Hacker News Reader

I came across a very thorough analysis of the Paul Saladino episode [0] the other day when I was researching him after a friend recommended his book. Seemed like he was cherry picking evidence pretty hard and that the majority of the evidence doesn't agree with his stance at all

[0] https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/paul-saladino-on-...

Was going to link this exact article, but you beat me to it. :) My biggest problem with Saladino's episode was that early in it became clear that he is a zealot, and almost by definition zealots are rarely generally "right" or "not pseudoscience" as GP claims in this specific case. Especially when their object of zealotry is an extremely complex field that we're only just beginning to understand. It's difficult to trust anything a zealot says. I surely don't have time to dig into all the ways in which they're using the "science" to support their perspective.

Saladino isn't so much a zealot as he is a salesman. He's building a personal brand and business around being the contrarian carnivore guy. He wants you to buy his books, buy his supplements (which cost as much as $68 per bottle for trivially cheap ingredients), and sign up for his newsletter so he can pitch you more stuff.

He may actually believe what he's pitching, but he's so drowning in financial conflicts of interest and personal brand-building that I don't think he could accept contradictory evidence from anyone. He only sees what he wants to see because that's how he makes his money and builds his fame.

It's fascinating to see him cited by the grandparent comment because Saladino is a notorious quack among the actual nutrition communities, including keto communities. He presents himself as a doctor but conveniently forgets to mention that he's a psychiatrist. He cherry-picks citations from papers that he knows listeners won't actually read and then presents them out of context.

And most of all, he sells his brand and products hard, which should be a huge red flag for anyone being delivered this uniquely contrarian information that defies mainstream medical science. It's fascinating that this person concluded he's an expert in the field simply because he was on the Joe Rogan podcast. I suppose that is the problem with the JRE podcast: Too many of the listeners think they're equipped to identify the real truth, while Joe Rogan serves up a steady diet of convincing quacks interleaved with actual experts.

I’ve reviewed that link as well as the debate that they had on YouTube and I think you should apologize for wasting so much of my time. The guy hit his vape pen in the middle of the debate — I think that pretty much sums it up. He doesn’t know chemistry or biochemistry, but Paul clearly is very well educated medically. There isn’t a single argument this guy makes that stands up. And Paul isn’t a zealot by any stretch of the imagination. Not yielding to arguments that are demonstrably false is not zealotry… zealotry is what you are doing: not yielding to inconvenient yet incontrovertible facts. And by the way, nature agrees with me, not you.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01455-4

This is the problem with misinformation nowadays. Everything is "backed by studies." The problem is, the same study can be interpreted to support two opposing views.

Hell, I'm sure if this Saladino guy just completely made up a study and presented it as fact, the vast majority of the users will never bother to check if that study even exists, let alone verify the claims. Most listeners are just there to reaffirm their preexisting beliefs.

Personally, I just don't trust people that push such narrow solutions to complex systems (nutrition in this case).

Well Paul saladino doesn’t do that. Try carnivore for 30 days and tell everyone how wrong I am

I was commenting on the state of public debate, not his specific claims. I have no idea the accuracy of his claims. I do know that in most cases, such narrow solutions can't be applied to the population at large.

As far as trying it, I have no need. I eat a balanced diet and I feel, and look, great. Glad it worked for you, but I've heard the same about dozens of other diets.

I will read the full thing later but I find it hard to believe when you see this

“Moreover, the current western lifestyle is characterized by high fat intake”

Which is stated as fact when it’s not even true. Fat has been stripped out of everything. Even milk has the fat taken out of it. Look anywhere and you will see “fat free”

And while I agree that a lot of what saladino says doesn’t have enough evidence to be totally sure, what everyone always ignores is when saladino points out that there isn’t enough evidence to be sure of the lipid hypothesis of heart disease. There has never been a randomized, interventional study that proves anything anyone says about meat, fat, heart disease and health. Not one proper study. Meanwhile, him and other people have zero CAC on a diet that should have killed him according to the current model. And there are many other people who have done this. I can’t dig into the “debunk” right now but that’s the value I take out of saladino

> And while I agree that a lot of what saladino says doesn’t have enough evidence to be totally sure, what everyone always ignores is when saladino points out that there isn’t enough evidence to be sure of the lipid hypothesis of heart disease.

This is a common, but lazy, trope trotted out by people like Saladino. It's the same "It's just a theory" argument that climate change deniers use.

