23

votes

How do you determine which experts to trust in health blogosphere?

Commented on March 31, 2015
Created December 14, 2012 at 4:45 AM

The internet is full of health "experts" or gurus. Sometimes they are media sensations. Other times they are humble and don't claim to have all of the answers. Either way, they still have a group of people that hang on every word and don't question their conclusions. You know who I'm talking about: the Mark Sisson, Gary Taubes, Stephan Guyenet, etc. There is another post you can reference for a more detailed list:

http://paleohacks.com/questions/75271/the-paleo-guru-guide-a-listing-of-your-favorite-experts#axzz2ExklSPiU

My question is: how do you determine who to trust? This is a very intriguing question to me because I think it's a subconscious decision with many factors. In an ideal world, a reader would be an expert in biochemistry and be able to decipher Pubmed research papers to reach his own conclusions, but most of us have neither the time nor the training. So these popularizes definitely serve an important function and I appreciate their time (unless they have an alternative motive, like selling something). But who to trust and why?

Here are what I see as the common factors:

  1. A personal life-changing story. Something that people can relate or aspire to. Anecdotal evidence, essentially, that is inspiring. Martin Berkhan was overweight as a teenager before he decided to become a model and then a bodybuilder. Something that makes you think, "if they can do that, maybe I can too [if I follow their suggestions]".
  2. Their viewpoint confirms your own point of view. Subconscious logic like: "Ray Peat says sugar is good...I like sugar". This is the most tempting logic because it is easier for people to justify their habits instead of changing them.
  3. Physical appearance. Mark Sisson is a trustworthy source for many people because he looks good with his shirt off and 6 pack abs. I respect Mark for his flexible diet strategy and intellectual curiosity. However, people tend to "relate" to him, despite the fact that he has never been overweight in his life (and probably would be that way on almost any diet). He actually wrote an article about this himself here. Conversely, I have a hard time following the exercise suggestions of someone who is overweight. They might have the perfect plan that is backed up by numerous studies, but subconsciously I can't fully trust them if they haven't personally proved themselves.
  4. Simplicity in argument. Gary Taubes's argument that sugar is evil or the Magnesium Miracle is easy to comprehend intellectually and therefore alluring. This is the X causes Y argument and explains is the source of all degenerative diseases. Understanding that achieving good health is actually a combination of a lot of factors is overwhelming for a lot of people.
  5. Citation of scientific evidence. Well, ideally we'd be able to judge the validity of assertions by evaluating the scientific evidence the person uses to back up his arguments. However, since most of us are not actually experts in biology and nutrition, we rely on our perception of credibility of evidence. Fancy words, diagrams, and such. The macronutrients of the diet that our Paleolithic ancestors ate, despite the fact that any such evidence is impossible to get.
  6. Career in nutrition, medicine. Obviously, we are more likely to trust somebody who has a PhD in Nutrition or Biochemistry than a "nutritional consultant". However, this does not guarantee their trustworthiness, as we know that most doctors and researchers blindly believe whatever they learned in medical school. Alternatively, it's hard to trust personalities that don't have a background in science because they weren't forced to pass the same rigorous examinations that are required of medical school students.
  7. Personal charisma and personality. Hard to agree with someone that is not likable. Positive traits: openness, friendliness, logic, optimism, intellectual curiosity. Negative traits: stubbornness, aggressiveness, extremism. I personally respect Stephan Guyenet for his levelheadedness in arguments.
  8. Popularity in community. Someone who is widely talked about, even in a negative light, will have more exposure and thus more influence.
  9. Trust by association. If someone that you already trust refers you to another health writer, you will tend to trust that person more than if you stumbled upon him through a Google search. Many bloggers have links to other writers they respect.
  10. Presentation of material. Looks matter. How the arguments are presented influences the popularity of a writer. For example, Mark Sisson's and Paul Jaminet's articles are exceptionally well-organized and entertainingly written, with colorful diagrams and pictures. On the other hand, I can't read Ray Peat's articles because they are just dense blocks of scientific jargon. He even has several followers, like Danny Roddy, that devote themselves to regurgitating his theories in a more reader-friendly form.

