Why is?

Why is IST anti science now?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Autiatic alt right spergs who think they know bettee than everyone else despite being incel neets that dont have gfs.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >unironically says “alt right”
      I’m so sorry anon, but you’re NGMI

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I already made it. I got a 6'3 bf as a 5'6 manlet.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >gay
          >bottom
          It was over before it even began

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didnt say I was the bottom

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              It’s ok anon, you might as well admit it. You’ve already dug a seriously deep hole for yourself by saying you’re a gay manlet

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              At your size, it's not your decision.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because nutrition literally cannot be empirically studied.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Of course it can it's just lefttards made nutrition experiments with prisoners illegal. You totally could randomly give prisoners either a keto or a high carb or high Sneed oil diet and compare the results after 10, 20 years

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Okay so that scenario controls for diet, exercise, and imperfectly for environment.
        Now control for genetics (race, phenotypes, family history, epigenetics) and life history.
        It's not possible.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, you can't control for everything in any type of experiment; that doesn't mean you can't know something causes something with great certainty, it just means you can't be 100% sure, like with a lot of things.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is not true for all fields of science. You can properly study physics by isolating objects in a vacuum. You can properly study chemistry by isolating compounds.
            YOU CANNOT PROPERLY ISOLATE NUTRITION FROM CONFOUNDING FACTORS unless you created perfect clones, put them in comas when they weren't being experimented on and had them under lock and key surveillance and a perfectly equalized environment for the span of their entire lives up until the experiment was ran.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >This is not true for all fields of science.
              Okay, true; I should've said similar types of experiments.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Because nutrition literally cannot be empirically studied.

          By your stupidly strict criteria nothing can be empirically studied in medicine at all either.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Don't you understand the point of randomization and study design generally?

          If I had a cure for cancer how would I prove it to you?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            problem is probably prison isn't representative of the population

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Of course it can it's just lefttards made nutrition experiments with prisoners illegal. You totally could randomly give prisoners either a keto or a high carb or high Sneed oil diet and compare the results after 10, 20 years

      Nutrition is impossible to study with proper control. Typically the "scientists" don't even control the participants' diets directly, it's just survey.
      But let's say they DID lock the participants in a room and controlled their diet for the span of the experiment, what if...
      >one participant is of Indian ancestry and one is of Inuit, BOOM they have irreconcilable metabolic differences rooted in racial genetics.
      >one has a life history of sedation and junk food while the other has a life history of sports and whole foods, BOOM their digestive system, epigenetics and etc. have irreconcilable differences that interfere with the study.
      >one has a higher or lower genetic likelihood of diseases etc etc etc

      NUTRITION
      CANNOT
      BE
      PROPERLY
      STUDIED

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What do you think about 'CICO'?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't have a heavy handed conclusion on it personally but I certainly have my doubts.
          Right now, and this opinion is flexible, I believe that it's not the best practical tool for manipulation of body composition and weight even though it is technically an infallible expression of energy conservation.
          The problem is that CICO isn't as simple as:
          >calories in means food that's consumed
          >calories out means energy that is burned
          It's more like:
          >calories in means energy absorbed, which is dependent on macronutrient absorption which varies between the three, presence of fiber (which is shown to reduce macronutrient absorption in the gut), baseline hormonal state and hormonal response to the food (simple sugars and fat are more readily stored than starches and protein, and it's a WIDE margin), etc.
          >calories out means any macros you end up excreting instead of storing, thermic response to different foods and macros, etc.

          Your body doesn't actually utilize calories technically, it utilizes macronutrients. Calories are not a good universal currency for the energy obtained from food. However it is an infallible expression of energy conservation, the equation is just so complex that it's a shitty tool PRACTICALLY and you'd be so much better off focusing on macro tracking and food quality.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            holy shit that's the most concise summary I've seen of my general thoughts on the stupid CICO argument I've seen.
            And is that Enji Night? Those thighs look familiar.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yes it's enji.
              And yeah CICO in its layman/marketed form seems like a corporate psyop to encourage consumption of ultra processed foods. It may not be though, since most people are too stupid to understand the complexity of the CICO equation in reality. It's practically false while technically true.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >snatch
            Based anon actually having a go here, you're right it's not as simple as that but it's a rough estimate and as good as it gets. CICO aint everything but it's close enough.
            There's huge amounts of interplay between nutrient uptake, bomb calorimeters simply measure the raw values and aren't exactly precise but they're the best we've got, caloric deficit or gain is how you remove/put on weight

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        See

        [...]

