Page 1 of 1

Nutrition experts fighting with each others.

Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:41 am
by stuward
You might expect fights between the low-fat and low-carb camps but right now there are a couple of fights going on in completely in the low-carb camp. Dr. Dan Eades is having a of pissing contest with Anthony Calpo. Jame Kreiger is taking shots at Gary Taubes and Fred Hahn is getting upset and now Robb Wolf is getting into it.

http://www.thebsdetective.com/2009/10/b ... ay-no.html
http://robbwolf.com/
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/trav ... om-mexico/
http://www.anthonycolpo.com/MAD_Eades_challenge.html
http://slowburnfitness.com/

The funny thing is that they all agree on the main issues, it's just the tweaking around the edges that they argue about. They all need to grow up a little.

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:05 pm
by Matt Z
There's only one way to settle this .... Gladiator Style Combat!

Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:54 pm
by Jebus
What a bunch of babies

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:38 pm
by frigginwizard
Matt Z wrote:There's only one way to settle this .... Gladiator Style Combat!
cage fight, 2 men enter, 1 man leaves.

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:03 pm
by KPj
Rock paper scissors?

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:07 pm
by jps
KPj wrote:Rock paper scissors?
lol

I was playing that this weekend with my GF (think it was at the drive thru at McD's at 12:55 am....we ordered french fries 5 mins before they closed...we laughed our asses off!).....hahaha. Funny....they even have a rock paper scissor competition....can't remember what station I saw that on....ESPN maybe?

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:05 pm
by frogbyte
Here's the article that caused the issues apparently: http://www.thebsdetective.com/2009/10/b ... 5452106100

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:35 pm
by frogbyte
I had a chance to read that article now and it seems extremely over-reaching and sketchy. I can see why others called him out on it.

Where he links to "Research shows that fat overfeeding, without additional carbohydrate, does increase body weight." that is seemingly not at all what that study is trying to measure in relation to his "prediction." I'm not clear on where he got those predictions either.

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:44 am
by KPj
There's more expert wars going on here (about HFCS and sugar in general) in the comments section,

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/2 ... -alarmism/

I've not read through it properly yet and will need to watch the video later but it all looks entertaining.

I must admit the more I look into this the more I'm taking a more middle of the road view point. I still don't buy into all this 'enery balance doesn't matter' thing or that obese people didn't get like that from eating too much. I do however believe that there's a lot more too it than energy balance. On the whole I realise I have sh*t load more to learn on the subject. In practice I follow PN as much as I can and it would take a lot to get away from that. It falls in line with most of this anyway....

KPj

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:53 am
by stuward
It's a complex subject but it's been ignored by the mainstream researchers for so long, it's the renegades that are driving the research now. These are the same people who are more prone to air their linen in public and scientific research is the loser. This research should be done in the labs, not in the streets.

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:16 pm
by KPj
Yes, the more I learn about it, the more I don't understand :smile:

I'm actually really enjoying reading Leigh Peeles blog. Really like the common sense approach.

I have Good Calories Bad Calories now, too, but probably won't read it until March. I might shove it further up the cue though, but priority just now is all this NASM crap, I mean, info.

KPj

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:44 am
by jml
I've gotten through about 100 pages of Good Cals Bad Cals. It seems like a big problem is that it's impossible to conduct a diet experiment without having significant lurking/confounding variables. It seems like they all agree that everyone would be better off if they cut back on the added sugar and white flour...

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:20 am
by stuward
jml wrote:I've gotten through about 100 pages of Good Cals Bad Cals. It seems like a big problem is that it's impossible to conduct a diet experiment without having significant lurking/confounding variables. It seems like they all agree that everyone would be better off if they cut back on the added sugar and white flour...
Everybody here would agree to that and most people in 2010 would agree to that but in the late 20th century that wasn't always true. Keep reading.