Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Thursday, November 12, 2015

My Gut Feeling on Microflobesity Was Right

This post brought to you by Duck Dodgers' arrogance.  If there ever were an example of what is wrong with science in the Incestral Health Community, it is the phenomenon that is "Duck Dodgers" and his comments here.    A seemingly non-controversial post -- on how the US Dietary Guidelines were never any radical departure from the way humans around the globe have eaten for thousands of years -- went viral, at least in part because of Duck's return.   What rubs me personally the wrong way about this person (or persons, though I've been told it is only one person who posts with that ID in comments here so I operate on that assumption) is his response to any challenge to "How Food Enrichment Made Us Fat, Diabetic, and Chronically Diseased" otherwise known as the "Iron Food Enrichment Hypothesis".  Despite doubling down on the whole fortification thing at the off-the-grid web rental only around a month ago, this guy comes on here and plays word games regarding whether it is even a theory or hypothesis.   Duck behaves as if I somehow owe it to him and the internet to take his unscientific self seriously, and if I don't take him and his ideas seriously it can only be that I find them inconvenient to my comfortable mindset.  

I have wasted enough time on this whole nonsense, if anyone wants at it they know full well where they can go to discuss it.  I don't dabble in non-scientific mumbo jumbo and I laid out some general thoughts on this in this post:  Science ... .   

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Science ...

... it's called that for a reason.  

This post was prompted by the discussions in this seemingly non-monumental post -- Are the Dietary Guidelines REALLY So Radical? -- that erupted to over 750 comments. The discussion somewhat culminated in this comment, and there are a few posts forthcoming that require this "backgrounder" on thoughts.

I like to blog about science.  I like to deal in science.  I consider myself a scientist in much the same way that formerly practicing MDs still consider themselves doctors.   I used to conduct primary research, which some of today's "scientists" have never even done outside of the classroom environment if that  (as opposed to folks like Gary Taubes, Zoe Harcombe and James DiNicolantonio to name a few).  I studied science (a few disciplines, and some engineering too), and I had a career in scientific research (again a few differing fields and applications).  I "can't help myself" whenever I read a scientific study but to analyze it.  There is a lot of good research going on.  There is a lot of crappy research as well.  I'm hopeful that some find what I write about here helpful, though usually the more scientific the topic, the less interest a post seems to garner.  This doesn't bother me, because in writing a blog post on something I'm looking into, I learn a lot myself, and as geeky as it sounds, this is something that is as personally rewarding or just plain enjoyable as some may find their own favored hobbies.

Friday, October 16, 2015

Calories ... and Taubes, NuSI, Ludwig & Co.


Over on Twitter I was made aware that Dr. David Ludwig is coming out with a new book in January (HT Steven Snyder @NoGimmicksNutri) mentioned in this Time piece:  You Asked: Should I Count Calories?   The book is to be called Always Hungry (affiliate link if you're going to buy it anyway!)  This is a similar title to the NYT editorial Ludwig co-wrote with NuSI's VP of Research last year, discussed in this post.  I also have a friend who attended an obesity conference recently at which Ludwig presented much of the same ideas.  It is repackaged TWICHOO (Taubes Wrong Insulin-Carbohydrate Hypothesis Of Obesity), and what is most galling about all of this is that much of Ludwig's own research counters this ... Yet he perpetuates it?  From the article:

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Are the Dietary Guidelines REALLY So Radical?

Politics swirled this week, and as a scientist I wept.  

Much more to come here, check out recent posts if you missed them!   As billionaire pescatarians Laura and John Arnold bankroll meat industry spokesperson Nina Teicholz via their lobbying 501(c)s Action Now Initiative & Nutrition Coalition it is easy to lose sight of the actual nutrition surveys and science we are talking about.

