ABC News Nightline: Carbohydrates Make You Fat, and Perhaps Sick

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3658957&page=1

Carbohydrates Make You Fat, and Perhaps Sick
Journalist Takes on the Conventional Wisdom About Diet and Disease
By VICKI MABREY

Sept. 27, 2007 -

In a world of fad diets and ever-changing ideas on how to get thin,
Gary Taubes is not just another diet guru but a journalist who has
covered science for the past 30 years.

It was Taubes who wrote the eye-opening -- and controversial -- New
York Times magazine cover story five years ago that asked the near-
blasphemous question: "What If Fat Doesn't Make You Fat?"

Now he's at it again. He's expanded that article into a new book,
"Good Calories/Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on
Diet, Weight Control, and Disease." In the book, Taubes looks back at
some 50 years of scientific research on why we get fat. He blames the
bread.

"My wife likes to refer to me as the Grinch who's trying to steal
Christmas," Taubes said.

And not just the bread, but the whole family of complex carbohydrates.
So "Nightline" took Taubes to lunch, and what better place to discuss
the dangers of carbohydrates than Raffaele's, an Italian restaurant on
Manhattan's East Side, where we could talk -- over bread and pasta --
about carbs and fat, good science versus bad.

Carbohydrate Chemistry

Taubes said that after rereading years of scientific research, he has
found proof that for the last half century, science has just gotten it
wrong: It's not fat that is making Americans fat, he said, it is the
base of the food pyramid, the complex carbohydrates, foods such as
bread, pasta, potatoes. It's the starches we were told we needed that
make us pudgy.

It's simple chemistry, said Taubes. Carbs spike insulin. Insulin
creates sugar. And sugar packs on the pounds.

"The grains are carbohydrates," Taubes said. "They're refined
carbohydrates. You take off the shell and all the protein and the
vitamins, and you refine it down, and you end up with something that
its primary effect on the body, immediate effect, is to raise insulin
levels. And if you raise insulin levels, what that does is drive
calories into your fat tissue. Raising insulin literally works to make
you accumulate fat. This is one of these phenomena that for some
reason the medical research establishment has chosen to consider
irrelevant to why we get obese."

It's a theory that Taubes claims is simple -- and anthropological. It
evolved from our days as hunter-gatherers, before we ate refined
carbohydrates and sugars.

"And all we're saying [in the book] to do is, 'Don't eat these foods
we didn't evolve to eat.' It's conceivable that switching to a diet
absent these foods, making the transition has side effects that we
have to deal with, that doctors have to deal with," he said. Click
here to read an excerpt of Taubes' book.

Carb-Eating Cavemen

"Carbs are not killers," said New York nutritionist Carol Forman
Helerstein. "Mother Nature would not have put carbs on the face of the
earth if they were killers. If you go back to our ancestry and you
look at the caveman, what did he eat? He ate carbs."

He ate carbs in the form of fruits and vegetables, said Helerstein,
and not all carbs are created equal. "[T]he difference is that today
the carbohydrates, because they're processed by the food
manufacturers, are very high in sugar. And the scientists have a name
for that: high gylcemic index -- it just means that it has a lot of
sugar in it. So there's a difference between a Milky Way bar and a
lettuce leaf, but they are both carbohydrates. So if you are eating
the right carbohydrates, the ones that come from the natural sources,
the fruits and the vegetables, then you will have a healthy diet."

Helerstein is the chief nutritionist for Diet Chefs, a multimillion
dollar company that delivers prepared meals to customers' homes, meals
based on the company's 40-30-30 formula: 40 percent low-glycemic
"good" carbohydrates, 30 percent lean protein and 30 percent "good"
fat. Standing at a table filled with Diet Chefs meals, Helerstein
points to a typical Diet Chefs dinner.

"This would be a typical, wonderful meal that any scientist would be
happy to eat," Helerstein said. "You have got your basic protein in
your chicken. Now that's a lean protein chicken. Your carbohydrates
are coming to you from the natural carbohydrates, which in this
particular case is salad and vegetables, and then in your dressing
here there's a little bit of olive oil and some flavoring that you're
able to pour over your salad and you have each of the protein, the
carbohydrate and the fat. That keeps your insulin levels stable and
that's what health is all about."

Controversial Theories

Helerstein and Taubes agree that the low-fat proponents got it wrong.
Fat supplies much of the taste in food, which leads to satiety, the
feeling of being full. In a way, eating fat helps us know we've had
enough and it's time to get up from the table. Surprisingly,
Helerstein and Taubes agree on another theory: that bad carbs can
kill. Taubes contends that carbs cause heart disease, cancer, even
Alzheimer's disease. "These diseases cluster together in populations,"
Taubes said. If you get fat you increase your risk of all these
diseases. The obese have a higher risk of Alzheimer's than do the
lean. So the natural, simplest possible hypothesis is that what causes
one causes all."

Helerstein goes further: "If you are eating sugar, and lots and lots
of sugar and pasta and bread and white rice and white grains and white
bread and white cereal, then you are initiating, after you eat, an
insulin response," she said. "Insulin is an inflammatory hormone and
it is a storage hormone. And I don't disagree with him. Where I
disagree is, what carbohydrates are you eating? If you're eating the
low-sugared, natural carbohydrates, they do not contribute to any
degenerative diseases. If you are eating the wrong carbohydrates, I
agree with him 100 percent."

Taubes' most controversial theories in the book are these: that
there's no evidence saturated fat and cholesterol do anything for us,
either positive or negative. They don't cause heart disease, he
claims. Nor does salt cause high blood pressure and hypertension. He
says fiber is not a necessary part of our diet, especially if we cut
out the carbs. And perhaps most controversial of all, Taubes said
exercise does not lead to weight loss.

