Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Friday, September 14, 2012

Open letter to Tom Naughton

You've been punked.  Oh .... and your version of Krusegate contains a blatant lie, not to mention that you put the smears out long past when the facts of his lies were out.  

Of course my comment went directly to your trash.  I on the other hand have the balls you so clearly lack to discuss things here.  You can comment, really.  I'm not afraid of you, but you apparently are of me for some reason....  Shall we speculate as to why??   LOL


Charles Grashow said...

There's also this beauty

CarbSanity says:
September 12, 2012 at 4:52 pm

Jimmy’s a tool and you’re not much better. This kind of devaluing – and co-opting – of the ‘paleo’ name is why people like Dr. Kurt Harris want nothing to do with it now.

Like I said, go get the professional help you so obviously need. Anyone who is so obsessed with me and Jimmy as to continue finding ways around being blocked just to leave yet another dumb-ass comment nobody who reads this blog will take seriously isn’t mentally balanced. I don’t expect you to grasp that, of course, because mentally unbalanced types never believe they’re mentally unbalanced. It’s everyone else who is the problem, ya see. Stalkers never look in the mirror and say “Holy crap, I’m a stalker!” They’re always 100% convinced the stalking is justified and they’re the ones being wronged.

You’re a stalker. You’re not well. You have issues, big ones. Go see a shrink.

Zbig said...

This is of course subjective but maybe in Tom Naughton's mind you are someone just like Razwell is to you?
To each their own "troll" (but imagine the one who consecutively is "stalkin" Razwell - not a picnic for sure!

Amanda Turner said...

I think Tom Naughton is excellent. He comes across as a really rational and decent human being. He is a very skilled and intelligent writer and speaker. I trust his judgement.

MM said...

Maybe CarbSanity is Razwell!

Charles Grashow said...

Why do you "trust his judgement"?

Melissa Mcewen said...

I would love to find out who CarbSanity/EatLessMoveMoore is. I know from private messages they have sent me via tumblr that this troll is male. Psychologically, I would estimate a single older marginalized man. He is slightly more intelligent and calculating than Razwell, but equally persistant.

Melissa Mcewen said...

He's one of the old boys club. He's too buddy buddy with Jimmy and Kruse to ever be objective about them.

Unknown said...

Melissa sees misogynists in her breakfast cereal

Gianni said...

Censoring my comment isn't a big deal but I would at least have appreciated an explanation of why it was found inappropriate.

Mine was a simple question of what happened, and why.
Just as I had no idea about JM's wife weight, it's not like everyone knows every detail of all the Paleo&co. community drama. It's mostly insider stuff.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...


I didn't censor anything.

Sometimes Blogger is dicey -- they have a spam filter that is utterly useless to totally counterproductive. I have no control. I checked spam and all of your comments have been published as I do not have moderation on.

I'll be responding later as I'm getting ready to have dinner soon.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Aww c'mon Unknown. Actually there's a separate old boys club in the LC community.

Melissa Mcewen said...

Actually, I happily work in a male dominated industry that is famous for misogyny and have rarely encountered the kind of attitudes I see in the "paleo" community. The only community I've seen that has it worse is maybe the atheist and gaming communities. I don't see what an old boys club has to do with misogyny, it's just a social structure that rewards incompetence. It excludes women, but also excludes men.

Strontium Pup said...

Unknown, that comment is ridiculous. The old boys' club may be an unfortunate reference but the lack of objectivity is a serious point that deserves our attention at the least. I don't trust anyone's judgment if that means surrendering my own and I don't expect it of anyone else. Whilst I might disagree with others' reasons for disagreeing with others, it it a right they have and one that I support and believe deserves not to be subjected to spurious criticisms such as yours. And, yes, I am familiar with the Nikoley feud.

Unknown said...

She set up an entire blog to do nothing but complain about misogyny, how can you say that she is not consumed by misogyny like Ahab was consumed by the White Whale?

