scratch-mark

Sunday Random Hit & Run – Health & Fitness Edition

Just another mishmash of links and commentary

1. Am I imagining things, or did Dr. Mike Eades just dismiss by implication, a few dozen arctic and Inuit researchers going back over 100 years as “lack[ing] an understanding of basic biochemistry?” 

Eades
Eades

After all, it’s quite clear, if one actually reads the post, that it’s almost entirely a review of all the research literature going way back, including the research of August Krogh, winner of the 1920 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of the capillary motor regulating mechanism—nothing to do with biochemistry. Duck didn’t assert anything. He merely quoted the literature, demonstrating that it was all reaching the same conclusion: that it either directly or by implication contradicts Stefansson’s Friendly Arctic Fairy Tales and thus, contradicts Eades as well.

2. In contrast to Eades’ confirmation bias and intransigence, here’s Denise Minger’s AHS14 presentation.

Lessons From the Vegans: What the Paleo Movement Can Learn From the Success of Plant-Based Diets

The paleo diet has a growing reputation for assisting in weight loss, managing or treating chronic disease, and boosting quality of life for those who follow its tenets. Yet low-fat, plant-based diets — which are also gaining popularity in the mainstream — appear to produce similar successes using a vastly different approach. How can such a dissimilar diet have health effects that mirror those of paleo? This presentation examines the reasons behind the success of plant-based diets, and discusses what the paleo movement can learn from them. In doing so, we’ll gain a new perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of the paleo philosophy and question some common paleo “truths” that may not be as solid as we currently believe.

Had I not directly seen for myself and in my comments what the potato hack can do, I’d probably be highly skeptical of Denise’s presentation. But I have, so I’m not.

3. What kids around the world eat for breakfast.

I had to find an excuse to post a pic of this adorable kid-face.

japansese girl
Natto is her favorite food

Saki Suzuki, 2 ¾ years old, Tokyo

The first time Saki ate the fermented soybean dish called natto, she was 7 months old. She promptly vomited. Her mother, Asaka, thinks that perhaps this was because of the smell, which is vaguely suggestive of canned cat food. But in time, the gooey beans became Saki’s favorite food and a constant part of her traditional Japanese breakfasts. Also on the menu are white rice, miso soup, kabocha squash simmered in soy sauce and sweet sake (kabocha no nimono), pickled cucumber (Saki’s least favorite dish), rolled egg omelet (tamagoyaki) and grilled salmon.

Check out the rest. Most of it puts most of what typical American kids eat to shame.

4. “This Video Of Second Graders Being Treated To A $220 Seven-Course Tasting Menu Is Utterly Delightful” (Digg)

Well, I find it depressing and sad, though their behavior is generally exemplary.

As part of their Food issue, the New York Times Magazine sent six second graders from Brooklyn’s PS 295 to dinner at Daniel, one of New York’s fanciest restaurants. Each kid was served a seven-course tasting menu that goes for $220 a person.

Now, imagine all the kids featured in #3 in the same setting.

5. Is eating behavior manipulated by the gastrointestinal microbiota?

Abstract

Microbes in the gastrointestinal tract are under selective pressure to manipulate host eating behavior to increase their fitness, sometimes at the expense of host fitness. Microbes may do this through two potential strategies: (i) generating cravings for foods that they specialize on or foods that suppress their competitors, or (ii) inducing dysphoria until we eat foods that enhance their fitness. We review several potential mechanisms for microbial control over eating behavior including microbial influence on reward and satiety pathways, production of toxins that alter mood, changes to receptors including taste receptors, and hijacking of the vagus nerve, the neural axis between the gut and the brain. We also review the evidence for alternative explanations for cravings and unhealthy eating behavior. Because microbiota are easily manipulatable by prebiotics, probiotics, antibiotics, fecal transplants, and dietary changes, altering our microbiota offers a tractable approach to otherwise intractable problems of obesity and unhealthy eating.

That about says it all and has everything to do with my approach to all of this. Now, when I see all this ‘metabolic, hormonal pathway’ masturbatory stuff out there that doesn’t contemplate the astounding complexity of the gut, I just laf. It’s like watching a bunch of people strut around showing off their candles, while LED floodlights are now available. Here’s what the paper covers.