"Exercise makes us hungry," he said, which causes overeating, and
leads to the buildup of insulin mentioned earlier. He posits that thin
people aren't thin because they exercise, rather, they exercise
because being thin gives them the energy to work out.

'Everything in Moderation'

Helerstein said Taubes is wrong about exercise. "I don't think that
you have to wake up and exercise for four hours a day," she said. "But
the answer to health is really keeping your lean muscle mass strong.
And the older we get, the harder that is to do. So each year we lose a
little muscle mass, and it's really harder to stay thin and healthy.
But I think that again, if a person exercises in moderation and
doesn't overdo it, it's a really important factor in health. "

Taubes said he isn't touting any particular diet (though he does say
"Atkins was right"). He said he's just trying to get scientists to
test the work of the researchers he quotes in his book and see if
their theories are correct. But he's expecting a large helping of
criticism when the book is released.

"First, they'll shoot the messenger," he said. "And then over the next
10 or 15 years, they'll debate the message and a good portion of it
might be accepted. I'd say 70, 80 percent. But you don't thank people
for pointing out your mistakes. It's not human nature, in general."

But for most people the bottom line is, our tastebuds and our hearts
control what we eat. Raffaele Esposito, owner of the restaurant where
we took Taubes to lunch, says pasta is the heart of life. "It's pasta
and life," Raffaele said. "You know? If you stopped the heart, you
die." Everything in moderation, he said. Everything in moderation.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:59:28 -0700, jeissner777@aol.com wrote:

>"Carbs are not killers," said New York nutritionist Carol Forman
>Helerstein. "Mother Nature would not have put carbs on the face of the
>earth if they were killers.

For heaven's sake - how thick is this woman!

Actually, I disagree with Taubes' exercise position. I accept that
exercise to lose calories in the immediate future is pretty pointless
- I generally use up around 400 calories in a karate session, I could
make that up with a snack as soon as I got home - but then that
benefit, in terms of general fitness, metabolic rate, flexibility, and
general joie de vivre lasts much, much longer.

On carbs - I think he's very sound : ) I've had my copy of his latest
book on order for several months. I think it's very unfair that I have
to wait for ages whilst it's printed in the States first!

Nicky.
T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid
D&E, 100ug thyroxine
Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25

It remains wiser to eat less, down to the optimal amount.

Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease

Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.

