Book Review - Sugar: Matter of Life and Death

stephenearllucas
stephenearllucas Posts: 255 Member
edited November 14 in Food and Nutrition
Today's Wall Street Journal has a review of The Case Against Sugar, which argues that obesity and weight loss are NOT a simple matter of CI<CO.

The author (Gary Taubes) asserts that sugar consumption alters the body's insulin response and this leads to obesity, rather than excessive calorie consumption. Additionally, Taubes alleges that the food and sugar industries have conspired to hide the role of sugar in obesity in order to keep sugar consumption high.

I thought some of you who are interested in this topic might want to know this new book is out there.

Here's the link to the WSJ review: http://www.wsj.com/articles/sugar-a-matter-of-life-and-death-1483054057

Here's the link to the book on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Sugar-Gary-Taubes/dp/0307701646/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1483234056&sr=1-1&keywords=taubes
«1

Replies

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    I'd like to read this. A calculated TDEE is often not enough to make CI<CO work for people. It wasn't for me. What he has written in the past made sense for me. People need to remember that even if it didn't make sense for them, it might for others. We aren't all cookie cut out copies of the same person. Different factors will affect people differently
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Taubes debated Alan Aragon last year ago and after it was all said and done, Aragon asked him if he would change his views in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Taubes stated that he would not. That says everything you need to know about Gary Taubes.

    This was Alan Aragon's take on it (from a post by Alan on bb.com):
    It wasn't even an actual debate. It was Gary hypothesizing without supporting research, then me presenting a metric *kitten*-ton of research supporting my position, followed by Gary flippantly dismissing and denying said *kitten*-ton of research. Gary should have approached the debate very differently. The overwhelming consensus was that he got his *kitten* handed to him. I personally was VERY disappointed in Gary's lack of decorum. He consistently ran way over his time slots, and interrupted me several times during my opening statement, which was very time-sensitive. It was very insulting to the audience, moderator, and of course me. To top things off, he admitted to me that even if NuSI research refuted his position, he likely wouldn't change his current opinions. So, in essence, he's not swayed by evidence. Bottom line is that he made a bad impression on everyone.


    To top it off, Taubes isn't even a scientist/researcher and has no education/training in nutrition or physiology. He studied physics and engineering and has a degree in Journalism. He's nothing more than a carbophobe with an internet platform, junk books to sell and a lot of hot air with no science to back it up. He's been discredited and soundly thrashed by a lot of people who do have education/training in nutrition and physiology and don't believe in crackpot agendas.

    I've seen this debate referenced a couple of times. Does anyone have an actual link to this video? Taking the word of just Aragon, people at a fitness conference (lifters) or anti-taubes folks is suspect.

    The only link I can find is Aragon taking at cheap but funny shot at Taubes asking who you would rather have guide you to a better (looking) body.... Um duh. And not the point of Taubes' books.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSEVkiTCCNw
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    I stopped reading as soon as I saw Taubes. He's a tinfoil hat junk scientist.

    Yeah, this is just what Taubes has been saying forever, and not any more convincing.

    I do think that avoiding excess sugar is a good idea (because of having a nutritionally balanced diet) and that's especially the case with excessive amounts of high cal/low nutrient foods, but sugar isn't special here -- same goes for many other things we eat.

    That the average US diet is too high in sugar is true (although people vary a lot within the US), but the answer isn't that we need to cut out all sugar or go low carb, like Taubes would have it. We need to eat fewer (appropriate) calories however that works for us.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,427 MFP Moderator
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I'd like to read this. A calculated TDEE is often not enough to make CI<CO work for people. It wasn't for me. What he has written in the past made sense for me. People need to remember that even if it didn't make sense for them, it might for others. We aren't all cookie cut out copies of the same person. Different factors will affect people differently
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Taubes debated Alan Aragon last year ago and after it was all said and done, Aragon asked him if he would change his views in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Taubes stated that he would not. That says everything you need to know about Gary Taubes.