MM said...

I think this sort of behavior may be par for the course with Naughton. He used to have an "Arguing with Idiots" series. Maybe he still does. At first it seemed to me that he had stumbled into conversations with dietitians/nutritionists who disagreed with him and he would publish their debates. However, after a while there were just a few too many "Arguing with Idiots" exchanges on his blog and it seemed more and more like he was setting up unsuspecting people so he could bring them down and make himself look good. I think Naughton would much rather deal with CarbSanity than the real CarbSane. He can't compete when it comes to discussing the science and he knows it.

Melissa Mcewen said...

Egads, complaining about misogyny, why would anyone complain misogyny?

relogic said...

TM's real gig is Libertarianism. That is his true love. Occasionally (actually quite often) as he did in "Fat Head"--he beats up on the government, give corps a pass and screams "FREE MARKET". Interspersed among his LC citations are the many diatribes against big, bad, government control. While his predictable rants against gov interference in such things as selling raw milk to your neighbor are commendable on their face--he is not tolerant of challenges to his hate-on-the-government-derangement.

I laud his attention to the nutrition debate, but he and his brother's Lib'trn schtick is getting old.

relogic said...

TM=TN (Tom Naughton)

screennamerequired said...

So he didn't publish you're comment correcting things?

Zbig said...

the "old boys' club" is loaded with ageism and misandry :)
above this I believe that private resources like time, interest, sympathy, etc can be spent in whatever "club" one wishes.
I don't get Melissa's point - she complains that Naughton is in a oldboys' club that excludes woman? so what should be the ideal solution - convince or force them to include you?
Would you be happy about this?
And probably they form their club (if there is any, I am not familiar with the details of their lives) because they had been excluded by women in the first place. If they could join a 'bikini club' or at least 'merry widows' club they wouldn't have to find consolation in their grim oldboy's club

Josh said...

Interesting. Free market ideology has been associated with global warming denialism and anti-science beliefs.

"belief in a free market ideology was also predictive of rejection of the scientifically demonstrated link between tobacco and lung cancer and between HIV and AIDS." - More data on why people reject science

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I am not this person Zbig. And Tom Naughton knows this. And yet he's willing to make it seem as if it was me.

This person is a troll -- and although he doesn't troll this blog under these monikers -- is more insidious to me than even Razwell. This individual tries to incite discord between bloggers by creating conflicts that don't exist. He parrots many of my descriptions, and of course my name, trying to stir up trouble. Sometimes he posts seemingly supportive comments as regards me, other times the polar opposite.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Hey Pup! Sorry, I never got around to responding to your comment on the egg thread. Welcome to the Asylum! I hope you'll chime in from time to time when you don't agree with my conclusions on something.

Not speaking for Melissa, just for myself based on my past experience with the LC boys club (Taubes, Naughton, Eades, a few more at the time), the response to my criticisms of Taubes science was to try to paint me as a stalker. Tom called me mentally unstable for posting a couple of comments on his blog.
They can't counter the science, so that's what they have to resort to.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Welcome relogic! Fat Head was a very confusing movie. It starts out seeming to try to debunk Supersize Me, interviews lots of people to show that junk food is not addictive and folks don't overeat it, loses some weight counting calories eating McD's junk, muses on about how much more active kids were in "his day" (roughly my day as well) what with walking to school and all that, starts out with just fine bloodwork and ends up with nominally better bloodwork, and then .... Off on the LC starving cells insulin is bad nonsense, and an undocumented LC experiment where he loses some weight.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

No ... and that's a good point that I'll update this post with.

Galina L. said...

Somebody posted a comment pointing to Tom that CarbSanity was not the Carbsane,
he answer
"I’m addressing whoever CarbSanity is. All I know is that it’s someone in New Mexico, based on the various IP addresses. The same nut-job keeps showing up here and on the YouTube channel and finding ways to get around being blocked. That’s stalker behavior."
May be he had an excuse not to post Evelyn's comment because he was called an "Idiot" there.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Yeah, wouldn't want to publish a comment where he's called an idiot when he's posted far worse about me (and I'm talking back in Jan 2011).

