The purpose of this post confused me. As someone who hasn’t read Good Calories, Bad Calories, is this supposed to be a refutation of his central argument? In the intro post, you said the purpose first post will be “to look at what Taubes is proposing as an alternative [to mainstream nutrition].”
That implies that your response to this is meant to be a general refutation of this idea. But, to me your response feels more like a nitpick. Disagreeing on whether eating more fats has few effects on fat accumulation, or absolutely no effect, doesn’t seem to change too much of his argument.
(I think we can ignore the 2002 article, because from this article it looks like Why We Get Fat is an explanation of his ideas on how weight gain works. We should take the more recent and more steelmanned version of his work as what we are trying to refute.)
is this supposed to be a refutation of his central argument?
No, this is mostly just explaining what Taubes is defending when he defends Atkins. Refutation of his main arguments comes later. If I did this again, I probably would have combined this with the subsequent post.
The purpose of this post confused me. As someone who hasn’t read Good Calories, Bad Calories, is this supposed to be a refutation of his central argument? In the intro post, you said the purpose first post will be “to look at what Taubes is proposing as an alternative [to mainstream nutrition].”
That implies that your response to this is meant to be a general refutation of this idea. But, to me your response feels more like a nitpick. Disagreeing on whether eating more fats has few effects on fat accumulation, or absolutely no effect, doesn’t seem to change too much of his argument.
(I think we can ignore the 2002 article, because from this article it looks like Why We Get Fat is an explanation of his ideas on how weight gain works. We should take the more recent and more steelmanned version of his work as what we are trying to refute.)
No, this is mostly just explaining what Taubes is defending when he defends Atkins. Refutation of his main arguments comes later. If I did this again, I probably would have combined this with the subsequent post.