First some revelations. With regard to diets, I am equal. I think the best diet for you may be the worst diet for someone else, and that all diets work by reducing caloric intake but that calories from different foods will have different effects on health and saturation. To that extent Gary and Stefan I go, I like both. I had the opportunity to have several offline talks with Gary over the years and although I guess we generally spent most of our time on those conversations that contradict each other (sometimes massively) for reasons I have difficulty pinning, I always enjoyed them. Stephan is someone whose work I have read for years and whose opinion I respect and appreciate. All three of us, in 2017, participated in the Cato Institute for an Electronic Debate on Sugar.
With these off-road, in the discussion.
I certainly did not plan to write about it. And I will not spend much time discussing the debate. Suffice it to say that, as many have already been, it has appeared that journalist Gary was based on stories to make his points while Stephan the scientist was based on studies. Gary has steadily interrupted Stephen and somehow managed to repeat his name (despite the corrections), and Stephan, perhaps as a consequence, at times treated Gary.
If you are looking for a more detailed 2-hour and 37-minute game in any way, here is Layne Norton's pretty exhausting (and even time-stamped) cover, but what I want to cover today is some thoughts inspired by the discussion rather than the discussion itself.
Much of the world of low-fat high-fat (LCHF) (now in many cases interchangeable with the # Keto) world has been breaking for years on the prevailing medicine and science by ignoring their chosen diet and their theories. An old photocopy of an American Heart Association brochure since 1991 that actually promotes sugar consumption gets run as a kind of getcha for 2019. The young refugees keto doctors proudly tweet "torment"Cardiologists with LCHF patents write countless articles in newspapers that defend the idea that everything you have taught about diet and heart disease is wrong and encourage that particular consumption of saturated fat.scientific journalists"(this is not actually a digging in Gary but rather in others) that seek to be interested in evidence to embrace and reinforce the most stupid theories, stories or comments if they match their narratives and if a study comes to contrary to any of the men's belief systems mentioned above, the error is undoubtedly to be the method or if the researcher comes into conflict (as Gary repeatedly suggested in the discussion when discussing his former work NuSi withdrawal Kevin Hall, as Jim Hill and study of metabolic clinical colleagues who used direct calorimetry to show that people gained equal amounts of weight when they were fat or carbohydrates) or both. And of course, almost all of the more vocal gurus, even those from famous institutions like Harvard, seem more than happy to extend their credibility to support any medical joy (Mercola, Oz, Hyman, etc.). It is willing to promote them.
For various reasons, listening to this conversation reminded me of all of this.
Despite Gary's very real comment on nutrition associated with chronic conditions and the society that,
"Tragically shit continues"
I think most of the energy consumed by LCHF / #Keto's most powerful crowd is trying to prove that everyone else is wrong or clashing and that there is only one true, correct, better diet – a message that is particularly from placement when it comes from MD, as every day doctors recall that different therapies work differently for different people – sometimes predictable and sometimes not so – that is for example for hypertension there are at least 10 different classes of drugs and multiple options within each one.
The tightest difference between Gary and Stephan I think comes to the sign 2:24:08 where Stephan details how much he loved good calories Gary, bad calories and how he found it so convincing that he personally adopted a LCHF diet but that then from the historical narratives transported to good calories, bad calories, science, and found that science said a different story. Not a story suggesting that LCHF was a poor diet or a wrong diet or a useless diet, but just that science based on Gary's case does not contain water for Stephan. And then, over the next few minutes, in what I can only assume is his resignation, Gary tries to narrate narrative Stephan's personal, subjective experiences about the LCHF diet and then discounts on the various studies he Stephan says he was maliciously abandoning a study he liked since the 1960s that, in his reading, he supported his statements.
And I know that was not the subject of the debate – it was a debate – but it would not be great if instead of the constant need of so many (and yes, there are certainly exceptions – see Note at the end) to promote LCHF / # Ketto as the right, best, only, diet, LCHF / # Ketto supporters, especially those who are same researchers and health professionals, took a deep breath and realized that if really tragic shit, motivation and not data, and the spread of flames of online races and promotion such as Mercola and Hyman and the promotion of the worst examples of science and opinion, suffices to match their narratives and despising statins and spread the strange idea that there is only one right diet and that anyone who proposes otherwise is wrong and most likely a conflict, while I suppose we provide feed for online discussions, it is unacceptable, it does not help, and it is a very real reason why there is much less embrace and research on a strategy that has absolutely one place in the treatment and prevention of diseases related to diet and weight.
(And for an example of an approaching physician following the aforementioned trend, do not look beyond the cardiologist Ethan Weiss who just on the other day wrote this great message about kelo, LDL and healing, increasingly embracing science and speech)