I disagree. And the point is the message is confusing, which I don't think is refuted by this thread's content.
I don't understand why you keep saying this. What if Gary is more right than he is wrong? What if he is even partly right? It means the public has been getting factually incorrect and even harmful advice for decades. Why should we just keep telling people something even if its false with a united voice because we don't want to "confuse people?" You also endorse CSPI despite their behaviour likely having done a whole lot of harm to cause distrust toward nutritional science in general, where people come to see them as hyperbolic scaremongers that cant make up their minds.
Right. That's the disconnect I'm talking about and the strawperson. He's glossing over the fact that people didn't cut the amount of fat in their diets. This is a major weakness in his theory. People are eating more fat than ever. And more protein. And more carbs. And more alcohol. And when we do the math, we find that the weight they gain is explained by the increase in calories.
I'd like to remind you that Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, the person you said you hold in high regard, said that he thinks its due to nutritional guidelines "myopically" pushing a low fat diet that contributed dramatically to the rise in the societal prevalence of chronic disease and obesity because of the shift to carbohydrates. For some reason if Dr Freedhoff says it its okay, but if Taubes says it it's "disconnected" from reality and a "strawman".
Not really. It's irrelevant because it doesn't seem to have any impact on actual real world appetites.
Is it irrelevant or is it false? If fat is more satiating, then it will have a real world impact, if it's not more satiating then it won't. If fat is more satiating, then we know something else must be going on in those studies.
And the main reason is probably because there are so many factors that impact appetite that benefits from adjusting macronutrient ratio are just not that big.
So you will be just as hungry if you eat 100% sugary snacks than if you eat low GI or high fat/low carb food? Why do we say that if you eat low GI foods you will stay fuller for longer because it's converted to glucose slower? If what you are saying is true that all goes out the window. That it has no effect at all and its all just as satiating. So eat a bowl of oats or eat a cake for breakfast, it's all just as fattening and all just as satiating.
That's his reasoning yes. Does this not set off your skeptic sense?
Why should it? He has good reasons for why he thinks the studies haven't been done right. Everyone accepts these studies are very hard to do well. Many of the studies that look at a low carb diet still include too many carbs, and they rely on poor ability to control for people sticking to the diet and aren't cheating can calculating things accurately. Maybe the results will come out the same, or maybe the results might make people sit up and take notice and consider that maybe we have been looking at things wrong. The blanket dismissal of some people who those like Taubes seem to be based on misrepresenting his views, such as saying he doesn't believe in thermodynamics.
Gotcha, gotcha... OK I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that Dr. Hall and CSPI specifically were claiming trans fats are safe.
What I said was CSPI that were saying trans fats were a safe alternative to animal fats.
I now understand by 'they' you meant 'scientists' and that you were engaged in the fallacious argument that since 'scientists' were wrong about something in the past, you can dismiss science today.
It's a quack argument, and a sign of anti-science.
CSPI were not saying transfats appeared to be safe, they were saying transfats were "not guilty as charged", in their apparently typical certainty. I asked you before about their hyperbolic language and you said it was based on science. Was it "scientific" to describe a pasta dish as a heart attack on a plate? Even if they believe that high saturated fat causes heart disease, it is still the kind of language a tabloid journalistic uses.
So I am not impressed by the behavior of CSPI. In regards to Hall, what she said is in contrast to Dr Freedhof's views. Freedhof called those like CSPI "myopic" in pushing low fat diets, that saturated fat has been unfairly demonised and that it was due to those like CSPI that contributed dramatically to the rise in obesity and chronic disease. That doesn't sound like Freedhof would say CSPI is purely about the science.
Yep. In other words, he's a contemporary dietary expert. This is the state of the science today.
I don't understand what this means. Is he correct or not? CSPI is still, according to Freedhof, "myopically" pushing a low fat diet and seems to be as anti-saturated fat as it was before.
I don't think I've argued against any of those points in this thread,
You've argued against them in this very post.
Freedhof is clearly against he policies of CSPI based on what he wrote in the first part of his review. He implicates CSPI indirectly as being part of the problem, and helping to cause the increase in obesity and chronic disease. You defended Hall, who while also being part of CSPI, also still pushes the idea that saturated fat is necessarily bad and that it leads to heart disease which Freedhof calls a "myopic" view and that saturated fat has been wrongly demonised.
Freedhof says we eat too many carbs, that eating too many refined highly processed ones contribute dramatically to obesity and disease. On the other hand you have argued that all macronutriants have the same effect on the body, such as when you say whether you eat fat or sugar they have the same effect on satiety. I'm not sure how you can rationalise both of these at the same time. If the macronutriant composition of the food won't effect satiety and don't effect the body's metabolism, then how can refined highly processed carbohydrates be uniquely fattening like Freedhof believes? It seems like you are holding two mutually exclusive ideas in your head the the same time
and my disagreement with him is probably just terminology. He uses the word 'dramatically' and I would dial it down a notch to 'materially'. We might end up agreeing on actual percentages and just have different labels.
I think I have said that low carb diets are not shown to be better than others for weight loss purposes, and historical low fat advice is not the sole or even main cause of the recent increase in obesity. Both of these are claims by Taubes that I reject.
Materially means "
significantly/considerably." I'm not sure how this changes what Freedhof wrote or how it contradicts what you've said here as I described above. Im also pretty sure Taubes has never said that the low fat advice several decades ago was the "sole" cause of recent obesity. You exaggerate Taubes' stance because you want to be able to support Freedhof, CSPI and be against Taubes all at the same time.
