Science and zealots: How to detect bad science and how to detect zealots.

Last night, I got banned from Zoë Harcombe's blog. More on that later. Meanwhile, this...

From http://capisho.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/science-vs-faith.html

I re-read It's all about ME, baby! (1997 - present) and there's something important missing.

In 2005, I discovered Lyle McDonald. Before this happened, I had the following beliefs:-
1. If something works for me, it must work for everyone else.
2. If someone with qualifications states a fact, it must be true.
3. If someone without qualifications states a fact, it must be false.
4. If a study confirms my beliefs, it must be true.
5. If a study contradicts my beliefs, it must be false.

Sound familiar?
1. is a "Hasty generalisation" fallacy.
2. is an "Appeal to authority" fallacy.
3. is an "Ad hominem" fallacy.
4. & 5. are a "Cherry-picking" fallacy.

Suffice it to say, Lyle bitch-slapped the fallacies out of me. Thank you so much! Read Lyle's site, if you want to learn.

How can studies conflict with each other so much?

Having read a number of conflicting studies, here are some of the tricks that bad studies use:-

1. Fudge the methodology:-
In a meta-study (a study of studies), to make something that's bad (e.g. some saturated fats/fatty acids) look harmless or to make something that's good (e.g. Vitamin D) look useless, fudge the inclusion criteria so that only studies using low intakes or a narrow range of intakes are used, so that the RRs are either close to 1 or have 95% CI values above & below 1. In addition, include studies that show both positive and negative effects (due to them looking at different types of saturated fats/fatty acids, say), so that the overall result is null.

In a study, use a different type of the thing being studied (but bury this fact somewhere obscure so that it's easily missed) to get the opposite result. E.g. To make "carbs" look bad, use a test "carb" that comprises 50% simple carbs (sugars) and 50% complex carbs (high-GI starches, preferably), thus guaranteeing a bad result.

2. Fudge the statistics:- e.g. Regression toward the mean. I'm not a stats nerd, but there are many ways to lie with statistics.

3. Make the abstract have a different conclusion from the full study (which you hide behind a pay-wall), by excluding the methodology and results.


Back to Zoë Harcombe: I left some comments on Jennifer Elliott vs Dietitians Association of Australia.

My M.O. for detecting zealots is by using a slowly, slowly, catchee monkey approach. I left a comment supportive of low-carb diets, because:-

For people with Insulin Resistance, low-carb diets DO ameliorate obesity, postprandial sleepiness and postprandial hyperglycaemia.

Was that loud enough?

I added that I thought the first priority should be to tackle the causes of the Insulin Resistance, because reversing a condition is better than ameliorating it.

My comments were helpful, with links to blog posts showing the above and how to reverse T2DM in 8 weeks. I then went for the throat, criticising Jennifer Elliot, as the article she wrote contained cherry-picked references. I included three more links to my blog as supportive evidence. This resulted in the removal of all but one of my comments (and the comment that remained had the link removed) and the addition of the following:-

"Zoë Harcombe says:

October 23, 2015 at 8:55 pm

Nigel – too many comments purely trying to get traffic to your site – link above removed; other comments spammed. You’re now spammed.
Best wishes – Zoe"

The correct word is "banned", Zoë! Low-carb zealot successfully detected.

It's not a problem if a lay person becomes a low-carb zealot, but it is a problem if a Health Professional/Fitness Trainer becomes one. Cognitive bias and a refusal to accept contradictory evidence are not good traits for someone who's supposed to be practising evidence-based health/fitness.

The UK: A green and pleasant gun-free land, or not?

First, see A US tourist made a list of 100 things he thought about Britain... and it's very accurate.

Ee by eckerslike! Where's me Hovis?

A pro-gun advocate told me that when guns were banned in the UK, gun crime increased a lot and that police now have to be armed. Yeah, right!

From Gun politics in the United Kingdom:-
"In the United Kingdom, access by the general public to firearms is tightly controlled by law, although this is less restrictive in Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world.[1]There were 0.05 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in the five years to 2011 (15 to 38 people per annum). Gun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year 2011.[2] There is some concern over the availability of illegal firearms.[3][4][5]"

There are pockets of deprivation in virtually every large city in the world. These pockets are often "no-go" areas for police, even if they're armed. In ungoverned/ungovernable areas, gangs thrive. From Kowloon: Inside A Walled City #9
"From the 50s until the 80s Triad groups (Chinese mobsters) had a significant amount of power in The Walled City. Kowloon became a hotbed for prostitution, drugs, and gambling; however most residents of the Walled City were not involved in the illegal activity."