  • Evolutionary conflict between host and microbes leads to host manipulation
  • Evidence indicates many potential mechanisms of manipulation
    • There is a selective influence of diet on microbiota
    • Microbes can manipulate host behavior
    • Microbes can induce dysphoria that changes feeding behavior
    • Microbes modulate host receptor expression
    • Microbes can influence hosts through neural mechanisms
    • Microbes can influence hosts through hormones
    • Mucin foraging bacteria control their nutrient supply
    • Intestinal microbiota can affect obesity
    • Probiotics are associated with weight loss
  • Predictions and experiments
    • Changing the microbiota composition will change eating behavior
    • A consistent diet will select for microbial specialists and lead to preference for those foods
    • Cravings should be associated with lower parasympathetic (vagal) tone, and blocking the vagus nerve should reduce food cravings
    • Microbial diversity should affect food choices and satiety
    • Excess energy delivery to the gut may reduce microbial diversity
    • High gut diversity may inhibit density-dependent microbial manipulation
    • Interrogation of host and microbiota genomes should reveal a signaling arms race
    • Food preferences may be contagious
  • Alternative hypotheses for unhealthy eating and obesity
    • Lack of willpower is not sufficient to explain unhealthy eating
    • Mismatch with scarce resources in our ancestral environment is not sufficient to explain unhealthy eating
    • Nutrient deprivation is not sufficient to explain unhealthy eating

Conclusions

Modern biology suggests that our bodies are composed of a diversity of organisms competing for nutritional resources. Evolutionary conflict between the host and microbiota may lead to cravings and cognitive conflict with regard to food choice. Exerting self-control over eating choices may be partly a matter of suppressing microbial signals that originate in the gut. Acquired tastes may be due to the acquisition of microbes that benefit from those foods. Our review suggests that one way to change eating behavior is by intervening in our microbiota.

It is encouraging that the microbiota can be changed by many interventions, hence facilitating translation to the clinic and public health efforts. Microbiota community structure changes drastically within 24 hours of changing diet [14, 115] or administration of antibiotics [116]. Fecal transplants have shown efficacy in treating a variety of diseases [117]. The best approaches to managing our microbiota are still open questions. Many studies of the effects of gut microbes on health have focused on identifying individual taxa that are responsible for human diseases, an approach that has been largely unsuccessful in generating predictive hypotheses. Studies have identified conflicting different groups of microbes associated with various diseases, including obesity [118, 119]. In other domains, it has proven useful to shift the level of analysis from properties of the individual to properties of the population, e.g. diversity [120]. Until we have a better understanding of the contributions and interactions between individual microbial taxa, it may be more effective to focus interventions on increasing microbial diversity in the gut.

Competition between genomes is likely to produce a variety of conflicts, and we propose that one important area, impacting human health, is in host eating behavior and nutrient acquisition. Genetic conflict between host and microbiota – selecting for microbes that manipulate host eating behavior – adds a new dimension to current viewpoints, e.g. host-microbiota mutualism [11], that can explain mechanisms involved in obesity and related diseases.

[emphasis addedkeep it in mind when reading some of the stuff I’m seeing now that I consider far too clinically focussed for most people, far too deconstructed and reduced. Shotgun is going to be best for most people most of the time.]

…Of course, I’m sure all the microbiome researchers ‘lack an understanding of basic biochemistry.’ …

Update to #1: Here’s a follow up comment from Eades in response to the same person pointing out:

The article quotes over 20 different studies on the Inuit—spanning a century—including from a Nobel prize winning scientist August Krogh.

You don’t seriously expect anyone to believe that all of those scientists don’t understand “basic biochemistry” do you?

Well, I guess he does expect everyone to believe it. Eades:

They didn’t understand about glycogen degrading back then. If you want to believe the Inuit weren’t on low-carb diets, be my guest.

Wrong again. Here’s Duck—someone who actually digs up research—in comments below:

I’m disappointed that Eades is still stuck on the minimal glycogen the Inuit consumed, rather than the fact that every study on the Inuit shows they were too high protein to be in ketosis. Nevertheless, he seems completely uninformed about what researchers knew about glycogen, at the time. I’m beginning to wonder if Dr. Eades is even bothering to read any of the scientific literature on the subject. Yesterday, Eades wrote:

mreades wrote: They didn’t understand about glycogen degrading back then. If you want to believe the Inuit weren’t on low-carb diets, be my guest.

