Dang! This is unfortunate. It was always a joke in the halls of statistics. If you don't like a pesky data point that seems to blow holes in your fave theory, just get a little bottle of white-out. Apply liberally. Poof! Problem's gone.
Trouble happens when it is MY data point. Now, to compensate, I am going to write a series of blog posts. I hope you read them and send a link to EVERYONE YOU KNOW who has anything to do with the low- and lower-carb world because they really need to read this stuff.
I posted a thoughtful reply on Ron Rosedale's end-of-safe-starch-discussion blog, and eventually it got past the moderator, but while I was waiting, I thought it best for me to collect my thoughts here, where I have some control over what is included. (You can find Ron's post by finding the link on the right.)
If you have always wondered what it is like to actually live in a place such as Morovia, untouched by any 7-country study, 22-country study or other serious anthropological inquiry, well, stay tuned. You'll be able to see that lost demographic right here, eating, sleeping, struggling with both.
Here's a general outline of what I intend to cover:
1. Review my original comment on Rosedale's blog.
2. Elaborate on the tricks I now use to get back into VLC-fat-burning mode.
3. Respond to another poster (somewhere?) who mentioned he thought that people who tried many diets carefully were just neurotic. Yep, I hope I don't get too Portia on you, but this topic deserves a blogpost all on its own.
4. A post on the general state of "discussions" about carbs and the lack of science. From a certain point of view, there is really no difference between many of the luminaries who coo to their audience segment, kick out the comments of those who have a different experience and otherwise ignore or discount their data. They all deserve some time in the science doghouse.
So, to get started, I hope new readers will visit some of my earlier blogposts about what happened to me. You can find them here and here.
if a theory doesn't account for common variants of experience, it can't be valid. ;-) i think there are enough of "us" out there to make that glaringly obvious. paradoxes are a sign of trouble.
ReplyDeleteToo bad it is more like the people who are variant are invalid. The fact that it is not glaringly obvious to others says lots.
ReplyDelete