Robb Wolf :-(
Evelyn: go f*ck yourself ~Robb Wolf
You kiss your wife and baby girl with that mouth?
Yes folks, this is the class, professionalism and appropriate behavior we've apparently come to expect from a leading member of the IHC? Below is a screenshot of the Twitter exchange after reading this post: Evidence Based Medicine: Fraud, Double Standards And Ignorance
I shall address that post at some future date, but in it he again sought to attack readers for some lack of reading comprehension on their part, as he's done a few times of late. For example, in his interview with Anthony Colpo, Robb said:
R: Honestly, I think you helped refine folks’ aim when they decided to try to take my head off on this topic, thanks!
It’s funny, for years I’ve talked (via the podcast mainly) how low carb has incredible value for the metabolically broken, but is likely a disaster for the athletic crowd, particularly the very glycogen dependent activities like Crossfit or MMA. I never received ANY push back from that but recently I wrote what was intended to be a two-part series on “My thoughts on Low Carb and Paleo”. The vitriol I received from this was jaw dropping. Friends I have in the blogosphere forwarded emails to me from irate people who were calling me a sell-out and asking how I’d been duped! All I said in Part 1 was that there are and are not appropriate places for low carb. HOW that is selling out is beyond me. So, the two part series became three parts with Part 2 just being a curb-stomp on my part towards the people who either have terrible reading comprehension OR a religious like attachment to low carb as a panacea for all situations.
Gee, I wonder where anyone got that idea from?? Could it be that this is what HE said? Low Carb And Paleo: My Thoughts Part 1
... Slowly I realized, both by experimentation and by really looking at the literature: CALORIES MATTERED MORE THAN CARBS FOR BODY-COMP.
I have to say this was a pretty big shake-up for me. I’d assumed one could eat as much fat as one desired and STILL get leaner. As I mentioned above, when I first started eating LC, or more specifically, cyclic low carb (CLC) I was leaner than ever in my life. I know based on blood work and fat deposition that I had insulin resistance while vegan, and CLC helped with this immensely, but it was my new-found energy and activity level that drove my leanness, not an inability to store fat in the absence of significant insulin. I think this is one of the most damaging messages that comes out of the LC camp to this day, I was duped by this, so I’m not going to do what a lot of other recovered LC writers do and make folks out to be idiots for still believing this…but, it is time to face facts. ...
As you can see from the C&P of my Google search on "reading comprehension", Mr.Wolf likes to throw that around quite a lot. Hence my query. While yours truly could have been more tactful, there is no justification for this man's behavior.
Evidence Based Medicine: Fraud, Double Standards and Ignorancerobbwolf.com/.../evidence-based-medicine-fraud-double-stand...3 hours ago – If you fall into this trap you clearly have poor reading comprehensionand your mama dresses you funny. What I AM, is skeptical of the skeptics, ...
Low carb has benefits, but is it a cure-all?robbwolf.com/2013/01/02/thoughts-carb-paleo-part-deux/Jan 2, 2013 – Because reading comprehension is lacking for some, I'll make this point again and ask the keyboard warriors “how exactly is it that I've been ...
Is low carb the best way to eat?robbwolf.com/2013/01/.../thoughts-carb-paleo-episode-3-hop...ShareJan 9, 2013 – but I'd be fooling myself, and ignoring the obvious lack of reading comprehension in part 1. Some people WILL read what I said and take that in ...
Oh wait! There's a backstory? LOL ... Trust me folks, there ain't no backstory here to justify this. Put up or shut up Robb.
Comments
https://twitter.com/2POODYTANG/status/312667194234396672
Or maybe Robb will show up and prove me entirely wrong.
Though, I don't see the significance of his "reading comprehension remarks" in terms of eliciting such alarm. He is frustrated with the misapprehension of what he has been saying and the anemus he has experienced as he's refined his approach. There isn't inconsistency when the application contexts are: athletic performance, health and longevity (here, metabolic derangement), and body composition. He refined his position on body composition well within the nuanced approach to it that he has always advocated. We would do well to remember that the three big operating nutritional goals: performance, health and longevity, and body composition have some overlap but at their most extremes, each demand protocols that often undercut the other "goals (desires)." Thusly, Robb often reiterated and continues to admonish people to clear up what they want; to wit, he asks, "what is your personal goal." Multiple goals most often will, except for a time in the novice phase, sabotage the other.
