Red Meat Induced Blog Traffic Spike ...
I'm flabbergasted that (before even Stephan posted his comment here) Blogger registered a "spike" in my traffic (and we're talking the "instantaneous" 2 hour hits kind) worthy of the blood glucose curve for Wheat Belly consuming 5 bowls of battery acid. Stephan's comment has obviously been linked to at www's far and wide and generated more, but this is something *different* here, even given my penchant for those Gary Taubes exposes seen as provocative.
In the three days since the Wonder what he said post was published, it has rocketed up my most viewed posts to be #2 ALL TIME and as of this post, half the page hits of the long standing #1 GT email post.
What does this say folks?
In an ideal world I would hope this is a reflection on the popularity of the "so chill" (as Melissa McEwen of HuntGatherLove blog referred to him) Stephan Guyenet. He deserves it and I can't wait to see his purported cucumber cool "thanks for your advice" response to the gregarious one. This man outfitted (including the suit and tie) himself well.
I think it is wonderful that many are beginning to see the Gary Taubes behind the veneer. It is the first step to avoid a Jonesingonfat Town tragedy. Although I'm disappointed that so many are really surprised by this behavior after listening to his various lectures, interviews and such. He's not given clues of this side before? I think he has, and I'm not even sure Gary had a particularly uncharacteristically bad day for him. He's clearly not used to the symposium style venue where he's not only not the smartest guy in the room, but even he knows he's not the smartest guy in the room. Probably the last time he does this except for the LC Cruise where he'll be the unchallenged rock star. (Chris Masterjohn and Denise Minger are light enough to toss overboard if they cause too much trouble - grin) .
No, I maintain that Stephan's dismissal of GT's carb/insulin hypothesis a little while back on his blog has struck at Gary's spinal cord; whilst old Carb Sane here (don't you hate when folks refer to themselves in the third person, and to the pseudonym no less!) has been merely causing those annoying periodic sciatic flares and facial twitches. Or perhaps he was befallen with a case of acute GAEDR (I'll let you guess! The A = "and" .... free dark chocolate covered pemmican for the winner!)
So, in the end, for all the flack I get for what I post here and how I post it, the schadenfreude factor seems to be more at play here. While I'm sure Stephan's fan base is FAR more than his mom with 57 Google accounts he's not a huge referring traffic generator (not shabby mind you, but nothing spikeworthy that has the blogger trafficocyte metabolism going rogue). Neither is GT on his own for that matter.
But something cosmic is going on here gang and it has nothing to do with me, other than I get to watch the meteor shower here! Thank you guys! It's been a tough ride for my family this past month with an issue that's been going on since January, and this distraction is some of the best medicine a chick could ask for temporary relief!
Gary Taubes served himself his own comeuppance. No doubt enough fans will give him a pass and eventually move on, but I think he opened a few eyes to another side of Taubes, and a rather ugly one at that. Too bad Gary has turned such a jaded eye towards sugar ... no using that to coat this grass fed buffalo turd.
The next time this journalist lectures you on how all the scientists got it wrong and how he's the only one who ever looked at this or that or gets it right, remember this episode folks. It is important.
It is not so much that a scientist should spend every waking hour looking for cases to disprove their hypothesis, but rather that when they come across obvious evidence that does, they need to alter the hypothesis. The obesity section in GCBC is a hypothesis that should have been shelved in year one of writing the book. Stephan is correct. No primary science researcher in the relevant fields believes it is a working hypothesis or gives it serious consideration.
Video is up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hzoFgwFeMQ&feature=player_embedded
GT was not quite as obnoxious as I had imagined. But the walk away salvo was ... just whoa!
Video is up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hzoFgwFeMQ&feature=player_embedded
GT was not quite as obnoxious as I had imagined. But the walk away salvo was ... just whoa!
Now go forth, eat some carbs and enjoy an insulin spike for a change! 
Comments
I'll bet he fell out of his chair when (if) he read that!
I always felt in the early stages of OJ's trial that he might not be guilty. Not because I didn't want to believe it, but because of the testimony of someone who sat next to him on the plane not all that long after the murders. He behaved normally by all accounts. NO, I'm not equating Taubes to OJ, I'm just drawing the analogy that it is easier to lie/act normal if you have no knowledge of something ... or if there's a bit of a pathology going on there.
I don't think that woo and her two years of trade school are going to be sufficient counter point to the deep six treatment his pet insulin theory just endured.
What I learned new from Stephan's latest is yet another one of Taubes' references where he either didn't read it or outright misrepresented it. I'll tack that onto my list, most prominently featuring Newsholme & Start. This sort of scholarly incompetence (remember, this is what Taubes thought a suitable alternative explanation for his behavior in his email to me!) is the most damning for him as a science journalist.
The hypothesis itself will live on in pop-culture circles. He'll always have the next LC cruise and the Swedes. But I think what I bruised was his credibility ego as a serious journalist. Stephan put another nail in that coffin.
I'm aware of others who agree with me who have not gone public with their views. Here's hoping Stephan boosts their courage metabolism.
I'm one of those people for whom Taubes' GCBC had a huge impact -- not for my health, but intellectually. I had been eating low carb for about five years when I read Taubes in 2007. GCBC excited me intellectually about nutrition -- learning about nutrition became a passion of mine. But the more I read (including your blog), the more I started to suspect that Taubes was not the deep thinker that he initially appeared to be.
I find that Paul Jaminet in his most recent blog post nicely summarizes my feelings: "In general, I find Gary's work rhetorically artful but not very helpful to scientific progress. He often neglects to consider the full implications of his own evidence."
I believe that it is Taubes' brilliant rhetoric that inspires such strong attitudes about him. For some people this means treating Taubes like a guru. For others, Taubes is the "loss leader" that lured us into the store, but which we ultimate find of low quality and discard for higher quality goods.
(BTW, this isn't my first post, I posted here once before, back in January.)
Larry Eshelman
It will be interesting to see how he responds to Stephan's post and if he'll apply his "artful rhetoric" towards generalities and personal things or if he'll address the science on which Stephan has based his post on. I can always be hopeful of the latter ...
BTW ... I do try to welcome newcomers as they make their way here so if I didn't do so in January, allow me to do that now. Jan&Feb were rather more than hectic ones in my life off the internet.
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..