this is this woman's JOB!?! -- an academic take on eating low carb.
So, this woman at the University of Edinburgh's JOB is to read pop versions of low carb diets and do 'discourse analysis' of them.
Traditional smugness when she chooses to 'debunk' bits of Atkins and the like, and yet utterly failing to address any of the valid scientific research in the area? And not updating her work to include the stuff that isn't quite as easily blown off? No word on compromised immune systems? No word on intolerances? Insulin sensitivity?
(Bit biased of course - also no word on how people like me have had their lives utterly changed by NOT MAKING MYSELF REALLY ILL WITH MY FOOD).
Academia so often just skims across the surface of the real stuff of living. What a job, and what a waste of funding. I wonder if she's ever tried it? A shame if not - what a missed opportunity.
‚€œMost people are simply not designed to eat pasta‚€Ě:evolutionary explanations for obesity in the low-carbohydrate diet movement
Last edited by catemarie; 09-30-2011 at 01:01 PM.
Such spin and skimming the surface of studies is common, and its a problem not just in mainstream Academia.
When one takes a closer look at people's numbers, studies & references in all sorts of situations you often find problems.
Wikipedia is a great example, just because a statement has a citation does not make it accurate. (rarely is such a citation verified)
I for one took a careful look over one of the pages on omega3 fatty acids awhile back and found several statements the polar opposite of the conclusions of THEIR OWN REFERENCE lol
"Don't eat omega3 eggs that studies show are higher in EPA/DHA because.... flax is mostly ALA and a poor source of EPA/DHA?"
Hell, even the Primal community is not immune
I saw someone post a quote the other day from "Gedgaudas, Nora T. (2011-06-22). Primal Body, Primal Mind" complete with a misquoted study & simple math error that leads to daily Protein recommendations 35-45% lower than they should have been based on her own reasoning, example numbers and supporting evidence.
(a stated 68kg "ideal body weight" example that is secretly transformed into 48kg for calculations based on a study suggesting adequate protein amounts)
Last edited by Fury; 09-30-2011 at 02:32 PM.
Spin and skim is common, but you do expect better out of Academia -- you don't have the 'we ain't paid for it' problem of Wikipedia, nor the 'don't mind us, we aren't science experts' problem of most journalism -- the whole point of academia is that these guys are paid to develop unique expertise in a subject. In fact, this woman's research could now be cited to verify all of those statements on Wikipedia and underpin their truth value...
Slightly oversensitive me because I floated in the academic circuit for a bit!
Tags for this Thread