OK, you heard it here first!!!!!, not from Robb Wolf. Here's my prediction. (This time, REALLY go back and read the Hancock links and see how much what he was saying mirrors what Robb Wolf says here.)
Now, the REAL reason we have to discover and re-discover stuff all over again is because the huge magnetic field created by Harvard-trained 'nana-eatin' PhD's who busy about with their cohorts, is resetting the hard-drives of the innovators, those folks who come up with all those crazy theories that the other folks in charge won't ever test.
Reminds me of our favorite [redacted]people coach, "One must be reading the research...." All fine and dandy, but the real issue is not who has all the answers, but who gets to come up with all the questions. Cause, people like that [redacted] coach keep saying that we need good studies. Good studies are produced, but they still deny deny deny. So what's up with that? Certainly not science, there is something up there, other than science, which has always been more fascinating to me than actual science.
(Thanks to Dr. Feinman, the other, for the title I stole. I know, you stole it too, but I am crediting you cause I just love yur blog and that other guy doesn't have a blog.)
Showing posts with label Harvard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harvard. Show all posts
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Paleo on 1000 dollars a day
I guess I was just getting sick of the commerciality of paleo, with everyone seeming to hawk their gym, their website, their book, their individualized plan, etc. etc. etc.
I do believe it is fine for people to make a living, but what concerns me about this practice is that once someone comes out with a book, all they do is defend it. They become so invested in doing it the way of their book, that they can't seem to look beyond anything anymore.
It is even more dicey for these folks to change their course. If they don't change, they are just rigid, but if they do, some whiner complains that they are wishy-washy. They really can't win until the nastiness subsides and people can really take a good view of things and have a civil discussion.
I haven't purchased a paleo book, or a DVD, an exclusive seminar or phone call, a closed chat room, or any touted supplements from India. Maybe someday I'll buy a locker of grass-fed beef. I probably don't need to say that I am not buying anything from Harvard either.
I do believe it is fine for people to make a living, but what concerns me about this practice is that once someone comes out with a book, all they do is defend it. They become so invested in doing it the way of their book, that they can't seem to look beyond anything anymore.
It is even more dicey for these folks to change their course. If they don't change, they are just rigid, but if they do, some whiner complains that they are wishy-washy. They really can't win until the nastiness subsides and people can really take a good view of things and have a civil discussion.
I haven't purchased a paleo book, or a DVD, an exclusive seminar or phone call, a closed chat room, or any touted supplements from India. Maybe someday I'll buy a locker of grass-fed beef. I probably don't need to say that I am not buying anything from Harvard either.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Pillar Envy
There sure has been a bunch of fighting in the paleodome this week. Before, I was just bored with the Paleo's. Now I am pretty much disgusted. I had some time to think things over, and here's what I think is going on.
Jimmy Moore posted answers to his question concerning Jaminet's "safe starch" concept and all hell broke loose. Either I can't remember where things are posted, or things have been seriously scrubbed.
Here are some links
Jimmy's post.
Posts on Paleohacks.
Jaminet's overview and response.
So, for background, Jaminet recommends "safe starches", and these are foods like potatoes and rice, foods that contain starches but don't negatively affect the gut like gluten-containing grains. Other Paleo "experts" jumped on this concept and started trashing the people who have been the most successful on a low carb diet. Of course, this behavior was a concern to the low-carb fans, so Jimmy's post attempted to bring more of the controversy out into the open. To many low-carbers, there is no such thing as a "safe starch".
Jaminet pointed out in his overview blog that at least some people are able to keep a sense of humor throughout it all. Some people haven't. It seems like several of the luminaries lost it.
Now Jaminet, though I disagree with him on a number of points, is always polite about things and tries to keep the focus on the topics. I like that. Even though he did mention the quip about "pillar envy" I am afraid that many of Jaminet's most fervent readers will mis-interpret the comment.
Though I can no longer find the post, Harris really went after Kruse, posting that "they're" all snickering about him in their e-mails back and forth to each other and then tried to mop it up with an "honestly, I don't understand the infighting"-type message. On the Paleohacks board, there have been many nasty sniping-like comments by Melissa (of hunt, gather, b*tch). First it was trashing the low carbers. Then it was going after Dr. Kruse, and commenting that Dr. Rosedale wasn't a real researcher and his studies showing the benefits of a low-carb diet weren't real studies. She is really starting to sound more and more like Coach [redacted] at [redacted]people.com. Arrogant. Entitled. Privy to esoteric knowledge the little people can't understand. Coach [redacted]'s "One must be reading the correct research," comment comes to mind.
