Gina Kolata's Schoolgirl Grudge Against Gary Taubes
Terrif CJR piece by Paul Scott on how investigative science journalist Taubes, who has persuaded countless people to drop pounds and improve their health through eating low-carb, just can't catch a break -- or an honest, professional, evidence-based piece of reporting from the NYT's Gina Kolata:
For fans of pique and bad manners, you could do worse than her largely stenographic Q&A with Dr. Jules Hirsch, an emeritus professor and emeritus physician in chief at Rockefeller University. Hirsch waved off the JAMA paper's findings as an artifact of water-loss in a low-carbohydrate diet. He referred to the paper's premise as "hocus-pocus." There was the title: "In Dieting, Magic Isn't a Substitute for Science." Hirsch invoked "the law of science," and "the inflexible law of physics," but Ludwig knows a little bit about science too. As the Harvard endocrinologist pointed out in a letter published the following week, the study controlled for the effects of water weight in several different ways. Oops.It wasn't Kolata's first drive-by. She cited Hirsch in a memorably hostile review of Taubes' book, Good Calories, Bad Calories in October 2007, that dismissed his exhaustive reporting out of hand. (Kolata had her own, competing diet book out at the time, Rethinking Thin, meaning that she probably shouldn't have gotten the assignment.) From her patronizing lede ("Gary Taubes is a brave and bold science journalist who does not accept conventional wisdom") to her weirdly personal ending ("I am sorry, I am not convinced"), she knew something was wrong with the book, only she didn't know what. "[T]he problem with a book like this one," she wrote, "which goes on and on in great detail about experiments new and old in areas ranging from heart disease to cancer to diabetes, is that it can be hard to know what has been left out."
Poor Taubes. No one warned him that 600 pages of evidence were never going to be enough. The theory that weight gain boils down "calories-in, calories-out" is the last man standing in the diet wars. The principle anchors the comforting American belief that personal responsibility explains all of our ills. It validates all that wasted time on the treadmill that people like Kolata and others endorse. It keeps us watching shows like The Biggest Loser. It leaves the door open to low-calorie, high-carbohydrate food products that make the economy hum, are portable, do not require we learn to cook, make children stop crying, and taste good. Any efforts at reporting science to the contrary will always have a rough road.
Buy Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories or Why We Get Fat (an easier read) and see the results of just one of the many people who's read about Taubes and changed her diet accordingly.
Via @MrEades - another source of evidence-based eating. Read him at proteinpower.com.
But Amy, it's SCIENCE!
It's "SCIENCE-BASED"!!!!!
So how could anything ever go wrong? Because if it's science, even though this guy is not a scientist, then WE'VE BEEN SHOWN THE WAY TO A BOLD NEW DAY OF KINDNESS AND COMPASSION AND SNOT-BLOWING AT PEOPLE WE DON'T LIKE, plus also we get to act real superior and condescending about others, and there's nothing that can do about about because were "science-based."
So there's that. It's not like personal energies could ever be at work in our hearts, right?
SCIENCE MAKES ALL THAT GO AWAY.
So I really don't see the point of this blog post.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE™ HERE, AMY.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2012 9:15 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/gina-kolatas-sc.html#comment-3292982">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Crid, I realize that you need to make fun of me because I write about science while not possessing a Ph.D.
Read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and then you can weigh in on Taubes and science. It's 600 pages of vetting of the evidence does and doesn't say. (One doesn't need a special, Harvard-kissed decoder ring to assess what is and isn't good science, although the Ph.D. biologist in Nikoley's piece did assess Taubes' and Eades' thinking to be just that.)
I read studies and crunch the math with the help of BIostatistics: The Bare Essentials and look at their methodology and assess whether they are so flawed as to not be something usable to conclude anything. (All studies are flawed; some just have fewer or smaller flaws.)
People who are quite famous and respected in science have put out some very shitty studies and people who are nobodies can put out solid ones. I've had more than one occasion where I've dumped a column I wanted to write because the study by some luminary of science didn't say (in the data) what it purported to find in the abstract.
Amy Alkon
at August 1, 2012 9:22 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/gina-kolatas-sc.html#comment-3292984">comment from Amy AlkonTaubes' bio:
http://garytaubes.com/biography/
Wow - could he possibly be qualified to assess what is and isn't good science? You could see that by reading his work, but you'd prefer to post little barbs related to nothing.
Amy Alkon
at August 1, 2012 9:24 AM
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE™ HERE, AMY.
Wait...this isn't a posting about anthropogenic global warming, so it can't Science™.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 1, 2012 10:22 AM
RIGOROUS, Amy!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2012 10:28 AM
> you'd prefer to post little barbs
> related to nothing.
My little barbs are related to your deployment of Science™ as a brand name, as if its practice were a magical cleanser like you see on daytime TV that instantly washes away grease and grime and dirt and kills germs on contact in fifteen seconds.
I imagine, like, a shot of a shower door with all sorts of filth, maybe computer-animated, or maybe just 'practical' dirt the glass. And then some little actress-fingered person from offscreen reaches in and squirts a little Amy's Science™ on there, and then swipes a sponge across the glass in a single swift arc. And what remains is gleaming cleanliness, with maybe some triumphant jubilation in curvy text with an exclamation mark.
You're so eager to deploy Science™ as a koan, to make (gratuitous) social distance from others, that you're completely blind to the transcendentally human and punishingly mundane facets of Science™. On most every day of his or her life, the average scientist is doing no more for humanity than the average (corrupt) banker, or fast-food franchiser, or shoe salesman or dock worker. Science is not church; science is not holy.
Walking around saying you've based your pettiest beliefs on Science™ gives it a bad name.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2012 10:50 AM
Also, if you were for real, a degree wouldn't kill you.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2012 10:50 AM
Also, Gina Kolata's a much prettier name than Gary Taubes.
(Say something about the thriving Inuit next!)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2012 11:04 AM
Time on a treadmill is never wasted; otherwise I agree.
nuzltr2 at August 1, 2012 11:53 AM
Science is not church; science is not holy.
More to the point, science isn't always right, though it's our most powerful tool for driving towards the truth.
Any time on a treadmill is completely wasted (the boredom!) but time on a mountain bike is time in heaven.
Astra at August 1, 2012 1:05 PM
Crid, if Amys musing on SCIENCE are invalid due to her lack of degree why should your criticism be considered valid given your lack of degrees?
lujlp at August 1, 2012 1:20 PM
College of Arts & Sciences, class of '82, buttercup.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2012 1:41 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/gina-kolatas-sc.html#comment-3293441">comment from lujlpJust perfect, luj. Thanks.
Amy Alkon
at August 1, 2012 1:52 PM
School of Engineering, 1987, Criddypie. I knowz me some Science! I liked second semester physics so much I took it twice!
Old RPM Daddy at August 1, 2012 2:03 PM
> More to the point, science isn't always right,
> though it's our most powerful tool for driving
> towards the truth.
Exactly. And science isn't always finished. I think waiting for a study to certify that motherhood is unnecessary for children's welfare is unmitigated (and loathsome) buffoonery; but Amy presumably scours her journals for just that kind of finding.
Blech-ptoooie.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2012 2:28 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/gina-kolatas-sc.html#comment-3293467">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]think waiting for a study to certify that motherhood is unnecessary for children's welfare is unmitigated (and loathsome) buffoonery; but Amy presumably scours her journals for just that kind of finding. Blech-ptoooie.
The first part of that is incomprehensible and best not to assume what I do just so you can justify these really puzzling attacks you make on me whenever I post something science-related.
And since you assumed, what I did do was fly to Binghamton to interview anthropologists Sarah Hrdy (probably the premiere expert on mothering) and Dan Nettle on parenting. I don't make assumptions about what findings will be -- I look to see what they are. That's science. And that's what I put into my work.
Amy Alkon
at August 1, 2012 2:35 PM
Oh, you guys are such big sillies. Thanks for the grin I'm wearing as I plan what I want on my pizza tonight. Probably won't be kale, though I imagine it's coming if it isn't already out there.
Pricklypear at August 1, 2012 2:35 PM
Science-related! Puzzlement!
Be sure to get the LATEST results from science about motherhood, Amy! Those results will have the most truth! The latest ones always do, right? Go go go! Science!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2012 2:46 PM
I love that song. Especially that one part. Mm-mm, mm-mm, mm.
Pricklypear at August 1, 2012 2:59 PM
(Tweet)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2012 3:25 PM
Oh, you kids.
And here I am, still trying to think of an example of a low-calorie, high-carbohydrate food.
3 large eggs, all fat/protein - 214 calories, will keep you full until lunchtime.
1 large bagel, all carbs - 336 calories, will keep you full for 30 minutes.
It's been my experience that ridding your diet of carbs will also rid it of most calories. I don't see how low-carb/low-calorie are in contradiction with each other at all.
Pirate Jo at August 1, 2012 5:41 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/08/gina-kolatas-sc.html#comment-3293918">comment from Pirate JoMy kale chips -- cooked till crispy in bacon grease -- plus a two-egg cheese omelet and three strips of bacon will keep you satiated (stomach-wise, anyway) from breakfast till mid-afternoon.
Amy Alkon
at August 1, 2012 5:46 PM
Crid are you sure you aren't referring to Wierd Science?
Jim P. at August 1, 2012 7:41 PM
Well, I wasn't so young at the time, but Miss Sakamoto was a sister to you-know-who... Might as well face it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 1, 2012 8:04 PM
But exercise, esp load bearing, like lifting really heavy weights, is good for you. Bone density, muscles etc. no one wants to be thin but flabby.
KateC at August 2, 2012 2:54 AM
Leave a comment