Probably because 98.6 degrees F is exactly 37 degrees C, whereas 98.2 degrees F is 36.7777 degrees C.

It was probably easier to remember 37 degrees than 36.7777 degrees.

Also the Wikipedia page says 98.6 is the “commonly accepted average core body temperature” whereas 98.2 is the “average oral (under the tongue) measurement”. So your premise might be wrong.

Actually the WP article goes on to justify that “98.6 degrees F is an inappropriately exact conversion of Wunderlich’s 19th century announcement that the human body temperature is 37 degrees C”.

Hal: We should not. However, I read Robin’s post differently. It was the authorities who prevented runners from drinking water. Why have a rule saying runners can’t drink until the 11 km mark unless some (or many) runners would have intended to drink water? I suspect many runners DID want to drink water. Yet they were prevented from doing so by Know Everything Experts.

With bodybuilding, experts tell people who have built large muscles, essentially, that those bodybuilders are “doing it wrong.” That’s a peculiar argument. Even if we want to say that we can’t assume bodybuilders have protein requirements figured out, don’t we have a serious issue of burden of proof?

f everyone (and excluding some odd balls, it really is everyone) with big muscles eats a high-protein diet: Shouldn’t the experts be required to put forth a compelling case proving that the protein was unnecessary? As Hume would say: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A claim that everyone with large muscles somehow made some mistake seems, to me, to be an extraordinary claim. Do you disagree?

To prove this extraordinary claim, experts show you cups off pee. “Look a the nitrogen in this urine!”

Is that an appropriate way to meet one’s burden of proof?

So while this discussion might have seemed off topic, I think it’s not. Here, there is a large group of people who have found success. Experts consider this large group of people as ignoramuses. Experts want this group of successful people to change their eating habits based on the nitrogen content of urine.

How typical!

This figure was determined in 1861.

It’s wrong. A 1992 study found the actual value to be 98.2 degrees F.

Why did it take us so long to figure this out?

Given that the long distance running community could make such a mistake, why should we believe that bodybuilders are immune? Isn’t it just as possible that the beliefs of bodybuilders are as much folklore as reality, based in tradition more than testing? In my experience, such beliefs are almost immune to falsification. If a bodybuilder ups his protein intake but still can’t increase mass, this isn’t viewed as evidence against the value of protein. Instead, a myriad of excuses will be offered: he didn’t work out hard enough, or he ate too much bad food, or some other aspect of his program was wrong.

Plus there are problems due to expectation effects. If someone believes eating high protein will help them, maybe they subconsciously work out harder when they eat that way. Or consider the long distance runners, I’ll bet plenty of runners tried drinking water while training and felt sick afterwards, confirming their expectations. Beliefs can be very influential and it is hard to untangle them from results. That’s why the double blind placebo controlled study was invented.

Alex: The study you cited involved “novice bodybuilders.” If you Google [newbie gains,] you’ll see the problem with studying a group of novices. A gym novice can do amazing things, including gaining muscle while losing fat – which is nearly impossible for an advanced trainee to do without use of steroids. An informed person would not have even studied a group of novice. That the authors of the study didn’t even realize how using a sampling of newbies would skew the results, alas, illustrates the ignorance of people studying these issues.

It’s been a good discussion, nonetheless. Thank you.

I’m confident that other similar studies exist. Since you have such a clear interest and financial stake in the matter and I have neither, feel free to carry on the literature review at your leisure.

Mitchell: Good obseration. The difference between “expert on” and “expert at”, perhaps?

Here is what they do. Some scientist determine that a given number is a positive nitrogen balance. The further conclude that a positive nitrogen balance is all that is needed for anabolism. They they reason: If there is a positive nitrogen balance at x-grams of protein per day, then more protein is not needed.

What the studies do not do is something that would be very simple to do:
Control group: Give them 50 grams of supplemental dextrose powder or other placebo.
Protein group: Give them 50 grams of protein.

Follow the groups for 6 to 12 months. Determine who has actually gained more muscle mass.

Again, that is not what the studies do. Instead, some lab guys come up with a formula. Heck, read the study your cited. There are a lot of formulas. Where are the bodies?
http://www.purdue.edu/swo/healthshop/nutrition/HealthyWeightGain/ProteinReqAndSupplInStrengthSports.pdf

When you come up with a formula, it’s easy to conclude that everyone else (including successful people) is wrong. However, bodybuilding is not cosmology or futurism. With sports nutrition, you can test the validity of your theories by seeing what happens with actual, human bodies.

If you know of any studies that actually look at protein intake and body composition involving humans and actual muscle gain over time, I’d love to see them. I spend quite a bit of money on protein-rich foods. Save me some money, please.

“As far as I can tell, the situation is exactly the opposite of what you claim. ‘High protein for strength athletes” is similar to ‘no water during exercise’; assumed to be true, even obvious, only to be falsified by later study.’”

In the history of bodybuilding, people started off with higher carbs and lower protein. The dogma was that one needed higher carbs. It was only after bodybuilders experimented with high protein diets that the high-protein “dogma” was established.

The study you cite is a great example of the theory-practice dichotomy that exists in science. People come up with formulas and test urine for nitrogen rather than observe actual body compositions in subjects. If the end goal is to determine what puts actual muscle on a body, why are people staring at cups of fee instead of flexing biceps?

Again, bodybuilding involves real people gaining (or not) on muscle. Wouldn’t it be more reliable to observe whether a person gains muscle than test urine based on assumptions of what that urine shows?