The Case against Sugar Isn't So Easily Dismissed

Gary Taubes: The Case against Sugar Isn’t So Easily Dismissed From the article: "Sugar and refined grains seemed to be the most likely answer to the right question, but this was swept under the rug or pronounced quackish because that answer also didn’t square with the saturated fat hypothesis. The key to all good science is understanding the question you’re asking and how it relates to the answers you need to find. And this problem is manifested once again in the responses of Drs. Guyenet and Freedhoff. Now that we’re almost literally neck deep in obesity and diabetes, the right question is vitally important to answer. If the sugar hypothesis is wrong, it is critically important that it be refuted definitively. That can only happen on the strength of far, far stronger evidence than Dr. Guyenet provides in his somewhat flip and casual response. And if the sugar hypothesis is unambiguously refuted, whatever hypothesis steps up as the next prime suspect has to be very carefully considered. (i.e., not the simplistic notion that people eat too much and move too little). We need a hypothesis that holds the promise of explaining the epidemics everywhere. In stopping an epidemic, nothing is more important than correctly identifying its cause." Yes the chart linked to this post does look like it disproves his sugary culprit theory... but Gary goes on to point out that the scales are not equally represented, and if they were so, the decline in sugar intake would in fact appear negligible. This is Gary Taubes’ response to his critics, and it’s well worth reading. See http://ift.tt/2jOwtIf