junkscience top10

December 5, 2004 9:23 PM

Junkscience: Top Ten "Most Embarrassing Moments" of 2004 Whoops: "10. University of Arkansas researchers attacked the Atkins Diet in January with a report linking a high-carbohydrate diet with weight loss, saying it was possible to lose weight without cutting calories and without exercising. What they didn’t reveal, however, was that the study subjects who lost weight actually ate 400-600 calories per day less than those who didn’t lose weight." I don't see the big deal behind number 6.
posted by skallas (45 comments total)

Well at least they had the good sense to link to the "revealing, bustier-clad photo of Ms. Brockovich" mentioned in #6, though I have to admit it was a bit of a letdown.
posted by mragreeable at 9:38 PM on December 5, 2004

It's the Cato Institute. They're not fond of people who sue large corporations.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:43 PM on December 5, 2004

Fox News, Cato Institute.

I'll pass.
posted by ook at 9:43 PM on December 5, 2004

I thought they were pretty nice, considering.
posted by reflection at 9:48 PM on December 5, 2004

>Fox News, Cato Institute.

Whoa, didn't know that.

Steven J. Milloy is the founder and publisher of Junkscience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a columnist for FoxNews.com.

I guess the reading list is a good tip-off.
posted by skallas at 9:49 PM on December 5, 2004

I think I confused with with quackwatch. Great, now someone is going to tell me Rev Moon runs that.
posted by skallas at 9:51 PM on December 5, 2004

Wow, what a petulant tone that site has. My bullshit trigger got tripped awfully quickly by item #10, where low carb dieting was described as "politically incorrect". In my experience, anyone who uses this fatuous cliche as a serious descriptor is someone incapable of arguing a point clearly.
posted by maudlin at 9:52 PM on December 5, 2004

Ahh, this puts a whole new spin on the article.
posted by reflection at 9:52 PM on December 5, 2004

Yeah. I hope that doesn't make it to the list of all lists of 2004 - given that the "2004newshiny" quality is a conglomeration of old issues with new labels.

"Proposition 71 isn’t likely to lead to any cures — except for Dr. Weissman’s and others' ailing investments." - Now that's journalism!

(Apologies if the following is thread-stealing; my excuse is that I third dirig. and ook's call on the journalistic credence here.)

Here's a serious question - what's the point of a list like this, or of 'debunking' science in this weird way? Is this part of the roundup for anti-evolutionists claiming that "creation science" is just as good as evolutionary science? Part of the watchdogging of the corporate watchdogs to make their journalism more debatable? Or just a weird conflux of issues that foxnews likes to take an anti-intellectual take on? These people confuse me.
posted by metaculpa at 9:54 PM on December 5, 2004

The No 2. Embryonic Stem Cell research doesn't seem to 'debunk' anything. It just singles out one promoter of Calif. Prop. 71 and exposes him as having ties to a Corp. involved with (embryonic) stem cell research, and having a financial stake in the passing of the Prop. I don't see any 'debunking' of any science.

There are a couple of statements that come close:

"I addressed the dim prospects of embryonic stem cell research in an earlier column."

--and--

"Proposition 71 isn't likely to lead to any cures."

How does anyone know this? If you could predict what research would show up, then it wouldn't truly be 'research'. What's the basis for such statements by anti-SC advocates?
posted by Gyan at 9:56 PM on December 5, 2004

From the list:
Softdrink is good for children.
Global warming isn't happening.
Chlorine in drinking water is fine.
Stem-cell research is bad.
Obecity doesn't kill.
Salt in food is good for you.

There you go. Thats all cleared up.
posted by Jerub at 9:56 PM on December 5, 2004

The author is a Cato scholar.

I don't understand the #10 thing. He says that the study was biased because the government has been focused on low-fat, so low-carb diets are anti-institutional.

Then he says those who lost weight ate less calories. And fat is a high-calorie substance. So the institutional line is right...

So one group ate less calories and more carbs, the other group ate more calories and less carbs, and the first group lost more weight.

Which supports that idea that low-carb diets aren't a magic pill.

I think the guy is a bit confused.
posted by Firas at 9:59 PM on December 5, 2004 [1 favorite]

Pointing out mistaken, or worse, fraudulent, science that was reported to the public is a good thing. Giving compelling, logical arguments about what was wrong is a requirement.

