Last week, I listened to Shane Parrish's interview with Gary Taubes on the Knowledge Project podcast. Taubes provides an informative historical perspective on some aspects of research in nutrition science.
His view is not charitable. Perhaps, deservedly so.
I have to confess that I have't read the book "The Case Against Sugar", but I have followed Taubes' arguments for quite a while. His thesis, essentially the same as his previous two books, is that we ditch a "low-fat high-carb" diet, for a "low-carb high-fat (and protein)" diet.
The points he make are provocative, and interesting.
That said, I wished Shane would have challenged Taubes more, and held him accountable.
This counter-point by Stephan Guyenet points to numerous reasonable flaws with Taubes' thesis. It is worth reading in its entirety, if only for the balance it provides.
A couple of other rebuttals are available here and here.
His view is not charitable. Perhaps, deservedly so.
I have to confess that I have't read the book "The Case Against Sugar", but I have followed Taubes' arguments for quite a while. His thesis, essentially the same as his previous two books, is that we ditch a "low-fat high-carb" diet, for a "low-carb high-fat (and protein)" diet.
The points he make are provocative, and interesting.
That said, I wished Shane would have challenged Taubes more, and held him accountable.
This counter-point by Stephan Guyenet points to numerous reasonable flaws with Taubes' thesis. It is worth reading in its entirety, if only for the balance it provides.
A couple of other rebuttals are available here and here.
No comments:
Post a Comment