Is fat killing you, or is sugar?


Is it the fat or the sugar in your diet that is causing harm? Here’s an interesting article and historical account of that question – going through everything from the great fat-scare in the mid-20th century to the impact of pioneering journalist Gary Taubes:

The New Yorker: Is Fat Killing You, or Is Sugar?

However, beware of the not-so-up-to-date conclusion to eat everything in moderation. This conventional and “common sense” piece of advice has failed miserably for decades, illustrated by the exploding disasters of obesity and type 2 diabetes.


Ghosts of Diets Past, Present and Future

The Rivalry Between Atkins and Ornish: Low Carb Vs. High Carb

Nina Teicholz’s Best-Seller “The Big Fat Surprise”: How the Low-Fat Diet Was Introduced to America

Top videos about the history of low carb

  1. "Humans are not broken by default"
  2. Tim Noakes on trial


  1. Nate
    To me, the only thing interesting about that article is his political journalism that tries to sound scientific while trying to give cover to the very poor science that has gotten us into our current diabesity epidemic. One big clue out of many was when he pointed out that Ancel Keys lived to be 100. So what! That is not science. That is a con. In fact, it is a heavy handed con. If he is going into the n=1 realm, why not mention that Jack La Lane lived to be 99, did not need a wheel chair like Keys, could curl 50 pound weights at that age and was vehemently anti-sugar, particularly anti-liquid sugar.

    Not only is this a con job, it is a coverup. He is trying to coverup that the main stream nutritionists are backing away from their poorly run and accepted science that lead to the LFHC diet recommendations and their even worse public education policies about diet. The many flippant and sarcastic statements about Sylvia Tara, Gary Taubes and Atkins are bad enough. But the sentence that could me going was, "The importance of calories—if energy gained exceeds output, the excess becomes fat—remains one of the few unchallengeable facts in the field of dietary science." That is important only in the sense that it is a description of a symptom. It is NOT the cause of that symptom. If this article were scientific and not a political coverup, he would not have given importance to that description, which any obese 6 o 7 year old understands fully and painfully. Instead, he would have acknowledged that the LCHF people do challenge that description as a full and complete theory of what causes obesity. Grrrr....

    And there are many more coverup type comments. Does anyone else have time to write about those? Thanks. (Where are you Dr. Eades?)

  2. SusanK
    The foundation of Taubes' case against sugar is built upon the simple fact that these diseases that are of epidemic proportions today were rare or even unheard of outside the medical community a little more than 100 years ago. Significant portions of the book were about the increase in these diseases in lock step with our increase ingestion of sugar. I'm astounded that any serious review of the book would not include this basic concept.
  3. gbl
    Oh c'mon. No one was eating anything "in moderation" if they became obese.
  4. Tim
    Moderation, a nice squishy word that can mean anything...'moderate' amounts of sugars means something quite different to the body than 'moderate' amounts of lettuce.
  5. Brad
    No matter how much things change they will always stay the same. Sugar has always been at the ready for the battle and has lots of money behind it to blur the facts. If there is no accuracy to any of the findings that we know to be true to ourselves why is the people on the planet so sick?

    It is interesting that every time a new book comes out against sugar or carbs or the combination of both - processed foods there are all of these reviews discounting the authors. Hey maybe some is a little different but that is because we have swallowed the dogma for how many years? Yes, it goes without saying that I am a fan of Gary Taubes - one of the first people that got me on the path of LCHF.

    As a type 2 Diabetic that was on a lot of medications to treat the disease including insulin. Who gained weight following the Canadian Diabetic Guidelines and had to increase the insulin by 100% in the first two something wrong there. I still have my guide book on what to eat - page one Grains and Starches - "starch foods are carbohydrates and raise blood sugars, but are part of a healthy diet". They even know it raises your blood sugars and yet you have to eat them. Not any more, nor do I take and diabetic meds any more either.

    This battle is long from being over but I see more and more people starting to question what is going on with our health in general. We will still see all the negativity towards what goes against the mainstream food giants. With that, loved your post Nate! Looking forward to the next book by Gary Taubes.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts