Comments on: TV alert

By: LCforevah

LCforevah — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:00:03 +0000

But Dr Mike, that’s exactly what I mean about her being set up. Michaels would have some idea of who Atkins or Ornish are, but unless you were connected to or interested in following science journalists, you would not know who Taubes is. I actually have followed his articles in magazines and anthologies way before this, so I knew when he took low carb on, that is was going to be a major work. Obviously, no one informed her of Taubes’ reputation and opus.

You and I have also browsed through enough diet books to know she has good reason to accuse some authors of compiling info out of other people’s books in order to come out with their own–I’m thinking especially of the eight minute guy, George something!

Hi LC–

I don’t know who the George something guy is, but I wouldn’t denigrate his book – especially on national TV – without at least knowing something about it. I thought her behavior was classless and inexcusable.

Cheers–

MRE

By: David MacPhail

David MacPhail — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:29:01 +0000

Taubes presents a compelling case for the position that carbohydrate, not fat, is the cause of not only the growing epidemic of obesity, but also the the growing incidence of diabetes and other chronic conditions. The fact that a physiologic need for carbohydrates in human nutrition has yet to be established makes the probability high that Taubes and others in his camp are right. The fact that glucose can be synthesized from protein and that the brain actually prefers ketone bodies for fuel renders impotent any argument that carbohydrates are required to maintain healthy blood sugar levels. This begs the question as to why anyone would eat any significant amount of carbohydrate.

While Taubes is also probably correct in stating that some will tolerate carbohydrates better than others I find the position of those such as Atkins who recommended that we find our carbohydrate tolerance nonsensical, unless it is used to discover the level at which they become a problem which for many is close to zero.

But probably the best advice Taubes gives in his book is to view everything with healthy skepticism even when something looks to be on solid ground. What if not just the low fat, high carbohydrate diet theory but just about all research in the medical field is also mostly wrong? In an article called ‘Why Most Published Findings are False’ http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124medical writer John Ioannidis, sounding every bit like Taubes, claims this is probably the case.

Ioannidis states that the hotter a scientific field is (low fat and statins come to mind) and the more scientific teams are involved, the less likely it will be that any research findings will be true. And it’s not just in research related to drugs that this is the case. It has been my observation that some of the most flagrant promotion of questionable results of research is in food supplements. Here, a writer of popular health issues finds some research that suggests (not proves) an apparently positive effect for say vitamin X at 10 times the normal physiologic level. They then extrapolate this result to 100 times the normal physiologic level and write a best selling book on the new miracle nutrient. Given the right circumstances this can set off a self-perpetuation information cascade.

To paraphrase Inspector Clouseau of the Pink Panther fame “I suspect nothing. yet I suspect everything.”

Hi David–

Nice analysis of the situation, and, in my opinion, right on the money.

I actually wrote a post on the Plos article when it first came out.

Cheers–

MRE

By: PAMom

PAMom — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:17:02 +0000

I think perhaps the pot’s calling the kettle black a bit if you call Oz a dork–look again at your reply about complementarity. Not that there’s anything wrong with that–my kids’ refrain “Mom, you’re such a dork!” is often initiated by my quoting of my 2 favorite bloggers–you and James Lileks. Only a dork could fully appreciate both of you!

Guilty as charged.

Cheers–

MRE

By: LCforevah

LCforevah — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:29:59 +0000

Isn’t it interesting that the only person to have read the book in its entirety considers it groungbreaking and is recommending it to everyone he deals with? Dr Weil shows he can be persuaded with actual evidence.

I have to say that deliberate or not, the interview was a setup. Behar, Oz and Michaels did not read the book yet proceeded to criticize it. Oz especially, went all over the place with what he was saying, making it impossible for Taubes to present the point of the book. I didn’t have an opinion of him one way or the other, but after this I’m just embarrassed for him.

I can’t blame the personal trainer, Jillian Michaels, for her forthright opinion based on her years of successful outcomes. I also think she was just as set up as Taubes. I’d say that she was given very little warning and information on the book before she was invited to speak on the show. I saw it in real time, and at the end of her talk, she accuses Taubes of being just another person who puts some info together so that he can sell books! It was very obvious that she has no idea of Taubes’ reputation and the considerable years he put into his research–this segment is missing on youtube and elsewhere.

As to her success Michaels forgets that 99% of us can’t exercise four hours everyday, and the twenty pound weight losses some of her contestants have managed to pull off in one week on The Biggest Loser just aren’t possible in the real world. I think Taubes and Michaels were talking apples and oranges, and neither were given the time to really get into it. Taubes especially didn’t get a chance to elaborate on the exercise for weight-loss research.

Hey LC–

Good to hear from you; it’s been a long time.

