The model is wrong because it starts with the premise that we are primarily glucose fueled. Remove that premise and you will interpret the data differently as almost every study until recently used that particular filter to understand the results. Throw away the abstracts and look at the data with a binary system and the results really do make good sense. Which means the data wasn’t wrong just the interpretation. When you use a binary fuel system as a model the older studies come right into line with our way of thinking.
@OldDoug This is a case where the overall philosophical idea of the time infiltrates how we perceive an issue and in this case start with “we are all created equal” i.e. the same. Fundamentally we know this to be false and yet it serves as the yard stick guiding food guidelines. If we are indeed the same whatever guidelines are proposed should prevent harm. They have not, they have inflicted it. As you pointed out about hierarchies we have trusted the experts because we have been too busy or too lazy to do it ourselves until we were motivated to do so. The biggest change then is that we failed to initially perceive we are minimally binary fueled creatures.
When I am explaining our WOE and I mention the science I am inevitably hit with “well I read about a study-that is science too”. No, not really. Rather, it was statistics. As an engineer I say if I ran our company with a quality PPM that the healthcare system does not only would I be bankrupt but I would be in court. I also say I refuse to believe that millions of Americans are lying about their calories in and thus failing. In this the bravery of Tim Noakes cannot be understated.
I was pro-vegetarian/vegan at that time and very against Atkins. Now I know differently. I think we all come to this information in our own way and in our own time. But I have to say, I have a big bone to pick with Mr. Ancel Keys, may he rest in peace. Even he doesn’t deserve eternal hell, but I could go with Purgatory.
.