I just got around to reading this book, which I checked out of the library. After two rounds of Taubes, I wasn't sure I was up to wading through another dense discussion of nutritional research and its internecine wars.

I find that I am not. But I've read enough so far to be reminded: Don't believe everything (or much) that the government tells you.

Apparently, controlled dietary studies are made problematic by several things:
--short duration
--questionable reporting by participants
--selective interpretation of data
--fear of "doing harm" by including certain restrictions or directions over time

In other words, it's hard to do scientific clinical dietary studies with real people.

So we are sort of stuck with the N=1, and with our individual confidence in the enthusiasm of practitioners like Atkins et al who documented results with actual clients. Or who cite research we agree with experientially.

For me, the bottom line is NOT "you can eat fat" but rather "you CAN'T eat sugar and starch." The combination is the killer.

Trouble is, government "guidelines" are pervasive. We need to make sure our children, elderly, and various dependents are not harmed by unsupported dietary advice that sounds like "common sense." What scientists say dictates what government agencies do. If so-called scientists like the influential Alice Lichtenstein can't be bothered to read recent studies on blood lipids (Teicholz p 320) can we expect a mere congress person to do it? Decades ago, McGovern went seriously astray, and the whole nation is paying for it.

I'm headed to the store to buy some rib-eye in protest.