I said I wouldn’t argue with you about the diet…but I have to disagree with you about this. The man said that Taubes quoted him accurately - his problem is with Taubes’ larger thesis and how his quotes may associate him with it. If Taubes was reporting his quotes accurately, that’s what matters. His fear that others will conclude he agrees with Taubes’ doesn’t mean Taubes’ journalisti integrity is wanting.
Nor does the fact that he didn’t report what everyone wanted him to, (the other researchers he didn’t quote). It’s a given that he could find BOATLOADS of obesity doctors and researchers who would tell him that calories are it and fat is bad. That he didn’t tell us that in that article means nothing - the article was questioning all that well-known information.
And you said it yourself: this was about his article, which is now ten years old and actually just asked questions more than anything.
So I think it’s a pretty weak proof of gaps in Taubes’ journalistic integrity.
I disagree. If you are writing an article that is questioning the thoroughly familiar and widely accepted, why would you spend a lot of space quoting people saying it repeatedly? What is the purpose or value? You think someone is going to read an article in the New York Times that questions whether low-fat/low cal is the answer and be in the dark about low-fat/low-cal dogma?
Stoid, if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re claiming that Taubes’ reporting of a researcher’s quotes accurately is what matters, regardless of the larger context of Taubes’ intent. Is that right?
Why, then, should we consider everything you’ve said in the context in which you said it? When I quoted you regarding calories (“Since the number of calories is the same, it’s nonsensical to say that ‘calories count’. They don’t. The composition of the calories is what counts.”), you said pulling quotes out of context like that was “ridiculous.”
I quoted you accurately … isn’t that what matters?
He referenced Reaven on Syndrome X as part of what he was saying. Reaven did not find that Taubes’ took him out of context, he was concerned that simply because he was referenced, and referenced accurately, that people reading the piece would conclude that he supported Taubes’ entire thesis.
All Taubes’ did was include Reaven’s research, and he did so accurately, and in the correct context. Reaven just didn’t want anyone to make assumptions based on that, which they might or might not, but as you can see from the way Taubes’ wrote it, he didn’t make that assertion:
Reaven did not say any of this wasn’t true, and none of this says “Reaven agrees with everyhting I’m saying in this whole article”.
Actually, now that I think about it, Reaven wasn’t complaining about being taken out of context, he was complaining about being placed in the context of Taubes’ whole article.
But again: Taubes simply cites his work, cites it accurately, and in fact his work does support some of what Taubes’ is saying. All factual, all true, all accurate, all fair.
I’m not talking about the research itself. I’m talking about accurate quoting regardless of context. Earlier you seemed to feel the context was important:
and then later you didn’t:
Just trying to alleviate the cognitive dissonance.
I have read (listened to) most of the book and I thoroughly agree with that review as well. He’d say something like squirrels will build fat before winter no matter what they are fed, and I wanted to scream “BUT WE’RE NOT FUCKING SQUIRRELS ARE WE” but didn’t because I was on the treadmill at the gym.
I’ve answered that in depth. Read the thread. If the copious words I’ve already writtin in direct response to all questions about my thoughts and words on calories are not sufficient to answer this question, I can’t imagine any other words I could assemble that would.
But you’ll find in the following some more information on the subject, along with a great deal more.
I found Taubes’ response to Fumento’s criticism, and it seems what I found self-evident was Taubes’ view exactly regarding not quoting everybody:
He pretty much shreds everything Fumento says. It’s quite lengthy and those interested in both sides, and who feel swayed by Fumento need to read it in order to decide if Fumento’s criticism is accurate.
For instance: (And to the Copyright gods: Follow the link. The rebuttal is VERY VERY VERY long. These quotes do not represent a significant percentage)
(And rememebr that all of this was in relation to Taubes’ NYT article from 2002.)
I have no problem believing low carb works for people as a means of reducing their overall calorie consumption, just like you said here:
I also don’t really feel like it’s dangerous, except insofar as it gives people the idea that they can gorge on huge numbers of calories and still lose weight. The problem with all weight loss advice, so far as I can see, is the required willpower necessary to stick to the plan. I agree with you that diets should be tailored to the individual, and if a given person finds that low carb works for them, that’s great. But is there any evidence that low carb diets are easier to stick with long term? I’ve poked around online and while I find many extremely zealous people who claim long term success, I also see many references to people who found the diet near impossible to stick to, due to the extreme limitations and side effects like bad breath and constipation.
I did find the National Weight Control Registry, which tracks the small percentage of dieters who maintain long term weight loss. Their website says “Most [successful dieters] report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity”. Several other sources report that less than 1% of registry members used low carb diets. If they’re so great and have been around since the 70s (in the form of Atkins), why aren’t they more heavily represented?
I also found this study, which found that the rate of adherence of low carb dieters was less than that of low fat dieters. Thisdoctors blog sites a study that says “People do a pretty good job of losing weight for about half a year, and then their weight tends to drift back toward their pre-diet number.” in reference to several kinds of diets, including Atkins.
