Mr. G, commenting upon the folks in attendance at the Ancestral Health Symposium (I should say, short of the CrossFit Games, or getting my kids to a Crimson Tide game, there's no other event I would rather have seen this year):
I was very impressed by the appearance of the attendees. Young men and women were fit with glowing skin, and older attendees were energetic and aging gracefully. It would be hard to come up with a better advertisement for ancestrally-oriented diets and lifestyles. I saw a lot of people taking the stairs rather than the elevator. I like to say I'll take the elevator/escalator when I'm dead. I think integrating exercise into everyday life is healthy and efficient. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/ancestral-health-symposium.html
Stephan Guyanet is a noteworthy researcher and blogger, who is getting attention for presenting a critical examination of Gary Taubes' work. I appreciate Stephan's determination to present his perspective with courtesy and with a focus on the scientific method. It is important for folks like Stephan to poke holes at Taubes' work for the sake of, eventually, getting good science on the subject of human health and fitness. Stephan starts his Taubes critique by pointing out the obvious:
I'd like to begin by emphasizing that carbohydrate restriction has helped many people lose body fat and improve their metabolic health. Although it doesn't work for everyone, there is no doubt that carbohydrate restriction causes fat loss in many, perhaps even most obese people. For a subset of people, the results can be very impressive. I consider that to be a fact at this point, but that's not what I'll be discussing here.
"Low carbers are dumb" bone gnawer, A. Colpo, is already crowing about the supposed Taubes beat down on his blog (http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=2006). I admire Colpo in many ways, but part on this point, which is his assessment of why people get fat, I think he's arrogant and short sighted:
These people are in such poor condition because they eat too much and move too little. They need to rid themselves of their low-carb brainwashing, and start abiding by scientific reality: namely, they need to get off their mushy rumps and institute a calorie deficit, either by eating less, exercising more, or both.
In short, "fat people are bad."
As I work through Guyanet's criticism of Taubes' work, I find I have as hard a time being unemotional about it as he did. At detailed and disciplined as his review is, he still can't avoid "appeals to authority", which I think detracts from his authenticity, as do a couple of snide comments here and there. I also find those interesting because he is usually a model of impartiality in his writing, which is much appreciated.
His critique reminds me of the Taubes attack by James Krieger (http://fireofthegodsfitness.blogspot.com/2010/04/review-of-critique-of-gcbc-carbohydrate.html), in that it does refer to real studies of humans, but then tries to apply isolated results to a systemic issue. Their critiques are in that way like the blind men feeling different parts of the elephant, and each thinking they have found a different animal. It is also like the drunk looking under the light post for his lost key, even though he knows the key was lost somewhere else in the dark parking lot. In other words, it is easy to focus on a detail that is known and believe it applies systemically, even though the test of the discrete element does not imply that the same response would occur in a complex system. In chemistry, as I recall, this concept was taught as the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle." In short, the HUP points out that the process of observation changes the thing observed, and therefore there are limits on what measurement may "prove".
The same concept, in a different circumstance (studying the human body), is that it is one thing to study a discrete response, for example the reaction of a human hand to a pin prick, but then assume it is also going to be the same response in all of human behavior - for example, prick my hand when I'm sitting still with nothing better to do, and I will response. Prick my hand when I'm flying an instrument approach with gusty crosswinds, in the rain, at night, with the ceiling below 500' AGL, and I will absolutely not care about the pin prick if I even notice it.
More when I can give Stephan's critique a good effort. In the mean time, I suggest you consider's Stephan's critique as one about the details of why carbohydrate restriction works, vice a rebuke of the concept that carbohydrate restriction works.
No comments:
Post a Comment