Mmmmmm, refined carbohydates!
All
scientific studies are limited in some way. The gold standard in research is
the randomized control trial where neither the researcher nor the test subject
knows which treatment they’re being given (i.e. a double blind study). Nutritional
studies can’t be double blind studies as the test subjects can see that their
diet is changed enabling the chance of developing a placebo effect. Another
problem is that lowering a specific calorie containing nutrient (e.g.
carbohydrates) changes the caloric content of the diet. Were the results tied
to lowering the calorie containing nutrient or rather to lowering total
calories? As well, most of the research subjects were overweight and obese,
which is more common among those with an endomorphic body type. Is the low carb
diet as effective in ectomorphs and mesomorphs? Moreover, much of the research
was conducted by clinicians working with obese patients rather than as
randomized control trials. While the RCT is the pinnacle of scientific research
the research necessary to back up some of the claims in Good Calories, Bad Calories would cost hundreds of millions of
dollars and is not currently being investigated.
In addition to the nutritional limitations, Taubes
didn’t touch on the research outside of nutrition. There have been many environment links to poor health and obesity. He
also didn’t discuss the hypothesis that obesity may be caused by the imbalance
of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids that is present in the diets of many
countries. Finally, he didn’t clarify if the high nutrient content of a mostly
animal diet of the Inuit was solely from muscle meat or whether it was
necessary to consume the other organs as well.
Note:
For more information watch Sugar: The Bitter Truth by Robert Lustig. If your main interest is fat loss
Taubes has also written a book called Why
We Get Fat, which I hear is a shorter and easier read than Good Calories, Bad Calories.
Stay
fit,
Jonathan
Pratt
No comments:
Post a Comment