Any Gary Taubes fans out here?
Replies
-
-
I do agree that sugars and starches can be a problem for some people like me but I'd rather follow the GAPS diet which is really helping me with candida issues I've had for 9 years.1
-
Years ago I watched the bloggingheads episode referred to in here. I think this is a decent discussion of Taubes: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/thin-body-of-evidence-why-i-have-doubts-about-gary-taubess-why-we-get-fat/I have great respect for Gary. He's a science journalist's science journalist, who researches topics to the point of obsession—actually, well beyond that point—and never dumbs things down for readers. I read both of Gary's fat books, invited him to speak about diet at my school two years ago, and discussed the subject with him on Bloggingheads.tv last month. Gary marshals mountains of data in support of his thesis, but I still have misgivings about it. My reaction is partly visceral; the Atkins diet—which prescribes little fruit and vegetables and lots of meat—strikes me as, well, gross....
I think this last is a lame argument, but it's a blog post and I respect that Horgan is upfront about it....in a 2007 article for The New York Times Magazine, "Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?," which I often assign to students in my science-writing seminar. The article examined the "here-today-gone-tomorrow nature of medical wisdom," such as the claim—touted in the 1990s and retracted a decade ago—that estrogen could improve the health of aging women. Gary noted that even the best-designed epidemiological studies are confounded by factors such as "healthy-user bias," the tendency of people who faithfully adhere to a treatment to be healthier than those who are less compliant—even if the treatment is a placebo. He warned that if a study implies that "some drug or diet will bring us improved prosperity and health," we should "wonder about the unforeseen consequences."
Gary, it seems to me, applies this critical outlook more to high-carb, low-fat diets than to the Atkins diet...
This is really the essence of my own issues with him. I think he is so convinced he is right that he has a blind spot when it comes to the conclusions he prefers such that he cannot apply the same sort of rigor and acknowledgement to the flaws or weaknesses in the arguments/evidence that he does to the other claims he examines.
More: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/journalist-gary-taubes-raises-bucks-to-disprove-his-diet-theory/5 -
Hahahahahahahahahahhaahhaahahahahahaha
No.
Never.
I'd almost take vegan gains or freelee over him! Almost.2 -
lilolilo920 wrote: »Hahahahahahahahahahhaahhaahahahahahaha
No.
Never.
I'd almost take vegan gains or freelee over him! Almost.
is that a big almost or a little almost? lol0 -
Not a fan if him or lchf.JerSchmare wrote: »What's really a shame is people who think the haters just hate him are really clueless about why. They seem to ignore the fact that Taubes is completely baseless. There is nothing there. He could say, "Milk is bad", without explaining why, and all his followers will stop drinking milk. It's so lame. If someone makes a statement like that, I want to see studies and facts that back that up. Unbelievable how gullible people are. And then they say, "different stokes". No it's not different strokes. It's stupid (Taubes) versus smart (anyone that understand that Taubes is a fake).
Thank you!0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I'm a fan. Lean-meat-healthy-whole-grains was a doozy to overcome but his Good Calories Bad Calories was instrumental for me in that regard. I think he's done a world of good for nutrition science.
how has he done a world of good for nutrition science when he knows squat about it? thats like getting nutrition info from dan rather or any other newscaster/journalist. That would be like getting an eating plan from a podiatrist.
By expecting it to be, you know, pseudoscience. It doesn't matter whether what he personally believes is right or wrong he's had a huge impact on nutrition research for the better.
fixed it for you ...2 -
He is generally frowned upon on these forums. He is a very good journalist though and knows how to make money in journalism. His knowledge on nutrition is amusing at best, but hey, he's making money with it so good for him.
thisTacklewasher wrote: »Frowned upon is a bit of an understatement. He's generally considered a fraud who found a way to get rich through food scaring.
and this ..
Right.
3 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I'm a fan. Lean-meat-healthy-whole-grains was a doozy to overcome but his Good Calories Bad Calories was instrumental for me in that regard. I think he's done a world of good for nutrition science.
how has he done a world of good for nutrition science when he knows squat about it? thats like getting nutrition info from dan rather or any other newscaster/journalist. That would be like getting an eating plan from a podiatrist.
By expecting it to be, you know, science. It doesn't matter whether what he personally believes is right or wrong he's had a huge impact on nutrition research for the better.
