Re: CRON vs Enig, Fallon and Ravnskov

[Guest guest]

: this will be my last word on the subject of Enig, Fallon and

Ravnskov.

This is a message board based mainly on the scientific work of Dr. Roy

Walford. And also those scientists that have continued his work. You may

post here but you will have to abide by the rules. We have listened and

listened to you and it's getting somewhat repetitious. You can find other

message boards that discuss Enig, Fallon and Ravnskov if that's what you

insist on discussing; your insistence on trying to " convert " us is getting

distasteful (at least to me and a few others that I know of).

I will not be reading Enig, Fallon and Ravnskov. They are not accepted by

the mainstream scientific community and have nowhere near the credentials of

Roy Walford and others that I choose to spend my time reading. I would

rather spend my time going straight to the top of the scientific community.

on 8/19/2003 9:10 PM, paultheo2000 at paultheo2000@... wrote:

> BTW, you also seem to have made up your

> mind. Should you not postpone judgement until having read Enig,

> Fallon, Ravnskov? It seems that you don't follow the very advice you

> give me. (My apologies if you have read them)

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@ Francesca:

> I will not be reading Enig, Fallon and Ravnskov. They are not

accepted by

> the mainstream scientific community and have nowhere near the

credentials of

> Roy Walford and others that I choose to spend my time reading. I

would

> rather spend my time going straight to the top of the scientific

community.

@@@@@@@@@@@@

For the record, Enig and Ravnskov are highly respected and

credentialed scientists, and Enig gets most of the credit for our

current awareness of the dangers and ubiquity of trans fat, which is

accepted much more widely by the mainstream scientific community--to

the point of even affecting government policy now--than anything

Walford has ever done. Of course Walford is an outstanding

scientist, but so are thousands of other people, and making

dismissive judgements about other scientists without even studying

their work is a laughable position, especially when they are

presenting very carefully documented and reasoned arguments about

controversial and important topics. Keep in mind that Walford is

not even in the same field as Enig or Ravnskov, the latter two of

whom specialize in the nutritional aspects of lipid biochemistry in

humans, so talking about " CRON vs. Enig, et al " is not much more

sensible than talking about " CRON vs. Chomsky " or " CRON vs.

Hawking " . It happens that Enig (together with Fallon) have written

casual criticism of CRON, but as they are not experts in this area, I

take this portion of their discourse with a grain of salt, much as I

do with regards to Walford's discourse on lipid nutrition. I'm not

aware of any published remarks by Ravnskov relating to CRON, and nor

would I expect any.

Also bear in mind that much of the discourse supplied by Enig and

Fallon, and especially Fallon, follows the work of Weston A Price,

who is one of the great scientific figures of the 20th century, as

anyone who has studied his work will heartily confirm. He is one of

the true giants in the history of nutrition, and any serious and

broadly informed discourse on nutrition (hopefully including our own

attempts at " ON " ) is bound to make substantial contact with his work,

much like discourse on linguistics would make contact with the work

of Saussure. I would like thank you in advance for not disputing the

stature of Price without actually studying his work or the response

to his work by the experts in his field. (Um, yeah, that means

trashy websites don't count.)

It's worth echoing the thoughts of others by noting that facile and

rigid defending of " mainstream science " is hardly a sound methodology

for us lay people, unless history is never to repeat itself ever

again in this regard. I'm just as willing to assign value to

scientific work on an individual basis in the absence of mainstream

approval as I am in the case of a work of art. The true cognoscenti

in any domain are tiny in number--individual fields of science

included--and everything else is the artifical facade of magnitude

created by journalism, politics, and economics. The millions and

millions of shoddy journalistic amplifications of erroneous studies

on cholesterol don't win my credence, and they don't change the fact

that there is only a small number of primary sources for this

erroneous information. You can't get any more " mainstream " than the

cholesterol scandal!

I read the macronutrient article posted. It's all kind of old

news, but I guess I have to keep in mind that there are still huge

numbers of people who uncritically accept the low-fat myth, so well-

written and crafty articles like this can be quite valuable. As

usual, Fallon and Enig are the voices of common sense and moderation,

looking at the big picture and drawing on the evidence of history and

tradition to keep the current rounds of technical controversies in

perspective. There's not much shocking and provocative about the

idea of eating time-tested traditional real foods, plenty of fat,

avoiding processed foods, and enjoying food as a fulcrum of human

culture. However, I found their discussion of CR very

disappointing. They make the huge error of assuming that CRON diets

are all similar, which essentially allows them to attack a straw

man. There's no doubt that many CRONies follow poor and misguided

diets, but that only reflects the diversity of theories about ON,

both inside and outside the CR community. Further, I don't think

that a few flawed studies vitiate the large body of evidence

suggesting benefits to CR. I believe CR can be a very positive,

healthy, and balanced lifestyle. I found nothing of interest in

their discussion of CR, and it's a shame that many will read it

without the benefit of a more balanced and thorough presentation,

although this is of little significance because CR is only be

compatible with the sensibilities of a tiny fraction of the human

population regardless of its validity. Most people already have

enough on their hands just trying to achieve health and happiness,

neither of which require CR. That said, this disappointing section

doesn't detract from the essential points of their article regarding

macronutrient ratios, and in fact, CR is completely irrelevant to the

topic of macronutrient ratios.