I think she was just mad that Jimmy didn't ask her. You see, she fancies herself as heir to the paleo throne, and any official comments she may have had were not included. She envies the pillar. Now that the low-carb pillars have been toppled, she is ready for the inheritance. Cordain's leadership status has fallen, Taubes has been discredited, Eades has been shunned as a has-been and off to the appliance section, Hahn and Kruse are just puffy and red-faced, Rosedale isn't a "real" doctor, etc. etc. the new queen of paleo, claiming full backing by all those other real university researchers who use lots of fake people (lab rats) and real statistics can enter her court in her full regalia. I think that Melissa has already picked out the new upholstery for the throne cushions and now she's irked when people like Kruse, Rosedale, Feinman, Su and others say "hey, wait a minute!"
It is stuff like this that decides what blogs I recommend, what blogs I merely follow and what blogs I generally avoid. I originally started this blog for my fat buddies who were trying to lose weight. In my next post, I'll discuss why I would place my bets on Rosedale and Kruse. You can read it here.
Jimmy Moore posted answers to his question concerning Jaminet's "safe starch" concept and all hell broke loose. Either I can't remember where things are posted, or things have been seriously scrubbed.
Here are some links
Jimmy's post.
Posts on Paleohacks.
Jaminet's overview and response.
So, for background, Jaminet recommends "safe starches", and these are foods like potatoes and rice, foods that contain starches but don't negatively affect the gut like gluten-containing grains. Other Paleo "experts" jumped on this concept and started trashing the people who have been the most successful on a low carb diet. Of course, this behavior was a concern to the low-carb fans, so Jimmy's post attempted to bring more of the controversy out into the open. To many low-carbers, there is no such thing as a "safe starch".
Jaminet pointed out in his overview blog that at least some people are able to keep a sense of humor throughout it all. Some people haven't. It seems like several of the luminaries lost it.
Now Jaminet, though I disagree with him on a number of points, is always polite about things and tries to keep the focus on the topics. I like that. Even though he did mention the quip about "pillar envy" I am afraid that many of Jaminet's most fervent readers will mis-interpret the comment.
Though I can no longer find the post, Harris really went after Kruse, posting that "they're" all snickering about him in their e-mails back and forth to each other and then tried to mop it up with an "honestly, I don't understand the infighting"-type message. On the Paleohacks board, there have been many nasty sniping-like comments by Melissa (of hunt, gather, b*tch). First it was trashing the low carbers. Then it was going after Dr. Kruse, and commenting that Dr. Rosedale wasn't a real researcher and his studies showing the benefits of a low-carb diet weren't real studies. She is really starting to sound more and more like Coach [redacted] at [redacted]people.com. Arrogant. Entitled. Privy to esoteric knowledge the little people can't understand. Coach [redacted]'s "One must be reading the correct research," comment comes to mind.
I think she was just mad that Jimmy didn't ask her. You see, she fancies herself as heir to the paleo throne, and any official comments she may have had were not included. She envies the pillar. Now that the low-carb pillars have been toppled, she is ready for the inheritance. Cordain's leadership status has fallen, Taubes has been discredited, Eades has been shunned as a has-been and off to the appliance section, Hahn and Kruse are just puffy and red-faced, Rosedale isn't a "real" doctor, etc. etc. the new queen of paleo, claiming full backing by all those other real university researchers who use lots of fake people (lab rats) and real statistics can enter her court in her full regalia. I think that Melissa has already picked out the new upholstery for the throne cushions and now she's irked when people like Kruse, Rosedale, Feinman, Su and others say "hey, wait a minute!"
It is stuff like this that decides what blogs I recommend, what blogs I merely follow and what blogs I generally avoid. I originally started this blog for my fat buddies who were trying to lose weight. In my next post, I'll discuss why I would place my bets on Rosedale and Kruse. You can read it here.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
De-constructing the Important Paper
OK, here's what was REALLY said. Hard to believe, huh? By the way, I am adding a postscript for two reasons. First, to let people in on what is really being said about diabetes and diets, (seems to be the theme this week) and second because I am not allowed to post any of this information on a message board at that diet and weight loss website. Too dangerous. Faced with that smack-down, I admit I just can't resist.
