Looks like it just started. The episode with Peter Ballerstedt (the “sodfather”, who advocates for ruminants like cows) is a whopping 4 hours long. And he’s got another almost 5 hours over 2 podcasts with Gary Taubes. Yikes. That might take me a while to get through.
I’ll report back.
I corrected the title (misspelled “Dave”, which one would think is near impossible to make, but I did it).
I’m almost half way through the “Sodfather” discussion. They discussed completely replacing ruminants with plants, and Peter brings up so many issues I never thought about. Case in point: a lot of fertilizer used, particularly in poorer countries, is manure. If you have no ruminants, what replaces that?
He brings up so many complexities, like the various types of soils, and which ones are suitable to grow plants. He also discussed new systems where they use animals on the fields. So, you grow soybeans, but then you grow forage plants and let animals graze there, then grow soybeans again. This was apparently a success, as the forage grew better, as did the soybeans, and you also got forage for ruminants. How does that factor into a calculation about replacing animals?
These are only the things my feeble brain can remember.
I listened to about 3/4 of the Sodfather’s podcast, then listed to both of the Gary Taubes ones. I’ve always thought that Taubes had a great view of how science should be done. For instance, he says (and this is based on many others) that once you decide a certain path is the correct one, you’re done. You see everything through the lens of that path.
He gave the example of a paper he liked about genetics and obesity. He read the paper and thought that it had evidence of his ideas (fuel partitioning causes obesity), and he gave it to someone to read. That person believed that CICO (calories in, calories out) caused obesity, read the same article, and got nothing out of it about fuel partitioning. Gary said he was stunned, but then said he realizes that once you choose a belief system, it affects everything you do and read.
They did get sidetracked a few times to lipids, familial hypercholesterolemia (FH, a genetic disorder causes high LDL, etc. (My own belief: LDL is not causal for atherosclerosis; something else is causal, but LDL is associated with the damage caused by whatever the causal thing is, which could be oxidized or damaged LDL, and a whole host of other items. But LDL and FH are complex.)
I think Gary brought up quite a few ideas of how to test his theory of fuel partitioning (basically, some people put calories into fat, some don’t, and the amount of calories could be immaterial – a person could become obese eating a lot fewer calories than a person who never becomes obese). They sounded good to me, but once you believe everything is calories, they don’t make sense to those folks.
I’m assuming Taubes was saying that this approach of “being done” is a dangerous conclusion?
It makes sense to “be done” as long as the decision as to which path is correct is actually a correct decision.
I assume we all agree that “good science” is never done.
Prior conclusions remain subject to replication testing, improved variable controls, enhanced statistical models, exploring the chance of a type 1 or 2 error, etc.
I occasionally find myself in the same trap. When I was reporting on Taubes’ The Case Against Sugar, I wanted to say that he claimed it might be possible to reverse the trend of childhood diabetes by mothers maintaining a sugar-free / keto diet shortly before and during pregnancy, to limit insulin exposure to the fetus. That, like thalidomide, excess insulin only affects a fetus/infant for life, by interfering with normal fetal development, if it is directly exposed. Went back and reread it and I have to laugh, that is clearly MY hypothesis, not his, but I was ready to report for God and country about “his” idea.