Of course he could just have not posted the troll comments at all, but that wouldn't suit his purposes.

Galina L. said...

He sure skipped the obvious option of not publicizing the troll's comments.

Melissa Mcewen said...

I guess some people don't understand what an old boy's network is. It's not a pejorative as "old", that just means established. It operates a bit like a fraternity. Maybe you free market people would understand it better if I made an analogy to unions. It acts like a union in that its members defend each other even if it means defending bad science. I don't want to be included in their friends group, but I want people to understand that Tom is not defending people like Kruse because Kruse has amazing scientific ideas, but because Kruse is his buddy. They don't find great ideas among other groups of people because they are so invested in their own.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Great description Melissa.

Funny you mention fraternities, because from early on that's how I described Naughton and Taubes. Maybe it's because I'm only a bit younger than them and spent much of my college socializing time at frat houses, the general mindset was so familiar to me.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Yep. This is deliberate in my opinion. Similar in style to folks like Jimmy and Andreas Eenfeldt and even still Kruse, who make vague nameless accusations against various people. When Naughton went off on this particular troll he made no effort to distinguish that this was not me -- responding served his purpose. Both he and Andreas pointed accusatory fingers my way on their blogs in truly low class fashion. Kruse is still at it even after being "sent to his room". He still plays the martyr when anything happens -- the "insurgents" are supposedly hounding him. Most recently he blamed these nameless insurgents for emailing threats and calling police over a post containing a letter supposedly written by a gymnast. He removed the post and claimed this was the reason. Who do you think people are thinking about when he makes such accusations?

Zbig said...

Although I can understand lurking JM's LLVLC for "who's on today's episode" but are you telling that you are up-to-date with Jack Kruse's stuff?
(btw who can honestly tell they have ever been up to date with this mess :)
subscribing there is not an act of stalking - it's masochism :)

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I only listen to the rare podcast these days. Jimmy actually blogs so very rarely

I don't keep up with Kruse these days, but you need to understand that I receive emails from other people who do on a rather regular basis. This is how I found out about this Naughton stuff -- email alert -- and between reading Paleo Drama, the AHS12 Twitter feed and emails, I'm aware Kruse is back up to his old shenanigans and pointing fingers in his martyrdom. He took down that gymnast post likely because the gymnast was informed of some creative "photography".

Oh ... and Jimmy told a whopper of a lie in his recent update post. But you're not interested in fraud, right?

Galina L. said...

I will try to leave a comment that he encourages that troll just because I think it is what he is doing.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Ahh well, my update crashed in the browser.

As I've been discussing with Galina, he had the option of just deleting or not responding to this troll (and that is the more appropriate term, there's a difference between trolling and stalking). He let this through and responded rather than just ignoring for a reason and that's to let his readers use their imaginations that it was me.

There can be little doubt he was trying to jog their memories of his former accusations of stalking.

Lighthouse keeper said...

Echoing some of the comments made above, it seems to me that that the paleo movement is driven more by ideology than anything else. Certainly the same thing could be said of veganism but most proponents of it would not deny it. Paleo seems to have caught on with the survivalists and preppers who should really be more into the storage of grains.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Thanks for the try Galina. Yeah geez Tom, wonder why anyone would think you were talking about me. Lame. To be expected from a liar though. Yes, he lied about the events on the cruise, so I'll call him that without apology.

Strontium Pup said...

Hello Evelyn. I do have a real name: Chris. I'll be sure to chime in with my disagreements on the science from time to time. I also have reasonably strong. Jews on a host of other subjects, and I will vent them here too, with your permission!

