Big Fat Fake: The Taubes vs. Fumento debate

[Groggy60]

A rebuttal to the Gary Taubes New York Times Magazine article from last July

http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml

[Sheldon]

Reason magazine promises a rebuttal by Taubes.

Sheldon

[tamarian]

The Author, Mr. Fumento is a lawyer, and member of a big lobbying firm. He also attempted a similar attack on Atkins a couple of month ago, using the same tactics and arguments, "look how much money Dr. Atkins made from selling his book, see how much Taubes is making", etc.

The focus on their success as an argument, is mainly due to Fumento's failure when we wrote his own book, ironically it was against low-fat diets.

Now there's an 180 degree change in attacking "high-fat" diets, probably due to serving different clients of his firm?

Mr. Fumento's technique and argumentative style is pure circular thinking, which is quite expected from a lawyer. This isn't a slam against lawyers at all, it's just what they do and what they're good at.

You have a guilty client with all the evidence against him, so what any decent lawyer would do is throw some doubt on the evidence, throw some hypotheticals, and what-if scenarios, twist things as much as possible, in the hope of casting some reasonable doubt to vindicate his client.

The main point of most diatribes against Taube's article was that he "misquoted" researchers, and they are upset with him. Do you know why?

When researchers find low-carb is healthy, and you lose more weight, and it lowers your cholesterol, which Fumeto admits, the researchers always add a little conclusion saying, "yes, these are our findings, but you should still follow the low-fat diet".

He didn't misquote them! He simply cited the facts from the research and the findings, and ignored their opinions on they "think" is healthy.

So, when we run around saying this is what they found, they object "that's not what we concluded, we recomment a healthy diet" This is an ongoing irony, research finds something interesting, but researchers conclud something else, since the results are contrary to what they expected and what they thought was healthy.

And Mr. Fumento plays on this contradiction quite well.

I'm looking forward to Gary's rebuttal, even thought I think he has better things to do with his time :)

Wa'il

[Sheldon]

I appreciate this reply, but more needs to be done in response, and I hope Gary Taubes does it in his rebuttal. After all, Fumento went beyond merely quoting Taubes's sources as saying they were misquoted in the NYT article. He also charges Taubes with ignoring studies that go against his thesis and not presenting the views of those who say that the insulin theory is wrong and that a calorie of fat is equal to a calorie of carbs.

In other words, we can't rest content with pointing out Fumento's vested interest, if he has one, or the shallow complaints of researchers who are unhappy that their work seems to support Atkins.

I have been around long enough know that charges can look very strong--until they are rebutted. Taubes is a respected science writer, and I find it hard to believe he would have done what Fumento charges him with. So I am eager to read his reply.

Sheldon

[Teuthis]

If the Taubes article was biased or inaccurate, yours is even worse. You seem to have such an axe to grind that you exceed the bounds of reason. In all this arguing over minute details I have yet to see any so called medical intellect out there relate the faulty and unnatural high carbohydrate diet they are recommending to the evolutionary development of homo sapiens. We are not an old species, and the radical changes we have made to our diets in the past 10,000 years do not seem to have helped us at all. Anyone who recommends a high starch diet is simply not in touch with the species.

Like it or not, followed properly, Atkins works; and leaner is better.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by Sheldon
I appreciate this reply, but more needs to be done in response, and I hope Gary Taubes does it in his rebuttal.

Sheldon, if you're that patient with Fumento's fumentation, then I'll be patient too. You've corresponded with him before, and know quite well the tricks he uses. :)

Fumento's anger and frustration at Taube's can be summerized in this little quote from his fumenting piece :)

But even here Taubes is no pioneer; the damage caused by fat-free fanaticism was pointed out long before. (See, for example, my own 1997 book, The Fat of the Land.)

The thing is, I'd be happy to read another gem from Taubes, but at the same time, I'd be sad to see him descend to the level of Fumento, who argues in terms of book sales and salaries, and doesn't care to provide meaningful facts and/or relevant studies.

