3 ms·
Good Calorie, Bad Calorie was great, except that 90% of it was a history lesson where he explains, in a very detailed manner, how other nutrition theories of th
by stephen 17y ago
Good Calorie, Bad Calorie was great, except that 90% of it was a history lesson where he explains, in a very detailed manner, how other nutrition theories of the last 100+ years were wrong.
Anybody know of another source that describes the book's views on fat metabolism, blood sugar, etc. but is shorter and more to the point?
Not only for my own benefit to review, but I have a hard time recommending Good Calorie, Bad Calorie to friends who are only marginally interested in nutrition, but would still benefit from reading the book's core ideas in a distilled form.
- gregwebs 17y agoI have wondered the same thing, but most people's first response is they can't believe that the government and scientists have it so wrong, and the only way to truly explain that is to talk about the history. Perhaps there is a middle ground, though, or there could be a smaller version that referenced the larger version. Taubes is working on a much shorter version of GCBC.
- stephen 17y agoAwesome that he's working on a shorter version. I poked around his site after finishing the book to suggest just such a thing. Thanks for the heads up.