There is actually no evidence to support the junk food narrative which is loaded with a lot of junk science. Taubes' book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is actually two books in one. The first half of the book is an excellent summary of the evidence showing that cholesterol and fats have nothing to do with cardiovascular disease. The seco…
There is actually no evidence to support the junk food narrative which is loaded with a lot of junk science. Taubes' book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is actually two books in one. The first half of the book is an excellent summary of the evidence showing that cholesterol and fats have nothing to do with cardiovascular disease. The second half of the book cites sugar as the culprit and , for evidence, uses the same types of flawed studies he so brilliantly critiqued in the first half of the book.
I find GT's (and others) case against sugar quite convincing. Also, he is asking for more serious and challenging studies. That is why I like that nonetheless he remains prudent about the ills of ultraprocessed food.
There is actually no evidence to support the junk food narrative which is loaded with a lot of junk science. Taubes' book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is actually two books in one. The first half of the book is an excellent summary of the evidence showing that cholesterol and fats have nothing to do with cardiovascular disease. The second half of the book cites sugar as the culprit and , for evidence, uses the same types of flawed studies he so brilliantly critiqued in the first half of the book.
I find GT's (and others) case against sugar quite convincing. Also, he is asking for more serious and challenging studies. That is why I like that nonetheless he remains prudent about the ills of ultraprocessed food.