Internetiquette II: Big Fat Head, etc.

Warning:  This post contains absolutely no science.  If you are looking for science, please look at 99% of the other content on the blog.  If you are offended by non-science posts on a predominantly science-based blog do not read this.

Yes ... that means you, insert name here , if after reading this anyway, you're compelled to comment on how and what I should write about here. 

It came to my attention recently that it didn't seem to be enough that Taubes paints this picture of me as some sort of crazed stalker, apparently his buddy Tom Naughton's in on the spin as well, ratcheting the rhetoric up a notch.    So, I thought I would set the record straight on his accusations as well.

You see, I wrote an "Insulin Wars" installment on Tom and someone posted a link to it at the Fat Head blog asking if he planned to respond.  I found it a bit peculiar that this particular installment of the IW series seemed so popular as to make my Top 5 list, where it remains at the time of this post.  Nothing so earth shattering about that post IMO.  So, anyway, I went to see what all the traffic was about.

Tom responded on his blog essentially that my blog was turning into an I hate GT blog and he'd rather not give me the publicity.  Fair enough, but I did respond to that charge (politely)  in his comment, he published the comment, and he even responded to me.  Then a funny thing happened.  Gasp!  I tried to post a follow-up comment to something he said and it got kicked.  Tom then described me as an "internet stalker" in a response to another comment.  Sheez.  That was no real biggie, but c'mon.  I hadn't realized that he was already blocking me  when I tried to post a second comment linking directly to a Frayn article.

Now, I read and his Fat Mice & Thermo post caught my eye.  I tried to contribute one comment there.  So 4 comments, maybe?  But who's counting....

Then the fat head traffic to my blog stopped cold. I went to see why.  Well it looks like Tom is A Fear Head of me because he has now deleted all  comments linking to my blog and had this to say:

Dozens of comments?  Every site?  All day?  Pardon me, but it sounds like Tom is stalking me if he's aware of what he claims to be the case.  Or maybe his bromantic interest is spending time keeping track of my every move on the internet.  Who is stalking whom if that's the case.   I've posted at GT's blog, yes.  So?  That is not stalking, and most of my comments are exchanges with others there as GT hasn't responded much if at all to anyone since the first or second day.

I posted at yours Tom because of the traffic and your comments and thought to clarify that this blog is so much more than GT.  Anyone with an open mind can see that, whether they like the content, writing style or have an issue with me not wanting to use my real name is irrelevant.    I also thought it might add to people's understanding of that mouse study to note that they weren't fat mice and all that.  No biggie.  I stopped trying to comment once I realized I was being blocked.  Oooh, scary stalker chick!   I wasn't trying to pick a fight with anyone.

Oh wait!  Tom must be talking about the couple of comments I made on the CBC news site on Gary's interview on Q.  I don't suppose there's an explanation other than "stalking" or questionable mental health as to why I listened to that interview, right?  Well, it just so happens that I knew Dr. Yoni Freedhoff  (who had linked to one of my blog posts in his review of WWGF)  would be on that broadcast.  Oooh.   I've got Yoni's blog on my Google reader now and I've even commented there!  Does that make me a stalker?  Should I have admitted that??  I'm in trouble now!

No need to lie awake nights worrying Gary.  I presume it's OK with Tom and Gary that I post over at Jimmy's blog on my interview and his since he addressed me?   Is it OK with you guys that I post on the LLVLC forum, as I have been doing quite regularly for almost two years now?  I suppose the troll that goes by bohigh over there must be reporting back to the mother ship that I'm commenting on Taubes threads.   How dare I!  It's not a sign of mental instability for others there to fawn over every last word Gary writes, but criticize it and ....  If I'm not mistaken most of the time when a stalker does harm it is those with the crushes that you have to worry over.  Just a thought.

Remember Tom, I'm not the one who posted links to this blog at your site initially.  I'm pretty sure the person who did is not a big fan of my work even.  It was YOU that posted a commentary on the content of my blog on yours to which I responded.  Feel free to comment here if you want.  I won't censor you as long as you don't flame me.   I won't consider it stalking either.   I don't bite.  Really.  The train of not wanting to boost my traffic left the station long ago, and if I'm such a loon folks would just pass right on through here and ignore anything I have to say anyway .... right?

