New review of Bikman's "Why We Get Sick"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eddy Edson

Eddy Edson

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
www.redpenreviews.org

Why We Get Sick expert review • Red Pen Reviews

Why We Get Sick argues that insulin resistance is the root cause of most chronic diseases. Is it evidence-based?
www.redpenreviews.org www.redpenreviews.org

"Red Pen Reviews" arranges for domain experts to review popular nutrition and health books, with the reviews in turn "peer reviewed" by other experts. It's a useful service.

Summary:

Why We Get Sick argues that insulin resistance is the root cause of most chronic diseases. To solve this problem, the book recommends lifestyle changes that are supposed to keep insulin levels low, including fasting, exercising, and restricting carbohydrates and omega-6 fats.

Key points from our review

  • The book’s argument that carbohydrates and insulin are the main causes of insulin resistance is not well supported by evidence.
  • 9 of the 10 references we reviewed were either irrelevant, not convincing, or weakly supported the claim.
  • The book’s diet and exercise recommendations will likely help people manage insulin resistance, but we have concerns about heart health since there are almost no restrictions on eating fatty animal foods.
  • Many people will find it hard to stick to the rigid low carbohydrate intake.
Bottom line

Why We Get Sick delivers some helpful advice for managing insulin resistance but it’s not well supported by evidence overall.
 
I find it strange that the reviewers here get to remain anonymous..

We can't see what their biases might be and I'm pretty sure they are far from "unbiased" looking at who started the red pen review site in the first place.
 
A more detailed reading showed the reviewer as Shaun Ward

mynutritionscience.com

Our Team • My Nutrition Science

Learn more about the qualifications and backgrounds of our expert authors in nutrition science here. Contact information for each author is also provided.
mynutritionscience.com mynutritionscience.com

The guy who loves vegan diets....
 
bulkbiker said:
I find it strange that the reviewers here get to remain anonymous..

We can't see what their biases might be and I'm pretty sure they are far from "unbiased" looking at who started the red pen review site in the first place.
Click to expand...

It literally says who reviewed it in the introduction.


"Review posted December 9, 2022

Primary reviewer: Shaun Ward

Peer reviewer: Morgan Pfiffner"
 
travellor said:
It literally says who reviewed it in the introduction.


"Review posted December 9, 2022

Primary reviewer: Shaun Ward

Peer reviewer: Morgan Pfiffner"
Click to expand...
If only you'd read my second post...
 
travellor said:
So you admit you didn't read the review before posting then?
Still, it's clear in the end, peer reviewed as well.
Click to expand...
No I simply missed the names of the reviewers to the side of the piece I read.. possibly because I was reading the piece which would normally have the reviewers name at the start or the end not to one side.

Were it only possible to be as perfect as you Dougie..

By the way I prefer Ben's qualifications over Shaun's anyday...
 
bulkbiker said:
No I simply missed the names of the reviewers to the side of the piece I read.. possibly because I was reading the piece which would normally have the reviewers name at the start or the end not to one side.

Were it only possible to be as perfect as you Dougie..

By the way I prefer Ben's qualifications over Shaun's anyday...
Click to expand...

"Dougie"?
Only one person ever shortened my username to that.

You're that bloke, can't remember who, that was thrown out of the red forum, came back as "Bigbird" got thrown out again when you had a fall out again?
Didn't you set up your own forum?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Remembered!
Eddie.
How are you going, I see they haven't rumbled you yet on there either, even though it's the same MO, now you've tipped me off, I thought I recognised the style.
Alternative user profile, still using the BB, Bigbird/Bulkbiker.
Still female?
Scary results, and still winding up members on there as well.

At least hopefully the weight gain and the cholesterol are the same as the other posts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eddy Edson said:
www.redpenreviews.org

Why We Get Sick expert review • Red Pen Reviews

Why We Get Sick argues that insulin resistance is the root cause of most chronic diseases. Is it evidence-based?
www.redpenreviews.org www.redpenreviews.org

"Red Pen Reviews" arranges for domain experts to review popular nutrition and health books, with the reviews in turn "peer reviewed" by other experts. It's a useful service.

Summary:

Why We Get Sick argues that insulin resistance is the root cause of most chronic diseases. To solve this problem, the book recommends lifestyle changes that are supposed to keep insulin levels low, including fasting, exercising, and restricting carbohydrates and omega-6 fats.

Key points from our review

  • The book’s argument that carbohydrates and insulin are the main causes of insulin resistance is not well supported by evidence.
  • 9 of the 10 references we reviewed were either irrelevant, not convincing, or weakly supported the claim.
  • The book’s diet and exercise recommendations will likely help people manage insulin resistance, but we have concerns about heart health since there are almost no restrictions on eating fatty animal foods.
  • Many people will find it hard to stick to the rigid low carbohydrate intake.
Bottom line

Why We Get Sick delivers some helpful advice for managing insulin resistance but it’s not well supported by evidence overall.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of the current "misinformation" trend. Essentially, they crush opinion. If they are so clever and worldly wise, let them write their own perfect and definitive book.
 
bulkbiker said:
I find it strange that the reviewers here get to remain anonymous..

We can't see what their biases might be and I'm pretty sure they are far from "unbiased" looking at who started the red pen review site in the first place.
Click to expand...

I didn't see much bias. The book makes some claims and the reviewers point out that the evidence is weak in some cases or totally misleading and provide references to relevant research.

Although I suppose you'll dismiss all that as biased as well.
 
