Glyceroneogenesis v. Taubes

My greatest criticism of Taubes is that despite several years of "exhaustive" research, and a deluge of references in his book, the bulk of his "Adiposity 101" is either unreferenced, or based on decades old physiology texts and papers.

In this lecture (Slide 48 at around 46 min in) is his discussion of glycerol-3-P.  Taubes is a master of stating facts ... in a misleading way that (1) leads the listener/reader to incorrect conclusions, and (2) enables Taubes to use the "I never said that" out when challenged.

He first quotes a 1970's text on the Fatty Acid Cycle and shows an updated text of similar.  In both he highlights the need for glycerol-3-P to esterify FFA's to triglycerides.  This is true.  

However on Slide 48 he presents a bunch of cobbled together "facts" that are either not considered settled science or are taken out of context.  And I note that while he now (2009) lists glyceroneogenesis on his slide, the word never passes his lips.  He jumps right over this bullet point on the slide!!   I cannot help but think that he has been informed since the 2007 publication of his book that such a metabolic path exists.  But since acknowledging it would probably require scrapping this entire section of his lecture and derail his money train, he prefers to include a term on a slide in a long lecture and hope nobody notices.  Since this is a term few if any have a clue about, he's successful, and anyone who is reading his slides is likely to take at face value  his assertion that it is only a small amount.  If not outright deception in the name of financial gain, Taubes is at the very least displaying a degree of willful ignorance.

But maybe this whole glyceroneogenesis stuff is too recent to address, so Taubes is just relying on the old info b/c nothing concrete has come about.  Well, in addition to the comprehensive overview of the Fatty Acid - Triglyceride Cycle including glyceroneogenesis (2003), I recently came across this:

Glyceroneogenesis comes of age  2002


The science of glyceroneogenesis was being elucidated around the time that, presumably, Taubes began his lengthy research efforts following his Big Fat Lie NYT article.  How did he miss all of this?  And how, in 2009 can he continue to ignore this.

As I've blogged on previously,  the low carb nutritional state mimics the fasted state.  There is no reason to believe that the processes upregulated similarly for fasting and LC "fed" (gluconeogenesis, increased ketone formation, etc.) state would exclude glyceroneogenesis.  Indeed there is every indication that they are.

UPDATE:  It just got worse as I got my Sony ebook software working again to search GCBC for glyceroneogenesis.  Well, it's nowhere in the text, but it is right there in the title of one of his references.  The 2003 article linked to above.  I'm left to conclude this man is totally bereft of intellectual honesty.