Bikeforumuser0022

lil brown bat wrote:
You claiming no evidence proves you haven't read the book.

Both the author and his father were MDs who studied, tested, and refined their theories.... for TWO generations.

I know MDs who have used the books. Their results agree.

The recommendations in the book worked for me, and others I know.

Like I said, I believe evidence over "scientific" pronouncements.

Yet about 15 years ago a lab technician ranted at me for a long time that blood type has nothing to do with how food is processed in the body. There was no changing what she learned in school... even when she witnessed my better health.

“You will never change someone’s mind just because you have facts and results on your side. People will stubbornly cling to a welded-in belief... even when it clearly is hurting them.” - John Carlton

lil brown bat, I APOLOGIZE for insulting you by saying you don't know what you're talking about. That was mean of me, and unwarranted. I'm sorry.

As for your citings, on the interweb one can find pro and con on any subject. That you or anybody else who can post stuff on a website choose to believe or not to believe it... well, bumblebees can't fly.

I've read on another subject at quackwatch, and arrived at a conclusion.

The witch burners at quackwatch are obsessed with destroying anything that doesn't involve drugs or technology. They are terrified of anything that in their narrow-minded view threatens the western medicine pharmaceutical monopoly.

Barrettscv 

This is exactly my concern.

What I am gathering is that I should avoid junk food but eat & drink what I need as an active person. Based on the info, I'm using about 2000 calories a day when sedentary and about 3200 calories a day when biking 20 miles a day. I’ll lose weight if I consume less than 3200 calories per day, but I will need to eat right or I could “Bonk” at work.

Michael

Spartan112

The weight is impressive...I still don't recognize those as hills.

noteon 

And LOTS of water. More than people who don't bicycle.

I think the bottom line is that you figure it out as you go. Nobody in this forum actually knows what works best for you, no matter how insistently they make their cases. Just try stuff that makes sense to you and see how it goes. When you screw up, go another way.

noteon 

Then you're not looking far enough to the right.

And you're also missing the main point:

Low carb, 28 miles, daily, feel good, think clearly, no bonk. That means telling people they will bonk if they go on a low-carb diet is questionable advice, at best.

I don't know whether low-carb will work for the OP, and neither do you.

lil brown bat

It proves nothing of the sort. I have read the book. The author claims he studied this and did
that; he doesn't provide data.

That reasoning says that if I ride down the street wearing a green shirt in the belief that this will keep it from raining, and it remains sunny all the way home, my green shirt is what kept the rain off, and if I'd worn a red shirt it would have dumped buckets. You take an action in the belief that it will cause a certain result, and when you get that result you're sure that your action was the cause, when in fact the chain of causation could be quite different. It's been found that people "get results" on nearly any diet or nutritional system or whateveryouwannacallit, even ones that are diametrically opposed to each other...why? The answer is that while they're all over the map as far as their nutritional soundness, they have one thing in common, and that's that they make people pay attention to what they're eating. This almost always gets results, no matter what the governing principle, because (at least temporarily) it makes a more aware eater -- and that is always a good thing. Followers of the blood type books pay attention to what they eat -- they have to, in order to avoid that nasty toxic-to-me wheat (or whatever). The wheat is just your red shirt, that's all.

Please show me your facts. What you have shown me so far is that you've had "results". You haven't shown me the causation behind them.

Apology accepted.

And you can find plenty of anecdotes speaking positively on the blood type diet -- you just can't find any scientific studies to support it. The con, on the other hand, doesn't just talk of the lack of such studies, but explains the science behind why D'Amato's core assumptions are not valid. It's pretty hard to refute those.

I know you hate it when I quote the interwebs, but here we go again:

According to an account at the Institute of Physics the story was initially circulated in German technical universities in the 1930s. Supposedly during dinner a biologist asked an aerodynamics expert about insect flight. The aerodynamicist did a few calculations and found that, according to the accepted theory of the day, bumblebees didn't generate enough lift to fly. The biologist, delighted to have a chance to show up those arrogant SOBs in the hard sciences, promptly spread the story far and wide.