Well, first of all, nobody said the Inuit weren’t low carb. The scientific literature states over and over again that they ate very high quantities of protein and weren’t ketogenic. Second of all, it’s patently false that researchers were unaware of glycogen’s rapid degradation at the time. In fact, its rapid degradation observed in 1865 was how Bernard discovered glycogen in the first place.

From: Claude Bernard and The Discovery of Glycogen Discovery of Glycogen At this time Bernard’s estimations of the sugar content of extract of liver tissue were made in duplicate by titration with copper reagent of Barreswil, a modified Fehling’s solution. He relates (Bernard, 1865, pp. 2291-295) how one day he was pressed for time and was unable to make his duplicate determinations simultaneously. He made one estimation immediately after the death of an animal and postponed the other until the following day. The second estimation gave a value very much higher than the first, and the difference was so great that Bernard investigated the reason for this discrepancy. Hitherto he had not ascribed significance to the length of time which elapsed between the death of an animal and the determination of the sugar content of the liver tissue. He now found that time was of great importance. Immediately after the death of an animal the liver was found to contain very little sugar, but within only a few minutes the amount of sugar had substantially increased, and at the end of two hours a large quantity had usually made its appearance.

So, from day one, glycogen was known to degrade rapidly. But, Eades has so much confirmation bias running through his blood, he refuses to recognize that glycogen in marine mammals was observed to degrade differently.

From: Observations On The Glycogen Content of Certain Invertebrates and Fishes Until recently very little information existed concerning the presence of glycogen in the fishes. That some at least is present in the tissues of marine fish had been shown by Cl. Bernard, Pavy, Brucke, and others. It was stated by Bernard that this glycogen is unusually resistant to the influence of post-mortem changes, and that it does not readily disappear during hunger. During asphyxia, however, the glycogen rapidly disappears.

Even in 1970, researchers found high levels of glycogen in some species of fish after 7 days on ice, at 0ºC.

From: Postmortem Glycolytic and Other Biochemical Changes in White Muscle of White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni) and Northern Pike (Esox lucius) at 0ºC “…Glycogen content of pike was found to remain relatively high even after 7 days of storage in ice. This is in contrast to the findings with several other species, including white sucker, where the muscle glycogen is practically completely degraded in 3–4 days.”

