OK, this is a position paper by one guy who cites himself at least 10 times in references. The premise is what Taubes described as the toxic environment hypothesis, i.e. abundance of food, fast food joints, lack of activity, etc. The premise is also CICO.
The word sugar appears 3 times, only once in the text proper. The word fat appears 49 times, 39 in the text proper. The word insulin appears 8 times, 6 in the text proper, and always in the context of an effect of obesity, not a cause. The word calorie does not appear, but the word energy does in the context of CICO.
The word Taubes does not appear, nor does Bray's review of Taubes' book GCBC appear as a reference (which is basically a position paper in itself), but it should cuz it's 13 pages long, but then if it did, Taubes would be given credit and Bray's new paper would suffer for it just like his previous review did back then.
Hm, this is not a position paper on the idea of obesity as a chronic disease, but on the mechanism by which obesity is created. I think we can still remember Bray's review of Taubes book GCBC and Taubes' response to that review, but here's the links so we have a good reference:
Anyways, Bray's review made a big impact just because it was such a lengthy review, but basically amounted to "you're fat cuz you're a glutton". Well, considering the actual content of this new position paper, Bray didn't change his mind one bit which means that the paper itself cannot reasonably demonstrate that obesity is a chronic disease.
Good job, Bray. Now I'm just waiting for Taubes to respond in typical style, but maybe this time with the help of genuine experts to back him up (not that there's anybody on this planet with more expertise on the subject, but you guys know what I mean - Eades, Davis, Eenfeldt, et al). I'm sure Taubes and pretty much everybody else can see through the sham too.