Critical Thinking, Science, (or bad science) and Conventional Wisdom

[Robert S]

Hi Guys,
It has been a while since I have visited the Forum, so I apologize if the following subject has all ready been discussed. I would like to bring to the attention of the members of this forum possibly the best book I have read in my entire life. The book is called Good Calories Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes. Taubes is a science writer for Science Magazine (he is not a doctor). The book takes a look at how our current nutritional guidelines evolved, how the science or lack thereof was used to perpetuate one size fits all recommendations. This book is the best example of investigative scientific journalism I have ever had the pleasure to read.
If you are like me a person who has struggled with maintaining a healthy weight almost his entire life, this book is like the curtain being pulled and exposing the great OZ. If you’re also like me a person who has gained and lost more weight during a short 50 years of existence than I would like to remember, tried virtually every recommended diet, exercise, and failed miserably every time, this book is a must read. This is not a diet book, so it will not necessarily guide you to the miracle diet we all wish existed, but it will answer the question of why a low fat high carbohydrate diet at the very least is not ones size fits all. It could also very possibly change your life, and more importantly change your quality of life.
For those who are proponents of critical thinking, and like to see conventional wisdom exposed for what it has become in many instances. I believe you will find a great appreciation for the work undertaken in this book.
We have examples of bad science, political correctness, corruption, and plain unethical behavior affecting all of our lives all of the time. Sometimes we just intuitively know when the powers to be are not being honest, or we are not being told all the facts. Most of us don’t have time unless sufficiently motivated to do the research our selves, and many times we aren’t equipped with the scientific background to digest the information ourselves. So relying on our doctors, institutions and their expertise is all we have available to us or time for. If the information is incorrect or incomplete, how are we to know? If the recommendations about a healthy diet are based on false or misleading hypotheses, then how did they evolve? Since the late 70’s we have been told that a diet low in saturated fat and high in carbohydrates is ideal. We should reduce or eliminate fatty red meat, and consume more carbohydrates. Since that time obesity, diabetes, heart disease, dementia, and alzheimer’s has increased not decreased. The war on cancer is a dismal failure and the billions spent on research does not look at how to prevent cancer, but looks to cure cancer or prolong life once we are diagnosed. We once called Type II diabetes adult onset diabetes, but with the increased incidence in children that name is no longer appropriate. Pick-up any publication or watch cable news and at least once a week you will see a story about the ever increasing number of fat or obese Americans. Could it be the larger percentage of carbohydrates we are told to consume has anything to with it? Think about the human diet with a historical perspective, and not just the last 50 years or so. We here in US and most western cultures have become guinea pigs in a nutritional experiment, simply based on false hypothetical assumptions which evolved in the early 20th century. Good Calories Bad Calories takes the reader through the history of how our current nutritional recommendations evolved, and how even science today is used and manipulated to justify a bad theory. If your fat and want to know why, or if you’re interested in how bad science becomes conventional wisdom then I urge you to read this book. Look up Gary Taubes on Amazon, the book is available in paperback: 

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255020482&sr=1-1

I do urge reading the book before you comment, but it is close to 600 pages. Here is a link to lecture by Gary Taubes at Stevens Institute of Technology:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149#

If you believe knowledge is power, then this book could possibly be the most empowering piece of knowledge written in modern times

[Mantayo]

Thanks for posting this Robert, I haven't had time to acquire and read the book yet, but I found the reviews on Amazon informative - particularly the latest one (at the time I visited the site) by Timothy D Lundeen who gives a useful synopsis of the contents as well as noting three or four "issues" he has with the work. I will be reading this book as soon as I can (even though I have never had a weight or diabetic etc. health problem) as the process by which information is marshalled, filtered and finally presented to (or kept from) the public is of supreme importance IMHO. 

