but if I know the ending and I know it's all wrong why should I follow up on it?
I mean I would need some really extra motivation and some free time to finnish up on it. I can just skim it around and see that he distorts everything to fit his simple and what I believe to be completelly wrong theory.

It's clear from his interviews that his entire point is simple"carbs raise insulin and insulin makes you fat" , this is his entire point in the book and appearances and he always tries to sell this simple and yet totally disproven theory into everything he says. If the theory is wrong , then everything else he says is more or less suspect and I can see it just by skimming the book when I actually muster some motivation and find a free time. I really wish someone more well known would deconstruct this book and theory because it's easy picking instead of genuflacting and treating all of this with kid gloves.
I was hoping Robb Wolfe would do it in that interview but he didn't even though he did trash GT in an earlier podcast as less of an Atkins

Nobody's holding you to it. But if you want to expose him, then you're the one who should follow up on it. Like I said, your motivation is not clear so before you get more motivation, maybe you should clarify why you want to do this first. If there's anybody distorting anything, it's you. If you believe Taubes' explanation is wrong, then make an effort and show it. But like I pointed out, your credibility is weak by virtue of not having read the book you're trying to discredit.

Everybody knows what Taubes' point is and he does not deny it. Nor does anybody deny that the science does indeed support the hypothesis. Taubes frequently says "there is no controversy", and everybody agrees that's the case. The role of insulin in cellular biology and endocrinology is clear and is not controversial. Everybody knows what insulin does to fat tissue. Everybody knows that one effect of insulin therapy in diabetes type 1 is weight gain. Everybody knows that one effect of insulin therapy in diabetes type 2 is weight gain. Everybody knows that one effect of insulin therapy in anorexia nervosa is weight gain. If everybody knows all this, then you're going to have a very hard time finding anybody who's willing to try to refute anything Taubes said about it because Taubes just says the same thing everybody else says about it. You seem to be the only person in your corner.

So you want somebody more well known would take a shot at it? You mean you believe fame brings you credibility? It might, if you're an actor. But you're talking about science. And in science, the only thing that brings you credibility is not how famous you are, but your track record. How is your track record, Vlad?

I'll tell you what, if you're really serious about trying to refute what Taubes said, then let me suggest that you should read the book to the end, and read some of the science he refers to in the bibliography at the end of the book. Then maybe you'll gain enough credibility to have a crack at it. But until then, you're just like me, some guy on the internet with about an inch of credibility to his name. And by the looks of it, your arguments show exactly that.

Vlad,

I think your biggest issue is that you're a little ADHD. You're obviously interested in the subject of weight loss and gain, however; your focus is not really what I would call "focus."

GT's "focus" is insulin. You could write or read an entire book (or 30) on neuropeptide Y, or each of the corticosteroids, or thyroid hormone, etc. If you combined all of these into one book, you would have to park it in your garage. How are you gonna read a book like that when you can't even get through one.

You're criticizing one man for being one man. A scientist can devote his whole life to one little area and make a huge difference in the world. The important thing is the proof, and it may seem simple or redundant, but it's really just the way science works.

For you to say his research is completely wrong because it doesn't include everything you would like it to incorporate isn't right. It's actually quite disrespectful.

This may be your best post ever, Martin, and you've had some good ones. Standing ovation.

The subtitle of his book is "the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" yet in this book there is no controversy at all or much logic or science for that matter but plenty of contradiction and misinformation.

As far as GT goes , he has figured it all out and seems way too sure of himself but very light on logic and detail and seems more like trying to convince himself. There appears to be no criticism of this guy and he seems a media darling which I believe is because he has strong connection in the media who are trying to promote him for financial reasons . If he was really controversial as he claims he would never appear on mainstream media for one. So it's more likely that he is pushed by the mainstream onto the low carb bandwagon and this is their way of cashing in on it.

According to his bio, he wrote a book about cold fusion which has nothing to do with dieting. As far as I can tell GT was never grossly obese and came back with this diet so generally I see no way how he can talk about weight issues if he didn't actually live it. It's one thing to be journalist and be critical about issues , it's totally another to try to put yourself out in a story and put forth theories that you can't back up. I think this is because he is pushed as a personna and he has to keep up a certain iconic profile no matter what he says. So where is his credibility , what is his motivation ?
It's not like he came from a brink , he is just another journalist now a wannabe diet icon

It's obvious to me that he came on after Atkins passed away and wanted to cash in as the new Atkins except his knowledge and experience with it is much less than Atkins ever was and he compensates for it with stuborness, dogmatism and extremism. It will be interesting to see what will happen when he is legitimatelly criticised and exposed by someone. Yet all the people that he appears with seem to be worshipping him and taking him for granted and have not dared criticising him . I think that's just a media awe or even could be that he sets some preconceived barriers to any of his appearances. Quiet frankly GT is someone with the most fawning going on especially in this low carb or paleo area and even when he appears on TV.

