I'm really sick of the fact that whenever debates escalate a bit - like the old protein/carb or cardio/strengthtraining debate - into interesting discussion, people back up their statements with links to articles on the interent.

This is crapola! Anyone can put anything on the interent. There's interesting stuff out there, links are great to follow and over time, they help you build informed opinion. But some personal trainer giving your nutrition advice, or some doctor espousing his high Protein theories is not irrefutable scientific proof. For every opinon disguised as fact that you find, you'll find one to refute it.

Every one of us is living proof that some theories are wrong. Some of us get nowhere near the protein recommendations that are current and are perfectly healthy. Some of us never exercise and lose TONS of weight. Some of us eat 600 calories a day and lose NO weight.

Lets all have our opinions, and lets all discuss them and even fight about them occasionally. Lets all read lots of things to inform ourselves. But I'm going to cyberpunch the next person who tells me that he/she is RIGHT because look at this article, it says so!

If only passing a bachelor degree was that easy! I'd have been done in a year.

Great post, Jacqui. Did you find it on the internet?

This is my opinion; if people have to link articles to things that THEY think are right, they obviously don't have enough information on the subject anyway. If you can't express your ideas clearly and precisely, what's the point of posting? Make your opinion your own, not someone else's. And don't say it's to back up what you are saying. Someone just thought of saying something better than you!!

Now I don't mind if people post articles for how your body works, but when it says that scientists SUPPOSEDLY found the "fat" gene, "skinny" gene, "why-I-eat-everything" gene, I just walk away.

So are you saying it's not Matthew, Mark, Luke and Jacqui?

I'm really sick of the fact that whenever debates escalate a bit - like the old protein/carb or cardio/strengthtraining debate - into interesting discussion, people back up their statements with links to articles on the interent.

So you would rather people just made declarations without backing them up at all? I'm sorry, but that's silly.

So are you saying it's not Matthew, Mark, Luke and Jacqui?

****Snort*****

I'm really sick of the fact that whenever debates escalate a bit - like the old protein/carb or cardio/strengthtraining debate - into interesting discussion, people back up their statements with links to articles on the interent.

This is crapola! Anyone can put anything on the interent. There's interesting stuff out there, links are great to follow and over time, they help you build informed opinion. But some personal trainer giving your nutrition advice, or some doctor espousing his high Protein theories is not irrefutable scientific proof. For every opinon disguised as fact that you find, you'll find one to refute it.

Every one of us is living proof that some theories are wrong. Some of us get nowhere near the protein recommendations that are current and are perfectly healthy. Some of us never exercise and lose TONS of weight. Some of us eat 600 calories a day and lose NO weight.

Lets all have our opinions, and lets all discuss them and even fight about them occasionally. Lets all read lots of things to inform ourselves. But I'm going to cyberpunch the next person who tells me that he/she is RIGHT because look at this article, it says so!

If only passing a bachelor degree was that easy! I'd have been done in a year.

Seriously, I do get what you're saying. Common sense should go further than it does. I daresay anybody can support almost any crackpot theory by having another loon validate it for them on the internet. When it comes to weightloss, or just health in general, there are very very few absolutes. What is true (or works) for one person may not be true (or not work) for another.

I am one of those in complete agreement with what is said here.

In 1998, I said "the internet is the electronic Tower of Babel, giving us common language, and if not used right, will be the downfall of society." Strangely enough, that extremely wonderful, 10 year old statement never caught on.

The net does have the capability of putting real information at our fingertips, but as easy as it is for the internet, with other computer technologies, to make any idea seem authentic, people need to take what they find out there with a grain of salt. If not, we could go into this coming election season seeing that Barack Obama is not really a legal American Citizen, and Sarah Palin is really the grandmother of her son, Trig (both internet RUMORS with no basis in fact).

No, the net is not gospel.

We need to look at the net like reporters of old looked at things... varifying our sources before we spread the rumors.

So you would rather people just made declarations without backing them up at all? I'm sorry, but that's silly.

Of course not Mac, but back them up with CREDIBLE information. Some unheard of personal trainer or e-book is not credible information. It wouldnt stand up in an academic sense and anyone who believes it completely is a fool.