There is a lot of evidence showing that things like elevated LDL cholesterol has a cumulative (area under the curve) negative effect on heart health, and that saturated fat consumption is directionally negative for heart health. You'd be hard pressed to find an actual cardiologist or researcher who believes these things aren't true. So why do you choose to believe a known salesman with a conflict of interest in promoting his expensive supplements and books on the topic?

You seem to be assuming a specific conclusion is true and cherry-picking the single person who wants to sell that conclusion to you. There are plenty of citations to the contrary, many of which are in the article linked above.

Randomized controlled trials have failed to show a mortality benefit from reducing saturated fat consumption.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01455-4

These are extremely valid points. Even Shawn baker doesn’t like the fact that Paul directly profits from promoting carnivore.

It’s funny you say there’s a lot of evidence showing LDL is bad etc, ok then show me the randomized interventional study regarding animal fat. Regarding carnivore. You can’t and so whenever you say “there’s lots of evidence” you also have to say “but it’s still unproven.” And yes, there is a difference between me and people who deny gravity or global warming because in my case, the study is absolutely trivial to perform! But it never happens because the academic community refuses to put people in (hypothetical!) danger by feeding them animal fat. It would be immoral and most importantly very unfashionable to perform a study like that.

Here’s the rub: nobody I know or have seen has experienced a decline in their health from carnivore. There’s no hard evidence that it’s bad for you. That guy from the grateful dead did it for 40 years and never had a heart problem. I want a randomized controlled and interventional study that simply shows us what difference it makes to be carnivore rather than something else. I will happily shut up forever if we did that and I was wrong.

> Here’s the rub: nobody I know or have seen has experienced a decline in their health from carnivore. There’s no hard evidence that it’s bad for you.

Carnivore Diet wasn't really a thing until about 2018, aside from scattered anecdotes ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=c... )

Heart disease develops over decades.

It's very disingenuous to declare that "there's no hard evidence that it's bad for you" when the vast majority of experimenters have barely been doing this for about 3-4% of their expected lifespan.

How dare you call me disingenuous?

And I disagree anyway. Heart disease might take a long time but your CAC score wouldn’t stay 0 for a long time. Two years in two cases and CAC of zero. That’s not anecdotal, that’s two clearly measured examples of something that shouldn’t exist under the current model. And you continue to keep your head in the sand. All you have to do is openly support some kind of real interventional study. Not agree with me, but just acknowledge that fact that it isn’t settled and that something so fundamental should be settled. The study will cost a pittance. So are you in favor of that or not?

The carnivore diet was a thing for the Comanche people for centuries until they were massacred and confined to reservations. We obviously don't have data on their rates of heart disease but overall they were healthier than others living at the same time.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529071125.h...

(I'm not recommending that anyone eat a carnivore diet, just pointing out that it's hardly novel.)

> Which is stated as fact when it’s not even true. Fat has been stripped out of everything. Even milk has the fat taken out of it. Look anywhere and you will see “fat free”

Stripped of everything including pizza, burgers and fries?

So I watched the debate that they had which I think is better than reading this guy snipe Paul from his blog. It’s pretty clear to me who won. This guy was super childish during the debate and was pulling stunts with vegetables. And it’s also clear that paradoxically he doesn’t seem to have deep knowledge of chemistry or biology. But Paul’s medical background really shines in places. I’ve seen a lot of Paul’s content and, as a person with a Background in biology, I have never detected intellectual dishonesty let alone BS.

https://youtu.be/l6eg369y_so

> Joe rogan has two kinds of guests: experts/scientists and show biz people. The former are why I watch the podcast.

Many of us have tried to listen to Joe Rogan for the former category. When I catch an interview with someone I already know and respect (e.g. John Carmack), it's not bad.

But Rogan is also notorious for bringing on over-confident "experts" who present their pet theories as done deal research. Saladino is a perfect example of this over-confidence. Citing papers and having a medical degree doesn't automatically make someone infallible or even correct.

> And he’s an MD.

Saladino has a medical degree, but did you know he's a psychiatrist? Perhaps a good degree to have for manipulating people, but I prefer to get my nutrition research from nutrition researchers, not psychiatrists who have webstores selling $60 supplements.

Saladino profits by building his brand: He sells books. He sells coaching. He sells extremely overpriced supplements. He has a branded web page with his Joe Rogan interview as the background and a "Join my Tribe" link at the top.

Saladino is a salesperson who is pitching you on his theories to sell you products and extract money from you. Joe Rogan is unqualified to push back on it, so he gives these people a huge audience with which to push their agendas.

And it works! Here you are, completely convinced that everything he said is true and accurate, while it's trivially easy to find fact checkers showing how he made incorrect claims all through that podcast ( https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/paul-saladino-on-... ).

