I'm going to start adding lard and bacon grease to my tea in the morning.

You're welcome to disregard information based on sources if you want.

I prefer to do my own research and find out what works and what doesn't. He popularized bulletproof coffee; if I took your reductionistic 1950's science approach, I would have missed out.

grass fed butter.

Do these fall into the Toxin Free Zone? I see a couple here that i feel would be a welcome flavor enhancement to my morning perk-me-up.

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/buyinprivate_2272_511442074

I see. And your research tells you that mycotoxins are some sort of actual credible problem with coffee?

What exactly is a "reductionistic 1950's science approach" exactly?

I'm not sure. I can believe that mycotoxins are detrimental to my health. The history of health and safety regulations makes it pretty clear that what is currently considered "safe levels" may not "safe" in the future. Fortunately, avoiding mycotoxins in coffee dovetails nicely with buying freshly-roasted, safely-processed coffee that happens to be delicious. Avoiding (possibly) detrimental mycotoxins is just a potential bonus.

It's the same nonsense that moves people to promote silly ideas like "heart healthy whole grains" and "calories in, calories out" and so on.

Hm, so because I don't accept this bulletproof coffee guy's completely unfounded claims about the negative effects of mycotoxins in coffee I'm a reductionist.

You feel that there is more to this than what science can tell us or perhaps what it has told us up to now? I can see how you might look at things that way, but it certainly opens you up for a lot of open ended and/or misleading claims.

Is that what I said?

Seems to be implied by this. What other criteria are you using to label me a reductionist other than my rejection of this guy's claims?

Oh, that's not what I was saying. I was just pointing out that I would have missed out on bulletproof coffee if I had followed your quick judgement based on his website.

As far as my criteria for labeling you a 1950's science reductionist, I actually only have one criterion: you seem that way. Mostly based on the attitude, the quick and sweeping judgments, the frequent references to "based on science" without actually communicating any scientific information.

It's a typical and widespread response to any research (particularly in the health and nutrition fields) that falls outside of the canon of "scientific knowledge" from 1950. Thus the persistence of nonsense like heart-healthy grains, CICO, etc.

Ah, I see. So, you use the same sort of specious criteria for making judgments that you put credence in, makes total sense.

Only for judging people!

I love how you're on me for not providing any scientific information, when I'm not the one making the specious claims. The burden of proof is on those making the claims. It's amusing.

It's typical though for true believers to discredit the source of the information that defies their beliefs.

Actually, I engaged you in direct dialogue when you made the claim that avoiding toxins had no basis in science. I found that fairly specious.

As I stated, I quoted toxins, because it's a frequent keyword in just about any pseudoscience claim. The word has lost any meaning in that context. People imply that colon cleansing removes toxins. What toxins? How does it remove them? You've already admitted that this mycotoxin claim is not even proven and you only avoid this because it MIGHT be proven and because you think the coffee you get tastes better.

How is that even close to better than what you claim to be my reductionist 1950s viewpoint?

Time for this:

It has long been known...
I haven't bothered to look up the reference.

It is thought that...
I think so.

It is generally thought that...
A couple of other people think so, too.

It is not unreasonable to assume...
If you believe this, you'll believe anything.

Of great theoretical importance...
I find it interesting.

Of great practical importance...
I can get some good mileage out of it.

Typical results are shown.
The best results are shown.

Three samples were chosen for further study.
The others didn't make sense, so we ignored them.

The second sample was not used.
I dropped it on the floor.

Results obtained with the second sample must be interpreted with caution.
I dropped it on the floor but managed to scoop most of it up.

Correct within an order of magnitude.
Incorrect.

Much additional work will be required.
This paper isn't very good, but neither is anyone else's.

These investigations yielded highly rewarding results.
My grant will be renewed.

This research was supported by a grant from...
I wonder if the taxpayers know they're paying for this?

A line of best fit was drawn using least-squares regression.
I drew it by hand.

A non-linear relationship was found.
I drew it by hand and I didn't use a ruler.

Stringent controls were implemented.
My advisor was watching.

I thank X for assistance with the experiments and Y for useful discussions on the interpretation of the data.
X did the experiment and Y explained it to me.

Is conflating one topic with another part of the scientific method?

I might be changing my mind; I'm not sure if you're really a 1950's science reductionist or if you're just a poor communicator.

Since when did you become an expert on the scientific method? You're the one that doesn't drink certain types of coffee because it might someday be proven that it's toxic and all because a blogger pointed out that coffee has some level of mycotoxin on it.

Definitely leaning toward the "poor communicator" theory now.

What I actually said earlier in this thread is that I buy my coffee because it's delicious. If avoiding coffee that tastes like hot dirt also helps avoid midichlorians, then so be it.

Mark, if the bulletproof coffee guy is correct about butter, it is purely by accident.

If there are any actual studies about the levels of mycotoxins in brewed coffee I would love to see them. Until then, I will continue to assume it is the same snake oil as everything else advertized as "toxin free" like those "toxin removing foot pads."

In fact 2 minutes of googling shows me that mold will lower the grade of a coffee anyway. So if you aren't drinking store-brand coffee you probably aren't getting any mold either.