Obviously, I don’t know the answer to long-term diet success - if I did, I’d be a millionaire. If people find a diet they can stick to long term, that’s great, but also pretty unusual unfortunately. What I disagree with is that low-carb diets are the solution for absolutely anyone who’s overweight. I also disagree with the idea that you can eat as much as you want as long as it doesn’t include the dreaded carbs. And I seriously doubt that most people who lose weight on low-carb diets do so for any other reason than calorie reduction. And I don’t think the rise in obesity is due to increased carb intake - it’s due to an increase in total calorie intake and a decrease in physical activity.
Overall, I don’t see an issue with people trying low-carb diets. Whether or not I think low-carb diets succeed at getting people to lose weight (at least temporarily) has very little bearing on whether or not I think Gary Taubes is full of shit. As HarvardUniversity says “Want to know the secret to losing weight that diet books have been hiding from you? Take in fewer calories—it doesn’t really matter how […] what you eat takes a backseat to how much you eat”.
Low carb is boring for people who really like a ton of variety in their food. Personally, I can pretty much eat the same thing every day, so this isn’t a huge drawback for me, but it is for some people.
Societal pressure really does push back against low carb, especially doctors.
Many of the proponents set up unrealistic claims for the diet, that you can gorge yourself all day every day, lose weight, then keep it off. I don’t care what you’re gorging on, if you’re gorging, you’re doing it wrong.
Side effects can be off-putting.
Picky eaters struggle because of the lack of those bland foods so often favored by the picky.
It can be expensive and inconvenient.
Most importantly, it ain’t a miracle. It takes work. It’s not the easy way to waltz to weight loss and a lot of people don’t want to work at all on themselves.
Of course he does. He’s not going to say “yes, that’s right - I did cherrypick the research”, is he? I will note that part of his defence to the accusation of cherrypicking is pretty much ‘well he did it too’, which I find less than compelling.
I also like his reasoning for dropping one of the people he interviewed - “[…] Marion Nestle, is a nutritionist and administrator with a background in molecular biology. She is not and never has been an obesity researcher, nor has she ever treated obese patients.” That’s quite rich, coming from someone who has never even studied biology, nutrition, or medicine at all.
Do you mean to sell the idea that his thousands of words, which include direct quotes and emails from the researchers in question, along with tons of other information that completely underminds what Fumento has said, is nothing more than him bitching about Fumento to protect his ego, vs. proving that Fumento’s critique was dishonest?
This is a dishonest characterization. He is not “defending” what you call cherrypicking by saying Fumento did it “too” - he is flat out busting Fumento for being hypocritical enough to accuse Taubes of cherrypicking BY cherrypicking. These are entirely different, particularly in light of the fact that he makes it very clear that he absolutely did not “cherrypick” at all!
Cherrypicking means “pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherrypicking” He ignored nothing! He stated at the outset: we all know that X is what most folks in this field say…now let’s look at the stuff we don’t hear about so much. The very purpose of cherrypicking is to suggest, by the complete absence of opposing data, that there is no opposing data, therefore what you’re trying to prove must be true. So if he’s cherrypicking, he’s totally missing the point of it by stating clearly that other voices are saying something other than what he’s now telling us.
Cherrypicking is what the man who sold us the calorie theory (Ancel Keys) did when he did his research on fat and heart disease. He started with a belief, untested, that eating fat leads to heart disease. Then he looked for countries where heart disease and fat consumption were both high, leaving out countries where fat was high and heart disease low, or fat low and heart disease high. Then he “studied” these cherrypicked countries and concluded that correlation =causation. THAT is cherrypicking.
Ancel Keys, or perhaps it was the people who reported, also “cherrypicked” when he/they sold us the idea that the key to losing weight was calorie restriction, while failing to note that said restriction also leads to getting fatter, and having a higher fat percentage overall, than you were when you started.
So we’ve been led around by some heavily cherrypicked information for a long time - Taubes’ is finally exposing that fact.
Which is another way of saying you have no problem continuing to believe what you are convinced of to start with, in spite of any and all evidence you are shown that should lead you to question it.
By the way, you were very convinced that Fumento’s piece was “damning” to Taubes’ journalistic integrity; Now that you’ve seen evidence of Fumento’s journalistic integrity, (less than impressive, to put it mildly) I guess you now think he’s not to be trusted, right? Or do you still find him the voice of reason, seeing as how he’s agreeing with your position, the one you won’t consider re-thinking in the face of any evidence you’re shown?
None of it matters, of course… we are all entitled to believe as we see fit, and do as we see fit. I’d just like to understand exactly how you come to your conclusions and convictions. Because so far you’ve offered up your “bullshit meter” based on reading a lot of “scientific writing”, and Fumento, who Taubes’ has thoroughly discredited. Again…you’re entitled. You can believe anything at all based on nothing at all, I’d just like to know for my own reference when we engage in debate and discussion.