Zbig said...

in fraud? if it can be proven, why not? if it's speculations, I don't dig deep.

but now that I think about it, I guess most of all I am interesting in satisfying my low instincts by watching various fails of gurus - like this crossfit couch - more diversity if I may ask :)
oh yeah - I want more tabloidsy side here, more of your paparazzis around the world.

as for Taubes' theory, maybe it's wrong or incomplete but as long as lifestyle recommendations don't change (and there are known cases of low carb gurus living to 97 y.o.) I don't worry too much.

Strontium Pup said...

Oops! *views.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Chuckle ;) Maybe we need a typo hall of fame here, though I think another Chris (Highcock) gets the prize still for "unlimited gay" instead of "unlimited fat"!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Welcome LK! "Certainly the same thing could be said of veganism but most proponents of it would not deny it. " So true.

This is really what I was getting at a while back when I said Paleo is the new vegan. I wasn't referring to the +/- of the diets themselves, rather the ideology. It's always interesting to me how many ex-vegans/veggies there are in paleo ... and those who go back, or end up eventually incorporating the best of both into their lives.

Paleo blasphemers are shown little mercy!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Jimmy's lies are easy to prove, though I suspect many will poo poo them because he "helps people" with his podcasts. Whatevah :p

Anywho, take the tongue out of cheek now. I have no desire to turn this blog over to the tabloids, but from time to time such things must be addressed. I hear lots of bold and serious ideas being bantered about, but these can ultimately only be dragged down by forces like a Jimmy Moore.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

@Melissa, I think I know who it is, but that doesn't mean much, because there is no real life identity to this person. Tis really an extra special troll who masquerades as someone else in their trolling. Doesn't say much for those who fall for it and/or use him for cover to continue smearing me. Tom knows better. Yeah, gee Tom, why would your readers assume Carbsanity was me?

Zbig said...

Ultimately I believe that the best solution is to eat meat and veggies, and - depending on metabolic and activity status - fruits and starches. Jimmy believes that it should be poured with additional fat and this is where I don't agree with him

Now, if you spot errors in Taubes' theory and Lustig's charts, does this change anything in terms of "what should I have for dinner?" I don't believe so. But of course I would be interested in your critique on my "diet" so briefly described above :)

Do you give out "positive" hints like "starch should constitute at least 60% of calories"? I haven't noticed, so you like write about what other people wrote but are safe to not write anything that others can analize (not that I am eager to analize something myself :)

So this is my explanation why I like to see this tabloidy posts - I don't believe your analyzing Jimmy's advice will change my course, I am not interested in cornering Taubes, but always like this comical effect when author of diet books or better - exercise god looks fat

Gianni said...

I think Taubes could even be mostly right about carbs (etc.) for the western deseases part. Plus I must admit, as a foreigner, he's one of the people I like to listen speak.
The only problem is that thinking that Fat doesn't make you gain weight, no matter what, is an unbelievably ridiculous position (in my opinion). And that clearly hugely damages the credibily of his whole stance.
Usually I am VLC, but, for staying lean, starches might arguably be better than fat.
And everyone can do an easy experiment: drinking one pack of cream, eating 3 pounds of bacon, indulging in cashews (ecc.) every day of a week. I bet you'll gain.

To be fair, I find Stefan's Gwyneth Food Reward theory even more disappointing. Not only I think it's true only to a quite limited extent, it's something I'd expect from a undegrad student of psychology, or sociology, not a PhD in the field. Not clear nor scientific at all.
Either it's another case of "old boys club", or I really don't get why he gets a free pass from Carbsane, Melissa (et al.)

rodeo said...

What specific issues do you have with food reward?

Gianni said...

First of all, I apologize for writing Stephan Guyenet so wrong (the name was my mistake to begin with, for the surname I suppose google though I was searching for Paltrow the actress)

However, simply isn't clear what it means.
What are it's borders? To foggy.
Plus doesn't sound very scientific in general.

