Gary Taubes is again poking global health authorities and most nutritionists in the eye with his version of how the world got fat and diabetic. His key recommendation: ditch refined sugar and other carbs, except for small serves of green leafy vegetables. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opini ... .html?_r=1
"What Really Makes Us Fat" in NYTimes (Opinion)
- Thread starter rory robertson
- Start Date
I think you've got to respect someone who says, not only here, but all the time, the following :
Gary (I'm a huge fan, can you tell ?) always calls for further investigation. There's too much bad science around, and it's rarely independent. Researchers funded by turkeys are unlikely to conclude that no Christmas is complete without a turkey :lol:
I always recommend his book Good Calories, Bad Calories which could equally be called Good Science, Bad Science.
And I do see why people could be put off by his persona. But I question why anyone wouldn't pick up what he says and look into it.
Perhaps, as Tom Naughton suggests in Fathead, 'follow the money !'
Geoff
(capitals mine for emphasis)
Gary (I'm a huge fan, can you tell ?) always calls for further investigation. There's too much bad science around, and it's rarely independent. Researchers funded by turkeys are unlikely to conclude that no Christmas is complete without a turkey :lol:
I always recommend his book Good Calories, Bad Calories which could equally be called Good Science, Bad Science.
And I do see why people could be put off by his persona. But I question why anyone wouldn't pick up what he says and look into it.
Perhaps, as Tom Naughton suggests in Fathead, 'follow the money !'
Geoff
Agreed, Geoff. Actually was just reading Chapter 23 of GC, BC, in which GT documents how the whole world was hoaxed into today's low-fat high-carb disaster, via the simple say-so of less than a dozen dopey know-it-all "scientists" at the top of the US nutrition profession back in the 1970s.
Chapter 3 documents that diabetes was well understood as the "sugar sickness" for centuries before modern scientists and nutritionists decided it was so much more complicated. The original uncomplicated explanation was the correct one. Remove the sugar and other processed carb junk, and obesity and diabetes tend to melt away.
Everyday people around the world have been poorly served by the deeply flawed advice from influential nutritionists who somehow have dominated their field despite their lack of obvious competence. For decades, they've been busy misinforming the public - either inadvertently or deliberately - while drawing tasty publicly funded salaries. Perhaps one day they will apologise for the damage they have caused?
Chapter 3 documents that diabetes was well understood as the "sugar sickness" for centuries before modern scientists and nutritionists decided it was so much more complicated. The original uncomplicated explanation was the correct one. Remove the sugar and other processed carb junk, and obesity and diabetes tend to melt away.
Everyday people around the world have been poorly served by the deeply flawed advice from influential nutritionists who somehow have dominated their field despite their lack of obvious competence. For decades, they've been busy misinforming the public - either inadvertently or deliberately - while drawing tasty publicly funded salaries. Perhaps one day they will apologise for the damage they have caused?
Patch said:
Not me... too much salt in Marmite... more's the pity. Have had to cut right back on salt.
borofergie
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,169
- Type of diabetes
- Treatment type
- Diet only
- Dislikes
- Racism, Sexism, Homophobia
The problem with Taubes is that he sometimes overstates his case, but I think that he does this on purpose to provoke discussion.
He's fairly honest in GCBC and WWGF that his "insulin hypothesis" is just a hypothesis, and as Geoff notes, he is a strong advocate of "proper" science.
Whether you believe in his "insulin hypothesis" or not, the best part of both books is his demolition of the "lipid hypothesis". I think that he is second only to Robert Atkins in his influence on the whole lipid debate.
I think that he is the best science writer around, with the possible exception of Richard Dawkins. Reading his NY Times article "What if it's all been a big fat lie?" was a truely staggering moment in my life. If you haven't read any of his books, then I'd urge you to read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magaz ... all&src=pm
He's fairly honest in GCBC and WWGF that his "insulin hypothesis" is just a hypothesis, and as Geoff notes, he is a strong advocate of "proper" science.
Whether you believe in his "insulin hypothesis" or not, the best part of both books is his demolition of the "lipid hypothesis". I think that he is second only to Robert Atkins in his influence on the whole lipid debate.
I think that he is the best science writer around, with the possible exception of Richard Dawkins. Reading his NY Times article "What if it's all been a big fat lie?" was a truely staggering moment in my life. If you haven't read any of his books, then I'd urge you to read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magaz ... all&src=pm
