Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Sep-25-02, 22:32
DrByrnes DrByrnes is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 51
 
Plan: Life Without Bread
Stats: 176/172/172
BF:12%
Progress: 100%
Default Gary Taubes' Response to Washington Post Article

Everyone:

Sally Squire's critical Washington Post piece of Taubes' NYT article "What If Its All Been a Big Fat Lie?" was succinctly answered by Taubes, below. Enjoy. It is a good example of how the media, when it has an agenda to push, can easily mislead and deceive the public.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2002Sep21.html


Dietary Fat, Cont'd.

Sally Squires's Aug. 27 article ("What If the Big Fat Story Is Wrong?") claims to take a "hard look" at my July 7 New York Times Magazine article ("What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?") but instead misrepresents my article and my reporting and misinterprets the relevant science and medicine. While it's impossible in limited space to rectify all the copious misrepresentations in her story, the following clarifies key issues.

My NYT article questioned the common belief that obesity is caused by excess calorie consumption from fat, and instead suggested an alternative hypothesis: "It's not the fat that makes us fat, but the carbohydrates." It noted that low-fat diets are invariably high in carbohydrates -- typically refined carbohydrates and starches -- and that since the U.S. government began pushing low-fat diets in 1977, we have witnessed significant increases in consumption of grain products and sugars, significant increases in obesity and type 2 diabetes, and no decrease in heart disease. It questioned whether all this was coincidence or cause and effect.

My primary disagreement with Squires and public health authorities such as National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute director Claude Lenfant arises from our divergent views of how good science is done. Squires and the public health establishment act as if reliable knowledge is established by proving the validity of hypotheses, and that this is accomplished by accumulating all positive evidence supporting the hypotheses and rejecting all non-supportive, negative evidence. I side with Francis Bacon and Carl Popper, who argued that reliable knowledge comes by rigorously testing hypothesis, and that such tests require more weight be given to negative evidence than to positive evidence. My NYT article noted that copious evidence exists in contradiction to the low-fat-is-good-health hypothesis, while the alternative hypothesis may fit the data better but has never been adequately tested.

Moreover, Squires apparently believes that learned expert committees and government agencies are incapable of arriving at biased and incorrect conclusions on subjects of national importance, or at least on this particular subject. I believe they can and, in this case, that they probably did.

Squires faults me for ignoring "high-quality," "significant and well-known peer reviewed research," including the 2000 Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC). The report cites "many years of epidemiological research" supporting the dangers of saturated fats, although the one relevant article both it and Squires discuss in detail was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, begging the question of whether it constitutes "high-quality research." This in turn raises the question: If there is so much significant high-quality research out there, why do the DGAC and Squires rely on non-peer-reviewed literature to make their case?

Squires describes one of my "key assertions" as suggesting "that eating saturated fat can be beneficial to the heart." This is incorrect. The article said "saturated fats are not nearly as deleterious as you would think," and that lard, for instance, has more "good fats" -- monounsaturated and polyunsaturated -- than "bad fats" -- saturated. Thus, the overall effect on cholesterol profiles of eating lard rather than refined carbohydrates or starches would be at worst harmless. Squires quotes my article, but changes the meaning by eliding key phrases and replacing them with ellipses. She then describes Walter Willett as disagreeing with my assessment, which is only true if you delete what Squires indeed did delete from the quote.

Squires says I reject the findings of The 1998 Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults, due to my "negative personal assessment of the panel's chair." This is incorrect. Nor do I reject the findings. The report actually concludes that low-fat diets do not work. It says reducing calories is crucial to successful weight loss, something we both agree on, then says on page 95 in English "Reducing dietary fat alone without reducing calories is not sufficient for weight loss. However, reducing dietary fat, along with reducing dietary carbohydrates can facilitate caloric reduction."

Squires says I disagree with the findings of the Diabetes Prevention Study. This is incorrect. I disagree with Squires's interpretation of the findings: that the DPP data are compelling evidence for the efficacy of low-fat diets. The DPP reported that low-fat low-calorie diets and 150 minutes of weekly exercise produced a 5 percent to 7 percent weight-loss (15 to 21 pounds for a 300-pounder) over six years. Because the study included no control group for the dietary arm, for all we know exercise and a low-carbohydrate low-calorie diet might have produced much greater weight loss. Implying that this data confirms the efficacy of a low-fat diet is sophistic. Passing this kind of sophistry off as good science is common in this field and its media coverage and is regrettable.