        By your stupidly strict criteria nothing can be empirically studied in medicine at all either.

        >BOOM

        BTFO moron.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          See

          This is not true for all fields of science. You can properly study physics by isolating objects in a vacuum. You can properly study chemistry by isolating compounds.
          YOU CANNOT PROPERLY ISOLATE NUTRITION FROM CONFOUNDING FACTORS unless you created perfect clones, put them in comas when they weren't being experimented on and had them under lock and key surveillance and a perfectly equalized environment for the span of their entire lives up until the experiment was ran.

          Lmao.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thats why you take a large sample size so that the confounding variables are minimized.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >one is of Inuit, BOOM they have irreconcilable metabolic differences rooted in racial genetics
        this is a fantasy. We all have a common carnivorous ancestry

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Try having a sample size bigger than 5, bruh.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It can but you need metabolic wards with 4+ week stays and 100+ total participants, ideally with 1/2/5/10 year follow ups.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        never gonna happen. the only studies like that were done in the 70s and got the "wrong answer"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think it can but we need better tools to observe individual responses to eating.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      it can but it isn't

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    because bro splits work

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ever since the VAX and since i discovered Sandy Hook was israeli Trickery

    THE ~~*SOIENCE*~~ HAS SPOKEN!

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Depends what kind of science we’re talking about. Counting macros, calories, weighing food, etc.? Sure. Pretending an insane man is actually a woman? Nope. I won’t sell my soul and drive it sane people to suicide for some shekels like the doctors/scientists who sold out do

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >anti science
    This forum is all about science. Think of how many people are experimenting with nutrition and workouts and finding what works.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    because "science" in 2024 means "I googled the question and scrolled until I found a study that agreed with me"

    also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
      >t.
      Idiot, to have a 100% replication rate you can do just the same successful studies over and over. If you're going to study new ideas and approaches, your replication rate is going to go plummet.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's not what replication means tho. Replication means the same experiment performed again by different scientists. The rellication crisis is a thing because past studies which (supposedly) produced certain results do not produce the same results when repeated. That's why it's a "crisis"

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Replication means the same experiment performed again by different scientists. The rellication crisis is a thing because past studies which (supposedly) produced certain results do not produce the same results when repeated.
          That's exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe the 'you' instead of 'we' made it confusing.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think you understand what the replication crisis is. Neither did I write that wikipedia article and the hundreds of citations in it, but you probably know better and out thinked all those hecking scientists at their own game.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          And you probably don't know anything which is why you let others do the thinking for you. It's also ironic you appeal to scientists when they are the people who are behind this supposed problem. I wasn't clear with my point in that post so I understand why you think I don't understand the 'crisis'.

          >to have a 100% replication rate you can do just the same successful studies over and over.
          that's literally not what is happening. and that's why it's "a crisis"
          also, most of the time no one even bothers to try replication studies, because it's easier to secure funding and get published and gain prestige when researching something "new". so we don't even know whether the results could be replicated because so few are trying.

          >and that's why it's "a crisis"
          Okay, I realize I wasn't clear. I meant that to achieve 100% replication in a field, you can just do over and over again the studies which already have perfect replication.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you can just do over and over again the studies which already have perfect replication.
            ok??? so what? how is that relevant?
            the "crisis" is the number of studies that can't be replicated, or aren't being replicated.
            replicating the same few studies over and over again would in no way change the amount of studies that haven't been replicated.
            the "crisis" isn't the rate at which the replication fails, as you seem to be under the illusion of. the "crisis" is how many studies go unreplicated.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >to have a 100% replication rate you can do just the same successful studies over and over.
        that's literally not what is happening. and that's why it's "a crisis"
        also, most of the time no one even bothers to try replication studies, because it's easier to secure funding and get published and gain prestige when researching something "new". so we don't even know whether the results could be replicated because so few are trying.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Idiot, to have a 100% replication rate you can do just the same successful studies over and over. If you're going to study new ideas and approaches, your replication rate is going to go plummet.
        >t. midwit who thinks he knows what something is based on just the title

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          There are a huge number of studies that fail at replication when different scientist do them, that's the replication crisis.