    This was Alan Aragon's take on it (from a post by Alan on bb.com):
    It wasn't even an actual debate. It was Gary hypothesizing without supporting research, then me presenting a metric *kitten*-ton of research supporting my position, followed by Gary flippantly dismissing and denying said *kitten*-ton of research. Gary should have approached the debate very differently. The overwhelming consensus was that he got his *kitten* handed to him. I personally was VERY disappointed in Gary's lack of decorum. He consistently ran way over his time slots, and interrupted me several times during my opening statement, which was very time-sensitive. It was very insulting to the audience, moderator, and of course me. To top things off, he admitted to me that even if NuSI research refuted his position, he likely wouldn't change his current opinions. So, in essence, he's not swayed by evidence. Bottom line is that he made a bad impression on everyone.


    To top it off, Taubes isn't even a scientist/researcher and has no education/training in nutrition or physiology. He studied physics and engineering and has a degree in Journalism. He's nothing more than a carbophobe with an internet platform, junk books to sell and a lot of hot air with no science to back it up. He's been discredited and soundly thrashed by a lot of people who do have education/training in nutrition and physiology and don't believe in crackpot agendas.

    I've seen this debate referenced a couple of times. Does anyone have an actual link to this video? Taking the word of just Aragon, people at a fitness conference (lifters) or anti-taubes folks is suspect.

    The only link I can find is Aragon taking at cheap but funny shot at Taubes asking who you would rather have guide you to a better (looking) body.... Um duh. And not the point of Taubes' books.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSEVkiTCCNw

    No one would suggest that a cookie cutter approach would work for everyone or that even calculated tdee is accurate. Unfortunately people put too much faith in online calculators without using feedback mechanism.
  • AdamAthletic
    AdamAthletic Posts: 2,985 Member
    Thread cleaned and put back on topic.

    Please, let's keep it that way!

    Adam. MyFitnessPal Moderator
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I'd like to read this. A calculated TDEE is often not enough to make CI<CO work for people. It wasn't for me. What he has written in the past made sense for me. People need to remember that even if it didn't make sense for them, it might for others. We aren't all cookie cut out copies of the same person. Different factors will affect people differently
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Taubes debated Alan Aragon last year ago and after it was all said and done, Aragon asked him if he would change his views in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Taubes stated that he would not. That says everything you need to know about Gary Taubes.

    This was Alan Aragon's take on it (from a post by Alan on bb.com):
    It wasn't even an actual debate. It was Gary hypothesizing without supporting research, then me presenting a metric *kitten*-ton of research supporting my position, followed by Gary flippantly dismissing and denying said *kitten*-ton of research. Gary should have approached the debate very differently. The overwhelming consensus was that he got his *kitten* handed to him. I personally was VERY disappointed in Gary's lack of decorum. He consistently ran way over his time slots, and interrupted me several times during my opening statement, which was very time-sensitive. It was very insulting to the audience, moderator, and of course me. To top things off, he admitted to me that even if NuSI research refuted his position, he likely wouldn't change his current opinions. So, in essence, he's not swayed by evidence. Bottom line is that he made a bad impression on everyone.


    To top it off, Taubes isn't even a scientist/researcher and has no education/training in nutrition or physiology. He studied physics and engineering and has a degree in Journalism. He's nothing more than a carbophobe with an internet platform, junk books to sell and a lot of hot air with no science to back it up. He's been discredited and soundly thrashed by a lot of people who do have education/training in nutrition and physiology and don't believe in crackpot agendas.

    I've seen this debate referenced a couple of times. Does anyone have an actual link to this video? Taking the word of just Aragon, people at a fitness conference (lifters) or anti-taubes folks is suspect.

    The only link I can find is Aragon taking at cheap but funny shot at Taubes asking who you would rather have guide you to a better (looking) body.... Um duh. And not the point of Taubes' books.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSEVkiTCCNw

    Well, who WOULD you rather ask for advice on losing weight and having a better looking body?
    A M.Sc. in Nutrition with over 20 years of experience in the fitness field, who is an education provider for the Commission on Dietetic Registration and National Strength & Conditioning Association as just some of his credentials,
    or a journalist and physicist with no formal background in nutrition who for some reason went out of his field of science journalism to start making diet books?

    For having a better body? I am sure Aragon would be a better choice. That's why it was a funny cheap shot. For advice on losing weight? Taubes's theories worked very well for me. I'm assuming Aragon was on the ELMM camp? I don't follow him. Anyways, ELMM based on moderation did not work well for me.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,427 MFP Moderator
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I'd like to read this. A calculated TDEE is often not enough to make CI<CO work for people. It wasn't for me. What he has written in the past made sense for me. People need to remember that even if it didn't make sense for them, it might for others. We aren't all cookie cut out copies of the same person. Different factors will affect people differently
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Taubes debated Alan Aragon last year ago and after it was all said and done, Aragon asked him if he would change his views in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Taubes stated that he would not. That says everything you need to know about Gary Taubes.