mike parker

[Guest guest]

I first read about enig's transfats info a long time ago - probably good judgment, but when scientific types move into recommending medical stuff like "don't worry about cholesterol", then I have a problem. That goes for ALL scientific types that don't practice medicine. According to medical journals, approved diets, and medical textbooks, a low fat diet is not a myth.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Anton

Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 10:26 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: CRON vs Enig, Fallon and RavnskovFor the record, Enig and Ravnskov are highly respected and credentialed scientists, and Enig gets most of the credit for our current awareness of the dangers and ubiquity of trans fat, which is accepted much more widely by the mainstream scientific community--to the point of even affecting government policy now--than anything Walford has ever done. Of course Walford is an outstanding scientist, but so are thousands of other people, and making dismissive judgements about other scientists without even studying their work is a laughable position, especially when they are presenting very carefully documented and reasoned arguments about controversial and important topics. Keep in mind that Walford is not even in the same field as Enig or Ravnskov, the latter two of whom specialize in the nutritional aspects of lipid biochemistry in humans, so talking about "CRON vs. Enig, et al" is not much more sensible than talking about "CRON vs. Chomsky" or "CRON vs. Hawking". It happens that Enig (together with Fallon) have written casual criticism of CRON, but as they are not experts in this area, I take this portion of their discourse with a grain of salt, much as I do with regards to Walford's discourse on lipid nutrition. I'm not aware of any published remarks by Ravnskov relating to CRON, and nor would I expect any.Also bear in mind that much of the discourse supplied by Enig and Fallon, and especially Fallon, follows the work of Weston A Price, who is one of the great scientific figures of the 20th century, as anyone who has studied his work will heartily confirm. He is one of the true giants in the history of nutrition, and any serious and broadly informed discourse on nutrition (hopefully including our own attempts at "ON") is bound to make substantial contact with his work, much like discourse on linguistics would make contact with the work of Saussure. I would like thank you in advance for not disputing the stature of Price without actually studying his work or the response to his work by the experts in his field. (Um, yeah, that means trashy websites don't count.)It's worth echoing the thoughts of others by noting that facile and rigid defending of "mainstream science" is hardly a sound methodology for us lay people, unless history is never to repeat itself ever again in this regard. I'm just as willing to assign value to scientific work on an individual basis in the absence of mainstream approval as I am in the case of a work of art. The true cognoscenti in any domain are tiny in number--individual fields of science included--and everything else is the artifical facade of magnitude created by journalism, politics, and economics. The millions and millions of shoddy journalistic amplifications of erroneous studies on cholesterol don't win my credence, and they don't change the fact that there is only a small number of primary sources for this erroneous information. You can't get any more "mainstream" than the cholesterol scandal!I read the macronutrient article posted. It's all kind of old news, but I guess I have to keep in mind that there are still huge numbers of people who uncritically accept the low-fat myth, so well-written and crafty articles like this can be quite valuable. As usual, Fallon and Enig are the voices of common sense and moderation, looking at the big picture and drawing on the evidence of history and tradition to keep the current rounds of technical controversies in perspective. There's not much shocking and provocative about the idea of eating time-tested traditional real foods, plenty of fat, avoiding processed foods, and enjoying food as a fulcrum of human culture. However, I found their discussion of CR very disappointing. They make the huge error of assuming that CRON diets are all similar, which essentially allows them to attack a straw man. There's no doubt that many CRONies follow poor and misguided diets, but that only reflects the diversity of theories about ON, both inside and outside the CR community. Further, I don't think that a few flawed studies vitiate the large body of evidence suggesting benefits to CR. I believe CR can be a very positive, healthy, and balanced lifestyle. I found nothing of interest in their discussion of CR, and it's a shame that many will read it without the benefit of a more balanced and thorough presentation, although this is of little significance because CR is only be compatible with the sensibilities of a tiny fraction of the human population regardless of its validity. Most people already have enough on their hands just trying to achieve health and happiness, neither of which require CR. That said, this disappointing section doesn't detract from the essential points of their article regarding macronutrient ratios, and in fact, CR is completely irrelevant to the topic of macronutrient ratios.mike parker