But, most importantly it only works to an extent.
Of course without modern frankenfoods, or anyway iperpalatable foods, obesity rates wouldn't be this high. No doubt.
Though I know as a fact that people can get quite fat also on Buckwheat and similars.

Instead, try getting fat on chicken breasts. Good luck.
Protein is the ultimate satiating and not iper palatable food (macronutrient).
(Ok, Glucose is still better than Fructose or sugar.)
That's it (for me).

In any case, even if he were right, I think his "duty" would have been to explain Biochemically why, let's say, most people would tend to eat more calories of butter than olive oil, before being equally satiated.
For other kind of explanations or Pop-Psycology (alike) theories, someone who had got nothing more than a C- at Biology 101 in High School, might have been enough.

Charles Grashow said...

A Tom Naughton - Fat Head smoochy fest.

Charles Grashow said...

“Big breasts are a sign of a female who lives in a pathway of reduction, low cortisol, low inflammation, and pro-gestation…… are designed to opt for that because it means the offspring of that coitus is more likely to do well because high progesterone levels lead to superior brain development in humans which correlates with excessive longevity. Progesterone levels are critical for humans.”
Jack Kruse

rodeo said...

I fail to see how your response would "sound more scientific" than the food reward theory. Could you please try to mount a response not using accusations and anecdotes but instead science as a base of your critique?

Gianni said...

Is my response necessarily supposed to sound that more scientific?
I don't know.
Not only because these were comments on a blog, in a language that's not my first, and in a field that's not mine, but mostly because I would have a hard time trying to debunk it scientifically anyways (even if I were able too).
Since the Biochemistry explanation* of the whole theory seems scarce, the experimental studies following the above "food reward theory" aren't that heard of, etc.

I can still say it doesn't sound scientific. Can't I?
His manners where regretful, but Taubes, and others, made, in my opionion, good arguments against it (populations that don't eat... etc.).

But you are right: for a huge part in this case my stance is based on anecdotes (/what works for me, what I see "successful" people doing).
Even though, again, I'm partially afraid it couldn't be otherwise.
So I'm skeptical, but might be wrong.
If you'll achieve great body composition on the "food reward diet", regardless of macronutrients ratio, good for you.
I admit I'd be surprised.

*it's not like in nutrition we wouldn't have anyway more than enough theories that on paper look reasonable.
To a certain degree in that field seems you can still, on paper, demonstate something and the opposite of it almost as easily.
Sometimes it gets quite annoying.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

@Zbig: Many people don't do well eating a lot of meat, especially red fatty meat.

@Gianni: To me food reward is the scientific codification of what I believe most people know intuitively.

bentleyj74 said...

Actually Gianni,

You may want to stay tuned. Stephan Guyenet is interested in differing macro response in individuals/gene expression/environment and has said as much even in the last few days. The problem between Guyenet and Taubes isn't that Guyenet is pro starch and anti fat it's that Taubes is not being truthful in his reporting in some cases perhaps because he doesn't understand the science he claims to espouse [he's got a BA in journalism which is less science background than I have and I freely admit this is out of my depth in most cases] however some of it is also historically inaccurate ...inexcusable particularly considering his background.

Sanjeev said...

what, no quantum?

Oh no ... did he prescribe cold exposure to a woman wanting to grow large breasts?

Sanjeev said...

> his "duty" would have been to explain Biochemically why, let's say, most people would tend

The brain really does trump lots of local biochemistry[0] - this is becoming increasingly clear for example, if you follow recent advances in pain research. I don't understand most of it myself - I'm relying on well known skeptical sources like neurologist Steve Novella.

Like the old idea that lactate is the limiting factor in various types muscle work including endurance - turns out that one limit of the amount of work one can do may be in the brain (not proven but promising) and not in any local muscle biochemistry

Noakes is the biggest proponent of this idea in recent times.

