Yes, I find the attacks on Taubes to be weak as well. It is like shooting the messenger.
Journalists are not research scientists, they are messengers.
If you want to shoot somebody that is in error, often due to conflict of interest, please shoot the bad scientists!
My feelings exactly. We are human, it is almost impossible to be truly unbiased and completely without prejudice. So I take everything I read with a grain of salt until I can find science that backs it up, at least where possible.
Another interview with Taubes: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/02/gary_taubes_on.html
Looks like Taubes gave a response here: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2017/01/30/gary-taubes/case-against-sugar-isnt-so-easily-dismissed
Iām not going to pick a side on that one just yet, just providing more to look at in this context. Personally, I think Taubes is a great presenter of information, but I donāt know that he is great for information, understand and analysis. I think heās on the right track relative to many others, but I donāt use him as a solid source and authority. The big point: I think the problems addressed really are likely more complex than just sugar, though I do think sugar is a big factor, at least for many people and in many contexts.
I think he has a great ability to make what is sometimes quite complex science, both understandable and readable to the lay-person. āGood Calories, Bad Caloriesā was something of a ātomeā, but quite a readable one. My slight problem is that I thought heād already sufficiently demolished sugar in GCBC, so I wondered why he needed to write another book, and specifically about sugar. I did hear that at one time, he and Lustig were going to do a joint book, but for whatever reason, then decided not to. From my reading of it so far, in āThe Case Against Sugarā, his case against sugar is subtlely different to that of Lustigās (which seems mainly against fructose/HFCS).
Which is interesting because I donāt think he intends this. At least, in interviews he seems to take pains to point out that he doesnāt blame industry as much as he blames bad science/scientists.
Subconscious, perhaps? Or maybe Iām just overreading.
I actually just finished the book this week. I would agree that bad scientists come in for a good deal of blame as well. But the message seems pretty clear that part of the reason for the bad science is the fact that the sugar industry paid for it.
In fairness, Taubes also makes clear in the book that a big part of the problem is that we all want answers that are:
But scientists are still pressed for answers, so they guess. Which is wrong. Iād love to see more scientists simply say: āwe donāt know. Hereās what we think, but itās an educated guess, based on our current state of knowledge of the underlying processes.ā
And sadly, by the time the information has gone from scientists, to the science press, to the mainstream or popular press, the message has gotten so completely garbled as to be largely useless.
He did a great podcast with Joe Rogan too. where he goes into some really cool details about his history and controversy heās stirred up.
STRONG LANGUAGE
I received the book over the holidays. Im about 60% of the way through. I love the book and think heās largely accurate in his assume that of the sugar industry. Business is war and you solicit your allies to win at any cost. No sugar executive is going to allow his business to be scuttled without a massive war. The shareholders wonāt have it. Thus soliciting experts and influencing their opinion through incentives is what happens. After watching other industries like big pharma do the same I have no doubt the sugar industry did it.