It is my hope that people with diabetes or tending towards it will keep reading, and to decide for themselves what is truly dangerous and what is not.
First, here's a link to a copy of the original April 1 paper with graphics. Note especially the pyramid on the right with insulin flowing all over the top of the pyramid.
http://www.carbohydratescankill.com/1750/old-news-for-april-1-2011
"Covered With Insulin"
Here's an article explaining the reasoning of the American Diabetes Association and how they came up with their position that it's OK to eat a bunch of sugar if you "cover" it with insulin.
http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=13877
Here's the clif notes.
1. We're the leading diabetes organization.
2. After years and years of careful analysis of peer-reviewed gold-standard studies from august researchers from places like Harvard, we have determined that you can't resist carbs.
3. So, we say, eat carbs, cause you can always fix it by injecting insulin.
4. If you don't like all those injections 'n' stuff, you can also just use a glucose-lowering medication.
The Pyramid
Here's some information on the American Diabetes Association and American Dietetic Association's Diabetes Food Pyramid:
http://www.bd.com/us/diabetes/page.aspx?cat=7001&id=7061 This food pyramid is no longer recommended by ADA. Meanwhile, the USDA has revised the food pyramid that we all recognize with some sort really really high striped beach cabana that seems to fade away at the top altitude.
http://www.mypyramid.gov/index.html (And we all remember this website, source of all the wonky vegetable classifications. Where oh where are the green eggs and ham??)
Of course, the reference to the truncated icosahedron is a nod to the idea that the recommended diet surely is a political football, and may not have much to do with nutrition, at least for diabetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truncated_icosahedron
The Very Important Statement
You'll find it here: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/31/Supplement_1/S61.full If you read through this article, you'll notice that the ADA also confuses a "risk factor" with a cause, although this common error wasn't lampooned in the original article. It also contains other interesting phrases like, "This statement updates previous position statements,..." It is also interesting to note that this statement (or this thing that updates them???) refers to the Look AHEAD study, and in that study, conducted by the American Diabetes Association, the study authors mentioned the difficulty of achieving treatment success using current strategies, and gives 3 references. The fact that I said the same thing on the weight loss website (OK, without the references), and was told I couldn't post such "dangerous" statements, led to the full implementation of this here blog.
If you read this position statement carefully, you will recognize that it was written by committee, and they surely don't all agree. They recommend the USDA guidelines AND say it's ok to follow a low-carb weight loss diet? Hmmm, wonder who got that slipped in.
Dr. Anthony Rosenzweig's paper.
I'm not going to link that here, only the clif notes of the study.
1. We got a bunch of mice that were genetically engineered to get atherosclerosis
2. We fed them a low carb diet
3. They got atherosclerosis.
4. We're blaming the diet.
Women's health initiative
It didn't work out as the researchers had expected.
Others
Other researchers are mentioned, most of them known not only for their anti-low-carb stance, but also their steadfast refusal to take a look at or publish any data on the success of the low-carb diet. April Fools, indeed!
It is my hope that people with diabetes or tending towards it will keep reading, and to decide for themselves what is truly dangerous and what is not.
First, here's a link to a copy of the original April 1 paper with graphics. Note especially the pyramid on the right with insulin flowing all over the top of the pyramid.
http://www.carbohydratescankill.com/1750/old-news-for-april-1-2011
"Covered With Insulin"
Here's an article explaining the reasoning of the American Diabetes Association and how they came up with their position that it's OK to eat a bunch of sugar if you "cover" it with insulin.
http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=13877
Here's the clif notes.
1. We're the leading diabetes organization.
2. After years and years of careful analysis of peer-reviewed gold-standard studies from august researchers from places like Harvard, we have determined that you can't resist carbs.
3. So, we say, eat carbs, cause you can always fix it by injecting insulin.
4. If you don't like all those injections 'n' stuff, you can also just use a glucose-lowering medication.
The Pyramid
Here's some information on the American Diabetes Association and American Dietetic Association's Diabetes Food Pyramid:
http://www.bd.com/us/diabetes/page.aspx?cat=7001&id=7061 This food pyramid is no longer recommended by ADA. Meanwhile, the USDA has revised the food pyramid that we all recognize with some sort really really high striped beach cabana that seems to fade away at the top altitude.
http://www.mypyramid.gov/index.html (And we all remember this website, source of all the wonky vegetable classifications. Where oh where are the green eggs and ham??)