What other factors might play into an "expert's" popularity? What is most important to you? Which factors do you think the public responds to the most? I should say that I am not above many of the biases that I presented above. I think it's very human (natural) to be affected by them. Some of these instincts are probably useful, others distracting. Either way, they are worth noting and understanding.

705e66484ed64fe8e188123de398413e

(1013)

on February 15, 2013
at 06:43 PM

I would add a factor for demonstrated results on clients. Martin's personal story does not move me much but the quantity of transformation photos does.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on February 15, 2013
at 06:01 PM

lots of ignorance in this post. you need to watch this:http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html in a month we'll see how wrong I've been.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on February 13, 2013
at 02:12 PM

No way, people who eat paleo sometimes die?!

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on January 04, 2013
at 02:14 AM

Ideally, yes. But most readers don't have the scientific background to dissect scientific journals. Even scientists often make different interpretations from a set of data, since studies are rarely well done and contradictions abound.

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on January 04, 2013
at 02:11 AM

Interesting point. I'm not sure if I agree 100%, though. There is a balance here. One can still post often and have high quality material. Of course, the more research that goes into a work, the better. However, incremental insights can be a good strategy. Mark Sisson writes relatively detailed articles on all sorts of factors that influence health that others don't bother with. I prefer that over just doing what most health guru's do - offer an ideal macro range. Furthermore, this science is nascent and new discoveries are made all of the time. I enjoy seeing bloggers dissect new studies.

F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on January 03, 2013
at 08:16 PM

+1 Money changes everything. When you've got mouths to feed or an upcoming mortgage payment, ideological purity takes a back-seat to profitability. In particular, when someone starts offering "Paleo" supplements, they've jumped the shark.

7a6529ea25b655132fe58d793f95547a

(2030)

on December 15, 2012
at 04:16 AM

+1 for experience

7a6529ea25b655132fe58d793f95547a

(2030)

on December 15, 2012
at 03:57 AM

Good point, I could see how this could make a difference. If someone gets pressured a little you get the chance to see if they can back it up.

E253f8ac1d139bf4d0bfb44debd1db21

on December 15, 2012
at 03:37 AM

nice question +1

D8f10efbb2da1d53290a4dad3ee58f00

(207)

on December 15, 2012
at 01:55 AM

Tim Ferriss wrote extensively about the effect of cold-therapy on weight loss in his Four Hour Body. On what do you base that it doesn't work?

153c4e4a22734ded15bf4eb35b448e85

(762)

on December 14, 2012
at 10:57 PM

It's mostly about entertainment value, that's why I read all kinds of blogs in general, it depends why I find some blogs entertaining, some I like because of the nice pics (nomnompaleo for example), some because of the neverending drama (freetheanimal etc.), some because they are just absolutely excellent writers (huntgatherlove), some because they annoy me (gokaleo, doucherider etc.), some because of the recipes that agree with me (kimberly snyder, some vegan blogs, gf blogs etc.) and so on. Most blogs I read have something to do with food, yoga, or makeup, so it's not all about the food.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on December 14, 2012
at 08:40 PM

@Jibby - Yes, exactly. Didn't mean to imply it was a duplicate, just related. I like your question, though I suspect the decision is largely (as you point out) subconscious and so maybe difficult to understand/explain, but definitely worth reflection nonetheless.

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on December 14, 2012
at 08:14 PM

@Mike. Yes, your question is related. This one just goes one step further to ask HOW it is that a person or an idea gets that "faith", as you call it. I am skeptical in every idea because it is so hard to prove anything in nutrition. It's not even a matter of "knowing the science". It's just impossible to know how many grams of carbs are optimal for your health without doing tests on an infinite number of you in parallel universes.

