Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bowling
For anyone interested in the discussion about the viability of gluconeogenesis to supply carbs to ultramarathoners, I highly recommend Paul Jaminet's article. Paul notes (with a reference to a science paper):
Ignoring the energy requirements to produce glucose via gluconeogenesis already noted in our discussion here, there's a very real question if the kidneys and liver would be able to produce sufficient glucose for ultramarathoners. See the link in Mr. Jaminet's article for the link to his discussions on the dangers of zero-carb diets. I deeply appreciate the diligence -- both the reasoning and references to science papers -- that Paul provides. |
In its simplest form, Occam's razor can be expressed this way:
A causes B
If B therefore A
or
If not B therefore not A
or
If not B therefore A does not cause B
A more practical form of the same expression is:
Fire burns
If burns therefore fire
or
If no burns therefore no fire
or
If no burns therefore fire does not burn
We know fire burns, or more specifically we know the circumstances where fire can burn, and where fire cannot burn. For example, if we stand too close to the fire, it burns, but if we do not, it does not. Bear this in mind.
Jaminet argues for something he calls "glucose deficiency", and he argues this can be caused by "
dietary glucose deficiency". He offers evidence for it, but the most direct way to offer such evidence is an experiment where we feed humans a zero-carb diet. And we have such evidence in the form of the Bellevue all-meat trial. This evidence does not support Jaminet's arguments. On the contrary, it supports an alternative hypothesis whereby "dietary glucose deficiency" exposes an underlying condition which is the true cause of "glucose deficiency". This alternative hypothesis is expressed with this statement:
If not B therefore A does not cause B
The Bellevue all-meat trial supports this alternative hypothesis because B (glucose deficiency) was not found, in spite of applying A (
dietary glucose deficiency). We cannot claim that A was not applied since an all-meat diet is the ultimate form of dietary glucose deficiency, next to outright starvation. We cannot claim that B was not found due to oversight or some other human failure: The evidence for B is obvious, and the experiment was designed specifically to find B.
If we continue to believe A causes B in this case, then we're just putting our heads in the sand while our butts are burning.