Another change that encouraged the thriving of gangs in the UK was the repealing of Sus law in August 1981, after race riots in 1980 and 1981.

So, in exchange for an almost total elimination of Spree killings and mass shootings, we have an increase in Other Firearms crime, most of which occur in large cities. We can live with that.

Here's a thought experiment:-
You own a shop in an area where gangs thrive, and you have to pay a gang for "protection".
An armed gang-member is about to arrive to collect a payment. You have 3 options:-
1. Compliance: You end up poorer.
2. Unarmed resistance: Your shop, you and/or your family end up getting smashed-up (or worse).
3. Armed resistance: You and/or your family end up getting shot.

That's why there's no point in carrying a gun, in areas where gangs thrive. In other areas, there's no need.
Gangs always have the advantage over Individuals.

Why humans are more like Chimpanzees than Bonobos.

The following video contains scenes of murder, bloodshed & cannibalism.


Bonobos are the hippies of the Chimpanzee world. The following video contains scenes of sex.


Bonobo/Bonobo murder rate is about 3% that for Chimpanzees, according to the following video.


What would have happened to our ancestors if they'd been more like Bonobos than Chimpanzees? Here's a thought experiment. To translate from Ancient Bonobo to English, I stuck a Babel Fish in my ear. The dialogue is inspired by "Duty calls".

Her: Are you coming to bed?
Him: I can't. This is important.
Her: What?
Him: I'm inventing fire.
Her: Fancy a quickie?
Him: Coming, dear!

There'd have been no progress and we'd be living in a rainforest nowadays, having lots of sex. Oh, well!

Chimpanzee society is male-dominated, with males forming into cliques/groups/gangs/etc. Groups have an advantage over individuals. The third video stated that 90% of male Chimpanzees murder another Chimpanzee during their lifetime.

Human society is male-dominated, with males forming into cliques/groups/gangs/etc. Luckily, humans have some of the caring, sharing characteristics of Bonobos, otherwise human society would have become a dystopian nightmare of rampant murder.

What "sheeple" and "selfish arseholes" have in common.

Here's a clue...

From http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/dhs-solicits-for-another-216-million-rounds-of-ammo---february-7-2013-by-tim-brown---think-any/question-3509245/

When we're born, we're selfish arseholes.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I'm hungry!).
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I've got wind!)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I've shat myself!)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I'm too hot!)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I'm too cold!)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I'm lonely!)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I just felt like going "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!) and so on.

Then we learn how to walk and talk.
Mummy mummy mummy! I want it!
Mummy mummy mummy! I need it!
Mummy mummy mummy! I really need it!
Mummy mummy mummy! I must have it! and so on.

When we don't get what we want, we throw a tantrum.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! It's not fair!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! It's so unfair!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! I never get anything!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! I hate you! and so on.

We don't like to share our toys.
It's mine! You can't have it! Biff! Thwack! and so on.

Then we learn how to cooperate. Life becomes much more peaceful, although children who still are selfish arseholes can be a right pain in the arse! With all of this in mind...

I've often mentioned a documentary by Adam Curtis called The Century of the Self, Part 1: Happiness Machines. As it's regularly deleted from YouTube & Vimeo for copyright infringement, I'm linking to a Google search instead. If you've not watched it, please watch it as it's a "must watch" documentary. It shows how easy it is for propaganda (now referred to as PR) to be used to manipulate populations. The two main groups doing the manipulation are:-

1. Governments.
2. Industries.

Governments want populations to be docile, compliant and sheep-like, to keep the peace, pay their taxes and not ask awkward questions.

Industries want populations to be selfish arseholes and over-consume stuff that they don't need, to maximise profits and keep the economy going.

So there you have it. "Free-thinkers" may think that they are free to do whatever they want, and they may point & laugh at "sheeple" for being such gullible fools, but they've been manipulated just as much as the "sheeple"!

How to lose weight and get slim by eating "fast food" for 180 days.

Hopefully, that got your attention! Please watch the following video.