Eades is wrong on just about everything he stated in his “confirmation bias” post, but doesn’t have the decency to read anything that might enlighten his biases. What a joke.

~~~

Well, I guess I can be thankful I wasn’t imagining things. I’d expected to get hand-waving over that—HE WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT “DUCKS DODGES!” So, thanks for clearing that up, Mike.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

32 Comments

  1. CDLXI on October 12, 2014 at 16:47

    Mmm natto. Very rich in vitamin K and easy to make at home with a starter culture. Try it with mustard, tamari, and chives.

  2. Duck Dodgers on October 13, 2014 at 07:08

    I’m disappointed that Eades is still stuck on the minimal glycogen the Inuit consumed, rather than the fact that every study on the Inuit shows they were too high protein to be in ketosis.

    Nevertheless, he seems completely uninformed about what researchers knew about glycogen, at the time. I’m beginning to wonder if Dr. Eades is even bothering to read any of the scientific literature on the subject.

    Yesterday, Eades wrote:

    mreades wrote:
    They didn’t understand about glycogen degrading back then. If you want to believe the Inuit weren’t on low-carb diets, be my guest.

    Well, first of all, nobody said the Inuit weren’t low carb. The scientific literature states over and over again that they ate very high quantities of protein and weren’t ketogenic.

    Second of all, it’s patently false that researchers were unaware of glycogen’s rapid degradation at the time. In fact, its rapid degradation observed in 1865 was how Bernard discovered glycogen in the first place.

    From: Claude Bernard and The Discovery of Glycogen

    Discovery of Glycogen
    At this time Bernard’s estimations of the sugar content of extract of liver tissue were made in duplicate by titration with copper reagent of Barreswil, a modified Fehling’s solution. He relates (Bernard, 1865, pp. 2291-295) how one day he was pressed for time and was unable to make his duplicate determinations simultaneously. He made one estimation immediately after the death of an animal and postponed the other until the following day. The second estimation gave a value very much higher than the first, and the difference was so great that Bernard investigated the reason for this discrepancy. Hitherto he had not ascribed significance to the length of time which elapsed between the death of an animal and the determination of the sugar content of the liver tissue. He now found that time was of great importance. Immediately after the death of an animal the liver was found to contain very little sugar, but within only a few minutes the amount of sugar had substantially increased, and at the end of two hours a large quantity had usually made its appearance.

    So, from day one, glycogen was known to degrade rapidly. But, Eades has so much confirmation bias running through his blood, he refuses to recognize that glycogen in marine mammals was observed to degrade differently.

    From: Observations On The Glycogen Content of Certain Invertebrates and Fishes

    Until recently very little information existed concerning the presence of glycogen in the fishes. That some at least is present in the tissues of marine fish had been shown by Cl. Bernard, Pavy, Brucke, and others. It was stated by Bernard that this glycogen is unusually resistant to the influence of post-mortem changes, and that it does not readily disappear during hunger. During asphyxia, however, the glycogen rapidly disappears.

    Even in 1970, researchers found high levels of glycogen in some species of fish after 7 days on ice, at 0ºC.

    From: Postmortem Glycolytic and Other Biochemical Changes in White Muscle of White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni) and Northern Pike (Esox lucius) at 0ºC

    “…Glycogen content of pike was found to remain relatively high even after 7 days of storage in ice. This is in contrast to the findings with several other species, including white sucker, where the muscle glycogen is practically completely degraded in 3–4 days.”

    Eades is wrong on just about everything he stated in his “confirmation bias” post, but doesn’t have the decency to read anything that might enlighten his biases. What a joke.

    • Bret on October 13, 2014 at 08:23

      I’m beginning to wonder if Dr. Eades is even bothering to read any of the scientific literature on the subject.

      For a man who supposedly reads so much (and pokes fun at fellow airplane passengers for not doing so), you wouldn’t think this would be so much to ask.

      Then again, I have observed that many people who supposedly read tons and tons and tons of books, pages, etc, do not absorb as much of the information as they think they are. That, or they are reading only things they already know or agree with, so they can speed read through it like a fiend.

      But, Eades has so much confirmation bias running through his blood, he refuses to recognize…

      I don’t think anyone told you: Eades is the expert on confirmation bias. Therefore, he is not subject to it himself.

      That is how it works, evidently.



  3. Duck Dodgers on October 13, 2014 at 11:21

    And now I’ve caught Dr. Eades misrepresenting John Murdoch’s Point Barrow expedition (1892). Eades claims Murdoch’s observations support Stefansson’s writings.

    Almost comically, Eades uses the same reference from Murdoch’s Point Barrow expedition—about moderate fat consumption—that I used in my post. The quote clearly shows that Murdoch did not believe they were a high fat culture, which is what all the non-Stefansson literature has been saying.

