http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/about/
to:
http://chc.ucsf.edu/coast/faculty_lustig.htm
I'm not saying that's dispositive, but why exactly is Alan Aragon more credible than a medical doctor and UCSF clinical pediatrics professor?
I encourage you to read the two articles though and see what you think.
I'm sure both have tons of post-degree self-study in nutrition, and that's virtually impossible to measure.
The problem of quantifying levels of expertise is a hard one, especially in the world of nutrition.
Also, I'm aware that's merely an anecdote. Based on purely empirical evidence, I'd place both my wife and my friend in the top 10% of their respective fields, though.
The sugar question is settled in nutrition science. Sugar that doesn't occur naturally in food is pretty bad for you. But underqualified people have different opinions and get a disproportionate amount of face time on media.
In fact, I'd say the question is almost identical to the climate change 'debate'. The science is settled, but the average American doesn't know who to believe.
The comparison of his wife and best friend is the anecdote.
He then adds separately that he has empirical evidence--unshared with us--that each is competent in their respective fields.
He doesn't claim anything to be simultaneously an anecdote and empirical evidence.
Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. I could set up shop tomorrow, calling myself a nutritionist.
That's made a bit more complex because you have sensible nutritionists working within public health doing real science, and you have wingnuts.
"Accept my logic as correct because I namedrop a well regarded name as a supporter". But since well regarded people can be wrong this is no sort of proof at all.
Which poster seems more guilty of a fallacious argument?
It would be like some guy saying that physical money is bad and referring you to a CBO publication about hyperinflationary currencies.
If you disagree with one of his conclusions, please post your thoughts - but be specific. I'm open minded... if "He makes scientific statements that can generally be inferred from the cited sources, but which the sources don't actually prove"...I'm happy to agree with you but that seems like that would be simple to show but you don't link to anything or provide any arguments or even a sentence or two to back it up.(?)
I don't have a horse in this race, but I'm not going to discount someone just because they aren't a professor at UC-SF.
He completely biffs Lustig's position on fruit (vis a vis Atkins Diet). In that lecture, Lustig says fruit is okay, whereas fruit juice isn't, because the fiber in fruit blocks the fructose from being metabolized, while the glucose gets used.
Lustig may be right or wrong. But criticisms should be about what he actually said.
Since Lustig publishes his research and results, Aragon could step up act like a scientist and either refute or confirm Lustig's data. But sciencificalologeries is hard work, whereas just making shit up is pretty easy.
Further, while I'm on board with Lustig's science, and conclusions, and strategy, I've personally adopted a nutrition somewhere between Eat To Live and Dr Terry Wahls "eat 9 cups of fruit and veggies per day". Works great for me.
In particular, Aragon doesn't seem to get the difference between a lecture and an academic paper. One can't edit a lecture, so you have to give the speaker a little leeway. Aragon also can't seem to tell the difference between a rhetorical flourish and a claim of absolute fact. Disappointing!