In general, people with PhDs come to science in a way that differs from MDs. They are taught to break down large questions into small pieces and to look at differences between carefully controlled groups. They use dishes of cells, strains of rodents, and matched groups of human subjects. This makes it easier to see significant changes between groups that differ only (one hopes) because of the treatment variable. However, PhDs must always be careful to remember that their conclusions may not be valid outside the tissue type/rodent strain/particular human subjects they have studied. Scientific studies of this type are useful because they provide guidance about what might work to treat a particular condition or disease. They do not provide absolute truth about what must work to treat a particular condition or disease.
http://lowcarb4u.blogspot.com/2011/09/low-food-reward-versus-low-carb.html
I like this author's post overall. I like the paragraph above because it echoes my perspective on how often folks in the research business get caught up "looking through the straw." They see a tiny piece of something, spend years trying to make sense of it, and then apply it incorrectly to the systems in which their piece of the puzzle fits. The skills that make them brilliant at detailed research do not always translate in the application of the specific knowledge gained.
It is the real world example of the blind men who find the elephant, and each thinks the part they are touching IS the elephant.
I don't have any doubt that food addiction and therefore food/reward plays a role in human behavior, but I remain to be convinced that it is the dominant factor in human obesity. As I've laid out previously, neolithic doses of blood sugar elevating carbohydrates could easily explain food addiction, before one even considers palatability, and/or opioid content.
The good news, again, is that two of the protagonists are designing a study to test the food/reward conjecture. Live and learn.
More on the topic may be found here:
http://fireofthegodsfitness.blogspot.com/2011/09/hyperlipid-weighs-in-on-taubesguyanet.html
http://fireofthegodsfitness.blogspot.com/2011/09/about-taubes-guyanet-science-ahs-and.html
http://fireofthegodsfitness.blogspot.com/2011/08/guyanet-at-ahs.html
http://lowcarb4u.blogspot.com/2011/09/low-food-reward-versus-low-carb.html
I like this author's post overall. I like the paragraph above because it echoes my perspective on how often folks in the research business get caught up "looking through the straw." They see a tiny piece of something, spend years trying to make sense of it, and then apply it incorrectly to the systems in which their piece of the puzzle fits. The skills that make them brilliant at detailed research do not always translate in the application of the specific knowledge gained.
It is the real world example of the blind men who find the elephant, and each thinks the part they are touching IS the elephant.
I don't have any doubt that food addiction and therefore food/reward plays a role in human behavior, but I remain to be convinced that it is the dominant factor in human obesity. As I've laid out previously, neolithic doses of blood sugar elevating carbohydrates could easily explain food addiction, before one even considers palatability, and/or opioid content.
The good news, again, is that two of the protagonists are designing a study to test the food/reward conjecture. Live and learn.
More on the topic may be found here:
http://fireofthegodsfitness.blogspot.com/2011/09/hyperlipid-weighs-in-on-taubesguyanet.html
http://fireofthegodsfitness.blogspot.com/2011/09/about-taubes-guyanet-science-ahs-and.html
http://fireofthegodsfitness.blogspot.com/2011/08/guyanet-at-ahs.html
No comments:
Post a Comment