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:43 PM

Sorry, i didn't mean to sound like I was attacking your post, I was just probing more for info. I'm glad I did so because you happened upon an interesting factor: the "professional design of the material". The presentation of the arguments definitely makes an impression on people. I don't even bother to read articles that are just dense blocks of scientific jargon without organization even if there might be some life-changing wisdom there.

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:36 PM

I respect your skepticism in these matters, it is definitely the right approach. However, you obviously read these bloggers since you're on this site, so they must have some influence on what you think about and research further. Who do you choose to read regularly and why?

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:36 PM

re: #4, it is much further down my lists than 5&6, but, the body is a complex adaptable system with primary first order effects. I think if we try to get too far down the complex interactions and miss out of the first order interactions we are doing a massive disservice. That's what I though you were getting at.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:33 PM

I have a simple equation for earned trust. (1) You post your opinion on a subject, and the related science to back it up. (2) I check your sources to see if you are actually interpreting it correctly --- IF AND(1,2) THEN TRUST==TRUST*1 else TRUST==TRUST*0;

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:31 PM

Also, you say that #4 is a consideration. How do you think it affects you? Do you prefer simplicity in argument or do you respect writers who try to point out the complexity?

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:30 PM

I love the PubMed PhDs line. I actually pay for access to PubMed... It astonishes me how many times I see a link to pubmed where the abstract says one thing, but when you read the methodology the interpretation is way off base. If you don't actually read the paper, and you just read the abstract you drop down my trust ladder!

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:26 PM

I think earned trust would be an accumulation of the above factors over time. But it did make think of another two related factors that I added: popularity and trust by association. If somebody has earned the trust of a large number of people (or others you respect), then our social mind will give him the benefit of doubt. Much like how you would read Amazon reviews for books or Rottentomatoes for movies.

2c4c08f7b5eeb80bb2e2712c573b6ec2

(45)

on December 14, 2012
at 03:10 PM

I didn't say that I'm not influenced by other factors. I merely stated how I go about building trust in a blogger, which is what I thought the spirit of the question was. I don't watch many videos or listen to much audio, the majority of my information is received through written word, so I guess writing style and professional design of the material affects me. I do scour Google Scholar for my own research, but it is easy to use the "blogosphere" as sort of curator of information pointing me to trending topics in the scientific community.

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on December 14, 2012
at 01:14 PM

3 and 5 appearance and presentation of scientific data are what I look for almost exclusively.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on December 14, 2012
at 08:23 AM

Good question. +1 Somewhat related: http://paleohacks.com/questions/111837/does-being-paleo-come-down-to-faith#axzz2EywGPwz9

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on December 14, 2012
at 06:53 AM

So you feel that you are not influenced by other factors, like anecdotal evidence, presentation skills, charisma, and so on? Why not just review research papers directly by browsing Pubmed, and forgo the middleman? Personally, don't trust my own evaluation of the science. Furthermore, it's hard to test on yourself because any theory requests a good deal of time to be debunked. For instance, if somebody tells me that I am 30 pounds overweight because of a magnesium deficiency, I would need to supplement magnesium for a several months to disprove his theory.

  • 8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

    asked by

    (125)
  • Views
    3.6K
  • Last Activity
    1061D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

15 Answers

7
Fd70d71f4f8195c3a098eda4fc817d4f

(8014)

on December 14, 2012
at 05:36 PM

Regarding 5 and 6:

These are important, but unfortunately, "scientific research" and "expertise" -- and I use the terms loosely (they're in quotations for a reason) -- aren't always what we'd want them to be.

I have a master's in nutrition and am about to open a consulting practice. I had to take a class in evidence-based medicine, where the point of the class was to learn how to interpret scientific research (peer-reviewed journal articles and such), and determine whether they're worth the paper they're printed on. Sadly, most were not. What passes for legitimate research -- even among the happy, shiny gold-standard of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies -- is often complete nonsense. It's just too easy to design studies with the outcome predetermined, such that you can design a study already knowing what the results will show, and already knowing they'll reinforce the beliefs the scientists already buy into. That's not a weakness of the scientific method, of course, only of the scientists themselves.