I've been mentioning "executive function" for a long, long time on this blog, here's a recent entry:

[0] put another way - the brain takes local biochemical information and integrates it differently than the micro analysis suggests

Gianni said...

The brain really does trump lots of local biochemistry[0] - this is becoming increasingly clear for example, if you follow recent advances in pain research.
My problem with the food reward theory, is that these modern foods might be made even a bit more hyperpalatable from artificial stuff (flavors etc.), fiber being wiped out etc., but at the end those foods are generally mostly sugar+fat (weird fats too) at the same time. It's simply that. No surprise people overeat them, aren't satiated.
It would be a lot more compelling if they managed to make you overeat egg-whites, and with artificial sweeteners might even be partially possible, who knows, but the flavors and others I'd bet wouldn't be enough. Maybe, maybe, a +10%.
So in that case, at today, I would have some doubts on the power of the brain of trumping. I could easily be wrong, and interested in seeing it.

(Taubes)he's got a BA in journalism
I think he has a BA in Physics and both a master in some sort of engineering and one in journalism.
Plus he has had many years to study more or less full time these subjects.
Probably doesn't put him on par with others, nor does it make his stance on starch correct (at least for weight gain), but just saying.

You may want to stay tuned. Stephan Guyenet is interested in differing macro response in individuals/gene expression/environment and has said as much even in the last few days.
I think it's plausible there might a slight variance among individuals to macro responses. Let's say rice between an asian guy and a scandinavian.
But, forgive me and my boring bias, I'm not sure make more than a 10-20% difference.
My guess is that 80% of the result (of success) would still be made from a high-ish protein (at least compared to SAD, or to what many obese people eat), and lower sugar consumption (instead between fat and starch I'll "let you" decide for yourself).

That aside, my point is that "food reward", regardless of macro nutrients, might account for 15% (made-up statistic, of course), if that.
I thought proponent of the theory would beg to differ.
If Guyenet would start incorporating, macro-nutrients in his theories, studies, I'd not see anymore in what his stance differs from plain old others...

bentleyj74 said...

Well Gianni... what can I say. Next time you need to visit a medical doctor perhaps try a computer programmer instead. If you don't care to distinguish between human biology/neurobiology and mechanical engineering [if I'm not mistaken he actually dropped out because it was too hard but I'd need to fact check that one] then really I'm speaking to a religious believer, not a rational observer of facts.

The facts do not support Taubes assertions. They just don't. It's true people don't generally sit and compulsively eat unseasoned eggs, but it's also true they don't sit and compulsively eat bananas...both outcomes support food reward. You are pulling these speculative estimates of percentage completely out of thin air while resisting all evidence to the contrary yet will embrace a theory that frankly doesn't work when applied to the actual manner in which real glucose/insulin biologically reacts in real human bodies while measured under clinical laboratory conditions rather than anecdotes from snake oil salesman.

Regardless neither of these addresses his unprofessional journalistic dishonesty in falsely reporting well documented and easily verifiable historical events. He knows he's selling to believers who are not applying critical scrutiny to his propaganda or even checking to see if his references say what he asserts they say [in fact they do not].

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

You go girl! (Bentley)

Gary Taubes has a degree (BA?) in APPLIED physics from Harvard. Need I remind anyone of what the institution name ultimately means. There's no indication he excelled ... indeed he has admitted off hand (I'm thinking it was in the CrossFit talk) that he was a mediocre student. He has an MS in aerospace engineering and then a journalism degree.

I am willing to bet that Gary Taubes has never even designed and conducted a single simple scientific experiment. Labs in academia don't count, unless you think baking a Betty Crocker mix cake counts as being a trained baker.

Being a research scientist, and taking a class or two in science are wholly different animals.

Physics is a hard science. Engineering is not science, especially not a "soft" science such as chemistry or biology. It's quite different and I'm well aware of the differences because I spent my 20's and half of my 30's working in both worlds and being educated in both realms.