jeissner...@aol.com wrote:
> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3658957&page=1
>
> Carbohydrates Make You Fat, and Perhaps Sick
> Journalist Takes on the Conventional Wisdom About Diet and Disease
> By VICKI MABREY
>
> Sept. 27, 2007 -
>
> In a world of fad diets and ever-changing ideas on how to get thin,
> Gary Taubes is not just another diet guru but a journalist who has
> covered science for the past 30 years.
>
> It was Taubes who wrote the eye-opening -- and controversial -- New
> York Times magazine cover story five years ago that asked the near-
> blasphemous question: "What If Fat Doesn't Make You Fat?"
>
> Now he's at it again. He's expanded that article into a new book,
> "Good Calories/Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on
> Diet, Weight Control, and Disease." In the book, Taubes looks back at
> some 50 years of scientific research on why we get fat. He blames the
> bread.
>
> "My wife likes to refer to me as the Grinch who's trying to steal
> Christmas," Taubes said.
>
> And not just the bread, but the whole family of complex carbohydrates.
> So "Nightline" took Taubes to lunch, and what better place to discuss
> the dangers of carbohydrates than Raffaele's, an Italian restaurant on
> Manhattan's East Side, where we could talk -- over bread and pasta --
> about carbs and fat, good science versus bad.
>
> Carbohydrate Chemistry
>
> Taubes said that after rereading years of scientific research, he has
> found proof that for the last half century, science has just gotten it
> wrong: It's not fat that is making Americans fat, he said, it is the
> base of the food pyramid, the complex carbohydrates, foods such as
> bread, pasta, potatoes. It's the starches we were told we needed that
> make us pudgy.
>
> It's simple chemistry, said Taubes. Carbs spike insulin. Insulin
> creates sugar. And sugar packs on the pounds.
>
> "The grains are carbohydrates," Taubes said. "They're refined
> carbohydrates. You take off the shell and all the protein and the
> vitamins, and you refine it down, and you end up with something that
> its primary effect on the body, immediate effect, is to raise insulin
> levels. And if you raise insulin levels, what that does is drive
> calories into your fat tissue. Raising insulin literally works to make
> you accumulate fat. This is one of these phenomena that for some
> reason the medical research establishment has chosen to consider
> irrelevant to why we get obese."
>
> It's a theory that Taubes claims is simple -- and anthropological. It
> evolved from our days as hunter-gatherers, before we ate refined
> carbohydrates and sugars.
>
> "And all we're saying [in the book] to do is, 'Don't eat these foods
> we didn't evolve to eat.' It's conceivable that switching to a diet
> absent these foods, making the transition has side effects that we
> have to deal with, that doctors have to deal with," he said. Click
> here to read an excerpt of Taubes' book.
>
> Carb-Eating Cavemen
>
> "Carbs are not killers," said New York nutritionist Carol Forman
> Helerstein. "Mother Nature would not have put carbs on the face of the
> earth if they were killers. If you go back to our ancestry and you
> look at the caveman, what did he eat? He ate carbs."
>
> He ate carbs in the form of fruits and vegetables, said Helerstein,
> and not all carbs are created equal. "[T]he difference is that today
> the carbohydrates, because they're processed by the food
> manufacturers, are very high in sugar. And the scientists have a name
> for that: high gylcemic index -- it just means that it has a lot of
> sugar in it. So there's a difference between a Milky Way bar and a
> lettuce leaf, but they are both carbohydrates. So if you are eating
> the right carbohydrates, the ones that come from the natural sources,
> the fruits and the vegetables, then you will have a healthy diet."
>
> Helerstein is the chief nutritionist for Diet Chefs, a multimillion
> dollar company that delivers prepared meals to customers' homes, meals
> based on the company's 40-30-30 formula: 40 percent low-glycemic
> "good" carbohydrates, 30 percent lean protein and 30 percent "good"
> fat. Standing at a table filled with Diet Chefs meals, Helerstein
> points to a typical Diet Chefs dinner.
>
> "This would be a typical, wonderful meal that any scientist would be
> happy to eat," Helerstein said. "You have got your basic protein in
> your chicken. Now that's a lean protein chicken. Your carbohydrates
> are coming to you from the natural carbohydrates, which in this
> particular case is salad and vegetables, and then in your dressing
> here there's a little bit of olive oil and some flavoring that you're
> able to pour over your salad and you have each of the protein, the
> carbohydrate and the fat. That keeps your insulin levels stable and
> that's what health is all about."
>
> Controversial Theories
>
> Helerstein and Taubes agree that the low-fat proponents got it wrong.
> Fat supplies much of the taste in food, which leads to satiety, the
> feeling of being full. In a way, eating fat helps us know we've had
> enough and it's time to get up from the table. Surprisingly,
> Helerstein and Taubes agree on another theory: that bad carbs can
> kill. Taubes contends that carbs cause heart disease, cancer, even
> Alzheimer's disease. "These diseases cluster together in populations,"
> Taubes said. If you get fat you increase your risk of all these
> diseases. The obese have a higher risk of Alzheimer's than do the
> lean. So the natural, simplest possible hypothesis is that what causes
> one causes all."
>
> Helerstein goes further: "If you are eating sugar, and lots and lots
> of sugar and pasta and bread and white rice and white grains and white
> bread and white cereal, then you are initiating, after you eat, an
> insulin response," she said. "Insulin is an inflammatory hormone and
> it is a storage hormone. And I don't disagree with him. Where I
> disagree is, what carbohydrates are you eating? If you're eating the
> low-sugared, natural carbohydrates, they do not contribute to any
> degenerative diseases. If you are eating the wrong carbohydrates, I
> agree with him 100 percent."
>
> Taubes' most controversial theories in the book are these: that
> there's no evidence saturated fat and cholesterol do anything for us,
> either positive or negative. They don't cause heart disease, he
> claims. Nor does salt cause high blood pressure and hypertension. He
> says fiber is not a necessary part of our diet, especially if we cut
> out the carbs. And perhaps most controversial of all, Taubes said
> exercise does not lead to weight loss.
>
> "Exercise makes us hungry," he said, which causes overeating, and
> leads to the buildup of insulin mentioned earlier. He posits that thin
> people aren't thin because they exercise, rather, they exercise
> because being thin gives them the energy to work out.
>
> 'Everything in Moderation'
>
> Helerstein said Taubes is wrong about exercise. "I don't think that
> you have to wake up and exercise for four hours a day," she said. "But
> the answer to health is really keeping your lean muscle mass strong.
> And the older we get, the harder that is to do. So each year we lose a
> little muscle mass, and it's really harder to stay thin and healthy.
> But I think that again, if a person exercises in moderation and
> doesn't overdo it, it's a really important factor in health. "
>
> Taubes said he isn't touting any particular diet (though he does say
> "Atkins was right"). He said he's just trying to get scientists to
> test the work of the researchers he quotes in his book and see if
> their theories are correct. But he's expecting a large helping of
> criticism when the book is released.
>
> "First, they'll shoot the messenger," he said. "And then over the next
> 10 or 15 years, they'll debate the message and a good portion of it
> might be accepted. I'd say 70, 80 percent. But you don't thank people
> for pointing out your mistakes. It's not human nature, in general."
>
> But for most people the bottom line is, our tastebuds and our hearts
> control what we eat. Raffaele Esposito, owner of the restaurant where
> we took Taubes to lunch, says pasta is the heart of life. "It's pasta
> and life," Raffaele said. "You know? If you stopped the heart, you
> die." Everything in moderation, he said. Everything in moderation.
>
> Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

This post not CC'd by email
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:59:28 -0700, jeissner777@aol.com wrote:

>It's simple chemistry, said Taubes. Carbs spike insulin. Insulin
>creates sugar. And sugar packs on the pounds.

ROTFL.

???? Insulin creates sugar ????

I find it amazing that any one, Taubes included, could make such a
stupid statement after decades of being a science reporter and having
the opportunity to read scientific publications. Put simply, he would
seem a prime candidate for NYC, (not yet competent) if he sat an
elementary biological science paper.

This is my opinion and I fully recognise you might not share it.

If you don't share it I'm curious to know why and would like to hear
about it. FWIIW, I'm not looking for an argument on the matter. It may
require some restraint in my part and yours. What puzzles and
fascinates me at the moment is how the general public are persuaded to
buy into "controversial" books (and posts for that matter) that don't
appear based on sound science.

FWIIW, does anyone here believe insulin creates sugar?

Or does everyone here have sufficient scientific knowledge to
recognise the statement, "insulin creates sugar," is false?

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

Nicky <ukc802466929@btconnect.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:59:28 -0700, jeissner777@aol.com wrote:

>>"Carbs are not killers," said New York nutritionist Carol Forman
>>Helerstein. "Mother Nature would not have put carbs on the face of the
>>earth if they were killers.

> For heaven's sake - how thick is this woman!

Quite. No doubt the poisonous plants were put on the face of the earth
by nasty old Father Nature :-)

I also noted this remark of hers:

>> If you're eating the low-sugared, natural carbohydrates, they do
>> not contribute to any degenerative diseases.

