Is anyone else a little annoyed by Taubes? page

[palebluedots]

I just finished reading his book "Why We Get Fat...", and by the end of it, I wanted to hunt him down and punch him in the face every time he used the phrase "fattening carbohydrates". I'm not even saying he's wrong or anything, but cripe, we get the point, no need to say "fattening" nearly every single time you use the word "carbohydrates". So, I just wanted to rant and see if anyone else picked up on that too?

[tarek]

He's done a lot of great research to show that fat doesn't cause obesity.

Other than that, I don't care about what he has to say regarding carbohydrates. I've seen plenty of people succeed on high-carb diets.

[palebluedots]

I'm just pointing out that people don't seem to hire good editors anymore. I think if he had, they'd have pointed out to him that he'd already driven his point home, and there's no need to say "fattening carbohydrates" about 50,000 times.

[Chaohinon]

Kurt Harris already said it best:

At the risk of exhausting the term, I suggest you are operating from a Keyesian paradigm of diet.

As is anyone who thinks we must choose either fats or carbohydrates, or between plants and animals.

The Keyesian paradigm of diet is that the secret to health is a binary choice of macronutrient categories, one bad and the other good.

Keyes felt that fats were bad, and therefore carbohydrate was good. As others were, Taubes was correct in concluding that Keyes’ data were fraudulent and that his predictions about fat and cholesterol consumption have never proven true. But Taubes then went on and made the contrapositive error - concluding that if animal fats are innocent in disease, the real culprit must be the entire macronutrient class of carbohydrate.

and just for good measure

you're like those alcoholics that quit the drink but turn hard to Jesus, and now chain- smoke while eating too many glazed doughnuts at AA meetings.

[palebluedots]

ok, so, just to be totally clear, I am not in the slightest bit arguing with the content of what Taubes has to say. I'm just saying that I'm annoyed by him using the same phrase over and over and over. Really, I'm not at all debating whether fats are good or bad. I just got annoyed while reading his book that I had to read the same phrase a zillion times.

[js290]

I just finished reading his book "Why We Get Fat...", and by the end of it, I wanted to hunt him down and punch him in the face every time he used the phrase "fattening carbohydrates". I'm not even saying he's wrong or anything, but cripe, we get the point, no need to say "fattening" nearly every single time you use the word "carbohydrates". So, I just wanted to rant and see if anyone else picked up on that too?

Just think of it as balancing out artery clogging saturated fats: “Eating foods rich in saturated fats can lead to heart disease."

[tarek]

ok, so, just to be totally clear, I am not in the slightest bit arguing with the content of what Taubes has to say. I'm just saying that I'm annoyed by him using the same phrase over and over and over. Really, I'm not at all debating whether fats are good or bad. I just got annoyed while reading his book that I had to read the same phrase a zillion times.

If you repeat something often enough, it will stick with most people. Journalists, publicists, and ad-creators all use this to their advantage.

[palebluedots]

I get that repetition can be useful, but when a phrase is repeated enough that you annoy the crap out of your readers, it can have the opposite effect. It starts to feel a bit forced and obnoxious. I know he's not the only author by a long stretch who is guilty of this... I just feel like the message would be so much more effective had he not done that.

[tarek]

I get that repetition can be useful, but when a phrase is repeated enough that you annoy the crap out of your readers, it can have the opposite effect. It starts to feel a bit forced and obnoxious. I know he's not the only author by a long stretch who is guilty of this... I just feel like the message would be so much more effective had he not done that.

No, no, I totally agree with you. However, most people will not notice the use of this tactic (and many others like it); they think the author is simply stating facts.

The thesis of Taube's work is that "carbohydrate drives insulin production and insulin drives fat storage." The main point he wants to leave his readers with is that "carbs make you fat." Sadly, in today's world, where the masses are assaulted with advertisements at every waking moment, many speakers and authors feel that repeating oversimplified mantras ad nauseum is the only means of leaving a lasting impression.

[Lewis]

I get that repetition can be useful, but when a phrase is repeated enough that you annoy the crap out of your readers ...

Sure ... or some readers. Stylistic quirks and repetitious phrases can be annoying to some readers.

I guess the point to bear in mind is that he already wrote Good Calories, Bad Calories. This book is aimed at readers who couldn't have stood the more formal and at length presentation in that book.