Comments on: Chocolate & Red Meat Can Be Bad for Your Science: Why Many Nutrition Studies Are All Wrong

By: Why Veganism Might Work to Improve Health: i.e. it’s the sugar, stupid (this is directed at the now-vegan Bill Clinton, for obvious reasons) | Rob Roy's Adventures in Public Health Land!

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:29:17 +0000

[...] in terms of how it’s used by health authorities and interpreted by today’s media, read this and this by Gary [...]

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 15 May 2012 04:23:49 +0000

sue: A federal grant, funded by the taxpayers, to further legitimize the recommendations of the USDA, which were lobbied for by the agricultural industry.

By: sue

sue — Mon, 07 May 2012 14:16:42 +0000

All I ever need to know is who is paying for the study and in whose best interest will the outcome serve.

By: Amie’s Artifact Review April 5 | Nutrition for Life

Amie’s Artifact Review April 5 | Nutrition for Life — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:17:43 +0000

[...] (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/04/05/chocolate-red-meat-can-be-bad-for-your-science-why…) [...]

By: Bill Lagakos

Bill Lagakos — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:09:49 +0000

Well done Gary. Will your nonprofit organization be more involved with randomized diet intervention trials or re-vamping our Nation’s dietary recommendations?
Thanks, Bill

By: John

John — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:39:34 +0000

I always suspected Woody Allen was right! In his 70′s movie “Sleeper”, he awakes in the distant future to find that medical science has shown that, in fact, chocolate and smoking are both good for your health. We’ve finally caught up to his precictions for chocolate-I’m waiting for smoking to fall in line any day now.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:27:42 +0000

I feel like Gary put into words what most people think-nutritional cause and effect is soooo unreliable – he was able to give concrete reasons why this is true. My husband is 57, has what by current nutrition standards, a horrible diet- plenty of beef, mayonnaise, butter, eggs, hardly any fruit and the only vegetable he consumes on a regular basis is tomatoes, is 50 lbs over weight and yet his cholesterol is 150 and he just had some major heart tests done, at my prompting due to his eating habits, and no blockages. And me, who eats sensible, plenty of salads, fruits, veggies, and whole grains has a cholesterol of 230 – is it heredity, is it he feelings about all the nutritional advise which he regularly denounces? How could one prove how what one ‘believes’ about food effects what the impact of food has on the body? I feel like it is all way to complicated to EVER get a scientific result. Seems to me, that for now anyway, the best advice is to do what feels right to you, and enjoy your food!

By: Nutrition Coverage Under Fire | The Observatory

Nutrition Coverage Under Fire | The Observatory — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:20:58 +0000

[...] stories that could be described as bad journalism feasting on bad science,” he wrote in a guest post for Discover’s blog, The [...]

By: Red Meat Won’t Kill You — Poor Science Will

Red Meat Won’t Kill You — Poor Science Will — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:15:55 +0000

[...] many reviews and make claims that an association observed in the study has a causal relationship. As Gary Taubes has observed, every time that these Harvard researchers had claimed that an association observed in their [...]

By: Susan Kirk

Susan Kirk — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 02:27:19 +0000

So glad I found Gary Taubes