    Murdoch also never claimed that the Eskimos at Point Barrow mainly subsisted on caribou, with the occasional side of seal meat, as Eades would have us believe. I don’t know where he got that from.

    On page 56, Murdoch says, “The most important sea animal is the little rough seal, which is very abundant at all seasons. Its flesh is the great staple of food, while its blubber supplies the Eskimo lamps, and its skin serves countless useful purposes.”

    On page 268, Murdoch says, “The flesh of the smaller seals forms such a staple of food, and their blubber and skin serve so many important purposes, that their capture is one of the most necessary pursuits at Point Barrow, and is carried on at all seasons of the year and in many different methods.”

    And on page 264, Murdoch says, “Reindeer are comparatively scarce within the radius of a day’s march from Point Barrow, though solitary animals and small parties are to be seen almost any day in the winter a few miles inland from the seacoast.”

    Eades is either completely confused, or he’s making things up on the spot. Unbelievable.

  4. Bret on October 13, 2014 at 08:09

    Re: topic #1

    Upon visiting the link, I glanced at the respectful but critical comment I submitted in July. Still “awaiting moderation,” three months later.

    Not trying to be a broken record, but I think folks ought to know when a blogger censors comments because he can’t deal with intelligent criticism or disagreement.

    That’s been the icing on the cake to all this Inuit nonsense. Thusly, my respect for that man is all but down the tubes.

    • Duck Dodgers on October 13, 2014 at 08:35

      Well, it’s not surprising. You can easily see evidence of ignoring/censoring critical comments in his ‘confirmation bias’ post.

      At one point towards the end of the discussion he says he, “spent most of the morning reading papers I hadn’t before seen on the Inuit diet.” Given that we now know the overwhelming evidence in the scientific literature for high protein consumption amongst the Inuit, this implies to me that he was unaware of such widespread conclusions. This appears to be the moment when he begins to bow out of the conversation.

      A few days later he tells, Jennifer Jones that he will get her long critical comment up, and claims he’s busy. Her two-part comment was never posted.

      It would be one thing if Eades was just actually busy. But, he continues to make underhanded comments about my intelligence when all I’ve done is quote dozens of scientists on the subject. Instead of addressing the overwhelming evidence, he continues to slander me.

      None of these conclusions were mine, by the way. All I did was present the overwhelming evidence. The only difference is that I’ve actually bothered to read the published scientific literature on the subject.



    • Duck Dodgers on October 13, 2014 at 18:29

      A part of me wants to cut Eades some slack. Yet his dismissive attitude is extremely unprofessional, and I think he has dug himself into a hole.

      I suspect he was spoonfed evidence to support his biases by Phinney, whom I loosely reference in my post as an example of someone publishing literature that only relies on casual observations by Schwatka and Stefansson and their n=1s. For instance, in this article, Phinney is referenced as recommending Schwatka’s sledging n=1 to Eades.

      But, Phinney was well aware of what he was doing when he wrote this paper, where he shows that he purposefully ignores the evidence for high protein by saying:

      From: Ketogenic diets and physical performance, by Stephen D Phinney

      It is interesting to note from the careful observations published from the Bellevue study that Stefansson ate relatively modestly of protein, deriving between 80–85% of his dietary energy from fat and only 15–20% from protein. This was, and still remains, at odds with the popular conception that the Inuit ate a high protein diet, whereas in reality it appears to have been a high fat diet with a moderate intake of protein. In his writings, Stefansson notes that the Inuit were careful to limit their intake of lean meat, giving excess lean meat to their dogs and reserving the higher fat portions for human consumption.

      You can see what Phinney did there. He was aware of the evidence for high protein and dismisses all of it by citing Stefansson’s New York experiment as some kind of proxy for the Inuit diet. And he does it in a paper to prove the performance and safety of a ketogenic diet. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

      It’s entirely crooked, self-serving, and below any reasonable standards that we would expect from an scientific paper.

      Incidentally, when Bang & Dyerberg were debunked this past year for claiming that the Inuit had low incidence of cardiovascular disease, without providing any reliable evidence, the researchers wrote:

      From: “Fishing” for the origins of the “Eskimos and heart disease” story. Facts or wishful thinking? A review, by Fodor, et al. (2014)

      Why do so many researchers seem to uncritically quote these reports? Publications still referring to Bang and Dyerberg’s nutritional studies as proof that Eskimos have low prevalence of CAD represent either misinterpretation of the original findings or an example of confirmation bias. Perhaps, they may also represent a trend of applying less rigorous standards of scientific evidence when reporting about non-pharmacological, i.e. lifestyle interventions.

      Sounds familiar. Phinney dismisses all the actual data and uses Stefansson’s embellished observations to excuse himself from his own due diligence.

