[ExI] Good Calories, Bad Calories

Harvey Newstrom mail at HarveyNewstrom.com
Sun May 1 20:01:05 UTC 2011


I hate to post this.  I don't want to start up the carb-vs-fat thread again.
And I don't want to step on the toes of those who believe differently than I
do.  But I was asked to read Gary Taubes' "Good Fats, Bad Fats" and respond
back when I had.  I don't want anybody to think that was intellectually
dishonest by not doing so.  I know that my opinion will not sway anybody in
this forum.  So this is not an attempt to reopen the debate.  Unless
somebody has something new to say, we don't have to say it all over again.

As promised, I have acquired and read Gary Taubes' "Good Fats, Bad Fats" for
review.  I also read "Why We Get Fat", perused the websites, watched
multiple videos and interviews with Taubes, and listened to a few podcasts
with Taubes.  The summary of all my review has not changed my opinion one
bit.  Instead, it has strengthened my resolve that this is the most
unscientific book since "The Bell Curve".  It is pseudo-science wrapped up
in scientific sounding words.

In conclusion, I still believe that total calories in minus total calories
expended equals remaining calories stored as fat.  These calories can be fat
or carb, it does not matter.  Eating more calories than expended will cause
weight gain.  Exercise will expend more calories and reduce weight gain.
Eating less will reduce calorie input and reduce weight gain.  High fat is
just as dangerous as high carbs.  There are good fats and good carbs that
should replace bad fat and bad carbs.  Nothing in Taubes' book (or
elsewhere) convinces me that these basic scientific beliefs are wrong or
that there is a conspiracy to fake all this science and hide the real
science.

For reference, here are my main problems with Taubes' entire approach in
this book and elsewhere:

1. Hypothesis.  Taubes admits that his theory is at the "hypothesis" stage.
Although he keeps saying all the science supports him, when directly asked,
he admits that there are no scientific experiments that support his claims.
It is all supposition and hypothesis.  Real science would pursue funding and
perform experiments to determine if the hypothesis is true.  Pseudoscience
goes straight to publishing to make money off of diet books.

2. Anecdotal Evidence.  Taubes books are full of anecdotal evidence.  He
introduces his book with the "Eisenhower Paradox".  He even admits that
anecdotal evidence is not generally useful in science, yet he thinks it will
be useful anyway, and he just plows on.  Most of his material doesn't even
pretend to be scientific.  It is his own unscientific observations and mere
assertions of "obvious" common sense.
  
3. Cherry-Picked Evidence.  Taubes claims that no studies have been done
yet.  He seems to be begging the scientific community to pay attention to
his hypothesis and test them.  The problem is that it has been tested.
There have been decades of testing with hundreds if not thousands of studies
and experiments.  They virtually all disprove Taubes' hypothesis.  Because
they don't get the conclusion he wants, he dismisses them as "wrong".  Then,
when there is nothing left that he counts as accurate, he pretends that
studies haven't been done.  This is simply not true.

4. Conspiracy Theory.  While Taubes seems to claim that no studies have been
done, he actually says no "real" studies have been done.  When directly
asked, he admits that there have been many studies and experiments.  He even
admits that virtually all of the evidence is against him.  But he explains
this away by falling back on the conspiracy theory.  It is all bad science.
Everybody is wrong but him.  Corporate interests and the medical
establishment want to perpetuate the myth of bad science.  Therefore, we
must ignore all the evidence and believe his hypothesis without evidence.
It is not possible to believe in Taubes' hypothesis without buying into the
conspiracy theory.  In the absence of conspiracy, the evidence simply does
not add up.  One must accept the conspiracy claims to make his story even
plausible.

5. Unfalsifiable.  Taubes claims that the scientific literature is wrong.
What's more, the peer-review process is tainted, the experimental process is
done wrong, the interpretation is done wrong, and nobody can (re)produce the
results he predicts.  In normal science, this would disprove a hypothesis.
But for pseudoscience, this is more evidence of the conspiracy.  Therefore,
we cannot rely upon the normal scientific processes when evaluating his
hypothesis.  Instead, he falls back on anecdotal evidence, fringe theories,
minority reports, and unreproducible claims.  I.E., his hypothesis is
supposedly outside of science and must be accepted before science is done
properly, instead of the other way around.  This is how pseudoscience works,
not science.  If standard science cannot be used to test his hypothesis,
then what method should be used?

