretations, or where it is mentioned a degree of scrutiny is applied to the tiniest details in it that just isn't applied to the same level to info used as supporting evidence.


Basically a good scientific article will have few definitive statements, a lot of references, will most likely start with some kind of comment like "new research suggests..." rather than anything sensationalist and will conclude most likely with some kind of comment discussing where the current level of evidence/ability to interpret is still lacking and the direction in which recent discoveries might lead future research.


----------



## Pain2Gain (Feb 28, 2012)

This has epic fail written all over it, sorry Rectus


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

dtlv said:


> Health articles as opposed to bodybuilding ones? That would surely be good, but bear in mind that most people here are either less concerned with health than aesthetic goals and so have limited interest, or are interested but don't have the same understanding of health issues outside of bodybuilding related science to be able to confidently analyse the articles.
> 
> That said the general bunk in most articles is easily spotted when references and claims made are checked against each other... what shocks me is how many times authors write definitively upon a topic, but when you check the studies claimed to say one thing the conclusion by the researchers themselves or the greater body of evidence is often totally different.
> 
> ...


Well diet/health all relates back to bodybuilding doesn't it? We all want to eat the best foods and take the best supplements for optimal growth and health. So to be specific about it, diet related articles that could be useful to a bodybuilder. I like the bullet points, some good things to look for. Reading Ben Goldacer's Bad Science really opened my eyes to a lot of what you're saying, incredible book.


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)

@Ashcrapper


----------



## Ashcrapper (Jul 3, 2008)

rectus said:


> Well this is a popular idea... maybe if I'd titled this thread "Deconstruction of Heat Magazine Articles" it would probably be on page 10 by now. I thought this was a body-building forum!
> 
> I don't want to leave, do you guys know of any other forums where there is a strong focus on nutrition and training by educated members? PM me.


I can send you a link to a site selling shovels so you can get that sand out of your vagina?


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> Meeeow


hahaha don't worry, I wasn't having one of those mental breakdowns you see on forums every now and then. It's just a little frustrating when you post a topic related to diet or exercise and it gets a luke warm response, where as @Milky posting a topic about what colour socks he wears gets all the attention*



Pain2Gain said:


> This has epic fail written all over it, sorry Rectus


hah why do you say that? Don't you think it's a good idea? It will give the forum a bit more focus I think. I love all the science based posts I read on here (though the majority is just broscience of course) so it would be good to promote that idea a bit more.

*Not a dig at Milky


----------



## TG123 (Apr 10, 2012)

rectus said:


> where as @Milky posting a topic about what colour socks he wears gets all the attention*


I'd guess white, black for formal occasions


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

The problem is IMO people come on here as much for a laugh as to learn.

The other problem being all scientific evidence gets contradicted by other people.


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)

Milky said:


> The problem is IMO people come on here as much for a laugh as to learn.
> 
> The other problem being all scientific evidence gets contradicted by other people.


to many people quote scientific literature aimed to ill or other so affected indeviduals, we all know whats written on paper isnt always the case in real life


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Milky said:


> The problem is IMO people come on here as much for a laugh as to learn.
> 
> The other problem being all scientific evidence gets contradicted by other people.





zack amin said:


> to many people quote scientific literature aimed to ill or other so affected indeviduals, we all know whats written on paper isnt always the case in real life


Of course, but I'd take the scienfitic information over the other option. Though there are times where anecdotal evidence is all we have so we have to go with that.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Milky said:


> The problem is IMO people come on here as much for a laugh as to learn.
> 
> The other problem being all scientific evidence gets contradicted by other people.


The thing with scientific evidence being used contradictively is that true science never says 'this is the answer' it just says 'the collective body of evidence so far available suggests'.... anyone who quotes scientific literature just to prove a point and without acknowledging alternate evidence, theories or limitations isn't being scientific (quoting scientific literature by itself doesn't make an argument scientific).


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)

rectus said:


> Of course, but I'd take the scienfitic information over the other option. Though there are times where anecdotal evidence is all we have so we have to go with that.


personally i wouldnt, i like to use what i feel safe and ive tested, for example and this isnt slating anybody because the evidence supplied is often well written and backed up, but some like aus using 2-300 mg abombs daily and the medical advice he says for aids patients is 1.2-2mg per lb of bw i believe, in aids patients,

but would i **** use a dose like that lol, maybe cause i couldnt handle it, but primarily because its aimed at aids patients who in my eyes have a greater chance of dieing due to the aids then they will off liver cancer or disease due to the the abomb use,


----------



## Beklet (May 13, 2005)

Science for Smart People is worth a giggle, and the posts on www.fathead-movie.com, www.rawfoodsos.com and http://www.zoeharcombe.com/blog/


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Alan Aragon does this for a living. Look him up


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Beklet said:


> Science for Smart People is worth a giggle, and the posts on www.fathead-movie.com, www.rawfoodsos.com and http://www.zoeharcombe.com/blog/


I've seen Science for Smart People and Fat-Head, I thought they were very good.



simonthepieman said:


> Alan Aragon does this for a living. Look him up


Yeah I know the guy, seen a couple of videos and articles by him. Smart chap.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

whilst not nutrition of training. Anyone who wants to learn how to objectively look at science should read stuff by Ben Goodacre


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

simonthepieman said:


> whilst not nutrition of training. Anyone who wants to learn how to objectively look at science should read stuff by Ben Goodacre


*Goldacre. Yeah I mentioned him above, Bad Science is an amazing read. He did a TED lecture last year:

Video http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html


----------



## Beklet (May 13, 2005)

gnolls.org, though he doesn't post much anymore


----------