Of course, the reference to the truncated icosahedron is a nod to the idea that the recommended diet surely is a political football, and may not have much to do with nutrition, at least for diabetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truncated_icosahedron
The Very Important Statement
You'll find it here: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/31/Supplement_1/S61.full If you read through this article, you'll notice that the ADA also confuses a "risk factor" with a cause, although this common error wasn't lampooned in the original article. It also contains other interesting phrases like, "This statement updates previous position statements,..." It is also interesting to note that this statement (or this thing that updates them???) refers to the Look AHEAD study, and in that study, conducted by the American Diabetes Association, the study authors mentioned the difficulty of achieving treatment success using current strategies, and gives 3 references. The fact that I said the same thing on the weight loss website (OK, without the references), and was told I couldn't post such "dangerous" statements, led to the full implementation of this here blog.
If you read this position statement carefully, you will recognize that it was written by committee, and they surely don't all agree. They recommend the USDA guidelines AND say it's ok to follow a low-carb weight loss diet? Hmmm, wonder who got that slipped in.
Dr. Anthony Rosenzweig's paper.
I'm not going to link that here, only the clif notes of the study.
1. We got a bunch of mice that were genetically engineered to get atherosclerosis
2. We fed them a low carb diet
3. They got atherosclerosis.
4. We're blaming the diet.
Women's health initiative
It didn't work out as the researchers had expected.
Others
Other researchers are mentioned, most of them known not only for their anti-low-carb stance, but also their steadfast refusal to take a look at or publish any data on the success of the low-carb diet. April Fools, indeed!
Friday, March 25, 2011
The. Most. Shocking. Rose. Ceremony. Ever.
You'all remember my post about Frank Sacks. If not, here it is:
http://exceptionallybrash.blogspot.com/2011/03/it-just-gets-better-and-better.html
Here's what Dr. Richard Feinman has to say about another study done by Sacks: http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/?p=3933
I had been wanting to get back to this important topic. Even though it was already getting better and better in my last post on the topic, I soon found out it was even more and more better than ever.
A few days after I read about our researcher friend, I was casually looking at a stack of magazines at a friend's house. I found a Nutrition Action newsletter and skimmed through a couple of articles touting the low fat diet, and just on a lark, I checked to see who the author was. I went to the info page where they have all the directors and advisory board people listed. And who was on the list? Frank Sacks!
As you recall, Frank Sacks is an author of a bogus study, and his study had been published by a journal, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, where he served as editor. Sure, every "researcher" is biased towards the things they study, but there is a big problem when these researchers mis-represent their work and block the flow of information from other researchers who have data that disagrees with them.
Frank Sacks was also on the scientific advisory board of the Center for Science in the Public Interest newsletter, the Nutrition Action Newsletter. Here's an article by the CSPI about how wonderful the OmniHeart diet is.
http://exceptionallybrash.blogspot.com/2011/03/it-just-gets-better-and-better.html
Here's what Dr. Richard Feinman has to say about another study done by Sacks: http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/?p=3933
I had been wanting to get back to this important topic. Even though it was already getting better and better in my last post on the topic, I soon found out it was even more and more better than ever.
A few days after I read about our researcher friend, I was casually looking at a stack of magazines at a friend's house. I found a Nutrition Action newsletter and skimmed through a couple of articles touting the low fat diet, and just on a lark, I checked to see who the author was. I went to the info page where they have all the directors and advisory board people listed. And who was on the list? Frank Sacks!
As you recall, Frank Sacks is an author of a bogus study, and his study had been published by a journal, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, where he served as editor. Sure, every "researcher" is biased towards the things they study, but there is a big problem when these researchers mis-represent their work and block the flow of information from other researchers who have data that disagrees with them.
Frank Sacks was also on the scientific advisory board of the Center for Science in the Public Interest newsletter, the Nutrition Action Newsletter. Here's an article by the CSPI about how wonderful the OmniHeart diet is.
http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/cover_-_what_should_i_eat.pdf
This article discusses the famous OmniHeart trial. They tested three different versions of the OmniHeart diet and guess which diet was the best? It was a tie between the OmniHeart diet and the OmniHeart diet!!!!!! (No, this is not a computer glitch. You read this right.) Of course, the OmniHeart diet is Frank Sack's.