[Robert S]

Hi Montayo (you’re welcome), I agree Lundeen writes a good review. I don’t think Taube’s purpose was to address the follow-up issues related to the specific breakdown of good Fats, Protein, or Carbohydrates, or discuss the specific impact of the type of Fats consumed. What Taube’s does say is that because high carbohydrate low fat diets are assumed to be healthy most of the research is designed to perpetuate that hypothesis at worst, and at best miss-understands or ignores conflicting evidence. That has been the state or condition of the “group think” of our nutritional institutions, medical professionals, and academia. So even in the face of data to the contrary, the interpreters found ways to promote or justify the bad Fat, good Carbohydrate myth, and since this myth’s inception this assumption has caused the demonization of dissenting voices (Adkins and others). If a low carbohydrate high fat diet had been recognized for its benefits to a large percentage of the population in terms of achieving or maintaining a healthy weight, and its ability to restore or maintain a healthy blood profile (cholesterol/sugar/insulin) in many others, research would be and have been conducted to refine the mechanisms and detail. Essentially if our nutritional and medical experts and institutions hadn’t been trying to force one square peg into a single round hole for the last 40 years, they could have been actively pursuing how different shaped pegs affect different sized holes. In effect the myth has put the science of nutrition in a state of limbo, stifled opposing theories, and demonized anyone going against the orthodoxy. And yes Taubes is particularly hard on some scientists, but only because there was and continues to be plenty of research and evidence that is and was ignored, or discounted. Even if the evidence was or is not conclusive, it was and has been sufficient enough for these experts to re-evaluate and undertake the same investigation he undertook. After-all shouldn’t we expect good scientists to be the harshest critics of their own work, instead of using the science to perpetuate the myth and ignoring every measure of the health effects a low fat high Carb diet has had since its implementation on Western populations, or at least recognize the paradox it created for such a large percentage of its population.

The lecture Taube’s gives is a good summary/overview of the book, but is exactly that (linked in 1st post). As a side note I have purchased this book for every member of my immediate family, a few friends, and posted or emailed everyone I know about the book.

One thing the experts have right is that we are what we eat, and anyone suffering from obesity, diabetes, heart disease, or the related diseases or complications these can lead to, which have been caused by diet can theoretically reverse or head them off. 

For now I at least can take comfort in knowing that I’m not just too lazy or lack sufficient will power in achieving a healthy weight. Nothing is one size fits all except maybe bathrobes, well I can say that now since I have lost about 30lbs since July;D. I eat what I need, (protein, fat, green veggies), and have no feelings of depriving myself. I have more energy, and don’t experience the highs and lows when I consumed any number of refined or sugary carbs, or what I thought was a healthy proportion of even “good” carbs. I thought I would have problems since I thought I had a sweet tooth. At least for me no refined carbs has worked out great so far.  We will see how this works in the next few months, and beyond but for now I’m losing weight and more importantly inches. Unlike low calorie deprivation diets I have been on, I am simply do not feel weak, and exhausted, energized would be a far better description.

Hopefully at some point more main stream or conventional nutrition and medical institutions will take this work seriously, and at the very least investigate the nutritional reasons why obesity, type II diabetes and heart disease has exploded in the last 40 years. Instead of declined as people ate less fat, exercised more, and tried to follow the experts’ advice. Here is one if not conventional nutritional/medical expert, at least a well respected doctor in integrative medicine, Dr Andrew Weil:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149#docid=7675266556666200379

Another aspect that Taube’s does not address besides Omega 6, trans fats, and/or polyunsaturated fats are sugar substitutes. This again I think gets away from Taube’s main purpose of simply dispelling the high carb/low fat myth, and calorie restriction to obtain a healthy weight hypothesis. Many people will simply replace regular sugar with any number of sugar substitutes, which in my experience helps set them up for the future deprivation cycle. Sugar substitutes may have zero or very low glycemic indexes, but they are still satisfying the psychological addiction to carbs. So the individual is still not enjoying the full effect of freeing themselves from consuming the simple carbs in their diet. They may switch to sugar free substitutes, but in effect are still consuming the carb type food there body really wasn’t designed to do well on. Not to mention that sugar substitutes have questionable dietary and health consequences of their own.

Sorry, just meant to say your comment was welcome