OK that was weird typo, "shoe-in" Damn MS ergonomic keyboard.

Bush's science adviser better watch out, this guy is a showing for this administrations top technical spot.

My Brother is in the theoretical physics field. He says that TOEs are really common and the only reason that this guy's got attention is that he surfs. He says the theory may be meaningful, but right now it competes with a lot of others that are vying for attention. When I asked him about the new guy's TOE, he asked "which one?" He also states that it is fairly common to propose theoretical work outside of the standard academic community. This guy's day job is just a bit more romantic than most.

At least I know that my music buying problem is small by comparison. Only 6000 or so....

I never heard this before, but right off I don't understand why there is even any discussion. I picture the runway as a maglev track (like the trains) and the plane has superconductor magnets instead of wheels. It will float above the runway and take off, when thrust is applied. It doesn't matter what the ground is doing. Why would the wheels behave any differently?

I am interested in the discussion and have not read the book. By the time I read the book, this discussion will have not doubt waned. I did read a bunch of interviews with the author to try to understand his concepts.

One interesting thing is that he seems to be writing an expose book, but the general trends in science seem to be validating some of his points.

It is generally accepted that sugars are bad. Not necessarily all carbohydrates, but refined sugars, high fructose corn syrup etc. Whole grains seem to be good for you, but they are very hard to find in the stores and in packaged products.

There are a number of disconnects in the field of nutrition that the author seems to be exploiting:
- There are two kinds of research on nutrition, a pure research into how the biochemical reactions proceed and an applied research that studies the effects on a population. The fundamental research has a very good understanding of cholesterol how it functions in a lot of diseases and why high levels might be bad. This research has also shown that there are two fundamental differences in protein genetics that will determine if high cholesterol can be changed by diet (one type changes with diet, one does not). The applied research covers a wide gamut of people from untrained pop researchers and marketers, to MDs, to PhDs etc. MDs are typically the most far removed from the fundamental research which has the best studies, yet they have the most contact with patients which leads them to be the gatekeepers of the "prevailing research". There are also less substantiated marketing efforts which lead to misinformation about where the state-of-the-art lies.

As nutrition is an immature science there will be substantial modifications to our understanding. The best understood aspects of diet will belong to those who will get the least press because they will be dealing with esoteric reactions rather than cases of dramatic weight loss. While it is good to have continual discussion of these factors, I think the author goes too far in contradicting some of the fundamental research while using some of the same sweeping logic that he criticizes in the "conventional wisdom". The idea that exercise plays no role because poor people are more obese and do more manual work, seems a sweeping generalization.

Exercise plays a critical role in the management of stress and personal satisfaction which is starting to be seen as having more impact on health than was previously realized.

The human body is complex, the environment is complex. When faced with an immature science it is best to make decisions that take the middle ground while leaning toward the few things that we do understand well. Moderate exercise, lower cholesterol, and a balanced diet from multiple sources with no refined sugars or refined grains is easy to follow shouldn't get you in trouble no matter how the "prevailing opinion" turns in a few years.

One problem with weight is that everyone knows someone with anecdotal evidence about what worked. Everyone is dissatisfied with life and losing weight seems an easy path to that satisfaction. That is what drives the diet industry. Cory seems to have lost and maintained his weight with a low carb diet. I lost 70 pounds in 4 months with a low fat high carb, exercise, diet and kept it off for 8 years without being hungry or having health issues. My diet was not rationally realized; it was a function of pasta being cheap and me being poor. Now I follow more of a moderate, low meat, high fruit and vegetable diet.

My MD friends tell me that no one has had a single patient in 20 years that maintained good heath and weight without eating a simple balanced diet. More or less weight watchers. Every other diet plan has not worked for their patients.

It is also interesting to know that most of our farm subsidies go to the meat and refined grain sugar industries and the US produces more than twice as many calories of food as it consumes. These are all factors.