The secret to weight loss success is this:-
1. Formulate a good plan. A good plan is one that both works and is doable.
2. Stick to it!
3. Exercise mostly increases fitness, but it does increase energy expenditure by a significant amount. See Calories Burned - Walking: 3.5 mph (17 minutes per mile). A 250lb man walking for 90 minutes expends 756kcals.

The vast majority of people who eat "fast food" don't do the above. "Fast food" establishments use every trick in the book to get people to make bad food choices and consume as much as possible.

As people are reluctant to go back for more food (as they think that it makes them look greedy), super-sizing was invented, which allows people to eat twice as much food for less than twice as much cost.

Delicious aromas stimulate the appetite. Added sugar, salt & flavour enhancers increase the food reward.

Bright colours, cartoon characters and toys entice children.

Another fallacy promulgated by a certain dietary camp.

High Carb diets are tasteless and monotonous. Steaks, cheeses & butters for the win.

From http://www.slideshare.net/jer04/taiwan-rice-challenge-17671208

If you think that High Carb diets comprise only potatoes, sweet potatoes or rice all day (which some populations actually eat without complaint), then you're mistaken.

Here's a High Carb diet (the food in the picture can sit on top of Basmati rice, if you like).

From http://gluten-free-zen.com/2011/02/13/asian-chicken-wings-vegetable-stir-fry/

Here's another High Carb diet.

From http://bit.ly/1W2fzqh

And another.

From http://www.recipeshubs.com/muesli/18025

And yet another.

From http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-fresh-mixed-fruit-berries-image14688313

The above can be eaten with animal produce, which includes some steaks, cheeses & butters.

Anyone who claims that High Carb diets are tasteless and monotonous has zero imagination.

Why using macronutrient percentages is so wrong.

From http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Food-Function-and-Structure/Sci-Media/Images/Macronutrient-percentages

1. Deception

Consider Lies, damned lies and statistics, part n+1. Riera-Crichton et al.  

Relative fat intake in %E decreased and obesity increased.

The conclusion:- "Carbohydrates are fattening and fat is slimming." Yeah, right!

Absolute fat intake in grams/kcals increased after healthy eating guidelines (which weren't low-fat guidelines) came out in 1980, according to More Thoughts on Macronutrient Trends.

Gary Taubes & Nina Teicholz use this deliberate misrepresentation of data to create the false narrative that low-fat healthy eating guidelines caused the obesity epidemic in the US. It's a pack of lies.

2. The terms "Low Fat" and "High Fat" are meaningless

Take 55g of fat (500kcals), 125g of protein (500kcals) and 375g of carbohydrate (1,500kcals). It adds up to 2,500kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 60/20/20. It's a High Carb, Low Fat diet.

Now remove 125g of carbohydrate to leave 250g of carbohydrate (1000kcals). It now adds up to 2,000kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 50/25/25. It's still a High Carb, Low Fat diet.

Now remove another 125g of carbohydrate to leave 125g of carbohydrate (500kcals). It now adds up to 1,500kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 33/33/33. It's now a Medium Carb, Medium Fat Zone diet.

Now remove another 62.5g of carbohydrate to leave 62.5g of carbohydrate (250kcals). It now adds up to 1,250kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 20/40/40. It's now a Low Carb, Highish Fat diet.

Now remove another 62.5g of carbohydrate to leave 0g of carbohydrate (0kcals). It now adds up to 1,000kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 0/50/50. It's now a Very Low Carb, High Fat diet.

So, 55g/day of fat can be Low Fat, Medium Fat, Highish Fat or High Fat. Which leads to...

3. Confusion

When someone sees the term LCHF (Low Carb, High Fat), they think it means "Eat less carbohydrate and eat more fat". As changes in bodily stores are determined by Energy Balance, eating more fat leads to a slower rate of weight-loss (or even weight-gain), not a faster rate of weight-loss.

By all means cut the consumption of "bad" carbs, like burgers in buns, chips/fries, crisps/chips, pizza, cake, biscuits/cookies, chocolate and sugar sweetened beverages.

However, if you believe that "good" carbs like vegetable produce, legumes, whole grains and whole fruits make you fat and sick, you need to have your head examined, unless you're in the tiny percentage of the population who have genetic carbohydrate intolerance.

See also Insulin Resistance: Solutions to problems.