5 ms·
Though it was annoying to read, Good Calories, Bad Calories [0] by Gary Taubes made it pretty clear bad science, for myriad reasons, poisoned the data informing
by pengaru 4y ago
Though it was annoying to read, Good Calories, Bad Calories [0] by Gary Taubes made it pretty clear bad science, for myriad reasons, poisoned the data informing US policy on nutrition. Blaming fat for all things bad, resulting in the food pyramid with carbs at the foundation.
If memory serves one of the main players responsible was Ansel Keys [1], who manipulated/filtered the data of studies backing his fat-is-fattening theories.
Elsewhere I heard a plausible claim, I believe it was from Taubes in a talk he gave, that much of this behavior stemmed from post-war anti-german sentiments in the medical and nutrition science communities (which I think were more or less the same group back then). The Germans at the time happened to be at the forefront of nutrition science. When the US joined the war against the nazis, in the scientific domains German papers were apparently often suppressed, as a way to harm those researchers' careers. A side effect was their science, good or not, became blacklisted in a way. The US research, right or wrong, was championed. It was a form of patriotism, and it seems public health has been paying the price ever since.
TFA strikes me as a minor footnote in this larger story.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Calories,_Bad_Calories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Calories,_Bad_Calories
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys#Criticism
- Fezzik 4y agoTaubes is probably not a good citation for assessing scientific theories… his own initiative, NuSI, funded studies that debunked his primary dietary claims and yet he continues to peddle the same lies to this very day.
- pengaru 4y agoYeah I've heard some concerning things, but part of what made Good Calorie, Bad Calorie so annoying to read is it's practically all reference-backed citations.
- Fezzik 4y agoYou can read the studies here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150 and here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oby.22468 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oby.22468 They are both thorough, easy to read, and contradict Taubes’ primary claims. A third was supposed to occur (I think) but the funding, surprisingly, was withdrawn. Edit: there were three studies done, all of which contradict Taubes’ claims. You can read his wonky spin on how, even though the studies prove him wrong, he may just be right on his own website: http://garytaubes.com/the-dissolution-of-the-nutrition-science-initiative/ http://garytaubes.com/the-dissolution-of-the-nutrition-scien...
- pmarreck 4y agoNeither of those first 2 studies contradicts Taubes' claims. (What do you believe ARE Taubes' claims, anyway? That's probably important to establish, because my initial impression is that you have not read an entire Taubes book.) Not only that, he cites far more studies than 3 to support his claims, so your cherry-picking is possibly just that. Either that or you are a vegan or vegetarian. Whenever I encounter someone online who is vociferously anti-Taubes, it seems to be a vegan or vegetarian 90% of the time. No inherent bias there, LOL
- Fezzik 4y agoAvid hunter and meat eater here. Getting in to spear fishing next week. I cited to those three studies because they were directly funded by Taubes’ foundation and designed to prove Taubes’ claims and failed to do so.
- pmarreck 4y agoyou did not yet clarify what you believe Taubes’ core claims are as I tried to say, you cannot claim a claim is disproved, without elucidating that exact claim as precisely as possible, first.
- 4y ago