Joe Rogan, Gary Taubes, Stephan Guyenet - marathon podcast

conversationstarters
science
(Running from stupidity) #61

No, pretty clearly not.

(Chris) #62

It’s clear you did not listen to the Alex Jones episode

#63

Duly noted, admin.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #64

Ouch! I wasn’t wearing my admin hat at the time of posting, but that cuts no ice, I realize. Apologies for being harsh. I do believe I had a point, but that was not the way to make it. I’m sorry. :bowing_man:

(Marianne) #65

My take from the half hour I watched was that Gary was uncomfortable and almost apologizing after they both stated their credentials. There is no dispute that Stephen is very learned in complex scientific areas, however, I suspect at some point in the future, it will be proven that the two arguments are apples and oranges.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #66

Taubes’ scientific credentials consist of an undergrad physics degree from Harvard, plus some graduate work in the field. However, he has been doing science journalism since he left grad school, so he knows from data and studies.

Stephan Guyenet has a B.S. in biochemistry from the University of Virginia and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of Washington, followed by some post-doc work in the neuroscience of obesity and eating behavior.

In Taubes’s place, I too would feel a bit abashed in the presence of such an august nutrition authority as Professor Guyenet. Professor Guyenet is pre-eminent in his field—just ask him. :smirk:

(Alec) #67

Guys
I hope nobody is being too sensitive here… I just think that is utterly hysterical (in the funny sense of that word). RAOTFL!!! :joy::rofl:

(Marianne) #68

:laughing:

He doesn’t seem like much fun.

#69

Interesting to see the comments that people only got to 30 minutes in to the podcast. I listened to the struggle for the whole thing. If it was a debate, Gary obviously came out on top, even allowing for my keto bias. It was a repeated point that Stephan made, and one why scientists will often fail in presenting data and data interpretation to the public, is that Gary was telling stories based on a mix of historical record, some scientific report interpretation, and featuring victims, villains and heroes. Whereas Stephan was presenting data from scientific papers and sniping at Gary whenever he completed an anecdote. Humans will always respond more to a story than a bell curve. A storyteller will always win out over a data reporter. That is why this forum discussion is about the characters rather than the content of that podcast episode.

#70

I contacted Gary. We talked about his deafness and need to wear a hearing aid. He also mentioned tinnitus. But he is finding that the audio feedback he gets through the hearing aid can be distracting in an argument. Mainly he said his blood was up which made him too sensitive to Stephan’s jibes. And that didn’t help the situation or the communication goals to the podcast audience.

As an aside, and since there was mention of Joe Rogan smoking weed, Gary mentioned he had tried a recommended ginkgo supplement for years for the tinnitus with no strong effect.But recently he has been using CBD oil (cannabinoids) for some aches and has noticed his tinnitus resolved. He found it an interesting n=1.

@atomicspacebunny may find that story interesting?

https://www.ketogenicforums.com/t/tinnitus-symptoms-remedies/63856

(less is more, more or less) #71

Sorry to be late to this dance.

My empty queue had me spelunking for a potentially noteworthy podcast. I keep an inactive Joe Rogan channel in my Overcast.fm client and found this Taubes vs. Guyenet episode. I’m not a fan of Rogan, but he has had entertaining guests on, so I keep an eye (or is it ear?) out. I listened – admittedly with rapt interest – to the entire podcast on today’s 8-mile run. As abundantly noted here, the debating style is cringe-worthy, and Joe Rogan’s participation being consistently disappointing, so I’m setting that aside.

There was one comment Stephan made that caught my curiosity. I note this with my bias solidly behind Taubes. I wanted to give Guyenet a fair hearing. Why did Cuba’s obesity not spike after the revolution, if the available food sources were primarily rice and sugar? Does Stephan get the facts wrong? I went to Guyenet’s website to find a link to this article, and what he said in the debate and this article don’t align as Guyenet presented. He said post-revolution Cuba. This study begins in 1989 and focuses on several factors. Guyenet played a shell-game with data, which was not very nice of him.

My example, above, reinforces Taube’s observation from the podcast on confirmation bias narrative-driven outputs from research, i.e., “phase lock looping.” Phase lock looping or just “phase lock” describes enhancing study results in one direction by cherry-picking. Phase-lock looping is why Taubes rightly rejects the meta-analysis that Guyenet wished to invoke.
I’m unsurprised to see Guyenet continue to pick ad-hominem in other post-debate media at Taubes by teasing his use of “phase lock” when it precisely describes what Guyenet’s rhetoric suffers.

This debate shared striking patterns with a recent Human Performance Outlier’s podcast where a vegan came on to discuss his dietary and ethical preference with the carnivore-friendly podcast host. I admired the podcast and the vegan for entering hostile territory. However, Jackson Foster, the vegan, like Guyenet, made similar claims of authority to the ascendant and popular models of nutrition. Namely, science by vote, not by the scientific method.

(less is more, more or less) #72

Thank you for presenting the gist of his argument here.

However, on the contrary, points one, two and three are an unmistakable rephrasing of the CICO principal as well as the arrogant assertion that one’s obesity is the result of one’s moral failing. Taubes rightly drew this point in the podcast. For example, under his first point, Guyenet advocates hiding tempting food, but why is the food tempting? There are factors beyond its mere existence, or my “failed” inability to “control my appetite.” Once one is fat-adapted, this aspect is nearly a non-sequitur.

Under point two; the summary says; “If your brain thinks you’re starving, it will eventually wear you down, no matter how strong your resolve.” Again, carbs stimulate the appetite. Being fat adapted, and eating to satiety, removes this point. We “manage our diets” by keeping our carb count very low, not by slapping our wrists because we deny signals from our brain to eat more. Same for point three.

Make sleep a priority? Well, sure, something like that, I agree. Taubes pushes back on exercise, since, in his view, this veers into moral agency again, and I support this reflex. I am active, but many cannot be. Inability – or lack of natural interest – does not make one a moral failure. Manage stress? Absolutely. Dr. Westman always asks how I’m managing stress.

So we’re two for six, a significant difference between the two approaches.

(Todd Allen) #74

I see plenty of common ground. Stephan’s list of suggested satiety producing foods contains fresh meat, eggs and seafood. Nuts are considered ok though not ideal. He singles out bread and grain flour products as food to be avoided. He never explicitly says fat is to be avoided but rather to avoid foods that stimulate over eating and lists mostly processed foods as examples.

(less is more, more or less) #75

The question is more rudimentary: by way of first cause, what makes us fat?

Both participants agreed in the “debate,” consistent with you’ve captured, which foods are or aren’t healthy.

As a neurologist, the nervous system is Guyenet’s hammer for every problem. Taubes is, as he announced, more holistic in his approach to understanding the root causes of obesity. As Taubes later states, this is the problem with Guyenet’s focus. This focus also excludes necessary research we could be conducting, if it weren’t for the “phase lock” circular reasoning on mainstream thinking about obesity. Guyenet’s focus on neurology-only is a cleverer extension of the older argument that we’re obese because we’re morally deficient.

Ironically, I was hoping to understand better neurological factors that might influence our subconscious or reflexive eating triggers. I don’t need to hear from “our camp” only. However, I come away empty-handed in that regard. I only heard the same old bilge I heard for decades. That’s too bad.

(Randy) #76

After Listening to the recent Attia podcast with Jason Fung, I think either of those 2 would have been a better fit than Taubes for this podcast.

I could just hear Fung repeat a premise and answering "That’s just stupid, Right?!?!?!

Right. :smile: