|
This page on him sounds really harsh. I'm not an expert on the topics mentioned, but when I read his articles on it, I saw researched views, which I didn't see disproved elsewhere. Maybe I will try to present them in more detail. I'm curious about the response to it.
As a minor issue here that stuck out, I believe it's unfair to state that he doesn't know how to interpret forest plots. From what I see, he didn't only know the professional term "forest plot", as he writes this here:
"He also asked me if I could read a forest plot, and he was holding a study when he did that. And I couldn’t see the plot he was referring to, and I didn’t remember off the top of my head which type of plot a forest plot referred to. So I said, no. I suspected a trap or a gotcha. And I think I was correct in suspecting that. Incidentally, once I saw the plot, I did, in fact, recognize it, and just didn’t know it by name. "
https://chriskresser.com/reflections-on-the-game-changers-debate/
I think it's unfair the way it's putted on his page at the moment. First of all, you don't need to know the professional term for something to be able to understand it. To add to that, I would say that for someone who knows the term, it looks like something written in bad faith. — Unsigned, by: 83.21.139.226 / talk / contribs
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
 on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Carthage (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Chris Kresser admitted he doesn't know how to read forest plots. After damage to his reputation, he later changed his mind and pretended it was a trap to get him but if you watch the debate it was very clear.
James Wilks: Right, do you know how to read a forest plot? Yes or no?
Chris Kresser: I don't.[1]
Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- He has read an exuberant amount of scientific research, judging by references in his articles. I don't see any evidence to suggest that someone else wrote those articles for him. It has to be implied that he knew how to read graphs like these. From what I see, those graphs are simple representations of the data, and even laymen can read them. That doesn't mean he was correct about the conclusion about it, and I don't know if he was. All I'm saying is that it's an argument in bad faith to say that someone can't read something even a layman could, and the person proved his literacy in many different scientific studies. Similarly, why saying he pretended it was a trap? I personally don't see him pretending it. I feel asking someone for a professional term for something and not about the substance, at the same time not giving deserving benefit of the doubt, that looks like gotcha.
Sorry about way of presenting arguments and responses here. I'm still learning about formatting text on sites like this.--83.21.117.149 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- You are talking in riddles. It is very simple - Chris Kresser is a pseudoscientific buffoon, he has admitted in his own words he cannot read forest plots. That's it. He said that in his own words. He couldn't read the forest plot that James Wilks mentioned. Even if we ignore his lack of scientific education, practically everything on his website is wrong, a half-truth or a total fabrication. This is the same guy who denies that high serum cholesterol and ApoB/LDL increases heart disease risk. This is the same guy who promotes anti-vax nonsense. He is in the same league as flat earthers. A denialist. A scan through his website: every article contains downright false, exaggerated or misleading information.
- Recently he has been promoting false health claims about nootropics. He will say anything to sell a supplement. Nothing he says is supported by robust clinical evidence. Even if you act ignorant and ignore all of his misleading health claims; he makes many factually inaccurate statements about science. I could cite 100s of these, but just one example. He says "DHA comprises 60% of the brain" without providing a reference [2]. You can go and look that up. The real figure according to medical consensus is around 40%. This is what I mean, he can't get any basic information correct so what chance does he have for getting health claims correct? Your claim that he has read an "exuberant amount of scientific research" is nonsense. He doesn't know how to read papers properly. Even most of his followers admitted he embarrassed himself on the Joe Rogan podcast in front of Wilks. Why are you defending this man? You want to defend a pseudoscience promoter? Why? Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what makes my writing look like a riddle. Maybe it was because I tried to be respectful to someone who doesn't do it to others. At this point, I think I can respond more clearly. I'm defending him because you clearly smear and insult him. I didn't see him anywhere talking about someone he criticizes the way you talk about him. So I'm defending someone who isn't insulting and smearing others, seeing that it's been done to him, seeing arguing with him in bad faith, and accusing him of that instead.
