Originally Posted by Pat McElhone
Why do we want it accepted in a rigorous academic setting? Is this the same setting not standing up to the American Heart Associating and the American Diabetes Association or the American Dietetic Association and telling them their dietary recommendations of 70% of daily calories from CHO are killing people? Is the same academic setting tell people all they need to be fit is 20min of exercise at 70% of their MHR 3x week to be fit?
These are the people we should seek approval from?
This is my whole problem with the Academic Exercise Community. While they are sitting around curriculum validating each other and disregarding CF because it is based "on scientific" principles or disregarding a low CHO diet, Americans are following their advice and still dying of preventable disease.
The problem is not so much with science, but with the funding. The current diet recommendations came out of poorly conducted studies a generation or more ago that the food industry jumped all over and marketed everywhere they could, making it "common knowledge". Now that "knowledge" is so far entrenched in the public view that it'll take an order of magnitude more work to debunk -- the sort of work people like Michael Pollan are starting to make headway with.
The problem isn't with the scientific method and peer reviewed research. The current diet model is the result of a significant departure
from the scientific method. Someone did a poor study and rather than question it or even try to reproduce it, we allowed the people with more money to wave it around like a banner. There are scientific studies that have shown the efficacy of paleo-type diets, but they never got noticed by the public because there wasn't either (1) enough money to promote them or (2) a sheer volume of work done in a peer reviewed setting to make it impossible to ignore.