Bears out the claim I've frequently made here that nutritionists aren't
educated, they're trained.

I do like the kind of things Taubes says in the quotes I've seen. But
I'd like to get his book and check out the case he makes for the
scientists getting it wrong. My impression is that many serious
nutritional scientists didn't, and that the position Taubes espouses
was generally held, but with the details less developed, forty or
fifty years ago. What later happened was that cardiologists and other
medical but not nutritionally well educated researchers started
blaming fat consumption for atherosclerosis and other cardiovascular
problems. A scare got whipped up about fat, which was given extra
wings by the growing problem of obesity and the shift of female
fashion towards the skinny look, which created a huge consumer market
for fat-reducing diets. And if you haven't clue, then it's obvious
that eating fat must be what makes you fat :-)

So a huge highly profitable Evil Fat bandwagon started rolling. It did
seduce most medical experts who weren't actually scientists
specialising in nutrition. (I don't of course mean "nutritionists" :-)
Which meant that there was soon no lack of authoritative doctors
telling us to stop eating butter and shift to healthy margarine
instead. But these people weren't scientific specialists in
nutrition. Unfortunately they were scientists, so they did lots of
really half-baked epidemiological studies which "confirmed" their
dietary assumptions, usually by begging the question.

However, I always had the impression that among those scientists who
actually specialised in nutrition there was never a consensus in
favour of fat makes you fat, etc.. It became a majority view, but never
a secure majority. It was always being heckled by sceptics who had
good scientific arguments to back their criticisms.

That's the impression I got over those decades of casual mildly
interested reading and conversation. That's why, even though I was fit
and healthy at the time, never seeing doctors about anything except
occasional injuries, I was never persuaded to stop eating butter. The
case against butter was based on research which begged the questions
it ought to have been answering, and there wasn't a case *for*
margarine, just an absence of a case against it. And that wasn't
because anyone had looked hard and failed find evidence, it was
because nobody had looked!

> Actually, I disagree with Taubes' exercise position. I accept that
> exercise to lose calories in the immediate future is pretty pointless
> - I generally use up around 400 calories in a karate session, I could
> make that up with a snack as soon as I got home - but then that
> benefit, in terms of general fitness, metabolic rate, flexibility, and
> general joie de vivre lasts much, much longer.

Exactly. The problem is that most people are convinced that you must
exercise in order to work off calories if you want to lose
weight. They never do the arithmetic to discover just how much
exercise they'd have to do to work off a bar of chocolate or a
doughnut. There's also the very but mot common view that you can't
lose weight just by eating less. My doctor uncle used to keep a
photograph of the skeletal inmates of Auschwitz looking out through
the barbed wire at their rescuers to show to those of his patients who
claimed they didn't lose weight no matter how little they ate.

Diabetics are a special case, because if we're capable of moderate
exercise we can pull down a post-prandial BG spike quite quickly with
it. For me, like you, however, the major benefits of exercise are not
in direct BG control, but in the general benefits to health and the
indirect longer term benefit of making BG control easier by the
metabolic changes of being fitter.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

x-no-archive: yes

Quentin Grady wrote:
> This post not CC'd by email
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:59:28 -0700, jeissner777@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>It's simple chemistry, said Taubes. Carbs spike insulin. Insulin
>>creates sugar. And sugar packs on the pounds.
>
>
> ROTFL.
>
> ???? Insulin creates sugar ????
>
> I find it amazing that any one, Taubes included, could make such a
> stupid statement after decades of being a science reporter and having
> the opportunity to read scientific publications. Put simply, he would
> seem a prime candidate for NYC, (not yet competent) if he sat an
> elementary biological science paper.
>
> This is my opinion and I fully recognise you might not share it.
>
> If you don't share it I'm curious to know why and would like to hear
> about it. FWIIW, I'm not looking for an argument on the matter. It may
> require some restraint in my part and yours. What puzzles and
> fascinates me at the moment is how the general public are persuaded to
> buy into "controversial" books (and posts for that matter) that don't
> appear based on sound science.
>
> FWIIW, does anyone here believe insulin creates sugar?
>
> Or does everyone here have sufficient scientific knowledge to
> recognise the statement, "insulin creates sugar," is false?
>

Indirectly, in my and in a large portion of other DMs, insulin does end
up elevating sugar levels. Study has shown us that at least 10% of type
2 DMs have occult hypercorisolemia.

Insulin lowers cortisol binding globulin, the protein that transports
cortisol to the cells that need it. This causes the pituitary to
respond to feedback from cortisol hungry cells with more ACTH, telling
the adrenals to release more cortisol, which strongly and directly
raises blood glucose.

Cortisol is also responsible for dawn phenomenon.

Susan

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:01:46 +1200, Quentin Grady
<quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>This post not CC'd by email
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:59:28 -0700, jeissner777@aol.com wrote:
>
>>It's simple chemistry, said Taubes. Carbs spike insulin. Insulin
>>creates sugar. And sugar packs on the pounds.
>
>ROTFL.
>
>???? Insulin creates sugar ????
>
>I find it amazing that any one, Taubes included, could make such a
>stupid statement after decades of being a science reporter and having
>the opportunity to read scientific publications. Put simply, he would
>seem a prime candidate for NYC, (not yet competent) if he sat an
>elementary biological science paper.

Wait for the book, I think. That looks like a staff reporter quoting
something mis-remembered!

Michael Eades has an interesting take on energy conversion today:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=957 I'm still not convinced,
but I think I need to go and read up on mitochondria actions.