I am pretty sure the above addresses precisely the points of confusion people have expressed with the "low carb" approach in Robb's work.
I am sorry this has upset you. I don't think Robb's intent was to injure you. It was a primal swipe at an aggressive tweet.
Respectfully,
Fellow caveperson
Telling someone point blank to eff off is different than cursing or even calling someone an expletive.
Cue the John Valby ;-)
Achtung Robb, be your better self and address the womanly point of view. They see it differently.
Now, before I go telling any confrontational bar stories, I will instead look up 'John Valby' :)
Maybe we all need a twitter break, including Robb.
I won't get into all the issues in the post other than the reading comprehension quip. That is blog post worthy.
What happens so often in general is that instead of saying, "I disagree with you" somebody says "that's idiotic", then the comeback is "no, you're an idiot" and there have even been escalated cases (England, IIRC) that ultimately resulted in murder.
Usually though, it's "&^*&^ you, you %&%&* *&^#*^# )*)(*)(er!!!!!!!"
I have tried to prepare for being attacked my own self, with prepared comebacks. If anybody ever says to me, "Lerner, you are a stupid little idiot!", then I will say, "Oh yeah, who are you calling 'little'? "
Anyway, that's my almost-comedic stab at being peacemaker. And I don't like being peacemaker. I don't.
Listen: It's a GIRL, Robb! Just like your mom and mine, RIP. There's a difference.
This would be like the old Robb, looking maybe for what's right and not being 'Paleo-god'. Maybe.
"Aggressive approach by you, aggressive response by Robb"
If you had put your question differently you probably would have gotten a different response.
To try and answer your question: I bet Robb felt to need to include that because he would have otherwise gotten an email/comment asking something like 'so you think evidence based medicine is stupid?'. And this would have been based on past experiences where he has gotten emails/comments that missed the point of the message he was trying to convey. He has a large enough audience and emails received every day it's likely and he would be over it
Alternatively, he could spend a lot more time clarifying the parameters if his statements-something I do in philosophy, a vocational demand. I doubt he'd like to do this (although he'd benefit in terms of mass appeal). Those involved and trained in scientific research tend to understand each other rather quickly and accurately as most terms and ways of looking at data are fixed. This is not immediately clear to non-specialists, but for the most part what isn't explicitly stated is simply not intended. Perhaps, this sounds a bit obvious but a couple of hours discussing data with scientist will show any non-specialist how often we are prone to infer more than is intended. Mitigating factors haunt every observation. I think much of this drives the communication and misunderstanding. If one reads/listens the corpus if his contributions he hasn't been unclear.
Now if the issue is simply that he misunderstood that people were asking after the particular way in which he was duped, then they simply want to know something he himself brought up and explained-then he should be reminded that he first brought.
Or he knows he brought up being "duped" and he can't stand having to reiterate the particulars again. So his frustration is that ppl didn't pay attention when he said that he had been duped. So he is guilty of having a severe response; of being a meany.
Either way, Robb is being a forgetful crank or cranky. C'mon he is doibg great work and on an awesome journey he is including us in. Let's drop this. Just ask for an apology.
On the other hand, I have to agree that you started it off confrontationally, and he hit back with ratcheted up aggression. No excuse for that sort of rudeness and it serves no purpose. It does not advance any sort of better understanding. I did expect better of Robb. I would have expected that from C-word dude, not Robb.
These guys don't have to be likeable, but I know we-the audience-can derail, demotivate, stifle and send ppl in Robb's position ( public personalities who perform a mostly free service for the benefit of all) into a depression funk or worse, an anxiety spiral.
Instead of an abrasive approach try to encourage. This guy worked harder for most ppl than their doctors have or ever will.
I'm sure he doesn't feel the onus of shutting down all avenues of potential misunderstanding. Instead he probably expects the audience to do the comprehension lifting with assiduous attention to detail. I believe i've heard him deride hand holding.
