Taubes's dual challenge of my use and assessment of the Registry falls on both counts. I cited its use by numerous peer-reviewed publications to show that (once again) Taubes has cut himself off from the medical community in rejecting its usefulness. My interpretation of the study is precisely the same as that of James Hill and Rena Wing, who were in charge of it. The people in the Registry are keeping their weight off through a diet that is the opposite of what Atkins recommends. Yes, the Registry is uncontrolled; that's part of its value. It's an additional piece of information refuting Atkins-Taubes that happens to jibe with the controlled studies and the government surveys. Instead, Taubes prefers the Consumer Reports write-in survey which, unlike the Registry, had no mechanism for checking veracity or for tracking.
To reiterate, there is no empirical support for Taubes's assertion that high-fat intake can suppress hunger and he cited no such support, substituting instead another volley of verbiage. Barbara Rolls is certainly widely considered the top authority on the subject, with PubMed registering an amazing 49 references to articles using her name (Rolls BJ) and "satiety" as search terms. Try that with "Taubes" or "Atkins" and you'll find zip. Taubes also misrepresents the scope of Rolls' work; she has studied satiety in practically every way imaginable. Perhaps that explains why Taubes omitted every word from his six-hour interview with her, as well as all the work discussed in those 49 PubMed references. Furthermore, a PubMed search reveals that one review after another has found fat has no satiety advantage over carbohydrates.
There are numerous such misrepresentations in Taubes' response. Marion Nestle "is not and never has been an obesity researcher," says Taubes. Yet she's the author or co-author of six medical or science journal articles and one book on the subject. The "glycemic index concept" could help explain why the Atkins diet works, says Taubes. Is that why he couldn't do any better than to present hyperglycemia expert Michael Schwartz as a supporter of the concept when Schwartz had already written in Science that, "Although the concept that insulin triggers weight gain has little scientific merit, it remains a key selling point for advocates of diets that are low in carbohydrate and high in protein and fat"? Just whom might Schwartz be referring to?
Refuting Taubes' indignant assertions point by point would involve repeating my original essay; I refer readers back to that story. I'll merely conclude with his treatment of the 1973 AMA assessment, which again is refuted simply by rereading my article. The AMA found that, "The notion that sedentary persons, without malabsorption or hyperthyroidism, can lose weight on a diet containing 5,000 calories a day [as Atkins claimed] is incredible," that "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." All this Taubes summarized by saying the AMA "acknowledged that the diet probably worked."
I shall make no effort to refute point-by-point someone who in fear for his reputation as a science writer has decided he can substitute length for facts.
Michael Fumento is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and author of The Fat of the Land: The American Obesity Epidemic and How Overweight Americans Can Help Themselves (Viking, 1997). His next book, on biotechnology, will be published in the spring by Encounter Books. An archive of Michael Fumento's work is online at fumento.com.
For Gary Taubes' reply to Michael Fumento, click here. Fumento's story "Big Fat Fake" appeared in the March issue of Reason. Taubes's story, "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?," appeared in The New York Times Magazine in 2002.
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 @ 3:54PM|#
Fumento's response to 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.
|1.4.10 @ 7:50PM|#
As someone that read all of Taubes book, I think Mr. Fumento grossly misrepresents what Taubes said - Taubes ending point was that good answers needed more research - he even stated that in order to edit down the size of the book that they left out the some of the other side of the Low-carb/low/fat debate ( the Keys dogma has been repeated so often in other places - did he need to include it?) .
Taubes did a good job of pointing out the junk science involved with Keys' lowfat montra.
Mr. Fumento says
"Nonetheless, he repeats his claim that there's "some metabolic benefit gained by restricting carbohydrates, a notion also explicitly rejected in my piece by another co-author of the five studies, Randy Seeley of the University of Cincinnati"
I think this view point totally discredits Fumento. Is there anyone here that doesn't get the carbohydrate connection? That is: Eating carbs causes insulin to go up - insulin increases hunger - hungry people eat more - people that eat more get obese. YMMV - but a large portion of this carbohydrate gobboling country became obese following the low-fat montra.
Should he have used observational studies to refute observational studies? I would think both studies would have to agree to let the Keys take stand.
Taubes does not have to prove low-carb to show that low-fat was wrong headed - showing counter examples destroys the Keys argument - he leaves it to future studies to sort it out.
I'm pretty sure Taubes is correct - I'm not sure how much is just carbohydrate and how much is fructose - but stopping sugar did not let me lose weight (did the earlier sugar damage my insulin system?) - cutting carbs did. The place I would leave company with Taubes is he did not spend time on looking at the different kinds of fat - and I think that is important.
Is the Atkins-ish take from Taubes book the whole picture? I think not - we are still learning what we should eat. (less SFA
nfl jerseys|11.13.10 @ 12:15AM|#
mxyh
WOMENUGGS|11.23.10 @ 11:56PM|#
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