If you listen to Gary Taubes (author of Why We Get Fat, and Good Calories, Bad Calories), you would believe that the reason we are fat is because we eat too much carbohydrate, and that the way to solve the problem is to stop eating carbohydrates.
That's a straw man argument. Taubes said no such thing. She is either being deceptive, didn't read it, or she's VERY stupid.
we in North America are fatter than virtually everyone else in the world (32% of men and 35% of women in the US are obese), but we eat less bread than they do.
That is a red herring. Bread is just one of many things, AND there are many different kinds of bread. So this bit is laughable. The fact that she added statistics about bead consumption indicates this is propaganda.
So we eat fewer carbohydrates than Europeans do, we are fatter, but it is carbohydrates that are making us fat?
Hilarious! This is the conclusion from her faulty premise above. So because we don't eat as much bread, that means we eat less carbs? Wow, that is either dishonesty or mind-boggling stupidity.
Mr. Taubes takes his theory a step further and suggests that it is the low-fat diet fad that began in the last 30 years that has caused this alleged increase in carbohydrate consumption.
A report from the Food and Agriculature Organization (FAO) of the United Nations shows that over the past 10 years, American’s have3:
- increased their fat intake by 7%;
- increased their overall calories by 2%; and
- their protein intake has remained the same.
So she says 30 years, then gets data for 10, even though 35 years is more about the figure she should be looking at if she wants to rebut Taubes. Very fishy. You also have to wonder why she is using that source. It's an organization for the purpose of combating world hunger. That seems very strange.
Then below that she uses a Canadian study, even though we were talking about the US. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It looks like she started out with a presupposed idea, and then tried to find stuff to support that.
Look here, the food balance sheets from FAO (her source) isn't actually what people ate. It's just a calculation based on available food and the population.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But let's say fat consumption has gone up. She hasn't noted what kind of fat it is. We know that people are eating more processed food containing more sugar and corn oil. Those statistics mean a lot more than total fat consumption.
How is it that Mr. Taubes’ thesis misses the mark? Because he bases it on outliers.
She never established that his thesis missed the mark. We got nothing but logical fallacies and deception. The outliers is the main point of what comes next, but she never goes into detail about that. I wonder why that is?
but he encourages us to repeat the “fat is evil” mistake of the 80s with his “carbohydrates are evil” movement.
More misrepresentation of Taubes arguments..... imagine that.....
I believe that the non-fat movement may have started as a sound nutritional approach, with the idea being that if you are going to eat junk food, it is best to limit the amount that you eat. Low-fat junk food alternatives can mean that someone who would have eaten 1 cup of chocolate ice cream (500 calories) can instead eat 1 cup of chocolate frozen yogurt (250 calories). This means the overall junk food portion of their energy intake will be 12.5% instead of 25% (based on 2000 calories a day). I think most would agree that that is a good tradeoff (not eating the junk food would be better, of course). Unfortunately this concept was later applied beyond junk food to all foods, where healthy fats were replaced with empty carbohydrates. That is no longer a good trade. I certainly agree that reducing the empty carbohydrates in our diet and increasing the healthy fats and proteins should be part of a healthy nutrition plan.
Here we have one big baseless assertion. To be fair she did say it was just an idea. However she has nothing to back this up. It's nothing but speculation and her personal beliefs, which are based on nothing as far as I can tell.
A much simpler answer to the obesity question is that we eat more because we are served more.
How is it simpler? Does it have any merit? How do you know people eat everything they are served?
The biggest problem with this is that there is NO causative link, but she concludes with the arrow of causation based on nothing but presupposition. That is the same problem with the idea that Taubes debunks. So rather than address Taubes main point, she simply creates this smoke and mirrors article, and then commits the SAME fallacy Taubes spent HUNDREDS of pages debunking. He didn't just state that it's the "causation" or "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, but actually provides evidence for why the causative arrow goes the direction he states. She simply creates straw man in order to support her presupposed beliefs.
She then goes on to accurately asses Dr. Andrew Weil and Dr. John Berardi. This leads me to think this article is either deception or personal bias, rather than stupidity.