Also, Eades has a good description of what the NYT reporter may have
messed up:
"Another reason is that elevated insulin levels - and virtually
everyone with an excess 40 pounds of fat has too much insulin - help
drive the hunger response in a number of ways. Too much insulin can
drop blood sugar levels, and as we’ve discussed, a falling blood sugar
drives the urge to eat. Too much insulin also traps the fat in the fat
cells. As MD and I discussed in Protein Power, insulin not only drives
fat into the fat cells, it also keeps fat there once it’s in. The
cells of the body need constant nourishment, not just that that they
receive during the normal three meals per day. The body takes in the
excess energy consumed during those meals, converts it to fat and
stores it in the fat cells. If all systems are working properly the
stored energy is released as needed during the time between meals and
distributed to the cells via the blood. If insulin levels remain high,
the fat can’t get out of the fat cells. So, the individual cells are
starving despite the fact that there is abundant energy locked away in
the fat cells."

Nicky.
T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid
D&E, 100ug thyroxine
Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25

On Sep 28, 4:01 am, Quentin Grady <quen...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> This post not CC'd by email
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:59:28 -0700, jeissner...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >It's simple chemistry, said Taubes. Carbs spike insulin. Insulin
> >creates sugar. And sugar packs on the pounds.
>
> ROTFL.
>
> ???? Insulin creates sugar ????
>
Surely someone has misquoted him. I've read some of his papers and
have found him to be quite knowlegdeable--never any bizarre statements
like the one above.

Best regards,
Michelle C., T2
diet & exercise
BMI 21

This post not CC'd by email
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:24:52 +0100, Nicky
<ukc802466929@btconnect.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:01:46 +1200, Quentin Grady
><quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>This post not CC'd by email
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:59:28 -0700, jeissner777@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>It's simple chemistry, said Taubes. Carbs spike insulin. Insulin
>>>creates sugar. And sugar packs on the pounds.
>>
>>ROTFL.
>>
>>???? Insulin creates sugar ????
>>
>>I find it amazing that any one, Taubes included, could make such a
>>stupid statement after decades of being a science reporter and having
>>the opportunity to read scientific publications. Put simply, he would
>>seem a prime candidate for NYC, (not yet competent) if he sat an
>>elementary biological science paper.
>
>Wait for the book, I think. That looks like a staff reporter quoting
>something mis-remembered!

G'day G'day Nicky,

Mis-remembered? It appears to be a direct quote.

>Michael Eades has an interesting take on energy conversion today:
>http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=957 I'm still not convinced,
>but I think I need to go and read up on mitochondria actions.
>
>Also, Eades has a good description of what the NYT reporter may have
>messed up:
>"Another reason is that elevated insulin levels - and virtually
>everyone with an excess 40 pounds of fat has too much insulin - help
>drive the hunger response in a number of ways. Too much insulin can
>drop blood sugar levels, and as we’ve discussed, a falling blood sugar
>drives the urge to eat. Too much insulin also traps the fat in the fat
>cells. As MD and I discussed in Protein Power, insulin not only drives
>fat into the fat cells, it also keeps fat there once it’s in. The
>cells of the body need constant nourishment, not just that that they
>receive during the normal three meals per day. The body takes in the
>excess energy consumed during those meals, converts it to fat and
>stores it in the fat cells. If all systems are working properly the
>stored energy is released as needed during the time between meals and
>distributed to the cells via the blood. If insulin levels remain high,
>the fat can’t get out of the fat cells. So, the individual cells are
>starving despite the fact that there is abundant energy locked away in
>the fat cells."

Eades description seems more believable.

>Nicky.
>T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid
>D&E, 100ug thyroxine
>Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25

Thanks Nicky,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

This post not CC'd by email
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:42:10 -0700, "Michelle C."
<bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 28, 4:01 am, Quentin Grady <quen...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> This post not CC'd by email
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:59:28 -0700, jeissner...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >It's simple chemistry, said Taubes. Carbs spike insulin. Insulin
>> >creates sugar. And sugar packs on the pounds.
>>
>> ROTFL.
>>
>> ???? Insulin creates sugar ????
>>
>Surely someone has misquoted him. I've read some of his papers and
>have found him to be quite knowlegdeable--never any bizarre statements
>like the one above.
>
>Best regards,
>Michelle C., T2
>diet & exercise
>BMI 21

G'day G'day Michelle,

I'm glad I'm not alone in finding the quote bizarre. The sentences
are so simple and short it is hard to believe anyone could be
misquoting them. If they had been long and complex it would be easier
to accept that the reporter misinterpreted what was said.

I've not had the benefit of reading other papers by Taubes so must
rely on what I do have available to access whether or not to take him
seriously. It is something one is forced to do on a regular basis
with people advancing what they themselves describe as controversial
theories that they wish us to accept.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

This post not CC'd by email
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:18:11 -0400, Susan <nevermind@nomail.com>
wrote:

>Indirectly, in my and in a large portion of other DMs, insulin does end
>up elevating sugar levels. Study has shown us that at least 10% of type
>2 DMs have occult hypercorisolemia.
>
>Insulin lowers cortisol binding globulin, the protein that transports
>cortisol to the cells that need it. This causes the pituitary to
>respond to feedback from cortisol hungry cells with more ACTH, telling
>the adrenals to release more cortisol, which strongly and directly
>raises blood glucose.
>
>Cortisol is also responsible for dawn phenomenon.
>
>Susan

G'day G'day Susan,

Thanks. I'm impressed with your description.

My only comment is that you are talking about blood glucose LEVELS.
Taubes is talking about sugar itself.

Best wishes and thank you,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

Just as it was not fat then...

.... it is not carbs now that is making people fat.

It is simply the oveating.

Truth is simple.

Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease

Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.

jeissner...@aol.com wrote:
> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3658957&page=1
>
> Carbohydrates Make You Fat, and Perhaps Sick
> Journalist Takes on the Conventional Wisdom About Diet and Disease
> By VICKI MABREY
>
> Sept. 27, 2007 -
>
> In a world of fad diets and ever-changing ideas on how to get thin,
> Gary Taubes is not just another diet guru but a journalist who has
> covered science for the past 30 years.
>
> It was Taubes who wrote the eye-opening -- and controversial -- New
> York Times magazine cover story five years ago that asked the near-
> blasphemous question: "What If Fat Doesn't Make You Fat?"
>
> Now he's at it again. He's expanded that article into a new book,
> "Good Calories/Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on
> Diet, Weight Control, and Disease." In the book, Taubes looks back at
> some 50 years of scientific research on why we get fat. He blames the
> bread.
>
> "My wife likes to refer to me as the Grinch who's trying to steal
> Christmas," Taubes said.
>
> And not just the bread, but the whole family of complex carbohydrates.
> So "Nightline" took Taubes to lunch, and what better place to discuss
> the dangers of carbohydrates than Raffaele's, an Italian restaurant on
> Manhattan's East Side, where we could talk -- over bread and pasta --
> about carbs and fat, good science versus bad.
>
> Carbohydrate Chemistry
>
> Taubes said that after rereading years of scientific research, he has
> found proof that for the last half century, science has just gotten it
> wrong: It's not fat that is making Americans fat, he said, it is the
> base of the food pyramid, the complex carbohydrates, foods such as
> bread, pasta, potatoes. It's the starches we were told we needed that
> make us pudgy.
>
> It's simple chemistry, said Taubes. Carbs spike insulin. Insulin
> creates sugar. And sugar packs on the pounds.
>
> "The grains are carbohydrates," Taubes said. "They're refined
> carbohydrates. You take off the shell and all the protein and the
> vitamins, and you refine it down, and you end up with something that
> its primary effect on the body, immediate effect, is to raise insulin
> levels. And if you raise insulin levels, what that does is drive
> calories into your fat tissue. Raising insulin literally works to make
> you accumulate fat. This is one of these phenomena that for some
> reason the medical research establishment has chosen to consider
> irrelevant to why we get obese."
>
> It's a theory that Taubes claims is simple -- and anthropological. It
> evolved from our days as hunter-gatherers, before we ate refined
> carbohydrates and sugars.
>
> "And all we're saying [in the book] to do is, 'Don't eat these foods
> we didn't evolve to eat.' It's conceivable that switching to a diet
> absent these foods, making the transition has side effects that we
> have to deal with, that doctors have to deal with," he said. Click
> here to read an excerpt of Taubes' book.
>
> Carb-Eating Cavemen
>
> "Carbs are not killers," said New York nutritionist Carol Forman
> Helerstein. "Mother Nature would not have put carbs on the face of the
> earth if they were killers. If you go back to our ancestry and you
> look at the caveman, what did he eat? He ate carbs."
>
> He ate carbs in the form of fruits and vegetables, said Helerstein,
> and not all carbs are created equal. "[T]he difference is that today
> the carbohydrates, because they're processed by the food
> manufacturers, are very high in sugar. And the scientists have a name
> for that: high gylcemic index -- it just means that it has a lot of
> sugar in it. So there's a difference between a Milky Way bar and a
> lettuce leaf, but they are both carbohydrates. So if you are eating
> the right carbohydrates, the ones that come from the natural sources,
> the fruits and the vegetables, then you will have a healthy diet."
>
> Helerstein is the chief nutritionist for Diet Chefs, a multimillion
> dollar company that delivers prepared meals to customers' homes, meals
> based on the company's 40-30-30 formula: 40 percent low-glycemic
> "good" carbohydrates, 30 percent lean protein and 30 percent "good"
> fat. Standing at a table filled with Diet Chefs meals, Helerstein
> points to a typical Diet Chefs dinner.
>
> "This would be a typical, wonderful meal that any scientist would be
> happy to eat," Helerstein said. "You have got your basic protein in
> your chicken. Now that's a lean protein chicken. Your carbohydrates
> are coming to you from the natural carbohydrates, which in this
> particular case is salad and vegetables, and then in your dressing
> here there's a little bit of olive oil and some flavoring that you're
> able to pour over your salad and you have each of the protein, the
> carbohydrate and the fat. That keeps your insulin levels stable and
> that's what health is all about."
>
> Controversial Theories
>
> Helerstein and Taubes agree that the low-fat proponents got it wrong.
> Fat supplies much of the taste in food, which leads to satiety, the
> feeling of being full. In a way, eating fat helps us know we've had
> enough and it's time to get up from the table. Surprisingly,
> Helerstein and Taubes agree on another theory: that bad carbs can
> kill. Taubes contends that carbs cause heart disease, cancer, even
> Alzheimer's disease. "These diseases cluster together in populations,"
> Taubes said. If you get fat you increase your risk of all these
> diseases. The obese have a higher risk of Alzheimer's than do the
> lean. So the natural, simplest possible hypothesis is that what causes
> one causes all."
>
> Helerstein goes further: "If you are eating sugar, and lots and lots
> of sugar and pasta and bread and white rice and white grains and white
> bread and white cereal, then you are initiating, after you eat, an
> insulin response," she said. "Insulin is an inflammatory hormone and
> it is a storage hormone. And I don't disagree with him. Where I
> disagree is, what carbohydrates are you eating? If you're eating the
> low-sugared, natural carbohydrates, they do not contribute to any
> degenerative diseases. If you are eating the wrong carbohydrates, I
> agree with him 100 percent."
>
> Taubes' most controversial theories in the book are these: that
> there's no evidence saturated fat and cholesterol do anything for us,
> either positive or negative. They don't cause heart disease, he
> claims. Nor does salt cause high blood pressure and hypertension. He
> says fiber is not a necessary part of our diet, especially if we cut
> out the carbs. And perhaps most controversial of all, Taubes said
> exercise does not lead to weight loss.
>
> "Exercise makes us hungry," he said, which causes overeating, and
> leads to the buildup of insulin mentioned earlier. He posits that thin
> people aren't thin because they exercise, rather, they exercise
> because being thin gives them the energy to work out.
>
> 'Everything in Moderation'
>
> Helerstein said Taubes is wrong about exercise. "I don't think that
> you have to wake up and exercise for four hours a day," she said. "But
> the answer to health is really keeping your lean muscle mass strong.
> And the older we get, the harder that is to do. So each year we lose a
> little muscle mass, and it's really harder to stay thin and healthy.
> But I think that again, if a person exercises in moderation and
> doesn't overdo it, it's a really important factor in health. "
>
> Taubes said he isn't touting any particular diet (though he does say
> "Atkins was right"). He said he's just trying to get scientists to
> test the work of the researchers he quotes in his book and see if
> their theories are correct. But he's expecting a large helping of
> criticism when the book is released.
>
> "First, they'll shoot the messenger," he said. "And then over the next
> 10 or 15 years, they'll debate the message and a good portion of it
> might be accepted. I'd say 70, 80 percent. But you don't thank people
> for pointing out your mistakes. It's not human nature, in general."
>
> But for most people the bottom line is, our tastebuds and our hearts
> control what we eat. Raffaele Esposito, owner of the restaurant where
> we took Taubes to lunch, says pasta is the heart of life. "It's pasta
> and life," Raffaele said. "You know? If you stopped the heart, you
> die." Everything in moderation, he said. Everything in moderation.
>
> Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

