I do hope you'll stay and poke around the site a bit!
You'll probably figure out pretty quickly that I'm not much of a strict-anything in either the diet I consume or advocate (actually I don't really advocate any lifestyle in particular). But if I had to describe my diet these days as closely as I possible with a plan/book you may be familiar with, it would be a slightly imperfect, slightly higher in protein/lower in fat version of the Jaminets' Perfect Health Diet. I'm not aligned with any movement and have no agenda here at this blog other than what sparks my own interest. I guess it rubs some the wrong way that I don't suck up to or properly "honor" those bloggers with clout and/or followings just because they do. So, just so you know where I'm coming from ....
Although many find their way here through my no holds barred posts on various internet celebs/gurus and book authors, the bulk of my work is actually sharing my take on various peer review science of relevance. In this regard my interests in fat metabolism and NEFA has led me to share quite a bit on diabetes of late, though I'm not diabetic myself.
The internet is an interesting place. For all the unsolicited advice I get from places far and wide, regarding what I should blog on and how I should do it, most folks seem strangely drawn to gawking at the minority of posts here addressing gurus and celebrities. It really is a minority of the now over 500 posts. That is what it is, but it's not why I post whatever it is that I do. And if you're one of those would-be advisors, I think this speaks more to what and why you're reading here than what and why I'm posting. That is even if you bother to read at all before offering up the criticism.
I have exposed Gary Taubes for his misrepresentation of his own references. I've never said that he's just in it for the money or picked on his appearance etc. I have said that he is dishonest and I can back that assertion up (see the GCBC Fact Check (older) and Gary Taubes Fact Check (newer) labels down the right hand side). I've also speculated as to why. If I received three-quarters of a million advance and it took five years to deliver on that, there would certainly be financial interests involved in terms of defending my hypothesis. I don't know if Gary didn't read all of his references or how many contra-indicating ones he has ignored, etc., but it should be clear by this point that this man lacks integrity on this issue. It's been several years and numerous critiques before mine have pointed out his errors and misrepresentations. He could have come clean on many of his transgressions, but rather one by one he's successively dropped the controversial parts of his hypothesis from lectures and writings rather than owning up. His decision to try to portray me as some sort of mentally unstable stalker because I declined to call him up on the phone -- at his beckoning when I was a very obscure anonymous blogger -- is amusing to this day. If I have a claim to fame it might be that I appear to have been the only person who really took a close look at GT's references in addition to the flaws in his hypothesis per se. The evidence is damning to all but the most biased by dogma.
If you read nothing else here, read this: Glyceroneogenesis v. Taubes
This was the first post I wrote that caused the dust up. Fred Hahn came swooping in and later Jimmy Moore followed. In the end, many months later, Gary brushed this off as "just rat studies" after all. Really? If that was all there was to it when Fred found my -- then very obscure blog with like one follower and a handful of comments -- why did he run to Gary like it was a four alarm fire? Because I hit his truth nerve, that's why. And speaking of Jimmy, who will do a nasty hit piece on someone without a second thought if he thinks it will generate revenues -- including interviewing yours truly -- I'm sure those attendees of AHS who ran into him must have noted just how well livin la vida low carb is working for him these days.
But back to GT, you know, all the texts were wrong (except for his own GCBC reference Newsholme & Start) and it all just got a little skewed over the years. I'll never understand how anyone takes this man seriously any more. If you're a scientist he's basically called you all corrupted stupid idiots who wouldn't know good science if it hit you over the head. And if you're a lay person, he regularly condescends by apologizing for the science stuff in even his most simplistic discussions of same. But to each their own heroes I suppose. Speaking of knocking scientists, I'm wondering just how well Tom Naughton's "scientists are liars" schtick went over. I've yet to see mention of him in any of the various memoirs of AHS posted about the net.
Gary: Address your own Pima Problem the next time you have an urge to call others out.
For this man to accuse Stephan Guyenet of cherry picking, in what I'm sure will not be his finest moment on video once that's made available, is beyond hubris. He was clearly rattled by Stephan's comment on his blog a short time back summarily dismissing his carbs -> insulin -> fat accumulation spiel, and misplaced his agitation. That's my take ... I'm entitled to it, no?
If you're here from PaleoHacks, try to check your preconceptions at the door. I know that's tough to do, but if you can't, perhaps just move on and ignore rather than make asses of yourselves. The nonsense noise at your site is not becoming of the highly evolved minds the members of your site seem to pride yourselves on.
This blog is probably most useful for recovering low carbers and low carbers for whom the approach is not working either weightwise, healthwise or otherwise. But heck, head on over to my library if you're just interested in some peer review material to mull over. There's lots there that I've yet to take a crack at. Start your own blog on what trips your fancy! Just remember your own advice and post w/o blog reward.