Finding studies by groups you don't like, and cherry-picking those that one chooses to label junk (some justifiably, others not), well, that ain't so much a good thing.
posted by teece at 10:01 PM on December 5, 2004

Which supports that idea that low-carb diets aren't a magic pill.

I am living proof otherwise.
posted by Quartermass at 10:02 PM on December 5, 2004

Did you try cutting calories without cutting carbs?
posted by Firas at 10:04 PM on December 5, 2004 [1 favorite]

It's amazing how much different it reads after you know the guy is affiliated with Fox/Cato. To someone who doesn't follow science to closely, at least, the revelation was stunning. I passed it over as a fairly uninteresting list at first (although, very much what mragreeable said), but on rereading came up with pretty much the same conclusions as Jerub.

In the interest of fairness, though, I was just about to post and say, "Listen, guys, just because he writes for Fox News doesn't mean the list is biased" -- but after skallas' link to the reading list ("Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry About Global Warming") I retract such sentiment.
posted by rafter at 10:04 PM on December 5, 2004

Or, did your low-carb diet maintain the same amount of calories you took before you started it?
posted by Firas at 10:05 PM on December 5, 2004 [1 favorite]

If they can't even take the care to spell Dr. Theo Colborn's name right, why should I believe that they've carefully examined her work?
posted by jeffmshaw at 10:05 PM on December 5, 2004

Where's Carl Sagan when we need him?
posted by leecifer at 10:12 PM on December 5, 2004

The Junkman was also a shill for big tobacco under the guise of "science".

And yes, I realize that Disinfopedia isn't exactly unbiased either, but still...
posted by O9scar at 10:24 PM on December 5, 2004

Yeah, people! Drink a gallon of coke every day, and don't forget to disinfect it with some chlorine, or, just to be on the safe side, DDT. Drive around in as big of an SUV as you can afford (as a monthly payment, of course) so you can save as many calories as possible and grow reeeeeal big, just like Texas! And don't believe all them scientists and doctors and shit. The good lord will take care of you.

That Milloy guy must be pretty damn smart. To be an expert in so many different fields....
posted by c13 at 10:34 PM on December 5, 2004

[This is bullshit.]

#2 is about transparency and full-disclosure in effing politics.
#1 and 7 bitch about poor studies, but isn't it the role of peer review to have peers, you know, review studies and articles to point out flaws?
#6 is apparently bitching about Ms. Brockovich speaking (that whore--fighting against a corp!)
...christ what a bunch of wankers. What's worse than shitty science reporting? Shitty, biased opinion pieces being passed as critical analysis.
posted by MikeKD at 10:40 PM on December 5, 2004

The Junkman was also a shill for big tobacco under the guise of "science".

Don't let the fact that there IS lotsa shrill hysterical misinformation about smoking promulgated by the PC-patrol rob you a a good rant.
posted by RavinDave at 10:47 PM on December 5, 2004

Did you try cutting calories without cutting carbs?Or, did your low-carb diet maintain the same amount of calories you took before you started it?

Well, I did a low-cal / low-fat combined with lots of exercise for 7 months and lost 20 pounds.

I did low-carb and I worked out the same (after doing low cal, I actually increased my caloric intake by about 500 calories a day), I lost 20 pounds in one month. Now one person doesn't make a trend, but I found that doing low-carb did a lot of things for me. Just one example - my "binge" foods - candy, popcorn, etc. are all carbs, so by telling myself "no carbs" and sticking to it, by default I eliminated my problem foods.

I am not about to get into a pro/anti Atkins argument, because frankly I am sick to death of defending it and having people criticize me for losing weight the "wrong" way. I eat better doing low carb than I ever have (which I was I got fat in the first place - junk foods). I don't purchase any of the "low carb" franken foods, and I eat clean. I used to be really fat and unhealthy, and due to a combination of different types of diet and with a lot of working out, I am less so now.
posted by Quartermass at 10:48 PM on December 5, 2004

Well, that's cool, Quartermass. I'm psyched for you. I think people were trying to say that, given the paucity of scientific evidence FOR the Atkins diet, it seems a little weird to jump on the shill bandwagon and fight fairly legitimate research on mostly ad-hominem grounds.