That is the problem with Joe Rogan's podcast.

Yes, I knew he specializes in psychiatry. He went to the same medical school and took the same classes as any other kind of doctor.

And we don't tend to rely on schooling from decades ago to be evidence of expertise, especially if that person is presenting heterodox conclusions.

And we can't forget about Rogan's thought-provoking segment with the DN guy.

You forgot the third kind of guest he has...

White supremacists and Crypto Fascists.

He just lets them talk unchallenged.

>Says people who don’t watch joe rogan. Joe rogan has two kinds of guests: experts/scientists and show biz people.

As someone who has been listening to Joe (on and off) for ~5 years, it's hard to believe that you haven't noticed a trend in the type of guests Joe has on in past year. I really feel it used to be that Joe would have on a wide range of people but now it seems that he's created an echo chamber. For example, at the start of the pandemic, in March, he had Michael Osterholm on his show - a top epidemiologist. He took it seriously at first, but once he was tired of lock downs, he has had several more "alternative" scientists to appease his world view and is pretty much antagonistic to anyone else.

I was listening him talk to Rhonda Patrick this morning (who's been on the show multiple times) and I was completely flabbergasted about how incredulous he seemed to be then Rhonda talked about vaccines. Think about that - this is one of his most credentialed friends and now he's incredibly skeptical as he's gotten even more dogmatic in his views.

And I'm sorry, diet fads are as old as America. You can pull up medical papers justifying almost anything when it comes to gastronomy. I hate this idea that has creeped further into the American psyche that people are pushed out of the mainstream because of the liberal boogeyman. You have quacks that are backed up by as much data as Saladino saying that going vegan will give you super powers. Some people are just wrong, and I'd be critical of the praise Joe gives a guy like Saladino given that Joe also has a vested interest in Saladino being correct as well.

Dogmatic... really? It's hard for me to think of a less dogmatic public figure. His views are all over the place, change frequently, and aren't at all consistent with each other. His critics (on both right and left) generally seem to want him to be more dogmatic, not less; they want him to be consistent with their own preferred dogma.

To me Joe comes across as someone who's figuring it out as they go and doesn't have a filter. I personally find this refreshing compared to zealots who are certain they have all the right answers on very nuanced and complex topics.

Edit: Ok downvoters, what is Joe Rogan's "dogma"? Honest question.

His views are only all over the place if you try to bucket him in the American "Democrat/Republican" binary bucket. If you listen to him for a long time he is surprisingly consistent a number of issues. For example, Joe is a huge supporter of public welfare. He grew up, temporarily, on food stamps and has always pushed back when even the most right of guests would call people on welfare lazy. Likewise I feel he has an incredibly poor track record on trans rights and can be very transphobic. That said, it's very difficult for people to communicate outside the "Democrat/Republican" playing field and people seem to love team sports more than discussion. Now that said, Joe is a human being and is welcome to his own beliefs, but whereas before I felt like Joe would have a mix of people on, his newer guests tend to be people who reaffirm his beliefs.

I don't see how any of that would make him dogmatic. Dogma implies a shared set of principles that are followed without question. His beliefs seem to be an idiosyncratic patchwork stitched together from personal experience and a diverse set of influences. And while he is attached to certain beliefs, as you say, he'll also change his mind easily in other areas. Whether or not you agree or disagree with his specific opinions, that's just about the polar opposite of dogma.

>Dogma implies a shared set of principles that are followed without question.

FWIW, Merriam Webster defines dogma as a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. That's the definition I was using, that I thought was more colloquial. Simply holding a strongly help opinion on shaky grounds is dogmatic. I don't believe that definition is at odds with what I'm describing.

Um, you cherry-picked a single bullet point out of that definition, and not even the first one.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

1a. something held as an established opinion, especially a definite authoritative tenet.

1b. a code of such tenets.

1c. a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.

2. a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.

Also, when has Joe Rogan ever claimed, or even implied, that his beliefs are "authoritative"? He constantly does the opposite.

Even if I cherry picked the one I thought was most clearest, none of them are even imply a shared set of principles that are followed without question, nor do any of the definitions under (1) contradict what I was saying.

>Also, when has Joe Rogan ever claimed, or even implied, that his beliefs are "authoritative"?

If you literally watch JRE today he does with regards to keto.

He can speak with legitimate authority on diet, exercise, martial arts, and other similar topics. He knows more about those things than 99% of people. The point is he doesn't claim authority on topics related to politics and science where he's out of his depth, or at least does it a lot less often than typical partisan commentators.

You seem to be reading a different definition than I am, but ok /shrug.