aaxe

leptin is for fullness, ghrelin is for hunger.

Please no - you're someone who knows a bit but thinks they know the full picture. You're way overreactding.

Wow no.

After seeing positive response on CrowdMed - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9101622 - thought this would be really enjoyed.

Paypal's IPN is the worst piece of garbage ever.

Taleb is a smart man, but considering he thinks carbs are "bad" for you, it's a classical case of someone who thinks being a master in one domain makes him a master in another completely-unrelated domain.

His nutritional theories are asinine.

Yup - http://examine.com/supplements/Coconut+Oil/#main_clinical_re... "Skin Dryness" and "Skin Moisture"

The actual science for coconut oil: http://examine.com/supplements/Coconut+Oil/

Oh, just 250+ citations on nicotine here: http://examine.com/supplements/Nicotine/

The site is full of references. Try clicking around.

And insulin resistance is an issue if you're overweight. For a normal person it's a non-issue.

Obviously you did not either.

There is no centralized data from which all fish oil studies came from. It simply stated that the impetus was a study that had misinterpreted data. The rest is exclusive to it.

Ray Peat is contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

Examine.com does not recommend fish oil as a MUST supplement.

More citations, more in-depth, non-anonymous contributors?

Doh, meant to link to this: http://examine.com/blog/vitamin-e/

Even more in-depth, very interesting: http://examine.com/blog/high-protein-diets-linked-to-cancer-...

Ugh: http://examine.com/blog/fish-oil-and-your-prostate/

You do realize its talking about the neuron, not the synapse? They are quite different.

The article links to the actual listing pages, which go into full details.

> Just that the more sugar and starch eaten, the less time the body can stay in fat-burning mode

This is 100% bullshit.

> Research (I'm not finding the studies, sorry) has indeed shown that protein intake is minimally correlated to muscle growth. He was on the mark by mentioning that only certain amounts of protein can be used in one setting, while the rest is wasted by the body. It's not one hard and fast number; individuals bodies vary greatly according to metabolic rates, capacity to grow, and ability to gain strength.

Please keep your incredibly-incorrect-opinions to yourself.

> - Recommendation to use creatine with no discussion of what it does. Creatine does not in itself make you stronger, but it makes it possible for you to sustain a harder pace for a longer time in your workouts. Even if you're experienced in the gym, you have to be careful about overuse injuries when you start using creatine, because the sudden ability to work harder, longer, allows you to put more strain on your connective tissue than you're used to.

That is literally flat out wrong/bullshit.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read on HN.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to put a disclaimer to hyperbole.

Besides his general criticism (which is valid), he doesn't actually address any of the findings of the studies.

Aka, cherry-picking.

May as well provide evidence on the earth revolving around the sun.

But here you go: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/12edbj/im_gary_taubes_...

Question credentials without spending a single moment looking more in-depth.

A+, would read your scientific literature.

Is Glen Beck a rapist? I'm just asking questions.

That is the exact equivalent of what you did. They clearly say "Why the buy link" right next to that link.

And if you actually tried reading it, right here: http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/#summary7-1 - "brain boosting"

So no time or energy for anything but wild accusations.

Taubes is a dogmatic cherry-picker.

I'm from Examine - contact me via http://examine.com/contact/ please.

Just want to be in touch :)

Also a useful FAQ section: http://examine.com/faq/