    This was Alan Aragon's take on it (from a post by Alan on bb.com):
    It wasn't even an actual debate. It was Gary hypothesizing without supporting research, then me presenting a metric *kitten*-ton of research supporting my position, followed by Gary flippantly dismissing and denying said *kitten*-ton of research. Gary should have approached the debate very differently. The overwhelming consensus was that he got his *kitten* handed to him. I personally was VERY disappointed in Gary's lack of decorum. He consistently ran way over his time slots, and interrupted me several times during my opening statement, which was very time-sensitive. It was very insulting to the audience, moderator, and of course me. To top things off, he admitted to me that even if NuSI research refuted his position, he likely wouldn't change his current opinions. So, in essence, he's not swayed by evidence. Bottom line is that he made a bad impression on everyone.


    To top it off, Taubes isn't even a scientist/researcher and has no education/training in nutrition or physiology. He studied physics and engineering and has a degree in Journalism. He's nothing more than a carbophobe with an internet platform, junk books to sell and a lot of hot air with no science to back it up. He's been discredited and soundly thrashed by a lot of people who do have education/training in nutrition and physiology and don't believe in crackpot agendas.

    I've seen this debate referenced a couple of times. Does anyone have an actual link to this video? Taking the word of just Aragon, people at a fitness conference (lifters) or anti-taubes folks is suspect.

    The only link I can find is Aragon taking at cheap but funny shot at Taubes asking who you would rather have guide you to a better (looking) body.... Um duh. And not the point of Taubes' books.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSEVkiTCCNw

    Well, who WOULD you rather ask for advice on losing weight and having a better looking body?
    A M.Sc. in Nutrition with over 20 years of experience in the fitness field, who is an education provider for the Commission on Dietetic Registration and National Strength & Conditioning Association as just some of his credentials,
    or a journalist and physicist with no formal background in nutrition who for some reason went out of his field of science journalism to start making diet books?

    For having a better body? I am sure Aragon would be a better choice. That's why it was a funny cheap shot. For advice on losing weight? Taubes's theories worked very well for me. I'm assuming Aragon was on the ELMM camp? I don't follow him. Anyways, ELMM based on moderation did not work well for me.

    He uses various techniques when it comes to helping people lose weight, bulk up or recomp.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I'd like to read this. A calculated TDEE is often not enough to make CI<CO work for people. It wasn't for me. What he has written in the past made sense for me. People need to remember that even if it didn't make sense for them, it might for others. We aren't all cookie cut out copies of the same person. Different factors will affect people differently
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Taubes debated Alan Aragon last year ago and after it was all said and done, Aragon asked him if he would change his views in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Taubes stated that he would not. That says everything you need to know about Gary Taubes.

    This was Alan Aragon's take on it (from a post by Alan on bb.com):
    It wasn't even an actual debate. It was Gary hypothesizing without supporting research, then me presenting a metric *kitten*-ton of research supporting my position, followed by Gary flippantly dismissing and denying said *kitten*-ton of research. Gary should have approached the debate very differently. The overwhelming consensus was that he got his *kitten* handed to him. I personally was VERY disappointed in Gary's lack of decorum. He consistently ran way over his time slots, and interrupted me several times during my opening statement, which was very time-sensitive. It was very insulting to the audience, moderator, and of course me. To top things off, he admitted to me that even if NuSI research refuted his position, he likely wouldn't change his current opinions. So, in essence, he's not swayed by evidence. Bottom line is that he made a bad impression on everyone.


    To top it off, Taubes isn't even a scientist/researcher and has no education/training in nutrition or physiology. He studied physics and engineering and has a degree in Journalism. He's nothing more than a carbophobe with an internet platform, junk books to sell and a lot of hot air with no science to back it up. He's been discredited and soundly thrashed by a lot of people who do have education/training in nutrition and physiology and don't believe in crackpot agendas.

    I've seen this debate referenced a couple of times. Does anyone have an actual link to this video? Taking the word of just Aragon, people at a fitness conference (lifters) or anti-taubes folks is suspect.