You got it so wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...nutritionist%29

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/m...ig-fat-lie.html

But maybe you believe Taubes anticipated the accidental and unexpected and quite frankly untimely death of the late Dr Atkins?

You know, it sounds like you're jealous of all the attention Taubes gets. I mean, you are criticizing the man extensively, not his work. You didn't even read the work. And when you do criticize the work, your arguments are so weak that even a chump like me can rip them apart easily.

Listen, it's obvious to everybody here that you ran out of arguments a while ago and now you're just harping on about the man with the clear intention to soil his reputation. You can go on like this if you want, but at some point a moderator is sure to make the call. You can stick around, you're welcome to it but I think it would be best for everybody here, including you, that you stick with criticizing the work, however weak your arguments may be in this respect. At least then, you can't be accused of trolling ad hominem.

I'm out.

GCBC came out in 2007, in 2002 he was just Atkins junior but when the old man died then the book preparation started. Is he bringing any better than Atkins?
I see that Atkins was also focused on "insulin problem" though probably not with viciousness and ruthlessness and plain misinfo by GT. I really doubt mother nature put a hormone that makes people randomly fat as both of them implied, there must be a whole lot more going on . Insulin is essential and no more of a problem than cholesterol or any other molecule targeted by the authorities, diet gurus and other wannabe's. Interestingly enough , any effect of a low carb diet has nothing to do with insulin but with a whole slew of other hormones and other molecules.

EDIT: How in the world can he get published by new york times before even publishing a book ? It doesn't seem like he has any credibility to do so, as he didn't make any huge jumps weight wise. I would sooner give cred to Jimmy Moore as he has a personal story although I couldn't relate to him.
He must have some mad connections there with NYT and also other media ooutlets as they don't let anyone just come in.

Quite frankly, argue the science or shut up. Making vague references to molecules and hormones is not arguing the science.

And attacking someone's personality, perceived intentions, popularity etc says more about you than the person you're attempting to discredit - that you can't argue the issues with intelligence and back it up with science and references.

Lee

If you knew anything, anything at all, about Gary Taubes, you would know that the man is a journalist. Who works for the New York Times. Maybe do some actual research next time, hmm?

Vlad, all you are doing is proving M Levac's point with such precision that it is difficult to believe you are anything but a troll.

If you really want to discredit Gary Taubes as badly as you say, go make a blog or something and tell everyone else instead of us. I don't believe your incomprehensible rambles will be missed here.

Thanks for diagnosing me but his title clearly says it's a very broad, general, controversial and health improving book . It doesn't say I am going to mention insulin over 200 times and every other hormone will hardly get a mention. If it was titled , "how carbs and insulin are making you fat" it would be much less sold and much less serious. Entire book rests on telling readers what to think and he doesn't leave anything open for interpreatation so the reader has to trust the judgment of the author
http://books.google.com/books/about...id=Xdm40JUD9HwC
Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health

Vlad, you seem to be missing a couple of basic points here.

One is that diet and health are indeed controversial. Most current health professionals see low carb as some kind of heresy, so to say otherwise is definitely controversial.

The other point is that Taubes' book GC,BC is reporting on the scientific studies that have been done by others. He doesn't pretend to be a scientist himself. So by criticizing a book that you admit you have not read, you are simply criticizing a wealth of scientific information that I, for one, am glad is being given more publicity. And the crux of that information is that low carbing is a healthy way of eating.

You know someone is losing an argument when they abandon their original point and start making unrelated new attacks in the same argument.



Most reporters don't break into the news business via novel.

Really, after watching you twist and turn as Martin evicerates you point by point, it's pointless. You will never concede anything, even after repeatedly losing on every point.

You are giving him too much credit saying he made points. All I saw is a bunch of baloney and ad hominem attacks sprinkled with a good dose of unwarranted arrogance.

This is a joke, right?

Ever hear of Nobel Dreams: Power, Deceit and the Ultimate Experiment (this book was written TWENTY FIVE years ago-1987)? No? How about Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion ? No? All the articles in Discover mag? No? Science mag? No?

Not to even mention the awards: He won Science in Society Journalism Award of the National Association of Science Writers not once, not even twice, but three times.

Sheesh- get your facts straight.