And yet another person, Paul Raeburn, questions Gary Taubes' journalism rather than his message.
And here's medicine's poet laureate David Katz rebutting Taubes' sugar claims.
Galia Slayen shows us what Barbie would look like in real life.
The New York Times covers the predatory marketing of junk food by means of online games for kids.
A great stream of comments over on Obesity Panacea regarding our recent co-posting on obesity as an election issue.
Have an hour to kill and want more David Katz? Watch this fabulous lecture by the most eloquent man in medicine:
Science, Sense, & Elephense - Dr. Katz from HD Reps on Vimeo.
Posts
1. David Katz, board of directors for the Turn the Tide Foundation the #2 corporate sponsor of which is Hershey's Foods.
ReplyDelete2. The most ridiculous statement:
"A diet can contain sugar, and specifically fructose, and be optimal for health. A diet could be low in sugar, but high in sodium or trans fat, or deficient in fiber and omega-3 fat -- and be far from optimal."
Yes, a diet containing sugar can be optimal if it comes in small doses in fruit. But a diet low in sugar (which IS a diet containing sugar) but deficient in etc.etc. He never asks the question, does a diet NEED sugar to be optimal? Or is having a small amount of sugar in a diet ok because we can tolerate it rather than because we require it? It's like those old cereal commercials 'part of this nutrious breakfast' when the rest of the breakfast would be just as nutrious without the cereal.
There is not one study I am aware of saying that sugar outside of forms found in foods we have evolved to eat (mother's milk, fruit for example) is actually helpful to us.
As for the journalism piece, he may have a point had Taubes not pointed out repeated (as the author acknowledges) that "we don't know" that sugar is toxic. Show me one article in any journal on the low fat diet that pointed out repeatedly that evidence that these things worked is scarce or non-existent. Where were the criticisms of these folks?
Yes I believe Taubes is mostly correct about the low carb diet being the best for weight loss for most overweight and obese people. BUT he does take pains throughout his writing to use phrases like 'it appears to be' and 'would seem to indicate'. Whereas writers about the conventional and never proven wisdom write as if it was gospel.
I don't get why you continue to post ridiculous rebuttals to Taubes without comment. There are some decent counter arguments but posting articles that defend sugar? Weird for a weight loss guy...