- I remember reading his article about omega-3, and I was surprised at his claim that it comprises around 60% of the brain. I didn't research it because I can't do it with the amount of things I read. I checked it now. I guess you are both wrong; the article I see shows that dha comprises less than 20%. Yes, he was wrong, and so were you, even though slightly less. At the same time the main point still holds: the dha comprises a large amount of brain, which is counterintuitive looking at its usually low dietary intake and also, I think, by looking at its low production within the body. So yes, put it in his page. That's fair. But those aren't the arguments you use. Yes, he admitted he said he can't read forest plots on the spot, but the explanation for that response is not that someone can't understand simple graphs the layman can understand. People make irresponsible statements that lead to others getting hurt; that's the reason for something being embarrassing, unlike things like that one. The response to why I'm defending him is of your lack of scientific criticism of him by smearing and insulting, which I would say casts a shadow on other claims you made. I don't know what his motives are for writing. I don't know what are yours either. I'm judging his criticism on what I see. The judgment about science should be made based on the evidence and not on people who try to speak loudly and aggressively about something. 83.21.117.149 (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- You have no valid points to make and you have ignored almost everything I have said. It looks like you are just trolling this talk-page with nonsense for attention. Thanks for admitting you are defending an anti-vax pseudoscientist and cholesterol denialist. You obviously ignored all the sources on the article which heavily criticize Chris Kresser and his pseudoscientific beliefs. Criticism of Kresser has nothing to do with me personally, everything I cited is sourced on the article to experts who have debunked his nonsense. As for about the only thing you commented on. DHA comprises 40% of the polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in the brain and 60% of the PUFAs in the retina. I was correct in what I stated and here are the sources to prove it "DHA forms up to 40% of fatty acids in certain gray matter lipids and is concentrated at synapses, where it plays a role in synaptic plasticity" [3]. "Brain and retina tissues contain around 40% and 60% DHA of total PUFAs, respectively". [4]. Both yourself and your hero Chris Kresser are wrong. Nothing you have stated is accurate. Stop wasting our time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder, does anyone else see those ridiculous responses? Speaking about having no valid points and ignoring what someone else said, what a projection. I mean, whoever is responsible for running this site in good will really have to think about how others see the rest of the texts here in light of it. And if that person represents the common writing on this site, it dramatically changes my view on it. Yes, I'm defending him from the beginning about specific issues; at any point I didn't hide it, and no, this site here is not well sourced at all. The sources on this page are pitiful. For example, sources about the topics you mention, about his views on vaccination and risk of level of cholesterol on cardiovascular diseases, which I at any point don't remember mentioning, are mostly writings presenting his views without any response to them, except the Joe Rogan Podcast. And you talk about some experts debunking his claims. It's so unsubstantiated text, written in a biased way, that it makes me suspect you may have something to it with it.
- I will respond also to the supposedly only thing I had commented on, which I only answered for the completeness of the response before. It wasn't in my original criticism, and it didn't make any sense for you to mention it in the context. You were wrong about it, and now you try to spin it and, for some reason, put more emphasis on it. Saying that DHA comprises 40% percent of PUF-a in anyway doesn't mean that it comprises 40% of a brain, as you mentioned. That's wrong to say; at best, someone can say generously that's imprecise. That's because PUF-a, as presented here below, comprises around 30% of fat in it of itself. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Brain-fatty-acid-composition-Brain-fatty-acid-composition-expressed-as-total-fatty_tbl1_313354719
- So you were both wrong. Not that it matters, because that information isn't that important for guidelines for people in their normal lives. Irony is that you were both wrong in not that unsimilar way.
