Sometimes people in the gym say to me, "It works for me", when talking about a particular training principle. I say that, if it works for you, it will work for me also, unless I am a monkey or you come from Planet X ! Principles are not to be confused with methods.
If I lift heavy weights, my muscles will respond by getting bigger and stronger within my genetic limits. The size of my skeleton or the length of my tendons will make some exercises more favourable to me in producing results, than to you, but the general principle of muscle overload always applies. The fact is, what affects one healthy human should apply to all others, with minor variations for size or genetics or age or gender, otherwise there would be no medical science.
Before we make general statements about all human beings, we need to test our hypotheses on as wide a sample as possible, It is important in a scientific study to create a large population for testing. The larger the study group and the longer the study and the fewer the variables tested, the more reliable will be the results. We would also require a double-blind study with controlled placebos. Most scientific studies are limited by cost and practicability. The ideal test sample might be all of humankind, but this is virtually impossible to realise, so large samples are usually taken and the results are extrapolated to all people, using statistical analyses.
Recently, I have noticed a few folks on the internet who have run their own experiments. Some are continuing and quite meticulous in their efforts to be accurate and unbiased. While the experimenters carefully and accurately measure and record various biological data e.g. 30 day fasts or nutrition studies followed by photos and detailed graphs of cholesterol, blood and urine tests etc., the fact that there is a study population of n=1, immediately leaves the study's scientific worth open to question.
Critics object that these are not scientifically controlled studies and that is valid, but these experiments have turned up results which should provoke more than criticism. They deserve further study under controlled laboratory conditions, by scientists. Instead, they roll out the usual suspects to explain away the results. Unfortunately, the state of current nutritional / medical science seems to be bogged down in fixed ideas which date back to the 1970s. I think if I was a PhD nutrition student, I'd be looking more closely.
One of my favourites among these is by Sam Feltham, who self-experimented on various diets over 21 day periods. It's the kind of testing I'd try myself if I wasn't (certainly) older and (perhaps) wiser. I'm unsure whether I would have recovered so well as he has done! Anyway, I have great admiration for anyone who furthers the cause of science by self-experimenting. Sam, you stand with James Young Simpson, Benjamin Franklin, Jonas Salk, Werner Forssmann and Dr Jekyll (by RLS), to name a few!
Sam followed four diet plans. First, he tried a low carbs, high fat diet, eating much more than his daily calorie requirement. How much weight should he have gained, according to the "calories in, calories out" formula? Second, was a high carbs, low fat diet, similar to the typical U.K. recommended diet. Again, he consumed the same number of calories. Next, he ate his regular diet, modifying his calorie intake to his personal metabolic requirements. Finally, he tried vegan for 21 days. The results are interesting, giving food for thought, despite the population size of one.
You can find Sam's experiments and results here;
www.smashthefat.com
Look at the foot of Sam's main page for the 5,000 calorie challenge..
No comments:
Post a Comment