Wa'il

[Sheldon]

I have little patience with Fumento. His prickly way of responding to people who don't agree with him gives me a bad feeling about the man.

Note that his article dismisses Atkins's use of the word "revolutionary" by saying that William Banting wrote about the same kind of diet in the 19th century. (Fumento doesn't challenges Banting's claim of success.) That's a petty criticism. Banting's ideas were not well known when Atkins came along. Atkins revived them, spelled out the rationale, and provided the specifics that enable many people to adopt that way of eating. It's childish to make the criticism that Fumento makes.

Of course, Taubes need not sink to Fumento's level to sink Fumento's case.

What I am interested in seeing addressed are the claims that carbs don't raise insulin more than fat does; that they do not raise insulin enough to cause a big storing of fat; and that all calories are created equal. Fumento raises these issues, which fly in the face of Atkins, Schwarzbein, Eades & Eades, and the rest of our crowd. We need a learned response.

Sheldon

[Sheldon]

http://www.reason.com/0303/taubes.shtml

Sheldon

[Sheldon]

Taubes's rebuttal is very strong and impressive. I have not yet read Fumento's surrebutal.

Sheldon

[Angeline]

Gary Taube is my hero. Oh boy this makes for some good reading.

[tamarian]

I am ambivalent about writing this response to Michael Fumento's article ("Big Fat Fake"). On the one hand, the article simply doesn't deserve a response. It is a noteworthy exercise in vitriol, and perhaps self-aggrandizement, but it falls far short of legitimate journalism. On the other hand, journalists and historians, not to mention the occasional lay reader, have a tendency to assume that if something makes it into publication it is somehow de facto true or justifiable. This is never necessarily the case. For that reason, which I find slightly more persuasive, a published response might mitigate that tendency toward excessive credulity, at least in this particular circumstance.
The bold part is exactly what I thought :)

But he did a masterful job in untangling the circular logic of Fumento's defense lawyer style of argument. :thup:

Thanks for keeping track of this debate!

Wa'il

[MrFrumble]

;) Fumento must be fuming, someone finally calls him on is BS.

While I think Taubes comes off a bit elitist at times, he is a much funner read then Fumento's coarse diatribes.

[Angeline]

It's really fun to see Fumento cut down to size, but more importantly, the article is really interesting and informative. It's as long or longer than the original Big Fat Lie article and it expands on it. For anyone who wondered how could all those studies be wrong, this article goes a long way towards dismissing that particular ghost. I learned a lot about how a study is conducted and what constitute a valid study and what doesn't.

If i was to go through this website and count all the people who said they lost weight and establish some kind of percentage of success, it would be just about as valid as the results from some of those so called studies !

I recommend everyone read this article

[bike2work]

Taubes' response:

http://www.reason.com/0303/taubes.shtml (http://)

[Groggy60]

Gary Taubes has written a response to Michael Fumento's article "Big Fat Fake," which appeared in the March issue of Reason.Fumento's reply to Taubes is at
http://www.reason.com/0303/fumentoreply.shtml


That same Hirsch is paraphrased by Taubes's fellow contributor to The New York Times Magazine, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, in the March-April 2003 issue of Modern Maturity, as saying "Most of the ex-Atkins dieters he has seen, he notes, regained all their lost weight soon after they stopped the diet."

It's like they don't get it. It is not a grapefuit fab diet that you stop.

I'll merely conclude with his treatment of the 1973 AMA assessment, which again is refuted simply by rereading my article. The AMA found that, "The notion that sedentary persons, without malabsorption or hyperthyroidism, can lose weight on a diet containing 5,000 calories a day [as Atkins claimed] is incredible," that "no scientific evidence exists to suggest that the low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet has a metabolic advantage over more conventional diets for weight reduction," and "there is no reason to associate a diet rich in carbohydrate with obesity."