- As much as you try to mislead others, Chris Kresser is not my hero. I don't know him that well. I also don't mind constructive criticism of him at all. I don't know if it's something personal about him for you or not. I didn't raise that subject, and I don't think it's important. At the same time I don't like you smearing him, and that was what brought me to responding.83.21.117.149 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- You are wrong, anyone can see that - you just cited a rat study! Everything I type on here is factual and well-sourced unlike yourself. I was correct about DHA comprising around 40% of the polyunsaturated fatty acids in the human brain. That is a well sourced fact. You are an absolute joke and laughing stock of an idiot. The above paper you linked to is on RAT brains [5]. The paper that you linked to even says it in the "source publication" directly below the table you cited "This study aimed at exploring whether moderate ethanol drinking may have adverse effects on the fatty acids composition and on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of rat brain". This is the type of nonsense I have to put up with. You can't even read a scientific paper properly, you know nothing about this topic. You confuse a study of rat brains with human because you didn't even read the paper. I have been researching the field of nutrition for over 20 years. Most of the Wikipedia articles on these subjects and debunking quackery have been written or updated by myself. I expertise in this area. It's obvious you have no clue about anything. Please do not continue to troll this talk-page again. You are only embarrassing yourself. This will be the last time I respond to your nonsense. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I may have used the wrong source, but I wasn't wrong at all. Your source confirms what I wrote in response to you claiming that DHA constitutes 40% of the brain. I responded that it constitutes less than 20%. From your source: "DHA constitutes over 90% of the n-3 PUFAs in the brain and constitutes 10%–20% of its total lipids."
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S073657481930214X
- Lipids constitute nearly 60 percent of fat, to add to that.
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20329590/
- As you mentioned before, Chris Kresser says DHA consists of 60% of the brain, which is not that much more than what you said. On the other hand, I didn't see him anywhere being so obnoxious in not being able to admit a mistake and about such trivial issues, so distant from the main point of the discussion, to add to that. I'm not a nutritionist, but I can't imagine people like this determining what the real science facts are about anything, nutrition included. Smearing others, not presenting anything substantive, arrogantly being dismissive about it, and at the same time having an unearned high opinion of themselves. I checked this site before and had a pretty good opinion of it, but again, if people like this are responsible for much of its content, that changes my opinion about it dramatically.83.21.117.149 (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- PG is correct when he said "DHA comprises 40% of the polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in the brain". He never mentioned total lipids, you seem to be misrepresenting PG. Many different lipids make up the brain. n-3 and n-6 are not the same. Chris Kresser although it is not clear was obviously not referring to total lipids of the brain in his article, he was referring to total PUFA. You would have to be insane to think the brain is 60% DHA total lipids. Going by total PUFA the figure of DHA in the brain is 40%, going by total lipids the figure is 10-20%. Which ever way you look at it, Chris Kresser has made a bad mistake. 165.227.233.214 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
DHA accounts for approximately 40% of all PUFA in brain https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0952327816301302 139.59.188.43 (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- "DHA accounts for approximately 40% of all PUFA in brain". Exactly and I was the first user to mention this on this talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- First of all, the subject of DHA was his complete non-sequitur to the subject I have raised. I was talking about how Kresser was attacked in bad faith. In response, I only got more smearing of him and additional smearing of me. At the same time, that attack raised by me on this page got even more emphasized. But I will also gladly respond to what you've said about that guy's comments on DHA.
- I didn't have an issue with that guy saying: "DHA comprises 40% of the polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in the brain", I was having an issue with his first statement about DHA, talking about Chris Kresser claim about it. His statement about Chris Kresser verbatim is: "He says "DHA comprises 60% of the brain" without providing a reference [2]. You can go and look that up. The real figure according to medical consensus is around 40%. ".
- To which I responded: "I remember reading his article about omega-3, and I was surprised at his claim that it comprises around 60% of the brain. I didn't research it because I can't do it with the amount of things I read. I checked it now. I guess you are both wrong; the article I see shows that dha comprises less than 20%. Yes, he was wrong, and so were you, even though slightly less."
- I wrote that, because from written words, I think that either Kresser ineed thought that dha comprises 60% of the whole brain or he wrote it by mistake. I see a lot of unfair criticisms of him here, but I don't see interpreting his words any different. If so, I would like to know a precise explanation. At the same time, it seems that this time the benefit of the doubt to Kresser is being given only because someone who unfairly criticized him in another place made a similar mistake. Also, this benefit of doubt is only presented on his talk page. On his main page, on the other hand, immediately after this discussion, his full statement was presented without its generous interpretation.