Trouble is that he hasn't had a GOOD impact. What he does is not science, it is fear-mongering. He's figured out (as a journalist) what type of fear mongering he can make money off of and run with it. The one time his foundation actually funded any actual research, the results were not to his liking so he responded by slagging the researcher.
In short, he does not know good science and his impact on the industry has been wholly negative, except to his own bank account.8 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I'm a fan. Lean-meat-healthy-whole-grains was a doozy to overcome but his Good Calories Bad Calories was instrumental for me in that regard. I think he's done a world of good for nutrition science.
how has he done a world of good for nutrition science when he knows squat about it? thats like getting nutrition info from dan rather or any other newscaster/journalist. That would be like getting an eating plan from a podiatrist.
By expecting it to be, you know, science. It doesn't matter whether what he personally believes is right or wrong he's had a huge impact on nutrition research for the better.
Forming a belief and then cherry picking evidence and ignoring data that refutes those beliefs is not science. That's more akin to religion.
A true scientist would be open to changing his views based on evidence.7 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I'm a fan. Lean-meat-healthy-whole-grains was a doozy to overcome but his Good Calories Bad Calories was instrumental for me in that regard. I think he's done a world of good for nutrition science.
how has he done a world of good for nutrition science when he knows squat about it? thats like getting nutrition info from dan rather or any other newscaster/journalist. That would be like getting an eating plan from a podiatrist.
By expecting it to be, you know, science. It doesn't matter whether what he personally believes is right or wrong he's had a huge impact on nutrition research for the better.
Forming a belief and then cherry picking evidence and ignoring data that refutes those beliefs is not science. That's more akin to religion.
A true scientist would change be open to changing his views based on evidence.
But when one is a journalist rather than a scientist, and one that has made tons of money selling his particular brand of woo and fearmongering, I'd imagine one wouldn't want to change their views (at least not publicly). They'd rather double down on the derp, write another book and make even more money.4 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I'm a fan. Lean-meat-healthy-whole-grains was a doozy to overcome but his Good Calories Bad Calories was instrumental for me in that regard. I think he's done a world of good for nutrition science.
how has he done a world of good for nutrition science when he knows squat about it? thats like getting nutrition info from dan rather or any other newscaster/journalist. That would be like getting an eating plan from a podiatrist.
By expecting it to be, you know, science. It doesn't matter whether what he personally believes is right or wrong he's had a huge impact on nutrition research for the better.
Forming a belief and then cherry picking evidence and ignoring data that refutes those beliefs is not science. That's more akin to religion.
A true scientist would be open to changing his views based on evidence.
He knows how to make money, that's all I have. Don't confuse him with the general population of low carbers. I fast sometimes, but I have nothing but kittens for Fung.
Speaking of honest researchers, I loosely follow "the every other day diet" every now and then because I find it effective. The writer of that book, Krista Varady, has released a long study about that diet recently that did not show the results she expected. She simply exclaimed that it was disappointing but it is what it is, the every other day diet is no more or less effective than daily caloric restriction and in fact has worse adherence overall, but she noted that some people in the study did REALLY well on it while others did really well on caloric restriction coming to the conclusion that it's no worse or better in general, but that any specific dieting pattern can be worse or better for the individual which is why people need to find what works for them. This made me respect her more. Having written a book and having financial stake in the matter she did not try to manipulate the results of the study or spin them in her favor.8 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I'm a fan. Lean-meat-healthy-whole-grains was a doozy to overcome but his Good Calories Bad Calories was instrumental for me in that regard. I think he's done a world of good for nutrition science.
how has he done a world of good for nutrition science when he knows squat about it? thats like getting nutrition info from dan rather or any other newscaster/journalist. That would be like getting an eating plan from a podiatrist.
By expecting it to be, you know, science. It doesn't matter whether what he personally believes is right or wrong he's had a huge impact on nutrition research for the better.
Forming a belief and then cherry picking evidence and ignoring data that refutes those beliefs is not science. That's more akin to religion.
A true scientist would be open to changing his views based on evidence.
He knows how to make money, that's all I have. Don't confuse him with the general population of low carbers. I fast sometimes, but I have nothing but kittens for Fung.
Speaking of honest researchers, I loosely follow "the every other day diet" every now and then because I find it effective. The writer of that book, Krista Varady, has released a long study about that diet recently that did not show the results she expected. She simply exclaimed that it was disappointing but it is what it is, the every other day diet is no more or less effective than daily caloric restriction and in fact has worse adherence overall, but she noted that some people in the study did REALLY well on it while others did really well on caloric restriction coming to the conclusion that it's no worse or better in general, but that any specific dieting pattern can be worse or better for the individual which is why people need to find what works for them. This made me respect her more. Having written a book and having financial stake in the matter she did not try to manipulate the results of the study or spin them in her favor.
Do you have a link to Varady's study/her response to it? I'm one of those who was very successful with the every other day IF protocol, so I'm curious to see what her findings were
0 -
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I'm a fan. Lean-meat-healthy-whole-grains was a doozy to overcome but his Good Calories Bad Calories was instrumental for me in that regard. I think he's done a world of good for nutrition science.
how has he done a world of good for nutrition science when he knows squat about it? thats like getting nutrition info from dan rather or any other newscaster/journalist. That would be like getting an eating plan from a podiatrist.
By expecting it to be, you know, science. It doesn't matter whether what he personally believes is right or wrong he's had a huge impact on nutrition research for the better.
Forming a belief and then cherry picking evidence and ignoring data that refutes those beliefs is not science. That's more akin to religion.
A true scientist would be open to changing his views based on evidence.
He knows how to make money, that's all I have. Don't confuse him with the general population of low carbers. I fast sometimes, but I have nothing but kittens for Fung.
Speaking of honest researchers, I loosely follow "the every other day diet" every now and then because I find it effective. The writer of that book, Krista Varady, has released a long study about that diet recently that did not show the results she expected. She simply exclaimed that it was disappointing but it is what it is, the every other day diet is no more or less effective than daily caloric restriction and in fact has worse adherence overall, but she noted that some people in the study did REALLY well on it while others did really well on caloric restriction coming to the conclusion that it's no worse or better in general, but that any specific dieting pattern can be worse or better for the individual which is why people need to find what works for them. This made me respect her more. Having written a book and having financial stake in the matter she did not try to manipulate the results of the study or spin them in her favor.
Do you have a link to Varady's study/her response to it? I'm one of those who was very successful with the every other day IF protocol, so I'm curious to see what her findings were
Here is the study:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2623528
Her interactions about the study are in bits and pieces in the facebook page and some other websites
https://www.facebook.com/TheEveryOtherDayDiet/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I'm a fan. Lean-meat-healthy-whole-grains was a doozy to overcome but his Good Calories Bad Calories was instrumental for me in that regard. I think he's done a world of good for nutrition science.
how has he done a world of good for nutrition science when he knows squat about it? thats like getting nutrition info from dan rather or any other newscaster/journalist. That would be like getting an eating plan from a podiatrist.
By expecting it to be, you know, science. It doesn't matter whether what he personally believes is right or wrong he's had a huge impact on nutrition research for the better.
Forming a belief and then cherry picking evidence and ignoring data that refutes those beliefs is not science. That's more akin to religion.
A true scientist would be open to changing his views based on evidence.
He knows how to make money, that's all I have. Don't confuse him with the general population of low carbers. I fast sometimes, but I have nothing but kittens for Fung.
Speaking of honest researchers, I loosely follow "the every other day diet" every now and then because I find it effective. The writer of that book, Krista Varady, has released a long study about that diet recently that did not show the results she expected. She simply exclaimed that it was disappointing but it is what it is, the every other day diet is no more or less effective than daily caloric restriction and in fact has worse adherence overall, but she noted that some people in the study did REALLY well on it while others did really well on caloric restriction coming to the conclusion that it's no worse or better in general, but that any specific dieting pattern can be worse or better for the individual which is why people need to find what works for them. This made me respect her more. Having written a book and having financial stake in the matter she did not try to manipulate the results of the study or spin them in her favor.
Do you have a link to Varady's study/her response to it? I'm one of those who was very successful with the every other day IF protocol, so I'm curious to see what her findings were
Here is the study:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2623528
Her interactions about the study are in bits and pieces in the facebook page and some other websites
https://www.facebook.com/TheEveryOtherDayDiet/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf
Thanks!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 433 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions