Can you direct me to this man's work, so that I may look at his research myself?

Because I strongly suspect that any society experiencing cancer, etc. from grains would be due to improper processing of grains.

Or perhaps over reliance on grain consumption which subsequently crowds out essential proteins, fatty acids and fat soluble nutrients. Extreme over reliance on grains (especially improperly prepared grains) would also inhibit absorption of many minerals.

I agree with this, as well as with LessLiz's statement. There are as many different reasons why people change their eating habits as there are people.

My personal reasons include controlling my seizure disorder, and a "higher carb, lower fat" plan, such as South Beach or any vegetarian diet, just wouldn't work for that specific purpose. The Atkins plan has been studied in that context and proven to be effective for adults.

I'm sure I'll get blasted for this, but I've started reading Good Calories, Bad Calories, and I think like those he criticizes, he leaps (or implies) some silly conclusions.

Connection does not equal causation, but he draws a connection between eating carbs and cancer and then implies a causal conclusion. The way he does this is by saying that groups of people who had been separate from Westerners and their carb-heavy diets suddenly start having cancer more frequently when they begin eating Western diets. This completely ignores the theory (and at least in the case of cervical cancer, proven to some extent) that many cancers are caused by viruses. This would explain why introduction of a people to a new group of people would increase prevalence of a disease. Just the same way that introduction of Europeans killed many in the Americas from disease like small pox. The disease did not exist. The Westerners came and introduced the disease. The diseases caused problems. If cancers are from viruses, then introduction of a people with the viruses would cause the cancer, not the diet.

I haven't read the entire book yet, but I have not seen any explanation of why the rice-heavy diet of Asians seems to leave them in good health.

I don't think it ignores the viral theory; I think it is simply a concomitant.

In other words, susceptibility to virii, fungii etc. that lead to things like ulcers and cancer may very well be vastly correlated with carbohydrate intake, because of immunosuppression factors of that kind of diet.

So let's say the world agreed tomorrow cancer is caused by a virus/fungus/whatever. That would not really make his observation of an apparent causal link between eating high carbohydrates and cancer, incorrect; he would still be correct. It's simply that there may be other secondary factors either in between those things, or which affects both of them together.

Whether a virii did not exist in some populations until they began eating carbs, is something that would need a whole field of science on its own for study. Right now there is not enough research on that to really use it for consideration when summarizing what we DO have research or stats on.

I appreciate that carbs or certain carbs could be a factor. But they also may not be. He ignores other possibilities as the sole or contributing causes and leads the reader to believe that carbs are the cause.

It's a bit like the coffee/bladder cancer scare.

Well, the book was already pretty big without adding in everything else in the world that migh tbe an issue.

As for leading to believe, I got the impression his goal was to ask people to do more research on the subject of his book, not to declare that he had the ultimate and final answer for everything. I guess it's all in the reader's perspective.

Well, carbs are his focus, that is true. But you can't write much of a focused book if every single point you make you have to stop and list 147 other "alternate theories"; if the theory your book focuses on has data that works with the theory, it's probably reasonable to stick to that.

A lot of people have talked about "what he left out or didn't address". The book was nearly 500 pages. If he'd even put in all he had already it probably would have been twice that length. If he added even a small fraction of the possible other topics or directions any given point could have gone, it would have run into a couple thousand pages.

If there is a decent chunk of evidence for that, maybe you could compile some references and send it to him. As a separate topic, he might be interested.

I've come to think it's more the processed-food angle as well. Though as others have mentioned, it all depends on your individual health issues.

I know a grain-based diet doesn't work for me, and I lean towards the view that it doesn't really work for the majority of people - is this because of preparation methods (ie: Wonder bread vs days-long soaked and sprouted homemade bread), or because grains replace other foods, or both?

I think the "double standard" or zealous approach comes from the fact that many of us became very unhealthy following mainstream nutrition recommendations (or other "alternative" recommendations, like macrobiotics etc etc). I know I was evangelical at first.

What was left out of GCBC is everything that the USDA and the media has been bombarding us with for the last 30 years. If you don't already know it, get a TV.

Taubes was writing about the evidence that has been effectively removed from the conversation, not what everyone and his uncle is harping on and on about.

The rice heavy diet of the Chinese whom I know well and personally either a) doesn't exist, because they escaped being poverty stricken slave laborers, or b) makes them loose most of their teeth by 35 and kills them by 50.

In the family I have meals with here, rice is a small (2 teaspoons?) sweet side dish, often tasted after something spicy. The rest of the meal is low carb heaven - steamed leafy veggies, fatty pork and fresh seafood cooked in oils and spices. No bread or other grains except that one little thing of rice.

The families I know of in China often eat mostly rice for weeks at a time, even those very young toothless mothers. Fortunately that is changing even as we speak, because several generation of poor families have been stunted and killed early by the rice diet.

Hard to tell what a traditional chinese diet is. It was changed a lot by Mao and the poverty that ensued and regionally it is very varied.

My thinking is all processed junk is poison. Even LC.

That's true. Even looking at old art work only gives you an idea what the artist saw people eating. Taking a quick look in one of my books I see fish, fowl and leafy veggies though.

Oddly, something I never noticed before or never thought about at the time, I see a lot of fat, potbellied old men in these paintings.

None of my Chinese friends eat much rice either, certainly not as much as North Americans seem to think they would. The Chinese weddings I've been to have been, as you said, "low carb heaven". My friends came to Canada when they were quite young, 7 or 8, and are taller than their parents (and built - holy crap), and their sister who was born here is the tallest of them all.

Yep, I went to China last summer and wasn't served any rice, and didn't see any noodles... however, people I was visiting in various regions were middle class i.e. above average class, the food was as you said a LC heaven. Even their deserts were made of some kind of soy bean paste, the portions were just enough too, you'd eat and feel full, not worrying about the huge plates you need to finish (bowl sizes were a bit bigger than an espresso cup, so you'd need to keep refilling it from the large plates... I foudn this activity alone makes you think of home much you have eaten). Mind you am not sure if this was a usual daily food, or if they were offering me the best foods because of the way they honour their guests. i.e. if I had a guest coming round, I wont serve them regular food e.g. fries and burgers etc… may be some roast lamb or salmon with lots of veggies, but this wont reflect the regular carby diet here in the west. However, I did ask my Chinese friends and they told me the culture is to eat all the normal food (i.e. meat and veg) first then if anyone is still hungry they bring out the rice/noodles, I haven't been to any meal where anyone was still hungry and needed the rice !!

I have a lot of Chinese friends here, and their favourite social functions revolves around food and going out to restaurants... there is one famous really good Chinese restaurant in my town (no MSG) when I go I order a special Beef& Aubergine dish with a lot of chilli, the plate is soooo fatty (swimming in fat) and some Chinese vegetables .... I am always guaranteed to lose 1lb or two every time I go there, even though I eat till am sooooo full, my DD tells me all the filthy rich Chinese teen age exchange students have dinner there every day!!

Not sure about lower poor classes food, I think they do eat more carbs and veg but no meat, and the portions are very small.