[ExI] Good Calories, Bad Calories

Thu May 12 01:38:31 UTC 2011

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com>wrote:

> Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote,
> > Your claims of pseudoscience are deeply disappointing and, frankly,
> shameful.
>
> Seriously?  You are disappointed in me and I should feel ashamed?  What
> are you, my mother?

No. You mother may have said you should be ashamed of something without a
sensible basis (I can guess what), but I’m responding to your repeated
condescending, superior attitude. If you had stuck to facts and specific
points instead of being condescending, I wouldn’t have been pissed off
enough to say that. Instead, you repeatedly accuse those sympathetic to
Taubes’ writing and paleo ideas (or to some of them) as being
pseudoscientific.

So, yes, you should be ashamed of repeating throwing accusations of
pseudoscience at people who are long-term critical thinkers and understand
scientific method, and who have been able to question and change their own
long-held views. It would be easy to respond in kind, to attack your
motives, and your wholesale dismissal of every part of Taubes’ book, among
other things, but it wouldn’t be productive.

If it were someone else saying this, someone who I don’t know and who
doesn’t know me well, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But as it is, it is.

This approach is particularly irritating when you make false claims, such as
about Atkins’ heart attack, but won’t acknowledge error on an easily
verifiable point.

Constantly accusing those with a differing view from yours of being
pseudoscientific (especially when those people are actually rather
sophisticated in their understanding of science and methodology) reminds me
of those who constantly go on about cognitive biases, as if simply knowing
about them (and assuming no one else does) means that they are not subject
to them.

This kind of approach is symptomatic of a wider problem: people justifying
their positions by reference to real or imagined authorities and consensus.
That’s a complete failure to use critical rationalism.

Consensus and “the science” is far from an infallible guide: The scientific
orthodoxy or scientific consensus previously and wrongly rejected and even
ridiculed many advances and truths. These include the Marquis of Worcester's
steam engine, Fulton's steamboat of a century ago, Priestly on oxygen, the
transatlantic steamboat, the stethoscope, numerous other technical
inventions, the causes of infectious disease including Jenner and smallpox,
Pasteur and germ theory, Olive Wendell Holmes and puerperal fever, and
Semmelweiss on sanitary techniques, Dr. Joseph Goldberger’s views of the
causes of pellagra (nutrition, not infection), Alfred Wegener’s theory of
continental drift, and the mistaken authorities on hormone replacement
therapy.

Of course the great and powerful force of “the science” have also rightly
rejected many ideas. The point is that a good critical rationalist shouldn’t
be comfortable leaning heavily on the crutch of consensus or “the” science.
(There is no such thing in most disciplines.)

> I am disappointed that nobody here is posting counter-evidence and

> alternative scientific studies to refute me.  All I am getting is

> popular web sites, diet books, and YouTube videos.  Is this what passes

> for extropian "science" nowadays?

Plenty of the websites referred to include numerous scientific studies.

One Amazon reviewer noted that “the nutritional establishment has not
offered any serious or substantial rebuttal to this book. Instead, the
establishment does what it always does: it tells people to avoid
‘pseudo-science’ and to trust the ‘experts’ – i.e. the FDA, USDA, NAS, et.
al.”

By the way, don’t assume that I agree with everything in Taubes’ books. For
instance, I think he should pay attention to the difference between omega-3
and omega-6, and not just to macronutrient ratios. I’m also not convinced
that you can lose weight easily just by restricting carbs if that doesn’t
also restrict calories—although I do agree that you can eat more on a
low-carb diet without *gaining* weight, and that it’s easier to maintain
weight loss on a lower-carb diet. I just don’t think you have remotely done
him justice.

I cannot take the time right now to go through all your dismissals of
Taubes’ (or your other dismissals of paleo-related views). I will comment
only on what seem to me to be very poorly considered remarks about Taubes on
thermodynamics. Those comments show no evidence of having read what you
claim to have read, or else a determination to ignore what you read.

You say:

> He questions the whole equation of calories in and calories out.  That
breaks

> basic laws of thermodynamics.  How could somebody believe in this while

> still believing in physics?  How could somebody believe in this while
still

> going to the gym?  It seems that overturning a whole area of science would

> have ripple effects that would invalidated other areas of science as
well.”

And:

> So we are ending up rehashing the

> basic laws of physics to argue against these pseudoscience claims.

As J.S. pointed out, “Taubes spends two entire chapters in "Why We Get Fat"
debunking that specific misinterpretation.” Those chapters are 6 and 7. He
also pointed to an amusing and incisive response on this point:

http://sparkofreason.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-taubes-and-toilets.html

"One of our toilets has been acting balky lately. Last night I went to flush
it and nothing happened. I started pondering on the possible causes of this,
and had a brief vision of a bunch of Ph.D's standing around, stroking their
chins and sagely examining the toilet through glasses perched on the ends of
their noses. After a few knowing glances at each other, they pronounced:
"From the First Law of Thermodynamics, we know the problem with your toilet
is that, at some point in the past, less water came in than left!""

Taubes’ also discussed this issue in Good Calories, Bad Calories, especially
in Chapter Seventeen, “Conservation of Energy”, esp. 292-3, 296; also see
309, 348.

Nowhere does Taubes’ deny the first law of thermodynamics. He accepts that
“change in energy stores = Energy intake minus Energy expenditure.” To
emphasize this, see p. 74 of Why We Get Fat, where he says: “”Those who
consume more calories than they expend in energy will gain weight.” This is
true. It has to be. To get fatter and heavier, we *have* to overeat. We have
to consume more calories than we expend. That’s a given. But thermodynamics
says nothing about why this happens, *why* we consume more calories than we
expend.”

What he does argue is that energy expenditure is not just matter of calories
burned from exercise. The body can “waste” additional calories or can use
them more efficiently (why do you think people on CR are colder and people
over-eating may be sweating?). He also argues that it’s mistaken to assume
that an association (between positive caloric balance and weight gain) means
that positive caloric balance necessarily causes weight gain. It could be
(and he makes a strong case for this) that a change in energy stores causes
a positive energy balance. He also disputes the assumption that energy
intake and energy expenditure are independent variables.

Taubes’ presents a tremendous amount of excellent evidence that undermines
the simple “calories in, calories out” view, but you apparently just ignore
it all. Sweeping it all aside (no matter how well referenced in the
scientific literature) as “pseudoscience”, is easier than dealing with the
specific explanations.

> Unless I totally misunderstood Taubes, I believe this is exactly what he

> is saying.  The whole premise of "Good calories, Bad calories" is that

> carb calories make you fat no matter how few you eat, and that fat

> calories won't make you fat no matter how many you eat.

You totally misunderstood Taubes.

I will be unable to respond to this discussion any further this week, and
probably not until the middle of next week.

--- Max

-- 
Max More
Strategic Philosopher
Co-founder, Extropy Institute
CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
877/462-5267 ext 113
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110511/cb36df41/attachment.html>