Start with this:
You have to consider who wrote that article; Michael Fumento. Thats all I’m going to say about that.[/quote]
I’m not overly concerned with who wrote it, but rather the points he raises over how Taubes cherry picks his research and clips down statements from other researchers to fit his motive.
For example, dismissing a weighty body of research contrary to his bias based on perceived irrelevance due to the studies being intervention based, then going on to base his entire premise on 5 intervention based studies. That is not “tremendous science”. It’s tremendous bullshit.
Not to mention that other researchers that Taubes “interviewed” issued public retractions of whatever statements that Taubes claimed they had made due to the whittling down and de-contextualizing those statements had undergone before making it into his “work”.
In GCBC, Taubes has no problem referencing self report and rat studies when they support his assertions, refusing acknowledge the proven unreliability of such methodology. Hell, with regards to rodent research, he uses it as a supporting argument in one chapter, and then in another offers explanation as to why it’s not relevant after presenting a study that isn’t supportive of his bias.
He even references a particular source when stating that glycerol phosphate is rate limiting for esterification when that source ACTUALLY states that there is no evidence to show that glycerol phosphate is rate limiting for esterification. If the man is a TREMENDOUS SCIENTIST, then why can’t he be buggered to even READ the studies he’s referencing?
This blog has a pretty good series of fact check articles with regards to GCBC, if you’re interested in challenging your biases.
I didn’t say he was a tremendous scientist, he’s not a scientist at all, he’s a tremendous science WRITER. He has been awarded the Science in Society Journalism Award by the national Association of Science Writers THREE times. Only one other writer has ever received that prestigious award three times. He didn’t just go from being one of the most acclaimed science writers in the world to a shill overnight simply because he is writing about someone’s sacred cow.
He has also conducted Grand Rounds at Harvard and Columbia Medical Schools on the subject of Human Nutrition. That is an incredible accomplishment for a non-MD. A fraud would hardly get that opportunity. He has also received acclaim and approval from people as diverse as Pollan and Weil.
I guess what I don’t understand is what specific points do you not agree with? His work debunking Key’s Lipid Hypothesis, his chapter on the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity, the work on the history of the Dietary Guidelies of the USDA, AHA, etc? What’s the beef?
People are trying to make him out to be Robert Atkins redux. Thats not the case at all. He is simply trying to show the research was NEVER THERE for the guidelines of 6-11 servings of grain, etc. The lipid hypothesis was accepted as conventional wisdom without being proven through scientific studies. He is also trying to show that there is an alternative hypothesis to the lipid hypothesis that haas been around since the 19th century that had its own group of champions in the scientific community that says saturated fat and cholesterol were NOT the problem in heart disease. They have very compelling data to back up their claim.
In fact, he doesn’t even personally condone or have a “diet”. The only diet I have seen him print is the Duke University Lifestyle Medical Clinic diet. As you know, Duke University is the preeminent academic center for the study of human nutrition and nutrition-related chronic disease in the country. The diet they use in their obese patients is very similar to an “Atkins-type” diet.
So Gary Taubes is:
- One of the two most acclaimed science writers in the world ( by the National Association of Science Writers)
- Given Grand Rounds at Harvard and Columbia, among other places.
- Has been endorsed by Pollan, Weil, and many other acknowledged experts in the field of human nutrition.
- Is such a kook that the only diet that he sees fit to print in his book was developed and is used at Duke University.
And I’m supposed to believe that he is a shill and a “bad scientist” because a jealous competitor science writer ( who wrote his own HORRENDOUS book on this subject back in the 90’s) says he is?
Taubes work speaks for itself, and I’m certainly not in a mood to get into one of those stupid ass internet debates throwing around studies. I only ask for people to read his works (or anyone’s works) for themselves and make up their minds based upon how the evidence hits their brain. Science will stand on its own two feet. Bullshit masquerading as science will always eventually be washed away and disproven.
So you don’t have any thoughts on the methods he uses for excluding research that doesn’t conform to his bias? If you are as familiar with his works as you claim to be, then you must be aware of the things mentioned in the article I posted (as they are definitely not small fragments of his writing). This isn’t some nobody claiming that he’s into fetish porn, this is a fellow writer exposing inconsistencies between what Taubes claims qualifies research as relevant and what actually makes it into his work.
I have read GCBC, and I like to consider myself as having a more scientific mind than many (and I think that there are other posters here who can vouche for that, knowing me in real life). I thought GCBC and Why We Get Fat were loaded with bullshit science and sideways implications (“insulin is the main driver of fat storage” and the metabolic advantage) that Taubes makes but doesn’t state outright because he knows he’s full of shit.