Robb is probably on vacation and has no idea any of this has happened. When he finds out, I'm sure he'll knock this poor kid in line and issue a convincing apology. Maybe Robb will even train this kid well enough that he will oust Derek from his position as starting quarterback and win the heart of his one true love.
See? Perfectly good explanation.
I hope to one day be as knowledgeable. Keep up the good work!
His words are inexcusable. Nothing hypocritical about that.
He could still be part of that and really, really making money, go to hell kind of money. And money is what it’s all about with hucksters,(Sisson,Moore,Eades,Davis,Fallon,Taubes,Naughton) take your pick or add one.
Imagine for a moment your career has spiraled down to hanging out with Jimmy Moore on a cruise ship, cruising for a couple hundred people to buy a book...that’s how it appears, that’s how it is.
I’ve thought of him as a little man selling out, since he hooked up with JM, and his recent vulgar tweet only supports my sincere belief how small and desperate he is.
Mr.Wolfinsheep'sclothing is nothing more than a self seeking glory hound, that peddles snake oils and charms. He truly is the Feces Whisperer.
You often use "lol" after pointed comments. Thus why I said you play coy after pushing sharp sticks at the animals. No one can know the nuances that are within your mind. I am bringing to your awareness how you come off to, at least some, people.
http://carbsaner.blogspot.co.uk/
An example
http://carbsaner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/sane-advice-for-anyone-who-wants-to.html
"SATURDAY, 16 MARCH 2013
Sane Advice For Anyone Who Wants To Critique KKK's Character
I recently had an email from someone I'll just call T. He did give his name and email address and gave me permission to use them, but I will never do that. I know there's someone who's got nothing better to do than cyberstalk others.
Anyways, T wanted to offer some advice to people like Richard Nikoley (and maybe now Robb Wolf plus how many thousands of others).
"Don't call Evelyn AKA CarbSane a c*nt - just call her an a$$hole. They basically mean the exact same thing, but the second option means you can't be accused of being a woman-hater. Plus 'a$$hole' I think sounds more accurate and to the point. C*nt suggests that there is some element of femaleness, whereas there isn't. She sounds a lot like a man or someone who has smoked 80 cigarettes a day for 500 years."
Thanks so much for those wise words, T."
If you had written "What the fuck..." spelled out in full, and Robb had replied "Go F yourself" then there'd be no problem.
But Robb used the problematic "uck" part of the word, so he's out of order. Got it.
When will it be my turn to have a psycho watching my every move?
"KKK, you're starting to sound like an irrational, mentally unstable bunny boiler here!"
That's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black! :-D
Carole links to Ellen Davis' site. Strange. I remember this woman from Jimmy's forum. How very sad she now has to eat less than 1000 cal/day to lose weight. I do believe long term low carbing is responsible. Dana Carpender is doing this every other day to maintain her weight. These are the people who think 1500 cal/day is a starvation diet.
Very interesting.
Oh, and Nikoley, the IHC is not about the ancestral health foundation though they are sadly part of the problem. I'd explain my reasons for submitting a proposal but it's beyond your level of reading comprehension.
I agree with your comment. Even though I tried to give an explanation as to why Robb wrote what he did (the reading comprehension), I think that like you, he could have phased that better so as to not give potential offense.
I'm a regular reader of your blog (and will continue to be) because your science posts are interesting* and calling out dodginess in the community is needed, valuable and informative.
I think this 'drama' has been way overblown and is nothing some apologies and open dialogue can't fix.
And Lerner: what does Evelyn's gender have to do with this?
* I think you'll give a good talk at AHS on legumes, even though I'll begin watching it with a different opinion
Paleo has been the subject of a few mainstream pieces lately and I think that is taking a bit of a toll on Robb who is almost invariably mentioned. These pieces have not been favorable and some have dealt with the gender politics. It's bad enough you have few women in "power" and so many of the men are in the pick up artist business. I really don't think paleo needs Robb Wolf behaving in this manner, and if the community thinks it's defensible, they really need to look in the mirror why the image of paleo is the way it is.
