7 ms·

I'm a big fan of Alan Aragon, one of the country's leading experts on nutrition/health (in my and a lot of people's opinion). He did a pretty well informed take

• tptacek 15y ago
  Compare: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/about/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/about/ to: http://chc.ucsf.edu/coast/faculty_lustig.htm 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?
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  • kyasui 15y ago
    Definitely can't argue with you there. Although AA's arguably the leader in his field, a top sports nutritionist going against any sort of deeply credentialed scientist/doctor is going to be put at a credibility disadvantage. I encourage you to read the two articles though and see what you think.
  • teach 15y ago
    I've never heard of Alan Aragon, but he claims to have a master's degree in nutrition. That's a HELL of a lot more nutrition training than your average MD gets. 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.
    • unabridged 15y ago
      I would go with: Bio PHD > MD > Masters in Nutrition
      • teach 15y ago
        I'll admit that I'm biased, because my wife has a PhD in nutrition (as well as being a registered dietitian), but my best friend from high school is now an MD, and my wife knows more about nutrition and its effect on the body than he does. 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.
        • Drbble 15y ago
          Though of course, if the sugar question was a settled question in nutrition science, this thread wouldn't be happening, so comparing credentials isn't really relevant to the sugar question.
          • teach 15y ago
            I disagree. 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.
        • deleted 15y ago
          [deleted]
        • user0398 15y ago
          How can something be merely anecdotal and empirically evidenced at the same time?
          • stiller 15y ago
  • jodrellblank 15y ago
    Are you arguing proof by appeal to authority?
    • tptacek 15y ago
      No, obviously, I'm rebutting an appeal to authority.
      • oconnore 15y ago
        I think you overestimated how obvious that was. While rebutting a particular appeal to authority, you made your own.
        • tptacek 15y ago
          This right here is one of the more annoying message board tics.
        • georgieporgie 15y ago
          I'm pretty sure that's not what people mean when they talk about appeal to authority. An actual appeal to authority is fine. A fallacious appeal to authority is one where the 'authority' in question has little or questionable authority in the area being discussed.
          • Drbble 15y ago
            Here is a possibly legitimate appeal to authority, although you could refute it on its own grounds :-) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
          • deleted 15y ago
            [deleted]
          • jodrellblank 15y ago
            An actual appeal to authority isn't "fine", it's saying "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.
• specialist 15y ago
  Aragon's "rebuttal" of Lustig is nonsensical. 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.
  • wpietri 15y ago
    Yes, this. I just watched the Lustig YouTube lecture and then read Aragon's rebuttal. Aragon is arguing either with things Lustig didn't say or with small bits taken out of context. 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!
• fhoxh 15y ago
  Dr. Lustig's rebuttals: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/#comment-983 http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/#comment-1080 http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/#comment-1089 http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab...