Gyroscopic Investing

Gumby wrote:I recently experienced the power of acupuncture, first hand, and I can assure you that it is not a placebo effect. I walked in with very little expectations (I thought it would just be relaxing and stress-reducing) and I walked out completely amazed and feeling better than I've ever felt. Very, very powerful stuff — way more advanced for treating chronic conditions than anything offered by Western medicine.

This is called "anecdotal evidence".  That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. 

Wikipedia.org wrote:Current research suggests that traditional forms of acupuncture are more effective than placebos in the relief of certain types of pain and post-operative nausea. Recent systematic reviews found that acupuncture also seems to be a promising treatment option for anxiety, sleep disturbances, and depression, but that further research is needed in these regards. Although minimally invasive, the puncturing of the skin with acupuncture needles poses problems when designing trials that adequately controls for placebo effects. A number of studies comparing traditional acupuncture to sham procedures found that both sham and traditional acupuncture were superior to usual care but were themselves equivalent; findings apparently at odds with traditional Chinese theories regarding acupuncture point specificity.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture

In other words, the problem with the acupuncture vs. "sham acupuncture" trials is that even the sham acupuncture treatments are causing a beneficial outcome — apparently due to the beneficial hormones and compounds that the brain and tissues release when you randomly stick a needle into the skin. You can call that a placebo effect, but it's very clear that even the "sham" acupuncture is way better than a sugar pill. So, you can post all of the "no better than a placebo" evidence you want, but it still doesn't nullify the fact that even the "sham acupuncture" treatments are having powerful beneficial effects on the body that blows away the placebo effect from a pharmaceutical.

rocketdog wrote:

Gumby wrote:I recently experienced the power of acupuncture, first hand, and I can assure you that it is not a placebo effect. I walked in with very little expectations (I thought it would just be relaxing and stress-reducing) and I walked out completely amazed and feeling better than I've ever felt. Very, very powerful stuff — way more advanced for treating chronic conditions than anything offered by Western medicine.

This is called "anecdotal evidence".  That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

And the sad part of this is that none of the discussion about acupuncture matters — at all — because you can't prove that anything Kresser has said about nutrition is inaccurate.

If what he is saying is true — and, let's be honest, his evidence is far superior to anything you've offered in this discussion — then it would appear that your entire lifestyle is based on a bunch of unproven myths dreamed up by PETA supporters.

Pointedstick wrote: Wait, now chiropractors are quacks too?

With the exception of very specific types of back or neck pain relief, I'm afraid so.  Be sure to read the History of Chiropractic so you understand its dubious origins:

History of Chiropractic

Chiropractic's Dirty Secret: Neck Manipulation and Strokes

Undercover Investigations of Chiropractors

A Chiropractor Answers Questions about Chiropractic

Why Chiropractic Is Controversial

The End of Chiropractic

What's the harm in going to a chiropractor?

I've mostly heard of people being extremely pleasantly surprised by their experience with a chiropractor.

I have none.

moda0306 wrote: I've mostly heard of people being extremely pleasantly surprised by their experience with a chiropractor.

I have none.

Same. My mother threw her back out when I was a child and I believe her experience with chiropractics was positive.

I love how Rocketdog relies so heavily on "quackwatch" — a website devoted to ignoring any evidence that might support an alternative medical treatment. It's published as if the people running it are scared that any of their work might be invalidated by a bunch of needles.

See: Doctor Who?

The Village Voice wrote: Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable. "It's easy to look at something like chiropractic, see what they're doing, and describe what they're doing wrong," Barrett says. He adds that he does not criticize conventional medicine because "that's way outside my scope."

Barrett believes most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing specifically to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture. He believes that consumers should rely solely on established medical groups and studies, and that anyone who wants to consider info on both sides is "waiting to be quacked in a major way."

"He seems to be putting down trying to be objective," says Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine. "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative," Chowka added. "But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours."

Source: Doctor Who?

Gumby wrote:In other words, the problem with the acupuncture vs. "sham acupuncture" trials is that even the sham acupuncture treatments are causing a beneficial outcome — apparently due to the beneficial hormones and compounds that the brain and tissues release when you randomly stick a needle into the skin. You can call that a placebo effect, but it's very clear that even the "sham" acupuncture is way better than a sugar pill. So, you can post all of the "no better than a placebo" evidence you want, but it still doesn't nullify the fact that even the "sham acupuncture" treatments are having powerful beneficial effects on the body that blows away the placebo effect from a pharmaceutical.

You missed the point entirely.  People "thought" the sham acupuncture was the "real" acupuncture, and so they convinced themselves that it was working, hence the placebo effect. 

You can't point to a failure like this and say, "See!  Even the fake acupuncture worked, so the real acupuncture must work too!"  The study clearly showed that when someone believes they're getting treated -- whether through acupuncture, chiropractic, leeches, or whatever -- they can often convince themselves that they are better... whether it's true or not. 

This is why repeated, double-blind studies of sufficiently large populations are vital to ferreting out what works and what doesn't.  Or as a T-Shirt I once saw said:

[align=center]Science:
It works, bitches![/align]

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I've mostly heard of people being extremely pleasantly surprised by their experience with a chiropractor.

I have none.

Same. My mother threw her back out when I was a child and I believe her experience with chiropractics was positive.

Does that mean the chiropractor healed her?  Maybe so, maybe not.  People are often reluctant to criticize their caregivers.  Maybe her back would have healed on its own?  Maybe she changed her posture as a result of the injury, which alleviated the pain?  Maybe she changed her brand of peanut butter that week? 

Or, she may simply have succumbed to a logical fallacy known as "Post hoc ergo propter hoc".

rocketdog wrote:You missed the point entirely.  People "thought" the sham acupuncture was the "real" acupuncture, and so they convinced themselves that it was working, hence the placebo effect.

Uh, no. You can't just infer that and claim it's fact. There's more to the story than you are willing to admit. But, I shouldn't be surprised since you've convinced yourself of so many other flawed interpretations of reality.

rocketdog wrote:You can't point to a failure like this and say, "See!  Even the fake acupuncture worked, so the real acupuncture must work too!"  The study clearly showed that when someone believes they're getting treated -- whether through acupuncture, chiropractic, leeches, or whatever -- they can often convince themselves that they are better... whether it's true or not.

Nope. It said that even the sham acupuncture was "superior to usual care." Read that again. The whole reason that was said was to illustrate the difficulty of inferring a placebo effect in the first place.

rocketdog wrote:This is why repeated, double-blind studies of sufficiently large populations are vital to ferreting out what works and what doesn't.

You're being so hypocritical. On one hand you say "large populations are vital to ferreting out what works and what doesn't" and on the other hand you say acupuncture is "quackery" because a few small studies told you so.

If you truly believe that "large populations are vital to ferreting out what works and what doesn't" than you should be recommending further study of alternative medical treatments since there haven't been double-blind studies on large populations.

You don't even follow your own logic!

Protip: When you have to start criticizing people's mothers to defend your position, you're not going to convince a lot of fence-sitters, let alone your debate partners.

PS,

I don't think that was insulting to your Mom.  Maybe a little snark in there is all.

I've said far worse things about your son/wife .

Oh... and by the way, acupuncture and chiropractic manipulation is used on animals. Top race horses are given it regularly — often with excellent results.

http://www.ivis.org/proceedings/aaep/1997/Sutherla.pdf

Please, oh please, try to convince me that these racehorses are experiencing a placebo effect!

Pointedstick wrote: Protip: When you have to start criticizing people's mothers to defend your position, you're not going to convince a lot of fence-sitters, let alone your debate partners.

I'm not surprised. I mean, Kresser basically explained — in plain english — how vegetarianism is based on a bunch of myths. And since Rocketdog was unable to refute Kresser's assertions, all he could do was criticize Kresser's credentials. It's a fairly common reaction when someone loses a debate.

In reality, it doesn't matter if those assertions were made by a high-school student or by a medical doctor. Either Rocketdog can refute Kresser's assertions or he can't (my guess is he can't).

rocketdog wrote: If he has a beef with the way doctors are taught nutrition, then maybe he should become a doctor himself and work to fix his perception of the problem.  Instead all I hear is "I learned more about nutrition than a doctor, that makes my advice better than a doctor's."  Tell him to perform some double-blind studies, get them published in peer-reviewed journals, and in the meantime keep his sour grapes to himself.

I used to think doctors knew a lot about about nutrition until I saw this study.  It's a real eye opener. 

Nutrition & Metabolism
Research Open Access
Inadequate physician knowledge of the effects of diet on blood lipids and lipoproteins.
Mary Flynn1,2, Christopher Sciamanna*1,2,3 and Kevin Vigilante1,2
Address: 1Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 2The Miriam Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, USA and 3Brown University,
Department of Community Health, 1 Hoppin Street, CORO West, Suite 500, Providence, RI 02903 USA
Email: Mary Flynn - mary_flynn@brown.edu; Christopher Sciamanna* - csciamanna@lifespan.org; Kevin Vigilante - kvigilante@aol.com
* Corresponding author

Published: 01 December 2003
Nutrition Journal 2003, 2:19
Received: 07 August 2003
Accepted: 01 December 2003
This article is available from: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/2/1/19
© 2003 Flynn et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all
media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.

Abstract
Background: To assess the nutrition knowledge of physicians on the basic effects of diet on blood
lipids and lipoproteins.
Methods: Anonymous mailed dietary knowledge surveys to 6000 randomly selected physicians in
the United States licensed in either Internal Medicine or Cardiology.
Results: Response rate: 16% (n = 639). Half of the physicians did not know that canola oil and 26%
did not know olive oil were good sources of monounsaturated fat. Ninety-three percent (84% of
cardiologists vs. 96% of internists; p < 0.001) did not know that a low-fat diet, in general, would
increase blood triglycerides. Approximately three-quarters (70% of cardiologists vs. 77% of
internists; p < 0.01) did not know a low-fat diet would decrease HDL-c and almost half (45%)
thought that a low-fat diet would not change HDL-c.  Conclusions: If physicians are to implement dietary and cholesterol management guidelines, they will likely need to become more knowledgeable about nutrition.

http://www.nutritionj.com/content/2/1/19

Gumby wrote:

rocketdog wrote:

Gumby wrote: Adequate levels of fat soluble vitamins A, D, and K2 reduces the amount of calcium an adult needs to maintain bone health.

Which are all included in fortified milk, so your point is...?

Uh, no Rocketdog. You're wrong. Vitamin K2 is not added to milk. It's too expensive. Vitamin K2 costs $1.5 million per kilogram! So, most supplements avoid it from the prohibitive cost.

I forgot to address this point previously.  You've attempted to sway the reader to your argument by posting a very large number without putting it into context.  After all, at $1.5 million per kg, Vitamin K2 must be more valuable than most other substances on the planet!  But let's do the math and see what this really means...

There is no accepted RDA for Vitamin K2, but most supplements (yes, there are many K2 supplements available, despite your assertion that the cost is "prohibitive") contain 90-120 mcg per dose.  Let's say the RDA is 100 mcg in order to make the math easy.  Incidentally, we're talking about "mcg" here, not "mg".  Mcg is micrograms, which is millionths of a gram, meaning there are 1,000,000 mcg in one gram.  Put another way, 1 mcg is equal to 0.000001 grams. 

One kilogram contains 1,000 grams.  And since there are 1 million mcg in a gram, that means there are 1 billion mcgs in a kilogram (1,000 * 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000). 

