I'm really disgusted folks. I'm sorry, but I get a whole heckuhlot of criticism for checking the references of one Gary Taubes. I must be some obsessed, hermit crab stalker type to spend my time and a few dollars to actually look into what he says his references say, vs. what they actually say. Nah, rather that I just accept what he says at face value. Taubes' misuse of the Pima as an example of his carbs-make-you-fat-and-diabetic garbage is one where you don't even need to try to understand the science. He flat out misrepresents this "poster population" for his hypothesis to have people believe their's was a lower carbohydrate diet back when. But, in fact, it was far higher in carbohydrate than the SAD, to the tune of 80+%. Still ... no program has approved GCBC for their curricula to the best of my knowledge.
Well, Jonathan Bailor is giving The Master a run for his money when it comes to misinterpreting/misrepresenting studies in his Smarter Science of Slim book. Only since Taubes explicitly avoided modern peer review research, while Bailor likens his "research" to meta-analysis of same, Bailor is far more insidious. Even as a "review" of the research it is turning out to be horribly misleading and inaccurate time and again. How then did this happen?
Read more »