    The only link I can find is Aragon taking at cheap but funny shot at Taubes asking who you would rather have guide you to a better (looking) body.... Um duh. And not the point of Taubes' books.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSEVkiTCCNw

    Well, who WOULD you rather ask for advice on losing weight and having a better looking body?
    A M.Sc. in Nutrition with over 20 years of experience in the fitness field, who is an education provider for the Commission on Dietetic Registration and National Strength & Conditioning Association as just some of his credentials,
    or a journalist and physicist with no formal background in nutrition who for some reason went out of his field of science journalism to start making diet books?

    For having a better body? I am sure Aragon would be a better choice. That's why it was a funny cheap shot. For advice on losing weight? Taubes's theories worked very well for me. I'm assuming Aragon was on the ELMM camp? I don't follow him. Anyways, ELMM based on moderation did not work well for me.

    He uses various techniques when it comes to helping people lose weight, bulk up or recomp.

    Ah. Okay thanks. So he might well have worked for me too. He advocates very LCHF for insulin resistance and autoimmune disorders? He might have done fine for me too.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I'd like to read this. A calculated TDEE is often not enough to make CI<CO work for people. It wasn't for me. What he has written in the past made sense for me. People need to remember that even if it didn't make sense for them, it might for others. We aren't all cookie cut out copies of the same person. Different factors will affect people differently
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Taubes debated Alan Aragon last year ago and after it was all said and done, Aragon asked him if he would change his views in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Taubes stated that he would not. That says everything you need to know about Gary Taubes.

    This was Alan Aragon's take on it (from a post by Alan on bb.com):
    It wasn't even an actual debate. It was Gary hypothesizing without supporting research, then me presenting a metric *kitten*-ton of research supporting my position, followed by Gary flippantly dismissing and denying said *kitten*-ton of research. Gary should have approached the debate very differently. The overwhelming consensus was that he got his *kitten* handed to him. I personally was VERY disappointed in Gary's lack of decorum. He consistently ran way over his time slots, and interrupted me several times during my opening statement, which was very time-sensitive. It was very insulting to the audience, moderator, and of course me. To top things off, he admitted to me that even if NuSI research refuted his position, he likely wouldn't change his current opinions. So, in essence, he's not swayed by evidence. Bottom line is that he made a bad impression on everyone.


    To top it off, Taubes isn't even a scientist/researcher and has no education/training in nutrition or physiology. He studied physics and engineering and has a degree in Journalism. He's nothing more than a carbophobe with an internet platform, junk books to sell and a lot of hot air with no science to back it up. He's been discredited and soundly thrashed by a lot of people who do have education/training in nutrition and physiology and don't believe in crackpot agendas.

    I've seen this debate referenced a couple of times. Does anyone have an actual link to this video? Taking the word of just Aragon, people at a fitness conference (lifters) or anti-taubes folks is suspect.

    The only link I can find is Aragon taking at cheap but funny shot at Taubes asking who you would rather have guide you to a better (looking) body.... Um duh. And not the point of Taubes' books.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSEVkiTCCNw

    Well, who WOULD you rather ask for advice on losing weight and having a better looking body?
    A M.Sc. in Nutrition with over 20 years of experience in the fitness field, who is an education provider for the Commission on Dietetic Registration and National Strength & Conditioning Association as just some of his credentials,
    or a journalist and physicist with no formal background in nutrition who for some reason went out of his field of science journalism to start making diet books?

    For having a better body? I am sure Aragon would be a better choice. That's why it was a funny cheap shot. For advice on losing weight? Taubes's theories worked very well for me. I'm assuming Aragon was on the ELMM camp? I don't follow him. Anyways, ELMM based on moderation did not work well for me.

    For advice on losing weight you'd take someone without formal education over someone who has the education and years of experience?
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I'd like to read this. A calculated TDEE is often not enough to make CI<CO work for people. It wasn't for me. What he has written in the past made sense for me. People need to remember that even if it didn't make sense for them, it might for others. We aren't all cookie cut out copies of the same person. Different factors will affect people differently
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Taubes debated Alan Aragon last year ago and after it was all said and done, Aragon asked him if he would change his views in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Taubes stated that he would not. That says everything you need to know about Gary Taubes.

    This was Alan Aragon's take on it (from a post by Alan on bb.com):
    It wasn't even an actual debate. It was Gary hypothesizing without supporting research, then me presenting a metric *kitten*-ton of research supporting my position, followed by Gary flippantly dismissing and denying said *kitten*-ton of research. Gary should have approached the debate very differently. The overwhelming consensus was that he got his *kitten* handed to him. I personally was VERY disappointed in Gary's lack of decorum. He consistently ran way over his time slots, and interrupted me several times during my opening statement, which was very time-sensitive. It was very insulting to the audience, moderator, and of course me. To top things off, he admitted to me that even if NuSI research refuted his position, he likely wouldn't change his current opinions. So, in essence, he's not swayed by evidence. Bottom line is that he made a bad impression on everyone.


    To top it off, Taubes isn't even a scientist/researcher and has no education/training in nutrition or physiology. He studied physics and engineering and has a degree in Journalism. He's nothing more than a carbophobe with an internet platform, junk books to sell and a lot of hot air with no science to back it up. He's been discredited and soundly thrashed by a lot of people who do have education/training in nutrition and physiology and don't believe in crackpot agendas.

    I've seen this debate referenced a couple of times. Does anyone have an actual link to this video? Taking the word of just Aragon, people at a fitness conference (lifters) or anti-taubes folks is suspect.

    The only link I can find is Aragon taking at cheap but funny shot at Taubes asking who you would rather have guide you to a better (looking) body.... Um duh. And not the point of Taubes' books.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSEVkiTCCNw

    Well, who WOULD you rather ask for advice on losing weight and having a better looking body?
    A M.Sc. in Nutrition with over 20 years of experience in the fitness field, who is an education provider for the Commission on Dietetic Registration and National Strength & Conditioning Association as just some of his credentials,
    or a journalist and physicist with no formal background in nutrition who for some reason went out of his field of science journalism to start making diet books?

    For having a better body? I am sure Aragon would be a better choice. That's why it was a funny cheap shot. For advice on losing weight? Taubes's theories worked very well for me. I'm assuming Aragon was on the ELMM camp? I don't follow him. Anyways, ELMM based on moderation did not work well for me.

    For advice on losing weight you'd take someone without formal education over someone who has the education and years of experience?

    I don't think I said that. I said Taubes' ideas worked well for me. What he wrote happens to mostly fit with my experiences. Aragon might have worked... except I can't afford him. I can afford Taubes' book from the library.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I'd like to read this. A calculated TDEE is often not enough to make CI<CO work for people. It wasn't for me. What he has written in the past made sense for me. People need to remember that even if it didn't make sense for them, it might for others. We aren't all cookie cut out copies of the same person. Different factors will affect people differently
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Taubes debated Alan Aragon last year ago and after it was all said and done, Aragon asked him if he would change his views in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Taubes stated that he would not. That says everything you need to know about Gary Taubes.

    This was Alan Aragon's take on it (from a post by Alan on bb.com):
    It wasn't even an actual debate. It was Gary hypothesizing without supporting research, then me presenting a metric *kitten*-ton of research supporting my position, followed by Gary flippantly dismissing and denying said *kitten*-ton of research. Gary should have approached the debate very differently. The overwhelming consensus was that he got his *kitten* handed to him. I personally was VERY disappointed in Gary's lack of decorum. He consistently ran way over his time slots, and interrupted me several times during my opening statement, which was very time-sensitive. It was very insulting to the audience, moderator, and of course me. To top things off, he admitted to me that even if NuSI research refuted his position, he likely wouldn't change his current opinions. So, in essence, he's not swayed by evidence. Bottom line is that he made a bad impression on everyone.


    To top it off, Taubes isn't even a scientist/researcher and has no education/training in nutrition or physiology. He studied physics and engineering and has a degree in Journalism. He's nothing more than a carbophobe with an internet platform, junk books to sell and a lot of hot air with no science to back it up. He's been discredited and soundly thrashed by a lot of people who do have education/training in nutrition and physiology and don't believe in crackpot agendas.

    I've seen this debate referenced a couple of times. Does anyone have an actual link to this video? Taking the word of just Aragon, people at a fitness conference (lifters) or anti-taubes folks is suspect.

    The only link I can find is Aragon taking at cheap but funny shot at Taubes asking who you would rather have guide you to a better (looking) body.... Um duh. And not the point of Taubes' books.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSEVkiTCCNw

    If a calculated TDEE doesn't work it's because either the TDEE or the actual intake is miscalculated.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    kbarnardlamb wrote: »
    The idea that a science researcher must have expertise in one particular niche is naive. ad hominem against the researcher/author and irrelevant anecdotes e.g. "I eat sugar all day long, and I'm fine..." don't cut the mustard as criticisms. I appreciate the link to the book, and I've downloaded it to my kindle. I'll be the judge of whether the author's claims are founded on good science or not. Good researchers leave bread crumbs so that any curious reader can evaluate the claims for themselves. So I will do this, and anyone interested should do so, too.

    Taubes isn't a science researcher. He's a science denier and conspiracy theorist who has admitted that he would not change his theories even in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary.

    He's a journalist and a physicist and I'm sure he knows a lot of those things and spent lots of years writing articles about physics matters. Nutrition? Not so much.
    It's kinda like how an English professor and a cardiologist both have advanced postgraduate degrees - but there's only one of them I'd trust to do my open heart surgery.

    Taubes has more than amply demonstrated (over and over again) that he's a sensationalist and has no regard for science. But like any cult leader, he has his True Believers who won't take the blindfolds off.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,282 Member
    All the same, if his book is free or low cost and PP likes reading and wants to read it and assess it for herself - fair enough.
    That's all she was saying.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    I'm not saying Taubes is a god. He's just someone who has read and reported on science for a number of years... he wrote about other people's work. Other people's work in nutrition. Those scientists weren't bringing it all together, or even always accurately representing results. He's a journalist who looked into it, saw a problem and dove in. He isn't making anything up. Yeah, he has his own theories but he isn't selling it as a weight loss program. It's his theory.

    Implying he knows nothing because he has no degree is goofy. By that standard everyone who is not a doctor of nutrition should shut up. These boards would wither and die. LOL

  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I'm not saying Taubes is a god. He's just someone who has read and reported on science for a number of years... he wrote about other people's work. Other people's work in nutrition. Those scientists weren't bringing it all together, or even always accurately representing results. He's a journalist who looked into it, saw a problem and dove in. He isn't making anything up. Yeah, he has his own theories but he isn't selling it as a weight loss program. It's his theory.

    Implying he knows nothing because he has no degree is goofy. By that standard everyone who is not a doctor of nutrition should shut up. These boards would wither and die. LOL

    But you don't think it's concerning that he commented that even with scientific evidence to the contrary, he wouldn't change his stance? That kind of evangelical belief, or outright denial, doesn't bother you? Especially since the implication of changing belief would devalue a position that he has greatly profited from?

    The bolded is the key, and the only thing that matters to frauds like Taubes.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I'm not saying Taubes is a god. He's just someone who has read and reported on science for a number of years... he wrote about other people's work. Other people's work in nutrition. Those scientists weren't bringing it all together, or even always accurately representing results. He's a journalist who looked into it, saw a problem and dove in. He isn't making anything up. Yeah, he has his own theories but he isn't selling it as a weight loss program. It's his theory.

    Implying he knows nothing because he has no degree is goofy. By that standard everyone who is not a doctor of nutrition should shut up. These boards would wither and die. LOL

    But you don't think it's concerning that he commented that even with scientific evidence to the contrary, he wouldn't change his stance? That kind of evangelical belief, or outright denial, doesn't bother you? Especially since the implication of changing belief would devalue a position that he has greatly profited from?

    Depends on the science. There is a LOT of "scientific" studies and articles out there that "prove" the old guidelines of a low fat, low saturated fat, higher carb diet is the way people should eat. I've seen a lot of other studies on many ways of eating... You need to apply what works best for you.

    I get people telling me that my diet is unhealthy quite often - especially around here. I've seen the science people use to back their opinions up. Some of it could be true for some people. For me? This is working best right now. I am healthier. People who know me comment on my improved health and vitality, and then some of them try it because it obviously worked for me, despite all of the scientific proof to the contrary.

    Do you have a link to that quote where he said he wouldn't change hi stance? I'd like to see it. Thanks.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,989 Member
    Sugar is only "evil" to people who have NO DISCIPLINE on how to control it. Yes it tastes great and makes you feel good (dopamine release), but but so does looking at cute baby pictures or petting an animal.
    Taubes is a journalist and it's their job to get people to side with them on their "stories" and opinions.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
This discussion has been closed.

Categories