Once he sobered up, however, the aerodynamicist surely realized what the problem was--a faulty analogy between bees and conventional fixed-wing aircraft. Bees' wings are small relative to their bodies. If an airplane were built the same way, it'd never get off the ground. But bees aren't like airplanes, they're like helicopters. Their wings work on the same principle as helicopter blades--to be precise, "reverse-pitch semirotary helicopter blades," to quote one authority. A moving airfoil, whether it's a helicopter blade or a bee wing, generates a lot more lift than a stationary one.

Now, if you want to disdain science based on a much-repeated anecdote about an offhand comment supposedly made at a dinner party, and believe that that old story means that "you scientific types" generally and continually assert that "bumblebees aren't capable of flight", why, you go right ahead.

mwrobe1

Yeah...I have to agree with that as well. All this low carb is for sedentary people is BS too. It can (and has been) done. Unless you're pulling a metric per day on your commute and you're doing that everyday...you really have nothing to worry about doing a low carb diet; but then again...if you're doing a metric everyday, you probably don't need to lose any weight.

I am still in the process of losing the weight I gained whilst staying around the house more taking care of my wife while she was pregnant with our 2nd. I've commuted just over a 1000 miles since March, eliminated refined sugar (sweets), breads, beans, rice, pasta and potatoes from my diet. I pretty much eat lower carb fruits, all vegetables, beef, chicken, fish, eggs, cheese, and nuts...thats it. I'm down 30 pounds since March of this year (284 down to 254 today...I'm 6'5" if you're curious) My commute is 16 miles one way...the one thing that I DO make sure of, is, that I have plenty of water, and a snack about an hour before I ride (usually the snack is some fruit, nuts, or some beef jerky) I can't say I've bonked at all either.

Spartan112

Yeah, just caught that thing to the right...that's a hill...one hill...

noteon 

Which was never relevant in the first place, unless we're having a macho competition.

I have twin boys.

Your turn.

Bikeforumuser0022

lil brown bat wrote"
The bumblebee story has to be folklore, as does the "flies cannot hear without their wings" story. Both are meant to demonstrate that scientists don't know everything, despite thinking they do.

And now you'll think that because i'm too lazy to find a story or citation to prove that scientists were wrong once, I've just admitted that you're right. So you are.

The red shirt - green shirt argument is similar to the story of the suburban North American who rang a cowbell every night to scare away tigers.

But that's not how it was for me. I paid attention to the book after not one, not two, but three doctors had it on their desks.

ERfYT is not a fad diet, it is an eating lifestyle. I have seen it work -- not only on me, but also on others. And the three physicians I know still use it.

If the author, or me, or anybody -- can't demonstrate to your satisfaction why, does it mean it's not valid? Apparently to you it does. So you're a scientist.

My issue with scientists?

1. Closed minds.

Simply because they can't understand, or can't find "scientific evidence", they dismiss it.

One very senior, well-renowned physician once laughed when i said I was allergic to something. She looked me in the eye and said "Allergies are all in a patient's head".

That's crazy. Plenty of people have no idea they're allergic until their bodies react. Sometimes deadly allergies appear later in life.

2. Belief that drugs and technology are the only answers.

For decades medics laughed at the mention of healthy eating. They'd never expect their cars to run if they pissed in the gas tank, but had no problem saying, "What you eat doesn't matter". Faced with overwhelming -- if not scientific -- evidence, they're finally coming around.

3. Focus on symptoms instead of causes.

Sometimes this method not only works, but also is necessary. Yet killing the symptom doesn't always remove the cause. Allopathic medicine only treats the symptom.

If I'd accidentally consumed what I am allergic to, that aforementioned physician would have ordered core samples (biopsies) and burning (radiation) to control the swelling. Screw that. There are better methods.

