Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Intermittent fasting - Dr Jason Fung
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.
He is making money peddling nonsense to the uneducated so I really don't feel that calling him a money grabbing self serving liar quack is too harsh. You have repeatedly stated that you know little about him though, so I still don't understand why you are defending him. You are dismissing educated people's views simply because you yourself are uneducated. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.
I rest my case.
Do you have a problem with the term "quack" being used in any circumstance or just when it's applied to Fung?
It really was not about Dr. Fung at all and I said that I don't know a lot about his work which also caused some to criticize me for that. I don't have a problem with someone being critical of a body of work, of a method of research or the way someone markets themselves. I choose to give respect to any Doctor until I see them in handcuffs or get their license yanked. I can still respect them and disagree everything else. I feel that the use of derogatory adjectives to describe the person can only weaken the argument you may have with his work. If I would't call a doctor a quack to his face then I won't do it in a post. I am probably a little old fashioned I guess.
Nobody criticized you for not knowing about Fung. Plenty of people have no idea who he is and that's fine. The issue is that, not knowing anything about his work, you assumed that people who did know it and were discussing it were being "bullies" or "over the top."
You may choose to give blanket respect to all doctors until they are arrested for a crime or lose their license. But nobody else is obligated to live by your code. Furthermore, the doctor who is arrested or loses their license doesn't automatically become a different person at that moment. They were likely up to no good before that which is why it isn't necessarily a good idea to give blanket respect to someone just because they're an MD.
It doesn't weaken an argument to use words like "quack" or "liar" to describe someone. The underlying argument is still there, you're just choosing to disregard it because of your concerns about tone. It's irrelevant to the argument, although you can certainly form an independent opinion of the *character* of the person using those terms if you're someone who chooses not to use them yourself.
It was reasoned that I had no right to comment on his negative treatment if I was not familiar with his work by someone. I was only stating my opinion on how I observed him being treated. That is repeatedly being justified because individuals don't like, believe, think is incorrect anything that has Dr. Fung's name on it. It's your prerogative to treat him as you choose to.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.
He is making money peddling nonsense to the uneducated so I really don't feel that calling him a money grabbing self serving liar quack is too harsh. You have repeatedly stated that you know little about him though, so I still don't understand why you are defending him. You are dismissing educated people's views simply because you yourself are uneducated. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.
I rest my case.
Do you have a problem with the term "quack" being used in any circumstance or just when it's applied to Fung?
It really was not about Dr. Fung at all and I said that I don't know a lot about his work which also caused some to criticize me for that. I don't have a problem with someone being critical of a body of work, of a method of research or the way someone markets themselves. I choose to give respect to any Doctor until I see them in handcuffs or get their license yanked. I can still respect them and disagree everything else. I feel that the use of derogatory adjectives to describe the person can only weaken the argument you may have with his work. If I would't call a doctor a quack to his face then I won't do it in a post. I am probably a little old fashioned I guess.
Nobody criticized you for not knowing about Fung. Plenty of people have no idea who he is and that's fine. The issue is that, not knowing anything about his work, you assumed that people who did know it and were discussing it were being "bullies" or "over the top."
You may choose to give blanket respect to all doctors until they are arrested for a crime or lose their license. But nobody else is obligated to live by your code. Furthermore, the doctor who is arrested or loses their license doesn't automatically become a different person at that moment. They were likely up to no good before that which is why it isn't necessarily a good idea to give blanket respect to someone just because they're an MD.
It doesn't weaken an argument to use words like "quack" or "liar" to describe someone. The underlying argument is still there, you're just choosing to disregard it because of your concerns about tone. It's irrelevant to the argument, although you can certainly form an independent opinion of the *character* of the person using those terms if you're someone who chooses not to use them yourself.
It was reasoned that I had no right to comment on his negative treatment if I was not familiar with his work by someone. I was only stating my opinion on how I observed him being treated. That is repeatedly being justified because individuals don't like, believe, think is incorrect anything that has Dr. Fung's name on it. It's your prerogative to treat him as you choose to.
That's solid reasoning in my opinion. You have no knowledge of the man or his work, yet you have been vehemently defending him and telling the rest of us how mean we are for simply stating the truth. It's not like we are going to the mans house and kicking his puppy and peeing in his cheerios. Get off of your moral high horse for a damn second. This is the debate section and people are obviously going to have very strong opinions about someone who is attempting to swindle the uneducated with ridiculous claims that aren't remotely based in fact. The fact that you are clearly one of those who is uneducated just makes your defense of him even more ridiculous.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.
He is making money peddling nonsense to the uneducated so I really don't feel that calling him a money grabbing self serving liar quack is too harsh. You have repeatedly stated that you know little about him though, so I still don't understand why you are defending him. You are dismissing educated people's views simply because you yourself are uneducated. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.
I rest my case.
Do you have a problem with the term "quack" being used in any circumstance or just when it's applied to Fung?
It really was not about Dr. Fung at all and I said that I don't know a lot about his work which also caused some to criticize me for that. I don't have a problem with someone being critical of a body of work, of a method of research or the way someone markets themselves. I choose to give respect to any Doctor until I see them in handcuffs or get their license yanked. I can still respect them and disagree everything else. I feel that the use of derogatory adjectives to describe the person can only weaken the argument you may have with his work. If I would't call a doctor a quack to his face then I won't do it in a post. I am probably a little old fashioned I guess.
Nobody criticized you for not knowing about Fung. Plenty of people have no idea who he is and that's fine. The issue is that, not knowing anything about his work, you assumed that people who did know it and were discussing it were being "bullies" or "over the top."
You may choose to give blanket respect to all doctors until they are arrested for a crime or lose their license. But nobody else is obligated to live by your code. Furthermore, the doctor who is arrested or loses their license doesn't automatically become a different person at that moment. They were likely up to no good before that which is why it isn't necessarily a good idea to give blanket respect to someone just because they're an MD.
