Harriet Hall from Science-Based Medicine just published an article about Gary Taubes and his crusade against sugar:
I expected the article to be a debunking of Taubes, but it really isn't. Basically, Hall just says that Taubes is probably over-simplifying something that is more complex, and that Taubes himself admits that the evidence he's found is not conclusive. It is just the type of article where we could argue with each other for days about it's significance one way or the other.
I will read this, but it's nothing new (although the article might be). Hall has been saying this for years (since "Good Calories Bad Calories." Apparently Taubes was rude to her.
Before reading the article, this is what she's said in the past:
The hypothesis based on insulin's role as the body's of fat storage and energy portioning driven by blood glucose levels is an oversimplification. And then in the same article she'll revert to some form of the calories in/calories out hypothesis for regulation of fat storage, which is not only a greater oversimplification it's not accurate.
Then she'll say that Taubes is proposing changing from an approach and way of thinking we adopted with incomplete science to a new approach and way of thinking with incomplete science.
But that's not what Taubes is proposing, and ignores a major point. Not only is the mainstream position an incorrect way of thinking about nutrition that was not based on science, it is also an intervention that we have been doing to our population for 40 years without good science to support it. And not only hasn't been working (in preventing CVD and chronic disease) it has made things worse and caused a terrible side effect (the obesity epidemic).
Taubes doesn't want to change one unscientific intervention with another. He wants us to end the current intervention. And start from scratch based on what we know now (many key parts of the dietary guidelines have already been debunked but are still promoted at every level) and pursue further research based on a null hypothesis.