So if the RDA of Vitamin K2 is 100 mcg, that means there are 10 million doses of Vitamin K2 in a kilogram (1,000,000,000 / 100 = 10,000,000).  And if a kilogram of Vitamin K2 costs $1.5 million to produce, that means each dose of Vitamin K2 costs 15 cents to manufacture (1,500,000 / 10,000,000 = 0.15).  So a bottle of 100 pills of Vitamin K2 would cost around $15 to produce -- hardly what one would call "prohibitive".  To verify my math, we can simply search for the price of Vitamin K2 supplements, which in this example costs $20.33 for 120 pills of 100 mcg each:

http://www.amazon.com/Nutrigold-Vitamin ... B009A6KFDC

So the math checks out.  What's more, let's assume an American's average life expectancy is around 80 years.  At 100 mcg of Vitamin K2 per day, the total lifetime RDA of Vitamin K2 would total less than 3 grams!  That is less than 1/10th of an ounce, or about the weight of 3 paper clips!  Spread over 80 years, that is an unimaginably small amount indeed (and yet it is still 25x more than the RDA for Vitamin B12, but that's another topic altogether).

So you see, the cost of Vitamin K2 is not prohibitive at all, because if it is needed by the body, it is only needed in infinitesimally microscopic amounts. 

rocketdog wrote:So you see, the cost of Vitamin K2 is not prohibitive at all, because if it is needed by the body, it is only needed in infinitesimally microscopic amounts.

Thank you Mr. Mathematics. Unfortunately, you were doing the math for the MK-7 version of Vitamin K2, which is much cheaper and is generally taken in lower doses than MK-4. The MK-4 version is the super expensive one — and it has much better research backing its benefits — is usually dosed at 450mcg up to 15mg per day. For instance, Life Extension's Vitamin K supplement contains 1000 mcg K2 as MK-4, and 100 mcg K2 as MK-7. And colostrum is particularly rich in MK-4. There is no known toxicity for Vitamin K2 as MK-4 and the research is now suggesting the more K2 the better (again, only found in animal products). Anyone who knows anything about Vitamin K2 (though, apparently not you) knows that.

For instance, 1-fluid ounce of Vitamin K2 MK-4 is $62: http://amzn.com/B000FGWDTK

Also, I'm not aware of any mainstream multivitamins that contain any Vitamin K2. For instance, Centrum — which is quite popular in the US — uses 25 mcg of "Phytonadione". Phytonadione is a fancy word for Vitamin K1 — found in plants and is pretty useless. Most multivitamins corporations are selling vitamins as cheap as possible.

Vitamin K2 as MK-7 is only partially converted to MK-4 and I believe part of it may be converted back to K1 (K1 is pretty easy to obtain from plants anyway).

Good job with the math though. Maybe you can calculate how much MK-4 you're not getting in your diet/supplements?

rocketdog wrote:I forgot to address this point previously.

Alright then...  Let's summarize my points so far...

- Industrial seed oils (i.e. vegetable oils) are rancid and contribute to oxidation in the body and blood.

- There is no proof that saturated fat, especially from grass-fed animals, is bad for you (grass-fed fats have beneficial properties and nutrients).

- There is no proof that low cholesterol improves longevity (the data shows the reverse is true).

- Flax (ALA) is a poor source of Omega-3 (most people can only convert about 0.5% into DHA/EPA).

- Most grains, seeds and nuts are a high source of inflammatory Omega-6.

- Vegetarianism and grain consumption has only been practiced for a minuscule amount of the human timeline.

- TMAO appears to be highest in individuals with Prevotella bacteria — typically found in those who eat lots of whole grains.

- Studies are often funded by corporations with agendas (low fat, low sodium, artificial food replacements).

- Vegetarianism hasn't been tested in very many large populations. Most data you cited seems to be derived from the Seventh Day Adventist study.

- Grains are full of phytates, lectins and toxins and fiber that tends to be harsh on the gut.

