Wed, May-31-17, 13:00
|
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
|
|
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
|
|
Skimmed it for obvious signs of BS, found some, nothing to worry about. Basic premise is either genetics, a bit of calories, or the gut. About the gut. It just occurred to me, it rests on an assumption. Wanna guess? It is assumed that the human gut itself is the same across all individuals, therefore we jump straight to gut bacteria where it's obviously different for everybody at least to some degree.
Cool, heh? Well, is that assumption true? Maybe, unlikely, but the degree of likelihood that it is true is likely to be very small. Rather, it's more likely that there are some of us, not many, who have a different gut than the average human. So now we're dealing with genetics specifically for gut physiology. On this point, I agree, genetics is unlikely to be a culprit over such a short time. For humans. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, I'm making it up as I go.
On the names mentioned in that article, I find it suspicious that Taubes is not mentioned when he's the single most knowledgable human on this planet on this subject. Even moreso suspicious when Taubes and Hall worked together on the same project through NUSI. Not sure if the research cited in the article (i.e. Hall's research) was funded by NUSI. Insulin not there, red flag. I think it's not a particularly reasoned article, I only get one side of the story from it, reads like a position paper, though vague this position may be, but then I skimmed it so, meh.
|