          >you can just do over and over again the studies which already have perfect replication.
          ok??? so what? how is that relevant?
          the "crisis" is the number of studies that can't be replicated, or aren't being replicated.
          replicating the same few studies over and over again would in no way change the amount of studies that haven't been replicated.
          the "crisis" isn't the rate at which the replication fails, as you seem to be under the illusion of. the "crisis" is how many studies go unreplicated.

          Frick, I'm bad at explaining myself. If in say, psychology, from now on the tenets (the actual ones) were the only things tested the replication rate could go up to 99.9%. I know the replication crisis is about the number of studies that can't be replicated and I know there is fraud and things like that which are reasons why some studies don't replicate.

          My point is that some studies don't replicate because they're testing out new hypothesis. These studies tend to be small and lack other features high quality trials have plus by virtue of being cutting-edge they're more likely to have some methodological issues that later come to light.

          >If you're going to study new ideas and approaches, your replication rate is going to go plummet.
          There's literally no reason why that would happen.

          If you're talking about direct replication, you're right. However, and maybe I'm wrong, systematic and conceptual replication are much more common than direct replication. Besides that:

          >My point is that some studies don't replicate because they're testing out new hypothesis. These studies tend to be small and lack other features high quality trials have plus by virtue of being cutting-edge they're more likely to have some methodological issues that later come to light.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If you're going to study new ideas and approaches, your replication rate is going to go plummet.
        There's literally no reason why that would happen.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It would happen because you are poking into a less explored area of the phenomenon you are studying, so it's easier to miss some variable you aren't accounting for. Specially as you go deeper into a field, things get usually more complex

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I choose to believe in God، not science.

    Heavenly trips GET

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because science ruined the environment

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence, and absence of evidence is basically what science is when it comes to IST literature in academia.

    Why would I listen to a study that takes 50 DYELs and tells them to workout in a certain way for 6 months (who knows if they're doing the workouts right), when I could listen to several bodybuilders who're huge and have years to decades of experience.

    The science is usually experience from a bunch of dorks who just formally present their opinions in a science journal. It shouldn't have any precedence over bodybuilders explaining what what works for them. Thats why I take the lmaoScience with a grain of salt.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    most "science" is industry propaganda and doesnt represent reality

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Science is for morons. Almost all science today is pseudoscience by definition as well hence the replication crisis. People think pseudoscience means wrong and real science means right but actually it refers to the method by which the science is done, pseudoscience tries to prove things, real science only tries to negate things. Seeking to use science to back up a claim is pseudoscience. Does it turn out correct sometimes? Maybe, but the method is fundamentally not science. Seriously though science is for morons without access to intelligence.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >real science only tries to negate things
      That's an interesting perspective. I thought that a scientific conclusion would need to be capable of being proven wrong with evidence. I think they call that falsifiability. But that science is ONLY negation is new to me.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >pseudoscience tries to prove things, real science only tries to negate things. Seeking to use science to back up a claim is pseudoscience.
      idk about that but there is definitely a major trend in modern "science" where the desider result is decided first, then the methology planned around that. and in worst cases the study thrown out if the two don't match.
      I saw this first hand in academia, not just copying whatever /misc/ said.
      another popular form of modern "science" is to just punch in these giant databases into an algorithm, spotting some correlations, then building your hypothesis around that.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Science needs a certain amount of funding to beat art. When it comes to healthcare or building rockets, there is a lot of funding, so art gets BTFO'd. When it comes to fitness, there is very little funding, so art can still compete.

