7Jan/1125
Gary Taubes
Author, GOOD CALORIES, BAD CALORIES: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control and Disease Are you eating less but not losing weight? Join the crowd. Gary Taubes, award-winning journalist for SCIENCE MAGAZINE, presents convincing evidence debunking this notion. He flies in the face of 50 years of nutritional theory regarding weight loss. In his book, GOOD CALORIES, BAD CALORIES, he argues persuasively that the solution to avoiding getting fat is not the number of calories eaten, but the kind. Should you doubt his hypothesis , look around at the escalating obesity epidemic. But find out for yourself. Listen to him on Getting Your Money's Worth with Judith West.
March 25th, 2009 - 04:31
I think everyone should create his own diet. When they see they’re looking for, then they shoud keep doing what they’re doing.
March 30th, 2009 - 19:17
Taube’s writing is aimed at people with no academinc education in nutrition.
He tries to pretend that there is some “controversy” us vs. them and plays on the anti-authority aspect of writing aimed at Vegan-hippy people. ALL te stuff he says is debated in academia, he is not bringing forth any controversy that isn’t discussed.
May 26th, 2009 - 13:34
dear god, I wish she would shut up and let the man talk. she kept cutting him off from finishing his points.
Anyways, as a guy who has been involved in fitness and training and diets for a number of years, I can say that what he is saying is fundamentally true… though I am no scientist to refute any of it.
Based on my own observations with diet, I will get really lean on higher protein and fat diets while limiting my carbs to only good ones and in smaller amounts.
Works like a charm
June 9th, 2009 - 19:22
“ALL te stuff he says is debated in academia, he is not bringing forth any controversy that isn’t discussed.”
If so, this is still the first that almost anyone has heard this information.
June 14th, 2009 - 00:08
Besides the fact that you’re accusing the most pro-meat diet out there are trying to appeal to vegans, you’re off the mark when you claim that Taube’s complaints against authority are unrealisitic.
There very much is an authority encsonced in government and big business with a vested interest in making diets that compete with the standard American diet uncompetitivie.
Think USDA dietary guide, grain subsidies, NAIS, environmental restrictions preventing wilderness to be used as ranch land.
June 15th, 2009 - 20:25
I was using Vegan in ints more political sense in the fact that a lot of vegans move from “stance” to “stance” usually starting with an extreme position of veganism and then jumping ship to almost another extreme. I have seen it many times. Taube’s is unrealistic because he does not know how to assess laboartoty and population studies and overreaches on many things. I agree with some of his ideas, but as I stated, theya re debated in academia as I write this. I have a degree in nutrition science
June 15th, 2009 - 20:28
CONTINUEd, I have degree….so I do have some insider knowledge. Yes, there is a lot BS in nutrition, and politics, but I have done research into nutrition reccomendations and wasn’t funded by any company. The recommendations are currently sound with some tweaks needed. I have an issue with deriving data from population studies as aooposed to experimental, but constantly overreaches and makes conclusions. He has no science degree or qualifications and is aligned with BS organizations.
June 15th, 2009 - 21:03
What does it mean to have a science degree? You said yourself that there is BS in politics. Who do you think ultimately decides what is and is not taught in government schools – where all of your “research unfunded by any company” – occurs?
And what BS organizations is Taubes aligned with? The Weston A. Price Foundation? The Drs. Eades? All of them meet your standards anyways. Eade’s both have MDs from the Univ. of AR, and Mary Enig has a PhD from UMCP.
June 15th, 2009 - 21:07
As for your point that this stuff is being debated in academia… who? where?
Just because some people can grasp the point that even if government regulatory agencies and educational institutions are still, ultimately, influenced by Big Agra, and are opposed to the, doesn’t change the fact that those gov’t recomendations put “group considerations” – such as feeding poor people – before objective, scientific facts about how an individual should attain optimum health.
