32 Comments

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

"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

My favorite example of this type of blindness is the "normal" temperature of the human body, 98.6 degrees F.

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?

Expand full comment

Mike, I think the point of Robin's story was not that ivory tower scientists in their labs overlook basic truths known by athletes in the field; rather, in this case the athletes themselves were misunderstanding the value of water for distance runners. Apparently, for decades, long distance runners believed that drinking water during races and training was bad for them and avoided water consumption, the opposite of what is now believed to be true. These were athletes who had every incentive to learn the truth, to experiment on themselves and try various things to see what works. A successful strategy would be expected to be copied and widely applied among other competitors. Yet this did not happen, they continued to cling to their accepted beliefs for many years.

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.

Expand full comment

mitchell: Astute observation; bravo! An expert has merely mastered his discipline. What if that discipline is alchemy? Society doesn't ask whether the person's discipline is legitimate. Rather, all society cares about is whether a person is an expert.

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.

Expand full comment

I swear I know how to embed a link !

Expand full comment

Mike: It was difficult to find a randomized trial that didn't involve equations or lab work, but here's one.

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?

Expand full comment

It seems that being an "expert" is sometimes a matter of being expert regarding one's own opinions (or the opinions defining a certain consensus) and the arguments one can offer in their favor, rather than being expert about the reality ostensibly under discussion.

Expand full comment

Alex: Read the fine print in the study you cite: "A review of studies that have examined the protein requirements of strength-trained athletes, ***using nitrogen balance methodology,*** has shown a modest increase in requirements in this group."

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/h...

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?

Expand full comment

1) By "distinct", I meant "separate".2) I'm not an expert.3) No offense taken.

"No one has every put on an appreciable amount of muscle mass while eating low-protein. Outside of some outlier, it can't be done. Even vegetarian bodybuilders must find a way to eat a lot of protein."

A lot of protein, like, perhaps as much as 1.2 g/kg bodyweight/day? That would be plenty, even for someone doing intense strength training. Most people get this much. Please don't assume I'm implying anything more than this. I'm not advocating a low-protein diet, unless you think 1.2g/kg is low protein.

As far as I can tell, the evidence supports this view.

A review of studies that have examined the protein requirements of strength-trained athletes, using nitrogen balance methodology, has shown a modest increase in requirements in this group. At the same time, several studies have shown that strength training, consistent with the anabolic stimulus for protein synthesis it provides, actually increases the efficiency of use of protein, which reduces dietary protein requirements. Various studies have shown that strength-trained athletes habitually consume protein intakes higher than required. A positive energy balance is required for anabolism, so a requirement for “extra” protein over and above normal values also appears not to be a critical issue for competitive athletes because most would have to be in positive energy balance to compete effectively. At present there is no evidence to suggest that supplements are required for optimal muscle growth or strength gain. Strength-trained athletes should consume protein consistent with general population guidelines, or 12% to 15% of energy from protein.Protein requirements and supplementation in strength sports Nutrition, Volume 20, Issue 7, Pages 689-695. S.Phillips

If you think that a greater amount is beneficial, please give a number and your evidence. I don't mind being shown that I'm mistaken, and I'll happily update my opinions if need be.

"The great thing about bodybuilding is that it's observable science. A body is a human laboratory. Give someone x-substance. See if their muscles grow."

... compared to a similar group of participants randomly assigned inert placebo "y", of course. Otherwise there could be other explanations for your observation.

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.

Expand full comment

re: drinking water during exercise

I distinctly remember in eighth grade health class (1991-92) being confidently instructed that drinking water during exercise was unhealthy. We were told that it was extremely important to drink plenty of water before and after exercise, but never during.

And based on my personal experiences in high school (1992-96), it would not surprise me in the least if there are still football coaches out there who insist that drinking water during practice is for wimps and withhold water breaks in order to "toughen up" the players.

Expand full comment

Alex illustrates, unfortunately, all that is falsely taught as "sports science" or "exercise physiology."

For example: "There's also the distinct issue of whether high protein intake is necessary for a bodybuilder." This isn't an issue - let alone a distinct one. It's only an issue among so-called experts.

No one has every put on an appreciable amount of muscle mass while eating low-protein. Outside of some outlier, it can't be done. Even vegetarian bodybuilders must find a way to eat a lot of protein. And yet people still act as this issue is debatable. Or that the tens-of-thousands of people who have built appreciable muscle mass are somehow doing it wrong!

Where are all of these bodybuilders with large muscles who DO NOT eat high protein? Do any exist? How can experts so confidently say that there is a "distinct issue" about protein requirements when they are able to show any bodies built with low-protein diets?

The great thing about bodybuilding is that it's observable science. A body is a human laboratory. Give someone x-substance. See if their muscles grow. There's no abstract math involves. No debates about singularities. It's basic observation. Did the muscles get bigger?

So where are the observable people with large amounts of muscle who eat low-protein? I can point to tens-of-thousands of people who gained appreciable muscle using high protein. Shouldn't the burden be on your professors to establish that high protein is not necessary?

Re: Ketosis. The very Wiki article cited as authority notes: "Two common types are diabetic and alcoholic ketoacidosis."

Yet that ignores that a person can quite healthfully bring himself into a state of ketosis. Ketoacidosis is life-threatened for a diabetic. I can live in ketosis without any problems at all. Indeed, I'm on a low-carb diet. I am in ketosis right now.

If my mom, a diabetic, got into ketosis: She'd be dead in a few hours. I am not a diabetic, though.

That a person can pass a class without recognizing this basic distinction illustrates exactly the type of junk taught in these nutrition and physiology courses. No offense to you, Alex, as it's not your fault that your teacher taught psuedo-science.

Expand full comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

I think it's high protein/low carbohydrate diets that are believed to present a health risk, not simply eating lots of protein.

There's also the distinct issue of whether high protein intake is necessary for a bodybuilder. As far as I remember from my exercise physiology days, the answer is no. Endurance athletes need more protein than is typically part of a modern diet, but bodybuilders usually don't.

A thousand apologies for being off topic. Very interesting post (as always) from Robin.

Expand full comment

Do-gooders sacrifice humans to the god of their personal reputation while sceptics cry "Wait!"; and yet they escape this universe unpunished. This is not news.

Expand full comment

Paul Crowley said, "It seems that in the areas of diet, exercise, and anything else that impacts directly on vanity, good information is incredibly hard to get hold of."This might not apply to atheletes, but I suspect much of it is people wanting to get something-for-nothing; so they tend to look for 'schemes' that will work; rather than accepting the hard effort, clean eating and limitations of genetics.Much the same way get-rich-quick schemes work, I suspect.

Mike said, "As someone into bodybuilding subculture, this has given me a chuckle."I knew Bob Clapp, a 70-something year old body building anarchist, and I used to have a good time listening to his stories about all the total nonsense in popular culture about excercise and body-building specifically. He wrote a 'White Paper' about steroids, as well as a semi-coherent book where he attacks, 'luddites and mystics'.

Expand full comment

i can't wait to see what kinds of similar things are accepted as truth now, but will be ridiculed 25, 50, 100 years down the road.

i think there's already some evidence that the way we think about running shoes needs to change - that current shoes encourage runners to slam their heels against the payment and also cause muscles around the arch to atrophy from disuse. i don't know what a better shoe will look like, but the 2050 article trashing nike shox (even with the ipod insert) is going to be amazing.

Expand full comment