On Sep 28, 9:24 am, Nicky <ukc802466...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:01:46 +1200, Quentin Grady
>
> Wait for the book, I think.

No waiting necessary.

a) Amazon. com (USA) *does* ship worldwide*
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...&nodeId=596194

b) there is an e-book version available
http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/cat...=9780307267948

You're welcome.
Jay

*except to Kitwe

x-no-archive: yes

Quentin Grady wrote:

> I've not had the benefit of reading other papers by Taubes so must
> rely on what I do have available to access whether or not to take him
> seriously. It is something one is forced to do on a regular basis
> with people advancing what they themselves describe as controversial
> theories that they wish us to accept.
>

Quentin, I thought you'd read The Soft Science of Dietary Fat? And the
recent cover story on the NY Times magazine online, "Unhealthy Science"
about how epidemiology has caused medicine to go off in all the wrong
directions so often.

He's a brilliant science writer, but I don't know about that quote.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Quentin Grady wrote:
> This post not CC'd by email
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:18:11 -0400, Susan <nevermind@nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Indirectly, in my and in a large portion of other DMs, insulin does end
>>up elevating sugar levels. Study has shown us that at least 10% of type
>>2 DMs have occult hypercorisolemia.
>>
>>Insulin lowers cortisol binding globulin, the protein that transports
>>cortisol to the cells that need it. This causes the pituitary to
>>respond to feedback from cortisol hungry cells with more ACTH, telling
>>the adrenals to release more cortisol, which strongly and directly
>>raises blood glucose.
>>
>>Cortisol is also responsible for dawn phenomenon.
>>
>>Susan
>
>
> G'day G'day Susan,
>
> Thanks. I'm impressed with your description.
>
> My only comment is that you are talking about blood glucose LEVELS.
> Taubes is talking about sugar itself.
>


That would be uncharacteristically dumb. He's the only science writer I
consistently respect.

I hope this is an error in reporting.

Susan

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:42:10 -0700, "Michelle C."
<bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote:

>> ???? Insulin creates sugar ????
>>
>Surely someone has misquoted him. I've read some of his papers and
>have found him to be quite knowlegdeable--never any bizarre statements
>like the one above.


He may have misquoted himself. Meaning I heard him make the statement
in the TV interview. I remember because it nearly knocked me out of
my chair. I wonder if he didn't mis-speak in the interview as he was
trying to explain the insulin to fat storage chain of events. He may
have realised later but it was too late to correct the error. It hope
that Nightline will allow him to correct what was said.

My poor husband had to listen to my tirade. His answer to the
controvery: "Maybe he was trying to dumb it down for the average
viewer."

On Sep 28, 4:04 pm, Susan <neverm...@nomail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Quentin Grady wrote:
> > I've not had the benefit of reading other papers by Taubes so must
> > rely on what I do have available to access whether or not to take him
> > seriously. It is something one is forced to do on a regular basis
> > with people advancing what they themselves describe as controversial
> > theories that they wish us to accept.
>
> Quentin, I thought you'd read The Soft Science of Dietary Fat? And the
> recent cover story on the NY Times magazine online, "Unhealthy Science"
> about how epidemiology has caused medicine to go off in all the wrong
> directions so often.
>
> He's a brilliant science writer, but I don't know about that quote.
>
> Susan

Hi Susan and Quentin

I couldn't lay my hands on either of those articles immediately, but
did have quick access to another: "What if It's All Been A Big Fat
Lie?" If I'm remembering The Soft Science of Dietary Fat article
correctly, there is much overlap between the two articles. It can be
read here: http://www.diabetes-normalsugars.com...s/fatlie.shtml

Best regards,
Michelle C., T2
diet & exercise
BMI 21

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:07:10 -0700, jeissner777@aol.com wrote:

>On Sep 28, 9:24 am, Nicky <ukc802466...@btconnect.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:01:46 +1200, Quentin Grady
>>
>> Wait for the book, I think.
>
>No waiting necessary.
>
>a) Amazon. com (USA) *does* ship worldwide*
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...&nodeId=596194
>
>b) there is an e-book version available
>http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/cat...=9780307267948
>
>You're welcome.
>Jay

Prefer Ndola : ) Looks like I will have to wait. I'd happily buy the
e-book, but the only one who's actually selling it from the Borzoi
catalogue is Random House, and they don;t have a Buy button anywhere
on the page - sigh - I even went over to IE to see if they're still
banging rocks together - but thanks for the try!