What is Tom so afraid of his readers reading on here that he scrubbed his site clean of all links?  One wonders what he thinks of his own readers and their intellect and judgment.  If he considers this blog nothing but an anti-GT hatefest, does he not think his readers are capable of seeing so for themselves?    If Taubes' "case" was so solid, the science so convincing, what is the worry over someone reading criticisms and debunking of it?  Or does Fat Head think his readers are too stupid to know the difference.  What should I think of the mental stability of a writer and a comedian who are so afraid of what ANYONE is writing about them?  Is it some dastardly mix of insulin deficiency and ketosis that causes the skins of these jerks (yes, I said it!) to thin so badly?  Doesn't GT have confidence in himself and his writings?  If he did, he wouldn't respond to critics in the manner he does which is to ignore the substance and try to discredit the messenger all the while crying "ad hominem".  Waah!

I also note that these two seem to have a special problem with female critics of Gary.  They act like petulant school boys mocking Jillian Michaels in Tom's interview with Gary.  There was no reason for GT to mention my gender in his interview with Jimmy other than to try to discredit me by pointing out that I'm female.  (Heck, I'll take getting lumped in with Jillian, now can I have her abs?!)  I've been a (rather attractive at almost any weight) women in male dominated professions/fields/classes long enough in my life to recognize this when I see it.   And no, I've never been one to play the sexist/gender card at every little whiff of perceiving it.   Indeed probably the opposite.  But he threw in the word "female" where, were I male, the gender would not have been mentioned.   It may not have been intentional.  Indeed I think it was more of a Freudian slip, and those tend to tell us more about how a person really feels.

Real professional, class acts, these two.  Not.


Margaret said…
Just keep up the good work, CarbSane. Those of us who value you highly know what you are doing and we get your passion and your concern about exposing the truth. What you have here is a tremendous collection of great evidence and stimulating debates - don't let insecure people get you down! They are not worth it! It says more about them than you. The great back-and-forth on your blog stimulates those of us who actually do go and read the real science to question our own thinking and go back and read more. We are not stuck in a futile cycle!
Anonymous said…
"Or does Fat Head think his readers are too stupid to know the difference."

I think that's it. I've always sort of gotten the feeling from these guys that they're trying to lead a flock of sheep towards the light. They don't want anyone to get sidetracked because it gets too complicated that way. Control insulin and it's nice and simple. Once you add ASP, elevated NEFAs, leptin resistance and so on and so forth the picture becomes a bit less simple and people are liable to leave if only from the sheer complexity of it all. If they admit that even if they're right, the model they've put forth is a woefully simplistic version of reality, then they'll have to explain the new, more complex picture. That's the problem with attempting to construct a program of nutrition using scientific arguments to a popular audience. I much prefer a more anthropological approach with the acknowledgment of some science as the basis then the other way around such as Stephan Guyenet's approach. But, in any case, once he's decided that his approach is going to be heavily science based, he's opened himself to attack from people like you. Anyway, neither of them have degrees in science. Neither do I, but I don't purport to know everything about human biology.

Have you ever seen the movie, Fathead? Tom Naughton's personality comes across pretty well and he's pretty arrogant especially in the first half which is mostly irrelevant to his argument and just bloats the movie to movie-length.
CarbSane said…
Hi jelris! Welcome and thanks for reading and your input. GT does have a science degree but clearly never did any real science research (or forgot what he learned from it). I've never seen Fat Head (but since it's free on Hulu now maybe I'll watch it), but it just amazes me how he seems to have made a side-job (career?) out of being some sort of low carb "expert".

Many low carbers seem to like to feel superior to low fatties because they know so much science and such. But they look to less-than-authorities to get it. Strange phenomenon that.

Thanks Margaret! I plan to keep doing what I'm doing!! I haven't even gotten to read Todd's latest email yet but it should make for an interesting exchange.
Christian said…
"I don't bite. Really."

No but you certainly bark a lot. ;) Well, I already described my view on how or why this escalation took place so I won't repeat it here. But I just find it odd that Tom went from "She certainly has some good stuff over there" a while ago to this recent statement.
Sanjeev said…
IT's the old lawyer's saying ... If the facts support you pound on them

if no facts support you pound on the law

If no facts or law supports you pound on the table

If no law or facts support you and you have no table ...