Gianni, Taubes never studied anything. He didn't even read one of the more relevant references in GCBC -- Frayn's Metabolic Regulation. He admitted such in a Jan 2011 interview. He has certainly not studied ANYTHING new -- he's mired in Black Age endocrinology of the 60's and 70's, and pre WWII obesity research when most of the current techniques for studying such diligently didn't even exist.

The man is intellectually dishonest. Tom Naughton would call him a liar many times over (as he loves to accuse actual scientists of being all the time) were it not for that he's selling DVD's based on his lies.

Lerner said...

"Gary Taubes has a degree (BA?) in APPLIED physics from Harvard."

Who says so? Gary?

Not that I think getting a degree from Harvard means anything great, I just wonder if anybody has actually checked.

bentleyj74 said...


My uncle has a graduate degree from Harvard and isn't up to speed on junior high level blood typing as far as I'm aware. His son has a graduate degree from Cambridge and possibly couldn't identify the process by which his own blood is oxygenated without at least a few wrong guesses. Aren't anecdotes and random degrees from Ivy league colleges fun?

Gianni said...

Well Gianni... what can I say. Next time you need to visit a medical doctor perhaps try a computer programmer instead. If you don't care to distinguish between human biology/neurobiology and mechanical engineering [if I'm not mistaken he actually dropped out because it was too hard but I'd need to fact check that one] then really I'm speaking to a religious believer, not a rational observer of facts.

Mine was meant to be simply a reply to someone who wrote that the most scientific studies background Taubes had was a BA in Journalism. I don't think that would depict the reality in a correct way.
But clearly I wasn't implying anything more than that (c'mon, I also wrote, rhetorically, "probably doesn't put him on par with others")

Regarding the religious believer part, I'm admittedly a VLCer (at least most of the time) who always says, even in the comments on this post, he doesn't think starchy food are necessarily worse than fat for weight gain. Instead, for me and many others, might be quite the opposite.
I'm VLC mostly for other reasons.
On Taubes stance, I even wrote :"thinking that Fat doesn't make you gain weight, no matter what, is an unbelievably ridiculous position (in my opinion).
I don't know if it's because he fell too much in love with insulin, that might have huge importance and effects but however he is overrating it, or what else, but whatever...
If all that still makes me look even slightly as a Taubes religious believer, I'm in trouble.

Lerner said...

Hey, Gianni, anybody who puts 'Taubes' and 'ridiculous' in the same thought can't be all bad :)

As far as advanced degrees, I'll take a smart amateur any day over a clouded or biased PhD. Most anybody here can learn any of these topics. The main disadvantage that an amateur has is being narrowly focused and therefore missing out on some facet that a broad based education would have filled in. But on a forum like this, others can jump in and so that's not such a disadvantage anyway. An HONEST person says 'thanks, I didn't know that" and corrects themselves. The other kind will ignore it, then make excuses and evasions.

I don't fault Taubes for lack of degrees or research experience, I fault him for being a boob :)

We have seen more than a few self-impressed individuals with PhDs and MDs referring to Taubes as supposedly 'brilliant', which to me means those PhDs and MDs have extremely poor judgment and therefore no credibility.

The Japanese weren't fat, and Taubes never addressed that in his book. calories do matter. Very simple. Yet PhDs couldn't see that.

P.S. I agree with you that it's mostly about fat and sugar.

Pochy said...

I'm a libertarian, and his arguments were stupid. What does his politics have to do with his documentary? he put it in for no reason. That, or his paleo beliefs don;t correlate well. His documentary was pretty mixed up on what he was trying to say.

carbsane said...

I found the documentary confusing. It begins with the argument that there really isn't an obesity epidemic, that kids used to be more active, that junk food is not addictive and/or that it doesn't stimulate overeating, etc. He then counts calories and loses some weight.

I wish folks would keep politics out of nutrition science.

Post a Comment

Moderation is currently on. Thanks in advance for your patience.