The hand-wringing, panty bunching, and other various "ings" going on over the impending issue of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines is almost assuredly not about the scientific rigor of the process or the guidelines themselves.  Are they perfect?  No.  Are they really all that radical or far off from what would be healthful eating, on a population-wide basis, for the United States of America?  Again, no.   Setting aside the particular foods themselves for the time being, the main argument is that this grand low-fat experiment has been a giant failure.  Critics go further to make the ridiculous claim that the "wrong advice" is responsible for the obesity epidemic.   I present here a collection of data and statistics that show reducing fat -- any fat -- is hardly some grand experiment from the point at which we here in the United States began.  HARDLY.  

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Nina Teicholz, The BMJ, The Nutrition Coalition and nutrition science's George Soros: The Laura and John Arnold Foundation

source:  Politico

I have had several conversations since I wrote Nina Teicholz Reports in the British Medical Journal ~ The Conflicts & Funding and a petition to editors at The BMJ.  I have some of my answers, most of which were not provided to me in the interests of the same transparency demanded of others by the players themselves -- Nina Teicholz, The BMJ and The Laura and John Arnold Foundation.  Details to follow.  First, some personal notes, an apology, and why the George Soros nod.  Then the goods insofar as I have them.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

On Governments, Industries and Nutritional Science

This post will probably repeat some things I've said before.  But in light of recent events, and with controversy over the US 2015 Dietary Guidelines reaching fever pitch, I wanted to collect them in a semi-coherent summarized fashion.   Mostly I want to discuss the role of governments and industries in the evolution of what we know today as a science.  In many ways, a look back at the early Twentieth Century demonstrates how the more things change the more they stay the same.   Are we doomed to repeat past mistakes in the Twenty-First?

Monday, September 28, 2015

Change.Org Petition to The BMJ regarding Dietary Guidelines article by Nina Teicholz


Dear Readers, 

Won't you please join me in calling for The BMJ to retract The scientific report guiding the US dietary guidelines: it scientific? by Nina Teicholz. This petition is based heavily on concerns raised in my recent post:  Nina Teicholz Reports in the British Medical Journal ~ The Conflicts & Funding.

Also, I would greatly appreciate your sharing this petition in any way you feel is appropriate.  Here is a short link:
If you have any reservations about signing yourself, consider contacting Editor in chief Fiona Godlee and/or Head of investigations and features Rebecca Coombes directly. 

Thank You!

Call for The BMJ to retract Teicholz article on Dietary Guidelines Committee and Science

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Who Should Fund "Science"? Who Should Publish It?


Blogstress Note:
 I am working on the petition regarding The BMJ's disgraceful "hit piece" on the DGAC written by the equally disgraceful and scientifically incompetent Nina Teicholz.  What?  Too rough?   I had intended to cite this post, written roughly six months ago, because of who all was mentioned, etc.  Sometimes it's eerie!

BMJ Open Heart Journal Associate Editor
demonstrating his objectivity

The sponsorship by The Laura and John Arnold Foundation of an investigation by the clearly "partisan" Nina Teicholz now firmly cements that organization as a biased funding source.  Considering the amount of money that could be in play, their potential influence is becoming disconcerting.

Why did the Arnold Foundation pay Nina Teicholz to write an "investigative report" attacking the DGAC members, and why did The BMJ commission and publish this report just weeks before Congressional hearings are being drummed up?  Hmmm?


I'm working on another post regarding conflicts of interest and such, and this came up on the background gathering.  A number of journals are adopting "noble" policies of no longer accepting industry funded studies.

Mind you, many of these same journals appear to have no qualms publishing the works of individuals with clear biases and conflicts.

I think this hard line on industry funding is wrong-headed.  Not that I'm a huge fan of many industry funded studies per se, but please read on.

If "industry" is not funding, then who is?  The government via NIH, NIDDK, etc.?   Some states have research funding initiatives.   Is any presumption of objectivity in funding disbursal even possible here??   I don't think so.  Indeed in many areas of science, government funding carries with it as much baggage as a dollar from Big Food, Big Pharma and Big Agra combined.