Yeah, I noticed that too.

I'm with bookish. To say that diets are the problem is all fine and dandy, but before I started on low carb I was rapidly gaining weight. It's like something broke, and the weight started piling on. I had to do something to stop it, and diets are the only tool available to me. Maybe 100 years from now, they'll be able to say, "Oh, here's the problem. Your whozziwhatsit is out of wack. We can fix that." But 100 years from now, I'm going to be dead - no matter what happens. So I gotta pick the diet that seems the most helpful and sustainable for me and try to stick with it the best way I know how.

The thing is, Gary Taubes' hypothesis may be wrong and it may be right, but I know the simplistic CICO solution doesn't work - at least not for me. I've said this once before on this forum and was told what an idiot I am, but I believe the rigid adherence to the CICO model has delayed making progress on really understanding obesity, its causes, and treatments/cures. When everything has to come back to how to get people to consume less or burn more, without acknowledging the complex biochemistry involved in weight maintenance, we don't make real scientific progress.

If Gary Taubes has had a hand in getting people to stop reflexively calling low-carb a dangerous fad diet and to begin to grudgingly admit it helps some people, then I salute him and I thank him. Anyone who talks about him in the tone taken by this blogger can kiss my Aunt Fanny.