    By art I mean delying on your feelings and experience. Your own lived experience is basically underfunded science, which is why it gets shit on, too low sample size.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    anyone who tries to shill a scientific "consensus" is anti science. it's the ledditors that turned a method into a religion.
    t. scientist

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We are like literally everyone else. We tend not to be critical of information that agrees with our viewpoint but will pick apart anything that does. It's a pretty universally human problem.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    IST is literally on the same intellectual level as HAES moron lib hamplanets now. Soul crushing to see. American mongoloid politics truly is cancer

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Conflicts with their fantasy world

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    *anti scientists

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The science is queer on this issue.
    I mean clear on this issue.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >gain 40lbs since last summer (185->225)
    >look better and lift more
    >still wearing the same clothes
    The Science says that this isn't possible, but here we are

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      were you wearing shit that was too big for you before, like some kind of jabron?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nope, even at 185 my shirts were snug around the chest and shoulder yoke

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I watched a Richard Feynman clip on pseudoscience, probably 17 years ago, and it really stuck with me. Funny enough he uses nutrition as a example. Way more relevant now, than when I first saw it, or when it was filmed 40 years ago.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    vaxxie vaxxie heart attaxie!!!!

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Science is gay. I trust self experimentation more than some shady study funded by a pharmaceutical company

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Science is the entire reason you morons get to shit on science.

    When a scientist amends his hypothesis, he amends his hypothesis. There's no feelings involved. Only facts.
    God by reduction as not(our entire reality) or that which is unnameable and so forth.
    Jesus Christ, God, Trinity, from what I understand all god forms to be is one of a relationship, which is the antithesis of science. Science seeks knowable truth, not unknowable truths like God.

    Religion plagues life with meaning, whilst science deprives us of it.

    If man has one purpose, it must be entirely to be pick up heavy things up and down, over and over again.
    The science is: amending the facts of your workout, comparing yourself to your previous self. Ultimately fitness, should be equal parts faith + science that things will get better (impetus) and dissection of ones own health system to achieve maximum efficiency of your muscles over one human lifetime.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    because no one here lifts anymore. including you

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    people who gets sports science and physical therapy degrees aren't the brightest, imagine your middle school gym teacher with a phd doing fitness research and that being considered "the science"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      this. unis are just in it for the money and they've created a bunch of worthless disciplines without the all the hardest math and science.

      sport science is just kinesiology and anatomy,
      PT isn't a meme per se but kind of.
      exercise science is just a more generalized kind of sport science
      then there's nutrition and dietetics that has an average IQ of 91.

      speaks for itself. nutrition attracts absolute dumb fricks. look at the raw milk raw meat schizos for example or low carb zealots or ray peat chuds

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because lots of studies are complete garbage. Of course this not because scientists are le ebil israelites, it's because doing studies and posting them in journals is the only way for scientific worker to grow professionally, and when you are low on money, your studies will suck.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Horsewienering big weights>~~*exercise science*~~

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I only care about what works. I don't care about optimal flavor of the month shit. It really doesn't help that as time passes studies contradict each other, or they just go against common logic.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Always was. Only way to grift through actually science is get a PhD to do painstaking research that doesn't lead anywhere. Too much learning, work, and positive impact in the world. Instead we want nofap and keto shilling so we can swindle a bunch of moronic teenagers.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I made no gains for years because I followed the "workout each muscle group every 48-72 hours" methodology that many programs utilize nowadays. Out of frustration, I began taking more rest days in between workouts, 5-6 days for example, and I actually began making gains.

    Science indoctrinates you into the belief that anecdotal evidence is invalid, individual variance is mostly non-existant, and that you must live and die by peer-reviewed essay outcomes

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Scientists don't claim any of that. Please quote the scientific paper that claims you must not ready your muscles for more than 72 hours lmao.
      Anyway, individual variance is acknowledged by scientists, that's why they make experiments with many subjects, otherwise a single subject would be enough for everyone. Anecdotal evidence is not "invalid". It's just that as you pointed out, individual variance might exists, and anecdotal evidence just doesn't control for that.

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because this board ran out of topics years ago and just spins its wheels over and over into madness.

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because of the last 5 years.

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    better question is: when did the science loving homosexualry begin?
    we've known the basics of bodybuilding since forever yet these people want to overcomplicate everything

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's just a cope from genetically inferior nerds

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >be ketard or carnitard
    >no evidence exists that their claims are true
    >therefore all science must be wrong
    That's why. Herd mentality and dogma.

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because science is evil

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most of what scientists do is just torturing animals to see what happens.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *