Science Krispies: Junk, Pseudo and Pop!

Oh CarbSane, why must you constantly criticize my favorite guru?  After all:

• He/she helped me lose XX lbs
• He/she is right about ABC & LMNOP
• He/she is just trying to get the studies done
• He/she saved my life!
• He/she has helped me finally understand why I'm fat
• He/she cured my XYZ
• The mainstream is wrong, we need more like him/her, don't discourage them
• Ad Hominem!!!!
• etc. etc.

It seems like so very long ago that Jimmy Moore asked me if I thought Taubes was doing harm, or more harm than good, or something like that, given that I felt he was spreading incorrect information.  This question was prompted by what used to be in my "About" profile.   Basically, I feel if you're going to challenge mainstream/concensus beliefs you consider inaccurate, getting your own "facts" wrong is ultimately counter-productive.  You may think researchers and the members of various committees and doctors are all nimrods incapable of seeing the truth, but there's going to be someone smart enough smell the pile of poo you're serving up in the name of science.  

If the whole gluttony and sloth or CICO/ELMM stuff is worthless, foisting WWGF on your phys ed teacher, as one 15 year old recently emailed Jimmy that they planned to do, is not the solution.  The cause of turning the tide on grain consumption is not going to be helped by Wheat Belly, and if either remains true to form, neither Taubes nor Lustig's upcoming books on sugar will change much either -- although sugar is already rather demonized in the mainstream, a least if NY politicians are any indication.

The Science Krispies, then are Junk Science, Pseudo Science and Pop Science.    Often indistinguishable from one another, and sometimes qualifying to play the role of all three Krispies, but I'll briefly define each and give some examples.  

Junk Science:  

To me, junk science is just flat out wrong and provably so.   Certainly many parts of Taubes' writings qualify outright as junk science.  Nora Gedgaudas' "all body fat comes from glucose"  and the most recent entry in this field being Wheat Belly with it's acid/alkaline nonsense are two more examples.   I would say that statements for which one cannot present a modicum of scientific support would also fall under the umbrella of junk.  A newcomer on this front is Jack Kruse whose blog is littered with loosely referenced (if at all) claims with no coherent evidence presented.  Seems he took a page from Taubes with his made up facts like that probably 30% of carbs in a meal are turned to fat.  

The worst part about junk science arguments is that they are often put forth to counter purported junk science to begin with.  It's the whole two wrongs don't make a right thing.  If the mainstream is wrong that A causes B, presenting junk science that C actually causes B neither (a) refutes that A could still be a factor, nor (b) lends much credibility to criticism of A.  Most importantly, when someone discovers, as they eventually will, that C is just flat out wrong, it doesn't make the case for A, but it leaves the impression that *they* were right all along about A.  At the very least, it brings your case against A into question because your credibility is shot.  Many times folks have wondered if perhaps Taubes' convincing case against the lipid-heart hypothesis might also be as full of holes as TWICHOO.

Pseudo-Science

I will make the distinction between pseudoscience and junk science as follows:  junk = demonstrably wrong while pseudo = twisting true facts to mean something else.  Taubes is the king of pseudoscience, and it sure is clever.  He weaves just enough "this is true" and "this is true" into his arguments that of course "that" must be true.  His remaining argument of insulin trapping fat into the fat cells is a classic example.  Yes, insulin stimulates esterification/deposition and suppresses lipolysis/mobilization but the notion that this means insulin (via dietary carbs)  regulates fat tissue mass is pseudoscience.   Although it could easily fall under junk science (see how quickly the lines of bad science are blurred?) I would put Mazel's Beverly Hills Diet in the pseudoscience realm predominantly.  Why?  Because her diet was based on enzymes breaking down fat.  Which they do ... lipases in the digestive system break down fats for uptake.  She never said as much (that I'm aware), but she implied that this "fat breaking-up" was the same as the lipolysis/lipase action in your blood stream/fat tissue, and hence your fat burning.   I put a lot of Lustig's arguments in this category.  Most of what he says fructose does is technically correct, but taken out of context of dose it's pretty much nonsense to equate fructose to alcohol in all but the most extreme cases.   Like Lustig, most alarmist arguments fall under this umbrella -- just enough fact to blow all out of proportion to make your "scientific" case.

Pop Science

This type of scientific argument seeks to bring a complex topic down to the level the general population can comprehend.  Now certainly this is a noble effort and, what good is having the scientific facts behind you if 99 out of 100 people have no clue what you're talking about anyway?  Still, if distilling the message down to a few sentence sound-bite fundamentally alters the meaning, of what is being said, then pop science is ultimately counterproductive.  Add in the fact that the message will make it's way around the population mostly through word of mouth -- a mass game of science info telephone* -- and it's bound to get more distorted still.  What you end up with is "facts" uttered by this person or that person who often can't even name their source.  Mantras like "you can't store fat without carbs" and "fructose is poison" and "carbs stop fat burning" are born this way.  Mark Sisson said as much once that it's all about bringing it down to a level to maximize the buy-in -- the details aren't that important so long as the message is heard.  On the one hand this type is the most innocuous -- nobody scrutinizes this as much, and like political commercials and news headlines, if they turn out to be oversimplifications that distort facts, it is likely forgiven.  On the other hand, it can be the most damaging in the end, because it may take a while to turn the tide on a pop culture mantra, but once turned, it's all over.  Even if most of Taubes' theories were right, this notion that carbs are inherently fattening doesn't stand up to the smell test of observations.  Therefore I think he's so polarizing at least in part because you either accept or refute his theories, there's not much room in the middle (and he's made that clear with his last book).  

So, what of Junk, Pseudo and Pop?  They're all bad science, and lots of what is put out there these days in the name of science qualifies as being one giant conglomerate Krispie.  And like the cereal that the original Snap, Crackle and Pop advertise, the Krispie science ends up being mostly just hot air with little substance.  Expect more of your guru ;-)

I promise the next post here will be some science.  No more Krispie treats for my detractors ;-)