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

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

Reason magazine promises a rebuttal by Taubes.

Sheldon

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

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

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.

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



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

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

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

Sheldon

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

Sheldon

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

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.

Thanks for keeping track of this debate!

Wa'il

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.

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

Taubes' response:

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

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




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



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.