So, here's the Clif notes:
1. Unsatisfied with his other bogus studies, Frank Saks designed an even better bogus study, and tested three versions of his own diet, the Omniheart diet, the OmiHeart diet and the OmniHeart diet
2. The OmniHeart and the OmniHeart diet tied for the best, and beat out the OmniHeart slightly.
3. The researcher concluded that the OmniHeart is the best healthy diet of all!
4. The researcher got this crap published in a newsletter where he was on the scientific advisory board.
Wow! This has been The. Most. Shocking. Rose. Ceremony. Ever.
This article discusses the famous OmniHeart trial. They tested three different versions of the OmniHeart diet and guess which diet was the best? It was a tie between the OmniHeart diet and the OmniHeart diet!!!!!! (No, this is not a computer glitch. You read this right.) Of course, the OmniHeart diet is Frank Sack's.
So, here's the Clif notes:
1. Unsatisfied with his other bogus studies, Frank Saks designed an even better bogus study, and tested three versions of his own diet, the Omniheart diet, the OmiHeart diet and the OmniHeart diet
2. The OmniHeart and the OmniHeart diet tied for the best, and beat out the OmniHeart slightly.
3. The researcher concluded that the OmniHeart is the best healthy diet of all!
4. The researcher got this crap published in a newsletter where he was on the scientific advisory board.
Wow! This has been The. Most. Shocking. Rose. Ceremony. Ever.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Totally bogus study disguised as real research?
(a version of this post was on another site on Feb 27 of this year.)
You decide!
"The intent of this analysis was to evaluate the healthfulness of several popular diets and the OmniHeart diets.."
Oh really? These researchers didn't do a real experiment. They said they wanted to evaluate "healthfulness", so what they did is compare several diet plans to established dietary guidelines (You know, those guidelines that say we are all supposed to reduce saturated fat because it's a "risk factor" for heart disease).
Amazingly, they found out that the low-carb diet plans, and even the Ornish plan, did not conform to these recommendations. And they used NIH money to figure this out? They had to have a bunch of people with PhD's to get paid for this?
So, you're probably thinking, what kind of conclusions did all this money get us? They concluded that the other plans were worse because they didn't follow the guidelines as closely. They elevated their own diet. Nice try, Harvard researchers. We expected better from you.
Not only that, they got their "peers" to publish this crap in a "peer-reviewed journal". And, they tried to weasel-in a statement about how the low-carb diets increased "risk factors" for cardio-vascular disease. "Although the OmniHeart protein and unsaturated fat diets were superior to the carbohydrate diet in improving CVD risk.." (Nice try on the Google Bomb.) (Repeat after me: a risk factor is not a cause, a risk factor is not a cause....)
So lets recap. The "researchers" attempted to prove that their diet was better by comparing it to some standards. Then they declared their diet the winner, and also implied that they had determined that it reduced CVD. But, they actually offered NOT ONE SINGLE NEW DATA POINT, and only managed to confuse the issue even further.
I guess that won't keep others from quoting this study as proof that low-carb diets are bad for us.
www.ajcn.org/content/88/
1/1.full
And, just for fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
You decide!
"The intent of this analysis was to evaluate the healthfulness of several popular diets and the OmniHeart diets.."
Oh really? These researchers didn't do a real experiment. They said they wanted to evaluate "healthfulness", so what they did is compare several diet plans to established dietary guidelines (You know, those guidelines that say we are all supposed to reduce saturated fat because it's a "risk factor" for heart disease).
Amazingly, they found out that the low-carb diet plans, and even the Ornish plan, did not conform to these recommendations. And they used NIH money to figure this out? They had to have a bunch of people with PhD's to get paid for this?
So, you're probably thinking, what kind of conclusions did all this money get us? They concluded that the other plans were worse because they didn't follow the guidelines as closely. They elevated their own diet. Nice try, Harvard researchers. We expected better from you.
Not only that, they got their "peers" to publish this crap in a "peer-reviewed journal". And, they tried to weasel-in a statement about how the low-carb diets increased "risk factors" for cardio-vascular disease. "Although the OmniHeart protein and unsaturated fat diets were superior to the carbohydrate diet in improving CVD risk.." (Nice try on the Google Bomb.) (Repeat after me: a risk factor is not a cause, a risk factor is not a cause....)
