Here's the specific context: Farquhar is quoted only in the last paragraph of my story. It follows directly from a discussion of my own difficulty in accepting the seemingly counter-intuitive possibility that fat might be beneficial to one's health and weight, and carbohydrates detrimental. The story then ends with the Farquhar paragraph:
This is the state of mind I imagine that mainstream nutritionists, researchers and physicians must inevitably take to the fat-versus-carbohydrate controversy. They may come around, but the evidence will have to be exceptionally compelling. Although this kind of conversion may be happening at the moment to John Farquhar, who is a professor of health research and policy at Stanford University and has worked in this field for more than 40 years. When I interviewed Farquhar in April, he explained why low-fat diets might lead to weight gain and low-carbohydrate diets might lead to weight loss, but he made me promise not to say he believed they did. He attributed the cause of the obesity epidemic to the ''force-feeding of a nation.'' Three weeks later, after reading an article on Endocrinology 101 by David Ludwig in the Journal of the American Medical Association, he sent me an e-mail message asking the not-entirely-rhetorical question, ''Can we get the low-fat proponents to apologize?"
I had interviewed Farquhar over the telephone on April 25, 2002. Two and half weeks later, we had the following aforementioned e-mail exchange: Farquhar initiates the exchange with his e-mail using the "apology" line.
From: Dr. John Farquhar
To: taubes@nyc.rr.com
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 7:55 PM
Subject: article on glycemic index
dear mr taubes
you may find a recent article in jama of interest in a search for blood sugar, a compensating increase in insulin, and an increase in
"hunger". the article in question is by ludwig--- jama 2002;287:2414-2423 you recall that i believed, in contrast to reaven perhaps, that the blood sugar swings could contribute to post-prandial hunger and,
thus, could be a factor that would contribute to obesity. (see page 2417 of ludwig's article). he adds some fancy biochemistry that you may find interesting. can we get the low-fat proponents to apologize? hope the article is coming along well. regards, jack farquhar
I then replied to Farquhar, asking him if he meant what he said, and whether he minded if I used the line in question.
Jack;
Thanks for the note. I'm featuring Ludwig prominently in the article. My idea is to portray the glycemic index and low carb diets docs as promoters of the alternative hypothesis to the low fat dogma. And, of course, one implication of the alternative hypothesis is that those low-fat proponents are at least part of the reason for the obesity epidemic. So were you just having fun with me when you wrote that maybe they should apologize, or do you, at least on occasions, wonder if it's true?
All the best,
Gary
Then Farquhar responded. Readers can judge for themselves whether Farquhar's take on the exchange and how I used it is justified:
From: Dr. John W. Farquhar
To: gary taubes
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: article on glycemic index
dear gary--yes, i do think that they should apologize, but i don't expect it--so, that part is kidding. there is a long trail of nay-sayers in the CV medicine area. you might consider doing an article on sodium at some point.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|10.22.09 @ 3:56PM|#
Having read all three pieces in this debate, Fumento's critique of Taubes is so wholly inadequate I feel embarassed for him, and disappointed that Reason didn't vet Fumento seriously before publishing his original critique of Taubes. Taubes' position is increasingly permeating the research community and will likely be vindicated, leaving Fumento's piece as an embarassing example of Reason failing its mandate to provide critical analysis of contemporary debates. Reason's standards should be higher than merely being a forum for dissent -- you should have some standards for the dissent, and recognize dogmatic clinging to establishment thinking when you see it. The sooner the Lipid Hypothesis dies and refined carbs are recognized for their negative health effects the better the health of the world. We owe Taubes a serious debt of thanks for his integtrity and iconoclastic pursuit of reason. He shouldn't have had to offer this defense, likely only read by a fraction of those who read the original critique.
|1.30.10 @ 8:02PM|#
Great response. I'm disappointed that Reason didn't recognize expert-led dogma dished out by Fumento
Pingback| 2.5.10 @ 7:05PM
Karen De Coster » Primal Life: A Journey of Diet and Health links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
|5.19.10 @ 9:49PM|#
Taubes writes, "Regrettably, Fumento doesn't seem to understand the critical point, and perhaps even the less critical points, and so makes us both look like idiots." Reminds me of the Rabbi's advice: "Never argue with a fool - passersby won't know who's who."
nfl jerseys|11.13.10 @ 12:16AM|#
xthg
WOMENUGGS|11.23.10 @ 11:58PM|#
Bailey Trio button calls for the margin of any puppet stop aggressive and baptize aerosol repellent spray stain. Chase on spraying these Ugg Boots Online Store boots ugg boots friendly alternatives to make sure you can, at least, Uggs Australia Outlet in addition
WOMENUGGS|11.24.10 @ 1:09AM|#
Cheap women Uggs access has become quite acceptable to articulate an architecture addiction for men and ladies adult warning beforehand how the 2000's. In recognition of history, 2008, Women Uggs grew surprise has already been added in the acceptance of male
WOMENUGGS|11.24.10 @ 1:18AM|#
global application on behalf of Ambassador Ugg Boots Online Store , Deckers is accountable to the purchasers of the confusion absorption device, which are governed by surprise Australian producers and sellers use to Ugg Boots Outlet boots amplitude affidavit added
|1.21.11 @ 7:13AM|#
I am very interested in this debate. Undoubtedly, the calories in, calories out hypothesis that I was taught (my physiology professor said only calories mattered - you could eat only butter and you wouldn't weigh anymore if you ate 2,000 calories from lettice or butter).
I think as biology advances, and it is understood that fat cells are not nearly the passive recepticles of "excess calories" that they were once thought to be, it will become to understood that what you eat matters for some percentage of the poplulation.
Also, one thing that has to be understood is that we all differ. Some people can eat, eat, eat and not gain weight. Some people are sensitive to carbs, and some aren't.
My own experience of going on a low carbohydrate diet was very salutory - I lost weight, my triglycerides decreased as well as my LDL cholesterol.
|3.12.11 @ 3:53AM|#
Is it possible to get a small concise article near the front page of either Vancouver BC newspaper. It should include Dr Wortman, Alert Bay, G&B Carbs and possibly Valemount? I so need help with an argument.