I mentioned Taubes' earlier bona fides because it was presumably his track record with articles and books on cold fusion and particle physics research that conv

I mentioned Taubes' earlier bona fides because it was presumably his track record with articles and books on cold fusion and particle physics research that convinced the editors of _Science_ to give him the go-ahead on his 2001 journal article that preceded the 2002 NY Times article and the 2007 book. I think his track record demonstrates his concern for both good science and good journalism. I do know that he is distinctly at odds with the majority of scientists who work in the dietary field. Oh dear. Even if you had data to back that up, are you really going to embrace science as a popularity contest? I'm talking about real scientists, with real science degrees. Doing real controlled scientific studies. Most of them consider Atkins a disaster for public health. I'm not as interested in scientists' opinions as I am in the underlying science. I'm unaware of any studies that show the Atkins diet is really a disaster, but feel free to cite away. But to repeat myself, don't conflate warnings on the dangers of carb consumption with being a proponent of the Atkins diet. Taubes' focus for most of his career is about how good science is perverted for not-so-good human motives. So for example when some of your "real scientists" offer a "real controlled scientific study"[1] showing that people lost weight on both low-fat and low-carb diets, Taubes asks[2] the rather logical question, how is that a weight-loss study would restrict total calorie intake on only one (low-fat) of the two diets. I mean, if you're studying weight loss, shouldn't you be controlling total calorie intake for all groups? the scientists he quoted have said repeatedly that the disaster is that we eat 20% more calories per day, in general, than we did before WW2, and that increased fat consumption also occurred during that time Well if those scientists really said that, which I doubt, I'm pretty sure they're wrong on the facts. I haven't digested the whole NHANES data set from the CDC, but a quick Google check found this nutritionist's summary[3]: "In 1964 Americans ate 39 percent of their calories from fat and only 13 percent were obese. Now, while most Americans get only about 33 percent of their calories from fat, two-thirds, more than 190 million Americans are overweight or obese." In short: Fat is not your enemy, but keep your eyes on both calories and carbs. Edit: added following links... [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 [2] http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/calories-fat-or-carbohydrates/ http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/calories-fat-or-carbohydra... [3] http://www.redcedarwellness.com/2010/07/the-truth-about-fats-carbohydrates-and-protein-in-the-american-diet/ http://www.redcedarwellness.com/2010/07/the-truth-about-fats...