Until now there was no next ... Tom & Gary have discovered that last little bit
Nigel Kinbrum said…
According to Disqus, I've posted 196 comments on GT's blog and you've posted 52. That makes ME the stalker, not you! ;-D
Christian said…
lol. If you write 26 comments per blog post on average, you could consider that stalking ;)
Anonymous said…
CarbSane, I really appreciate what you're doing here. On a personal level, I'm generally a low-carber, and I've been a VLCer, and I've had heart issues (I have LBBB, have had heart failure that was either thyroid or pregnancy related, thankfully reversed, and more recent palpitations). I don't think my heart issues were LC related, but if a VLC diet can further compromise the heart, you bet I want to know about it.

I'm disappointed that GT is so unable to withstand scrutiny of his scholarship, and Fat Head seems really childish, pulling schoolyard antics because someone dared to stand up to his hero. Try not to let them get you down. Truth will triumph.
Anonymous said…
Gary Taubes has more intelligence in his pinky than you have in your entire body, CarbSane.

In fact most of his attackers are just Internet gurus without a clue on the subject of obesity.

Gary, nor myself, nor Dr. Jeffrey Friedman are omniscient on the subject of obesity, but I will tell you this :

Gary Taubes' case against the "CALORIC BANK ACCOUNT MODEL " of obesity is ROCK SOLID.

Gary has shown the caloric model is wrong, far too simplisitic, has mountains of contradictory evidence , and explains far too little.

Calories are only one tiny factor among dozens, upon dozens, upon dozen in the etiology of obesity.

I support Gary Taubes 100 %. Sorry, CarbSane, it's a shame YOU cannot see that SCIENCE is headed in a completely DIFFERENT DIRECTION from the caloric bank account model .

You will see how Gary Taubes was RIGHT about the claoric hypothesis of obesity being JUNK SCIENCE DOGMA at its finest.
CarbSane said…
Feel better now Raz ma taz?

Calories are only one tiny factor among dozens, upon dozens, upon dozen in the etiology of obesity.

And here I thought Gary's main point is that carbohydrates are the cause of why we get fat.
CarbSane said…
Thank you Mary! Welcome to the Asylum :-)

GT is anything but professional in the way he deals with critics, that's for sure. It's funny how I get accused of being unprofessional when this isn't my profession ...

Anyway the words of encouragement are much appreciated. I certainly don't want to sway folks from VLC if it works for them, etc. There are lots of people whose bodies don't seem to react well to this WOE. Also, once someone has lost weight and reversed IR/T2 issues, IOW they are now insulin sensitive, continuing on a high fat regime may not be advisable. Have you looked into Perfect Health Diet? It's what I'm doing ~90% of the time now. I'm LONG overdue with my review of the book but I highly recommend it.
CarbSane said…
Umm ... Christian, I might be careful if I were you counting up comments. Someone who writes a particular blog might think you're stalking her. ;)
Anonymous said…
Thank you for the book tip! I am a tropical fat fan, so this book is probably up my alley, I'll see if my library can get it for me.

Interesting that one of the reviews notes that they recommend 24 hour fasting once a week. I have recently started the Fast-5 plan, and I am liking it very much. I find I am much more fussy about what I eat when I only have a five hour window, and apparently, a 19 hour daily fast helps the body turn more easily to fat stores for energy. (And, of course, I'm eating fewer calories.) I've lost six pounds in a short time, but now I expect the loss to slow down.

The one issue I'm looking at is decreased thermogenesis on this plan, and I've been trying a trick or two to combat it. We'll see.
Galina L. said…
Hey, other people are reading your blog, even Razwell, Jemmy got you a good presentation . I really liked your interview there. Your comments added interest to Tom's blog. I am sorry if he didn't feel it this way.

Recently I noticed an interesting attempt to put yours and Gary's theory into one. Although, Nigel was not impressed,based on his comment.
Melchior Meijer said…
Wow. That's just pathetic. I'm realy surprised by this virulent, highly uncivilized reaction. Good to know where this 'allie' really stands.

I don't always agree with CarbSane's reasoning, but I'm grateful she is challenging my thinking. If Mr Naughton has balls, he apologizes for this shameless and unfounded attack and invites her for a constructive discussion.
RRX said…
"it's a shame YOU cannot see that SCIENCE is headed in a completely DIFFERENT DIRECTION from the caloric bank account model."

Really, Razwell? Do you actually follow the body of research at present or do you just take Taubes' word on it?