Nicky.
T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid
D&E, 100ug thyroxine
Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25

Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> This post not CC'd by email
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:42:10 -0700, "Michelle C."
> <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote:

>>On Sep 28, 4:01 am, Quentin Grady <quen...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>> This post not CC'd by email
>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:59:28 -0700, jeissner...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >It's simple chemistry, said Taubes. Carbs spike insulin. Insulin
>>> >creates sugar. And sugar packs on the pounds.
>>>
>>> ROTFL.
>>>
>>> ???? Insulin creates sugar ????
>>>
>>Surely someone has misquoted him. I've read some of his papers and
>>have found him to be quite knowlegdeable--never any bizarre statements
>>like the one above.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Michelle C., T2
>>diet & exercise
>>BMI 21

> G'day G'day Michelle,

> I'm glad I'm not alone in finding the quote bizarre. The sentences
> are so simple and short it is hard to believe anyone could be
> misquoting them. If they had been long and complex it would be easier
> to accept that the reporter misinterpreted what was said.

Ah! Quite clearly you've never been interviewed and quoted by
newspaper reporters :-)

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> This post not CC'd by email
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:24:52 +0100, Nicky
> <ukc802466929@btconnect.com> wrote:

>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:01:46 +1200, Quentin Grady
>><quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>This post not CC'd by email
>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:59:28 -0700, jeissner777@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's simple chemistry, said Taubes. Carbs spike insulin. Insulin
>>>>creates sugar. And sugar packs on the pounds.
>>>
>>>ROTFL.
>>>
>>>???? Insulin creates sugar ????
>>>
>>>I find it amazing that any one, Taubes included, could make such a
>>>stupid statement after decades of being a science reporter and having
>>>the opportunity to read scientific publications. Put simply, he would
>>>seem a prime candidate for NYC, (not yet competent) if he sat an
>>>elementary biological science paper.
>>
>>Wait for the book, I think. That looks like a staff reporter quoting
>>something mis-remembered!

> G'day G'day Nicky,

> Mis-remembered? It appears to be a direct quote.

I take it you've never been interviewed by reporters who then quoted
you in print? :-)

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Laura@notmy.com wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:42:10 -0700, "Michelle C."
> <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> ???? Insulin creates sugar ????
>>>
>>Surely someone has misquoted him. I've read some of his papers and
>>have found him to be quite knowlegdeable--never any bizarre statements
>>like the one above.

> He may have misquoted himself. Meaning I heard him make the statement
> in the TV interview. I remember because it nearly knocked me out of
> my chair. I wonder if he didn't mis-speak in the interview as he was
> trying to explain the insulin to fat storage chain of events. He may
> have realised later but it was too late to correct the error. It hope
> that Nightline will allow him to correct what was said.

That's certainly possible. It's not uncommon for people in general
conversation and interviews to sometimes accidentally say the complete
opposite of what they mean, or something which makes no sense at
all. It's often due to revising a sentence on the run and dropping the
thread as you do so. It's usually so obviously at varaince with the
known views of the speaker that everyone just ignores it, and some
don't even notice it.

We have a politician in the UK who is famous for being unable to speak
for more than a minute without stumbling in his language so
preposterously that not only is the "sentence" quite daft or
incomprehensible, but even some of the words are nonsense as well. I
believe you may have one of those in the US too. :-)

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

friend Chris Malcolm wrote:

<snip>

> ... My doctor uncle used to keep a
> photograph of the skeletal inmates of Auschwitz looking out through
> the barbed wire at their rescuers to show to those of his patients who
> claimed they didn't lose weight no matter how little they ate.

Indeed.

Wiser to simply eat less, down to the optimal amount along with doing
everything else right:

http://ABChung.LiveJournal.com/8329.html

> Diabetics are a special case, because if we're capable of moderate
> exercise we can pull down a post-prandial BG spike quite quickly with
> it. For me, like you, however, the major benefits of exercise are not
> in direct BG control, but in the general benefits to health and the
> indirect longer term benefit of making BG control easier by the
> metabolic changes of being fitter.

However, it is clear that while there is bad inside fat (visceral
adipose tissue or VAT) there will always be a decrement in fitness no
matter how much exercise is undertaken.

Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/PressRelease

Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.

x-no-archive: yes

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>This post not CC'd by email
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:24:52 +0100, Nicky
>><ukc802466929@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:01:46 +1200, Quentin Grady
>>><quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This post not CC'd by email
>>>>On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:59:28 -0700, jeissner777@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It's simple chemistry, said Taubes. Carbs spike insulin. Insulin
>>>>>creates sugar. And sugar packs on the pounds.
>>>>
>>>>ROTFL.
>>>>
>>>>???? Insulin creates sugar ????
>>>>
>>>>I find it amazing that any one, Taubes included, could make such a
>>>>stupid statement after decades of being a science reporter and having
>>>>the opportunity to read scientific publications. Put simply, he would
>>>>seem a prime candidate for NYC, (not yet competent) if he sat an
>>>>elementary biological science paper.
>>>
>>>Wait for the book, I think. That looks like a staff reporter quoting
>>>something mis-remembered!
>
>
>>G'day G'day Nicky,
>
>
>> Mis-remembered? It appears to be a direct quote.
>
>
> I take it you've never been interviewed by reporters who then quoted
> you in print? :-)
>


Taubes has weritten on the topic for years, flawlessly. I suspect he
just misspoke.

Susan