So here's my question, Q - what's the evidence for the Atkins diet. As even quackwatch points out, anecdotes aren't statistics; and statistics aren't knowledge. How should the rest of us approach the Atkins diet if we want to be healthy?

Anyway, this discussion makes Quartermass quite the pun.
posted by metaculpa at 11:03 PM on December 5, 2004

Well, my argument wasn't so much that low-carb diets don't work--I wouldn't know--but saying that the scientific community is against them because the government is involved in promoting low-fat sounds like a tin-foil theory to me.

(Personally, what peeves me about the Atkins hype is people thinking that--instead of a regiment of diet/excercise--all they need to do is eat a bunch of stuff stamped with a low-carb label.)
posted by Firas at 11:38 PM on December 5, 2004 [1 favorite]

also "[400,000 deaths] estimate as overblown by as much as 200 percent" is trying a little too hard. 200,000 deaths is just fine with the author of this piece?

I think hes trying to mix up percent and times in peoples minds. 200 percent vs 200 times...
posted by Iax at 11:40 PM on December 5, 2004

Rant? The man worked for a front group. Yes, it happened to be for Philip Morris.

It was the lying part I was trying to make a point about.
posted by O9scar at 12:25 AM on December 6, 2004

I tried the atkins diet for one day. It gave me horrible horrible intestinal problems that lasted a whole week. Anyone with frequent gas, stomach trouble, or bloating should stay far away from atkins, for the health of you and your loved ones.
posted by JZig at 12:42 AM on December 6, 2004

The "one day" was your problem there, JZig. You can't just up and drop a meat bomb on your colon and expect it to sit there and take it. Ease into it, baby.
posted by queen zixi at 2:17 AM on December 6, 2004

I was tipped off by around #3 or 4, when I suddenly wondered how any credible scientific organization could be apparently devoted only to calling "embarrassing" anything related to global warming, obesity, or science related to liability for major corporations.

Who, exactly, is Steven Milloy? Because he seems to be the source of every single story this cite uses to "debunk."
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:09 AM on December 6, 2004

Ah, okay, figured it out. The entire site, including the guise of being some kind of organization, is in fact, this one guy.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:15 AM on December 6, 2004

Junking JunkScience
posted by ninebelow at 4:31 AM on December 6, 2004

The "Canada Free Press" link caught my eye. Wow what an... interesting... site.

“The often-melodramatic World Health Organization…”

“There’ll be no peace on earth as far as the same group [Planned Parenthood] that offers teenaged girls easy access to birth control "without the consent or knowledge of your parents" is concerned.”

“…the United Nations, which claims to own the monopoly on finding world peace…”

“Girl, 11, shot on bus--but crime is down”

Yep, there are wingnut Canucks, too.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 4:42 AM on December 6, 2004

If an 'adjunct scholar' is anything like an 'adjunct professor', I am not sure he has the hearty endorsement of the Cato Institute on this. My wife's 'adjunct professor' title means: contracted on low-paying per course basis to teach low-level courses.
posted by tippiedog at 5:35 AM on December 6, 2004

...not that I'm defending the Cato Institute
posted by tippiedog at 5:42 AM on December 6, 2004

He's only been a FOX columnist for about a year and a half - and in that time the quality of his pieces has slid dramatically. Before, he was actually saying very non-republican party line things about stem cells and genetic engineering.

Now, you never see him mention genetic engineering or any other ways of "playing god" in a good light. He used to be an interesting, libertarianish guy. Now, not so much.

However, please note that several of these stories are assuredly real examples of why single studies designed by scientists who'd love to make national news and get some extra funding might not be good reasons to start public health hysteria.
posted by u.n. owen at 5:52 AM on December 6, 2004

From this charming little site

Junk science" is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas. The junk science "mob" includes:

The MEDIA may use junk science for sensational headlines and programming. Some members of the media use junk science to advance their and their employers' social and political agendas.

PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS may use junk science to bamboozle juries into awarding huge verdicts. Large verdicts may then be used to extort even greater sums from deep-pocket businesses fearful of future jury verdicts.

SOCIAL ACTIVISTS, such as the "food police," environmental extremists, and gun-control advocates, may use junk science to achieve social and political change.

GOVERNMENT REGULATORS may use junk science to expand their authority and to increase their budgets.

BUSINESSES may use junk science to bad-mouth competitors' products or to make bogus claims about their own products.