I took the same biochemistry and physiology classes as the other people in my classes, yet none of them put 2 and 2 together like I did. (For example, when we learned about beta-oxidation and how insulin inhibits the enzyme that brings fatty acids into the mitochondria to be burned. Or when we learned about the chemistry of polyunsaturated fats.)

I'm not saying that all research is useless. Of course it isn't. But I think people in the Paleo world can be just as guilty for cherry-picking data as vegetarians & vegans. I like Robb Wolf, Mark Sisson, and Chris Kresser very much because they have all changed their beliefs on some topic/food or another when presented with new data that makes them rethink their positions. That is probably an important hallmark of someone trustworthy. And like another poster said, Wolf and Kresser deal with living, breathing people. The proof is in the pudding, right? We need people in lab coats doing the nitty gritty chemistry, but we also need the firsthand experience of people who then take that science and translate it into producing results in clients/patients.

As for #6, the career in nutrition, it's exactly like you said -- unfortunately, there are so many schools of thought regarding health and food that even if someone has "credentials," that doesn't necessarily mean they know jack squat about how things actually function inside other human beings. Sad, but true. I mean, PH is a perfect example. How many threads are there where people are asking for help interpreting bloodwork or losing weight because their doctors are "clueless, "useless," (words taken from other threads, not my own), or some certified diabetes educator/RD told an obese, type-2 diabetic to go on a low-fat, high-fiber. high whole-grain diet and all their biomarkers got worse. So it's a huge shame, but I feel like the fact is, we can't even necessarily trust everything someone says just because they're an MD, an ND, a DC, DO, RD, or anything else. For every naturopath who would recommend a Paleo diet without hesitation, there's one somewhere else who would tell people to go vegan.

This is a very tough issue. And you asked a great question -- one that's been on my mind a lot as I start my practice. (Plus my blog, which I know I'm providing reliable info on, but have not taken the time to link to any Pubmed studies, so guilty as charged.) I have been very, very tempted to think about naturopathic medical school. I fear that not enough people would think to see a "nutritionist" regarding heart disease, diabetes, depression, and other things that can be hugely helped by diet. If I were 24 and not 34 -- and willing to get myself (back) into lots of student loan debt, I would go for the ND. As it stands now, I'll just have to make sure I'm good enough at what I do that everyone I see will want to tell their friends, family, and everyone they know about how much I helped them. (And fortunately, via the Paleo Physicians Network, I've found some like-minded MDs in my area who would like to refer people to me. Woohoo!

4
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on December 14, 2012
at 04:37 PM

Do they practice what they preach? If there's a disconnect, then that makes me suspect of their recommendations. Jimmy Moore comes to mind, he seems a bit scatter-brained at times and doesn't have the personal performance to back up his recommendations.

Do they actually have experience working with others? Do they actually do work/research in this field? The paleo bloggers tend to fail this test. e.g. Nikoley, Jaminet?????and folks with PubMed PhDs... I can read PubMed abstracts as well as the next guy (better than some I wager given my background).

Do they actually feature the science prominently, with less hoodoo nonsense? Paleo tends to be very science savvy.

If they pass all these tests, then there's a modicum of trust built there. I'll be less likely to be critical of their comments and recommendations. If it does fly in the face of what I know and understand, then I'll be critical of them. But if it's something new, then I'm very likely going to defer to their expertise.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:30 PM

I love the PubMed PhDs line. I actually pay for access to PubMed... It astonishes me how many times I see a link to pubmed where the abstract says one thing, but when you read the methodology the interpretation is way off base. If you don't actually read the paper, and you just read the abstract you drop down my trust ladder!

