The One Hoop Many Never Jump Through

Thursday, April 28, 2016

A while back, I ran into a couple of articles on health and "performance" fads that illustrate something I would like to see more of in our culture: a healthy degree of skepticism.

In the first, Charles Krauthammer regales us with a whirlwind tour of things that have come and gone as conventional wisdom, and offers the following example of skeptical thought:

Yes, you need some C to prevent scurvy if you're seven months at sea with Capt. Cook and citrus is nowhere to be found. Otherwise, the [Vitamin C] megadose is a crock. Evolution is pretty clever. For 2 million years it made sure Homo erectus, neanderthalensis, sapiens, what have you, got his daily dose without having to visit a GNC store. [bold added]
I am not sure I can endorse his view on placebos, although I have encountered it before.

The second article, from The Economist rightly mocks the "cult of extreme physical endurance" among business executives in a similar manner:
It is time to call a halt on all this hyperactivity, before it gets out of hand. There is no doubt that many bosses have heavy weights resting on their shoulders. But are they likely to make these decisions better if they arrive at work exhausted and sleep-deprived? Working around the clock is probably a sign that you are incapable of delegating, not that you are an invincible hero. Frenetic multi-tasking -- surfing the web while watching TV while listening to music -- is a formula for distraction, rather than good management. And bosses who think of themselves as supermen and superwomen can weaken their companies. As Peter Drucker, a management guru, once pointed out, "No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organised in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings." [bold added]
There is nothing wrong with attempting to improve one's health or performance, but incredible claims should be an immediate cue that some independent thinking and research is in order. Sometimes, even common sense and a visit to such sites as Snopes can be enough to avoid wasting time, money, and energy on rubbish.

-- CAV

4 comments:

Steve D said...

While I agree that the Vitamin C mega dose theory is a crock, I don't agree with the evolutionary argument against it. There is nothing in evolution that compels us to be optimized, especially since we live much different lives than our ancestors; different diets, different levels of activity, we live much older, have fewer children etcetera. It could be true that a massive dose of Vitamin C (or any other chemical for that matter) has a dramatic positive effect on our vitality. Vitamin C could have a completely different mode of action at a super higher does; unlikely but possible.

Why pick on Vitamin C, though? That seems arbitrary. The correct argument is that there is 1) no evidence of the effect, and 2) no known mechanism by which it could occur.

Gus Van Horn said...

Steve,

I agree that evolution doesn't optimize, but do like the mention of the lack of GNCs throughout our evolutionary history. Rather than appeal to evolution, that author could have simply pointed this out as evidence that, within the ordinary range of human diets, supplementation with C isn't necessary.

Gus

Steve D said...

Yes, but people love the appeal to evolution, especially to push the Paleo diet - which is somewhat reasonable anyway,so why weaken their argument with a stupid claim?

Gus Van Horn said...

Steve,

Are you saying the diet or the vague appeal to evolution is somewhat reasonable? I am leery of advocating any particular diet and would call the kinds of arguments I see for that diet in particular as plausible for a layman who accepts the idea of evolution.

Gus