POLITICIANS may use junk science to curry favor with special interest groups or to be "politically correct."

INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS may use junk science to achieve fame and fortune.

INDIVIDUALS who are ill (real or imagined) may use junk science to blame others for causing their illness.

No political agenda there, nope, none at all... It's good to know that the only "Social Activists" who use "Junk Science" to further their causes are those damnable "food police" (arresting my hot dog, grr), environmental extremists, and gun-control advocates. Thank God nobody ever uses junk science to cover up rather than exagerrate dangers in the food supply or our impact to the environment!
posted by nanojath at 7:10 AM on December 6, 2004

I think the big problem with atkins is that discussion is so polarized about it. There doesn't seem to be any room for positions other than "low-carb is evil" or "carbs are evil."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:01 AM on December 6, 2004

what worried me the most on the reading list was this: The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS
posted by ella minnow pea at 9:14 AM on December 6, 2004

my "binge" foods - candy, popcorn, etc. are all carbs, so by telling myself "no carbs" and sticking to it, by default I eliminated my problem foods.

I think this is absolutely the key. We are a snack food culture, and it's easy to just keep eating when it's just some pretzels or potato chips. Someone around here once defended atkins by explaining that carbs make you want to eat more - that 'you can't eat just one', etc, but they don't satisfy your hunger. My thought upon reading that was, that's what snacking is. It isn't the carbs, it's the context of snackfood - I often snack on nuts or chips & salsa, & it's the exact same thing - if I'm doing something else (online, watching tv, reading) I can easily just eat non stop without really thinking about it or really feeling satisfied by it - it's just sort of something to do. I bet this relationship to food has a lot more to do with the success or failure of diets than the specific regimen that allows you to change that relationship.

But yeah, the reason people get pissy about the atkins thing is that supporters of it tend to insist that it works for some kind of mechanically scientific, rather than psychological, reason. That is not supported by the evidence.
posted by mdn at 10:03 AM on December 6, 2004

I did Atkins for a month or so, and I experienced a considerable weight loss. I felt very good, and I was happy with the experience.

Then I got gout. And that sucked. So I stopped, obviously.

I ate way too many carbohydrates. I ate the hell out of pizza and bread. Atkins taught me that those foods are not so great for me in large quantities. I am considering going back to a modified Atkins (no read meat or shellfish for me). I am not good at moderation. I am good at abstinence. Atkins is about abstinence, and not moderation. Almost every other diet is about moderation.

I have always felt that almost all diets/exercise programs work well -- if you stick to them. The best programs are not the ones that help you lose the most. The best programs are the ones that you have the best chance of sticking with.
posted by flarbuse at 10:30 AM on December 6, 2004

Cato's not all bad -- they're vehement in their opposition to the Iraq war, Bush's catastrophic budget-busting, and USA-PATRIOT and other opporunistic incursions into civil liberties and the expansion of the police state. I part company with them on many regulatory issues -- they seem to be fine with predation, environmental destruction and the export of our industrial capacity to highly questionable trading partners -- but on the whole I could probably live with an administration that governed along the lines that Cato espouses; I'd have problems with it but it'd be unequivocally and comprehensively better than the one we have now.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:49 AM on December 6, 2004

I do think there is some "science" behind atkins - at least his old and extreme program. The diet forces you into a state of ketosis and you are forced to burn stored body fat for energy because you get none (readily available carbs) from your diet. I think you also lose lots of water weight early on as well.
posted by metoo at 11:15 AM on December 6, 2004

Ketosis is indeed the driving force behind the atkins diet - it basically says "If you do this weird thing to your body, your body will behave in strange and unnatural ways". Fair enough. But...

What it doesn't do, like most diets that have no exercise aspect, is replace the weight lost with anything worthwhile. So you're more than likely to put the weight back on once you stop as the body will think it is desparately short of reserves. Building muscle through exercise, on the other hand, prevents that by default - as muscle requires more calories for upkeep, and so any extra calories post diet are used rather than stored. In addition - building muscle requires carbohydrates - it's oil for the protein machine, if you like.

The upshot is, to lose weight and keep it off you're going to be doing the exercise anyway so you may as well eat what you damn well want (within reason - no ice cream for breakfast).
posted by Sparx at 2:24 PM on December 6, 2004