June 16th, 2009 - 02:13
LOL how can you even begin to form an opinion without having a knowledge of biochemistry, chemistry, physiology, anatomy, microbiology, nutritional biochemical, statistics, research methods, and that is just to gain a general understanding Taubes is aligned with Weston Price. A horrible organization of reactionaries. Enig is a classic reactionary who preaches to people that have little training. Let me ask you, why don’t you go debate electrical engineering, you obviously don’t need training.
June 16th, 2009 - 02:17
It is debated in almost every academic journal in existance. Taubes says nothing new at all, every point he just presents it in a reactionary style to sell books. It is very wasy to sit back with a red marker and criticise everyone and everything. That is what he does. As to attaining optimum health, can you even define that? It is a largely debated topic with some scientists even putting a minimal role of nutrition. Taubes, Enig, etc, cannot get respect of real scientists so they choose you.
June 16th, 2009 - 02:32
Your point has to do with the nature of knowledge and the proper definition of certainty. It’s an epistemological (philosophical) question. And, believe it or not, philosophy comes before science. It is the first science. Even Aristotle said as much.
You don’t think that the low-fat status quo (and, btw, if it’s still controversial, how are Taubes, et al marginal crackpots?) could be influenced by faulty philosophical paradigms?
As for the point: certainty doesn’t require omnicience
June 16th, 2009 - 02:44
You can try to make it a philosphical argument, but again, go and argue electrical engineering with someone who has studied it for 5 years and you with no training. You can’t.
Low fat IS debated in the literature, as also the role of saturated fatty acids in diseases risk. Taubes is a crackpot because he pretends to have the almost definitive answers and does it in a reactionary “me against the establishment” manner. He also overextends his interpretations of research when a lot is unclear.
June 22nd, 2009 - 02:27
Taubes sites very credible sources in his book, not to mention common sense physiology which really can’t be debated with. Taubes is a skilled health researcher, you don’t need a degree to do and report on research.
Taubes explains the economic incentive in why his ideas aren’t accepted in his new york times article “what if it was a big fat lie.”
June 24th, 2009 - 01:01
Citing credible sources means nothing -it is how they are interpreted and applied that is everything. Taubes a researcher? Please provide me with his peer reviewed published research. Yes you do need a degree and deep knowledge to understand the material. He overextends on a lot of things. I never said some of the things he said are incorrect, it is just that he is presenting them to lay people. Again, why aren’t you debating some PhD in electrical engineering? It should be easy, right?
June 24th, 2009 - 01:02
Oh really? is that your definition of good science? So bad science has no anecdotal evidence?
June 25th, 2009 - 13:48
You obviously have not read all of taubes book. The man researched and compiled information for 4 years.
And yes you can be a researcher with out a PHd. Taubes is a health journalist for the magazine Science and the New york times, he is simply presenting what is said over and over again in the literature.
If he was a journalist reporting on electrical engineering, that might be a different story.
July 2nd, 2009 - 08:44
One, read the book. The entire book presents evidence as is and he emphasizes more research and experiments, so I’m surprised at your claim that he’s presenting a definite answer.
July 4th, 2009 - 18:51
I read some where once the the maximum amount of refined sugar a person should take in was about 40 grams. 1 coke cola contains 39 grams of refined sugar.
August 28th, 2009 - 23:45
this is the problem. its not so much that these doctors/nutritionists are wrong… theyre just not supplying the best answer. cutting calories will inadvertantly cause one to cut carbs as well. this is pretty much unavoidable.
September 2nd, 2009 - 07:26
I hope Gary can change the world. He is a good friend to obese people everywhere. He’s given them the KEY to the lock that can get them out of their prison.
September 24th, 2009 - 05:57
You don’t have to be a PhD to use the scientific method. But the carbo-lobby would have you believe that…
September 24th, 2009 - 21:32
I agree!
October 3rd, 2009 - 03:52
What you are missing is the fact that no study indicates that good saturated fats, I.E from Coconut oil, olive oil, cocoa are the culprits behind the negative effects of saturated fat. The fats used in those studies were refined and hydrogenated. There is good saturated fat and bad saturated fat, just as there are good carbs and bad carbs.
November 4th, 2009 - 22:02
can i have starch in moderation?