Thanks. For some reason, I was unable to find this when I last looked (might have been before this came out).
> Uh, no. Obesity is a nutritional disorder, as distinct from other things like having cats, which are neither caused nor hampered by good nutrition. What the hell are you smoking?
Are antibiotics with no nutritional value considered nutrition these days? There are hundreds of substances that seem to cause obesity independent of nutrition (that is, when isolated as a variable compared to nutrition), most prominently psychiatric drugs, but -- as is shown by this study -- also antibiotics, which are supposed to be "nutritionally inert".
> I searched his website and all I could find was one particular crappy-looking graph with a bunch of discussion about his responses to vague questions, and an ad-hoc explanation (a competing omega-3 deficiency) when the data did not fit his expected pattern.
He did not yet bother summarizing these results (the way he did for his weight loss theories, in http://media.sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pd... - but there's a lot more discussion of it through the years) , I suspect that it is because he does not believe he nailed anything yet. However, he asks people to "try at home", and several of his results (mostly regarding dietary fat, but also about mood and sleep) have been confirmed by other people as well.
He's under no "publish or perish" stress like most papers you see, so he isn't trying to get anything production quality. I've been following him for 7 years now, and while it isn't blinded or double blinded, it's otherwise as good as (and usually better) than observational studies I find in top rated journals.
Thanks. For some reason, I was unable to find this when I last looked (might have been before this came out).
> Uh, no. Obesity is a nutritional disorder, as distinct from other things like having cats, which are neither caused nor hampered by good nutrition. What the hell are you smoking?
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249289.php
Are antibiotics with no nutritional value considered nutrition these days? There are hundreds of substances that seem to cause obesity independent of nutrition (that is, when isolated as a variable compared to nutrition), most prominently psychiatric drugs, but -- as is shown by this study -- also antibiotics, which are supposed to be "nutritionally inert".
Also, this was not shown in Humans and might not apply, but http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjo... shows that obesity and type-2 like diabetes can result from gut flora. Are gut flora considered nutrition these days?
> I searched his website and all I could find was one particular crappy-looking graph with a bunch of discussion about his responses to vague questions, and an ad-hoc explanation (a competing omega-3 deficiency) when the data did not fit his expected pattern.
He did not yet bother summarizing these results (the way he did for his weight loss theories, in http://media.sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pd... - but there's a lot more discussion of it through the years) , I suspect that it is because he does not believe he nailed anything yet. However, he asks people to "try at home", and several of his results (mostly regarding dietary fat, but also about mood and sleep) have been confirmed by other people as well.
He's under no "publish or perish" stress like most papers you see, so he isn't trying to get anything production quality. I've been following him for 7 years now, and while it isn't blinded or double blinded, it's otherwise as good as (and usually better) than observational studies I find in top rated journals.