Yet to get a reply, T-Nation writers where are you hiding?
As I write this I am yet to receive a reply from two articles written on the topic of nutrition. Is that not what the comment option is for? Especially when the writers freely interact with users. T-Nation prides itself on writing articles based on scientific evidence rather than hear say, its what makes them stand out from the crowd, although I am begining to lose respect for them somewhat after following up on a few journal articles. Selective reporting and miss reporting at times to say the least. So here I am, I’m calling you out wheres my reply?
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/supplement_research_update_the_truth_about_prescription_fish_oil
I can’t speak for others’ reasons.
But if you might have any interest in guesswork:
On the fish oil article, it is only yesterday since your comments.
On the bodyfat article, your point was that Starnes named a number (12%) and you were demanding to know why he didn’t pick for example 11% and really seeming to have a tone to what you were saying. And he did make clear in the article that different people differ, and for that matter he even said “about 12%.”
So personally I would have interpreted your question as coming from the same place that this thread seems to be coming from, rather than coming from a standpoint of genuine discussion. But, that is a personal take only. No one can be a mind reader and I am not saying that must have been your intent.
Depending on my mood at the moment, I probably would have let that one pass had it been me. It struck me as having no intent but to argue and as having no actual content.
I would never have mentioned this simply from seeing it, but you did start a thread asking why you hadn’t gotten replies. These are my thoughts on that, whether accurate or not (possibly not.)
Open letters published in scientific journals are often presented in a similar manner challenging authors to defend their research. The author has committed what amounts to be a “cardinal sin” failing to declare a single source so why not challenge them on how they arrived at such conclusions. Why should we accept what seems to be purely guess work?!? The writer has a duty to provide sources otherwise the article lacks substance or credibility.
The point of such a post was to provoke a response to my comments and satisfy the need for scientific evidence to support such articles.
While I can’t speak for Shelby Starnes, I am sure I couldn’t provide scientific evidence to support the specific number of 12% as a guideline as opposed to your example of 11%. So what you are hoping for, unfortunately, may not be forthcoming.
On the fish oils, as personal judgment for those claiming to have improved on nature with their modified molecules, I place the burden on them on proving that they have actually achieved improvement. I thought the article’s point was more that there is a lack of such proof for the pharmaceutical EFA products, rather than trying to prove that the opposite must be the case.