7a6529ea25b655132fe58d793f95547a

(2030)

on December 15, 2012
at 04:16 AM

+1 for experience

3
E773ca32b29508bae2055579a26afa98

on December 14, 2012
at 09:44 PM

Blockquote What other factors might play into an "expert's" popularity?

An important factor to consider is if their advice actually works.

3
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on December 14, 2012
at 01:04 PM

I would say, of the ones you listed, only #5, #6, and #4 are even considerations of mine.

I go by the "Trust but verify" principal. It took me nearly 2 weeks to read primal blue print -- because every few pages I had to stop, pull up the referenced paper, read that and decide whether I think sisson properly represented the findings (note, not all were -- but most were).

I do the same thing any time I read someone's site. Over time I build a confidence -- but I always verify.

So to you list I would add:

8. Earned Trust. After several months of reading their blog and reviewing their research the "expert" has earned our trust. Positives: For posts that are not foundational or a new Exception to the rule one can trust without necessitating deep research.

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:31 PM

Also, you say that #4 is a consideration. How do you think it affects you? Do you prefer simplicity in argument or do you respect writers who try to point out the complexity?

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:36 PM

re: #4, it is much further down my lists than 5&6, but, the body is a complex adaptable system with primary first order effects. I think if we try to get too far down the complex interactions and miss out of the first order interactions we are doing a massive disservice. That's what I though you were getting at.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:33 PM

I have a simple equation for earned trust. (1) You post your opinion on a subject, and the related science to back it up. (2) I check your sources to see if you are actually interpreting it correctly --- IF AND(1,2) THEN TRUST==TRUST*1 else TRUST==TRUST*0;

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:26 PM

I think earned trust would be an accumulation of the above factors over time. But it did make think of another two related factors that I added: popularity and trust by association. If somebody has earned the trust of a large number of people (or others you respect), then our social mind will give him the benefit of doubt. Much like how you would read Amazon reviews for books or Rottentomatoes for movies.

2
Fba408128497343799ac28ffbce1d884

(175)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:15 PM

The whole concept of credentials is so deluded in this industry. PHDs are whoring out studies to supplement companies. Studies are leading to more questions, instead of answers. The ones that seem to provide answers are actually just marketing.

It's getting so bad that all the gurus are starting to sound like a broken record. eat this not that, do this not that.

I have always been someone that likes to take some fundamental thing, and test it on myself. It's basically doing your own well designed, controlled private study.

Take some advice you think to be sound and logical, apply it, and observe its validity in terms of your own genetics, background, mentality, focus, drive. Produce measurable results? Or anecdotal at best?

In my view, as I've been doing this for a decade. 99% of the stuff out there is garbage, and preheld notions of what is healthy or good is changing all the time, so there can not be absolutes in this equation. Therefore there cannot be a person that believes himself or herself to be knowledgeable about anything except for their own set of achievements.

1
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on February 15, 2013
at 04:56 PM

The troll states "people" but doesn't refer to anyone in particular??? Huh, so much for proof, try again, troll.

1
7a6529ea25b655132fe58d793f95547a

(2030)

on December 15, 2012
at 04:07 AM

The most important thing for me is whether the individual has gotten people well and works with clients on a daily basis. Matt and Amy touched on this above, they get to see what works and what doesn't, they're not just spouting a certain dietary ideal that they're trying to figure out themselves.

1
Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on December 14, 2012
at 09:11 PM

For me, a big one is their seeming ability to "win" arguments. E.g., when I first started reading Kurt Harris' blog, I searched around a lot for comments of his that appeared on other blogs/article comments/etc. When he got into arguments (which seemed to be not infrequent), I always found myself agreeing more with his position, his logic, his backup evidence, etc.

It's possible this is because I had already subconsciously biased myself by making the decision to trust him, but I think that's not all of it. Perhaps, it's a bit of chicken and egg though.

