I assume, having low-carbed it in the past, that you’re familiar with mashed cauliflower instead of potatoes?
Yeah, and I have to say I don’t get it. The only way it resembles mashed potatoes for me is visually. But I like it, I like cauliflower. It’s just cauliflower, though, not potatoes.
Most of the things that try to actually “be” the thing they replace miss the mark for me. They are fine in and of themselves, but I don’t generally find they satisfy my desire for the other thing, or add the way the other thing adds to the meal. (My lettuce taco shells don’t actually remind me of real tortilla shells, they create their own pleasures. Its more about extending and experimenting with the asian Lettuce Wrap dish than really using lettuce to “replace” tortillas.
I’m always open, though. The closer to having the pleasures of high-carb foods I can get without messing it all up by actually eating those foods, the happier I am, so I’m not going to assume until I try.
Oh, and having said that I have to say that I know from experience I have to approach replacements very carefully, because if they are too good or successful, they can be very triggering. I adore pancakes, and i found a great low-carb pancake mix. Bad idea, because I don’t get much satisfaction from one small pancake…and a pancake mix good enough to be worth eating is almost guaranteed to have enough carbs that it should be eaten very sparingly. So why go there at all?
First off, I provided the first review I posted (here), which you seem to be ignoring. Second, I don’t see why we should ignore the Fumento review based solely on what Taubes says about him - he’s hardly an impartial judge is he? Third, I’m not sure why you don’t seem to believe that experience in reading scientific writing can help you to interpret new data when you want us to put a lot of trust in you based on your life history of reading about obesity. Fourth, I’m not really interested in proving my ‘integrity’ to you, and I don’t think anything would convince you of that anyways.
It all comes down to whatever you end up believing. You obviously believe everything Taubes says, and you are certainly entitled to that. I don’t believe everything he says, and I think I’ve provided ample reasons why. It has nothing to do with ‘continuing to believe whatever I was convinced of to start with’, it has to do with looking at the evidence and using my own judgment. The fact that someone continues to believe what they believed before does not necessarily imply that they are closed-minded and never considered the alternatives.
You wanted people to read you book, and I read your book. I’m not obliged to agree with you about what it says, and I’m clearly not alone in my opinion about it.
You didn’t offer it up as a demonstration of Taubes’ lack of journalistic integrity, which is what I took issue with.
First, I have a problem with the idea that we’re supposed to take Fumento’s words as proof that Taubes’ isn’t trustworthy, but not do the reverse.
Secondly, not based on what Taubes said about him…what Taubes said about the people and information being discussed.
Incorrect. What I want is for everyone to recognize that most intelligent, reasonanbly well informed obese people are not very likely to be wandering around in a clueless haze about the subject of obesity, diet and exercise because they are obese. Especially not because they are obese, since being obese means they are much more motivated and therefore much more likely to have sought out a lot more information on the subject than the average non-obese person.
I don’t doubt that. But we’re not alone here, I thought you might have some investment in how you appear overall.
No argument with this at all.
You must go to a different gym than me.
I was reminding you of that review in response to your statement “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.” That statement was incorrect - I also offered a review written by a medical doctor as well as specific criticism of some of Taubes’ claims (all overweight people are following current medical advice, only 20 extra calories a day will make you obese).
I have no problem with how I appear overall - I think the readers of the dope are plenty able to form their own opinions based on our words and posting history. As I said, I feel that I have provided ample reasons for my opinion. I’m sorry if you feel that anyone who disagrees with you is just toeing the party line and closing their eyes to what you see as incontrovertible evidence. Just because you feel that way doesn’t make it true.
If anything I think you’re the one who "continues to believe what they were convinced of to start with’, since you started the thread convinced that overweight and obese people got that way through no fault of their own, and that calorie restriction and exercise would never lead to weight loss. Conveniently, Taubes gave you a ‘scientific’ reason to keep believing that.
I tabbed out and noticed it when I came back. :smack:
I define it as “owning my decisions and my response to things I have no control over.” You apparently define it as “pointing to every possible reason for my actions other than my own choices.”
Next week, on ***Stoid *at the SDMB: Stoid defends a book about the moon landing hoax. “If you are writing a book that is questioning the thoroughly familiar and widely accepted, why would you spend a lot of space quoting people who give all the evidence why we actually visited the moon and rebutting all of the conspiracy theories that claim we didn’t?”
This is a chronic problem with vegetarian foods. The worst ones try to be imitations of something meat; the best ones just make use of their own properties instead of trying to imitate something they’re not.
To further expand why this is cherry-picking:
If you are challenging a widely held belief, you need to acknowledge that it’s widely held. That means that if someone is actively disagreeing with you, you need to break down why they’re wrong. When someone, especially someone making a scientific claim, only cites those who agree with them, it strongly suggests that it’s because they *have no response *to their challengers.
That’s what cherry-picking means: you comb through the sources on a topic, and instead of addressing all of them, you only present the ones that support your position. When you encounter something that suggests that what you’re arguing for is wrong, instead of refuting it, you ignore it.
Frankenfood. Works for some apparently.
He did. Extensively, repeatedly, in depth. In the article and both books.
I think Taubes actually does a good job (in Good Calories, Bad Calories) of pointing out why the “conventional wisdom” is mistaken and why studies were misinterpreted and the politics involved in putting out guidelines for diet.
Then all is well.
ISTM, that one of the primary criticisms was that a bunch of researchers’ quotes were twisted and/or taken out of context. Pretty damning to Taubes’ credibility, regardless of it being “conceivable” that other people interviewed thought his article “had merit”, whatever loosy goosy meaning that has.
Nope. No one accused him of mistating facts, or taking them out of context. The concerns were that by being included at all readers would infer that the parties in question were in complete agreement with Taubes’.
Basically:
[ul]
[li]Taubes: I’m doing an article on the causes of obesity.[/li][li]Researcher: here’s my opinion/data xyz.[/li][li]Taubes article references opinion/data xyz accurately, in the correct context, without editorializing, extrapolating, or suggesting anything at all about what the researcher believes about Taubes’ overall POV.[/li][li]Researcher reads article, disagrees with Taubes’ overall thesis, freaks that they or their work is included at all, assuming that people will assume that they must agree with Taubes in all things. Blame and accuse Taubes inaccurately and falsely.[/li][li]People read some bits and pieces of this, assume that angry = accurate. Don’t bother to follow up, persist in the incorrect and unexamined beliefs about what the facts are, and assert them as truth to others.[/li][/ul]
Less assuming would be good.
Then maybe you shouldn’t assume that I had assumed anything. The researchers interviewed said things like
That means he thought it was taken out of context. There’s also the fact that they seem to think they gave data xyz, and Taubes only thought data y was worth mentioning. No, it seems to me Taubes isn’t very trustworthy.
No, it means exactly what I said:
means, exactly, precisely, umabiguously: “because he included the truth about me within an article that says things I do not agree with, people will assume I agree with the OTHER things.”
Which is exactly what I’ve said. Several times. I even said that the fear was to be placed IN the context of the article, not that Taubes took their words or data OUT of the context in which it was presented.
To take something out of context is to remove it from other information in such a way as to make it appear to * mean something it does not actually mean*. Writing the truth, accurately,** does not **do that, and that’s what Taubes’ did.
Once more: assuming is bad juju.
Oh and here:
you do this:
Congratulations.
That any of this is being thrown out as proof of anything is ludicrous, of course:
from my earlier link:
No, no, congratulations to you for finding the one true way. As for me, I think I’ll just recant on my death bed.
Seriously? Less assuming by everyone, or just everyone besides you? Wow, you have a lot invested in this garbage.