Amity Island said:
I'm not a fan of the current "misinformation" trend. Essentially, they crush opinion. If they are so clever and worldly wise, let them write their own perfect and definitive book.
Click to expand...

But you're okay with people publishing books full of misinformation?
 
Anyway, at least Shaun Ward's review does a reasonable job of highlighting the evidence for why most experts think that Bikman is full of it. Obviously up to the individual whether or not they want to actually engage with the evidence.

If anybody does want to engage with Ward on the review, he seems pretty responsive on the relevant twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1601257391378829312

For those unsure which side to believe, ChatGPT's carefully tuned bothsides-ism will do little to help, unfortunately ....

Me: Write a story about a debate between Ben Bikman and Kevin D. Hall concerning the role of insulin resistance in obesity

ChatGPT:
Ben Bikman and Kevin D. Hall were two leading experts in the field of obesity and metabolism. They had been invited to participate in a heated debate on the topic of insulin resistance and its role in the development of obesity.
As the debate began, Ben Bikman took the stage first. He argued that insulin resistance was a key driver of obesity, and that this condition arose when the body became resistant to the effects of insulin. This resistance, he explained, resulted in the body's inability to effectively use glucose, leading to increased fat storage and weight gain.
Kevin D. Hall, on the other hand, took a different stance. He argued that while insulin resistance may be a contributing factor to obesity, it was not the primary cause. Instead, he argued that excessive calorie intake and a sedentary lifestyle were the main drivers of obesity.
The two experts engaged in a lively debate, each presenting evidence and data to support their positions. Ben Bikman cited numerous studies showing the link between insulin resistance and obesity, while Kevin D. Hall pointed to research indicating that changes in diet and physical activity were more effective at preventing and reversing obesity than interventions aimed at improving insulin sensitivity.
As the debate came to a close, the audience was left to decide for themselves which expert had presented the most compelling case. Some were swayed by Ben Bikman's argument, while others found Kevin D. Hall's perspective more convincing. Ultimately, the debate shed light on the complex and multifaceted nature of obesity, and the ongoing search for effective solutions to this global health crisis.
 
harbottle said:
I didn't see much bias. The book makes some claims and the reviewers point out that the evidence is weak in some cases or totally misleading and provide references to relevant research.

Although I suppose you'll dismiss all that as biased as well.
Click to expand...
It's in the field of human nutrition.. there are few if any definites..
However Bikman is doing actual research into the role of insulin.. the reviewers are not.
I know who my money would back...
 
harbottle said:
But you're okay with people publishing books full of misinformation?
Click to expand...
Misinformation such as?

Red Pen reviews give a vegan biased book 84%
The author Simon Hill couldn't answer my simple question re the Harvard Food Frequency Questionnaire.. how often each year do you eat "2 slices of tomato".
 
harbottle said:
But you're okay with people publishing books full of misinformation?
Click to expand...
There is a difference between opinion, information and misinformation.

If someone is knowingly and intentionally trying to mislead or deceive then yes, that should be seen as misinformation, but if someone is providing information or opinion with the right intention of helping or trying to get it right, I don't think they deserve to have their opinions/work/reputation crushed. After all, why do so many seek a second opinion if there are definitive answers?

The reviewers make it quite clear in their methods, that you shouldn't take their reviews and opinions as gospel nor that science is fixed in stone.

How would you describe telling people they have covid19 from just a positive sarscov2 test (without any presenting symptoms to back this up)? Is that honest and accurate or misinformation?
 
Last edited:
bulkbiker said:
"Most" experts? Such as?
Shaun is no expert by the way...
Click to expand...
Well, as one example, no doubt most of the speakers at the fantastic Royal Society casuses of obesity symposium back in October: https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/board...ity-theories-conjectures-and-evidence.102668/

Given that carbs-as-causal was notably absent from any of the lectures except, of course, for Ludwig's.

And of course everybody who thinks the EBM is a better model than the CIM, as presented here: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/115/5/1243/6522166 Which I would bet 20c includes the great majority of people in the field with any standing.

(I confess to not having counted them, but the EBM is certainly "dominant", as Ludwig et al themselves state in the review piece to which this was a response.)

Shaun Ward obviously isn't a heavyweight but he knows the evidence and he's quite capable of articulating it.

EDIT: And just to forestall a likely rhetorical move: Yes the EBM being the dominant model hasn't prevented the rise in obesity. But on the one hand, the EBM isn't a dietary guideline.

And on the other hand, while the various national standard dietary guidelines can be seen as consistent with the EBM, hardly anybody actually follows them. Deidre Tobias had some commentary on this today:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1601583952095240192
 
Last edited:
Ah the dear old 'Energy Balance Model' where 2,000 "calories of doughnuts" is the same as 2,000 calories of sirloin steak...

They seriously had a conference about that? How very 20th century of them.

So we should all simply eat less and move more and weight loss will magically follow... because nobody has ever tried that one before with extremely limited success.....
 
Last edited:
bulkbiker said:
Ah the dear old 'Energy Balance Model' where 2,000 "calories of doughnuts" is the same as 2,000 calories of sirloin steak...

They seriously had a conference about that? How very 20th century of them.

So we should all simply eat less and move more and weight loss will magically follow... because nobody has ever tried that one before with extremely limited success.....
Click to expand...
That's nowhere close to being a good characterisation of the EBM. You could check tge Hall et al piece I linked if you wanted to see why.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top