- Phytates and anti-nutrients in mineral-rich grains and brown rice appear to rob the body of minerals — causing diseases related to nutrient deficiencies.

- Natural vitamin-rich oils found in whole grains tend to oxidize when not used promptly.

- Vegetarians typically have a Healthy-User Bias that cannot be well adjusted for in studies.

- Dr. Price observed many native populations eating high-fat Paleo-style diets who were free of chronic disease and had perfect dental health. (Again, his life's work is not a product of the Weston A. Price Foundation)

- People have eaten high fat diets since the dawn of mankind with no good evidence of chronic disease — until grain consumption ensued.

- Sir Edward Mellanby discovered that grains contribute to poor dental health, while animal fats and Vitamin D actually healed cavities.

- There is no "consensus" in the medical literature about anything — especially regarding "low fat" diets.

- Studies are best analyzed and interpreted with an eye towards human evolution.

- Raw Milk is no less safe than eating a melon.

- Lots of calcium from plants is great, so long as you have sufficient Vitamin K2 as MK-4 in your diet. (You don't).

- Paleolithic ancestors likely got their calcium from their water or small bones or fish heads. (Plants in non-tropical zones weren't available year round anyway).

- So-called experts who don't understand the nutritional difference between grass-fed meat and grain-fed meat are difficult to take seriously.

- Vegetarians are usually deficient in B-12 — the proper form is only found in animal foods (or your feces).

- The idea that excess protein acidifies the blood is a myth. Blood PH is tightly regulated by the body.

- The idea that protein robs the body of calcium is a myth and was never proven with real meat consumption (only proven with fractionated protein powders and isolated amino acids).

- Most plants in the supermarket were hybridized for palatability and aren't all that nutritious.

- Primates are hindgut fermenters with large cecums. Humans don't digest plants as well as primates do.

- The human cecum — where our plant-digesting bacteria resides — is tiny and sits on the end of the appendix. The appendix itself is now a useless vestige organ and was probably a larger cecum at one time.

- Most doctors know very little about nutrition.

- Many wild nuts and seeds (such as Almonds) were/are poisonous before they were domesticated via hybridization.

- Vegetarianism is based on misleading myths.

- Vegetarianism has never been proven in large populations beyond any kind of placebo effect from the diet.

Since you missed all of those points the first time around, care to address them all now? Looks like you have a lot of explaining to do.

For what it's worth, I don't think that it's possible to beat Gumby in an argument. 

rocketdog wrote:And yet strict vegetarian or vegan diets have long been used to reverse calcification of arteries in meat-eating patients with heart disease, to the point where some of them are able to avoid bypass surgery altogether.  So something doesn't add up here, Gumby.

Yes, because those "meat-eating" patients were all likely eating lots of grain-fed meat and cooking their meats in oxidized vegetable oils. Grain-fed meat is significantly high in Omega-6 (like 10x to 13x higher), low in CLA, and very low in Omega-3. In other words, the heart disease patients were eating a high Omega-6 Standard American Diet. That's how they got heart disease in the first place.

The only reason those patients improved is because they stopped eating those high Omega-6 foods and switched to a malnourishing plant-based diet.

Reub wrote: For what it's worth, I don't think that it's possible to beat Gumby in an argument. 

Gumby can come off as abrasive when challenged, but he's usually right. He spends more time than most people I've ever seen at acquiring and synthesizing information and it's worth paying attention to. Having your preconceived notions challenged is hard but IMHO it's always worth it to do a little self-examination and evaluate alternative points of view before going into full defensive snark mode. If I had done that when I first joined this board, I would never have learned about MR and my understanding of finance and economics would be poorer for it.

Pointedstick wrote:Gumby can come off as abrasive when challenged

I am apologetic for that. It wasn't my intention to come off that way, but it's how I respond to a dismissive tone. When someone is more quizzical and interested in having a real discussion, I take on a very different tone.

