A 1975 study on Japanese expats in Hawaii and California showed the US-based ethnic Japanese had a much greater rate of heart disease than their counterparts back in the mother country. “Researchers pinpointed the likely cause to be diet-related – fish consumption specifically.” (link) So what kind of crazy nutjob would claim that eating more meat, cheese, butter, and bacon would be healthy?

Would you listen to this guy's diet advice?

A phrase I like to mock the mainstream with is “everyone knows.” If you watch TV, whether news or dramas or sitcoms, you’ll see people bash bacon, eggs, and meat as unhealthy food choices. Everyone knows that they’re bad for you. Countless scientists say so. Study after study states, quite clearly, that continuing to eat saturated fat is a quick and tasty ticket to heart disease.

It’s hard to overcome that bias. Whatever forum I’m in — online, friends, coworkers, dates, etc — a common refrain is “how can thousands of scientists be wrong?” Then the obvious conclusion: you paleo-diet people are crazy nutjobs. And I’m often stuck trying to dig my way out of a hole and explain what’s going on.

Not every scientist does their own novel research. As is the case with climate science, in which nearly every researcher relied on the East Anglia temperature data, health/diet/nutrition researchers rely on existing literature and reviews to base their opinions. Starting over from scratch is a waste of time. So you start with what’s already been published.

The risk in such an approach is that the published, peer-reviewed literature might be suspect, such as the East Anglia data that relied on a cherry-picked dozen samples, out of hundred available. As long as you throw out data that disagrees with your theory, it’s easy to prove a theory. Scientists are responsible not just for reading existing literature, but critically evaluating it.

For example, that Japanese emmigrant study, often cited as evidence that the American diet (assumed to be a meat & butter diet) is to blame for heart disease. Yet the study itself was unable to correlate coronary mortality with diet, and adhering to traditional Japanese culture was sufficiently “healthy” that it overcame the American diet: acting Japanese and eating American was healthier than the reverse. The following year (1976!) a study showed that the original data did not implicate the American diet as a cause for heart disease.

This is a weird example, in part because I do blame the American diet. Just not the meat and dairy part, which has been in decline for decades. The USDA started telling us to eat more of its products (grains), we obliged, and Americans started coming down with more cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Deaths decreased, so obviously the program was working, right? Yet incidence of disease increased.

-

Again I come back to: who should you believe? Don’t believe me. Go read the sources. Go read both sides of the debate. One side is saying “thousands of scientists can’t be wrong” and the other side is saying “thousands of scientists didn’t do the same research; one guy did the research and dozens cited him and then thousands more assumed everything previous was done correctly.” Which is the more convincing argument?

One of my favorite exchanges is that between Taubes and Fumento. Taubes writes an article in the NYT (What if it’s all been a big fat lie). Michael Fumento responds. Taubes replies. Fumento tries to get in the last word. If you haven’t read this exchange, please do. Go ahead, I’ll wait. I even re-read it myself.

The reason why it’s so awesome is because it’s plain to see who is on the side of reason, and who is shrilly trying to claim some kind of authority.

And that’s what each of us should do with the issues that are important to us. Do you care about your health? Then you owe it to yourself not just to find out what each side is saying, but to find the debates between the two. Both sides will have zealous evangelists and ignorant nutjobs. Both sides will have ardent supporters that think they’re on the right side. But one of them has to be wrong; it’s possible that both sides are mistaken and the truth lies somewhere else!

But if the best argument the mainstream can come up with is “there are thousands of us, and we have badges!” then I declare them all to be a bunch of poopyheads. I care about my health, and I want to see the best arguments both sides can come up with. I’m in the minority here (and hence a crazy nutjob), but the logic and evidence convinced me.

Do your parents have cancer, heart disease, and diabetes (like mine) and do you want to avoid it yourself? Do you care about exercising efficiently and in a way that will keep you on your feet for decades, and avoid stress and strain injuries that sideline many middle-aged athletes? Do you care about global warming? Economics? Politics? Freedom? Snowboarding?

Cuz if you care about snowboarding (and are a crazy nutjob) then you’d know about TonyC’s snowfall comparisons!