Tim Noakes as the lead author was enough to let me know that this was going to be biased/impartial against carbs. It should be noted that this “review” was definitively a narrative review, and not a meta-analysis or systematic review, so the inclusion criteria for the review are simply not there. The disclosures on this publication too are a good secondary signal as to the impartiality of the authors.
Appreciate the calm, evidence-based pushback here. It’s refreshing to see performance nutrition grounded in actual trial data and real-world athlete outcomes, not just contrarian takes dressed up as “new science.”
We as humans take almost everything in absolute terms, who said us to take it in absolute terms? But it goes this way only. For the last couple of years, I have just opened up mind that who said so, why is it this way & not that way in any walk of life because take for endurance sport there is no one way all athletes train, there is not even one type of training that is incorporated by at least 10% of athletes. Nothing has to be taken in absolute terms and everything has be tested and not let others defined thing about a particular thing keep putting in yourself a box or be unhappy.
What is the replicacy model rate of these research papers in real life?
Research papers are also layered under biases such as- Anchoring Bias, Availability Heuristic, Endowment effect, Narrative Fallacy and many more other things as well.
We need to apply our own set of first principles thinking while incorporating any of the things in life.
“Narrative review” is a crazy concept for a scientific paper. It’s literally centring bias/ personal opinion which totally contradicts the point of a scientific paper
Tim Noakes as the lead author was enough to let me know that this was going to be biased/impartial against carbs. It should be noted that this “review” was definitively a narrative review, and not a meta-analysis or systematic review, so the inclusion criteria for the review are simply not there. The disclosures on this publication too are a good secondary signal as to the impartiality of the authors.
Amen!
Appreciate the calm, evidence-based pushback here. It’s refreshing to see performance nutrition grounded in actual trial data and real-world athlete outcomes, not just contrarian takes dressed up as “new science.”
thanks for the kind response!
We as humans take almost everything in absolute terms, who said us to take it in absolute terms? But it goes this way only. For the last couple of years, I have just opened up mind that who said so, why is it this way & not that way in any walk of life because take for endurance sport there is no one way all athletes train, there is not even one type of training that is incorporated by at least 10% of athletes. Nothing has to be taken in absolute terms and everything has be tested and not let others defined thing about a particular thing keep putting in yourself a box or be unhappy.
What is the replicacy model rate of these research papers in real life?
Research papers are also layered under biases such as- Anchoring Bias, Availability Heuristic, Endowment effect, Narrative Fallacy and many more other things as well.
We need to apply our own set of first principles thinking while incorporating any of the things in life.
“Narrative review” is a crazy concept for a scientific paper. It’s literally centring bias/ personal opinion which totally contradicts the point of a scientific paper
How many athletes on a low-carb diet make it onto podiums? How many low-carb athletes are record holders?
Lengthy article with pretty charts, nothing more. Doing the lords work, Vic. Thank you!