His latest book came out yesterday. He’s on tour, so reviews coming soon?
This just in: The Case Against Sugar By GARY TAUBES
bambiying2
(bambiying2)
#3
I got it for Christmas. Haven’t opened it yet because I’m involved in The Art and Science of Low Carb Living. I’ll get to it soon.
ReaperScoob
(Griffin Mekelburg)
#4
just grabbed it on Audible this morning! Havnt not started but excited for the journey lol. Still have to grab his other books as well, but was excited seeing his new book come out!
ketomarriage4life
(In a #ketomarriage with @peggaloon)
#8
Just tagging my husband @peggaloon - he loves Gary Taubes!
valdivia.marc
(Marc)
#11
From the article which is written in light of The Case Against Sugar:
5 Ways Sugar Could Kill You
- It Increases the risk of dementia
- It makes cigarettes even worse for you
- It’s feeding our cancer
- It’s addictive
- It leads to heart disease
valdivia.marc
(Marc)
#12
Another Taubes article. This one was in the New York Times. My favorite quote from the article:
‘A 2014 article in an American Diabetes Association journal phrased the situation this way: “There is no clear or convincing evidence that any dietary or added sugar has a unique or detrimental impact relative to any other source of calories on the development of obesity or diabetes.”’
bambiying2
(bambiying2)
#13
I’m in the middle of reading it right now, and I have to say that the fact that they put sugar in cigarettes blew my mind. That is something that I never heard before.
valdivia.marc
(Marc)
#15
devhammer
(G. Andrew Duthie)
#16
Just saw this response, which someone posted on the FB group:
I’m not sure I find it very convincing, but I also know well enough that bias may play a part in wanting to believe something…anyone else want to give the post a read and share your thoughts?
stacy
(Keto in Katy)
#17
Whether Taubes is correct in every aspect of his arguments or not, it seems abundantly clear that removing sugar from the diet—or at least keeping it to very small amounts—provides significant health benefits.
KetoKate
#18
In the comments section, Clark counters the article well as does Dr Lee in his succinct articulation of n=1. Whether deemed controversial or not, the importance of literature, such as Taubes’ latest book is to promote further thought, research and education. Like us, Guyenet highlights his own (albeit different) biases up front, so I don’t consider ours any more or less impactful to the argument.
From what I can gather, from the reading (and podcast listening) I’ve done over the past 6 months or so, is that most acknowledge there is a correlation between increased consumption of sugar, grains and starches and obesity/metabolic diseases, it’s causation over which there is disagreement.
I get frustrated when the discussions ultimately wind up back at the issue around overeating and excessive caloric intake when it is widely accepted that sugar increases appetite and represses the receptors in the brain to register satiety.
This is, for me anyway, what renders the counter arguments to sugar as null and void, for if we didn’t have high levels of sugar (and carbohydrates) in western diets, people would not overeat, thus exceeding their required caloric intake and ever increasing their fat stores.
I dare say that many of us on this forum can attest to that with our own (LCHF) n=1.
erdoke
(Gabor Erdosi)
#19
This is just out. Paints an interesting picture, as high fructose was on a low fat diet (for up to 7 years!) and without overfeeding.
Results
The HFr diet increased steatosis, and its extent was related to duration of fructose exposure. Lipid droplet size also increased with HFr duration; however, compared with control, the lipid droplets were smaller on average. Fibrosis extent was significantly greater with fructose feeding and was predicted by fructose exposure, extent of fatty liver, and age.
Conclusions
These data are the first to demonstrate that high-carbohydrate diets alone can generate both liver fat and fibrosis and thus allow further study of mechanisms and therapeutic options in the translational animal model.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21720/full
devhammer
(G. Andrew Duthie)
#20
To be clear, my n=1 experience is solidly in the direction of dramatic reduction of sugar and starchy carbs. There is just no question in my mind that this is the single most effective lever I have for preventing weight gain.
As I age, it does seem to be becoming less effective in terms of weight loss, but that could also be in part because I am getting to a point where the body is trying to preserve my stored energy (I’m currently at around 19%BF).
I found the assertion that Taubes has his own conflict of interest because “his fame and fortune rely on perpetuating his controversial ideas to an audience that has little basis for evaluating them” to be somewhat laughable, not to mention insulting and elitist. So the fact that Taubes has written books for which he is paid is ipso facto evidence that he has a conflict of interest? That’s just a bizarre assertion, IMO.
I did find the allegation of a conflict of interest for Yudkin to be somewhat concerning, but if Clark is correct and there’s no actual reference for that assertion, it does somewhat fall flat.
I do, however, detect in Taubes’ writing, a tendency to demonize industry. To an extent, this may be warranted, but at the same time, he has the benefit of hindsight, whereas those who were operating at the earliest days of the confectionary, soft drink, etc. industries didn’t necessarily have the benefit of knowing just how much of a disaster sugar would turn out to be. As that evidence became available, it’s fair to criticize the food industry for failing to act on it, but in the early days I don’t think anyone realized the full extent of the downsides.
I still very much agree with most of Taubes’ conclusions, but I do try to be aware of where he’s coming from in all of this.