I totally get that it's difficult to have your beliefs challenged, so I am sympathetic to that. When I learned all this, it really challenged the belief system I had at the time. It really sucked. So, I'm sorry if I've been too abrasive in this thread, Rocketdog. I totally understand how it feels.

To be honest, Rocketdog, I sort of wished you were more prepared to challenge my arguments because it sort of disturbed me when I realized that the overwhelming majority of mainstream dietary advice is based on myths and corporate marketing. I was even more disturbed to learn that my doctor admitted that he really didn't know that much about nutrition.

It would be far more comforting to me if mainstream dietary advice were correct. But it's not. There are too many holes in the logic when you start to really investigate it. And now I find myself disillusioned with a lot of advice from Western doctors and the media who seem to believe every study headline that's published, regardless of the the actual data in the study.

Gumby wrote: It would be far more comforting to me if mainstream dietary advice were correct. But it's not. There are too many holes in the logic when you start to really investigate it. And now I find myself disillusioned with a lot of advice from Western doctors and the media who seem to believe every study headline that's published, regardless of the the actual data in the study.

I'm just surprised that rocketdog doesn't get the connection between these studies and the same types of ones that fuel anti-gun misconceptions. It's the same thing: conclusions that aren't supported by the data, basic parameters that are were dramatically skewed, or similar major problems are typically present, and go unchallenged or unnoticed due to institutional groupthink. I see this all the time with peer-reviews at work: it's impossible to offer a decent review if you're approaching the problem from the same perspective, and even worse if you're not also an expert on the data yourself. You want your work reviewed by people who disagree with you, who see your premise as bogus, and think your data collection methods are shoddy.

It's weird to see a healthy skepticism of gun-related studies but such a strong faith in nutritional studies.

Pointedstick wrote:It's weird to see a healthy skepticism of gun-related studies but such a strong faith in nutritional studies.

Interesting point.

I wonder if the lack of skepticism in health-related studies is tied to the image that Western doctors have all the answers. As a patient you sort of want to believe that your doctor knows more than you do about everything health related. And, in a way, the whole setup of Western medicine is pretty much engineered to make you feel like you're inferior to the doctor.

You go in and they make you wait in the waiting room. Then they call you and you wait in the examination room sitting on butcher paper with no pants on. The doc comes in and is wearing a suit that makes him look like he knows what he's doing. And then he touches you in inappropriate ways (yes, I know it's generally for a good reason). Then he prescribes some pharmaceuticals if, god forbid, you have an unexplained symptom and sends you on your way.

We're not really encouraged to question a doctor's judgement or health studies in Western medicine. Yes, the doctors often know more about diseases than we do, but they are really masquerading as nutritional experts when they clearly aren't. So, we don't question the literature or the advice (even though the literature and advice can often be traced back to corporations who funded the research). And the media will regurgitate any study that's been spoonfed to them by a PR firm. So these kinds of improperly-concluded studies bombard us from every angle.

Gumby picks the topics he wants to debate about and researches them incessantly, is very good at linking and quoting posts, and won't let anything slide.  If you've found yourself in a debate with Gumby, just move to another one or ask him questions about how he came to his conclusions, because if you're looking to actually win it won't happen.

But this all gets to a larger point... I think as college students, while certainly not wise, we don't have much invested in our opinions other than a little bit of stubbornness due to a limited life experience.  However, after we get to a certain point and have held opinions for a certain amount of time, a consistency mechanism kicks in, where admitting we're wrong is admitting that we've essentially failed for decades or years, or some "epiphany" that we had in the past was fundamentally incorrect.

There is an intense cliff of failure that we instinctually feel we are going over if we realize the ideas we've confidently, maybe even loudly and meanly, asserted for years if not decades are incorrect, and even worse, having to admit people we may have grown to hate and say awful things about are potentially correct.  We desire to be consistent, especially consistent in the face of admitting defeat to someone we've grown to loathe and having to question the advice of someone we've grown to respect.