4. Fear of losing their monopoly status.

As people (especially baby boomers) increasingly refuse to live with symptoms medics can't fix, they seek out other modalities -- unknown or unacknowledged by medics -- that work. Doing so threatens the scientist's narrow drugs/technology monopoly. Quackwatch represents the worst of that mentality.

bautieri

...snip ...snip

Bing bing bing!

What lil brown bat is pointing out is that correlation does not equal causation. That an a lack of scientific facts which you dismiss as irrelevant. The diet worked for you and thats great, big congratulations on the weight loss .

You've also had some crappy doctors which aren't scientists btw.

bautieri

Aw crap he's trolling isn't he?

*kicks feet in the dirt* I didn't mean to feed the troll.

deraltekluge

Are you sure about that 2000 calories? If it's true, you'd probably gain about a pound a week cycling 20 miles a day and eating 3200 calories. Continue with the 2000 calories, and cycle 20 miles, and you'll probably lose about a pound a week. 1200 calories/day is equivalent to about a pound of fat every three days.

If you want to lose weight, eat less and/or exercise more. Exercising more, and then eating more to make up for it is not a formula for weight loss.

deraltekluge

About the bumblebee flying story...

The "laws" of aerodynamic that aircraft designers used were far from being laws. The were approximations that gave reasonably good results for particular sizes, weights, and speeds of aircraft. For example, you wouldn't try to use the same formulas for a 1000 lb airplane flying at 100 mph as you'd use for a 40,000 lb jet fighter at mach 2.

You'd hardly expect the approximations used for either of them to also be valid for an insect with a mass of a fraction of a gram, flying at a few mph.

lil brown bat

Strawman.

I'd say that if you claim something is wrong, but you won't support it with evidence or proof, your assertion is worth somewhat less than the paper it's not printed on. Damfino exactly what it is you're claiming here, though; the sentences above don't make a lot of sense to me.

Couldn't agree more. So when are you gonna stop ringing that cowbell?

That's nice for you and them; that doesn't make it good science. Look, the "type", uh...lifestyle...whatever you wanna call it...doesn't give advice that is harmful, in most cases. It won't hurt for most people to follow most of its advice. It's just not the case that the results they get from doing so are the result of eating foods that are "right" for their blood type.

You're using the word "valid" in a very sloppy sense. The assertion that certain foods are "right" for an individual based on an individual's blood type is what's not valid, and it isn't valid because it hasn't been validated. Furthermore, neither you, nor the author, nor anybody else has made an attempt to validate it, by supplying evidence in support of said assertion. You won't often succeed at something you don't try.

Bosh, bosh, bosh, bosh.

Barrettscv 

This topic is starting multiple disputes .

First, I stated that my sedentary calorie burn was 2000.

I've lost 30 lbs in 2 months while consuming 2200 calories and working out at the YMCA for 1 hour every other day.

I'm simply going to eat healthy foods in moderation and track if I lose weight by commuting alone. If I'm not losing weight, I'll have to count calories (at the minimum) to achieve my target weight of 200#.

Michael

Spartan112

I'm from Boston...city of champions, your turn...

noteon 

I thought we were comparing masculinity, not poor driving ability.

Massken

hey hey hey, NYC isn't known for its great drivers either...

At least we can all agree that we are better than NJ drivers lol jk/ jk

Spartan112

I'm still trying to figure out what having twins has to do with you masculinity.

noteon 

I'm still trying to figure out what you're even doing in this conversation.

Richard_Rides

This looks like a pretty easy ride, except for the vertical flight stage at the end. That's a near instantaneous altitude gain of 450 feet. And while dragging a 140 pound trailer to boot. I would say you're a world class athlete and perhaps one of the fittest men in the world. Quite inspiring!

bautieri

I take it you've never been a victim of the Pennsylvania pull out have you haha

noteon 

Now that's more like it!

It's not as instantaneous as it looks; the bikeradar.com elevation gizmo could be a little more finely tuned. It's more like a rise of 250 feet, most of which occurs in... I dunno... a quarter mile or so.

Spartan112

Being a pain in your tail.