There's people out there who believe that coconut oil is the answer to the world's obesity woes. The Weston A Price Foundation advocates a diet crammed to the brim with full fat dairy as the key to health. There's multiple websites for both that sound logical and quite convincing. You can find websites that prey on your emotions, convincing you that you're endangering your baby's health by using disposable diapers and there's websites debunking that completely. Should you use petroleum byproducts on your baby's skin, or dust them with baby powder? Apparently your baby girl will develop ovarian cancer if you do that. And using shampoo will send your kids blind.

There's probably a grain of truth in all of it, as there is with nutritional and exercise theory. You dont absorb Vitamin A and D as well without the fat that comes with dairy for sure. But you might avoid dying of a stroke if you dont shove your arteries full of saturated fat your entire life too!

Lets not even get into whether global warming exists or not.

...back them up with CREDIBLE information. Some unheard of personal trainer or e-book is not credible information. It wouldnt stand up in an academic sense and anyone who believes it completely is a fool.

I agree with you! If it's not credible, don't post it. Anyone who believes it is just too desperate and emotionally screwed up to actually lose weight properly.

If you are an actual consumer of said product, though, posting an argument is okay. Let them try to think what they want until we show them the correct way to think. That's kind of our job as a help/support system, though, is it not?

Oh, speaking of the fantastic things we always thought was credible and wasn't...try Vitamin C! No more thoughts that it helps the common cold! HA!

Of course not Mac, but back them up with CREDIBLE information. Some unheard of personal trainer or e-book is not credible information. It wouldnt stand up in an academic sense and anyone who believes it completely is a fool.

But because they posted their link, you can now accurately judge their source. If they don't post it, they can say something like "according to a noted nutritional expert" and you'd have no idea.

So are you saying it's not Matthew, Mark, Luke and Jacqui?

ha!!!! LOL, cute brandy.

take jachut's position another step...

RULES - there are no rules - just guidelines ... at least that was my discharge paperwork header stated, "Guidelines". it's become quite comical when a question is posed, and you answer based on your experience and your path. to be told your breaking the rules is just nonsense. your rules are your rules, my guidelines are those that i follow or change up. there is no absolute.

my husband is also banded, we don't even follow the same exact guidelines - because we're different and our bodies don't react the same to a "certain" diet or exercise.

when i ask a question - as i did in the thread i believe peeved J off; i didn't get a reply - just links to a well crafted document that didn't explain a scientific question i had. so, i have come to believe here, that many are asking questions for those to only answer that share the same opinion. i'm getting better at sniffing those out, and will pass onto the next thread...

But because they posted their link, you can now accurately judge their source. If they don't post it, they can say something like "according to a noted nutritional expert" and you'd have no idea.

I agree with Mac. By reading the links we can judge whether the post has credibility or not.

This is my opinion; if people have to link articles to things that THEY think are right, they obviously don't have enough information on the subject anyway. If you can't express your ideas clearly and precisely, what's the point of posting? Make your opinion your own, not someone else's. And don't say it's to back up what you are saying. Someone just thought of saying something better than you!!

Have to respectfully disagree here - I'm fine with reading (or posting) someone else's explanation of something, and not assuming it's because they can't speak for themselves. I also don't consider it "back up." I consider it someone saying something in a much clearer, elegant way than I could. I tend to explain in analogy, and that just doesn't work for some people.

What comes to mind are occasions when we're debating something fairly complex/scientific (used to a lot, not sure if that happens here anymore). I can hope that my own post full of typos and general mistakes that happen when my fingers move faster than my brain is coherent to someone, and take the 30+ minutes it might take me to explain, say, String Theory or M-Theory or GUT. Or, I can pull up a site I have bookmarked that provides a very clear, coherent and concise explanation and paste it, saving myself the time. I understand all 3 theories, but it saves so much time, effort, etc. Teachers understand their material, generally, but still use textbooks and lecture guides to explain the subject materials.

A few years ago we were debating the idea of fundamental creationism. I asked how that concept would account for scientific "knowns" such as the speed of light and the oldest lights we can see in the universe. I really didn't know how the theory accounted for such things. Rather than take the time it would require to give me an explanation in her own words, the poster sent me a good article that went into the mathematics and physics to address the question I had just asked. I had no problems with that, as long as I knew whether it was just "an article" or "an artice that explained her thoughts." I also would never have assumed she "didn't know her stuff" if she had been unable to provide me with the calculations the pshycists used.