It doesn't weaken an argument to use words like "quack" or "liar" to describe someone. The underlying argument is still there, you're just choosing to disregard it because of your concerns about tone. It's irrelevant to the argument, although you can certainly form an independent opinion of the *character* of the person using those terms if you're someone who chooses not to use them yourself.
It was reasoned that I had no right to comment on his negative treatment if I was not familiar with his work by someone. I was only stating my opinion on how I observed him being treated. That is repeatedly being justified because individuals don't like, believe, think is incorrect anything that has Dr. Fung's name on it. It's your prerogative to treat him as you choose to.
That's solid reasoning in my opinion. You have no knowledge of the man or his work, yet you have been vehemently defending him and telling the rest of us how mean we are for simply stating the truth. It's not like we are going to the mans house and kicking his puppy and peeing in his cheerios. Get off of your moral high horse for a damn second. This is the debate section and people are obviously going to have very strong opinions about someone who is attempting to swindle the uneducated with ridiculous claims that aren't remotely based in fact. The fact that you are clearly one of those who is uneducated just makes your defense of him even more ridiculous.
You have made my point perfectly clear, thank you.15 -
A 36 hour fast drops my glucose down to 90-95. I fast Sundays and Wednesdays, actually from 7pm Saturday until Monday 7am, and 7pm Tuesday until 7am Thursday. And then I eat sensibly the rest of the week. I am "allowed" to have a glass of wine or - OR - a dessert on Saturday, that is my only indulgence time, the rest of the time I follow my no sugar diet. I should mention I am also gluten free, I developed issues when I went through menopause, we figured out it was wheat gluten.
My glucose is stabilizing, now, it was getting really alarming before I started fasting, I had an AIC of 9.2! It's down to 6.4, now, and I'm off all the meds.0 -
I absolutely adore Dr.Fung. I feel that he's so right, in that there is no money in fasting, and because of that sordid fact, doctors don't promote it because they don't make money.2
-
runzfromzombies wrote: »I absolutely adore Dr.Fung. I feel that he's so right, in that there is no money in fasting, and because of that sordid fact, doctors don't promote it because they don't make money.
Yet Fung himself managed to monetize his diet advice, and prosper.
I have nothing against IF, for those who find it beneficial and sustainable, but in first-world culture these days, pretty much any diet strategy can be profitable for its energetic advocates. On the flip side, regular doctors promote lots of things that don't routinely benefit them financially (smoking cessation and regular exercise are just a couple of obvious ones).6 -
runzfromzombies wrote: »I absolutely adore Dr.Fung. I feel that he's so right, in that there is no money in fasting, and because of that sordid fact, doctors don't promote it because they don't make money.
Fung is making more money from selling books and speaking engagements than any typical PCP makes from anything. There are plenty of people making money off of promoting fasting in general and their specific rules for how you're "supposed" to fast in particular. The call to rebel against the mainstream that is conspiring against us to hide the truth is a valuable marketing gimmick.5 -
As much as I don't like Fung, one of those reasons isn't making money. Many of the best scientist and models make money from selling services, supplements and content.
Would you guys hate on Jeff Nippard for selling lifting programs?1 -
As much as I don't like Fung, one of those reasons isn't making money. Many of the best scientist and models make money from selling services, supplements and content.
Would you guys hate on Jeff Nippard for selling lifting programs?
I have no problem with anyone making a living in an ethical manner. The comments seem to be in regard to this post.I absolutely adore Dr.Fung. I feel that he's so right, in that there is no money in fasting, and because of that sordid fact, doctors don't promote it because they don't make money.
It cast an aspersion at doctors regarding money and not recommending that is really quite ludicrous, especially in the light of ethical concerns regarding Fung.5 -
As much as I don't like Fung, one of those reasons isn't making money. Many of the best scientist and models make money from selling services, supplements and content.
Would you guys hate on Jeff Nippard for selling lifting programs?
Not at all. Monetizing expertise of some sort is pretty much how most people make a living.
I do appreciate when people are honest and accurate brokers of their expertise (which is also not intended as an oblique jab at Fung; if I were jabbing at him, I'd make it obvious).
I can't speak for Kimny, but my post was reacting to the lack of irony in the PP concerning Fung, who literally made money by (among other things) promoting the thing that there reportedly is "no money in":runzfromzombies wrote: »I absolutely adore Dr.Fung. I feel that he's so right, in that there is no money in fasting, and because of that sordid fact, doctors don't promote it because they don't make money.
Fung is nephrologist, so a doctor, besides, adding to the irony, in context of citing the common misperception (almost conspiracy theory) that regular everyday doctors only do what what creates profit for them. I have to believe he's netted a higher income than the everyday PCP, though I don't know that for sure.
I do agree with Kimny that the "mainstream sources are hiding the facts" claim is common in manipulative marketing, so ought to be taken as a warning sign.5 -
As much as I don't like Fung, one of those reasons isn't making money. Many of the best scientist and models make money from selling services, supplements and content.
Would you guys hate on Jeff Nippard for selling lifting programs?
Nope, but I am going to push back at a poster suggesting Fung is believable because he points out that doctors can't make money off of fasting, considering he's doing that exact thing.
I hate on Fung making money selling books because he is misrepresenting the science and his expertise and skewing the facts to make himself seem like he knows a secret "they" don't want you to know.3 -
As much as I don't like Fung, one of those reasons isn't making money. Many of the best scientist and models make money from selling services, supplements and content.
Would you guys hate on Jeff Nippard for selling lifting programs?
No - but I would hate on any Doctor breaching the Hippocratic oath.
An educated man without ethics is despicable.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 902 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions