1. We all agree there is conclusive evidence of a problem with diet and obesity.
2. Author inconclusively argues that sugar is the cause of the problem.
3. Someone says this is irresponsible journalism (scaremongering).
4. In response, you say that that this is not irresponsible journalism because doing nothing in a crisis is irresponsible, even if doing something involves a little bit of misdirection.
As someone that believes in accurate science and honest journalism, I would call that irresponsible.
"In response, you say that that this is not irresponsible journalism because doing nothing in a crisis is irresponsible, even if doing something involves a little bit of misdirection."
I guess the big issue I have with his advice is that obesity is really most strongly correlated with increased intake of calories, and less so with the macronutritional source of those calories.
In his books, Gary Taubes makes an argument that the causal relationship is reversed. It's not that eating too much causes your body to store the excess as fat. Rather it's that your body is storing necessary energy as fat before your body can use it, so you need to eat more to make up the deficit.
Fair point, and I didn't consider this rude at all. I am not offended by being misread (it happens) or by rudeness (within reason, if the content is good). The intersection, less so. Thanks for the links. All for reducing caloric intake, but I think a sibling post makes a good point about that. I have already taken more than my fair share of this thread, I'll let the rest to better minds than mine.
As someone that believes in accurate science and honest journalism, I would call that irresponsible.