(And really, Meyer, I’m only picking on you because you at least made the effort to come up with something other than your own opinion, when almost everyone else who is pooh-poohing this is working off nothing but their opinion. Since you tried, it would be very nice to see you demonstrate some consistence in how you assess integrity. Doing so would speak well to your own integrity, and that in turn would lend a little weight to your opinion of others’. Cool how that works…)
VERY MUCH agreed. This is what kept me from embracing it- what’s the point of using a diet that you have to abandon because it’s so terrible? And that’s why I’m passionate about Taubes’ book and the information he’s gathered; I think many people have shied away from something that really would be the right answer for them in terms of both weight and health, but they’ve been bullied into believing it isn’t and so keep trying to make starvation work…and keep getting fatter.
Hmmm…maybe some. It’s hard to imagine any but the most compulsive of emotional overeaters being ABLE to “gorge” to such an extent that all bets are off and NO weight loss occurs, since many longtime low carbers report very high-calorie eating on a consistent basis alongside successful weight loss AND, as we’ve all agreed, eating this way is so very satisfying that “gorging” is not desired at all. I think of gorging as driven by three factors: hunger driven by blood sugar spikes, appetite driven by blood sugar spikes, and both or either of those in combination with emotional eating.
I say this because I’ve overeaten, and I’ve gorged. Overeating is something almost everyone does sometimes, and many low-carbers always overeat, in that they are consistently eating significantly more calories than they “should” be; calories that would, we’re told, lead to no weight loss or even weight gain. But they don’t.
Again: I am amazed that so many people make the assertion that it’s “hard” to replace the calories of the high-carb foods when switching to low-carb: one ounce of carbohydrate equals 112 calories. One ounce of fat equals 252. In more real world terms that account for water and other nutrients, compare one ounce of potato, 27 calories, to one ounce of sausage, 101 calories. Granted, you aren’t going to sit down and eat “fat” like you’ll eat popcorn, but since fat IS so calorie dense, it’s a snap to eat lots of calories.
Gorging is ultimately very uncomfortable on pretty much every level, ranging from shame to bowel movements, so unless someone is using food as a drug, in combination with insulin driven cravings, it’s hard to see many people consistently gorging.
All to say, in the absense of emotional eating and blood sugar crazies, I can’t see many people gorging. Eating plenty, till unquestionably sated, but not gorging. And that will lead to weight loss, although perhaps not as fast as they would like.
(**FTR: ** while I have been stumping for the idea that calories are not the reason for obesity, I DO AGREE that eating enormous amounts of food is going to present a much greater challenge to even the world’s most smoothly running fat regulation system. In other words, you’ll probably lose weight faster and more easily if you try to leave a little room. I believe, I know, that you do not have to eat “low calorie” to lose weight eating low carb, but the fewer fat and protein calories you give your system to use, you make it easier for your system to use up your bodyfat. Because, as I’ve said and explained to exhaustion, yes, the body does respond to restricted calories by eating itself. So, within the context of a low-carbohydrate diet, where the body’s fat regulation system is working properly to burn off the bodyfat no matter how much you eat, reducing calories is a way to rev the engine and lose weight faster. We’re only animals, after all, and if our poor systems are forced to work as hard as they can to keep burning “gorge” calories, it’s going to be a far greater challenge to expect it to do a great job burning off the bodyfat at the same time.)
Agreed, says the woman with bad breath and “regularity” challenges.
That’s what’s so great about carbs: the blank canvass. One thing about low-carbing it, everything you eat is going to have an assertive flavor to it, which is why it’s so hard to come up with low-carb foods to replace the carby food. (Like Drain Bead’s coconut flour tortillas. I’m willing to give it a shot, but…coconut? Although it does seem that the food scientists of the world could find away to pretty much remove most of the flavor from some things like coconut, leaving a blank canvas.But that’s the “frankenfoods” that most dedicated low-carbers decry.) I never thought about how people who don’t like assertive flavor might be put off, but it makes sense. I’m very thankful that I love meat as much as I do, because if I didn’t I’d be stumped how to make this work over the long haul.
Agreed. I’ve been eating fried chicken wings because I really like them and I want to eat what I really like, otherwise why bother. But setting up to fry chicken wings is a much bigger mess and hassle than toast or a sandwich or opening a can of soup or eating a frozen meal…
And mess is big. Especially dealing with chicken, a subject I’m a little hysterical about after a bad experience a year or two ago. I feel the need to douse my whole kitchen in bleach every time I go near raw chicken, terrifeid that I have forgotten what I touched or that it might have spashed. (My experience was on the heels of the most fleeting encounter with raw chicken - it was fast and violent. Learned me a big lesson I THOUGHT I’d learned long ago. Evidently I needed some experience to drive it home.)
And still more agreement.
That’s what I find curious about any suggestion that anyone turns to this as some kind of miracle answer. Eating tasty fatty food I like is definitely much better than severe restriction of fat and calories, but it’s not as though I don’t want sweets or bread or rice or whatever. I wish like hell I could have a tall cold glass of Collins mix right now. A simple pleasure, but I can’t have it and that’s a drag. Nothing, ***absolutely nothing ***that results in significant weight loss, is without some kind of meaningful sacrifice and discomfort that must be weathered. There is no easy way. The only thing that’s easy is eating whatever you damn please, and that’s not going to lead to weight loss. But some ways are easier and healthier and more sustainable than others.