Jack who? Why Dr. Jack Kruse, Neurosurgeon! (or is he still practicing?) of course. There's more to say about some of the other fall outs from AHS12, but one that is unrelated to the sociopolitical drama in the community is the apparent re-emergence of Jack Kruse on the paleo web scene. It began during AHS12 itself via Twitter. Following Krusegate, having achieved all of his goals of his actions, with the possible exception of that pesky momentary rebuke, Jack retreated to his website and raked in the admission to the webinar on Factor X and various membership and consult fees (all exorbitant, some moreso than others) .
Perhaps the fruits of his recruiting labors on PaleoHacks and Mark's Daily Apple had faded, or perhaps he just missed the limelight. Having suffered no public rebuke from the organizers of AHS, and absent any official word from Jimmy my-stateroom-was-5-doors-down-from-the-action Moore about what really happened on the cruise ship that got Jack out of his promised free reveal of Factor X and his face on national TV (nobody that was anybody ever challenged his accounts) ... why not? He's got a new brand of Epi-Paleo and a whole deck of martyr cards to play to rouse his followers and entice new ones.
His science, however, is as bad as it's ever been. Which is what I have discussed here many times (and no, I won't apologize for my writing style):
- Physician Phollies ~ III: Dr. Jack "Leptin Man" Kruse 2/21/12
- Live Blogging from the Paleo Summit III: Leptin Man! 2/27/12
- Quantum Bullshit 3/5/12
- You, PCS vs. Jack Kruse MD, DDS 4/1/12
- Hof, Wim-ania and a Pair of Dimes 4/7/12
- Some thoughts on cold exposure 4/10/12
- Cold Adaptation, BAT & Thermogenesis 4/11/12
I called him a quack back in my first post addressing him in the wake of his stoking of Taubes' asshat moment at AHS11. I'd heard of him, read a bit, but mostly dismissed him as nobody really seemed to be taking this guy seriously. And then all of a sudden he was THE.HOT.THING.IN.PALEO -- delivering keynote speeches, encore podcasts, and invited to speak at AHS12.
Jack Kruse is embarrassing to the community for more than his behavior. He exposed just how utterly incapable those in position of power and influence in the community are when it comes to being able to vet their own. Seems the lot of them are a bunch of Dean Dwyers , and back in April I addressed how Jack got away with baffling with bullshit, BWBS.
Ah Jack Kruse. I must admit I am a huge fan of this man. But let me give you some perspective because he is a polarizing figure. Just to clarify, anyone who is looking to shake up any old establishment is going to be considered polarizing so I don't say that as an insult to the man.
He is a damn smart dude. And he knows he is a damn smart dude. And he knows he knows more than almost everyone he is talking to. And that's the rub. That is what throws people off. They get caught up in their own insecurities and in my opinion feel inferior around him. So instead of trying to understand seek to undermine him instead.
Luckily for me I have no such insecurities around him because the man knows stuff and thinks on a level that makes my head hurt. So I see a MASSIVE opportunity to learn a lot from him. As he said to me one night while we were chatting, "Dude I'm a neurosurgeon." While I must admit I never thought I would see "dude" and "neurosurgeon" in the same sentence, he is right. He is a freaking neurosurgeon. He runs in a world I will never run in and as such, he has insights that I will never discover on my own.
Could it be that all of the movers and shakers in the community were also blinded by the "Dude I'm a neurosurgeon" pick up line? Why wasn't Jack at the pick-up-artist brofrence when they needed him!! Apparently so, because apparently it took the AHS folks long enough to decide to disinvite him from speaking that he backed out on his own when made aware of the impending leaked rebuke. Ummm ... if his writings were not enough to disqualify him from an invitation to speak in the first place, the events he described at TEDx Nashville were a no-brainer reason. And after the LC Cruise debacle? Hello???? And buh bye Jack. But no. And so we're witnessing a resurgence of Leptin Man from his arctic epi-paleo cesspool.
So in comments on my latest chemistry post, Melissa reports:
Hilarious, today in the International Paleo Movement Group, our friend Dr. Kruse posted
"One molecule of glucose has only six carbons. Glucose can make 28-30 ATP. One molecule of an 18 carbon stearic acid, a FFA, has three times as many carbons as glucose but makes five times the amount of ATP (147 ATP) while only having two times the caloric density of glucose. This shows you precisely why a calorie is not a calorie and why CICO makes little sense."
Oooooh ... sounds awfully convincing! Fat v. Carb -- 3:1 ratio of carbon atoms, 5:1 ATP ratio (using stearic acid) but just over 2:1 calorie ratio. Let's take these one at a time.
First, the number of carbon atoms is only relevant when we're talking putting molecules through the same metabolic pathway. For example, comparing fatty acids, you get more ATP/calories out of the 18C stearic acid than you get out of the 12C lauric acid. But -- and this is important -- you get different amounts of energy per carbon atom based on the original molecule and the metabolic pathway used to "extract" the energy from it. Here is a comparison of the energy yield from glucose (6C) through the glycolysis→TCA→ETC pathway vs. a 6C (e.g. caproic acid, the shortest MCT) fatty acid, where they calculate 5ATP/C for glucose, 7ATP/C for the 6C fatty acid. So ... the first ratio of ATP/C is irrelevant.
Secondly, let's compare the more common chain length of 16C -- palmitate -- and keep in mind, always, that calories per gram are both estimates and averages. Dietary fat comes in the form of predominantly triglycerides - 3 fatty acids + glycerol. A palmitic acid triglyceride has a molecular weight of 3(256)+92 = 860 g/mol while glucose has a molecular weight of 180 g/mol. A palmitate-TAG produces 407 ATP/mol, while (varies) the maximum theoretical ATP production from glucose is 38 ATP/mol. WOW! 10X the ATP but only a little more than 2X the calories per gram. Jack's onto something here for sure. ALL of those biochemistry textbooks in all the world have been wrong and misleading us for over a century. Not so fast.
The calculation I'm about to go through is basic chemistry for science major stuff that someone arguing as Jack is should be well-versed in. I'm going to convert ATP from ATP per mol (6.02 x 10^23 molecules) to ATP per gram.
So gram per gram, the fat:carb ATP ratio = 0.473 / 0.211 = 2.24Glucose: [38 ATP/mol] / [180 g/mol] = 0.211 ATP/gPalmitate-TAG: [407 ATP/mol] / [860 g/mol] = 0.473 ATP/g
How does that compare to calories? Well, gram for gram fat:carb = 9/4 = 2.25
Gram for gram, you get approximately 2¼ times the ATP from fat vs. carb. Gram for gram, you get approximately 2¼ times the calories from fat vs. carb.
I rest my case -- Gram for gram, offering you at least 2¼ times less BS from my brain vs. Jack Kruse's brain.