7a6529ea25b655132fe58d793f95547a

(2030)

on December 15, 2012
at 03:57 AM

Good point, I could see how this could make a difference. If someone gets pressured a little you get the chance to see if they can back it up.

1
Ed7403e397077dd1acdbf25c7f6e56ce

on December 14, 2012
at 05:05 PM

I try to consume as much info as possible, doing my best to whittle everything down to the source. This way I don't consider three different statement, all supported by the same source, as three times as valid.

Basically, gather as much info then look for consistencies. Also, certain studies or points of view will just seem more logically sound, so I'll give more credence there, too.

Again, the key really is to gather as much info as you can.

0
028e70a250f38bd61fa81b0e0789bb6e

on February 15, 2013
at 05:22 PM

Since this is bumped, I'll add something:

Simple logic sense. I rarely trust something that doesn't have it. Neal Barnard: because Asians eat a lot of carbs and they have a low diabetes rate, therefore, carbs have nothing to do with diabetes; therefore, diabetes must be related to all the fat.

That is just not convincing.

0
0b7c3e7fd96005f0b2dfd781e512fc2e

(1237)

on January 03, 2013
at 05:46 PM

Check their sources to see if the data corroborates with the facts :)

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on January 04, 2013
at 02:14 AM

Ideally, yes. But most readers don't have the scientific background to dissect scientific journals. Even scientists often make different interpretations from a set of data, since studies are rarely well done and contradictions abound.

0
C8a5c6d2804326646bb274e491f7f21b

on January 03, 2013
at 03:14 PM

Honestly, once the paleo guru is established, the fewer posts, the better. MDA is great, but volume isn't quality. Huntgatherlove and Archevore take time to upload their posts and it shows in quality.

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on January 04, 2013
at 02:11 AM

Interesting point. I'm not sure if I agree 100%, though. There is a balance here. One can still post often and have high quality material. Of course, the more research that goes into a work, the better. However, incremental insights can be a good strategy. Mark Sisson writes relatively detailed articles on all sorts of factors that influence health that others don't bother with. I prefer that over just doing what most health guru's do - offer an ideal macro range. Furthermore, this science is nascent and new discoveries are made all of the time. I enjoy seeing bloggers dissect new studies.

0
153c4e4a22734ded15bf4eb35b448e85

(762)

on December 14, 2012
at 12:15 PM

I don't trust any bloggers with my health, ever! I trust myself above all things, and I can research myself.

99% of bloggers, and health writers are strongly biased, and they need to sell their theory of health, so they are strongly invested in it.

Look at jimmy moore, doucherider etc. someone like mark sisson is one of the worst also, with his deluded theories of carbs, no amount of abs shown is going to make me trust a person who invents stuff just to suit his theories.

What about the fiasco that was the jack kruse? Anyone who has been to the north knows that cold exposure will make you fatter, not leaner, and all of the other weirdness kruse brought too, still people listened to him, and some still do. You don't want to give some random biased writers the keys to your wellbeing, you really don't.

I do follow people like kimberly snyder because I like some of her recipes, but I wouldn't trust her either with my health, and I know that her bias makes her untrustworthy when it comes to health, although my body does best on a similar diet as hers.

153c4e4a22734ded15bf4eb35b448e85

(762)

on December 14, 2012
at 10:57 PM

It's mostly about entertainment value, that's why I read all kinds of blogs in general, it depends why I find some blogs entertaining, some I like because of the nice pics (nomnompaleo for example), some because of the neverending drama (freetheanimal etc.), some because they are just absolutely excellent writers (huntgatherlove), some because they annoy me (gokaleo, doucherider etc.), some because of the recipes that agree with me (kimberly snyder, some vegan blogs, gf blogs etc.) and so on. Most blogs I read have something to do with food, yoga, or makeup, so it's not all about the food.

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:36 PM

I respect your skepticism in these matters, it is definitely the right approach. However, you obviously read these bloggers since you're on this site, so they must have some influence on what you think about and research further. Who do you choose to read regularly and why?

