Big Fat Fake

The Atkins diet controversy and the sorry state of science journalism.

Michael Fumento from the March 2003 issue

(Page 6 of 6)

"The notion that sedentary persons, without malabsorption or hyperthyroidism, can lose weight on a diet containing 5,000 calories a day is incredible," the article says. Statements such as "No scientific evidence exists to suggest that the low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet has a metabolic advantage over more conventional diets for weight reduction," and "there is no reason to associate a diet rich in carbohydrate with obesity" hardly seem to acknowledge "that the diet probably worked."

Other terms the AMA used to described Atkins' theories included "naïve," "biochemically incorrect," "inaccurate," and "without scientific merit."

It also explained why the diet didn't work, mocking Atkins' basic thesis that fat and protein cannot cause weight gain in the absence of carbohydrate consumption as a "thermodynamic miracle."

Three additional decades of research have merely played "pile on" with the AMA's findings. The explanation for weight loss on Atkins given by Foster and Seeley was right there. "When obese patients reduce their carbohydrate intake drastically, they are apparently unable to make up the ensuing deficit by means of an appreciable increase in protein and diet," said the AMA.

Girth of a Nation

What has changed drastically in the last three decades is the girth of a nation. American obesity is increasing at a terrifying rate.

Since the publication of Taubes' article, numerous doctors, scientists, and health writers have picked apart various pieces of his argument. A fatlash has formed against Taubes, The New York Times Magazine, and Knopf. Originally riding an adulatory wave, Taubes complained bitterly to the weekly New York Observer in November that he was "being attacked by sleazebags."

The New York Times Magazine has printed no clarification or retraction of any kind. Yet not only should the magazine's editors have known there were serious problems with the piece, but Farquhar says he told them so outright, based on what he had gleaned from two fact checkers. He says he told those checkers that if Taubes "tries to make it look like I'm saying that I was supporting the idea that the obesity epidemic was from overloading on carbohydrates that this was so far off the mark that I would have to vomit."

At Knopf, Taubes' acquisitions editor, Scott Segal, has wrapped himself in the flag, telling the Observer, "It's a free country: First Amendment," as if he believes the Constitution requires publishers to hand out $700,000 checks to all authors. Equally bizarre is his effort to distance the book acquisition from the article. They "chose to put a certain picture on the cover and to use a certain approach to the subject in 5,000 [sic] words, but that's not the book," he said. Critics "are reacting to a magazine piece I had nothing to do with." Yet Taubes told me that his article had barely hit the stands when Knopf's offer dropped in his lap, as did an even larger offer from another publisher that he says he rejected because it's the publisher of Atkins' book and it might hurt his credibility.

But obesity and the millions of individual tragedies it has produced are ultimately far more important than this skirmish over a single story. Louis Aronne says, "I think people are getting increasingly confused about what to do. I'm afraid they'll just give up." Randy Seeley says journalism like Taubes' "just makes people confused and frustrated."

Taubes "gave his readers what they wanted to hear," says James Hill. "But what people want to hear is killing them."

Gary Taubes responds to Michael Fumento.

Comments

|10.22.09 @ 3:57PM|#

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.