      It’s a pattern we see over and over again from the LCHF gurus. If their diet is so safe, they need to prove it with actual data—not some fairy tales from a lone Arctic explorer.

      Sadly, it’s difficult for them to recognize this problem as it has become a part of their own business model.



    • Bret on October 13, 2014 at 17:59

      He’s so accustomed to being worshipped on that blog, his first reaction at criticism from mere mortals like us is to banish us from the party.

      That works fine on his turf. But he’ll get no reprieve here. He’d be better off facing the facts and admitting he was wrong, as Tom Naughton admirably demonstrated he himself lacks not the humility to do. Instead, Eades is telling himself he’s too “busy” to fuss with it all, energetically rationalizing about all the better things he has to do with his time (even though he wasn’t too busy to write that giant confirmation bias post to begin with), while quietly/subconsciously assuming that ignoring his this issue altogether will just make the controversy and embarrassment go away.

      That would probably work, if he could manage to control his impulse to make snide pot shots at you on a whim. That sort of childish behavior just throws gasoline onto the fire by earning him a mention on the FTA home page, drawing even more attention to his wrongness and enormously ironic confirmation bias.

      Maybe he’ll figure it out one day. Or, he’ll keep embarrassing himself without realizing it (I recall reading a comment to that same post where he said he was done reading FTA, where even the gods and titans are questioned), and just keep enjoying the shallow Groundhog Day of unconditionally praise from Protein Power fanboys. Whatever.



    • Bret on October 13, 2014 at 20:56

      It’s entirely crooked, self-serving, and below any reasonable standards that we would expect from an scientific paper.

      Though I agree with just about all of your comment, I diverge here. Just as Eades may have been spoon fed by Phinney, Phinney too may have been spoon fed by someone else. The narrative seems quite deeply interwoven into the Ketosis Rocks! pink unicorn universe.

      Mind you, I am not excusing Phinney’s sloppiness, or anyone else’s. Certainly the buck has to stop somewhere. I just don’t think it all started with Phinney, and I have a hard time believing he hatched a diabolical scheme in full awareness of the contradiction between his own opinion and reality.

      I think he is wearing the same blinders Eades is, and so deserves the same slack anyone might cut Eades.



    • Duck Dodgers on October 13, 2014 at 21:10

      Well, I see Phinney as being more phony because he specifically admits to knowing about the “popular conception that the Inuit ate a high protein diet.” I mean, he makes it clear that he’s dismissing the data. It’s obvious he went looking for scientific data on the Inuit and could only rely on Stefansson.

      Whereas Eades just comes off as completely unaware, particularly when he says he, “spent most of the morning reading papers I hadn’t before seen on the Inuit diet.” You can imagine him mystified that studies exist refuting Stefansson.

      As best I can tell, one of those gurus was just unaware. The other made an premeditated effort to deceive.



    • Duck Dodgers on October 14, 2014 at 11:29

      “It stands to reason [Eades] should have researched the topic just as much as Phinney should have”

      As to whether Eades researched as heavily as Phinney… Phinney wrote the quote, above, in a “scientific” paper but didn’t reference any actual science on the Inuit. It certainly does stand to reason that he would have scoured the scientific literature on the Inuit looking for shreds of evidence to support his view. But, we now know he wouldn’t have found any—and they’d be in the paper if he did. I can’t say how well Phinney researched, but Eades is just fumbling facts left and right. It’s embarrassing.

      Eades cited John Murdoch incorrectly, unaware that Murdoch’s observations did not match up with Stefansson’s. He obviously didn’t read Murdoch. Murdoch observed the Eskimo’s moderate fat intake (in the very quote Eades cited, no less), their blubber conservation for lamp fuel, low reindeer availability and seal as a “staple”.

      Eades was unaware that one of the Inuit’s favorite dishes was fermented/rotted meat—Stefansson apparently forgot to mention this.

      Eades claimed glycogen degraded instantly and needed “flash freezing” to preserve it, despite the fact it’s well known that the glycogen degradation that causes rigor mortis can take hours to complete and it’s been well known for over 100 years that marine fish and marine mammals are unusually resistant to postmortem glycogen degradation and even taking days to degrade at 0°C (whales are particularly resistant even at 98°F). It’s like some professor gave Eades a can of liquid nitrogen in college, to preserve glycogen in a lab experiment, and he decided he knew everything there is to know about “basic biochemistry”. (He must have skipped the day when they learned about the degradation curves).

      Eades claimed early 20th century researchers did not know about the speed of glycogen degradation, but had no idea that its rapid degradation at room temperature was how they discovered glycogen in the first place.

      Eades claimed early Inuit researchers didn’t know what keto-adaptation was or how to test for it, but was unaware that Joslin, Heinbecker, Rabinowitch, DuBois, McClellan and others specifically wrote about it and used a half dozen approaches to rule it out.

