[Vision2020] ketogenic diets

[Joe Campbell]

If the vast number of faerie scientists -- of which there are none, by the way -- held the view you note, then yes I would recommend that view. It is the combination of consensus on the one side and possible catastrophic consequences on the other that drives my thinking. So the example is off the mark.

On Sep 3, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> You're assuming the disaster is real, then giving me heck for putting us in danger by questioning it.  The same can be said of dealing with the imminent faerie attack that will happen next month if we don't give up pizza.  Because the outcome is so dire, we need to look at it closer.  Specifically, we need to be aware of the idea of what a "cascade" is, and to try our best to avoid it if it has begun.
> 
> I'm not working for the fossil fuel industry, I'm not making a buck selling books.  I'm just concerned that there is a potential for what I would have described a few days ago as climate scientists having blinders on, but which I can now happily describe as being in the midst of a cascade.  Lots of things make me worry about that.  The politics involved, the emphasis on consensus, the demonizing of skeptics, and the sudden urge by every progressive in the area to refute me for bringing it up as an aside in a conversation on a totally unrelated topic.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
> Cc: Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ketogenic diets
> 
> But there is a tremendous difference between the two cases. I for one would never tell someone how to live their own life. If you want to adopt a crazy diet, that is your business. Even the craziest views on nutrition will have relatively little impact. Not so with crazy views about climate change. My advice is for global policy decisions.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, I used my same skeptical brain when looking at government-sponsored nutrition information as I did when looking at climate science.  It's just that global warming is a sacred cow right now, where the food pyramid isn't so much anymore.
> 
> Anyway, my apologies for derailing the thread.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
> Cc: Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:49 AM
> 
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ketogenic diets
> 
> Unfortunately, often folks use skeptical arguments to wield some political advantage. In my experience, I find that people use them when they want to hold onto a disreputable claim, something that either lacks evidence or has no evidence in its favor. A local pastor uses them to pave the way for religious faith getting rid of all beliefs based on evidence.
> 
> As I said before, the structure of most of your anti-climate science arguments is such that it would undermine all evidence based belief. There is nothing particular about climate science as far as I can tell. It strikes me that there is something flawed about only using skeptical arguments to undermine some beliefs. Either they undermine all beliefs -- since no set of evidence entails that a belief is true; there is always a gap -- or they undermine none. That's my view!
> 
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> It appears that the federal government, based on shoddy science and a "cascade" (as described in the article I posted) got their basic diet information wrong and subsequently caused an obesity epidemic that is threatening the health of millions.  I would argue that the obesity epidemic in the Western world is more of a dire issue than global warming is to the average westerner.  
>> 
>> If it can happen with something as basic and as far-reaching as setting an American's suggested diet, then it can happen in climate science as well.  That is why we need to be *extra* skeptical, especially since I see many parallels already to the diet problem and the anti-skeptic rhetoric automatically makes me wonder if there is a cascade happening there as well.  Some of the proposed mitigation techniques could be just as damaging in the short term as some of the projected outcomes are for our grandchildren, so we owe it to ourselves to be open to criticism in this area.
>> 
>> That's not to say that climate science has it wrong, just that its opposition to skepticism could lead us to the same kind of problems as the medical and nutrition industries are running into.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
>> Cc: Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 3:01 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ketogenic diets
>> 
>> I am somewhat of a real skeptic and have studied skepticism for much of my life. I question everything and always have. But skepticism and questioning has never led me to go out the window instead of the door. When considering policy decisions that have a literally global impact, radical skepticism strikes me as irresponsible. At that point we should listen to experts. It is fine if you want to step out the window because you are a gravity skeptic but I'm going to speak up whenever you decide to take the rest of us with you. Sorry.
>> 
>> On Sep 2, 2013, at 11:10 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> The experts have been saying that a low fat, restricted calorie diet high in carbs was best for the last 30 years at least.  I'm skeptical of their claims.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, my intention wasn't to derail this thread.  I just found the parallels amusing.  Let's make a deal.  If you will take note somewhere in the back of your mind that the climate experts might be wrong, I'll take note somewhere in the back of my mind that       they might be right.  Deal?
>>> 
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> On 09/02/2013 09:36 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>> One difference is you can find many experts on the various sides of the diet debate. If the experts -- folks with MDs and PhDs -- said one diet was better than all others, then go on that diet! But that is not the case. Faulty analogy.
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 2, 2013, at 8:43 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>         wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wanted to reply to this sooner, but I was on vacation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Read Gary Taubes book "Good Calories, Bad Calories".  Or search for "gary taubes why we get fat" on YouTube.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It would appear that the "high fat causes heart attacks" hypothesis isn't as strong as it was once thought to be.  Research comparing high fat / low carb unlimited food intake diets vs. the traditional high carb, low fat, restricted calorie diet consistently shows the high fat low carb diets allow the subjects to lose more weight and it makes their cholesterol numbers better.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here is an article from the New York Times talking about the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>>>>> 
>>>>> I chuckle reading this, because there are hallmarks of the climate science debate here, too.  Politics gets involved and suddenly it hurts your reputation to be skeptical of the consensus view. Everyone studies the consensus topics, but nobody researches topics that by their very nature conflict with the consensus view.  That doesn't make either one of the looked-down-upon topics any more true, but I do find it amusing to see human nature at work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's not to say that high fat low carb diets are perfect.  I have seen research that shows that if you have a pre-existing heart condition, then the ketogenic diet might make it harder to recover in the event of a heart attack.  I've also seen research that suggests that pregnant women who are obese and on that kind of diet can affect their babies by making them fatter and have smaller livers.  I look at those risks and compare them to the risks of being obese, and I side with the diet that will help me lose that weight the best and that makes my cholesterol numbers better to boot.  I mean, look around.  How many really old fat people do you see?  But I admit that it's a complicated area of study.  Certainly, if I ever get pregnant, I'll drop off the diet for nine months.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Besides, most of the high fat studies I've run across (I haven't done an exhaustive search by any means) involve high fat / high carb diets instead of high fat / low carb diets.  In other words, simply adding fat to the traditional diet appears to be what is risky.  Especially to mice, or             rabbits.  Yes, one study showed that eating fat from meat doesn't sit will with an herbivore's biology.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I know one data point is just an anecdote, but my appetite has already returned to normal, I don't fight sleep in the afternoons, I don't crave ice cream or sweets, I'm not constantly running to the bathroom, I don't feel the urge to keep eating when I know I've had enough, and I seem to have as much energy as I had before and I believe that I'm thinking clearer.  And, my pants are starting to get loose around the waist.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Paul
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 08/31/2013 06:43 AM, Art Deco wrote:
>>>>>> @Paul,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do you think that eating a high fat diet for years might have caused the condition Atkins died of?  Perhaps you should read a little about the long term effects of high               fat diets, those high in "bad" fats like beef fat.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> w.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:40 AM, lfalen <
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130903/f8e94eed/attachment-0001.html>