It interesting to say there is no scientific evidence that exists to support it would work, when at the same time there was no scientific evidence to support it would not have a metabolic advantage over more conventional diets. It is also interesing to finish off with a 30 year old quote from the time low-fat got going.

[gtarent]

Oh my God, after reading Michael Fumento's response it is all so clear now. I have been living a lie. I obviously have not lost 31 lbs in just over 2 months. Forget the scale, there have been no blind studies to prove that I have, and most experts agree it can't happen... so it hasn't. The waist reduction I've noticed isn't weight loss, but rather just water (who would have thought I had 2+ inches of water around my waist?). Rather than the satiated feeling I thought I had, I now realize I am raving mad with hunger. The vegatables I thought I had been eating, were actually nothing more than raw fat. My bloodwork was obviously incorrectly worked up at the lab, since the cholestorol drop I've seen was not predicted by experts. I am currently contently eating about 40 carbs a day, I figure towards the end phases of the plan I will be eating 80+/day. I thought this would be easily maintained, but Fumento has made it clear I could never be happy with this way of eating, and would quickly return to my former way of eating. Yes Michael Fumento has opened my eyes. He and his panel of experts are obviously correct, and I am wrong. Thank you so much Michael Fumento for your concern about my health... you are right.... now go away.. :rolleyes:

[tamarian]

LOL, after a lenghty angry defensive diatribe, Mr. Fumento refuses to to address the response by Taubes complaining it's too long!

http://www.reason.com/0303/fumentoreply.shtml
I shall make no effort to refute point-by-point someone who in fear for his reputation as a science writer has decided he can substitute length for facts.

Needless to say, those lenghty quotes were from the people Fumento accused Taubes of lying about. Now that Taube released their taped conversations and emails to prove Fumento was lying, then Fumento complains it's too long!!

I mean, his original attack said they didn't say what Taubs reported. Now that Taubes puts lengthy quotes from them to show they indeed said what he said they did, Fumento complains it's too long, and the quoted records (which those scientists didn't deny) are not facts?

Only a highly paid defense lawyer and "think-tank" lobbyist can think people are so stupid :)

Wa'il

[dan_rose]

Mr Kendricks take on the argument:

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/kendrick/2003_mar14.html

[Sheldon]

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick has always impressed me. He is a cholesterol skeptic and not anti-fat. But he is not in full agreement with Atkins et al. It is very thought-provoking and I highly recommend it. Science is forever open-ended.

Sheldon

[Groggy60]

Fact one, fat contains twice as many calories as carbohydrates, weight for weight. So if you ate one hundred grams of fat you will be eating twice as many calories as if you ate one hundred grams of carbohydrates.

Gosh, how boring. If you want to lose weight, eat less or exercise more. What did you want to hear? That fat has some magical, weight losing, second law of thermodynamic altering properties. Those things could possibly happen in another Universe, but not this one. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. They don’t just disappear — unless you use liposuction.

He is right calorie is a calorie is a calorie in a laboratory. I you burn a gram of fat it will produce twice as much energy as burning a gram of carbohydates. They always make it sound like if you eat a calorie from different foods that they will all act the same and give same result. On this high fat (high fiber) diet, I crap so much more than I did on my old low fat/high carb diet, I know things are not equal. There is not nearly as much food disappearing into my body.

It is interesting that none of the studies seem to measure body waste on the different diets. If they did, it might get all those calorie is a calorie people to shut up and maybe they would understand low-carbers are not on a low-calorie diet.

[Lisa N]

Fact one, fat contains twice as many calories as carbohydrates, weight for weight. So if you ate one hundred grams of fat you will be eating twice as many calories as if you ate one hundred grams of carbohydrates.

