Compliance problems in studies may be relevant to our individual choice of diet, since they are likely to predict our own personal compliance. In general (as Ta

Compliance problems in studies may be relevant to our individual choice of diet, since they are likely to predict our own personal compliance. In general (as Taubes points out), most people can lose significant weight by reducing their daily caloric intake to starvation levels. However, compliance is so poor that it's not a viable solution. And it wouldn't be correct to say that this problem is irrelevant to those who are looking to start a new diet. I personally find the combination of the (potentially flawed) human studies and the (more scientifically rigorous) animal studies to be fairly persuasive. You can find fault with either of the two, but in sum, the two pieces of evidence seem quite solid. "If you interpret studies as showing what happens when people actually eat a certain diet, then compliance _is_ a flaw -- a really big one!" To me, the studies likely skew in that direction, while also providing stronger evidence when interpreted as showing what happens when people try to eat a certain diet. "I don't necessarily disagree with Taube, though I don't think it signifies much that he can persuasively make a point and disparage those who disagree with him when he's talking to lay people." Sure. On the other hand, he's a researcher who's been investigating this issue for around a decade, and has published a very rigorous (by most accounts) book on the subject. Given the stakes, I suspect that most people would eventually take to the streets in an attempt to improve the situation. Overall, I think we likely agree here :)