Finally, Squires reports my skepticism of research by Dr. Richard Fleming without giving the context. As I explained at length to Squires, clinical trials are expensive, difficult and time-consuming. Even small dietary trials can easily cost several hundred thousand dollars and require entire research teams. The DPP estimated a cost of $1,075 just to recruit each participant.

Fleming reports on a one-year trial of 100 participants and four diets with extensive follow-up. His paper, however, has no co-authors; it acknowledges no source of funding, nor any nurses, dietitians or technicians who might have helped. Fleming identifies himself as Medical Director of Preventive Cardiology, the Camelot Foundation at the Fleming Heart & Health Institute, but if his Web site or receptionist are any indication, he is the sole member of each of those.

As for the issue of peer-review, Fleming states that his patients "were randomly assigned to one of the four dietary regimens based upon dietary preferences." This protocol is pivotal to interpretation of the findings, yet oxymoronic: If patients were assigned to diets based on their dietary preferences, then they weren't randomly assigned. If they were randomly assigned, then their preferences must be irrelevant. The two methods are incompatible. If this paper was peer-reviewed, it was done poorly. If this constitutes high-quality research in this field, then I suggest even more skepticism is necessary.

Gary Taubes
Venice, Calif.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Sep-26-02, 15:48
Sheldon's Avatar
Sheldon Sheldon is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 411
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 174/163/163 Male 5 feet 7 inches
BF:21.1%/18.5%/18.5%
Progress: 100%
Location: Conway, AR
Thumbs up

Bravo, to Taubes. His point about Bacon (not the meat) and Popper is excellent. The piling up of apparent confirmations is not nearly as powerful as one observation that contradicts a hypothesis. In this regard, I urge people to read Dr. Uffe Ravnskov's book, The Cholesterol Myths. You'll see how many contrary observations there are regarding the conventional thesis that dietary fat causes high cholesterol, which in turn causes heart disease and heart attacks. It's a great book.

Thanks, Dr. Byrnes.

Sheldon
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Sep-26-02, 16:32
tamarian's Avatar
tamarian tamarian is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 19,512
 
Plan: Atkins/PP/BFL
Stats: 400/223/200 Male 5 ft 11
BF:37%/17%/12%
Progress: 89%
Location: Ottawa, ON
Default

For those who missed Squires' article, here's the link:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthre...&threadid=58115

Wa'il
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Sep-27-02, 14:53
JeffE JeffE is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 62
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 210/193/185 Male 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 68%
Location: Massachusetts
Default Excellent

I am glad Taubes corrected the record and did not leave the Squires piece unanswered. The Squires article went into such depth, many wondered what to make of it, which was the point, I guess. In my view, it's a low-fat hachet job.

This is a very good letter.

JeffE
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Oct-14-02, 00:59
boltcatche's Avatar
boltcatche boltcatche is offline
New Member
Posts: 7
 
Plan: Atkins, BFL
Stats: 255/209/200
BF:
Progress: 84%
Default

I think Tommy Lee Jonesí line from Men In Black would about sum this up:

"Fifteen hundred years ago everyone KNEW the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago everyone KNEW the earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago you KNEW people were alone on earth."

It appears that a good many people KNOW that low fat, high carb diets are THE way to eat. Welcome to the Emerald City! Please Ignore the Man behind the Curtain!

Nick
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Low-Fat Gurus, Pritikin 'Spa' Challange Gary Taubes's article in NYT tamarian LC Research/Media 8 Tue, Sep-09-03 20:15
Here is an article bashing 'big fat lie': fairchild LC Research/Media 18 Mon, Sep-08-03 17:37
Washington Post Magazine article on why Americans are getting fatter liz175 LC Research/Media 3 Mon, Mar-31-03 07:40
Atkins Response after Taubes article tofi LC Research/Media 10 Fri, Aug-23-02 21:55
Gary Taubes -- Cardiovascular Disease Voyajer LC Research/Media 4 Fri, Aug-02-02 16:51


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:32.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.