6. Special Pleading.  Taubes, and those who support him, are doing science
backwards.  Science is tested by seeing if it predicts observation.  But
Taubes dismisses observation when it disputes his hypothesis.  He explains
that Orientals on a traditional diet of rice are healthier than when they
come to America and eat an Western diet.  He even admits that it would seem
like they ate a lot of carbs.  But he dismisses it, positing that maybe they
don't eat as many carbs as we think, or that maybe they have something
special in their diet that protects them from the effects of carbs.  In
other words, instead of explaining the observation with existing theory, he
tries to override the observation by adding unknown/undiscovered effects to
explain why his theory doesn't fit observation.  Similar claims are made for
statins, which lower cholesterol.  Why do they also seem to reduce
heart-attack rates if cholesterol doesn't cause heart-attacks?  Maybe there
is another unknown/undiscovered protective mechanism the statins use instead
of the direct obvious one (lowering cholesterol) that was predicted and
observed.  He seems to throw up so many special pleadings and exceptions,
that it almost seems like there are a multitude of exception where carb
diets are actually good for you, according to Taubes.  This also violates
the concept of Occam's Razor, where the simple/direct/obvious explanation is
rejected in favor of a more complicated/convoluted explanation to get the
same observational results.

7. Misapplied evidence.  Taubes quotes a lot of studies that show that
people transitioning from traditional diets where they did well end up doing
poorly on a Western diet.  This is well known and not disputed.  But then he
always throws in his own claim that this is because of carbs, even where the
original study did not distinguish carbs or fats.  He concludes that eating
McDonalds is bad, but claims it is the carbs in the bun, not the fat in the
meat.  Or it is the carbs in the french fries, not the fat they are boiled
in.  These types of studies provide no evidence for or against the
carb-vs-fat question.  Taube misapplies them as supporting conclusions that
they do not.   He ignores that fact that these studies support the fat
hypothesis just as well or the calories in/out hypothesis.  The studies
don't distinguish between any of these factors as being causative over
opposing hypotheses.

8. Misrepresented evidence.  While googling for these studies to review for
myself, I was shocked at how often I also found the original researchers
attacking Taubes for misrepresenting their work and misstating their
conclusions.  He seems infamous in scientific circles for misrepresenting
other people's work as supporting the opposite conclusion than it really
does.  Taubes' response to these accusations is that the accusers are
becoming part of the conspiracy, having to deny their association with his
conclusions.  But again, this story only hold together if everybody else is
lying except Taubes.

9.  Old evidence.  The other problem I kept running into is the sheer age of
most of his references.  Taubes seems to prefer old evidence rather than
newer evidence.  This seems to be because earlier experiments are (mis)used
to support his hypothesis where later refined experiments clearly dispute
it.  Experiments tend to get better as they are repeated later.  Mistakes
and flaws in methodologies are corrected as science progresses.  As such,
science tends to prefer later experiments, while pseudoscience tends to
prefer the earlier experiments.  For example, earlier experiments did not
distinguish between good and bad cholesterol.  Thus, the earlier experiments
were more ambiguous as to whether increasing cholesterol was good or whether
decreasing cholesterol was good.  When science determined that there were
different types of cholesterol and started distinguishing between them in
studies, it became obvious that increasing good cholesterol was good and
decreasing bad cholesterol was good.  Science would adjust the hypothesis to
keep up with experimental evidence.  Pseudoscience merely dismisses the
later evidence as a conspiracy and continues to cling to the earlier less
rigorous evidence which cannot be replicated.

10.  Moving goalposts.  I have had a problem with Taubes' supporters which
is slightly mirrored by Taubes' himself.  He adapts to later knowledge, not
by changing his hypothesis, but by rewriting history.  Earlier claims were
that grains were unavailable before modern agriculture.  However, as more
and more evidence grows that grains were routinely eaten by Neanderthals,
the claim merely shifts that they didn't eat enough grains to matter.  I had
the same experience on the Extropians list.  The claim was that grains
simply could not have been used pre-agriculture.  But when I proved they
were, nobody cared.  The requested evidence didn't matter.  I had a similar
response when asked to review a website.  I was assured that it had evidence
to prove all the claims.  But when I trashed the website in response, the
claim shifted that the website was a poor shadow of the real evidence
contained in the books.  Every time requested counter evidence if produced,
seems to be ignored in favor of a new standard of evidence.  But, as with
all pseudoscience, evidence is never good enough, or is fake evidence from
the conspiracy.  It is not clear what standard of evidence or what
experiment could possibly be acceptable.  This seems more of a faith-based
belief system that cannot be disproved, instead of an evidence-based system
that adapts to existing evidence.  So, if Neanderthals ate cooked grains and
legumes, it seems that they must be added to the paleo diet, or else the
whole thesis of emulating the paleo diet is mute.

11. Inconsistent science.  The other problems with Taubes is the
inconsistent science.  He argues that calories ingested don't affect energy
levels or weight.  He argues that exercise doesn't decrease weight.  He even
claims that people gain weight when they don't eat enough calories.  He
questions the whole equation of calories in and calories out.  That breaks
basic laws of thermodynamics.  How could somebody believe in this while
still believing in physics?  How could somebody believe in this while still
going to the gym?  It seems that overturning a whole area of science would
have ripple effects that would invalidated other areas of science as well.
But somehow people believe this hypothesis for nutrition, but ignore its
implications in other areas.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CGEIT CSSLP CRISC CIFI NSA-IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP






More information about the extropy-chat mailing list