Here's a link to Gary Taubes' latest Unsettle Science article:

Read the article in full here.

N of 1000?

Show me a study with that many participants!! Thats a very expensive study , and rare.

Add up the N=1, and it becomes thousands. And tens of thousands.

Look at the daily posting of Dave Mac's youtube channel, No Carb Life. Just wow. And Kerry's channel, many interviews and long version podcasts with 6-8-10 plus guests.

In gardening, how many require research before jumping in......or cooking, is research required or just a recipe?

If that's truly their belief - that a calorie is a calorie, no matter the source - then how is it of any use to declare a low fat diet better than a low carb diet?

Yes, that can go the other way - but the thing is if there is even one single patient who does better on a LC diet, why is that not officially an option to offer?

If a calorie is a calorie, then it shouldn't matter one bit if you get most of your calories from fats and proteins.

If they truly believe a calorie is a calorie, then at the very least the official stance could be to tell each patient "there's two options to try - low fat or low carb. Try both, see which you get the best results from, and stick with that one", making sure to point out that "best results" means better blood glucose numbers. We already know which one is going to win that contest.

I'd say no, the worst kind is asking people what they are over the last year 😁

LOL. Brilliant! Exactly! Back when I tracked, my loss resumed anytime I cut back on the carbs and raised the calories by eating more fat.

So of course I did that more and more What, scold my metabolism for not being dead-on average?

(Werebear, I edited the typo to what I think you meant.)

Once upon a time, with great enthusiasm, I joined the NWLR--National Weight Loss Registry (or something like that.) I was excited about my low-carb weight loss and maintenance.

But wait!! Nothing on their diet questionnaire allowed for LC or anything other than calorie-counting methods. And what about “What did you eat for breakfast last February?" The aggregate of their hundreds of participants always came up: Low-cal/low-fat plus exercise. Their follow-up with me expired after about two years. No more questionnaires. That’s not what I’d call long-term.

Dr. Atkins got plenty of flak from “science” for his dietary theories based on what? Based initially on what happened to him when he experimented with low-carb. Don’t bother to ask his many clinical patients how much they enjoyed their regained health (and beauty).

Yes, Atkins wrote a book aiming to be a popular and profitable bestseller. But he did not neglect appropriate medical guidance tailored to each and every person. Scientists in labs do not sit with weeping diabetics day after day.

Thank goodness for science! Gives us vaccines, cancer therapies (lots and lots of those because come to find out there are lots of different cancers!) and generic versions of those monstrously overpriced proprietary medicines.

But I digress. You can’t tell me “meta” anything is more reliable than the insights brought to healing by the clinicians.