Wednesday, August 15, 2012

The Half-Life of Credibility



There is an expansive disconnect between internet fitness communities and reality. That they wish to dispel commonly held myths perpetuated by marketers and magazines is admirable. Their noble intent, however, does not mitigate the damage done by their fallacious convictions.

There are many highly educated (though unfit and inexperienced) people online, who consider themselves knowledgeable because they have familiarized themselves with a few strength training manuals. Because these people are likely to be fairly successful in their professional or academic lives, they believe themselves inherently competent, especially through the anonymity of the internet. They form in loose confederations of equally uninformed "regular" people, and are quick to declare their superiority over experienced athletes and trainers, who are obviously stupid, as evidenced by their large muscles.

I do not wish to incite my loyal haters, I merely want to explain why none of what they say is true. What very often happens is that facts are well researched, but context, peripheral knowledge, and experience are nonexistent. This inevitably leads to causality by convenience (which I will address at length in my next piece), and confirmation bias.

Almost every commonly held [false] belief is a reductionist interpretation, or improper attribution, of an otherwise legitimate parcel of information.

Reductionism

These ideas are the universally accepted tenets of Bro-ology. They generally involve only a single step in transforming a fact into a conveniently applicable meme.

Fact: Several studies have shown that MTOR response in healthy untrained adult males rises incrementally to protein consumption at 10, 20, and 30 grams, but a similar increase was not witnessed at 40 grams.

Fiction: Can't digest more than 30 grams at a time, brah. Body can't handle it. 

I don't have time or desire to cite the hundreds of other examples, but I am sure you're all familiar with them.

Theory by Convenience

These ideas are those held by the "elite" of untrained nerds with inordinate egos. The sort of garbage you'll find on fitness forums everywhere. Contest any of it, and you're pretty much guaranteed to receive negative reputation. How dare you.

These elaborate jokes generally involve a multi-step approach, where the original [factual] parcel of information is selectively interpreted, then assumed (this is where knowledge and experience would be helpful) to be directly or indirectly causal to all things convenient. Any facts which run counter to the selective interpretation are collectively ignored, and therefore do not exist.

Fact: Essential Amino Acids are required for positive nitrogen balance.

Plausible: We should only count complete protein sources when we set intake goals.

Unlikely: We should try to restrict incomplete protein sources, as they work against our caloric allotment with no discernible benefit.

Fiction: We should eliminate incomplete protein sources, as they can be synthesized internally. 

Of course, they can be synthesized internally, but that line of reasoning completely ignores the biological implications of such a process. The "regular guy" sees all loose ends tied, because he doesn't have the slightest idea what protein synthesis entails, and he interprets "can be synthesized internally" as "great, I don't have to worry about it".

Instead of giving a lecture on deamination, I would ask our internet experts a few questions:

1. What source of nitrogen will be used to create nonessential aminos?

2. Will your hair and nails continue to grow if you remove nonessential aminos from your diet? Will your skin retain its elasticity?

3. If you start an account with $200, and the bank takes $20 to cover its own expenses, do you still have a balance of $200?

Obviously, you do, as the bank can just synthesize its own money.

















1 comment: