Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

A 1992 study found the actual value to be 98.2 degrees F.Why did it take us so long to figure this out?

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".

Expand full comment
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

"Given that the long distance running community could make such a mistake, why should we believe that bodybuilders are immune? "

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!

Expand full comment
30 more comments...

No posts