- So accusations against me misrepresenting that guy are really unfair. As I mentioned, only after my response, the guy changed his statement, saying it was only related to the percantage of PUF-a. Whatever he really has thought, I don't know; personally, I don't think he really meant something different because of how he got himself to know in this discussion.83.21.117.149 (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I never changed my statement. I said 40% from the very beginning. Where do you think I got the 40% from? It's obvious that this was in referral to total PUFA which was in the source I later provided. DHA is an n-3 PUFA. I never discussed total fat content. It's obvious that the brain is not 40% DHA total lipids. My statement "DHA comprises 40% of the polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in the brain" is scientifically accurate and I am the first person on the internet to find Kresser's DHA mistake. Instead of admitting Kresser is wrong you will write 1000s of words about how you think I am wrong. It's crazy.
- Let's not forget you are the same IP who refused to accept Chris Kresser admitted to not being able to read a forest plot. After you were given incontrovertible evidence about this you gave up on that. You also cited a rat study and tried to pawn off a table on a rat brain with human data. After I noted this, you still wouldn't admit to being wrong. It seems you can't leave this talk-page alone without thinking you have won an argument on the internet and provided a "gotcha" moment. You will not leave here until you think you have got a 1 up. It's the saddest thing I have ever seen. You will go on and on to defend Kresser about his DHA mistake but you ignore all of his crackpot claims about acupuncture which has no clinical evidence to support it, cholesterol denialism and pseudoscientific claims about paleo diet, saturated fat, vegetable oils and nootropics. These talk-pages are not intended for exhaustive discussions about DHA, they are about the article.
- You have no valid criticisms of anything on the article so this is why you are side-tracking with DHA. In your very first post you admitted you are not an expert on any of this material. You are a time waster. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, yes, I feel like I can't leave something like this alone, because then such people like you may win. People who smear others, dishonestly argue, and at the same time don't bring anything of value to the important topics and substantive discussions. I didn't plan this. I can repeat myself, I guess, if you want. Again, what projections from you. Even about not leaving the topic alone, even though you repeat yourself and have nothing to say in response. I guess if someone looks that bad in the discussion like you, it's not that bad idea to make it more unreadable to others. So reasonable that you don't want to let it go yourself, even though you said you wouldn't respond.
- I've never said you didn't use the number of 40% from the beginning. On the other hand, it's clear from the beginning that in your first response on DHA, the reading of the number of 40% is in relation to the whole brain, and you didn't mention PUF-a at all. Then, only after my response that it was wrong, you gave a source and added that it relates to 40% of PUF-a. Also, from the beginning, I admitted that Kresser was wrong about it too and it was in a little more. I'm not willing to say that he meant something completely different there. Also, I'm not willing to give you benefit of the doubt in this either, and your dishonest approach on the topic and in this discussion would be only an additional reason for that.
- Now you're trying to frame it like I didn't want to admit Kresser's mistake and try to argue with something accurate that you at one point said. At the same time, you try to praise yourself, even though you didn't do anything. Who do you try to fool here? That you try something like that, that's what's crazy here.
- Yes, I'm the same IP under which comment we are writing, and I am the one continuing the discussion under it as well. There is no mystery in that to anyone other than one you try to create. I didn't refuse to admit anything, and you didn't give any evidence to anyone for it on the subject of Kresser not knowing how to read forrest plots. You only repeated bad faith interpretations of his words, accusing him of not knowing how to read a simple graph a layman can. Irony is that now you want someone else to give you even more charitable interpretation when it comes to your original claim on DHA.
- I didn't give up on anything, and yes, I can repeat myself again. I also acknowledged that I sent the wrong source, though all my statements related to the topic were accurate. To repeat myself again, I didn't plan to carry on with this discussion about such trivial issues. I was only compelled to it by such bad-faith responses. At the beginning, I thought that either the discussion would end quickly with my example of unfairness noted or would go in a more substantive direction. As I signaled at the beginning, I wanted to talk about specific claims of Kresser on many subjects. I was willing to do it, but it's impossible when you get someone responding so dishonestly.83.21.117.149 (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ can a mod block the above IP? He is ruining this talk-page. 46.101.42.164 (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Does those people really represent this site, with bad-faith arguing and asking for blocking when it doesn't work?83.21.117.149 (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked the 83. IP. What was his point anyway? He started off claiming the article is bias against CK then stopped talking about CK completely while arguing. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
|
