UK Limey runner wrote:
I take it that you are in the "fat is bad, saturated fat is very bad, eat lots of whole grains, evolution never happened" camp? I'm not in that one.
Cheers, Limey.
I think we garnered that by now. But you are apparently in the "Gary Taubes is decent source of nutrition science info" camp. He isn't, not by a very long shot. You are going to have to trust me on this. Or you will force me to spend way too many hours proving that point (to anyone truly reading what I write) all in order for you to say: well, maybe, but I still think Taubes is okay.
By the way, Gary has gone from stating definitively, and unequivocally that there are "GOOD CALORIES (fat, sat fat, protein)", and there are "BAD CALORIES (carbs)" to saying this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/why-nutrition-is-so-confusing.html"Everyone has a theory. The evidence doesn’t exist to say unequivocally who’s wrong.
we’re only guessing whether we know the truth.
Obesity and diabetes are epidemic, and yet the only relevant fact on which relatively unambiguous data exist to support a consensus is that most of us are surely eating too much of something. (My vote is sugars and refined grains; we all have our biases.)"
So he admits; he has NO IDEA if his past books are correct that too much carb intake is the root of our health problems, and that if sat fat is not really an issue for people, and that the KEY REALLY IS that people are EATING TOO MANY CALORIES. (what happened to the "good" ones and the "bad" ones???). Lastly he admits has has been "biased" all along in his views.
So in conclusion, even Gary Taubes now says: 'ignore everything Gary Taubes has ever said about nutrition, except for when he's simply said: it would be better to have more evidence on these topics. Other than that.... he's got nothing.'
That's a white flag if I've ever seen one.