Lower belly fat not shifting?

Good on you for being able to admit when you were wrong. You've already shown yourself to be against people spreading baseless misinformation in he fitness forum - at least now you're seeing how easy it is to be drawn into that trap

Yes, I do see that and as I said I am thankful for people to be pointing that out the fact that I didn't make it clear. The person who I responded to was adamant without giving any justifications whatsoever, never mind dispute any of the links that had the studies referenced. So clearly, although I am being compared with the people who do spread lies, I know I didn't have any proof and had no intention of implying that I did, unlike those who I was referring to.


You were/are being fasicious. I cannot give you a reference for a philosophical point because there isn't an experiment or study that will prove it. If you wish to debate the burden of proof, make a new thread and I'll be happy to do so, however it has no place and is off-topic in here. When somebody asks for evidence regarding an observational fact it should be very easy to supply. Something, like, say, sat oils at high temperatures are bad for you.

That's rich given that you have been taunting throughout.
Simply put yet again for your exuberant understanding, I said I don't have any proof and I clarified that I was not claiming absolute facts but rather just something I suggest the reader looks into before believing the contested statements.

So my response to you badgering on about it, which you took as facetious, was saying that you can't you can't use the burden of proof theory where it doesn't apply, just like asking for a reference for the burden of proof itself. So I was entirely being serious and felt that was the best way of explaining my point, but you didn't understand.

The reason I was responding, and still am, is because I felt although it had become off topic, people reading this would now know how to take and respond in future posts threads. i.e. don't take all advice as certain, don't take countering advice as someone who likely knows their stuff, try not to make it sound as if you are claiming something you well and truly know for certain, admit when you made a mistake, and don't keep explaining why someone should provide a reference.

(Basic principles: at what level are free radicals and oxidative species harmful to human ingestion, then at what point these levels are reached in saturated oils, as well as if ingestion of oil at this point is common and finally demonstration that these harmful levels are not present in other oils. Then you can use logic to link these statements together and prove your original point. You can't use "logic" as an excuse to avoid this)

See explanation for my use of logic later

Showing him sat fats aren't bad is good, and easily backed up with evidence. I just don't understand why you felt it relevant to make a poor case for the opposite, using this temperature rubbish. Can you not see how you are now guilty of exactly the same thing as the anti-sat fat brigade - using faulty evidence-less logic to "prove" something which has a tangible affect of altering dietary habits unnecessarily?

Given that you did the same thing as me, you must realise by now that the reasoning was flawed. Even science is philosophical. The fact that you say evidence is now coming out about this and that when actually it is just debunking previous evidence shows it. Debates are philosophical, you're claiming to not raise a point because there isn't definite proof? That's a new one. You want to go on something simply because it's well established even though you've just seen well established things can't necessarily be relied upon. To me it's only about logic and given that the articles I found were explaining the concept there was no harm in me posting them; I never claimed they were proof of anything.

Scientific debates are not philosophical. The only philosophy involved in science is the discussions around the truths, which this obviously is not. You don't seem to be grasping this so it's the last time I'll say it. In a scientific discussion, I don't bring up points without having a evidence basis for saying it - have you never written a scientific essay above GCSE? I wasn't using its pre-establishment as proof it is definitive either (I described it as a concept or theory - not fact - for a reason), only that your lack of understanding of the debate around it and calling it pathetic as a sign you are not well versed in it and therefore not well versed in debate.

It is not debunking previous evidence because there never was any strong scientific evidence that sat fats are bad for you. I don't stand behind scientific points without evidence for this very reason.

Logic is fine if you are working with objective facts (you'd first need to prove each of the initial statements otherwise you're making a logic cake with the wrong ingredients). You're not even using logic correctly, you're using reasoning which is different. I've certainly not seen you following any of the laws of validity.

You should notice that I use both the words logic and reasoning separately and know there's a difference. I gave information why the opposite of a statement might be true. I gave the links where I got those from which would obviously explain it better than my paraphrasing. Then I clarified in my later posts that it wasn't proof, just merely the reasoning given for such, and a direction for possible further research for the reader. Then in my previous post which you are referring to I claimed it was logical to do this. How is that not using 'logic'? It is a fact that from giving the links, the reader has a direction for further possible research on the initial statement provided, even if it ends up being a dead end because that is still a direction(hypothesis).

Your subjective reasoning can be different to mine, they are subjective, but real world observations, following the scientific standard are closer to being objective. All evidence must be interpreted in relation to its stength but one unqualified man's evidence-less opinion on an Internet forum is obviously weak evidence.

As I said myself two posts back, it is not evidence.

Great, so you've gone from being against people spreading misinformation to new trainees to saying it's absolutely fine as long as you're not arrogant.

Yes of course, morally that's the whole point of the forum but it's totally if you say that 'starvation mode' is definitely bad for you without having any evidence of it. I actually think stubborn was the word I was actually looking for, but yes if you're being arrogant too.

Oh I see, you got annoyed that somebody pointed out you were posting contradictions and fallacies. I get people don't like to be told when they are wrong, but tough.

Not really, I was glad it was spotted. The arrogance you show in those two sentences is what I'm talking about...

I'm not moving the discussion forward because it's pointless having a discussion with you. The problems I have with your argument are laid clear in my last shorter post which you've made no attempt to tackle (they question your initial claims, which if you cannot prove then your reasoning using these claims is faulty - This is how logic works ). It's going to consist of you making claims which on the surface sound like they might or may not be correct but refusing to provide evidence for it.

Nope, my reasoning was logical, in that you could use those links as hypotheses.