So lets recap. The "researchers" attempted to prove that their diet was better by comparing it to some standards. Then they declared their diet the winner, and also implied that they had determined that it reduced CVD. But, they actually offered NOT ONE SINGLE NEW DATA POINT, and only managed to confuse the issue even further.
I guess that won't keep others from quoting this study as proof that low-carb diets are bad for us.
www.ajcn.org/content/88/
1/1.full
And, just for fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
It just gets better and better
(originally posted Feb 27 on another site.)
Well, here I am, interrupting my daily schedule to bring you another blog for the day. I just had to laugh so hard (or cry) that it couldn't wait till tomorrow.
I had been reading the comments to yesterday's blog about the "bogus" study.
(See the entry: http://exceptionallybrash.blogspot.com/2011/03/totally-bogus-study-designed-as-real.html )
Curious, I decided to look up a few of the authors, to see if I could find any other comments about this study from other prominent diet doctors.
It was just bugging me when that little phrase, "Peer-reviewed journal" kept tumbling over and over in my brain and I kept waking up at night troubled, wondering about who might be a peer of this lead Harvard researcher. (BTW, for those that don't want to go back to the article, it was in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, sounds fancy enough, doesn't it?)
Whew!
I started on Frank Sacks, he's the guy the e-mails and comments go to, so he was probably the man in charge. So, I googled him. Interestingly, the "bogus" article didn't show up first, but another article caught my eye.
It was an article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. When I clicked on it, I came up with the journal's conflict of interest policy, written by the prominent editors of the journal. Guess who wrote it? Yea, you guessed it! Frank Sacks!
So let's recap: He's the editor, he even writes the conflict of interest policy, and then a year or so later, his bogus article gets approved for publication in the same journal. Sounds like there's no conflict of interest here!
Sounds just like an old-boy club there at Harvard. They all take turns editing, writing and then approving each other's papers. Now if they want to call that HIGH SCHOOL, that's great. The trouble is when they are calling it SCIENCE and you and I are not only paying for it, we're being scolded for not following the recommendations in such a prestigious journal.
Anyway, I found this really great article about one of Sack's other papers, over at LivinLaVida LowCarb. Sacks gets skewered, and justifiably so, IMO. Here's the link:
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/if-new-research-says-weight-loss-is-all-about-the-calories-then-why-was-the-atkins-diet-omitted-from-the-study/3827
Well, here I am, interrupting my daily schedule to bring you another blog for the day. I just had to laugh so hard (or cry) that it couldn't wait till tomorrow.
I had been reading the comments to yesterday's blog about the "bogus" study.
(See the entry: http://exceptionallybrash.blogspot.com/2011/03/totally-bogus-study-designed-as-real.html )
Curious, I decided to look up a few of the authors, to see if I could find any other comments about this study from other prominent diet doctors.
It was just bugging me when that little phrase, "Peer-reviewed journal" kept tumbling over and over in my brain and I kept waking up at night troubled, wondering about who might be a peer of this lead Harvard researcher. (BTW, for those that don't want to go back to the article, it was in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, sounds fancy enough, doesn't it?)
Whew!
I started on Frank Sacks, he's the guy the e-mails and comments go to, so he was probably the man in charge. So, I googled him. Interestingly, the "bogus" article didn't show up first, but another article caught my eye.
It was an article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. When I clicked on it, I came up with the journal's conflict of interest policy, written by the prominent editors of the journal. Guess who wrote it? Yea, you guessed it! Frank Sacks!
So let's recap: He's the editor, he even writes the conflict of interest policy, and then a year or so later, his bogus article gets approved for publication in the same journal. Sounds like there's no conflict of interest here!
Sounds just like an old-boy club there at Harvard. They all take turns editing, writing and then approving each other's papers. Now if they want to call that HIGH SCHOOL, that's great. The trouble is when they are calling it SCIENCE and you and I are not only paying for it, we're being scolded for not following the recommendations in such a prestigious journal.
Anyway, I found this really great article about one of Sack's other papers, over at LivinLaVida LowCarb. Sacks gets skewered, and justifiably so, IMO. Here's the link:
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/if-new-research-says-weight-loss-is-all-about-the-calories-then-why-was-the-atkins-diet-omitted-from-the-study/3827
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)