      Sadly, Eades got so excited by his “basic biochemistry” knowledge that he was so proud of, that he failed to notice that even Stefansson debunks Stefannson, with his own writing.

      And finally, Eades seemed completely unaware of the dozens of studies on the Inuit that demonstrate, confirm, and concur with their high protein consumption, which renders this whole nonsense about glycogen largely extraneous.

      It’s obvious Eades hasn’t done his homework. As we can see, he seems barely familiar with these topics. And his comments certainly do not reflect someone with any intellectual curiosity in the matter. Every retort, every claim of authority, and his censoring of critical comments was simply about defending LCHF dogma, not about showing any interest in the scientific literature.

      I can only assume that Jennifer Jones backed Eades into a logical corner with the Inuit’s high protein consumption. Her comments were quickly censored for being too clever and the conversation was quickly ended. One has to wonder why he even entered the discussion in the first place if he had no interest in discussing it intelligently.

      At least Swedish LCHF bloggers Andreas Eenfeldt and Annika Dahlquist had the decency and integrity to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for high protein consumption, among the Inuit, that Per Wikholm presented in LCHF Magasinet. I suppose we know better than to expect any sliver of modesty from dietary gurus, here in America.



    • Bret on October 13, 2014 at 22:32

      And on the other hand, Eades made some quite confident assertions of his own about the Inuit’s diet and metabolism when writing that post and responding to earlier comments (notwithstanding more recent revelations). It stands to reason he should have researched the topic just as much as Phinney should have.

      Isn’t it possible Phinney simply hasn’t bothered to look beyond the Steffanson perspective he was indoctrinated to believe in and incorrectly thinks it passes for reliable science? Stranger things have happened.

      It probably seems like I am going out of my way to defend Phinney and denigrate Eades. That’s not my intent. Rather, I just think we lack sufficient evidence to assign motive or establish intentional chicanery. I think oafish incompetence is a much stronger argument in both cases. I see these fellas as two peas in a pod.



    • Duck Dodgers on October 14, 2014 at 05:36

      Perhaps. I just think Phinney writes like he’s cognizant of the high protein literature.

      I agree that Eades deserves to have his errors corrected. He’s acting like he’s above the scientific literature, and nothing like a scientist. And for that he deserves this kind of criticism and attention.

      And it’s not just the Inuit that are used by the LCHF camp to promote their unproven lifestyle. The modern iteration of the Paleo diet in general was basically invented to justify whatever diet someone wanted to promote. “The Paleo Prescription Diet” was basically invented to promote the Prudent Diet. Cordain and Nora came along to promote their LC theories. In each situation none of the “Paleo” authors ever changed their perspective as new anthropological data was discovered. Same thing with microbiota discoveries and the role of prebiotics. They just continued to defend their obsolete theories, misinterpreting the science on legumes and starches and fiber, pretending to debate the role of these foods so they could continue promoting their diets without having to face the music and prove their safety. It’s completely fraudulent.



    • Duck Dodgers on October 14, 2014 at 06:19

      …And by “prove their safety” I meant the safety of their diets/lifestyles (not legumes/starches/fiber).

      I suspect the Godfather of this anthropological ruse was Stefansson, who made people think that by emulating an indigenous culture, but with Western foods, he need not have to prove the long term safety of his dietary theories. And, my understanding is that the Bellevue Experiment was done to silence such critics who realized exactly what he was doing.



    • Bret on October 14, 2014 at 13:22

      Pretty scathing, Duck. Scathing and spot on.

      As such, like I said above, my respect for that guy is all but dried up. If he can find the guts to admit he was wrong and set the record straight — and not for your or my sake, but rather for his legions of readers, who deserve to know that the primary evidence he offered in support of chronic ketosis in fact does not support the view at all — I will take it all back. Everybody is wrong from time to time; it’s no big deal if we just stop fellating ourselves long enough to admit it. But I don’t see that happening any time soon in this case, given the transpirations thus far.

      Hopefully he will prove me wrong.



  5. Regina on October 13, 2014 at 08:25

    Great post!
    I adore breakfast in Japan.

    Well, so many wonderful topics were put forth in this post. Thank you.

  6. Regina on October 13, 2014 at 10:09

    p.s. on the land of the free topic:
    http://www.cato.org/economic-freedom-world

  7. David V on October 13, 2014 at 10:53

    I really liked the Minger talk. The idea that two different diets on opposite ends of the spectrum may both work is interesting. The issue is that both very low fat or very high fat diets seems to miss out on some nutrients. I wonder if switching back and forth would provide the best of both worlds. Nature usually packages protein and fat together and starch/sugars together. The counter point would be the Perfect Health Diet where the authors say the reason food combining tastes so good is because it helps the body (i.e. mixing carbs and fats lowers the glycemic index and add nutrients, etc).