D8f10efbb2da1d53290a4dad3ee58f00

(207)

on December 15, 2012
at 01:55 AM

Tim Ferriss wrote extensively about the effect of cold-therapy on weight loss in his Four Hour Body. On what do you base that it doesn't work?

F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on January 03, 2013
at 08:16 PM

+1 Money changes everything. When you've got mouths to feed or an upcoming mortgage payment, ideological purity takes a back-seat to profitability. In particular, when someone starts offering "Paleo" supplements, they've jumped the shark.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on February 15, 2013
at 06:01 PM

lots of ignorance in this post. you need to watch this:http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html in a month we'll see how wrong I've been.

0
2c4c08f7b5eeb80bb2e2712c573b6ec2

on December 14, 2012
at 05:25 AM

I use the various blogs as a jumping point to research the data myself. When I see that a blogger's views are backed up by science, I start building trust in that person.

Also, to answer the question, I will experiment with their advice, and if it works like they say it does, I am more apt to build trust in their information.

5ce5fcf9e9ab4dcc4ff5cd5f1f9bd455

on March 31, 2015
at 12:15 AM

Whoever said being a little chubby is bad? What about the study showing that ppl over 50 are more likely to live longer if they're a little tubby, they have more chance to survive than someone who looks like Mark Sisson. Also, the ppl most likely to live longest in nursing homes have a total cholesterol of at least 270.

2c4c08f7b5eeb80bb2e2712c573b6ec2

(45)

on December 14, 2012
at 03:10 PM

I didn't say that I'm not influenced by other factors. I merely stated how I go about building trust in a blogger, which is what I thought the spirit of the question was. I don't watch many videos or listen to much audio, the majority of my information is received through written word, so I guess writing style and professional design of the material affects me. I do scour Google Scholar for my own research, but it is easy to use the "blogosphere" as sort of curator of information pointing me to trending topics in the scientific community.

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on December 14, 2012
at 06:53 AM

So you feel that you are not influenced by other factors, like anecdotal evidence, presentation skills, charisma, and so on? Why not just review research papers directly by browsing Pubmed, and forgo the middleman? Personally, don't trust my own evaluation of the science. Furthermore, it's hard to test on yourself because any theory requests a good deal of time to be debunked. For instance, if somebody tells me that I am 30 pounds overweight because of a magnesium deficiency, I would need to supplement magnesium for a several months to disprove his theory.

8d881446fe08fe69d34526cbc910bb71

(125)

on December 14, 2012
at 07:43 PM

Sorry, i didn't mean to sound like I was attacking your post, I was just probing more for info. I'm glad I did so because you happened upon an interesting factor: the "professional design of the material". The presentation of the arguments definitely makes an impression on people. I don't even bother to read articles that are just dense blocks of scientific jargon without organization even if there might be some life-changing wisdom there.

-3
C061e777712074b97f9ace5c51e630dd

(25)

on February 13, 2013
at 01:56 PM

There doesn't seem to be any "scientific" evidence that I can find that says paleo is safe. It is all just anecdotal and testimonials on success. But where is the "FAT" that says it will help against heart disease and colon cancer and etc. Nope couldn't find that either. If anybody has anything let me in on the secret. What about the recent people that have died of paleo? Heart attack thats interesting. textarealink texttextarea

5ce5fcf9e9ab4dcc4ff5cd5f1f9bd455

on March 31, 2015
at 12:12 AM

Highly meat centric diets include lots of anti metabolic amino acids, pork contains lots of PUFA, so does Salmon (omega 3 bullcrap is false) they also eat lots of vegetables and are usually incredibly low carb. Recipe for an extremely inefficient metabolism running off of stress. Don't be surprised how many of them die of a heart attack.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on February 13, 2013
at 02:12 PM

No way, people who eat paleo sometimes die?!

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!