Thanks for reading and your feedback! I hope to change a few minds about legumes :D
I disagree with you about equating "go eff yourself" with Nikoley's use of the c-word. I think that you do see the difference, as you are saying to Mike.
Having gotten that out of the way, my feeling is that anyone who associates with Kruse, who has completely disgraced his medical degree, is a disgrace him/herself. It's as bad as crying I didn't know and being interviewed by David Duke.
And if Dayspring doesn't come out and denounce Jimmy's reckless disregard of his health, I'll put him in the same garbage can as the aforementioned.
Just to add to your point on Robb condescending his readers:
I remember listening to one of Robb's semi-recent podcasts a while ago, and in it someone asked him how they could stew bones from their meat because they've never done it before. Robb again replied in a condescending tone, saying how he doesn't mention these things because he's always been a great cook from an early age, and then eventually gave a brief reply which.
This is another thing which, since being disillusioned with the diet, irks me about the promoters. First, they all sell cookbooks which are sometimes quite frankly terrible. When I was first a baby to the nutrition scene I bought Loren Cordain's Paleo cookbook. Holy moly it didn't even have pictures, it was just text!
Also, they pretend it's super easy to cook a paleo meal three or four times a day. A lot of mothers join the movement and start cooking paleo meals for their kids and spend all day in the kitchen. I remember reading on one blog that one women 'doesn't mind spending all day cooking because she would rather be healthy'. Most people who go paleo have to go through a huge amount of hassle to bring paleo foods with them everywhere they go, as well. The message that paleo gurus sell is too extreme and this is what makes the diet damaging.
I could go on about the social strain it put me through as well, but I'm sure you've made these points before in previous posts, so I'm just having a cathartic moment as I remember the 'bad' things I went through thanks to Robb Wolf/Mark Sisson and his friends. Thanks goodness I don't have to stress about these things anymore!
Having said that, I would be more inclined to not say I eat paleo/primal and instead say I eat Real Food if Real Food didn't just mean 'I eat homemade bread' to most people I know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8
With this in mind, a real/whole foods diet *would* contain whole grains and legumes. Arguably processed grains could be exluded as they are not 'whole', but let's be honest they are still a long way from actual processed foods.
Back when I was fully brainwashed into paleo, I would eat grains and legumes reluctantly and they would give me digestive problems. On letting go of that belief, I can now eat grains/legumes and they don't give me problems at all. Plus, I can now socialize fully without having neurotic thoughts about eating food other people give me, so my health has actually improved.
Fair enough on the point that you don't carry around special food, but I've seen plenty of paleomum bloggers do it!
I have tremendous respect for him being willing to take the criticism from folks who would rather bash him for changing his views than recognize that that is what makes a good scientist. Frankly, I'm amazed he doesn't reach critical mass MORE often when people accuse him of being hypocritical.
When an entire body of work is available, it behooves the reader to consider the timeline involved in the information and to adjust their criticisms accordingly. Having said all that, I'm sometimes put off by his harsh responses to certain individuals. But I don't walk in his shoes, know the history, or have any idea what his day's been like beforehand- so i cut him some slack. It's a little weird actually to see an entire post dedicated to proving you were wronged. As rude as he was, you are the one who comes off looking childish by calculating and tabulating your "justification" for feeling slighted.
Huntress
As to his changing positions over time, can we at least hold him "responsible" for the science he put forth in his book vis a vis the scientific knowledge at that time? Would that be OK with you? You know, like his "geek rants" and mentions of being a scientist but making statements inconsistent with our knowledge of biochemistry basics at that time? It is very odd that the person who so assuredly put forth so much information in a late 2010 book was somehow "duped".
This comment provides me with some ideas to tie up some loose ends in a blog post. He wasn't just rude in the single tweet so when time permits.
It's simple enough to attack an idea without attacking a person. And still incredibly disingenuous to get so offended because someone responded with more vigor to your insulting comment than you expected. Was it overkill? Maybe... perhaps even probably. But the fact remains that it was instigated by YOU.
(And since when is 6 weeks in a "late date" with blog posts?)
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..