This much is true. But...why is it that when I cut my calories from carbs by 95% and increase my calories from fat and protein by the same amount, I lose weight when I was gaining before? In truth, I'm actually consuming more calories now and losing (between 1,500 and 1,800) than I was before and was gaining (between 1,250 and 1,500).
Another point is that what people eat is rarely, if ever, 100% fat, protein or carbohydrate...it's always a mix in varying proportions and you can change those proportions as you do with low carb and still be consuming the same amount of calories as before, if not a bit more.


Fact two, the body has two ways of getting rid of energy. Physical work and heat generation. We cannot, as far as I am aware, radiate energy through electromagnatism, light, microwaves, or any other high intensity radiation. Nor does the body have any way of shedding excess fat through excretion by the kidneys, bile, faeces, sweat or saliva. In short, once you have stored energy as fat it has only two ways of being used up.

This is also true. But...what if the body had to work harder to get the fuel that it needed? The pathways for converting fat to energy are not nearly as efficient as those used to convert sugar to energy and thus the body is working harder to fuel itself than before. This is the metabolic advantage that Dr. Atkins speaks of. "Physical work" is actually increased without exercise by this means. We have not discovered some new law of thermodynamics. Of course, no low carb plan discounts the importance of exercise as part of a healthy lifestyle, either. Besides being helpful for weight loss and muscle toning, it's also good for your respiratory and cardiovascular systems.
If you think of the body as nothing more than a furnace that burns calories from fat or sugar for energy, it's hard to comprehend anything differnet than "calories in, calories out". But it seems that many are discounting or totally ignoring the effects that hormones such as insulin, glucagon and cortisol have on metabolism and fat storage. We know that when insulin is in excess, the body wants to store fat even if caloric intake is kept low. We also know that when insulin levels are low and glucagon levels are high, the body wants to burn fat even if caloric intake is higher (I'm not going to say high...even that metabolic advantage that low carb brings has its limits). Furnaces and bunson burners don't have hormones influencing how they burn, but even those can be made to burn hotter.


Gosh, how boring. If you want to lose weight, eat less or exercise more. What did you want to hear? That fat has some magical, weight losing, second law of thermodynamic altering properties. Those things could possibly happen in another Universe, but not this one. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie.

I'd like to note that Dr. Atkins has posted on his site a study where two groups were studied; one on low fat, low calorie (1,100 calories per day) and one on low carb, higher calorie (1,800 calories per day). If it were merely a matter of calories in, calories out you would expect the group that consumed the least amount of calories to lose the greatest amount of weight, right? Well..in this study, the group that consumed the higest amount of calories by nearly 700 per day, which happened to be the low carb group by the way, lost twice the amount of weight of those on the low calorie low fat diet. This one example is enough, or should be, to call into question the "calorie is a calorie" theory.

Thin people eat less than fat people

This type of thinking and opinion actually makes me rather angry. People, including doctors, assume that those who are fat are gluttons and nothing more and that is the cause (the only cause) for their weight woes when in fact, it may very well be that it's the high levels of circulating insulin causing the weight gain rather than the high calorie level of their diets. I'm sure you could come up with a whole host of people here (including myself) who would swear on a whole stack of Bibles that they were practically starving themselves and still gaining weight despite it. In my case it wasn't a matter of underestimation. There was no estimating involved. I measured and weighed every morsel of food that passed my lips...1,250 calories daily, mostly from carbs, and very low fat and I was gaining weight on this.

[bluesmoke]

I like Malcom Kendrick's writing, but here he makes a couple of mistakes. The "a calorie is a calorie" argument has effectively been shot down by the Atkins diet trials which showed greater weight loss with greater calorie intake over low fat diets. He tends to take Fumento's arguments too much on faith without examining them. The "thin people eat less than fat people" statement is another one that is assumed by many, but there is no proof of this. Nyah Levi

[liz175]

I just read through the entire Taubes-Fumento debate, trying to keep an open mind (which wasn't all that easy because I am certainly prejudiced in favor of low carb). Taubes seems to genuinely be trying to respond to Fumento's criticisms, while Fumento primarily just attacks Taubes without addressing the substance of what he is saying.