Good Science Bad Science ~ Good Schtick Bad Schtick

Note:  This version slightly differs (only at the end beginning with italics) from my original post so I "bumped" the publish date and noted where I made a few changes.

So Jimmy Moore recently posted an interview with Gary Taube$:  Podcast HERE

I have much more to say about this interview, Taubes' most recent lecture and his upcoming book, but that will have to wait for another day.

What I am bothered by is Taubes continued trashing of the scientific community while basically admitting the same for himself (though not realizing it).

I would agree with Taubes that one of the problems with scientific research in general these days is the funding process/stream.  Been there, done that.  If you're a nobody with big ideas, good luck.  If you're a big name trying to get another MS or PhD thesis on some minor topic, it shouldn't be a problem.  There's ALWAYS a lag between funding, research and publication -- several years is more the norm than the exception here.  

But Taubes' premise is that scientists develop a "schtick" -- the PhD thesis or whatever puts them on the map -- that keeps them from ever correcting themselves or pursuing the research they obviously really want to do if only they were independently wealthy.  All the old science is golden because it was done by rich folks who funded their own work and didn't need to answer to anyone.  These were folks of high character and principle and beholden to no one.  I have one name for you on that note Gary:  Michael Bloomberg.

But Taubes goes on to lament that he really would like to get back to writing on other science (e.g. that which he has the background and qualifications to write about), but he has kids to put through college.   He rambles on and on about mistakes in GCBC as pertains to the whole G3P issue (again, I have a post in the hopper on this but have a bit more work on that before I'll publish it).  Mea culpa?  Hardly, IMCO.  For starters, he further laments not having a public forum on which to correct himself.  NONSENSE.  But he failed in 2007 in a far more critical manner than the scientists he lambastes do in publishing their research.  He was wrong, but won't acknowledge that this point is the absolute KEY to all of his theories on how fat miraculously accumulates irrespectively of calories.  He also keeps calling for metabolic ward studies to test his theories, when these WERE done long ago.  

No doubt the worst of his transgressions, to me, is that he claims that in 2007 (or in the intervening years of  writing the NYT & the book) the science of GlyNG was still rather vague and he presented only the current knowledge in GCBC.  Try again Gary.  The two papers I referenced in this post were to 2002 and 2003 REVIEW papers -- IOW papers that summarized older research, most or all of which predated even the NYT article.

The paragraph below has been edited slightly from the original after re-listening to the interview.

Open query to Gary Taubes:  Care to name names?  Who was this "biggest expert in the country" whom you consulted in prepping your book in 2007, the "smartest guy" around at the time, who vetted 3-4 versions of this section in your book to make sure it was accurate?  I doubt it was Hanson's group (AND YET ANY CURSORY LOOK INTO THE REFERENCES FROM THE 2003 PAPER WOULD HAVE LED YOU TO CONTACT THEM!!!).  And what 2008 paper did he inform you of to let you know all the textbooks (hint:  scientific research should perhaps begin with texts, but never end with them) were wrong?  Who is the English guy who confirmed you were wrong?  Newsholme?  And who, pray tell, are these anonymous two biophysicists who informed you that you were wrong on G3P, but supposedly said *it doesn't matter* because "insulin so fundamentally drives fat accumulation"?  Any reason why you painstakingly identify the authors of various statements in your book and lectures, but won't name names now????  (I know ;-) )


Yep.  Taube$ has his $cience and his $chtick.  Proven wrong on a key component of this theory, he's chosen to simply leave it out and hope insulin is enough to snow people.

If carbs drives insulin drives fat accumulation, then protein drives insulin drives fat accumulation.

(Or, consuming fat and/or carbs and/or even protein in chronic excess of energy needs does.)