4 ms·

Another diet article that's very, very long, low on facts, and repetitive on the few facts they have. Are these showing up just because people have New Year's

by powera 16y ago

Another diet article that's very, very long, low on facts, and repetitive on the few facts they have. Are these showing up just because people have New Year's Resolutions?

jerf 16y ago
Another diet blog post. If you want facts, buy the Good Calories, Bad Calories book, or presumably his recent book which I can't recommend either way as I have not read it. If Gary Taubes does not have enough facts, regardless of how you like his interpretation of them, you may give up all hope of ever understanding diet issues yourself now. So as to avoid a redundant post, I make this point to KirinDave as well. This is not Taubes' argument, it's one particular small point, a marketing teaser. If you really want to dismiss him you're going to have to do a lot better that poking apart one blog post, you've got a book (or two, though I don't know what the overlap is) to dismantle.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Why bother reading the book when the blog is either flawed (as this post is) or dishonest (as the one from yesterday is)? If the blog is junk science, it's unlikely that the book is better.
  - jerf 16y ago
    Neither are junk science. People's junk science detectors and the competition to be the first to declare that something is "fatally flawed" are going off excessively quickly. (See also the rush to be the first that some show or something has 'jumped the shark'.) If there's junk science afoot it's unfortunately in the "mainstream".
- wycats 16y ago
  I've read both Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat. There is significant overlap, and it is most notable in the less technical areas, where he lays out the arguments against the conventional wisdom. That said (and I say this as a very technical reader), there were aspects of Good Calories, Bad Calories that went over my head because of their presentation and placement in the (very long) book. Why We Get Fat's treatment of LPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipoprotein_lipase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipoprotein_lipase) and HSL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone-sensitive_lipase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone-sensitive_lipase), in particular, were described more clearly in the latest book, and the concepts related to them really make a difference in understanding the larger point. Probably the most important thing that I got out of Why We Get Fat is a better technical understanding for one of his core arguments (that the arrow of causation in calories in, calories out may be the reverse of what we expect). Specifically, he clearly describes the mechanism by which fat cells may pull in energy from the bloodstream, resulting in additional hunger and lethargy (ad infinitum). His new treatment of this subject, which starts with animal models of obesity, is extremely helpful and worth the price of the new book, in my opinion.

by powera 16y ago

Another diet article that's very, very long, low on facts, and repetitive on the few facts they have. Are these showing up just because people have New Year's Resolutions?

jerf 16y ago

Another diet blog post. If you want facts, buy the Good Calories, Bad Calories book, or presumably his recent book which I can't recommend either way as I have not read it. If Gary Taubes does not have enough facts, regardless of how you like his interpretation of them, you may give up all hope of ever understanding diet issues yourself now. So as to avoid a redundant post, I make this point to KirinDave as well. This is not Taubes' argument, it's one particular small point, a marketing teaser. If you really want to dismiss him you're going to have to do a lot better that poking apart one blog post, you've got a book (or two, though I don't know what the overlap is) to dismantle.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Why bother reading the book when the blog is either flawed (as this post is) or dishonest (as the one from yesterday is)? If the blog is junk science, it's unlikely that the book is better.
- jerf 16y ago
  Neither are junk science. People's junk science detectors and the competition to be the first to declare that something is "fatally flawed" are going off excessively quickly. (See also the rush to be the first that some show or something has 'jumped the shark'.) If there's junk science afoot it's unfortunately in the "mainstream".
wycats 16y ago
I've read both Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat. There is significant overlap, and it is most notable in the less technical areas, where he lays out the arguments against the conventional wisdom. That said (and I say this as a very technical reader), there were aspects of Good Calories, Bad Calories that went over my head because of their presentation and placement in the (very long) book. Why We Get Fat's treatment of LPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipoprotein_lipase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipoprotein_lipase) and HSL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone-sensitive_lipase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone-sensitive_lipase), in particular, were described more clearly in the latest book, and the concepts related to them really make a difference in understanding the larger point. Probably the most important thing that I got out of Why We Get Fat is a better technical understanding for one of his core arguments (that the arrow of causation in calories in, calories out may be the reverse of what we expect). Specifically, he clearly describes the mechanism by which fat cells may pull in energy from the bloodstream, resulting in additional hunger and lethargy (ad infinitum). His new treatment of this subject, which starts with animal models of obesity, is extremely helpful and worth the price of the new book, in my opinion.