    • Bret on October 14, 2014 at 15:28

      David, based on reading PHD and most of Richard’s recent posts on the gut (as well as testimonials/evidence elsewhere), I think there is likely something to the idea that switching back and forth between the two may be beneficial. Much like the oft advised “cycling” into and out of ketosis.

      I used to wonder if a steady diet would be beneficial with the proper proportions (whatever they may be) of animal and plant food. But then I realized that rigid steadiness is probably a fairy tale, being that our nutrient needs, resultant hunger signals, and other impulses change day to day, based on what is going on in our bodies.

      I suspect the best advice lies somewhere in the middle. Attempting stability, but accepting curveball- and appetite-induced instability.



  8. MikeWard on October 13, 2014 at 12:29

    It’s ironic that the only reason I first read Mistakes were made (but not by me) was because Eades recommended it. I’m thinking he should probably spend some of his massive reading time, re-reading it.

  9. Jess on October 13, 2014 at 15:16

    Kids appear so resilient but some of those breakfasts if truly representative, are bound to cause them serious trouble as they grow. If ‘we’ are really so driven by convenience, left-overs are a really awesome quick breakfast.

    • Jess on October 13, 2014 at 15:21

      Although I strongly suspect you all are well aware of that! 🙂



    • Richard Nikoley on October 13, 2014 at 15:32

      “but some of those breakfasts if truly representative, are bound to cause them serious trouble as they grow.”

      Complete bullshit.

      I’ve travelled all over the world and folks eat this stuff well into their 80s.

      Paleo has a problem. It has people spouting ignorant shit from zero on the groud experience.



    • Jess on October 14, 2014 at 01:54

      Alright, I’ll do it better. As I should. I was being lazy earlier. The point I was trying to make is – kids ‘appear so resilient’. Physically, mentally, and metabolically.
      We are their guardians and our choices for them profoundly influence them. Children ‘appear resilient’, and generally they are. They adapt. They ‘thrive’. They LEARN. But what’s really going on. What are they learning when they get a slab of bread covered in sugar sprinkles, and believe it constitutes a meal?
      Saki is adorable, and that kid is really nailing breakfast (okay it’s more likely mum nailing it, probably, although Saki is possibly negotiating some of the components – toddlers excel here in my experience). And she’s not alone.
      Some of these examples of breakfast are awesome. Carby foods are valuable as both a sustaining and affordable calorie source. I do not refute that people all over the world live and grow (old) eating all sorts of excellent carb strong meals. I’m one of them. But there are a few of those offerings that suck. If they are truly standard fare, rather than random fare, then they really suck.
      “Some of those breakfasts” – Viv’s and Tiago’s stood out.
      My expat Dutch grandfather used to treat me with hagelslag on buttered bread when I visited. Fond memories, but I can’t imagine feeling good eating it everyday as breakfast. It’s nutritionally bleak, and lacking whole food.
      I know what a(n adorable yet frustrated) turd my toddler would be if he ate that for breakfast everyday. Tiago’s breakfast would elicit the same monster. It would seriously screw up our (and most importantly his) day.



    • Ch on October 14, 2014 at 13:56

      So what is your point Richard? Is it that eating chocolate shavings on toast is a great diet? It would seem you have come to the conclusion that the majority of your 10 years of posts are then bullshit. I did not notice much potato starch in these breakfasts either. Is that ditched now too? Finally, Your response to Jess was unnecessarily rude.

      Cheers



    • Richard Nikoley on October 14, 2014 at 14:06

      “So what is your point Richard? Is it that eating chocolate shavings on toast is a great diet?”

      No, not at all. Actually, I prefer butter, cinnamon, and refined sugar that crystalizes when placed under the broiler.

      Breakfast of champions. Everyone ought eat a loaf of it daily.



    • Ch on October 14, 2014 at 14:16

      Is that an answer or have you started ‘early’ today?



    • Richard Nikoley on October 14, 2014 at 14:20

      It’s very plainly an answer. I’m headed out for a loaf of Wonder. I already have butter, cinnamon—and I’m sure I’ll find refined sugar in a cupboard.

      I’m going to try to find someone to mok before I get back….



    • Ch on October 14, 2014 at 14:30

      OK, hope you’re not driving…



    • Richard Nikoley on October 14, 2014 at 14:40

      “OK, hope you’re not driving…”

      Gotta be better than posting comments while not thinking.



  10. ProudlyHighCarb on October 13, 2014 at 18:17

    Eades hasn’t demonstrated even a rudimentary understanding of biochemistry over the years. I remember when he had a hissy fit over an ABC article in which they fed someone a giant fast food meal and blamed the “milkiness” in their bloodstream on dietary fat rather than carbohydrates. As if the body would go through the effort of converting all the wheat and sugar you eat to fat and transporting that through the bloodstream, but dietary fat… nah! I guess you just poop that out or something. Does Eades even know what a chylomicron is?

  11. Michael44 on October 15, 2014 at 21:51

    I agree with you Tess.

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780