I pretty much agree with your assessment, except that I’m a little less benign than you about Jillian Michaels. I don’t care whether she was set up or not, I think it’s unconscionable for someone to make the accusations that she did, especially since she’s never read Taubes’ book. I disagree with Dean Ornish on virtually everything, but I wouldn’t accuse him of writing his views just to sell books. I assume that he’s ideologically committed to what he preaches, and he writes it in his books to convey his own beliefs, not simply to sell books. The idea that Gary, who put 5-6 years of his life into this project, would simply write what he did simply to sell the book. There are a lot easier ways to sell books than to spend the time he did doing the research and writing it up. A lot easier ways. And for her to accuse him of selling out, and doing it with the condescending tone she used beggars belief until one realizes what a shallow vessel she must really be.

Cheers–

MRE

By: Harry James

Harry James — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:16:24 +0000

Dr.Eades Help im confused ! Forgive my ignorance for the question here but i’m new to Low Carb so i’m still learning. On the Ornish vs Taubes debate i’m still confused what to think when Ornish kept pulling out the pet scan of the arteries to show that they opened up on the Low Fat. What should i take from that. Thank you ! HJ

Hi Harry–

There is way too much to go into to clarify the Ornish pet scans. At some point I’ll probably do an entire post on debunking the studies Ornish is so fond of. Just take my word for it now that these studies do not mean what he says they do. I’ve written one post already on a similar study allegedly showing that saturated fat causes arterial problems.

Cheers–

MRE

By: Jimmy Moore

Jimmy Moore — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:49:46 +0000

Here is the segment with Dr. Andrew Weil from the Larry King Live appearance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoQGRJqGQTs

Dr. Weil actually READ the book unlike the other members of that panel. Isn’t it interesting they had someone who lost weight eating low-fat and exercising for hours a day rather than a low-carb weight loss success story? Wouldn’t it stand to reason when you are discussing a book about eating a high-fat, low-carb diet that you would want to feature someone who has done well on such a diet? Am I missing something (besides the obvious bias)?

Hey Jimmy–

Thanks for the YouTube. I’m glad it’s out there. Weil certainly did appear to have read the book, and he was undoubtedly Gary’s advocate on the show, but he did default at the end to promoting his own flawed diet.

And, no, I don’t think you’re missing anything. There was a ton of bias in the selection of the other guests and the host, too, for that matter.

Cheers–

Mike

By: Ken Vancouver Island

Ken Vancouver Island — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:18:24 +0000

Dr Mike
We hope your long absence has nothing to do with the tragic fires in California.We pray all is well with you and yours.

Hi Ken–

Thanks for the good thoughts. We’re fine. Just travel weary.

Cheers–

MRE

By: marly

marly — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:11:30 +0000

I hope your silence isn’t fire related. You’re in Santa Barbara, yes? I’m in Simi Valley. It got a bit close to us. The ash is dreadful and everyone is coughing and depressed.

No, as you can see from my post today, my silence isn’t fire related. We get a little smoke off and on here, but, in general, it’s been pretty nice.

Cheers–

MRE

By: Kristi

Kristi — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:42:59 +0000

Yikes, Dr. Eades! I put these comments on the wrong page! Imeant to put them on the IF page! When I couldn’t see them on the IF page, I posted something else! Oh, bother!

No problem.

By: Daniel Chong

Daniel Chong — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:19:42 +0000

Jack LaLanne Hurts My Brain….

Not really a comment on today’s post, but relevant I think nonetheless. Most of us know who Jack LaLanne is, the fitness guru. Anyway, I base a lot of my beliefs about nutrition on research done by finding really healthy/long-lived people and simply observing what they ate/eat. The best example I can give for this sort of research is Weston Price’s work.

Most of the time, this process works out in favor of your ideas, ie lower carb, whole foods, higher fat, good protein, etc. However, Jack LaLanne seems to fly in the face of everything, especially because of the fact that at over 90 years old, he is still working out 2 hours every morning and sharp as a tack.

What does he eat? 50 grams of soy protein per day, egg whites, tons of veggies and fruit, VERY little fat and occasionally fish. What the heck?! From everything I’ve read and seen in my own practice, he should certainly be dead by now.

I chalk up his continued health to a few things and wondered what your thoughts were:
1) Superior Mental Attitude. Simply doesn’t seem to be bothered by anything except fat, lazy people.
2) Daily exercise
3) Very high, natural antioxidant intake
4) Mostly whole foods diet

I would love to hear your thoughts on this paradox of a man.

Hi Daniel–

I, too, have been a follower of Jack LaLanne for a long time. I never missed his show when I was a kid. But, the fact that he is doing so well despite his diet doesn’t really mean anything to humanity at large. A friend of mine has an uncle who is now in his early 100s, and this guy smoked like a stack until just a few years back, drank a whole lot, and generally lived a dissolute life. But he’s still here and still has his mind. Does this mean we should follow his lifestyle? Winston Churchill lived to be 90+ and he was fat and smoked and drank. Picasso was the same. He lived to be in his 90s and didn’t quit smoking until he was in his 80s. None of these people followed what I would consider an optimal diet, yet they all lived forever. You can’t fraw conclusions for the rest of humanity based on the specific circumstances of one person.

Cheers–

MRE