Talk:Gary Taubes

	This Food woo related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Evidence against the Carbohydrate-insulin model

• A review of the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity A review of the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity
• The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity Is Difficult to Reconcile With Current Evidence
• Why the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity is probably wrong: A supplementary reply to Ebbeling and Ludwig’s JAMA article
• Always Hungry? It's Probably Not Your Insulin

Useful links that can be added later. John66 (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

John66, see:

Taubes seemingly misconstrued the views of authors he cited in The Case Against Sugar (2016) publication. Quoting from Stephan Guyenet’s analysis:

“During the course of his argument, Taubes uses sleight of hand to portray the views of researchers as more favorable to his ideas than they really are. For example, in chapter 9 he argues that obesity and physical inactivity are not the real causes of insulin resistance, rather sugar causes both insulin resistance and obesity. To support his theory, he invokes the work of Stanford endocrinologist Gerald Reaven, claiming that he “was bringing back the notion that carbohydrates were bad”. This seemed mighty fishy to me, so I looked up what Reaven actually thinks. Here’s a quote from a review paper he wrote (emphasis mine) (32):

‘Since being overweight/obese and sedentary decreases insulin sensitivity, it is not surprising that the prevalence of the manifestations of the [insulin resistance syndrome] is increasing at a rapid rate. From a dietary standpoint, there are two approaches to attenuating the manifestations of the [insulin resistance syndrome]: (a) weight loss to enhance insulin sensitivity in those overweight/obese individuals who are insulin resistant/hyperinsulinemic; and (b) changes in macronutrient content of diets to avoid the adverse effects of the compensatory hyperinsulinemia [i.e., replacing carbohydrate with unsaturated fat- SG].’

Taubes neglects to inform the reader that Reaven thinks obesity and physical inactivity cause insulin resistance, and that these factors explain the rising prevalence of metabolic disease– precisely what Taubes is arguing against in that passage. Furthermore, Reaven explains in no uncertain terms that he does not think insulin resistance causes weight gain.

Rather than straightforwardly reporting what Reaven’s studies revealed and what the man believes, Taubes takes Reaven’s argument that people with existing insulin resistance may benefit from carbohydrate restriction and warps it to make it appear as if Reaven supports Taubes’s beliefs about the origins of insulin resistance. In doing so, Taubes flips Reaven’s position by 180 degrees. If you want the real scoop on Reaven’s important work, go straight to Reaven’s book Syndrome X.”

https://www.myoleanfitness.com/gary-taubes-sugar-obesity/ Carb Myths Busted (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Protein and bone loss

This article states that: "the high amount of protein recommended by Atkins leads to acidic urine. Professor of Nutrition George Blackburn noted that "there's no dispute that an acid urine leaches calcium out of bones."" Although this was previously considered plausible, the current expert consensus contradicts this assertion. In fact, dietary protein intake above currently recommended levels may help to reduce bone loss and fracture risk, especially at the hip, provided calcium intakes are adequate: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180515105645.htm ^{— Unsigned, by: 94.209.44.170 / talk / contribs}

The removal of total misinformation by an IP editor is not "edit warring" or "vandalism". The real wikipedia acknowledges that the acid ash hypothesis has been thoroughly discredited:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_ash_hypothesis

If anything, higher protein intake (≥ 0.8-g/kg body weight/day, i.e., above the current RDA) is associated with higher BMD. The editor "GrammarCommie", the person that repeatedly reverted this edit, has admitted in several other talk pages to being underweight, which is an important risk factor for low bone mass. Any licensed physician can corroborate this fact, so "GrammarCommie" is the last person you want to ask for advice on how to slow the rate of age-related bone loss. ^{— Unsigned, by: 94.209.44.170 / talk}

I never referred to myself as an expert, I merely told you to take it up on the talkpage. I also never refereed to your edits as "vandalism" (Please apologize for falsely stating that I did...) I did tell you to take it to the talkpage before removing sourced content. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, my apologies for putting the word vandalism in quotation marks. It is quite clear, however, that my contribution was considered counter productive and possibly disruptive. Any unbiased reading of the literature contradicts this "sourced content" that you are referring to (see the above expert consensus) and you don't have to be an expert to draw this conclusion.^{— Unsigned, by: 94.209.44.170 / talk / contribs}

Very well, I cede to your position. I shall remove the section myself. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)