Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes

Yes he is, and I wasn't trying to give any other impression. I just didn't think that was the message anyone would take from what Molbiogirl claimed he said.Inherent within the dietary fat hypothesis is that obesity coincides with prosperity, and that prosperity brings with it increased fat intake (overeating) and a sedentary lifestyle. Taubes introduces the example of the Pima Indians to show that obesity can also coincide with poverty.He has other examples, of course. One more contemporary example (and I can't look up the details as the book is at home) is of fat mothers with undernourished children in regions struggling with maintaining adequate food supplies. Unless you believe that the mothers are feeding themselves at the expense of their children, they are getting fat on diets insufficient to nourish their children. Something has happened to their metabolism to cause fat storage to be emphasized over all else.Elevated intake of carbohydrates over a number of years leads to something called metabolic syndrome, which includes amongst its symptoms insulin resistance, which means the muscles have diminished numbers of receptors for insulin, which muscles use to metabolize glucose. Fat cells usually remain receptive to insulin, or at least much more receptive than muscle cells, and so they absorb fatty acids fromt the bloodstream while the muscles starve.Your article, Obesity and Diabetes is from the National Institutes of Health, one of the primary supporters, if not *the* primary supporter, of the dietary fat hypothesis. The article's author is Lorraine H. Marchand, an editor, and she is apparently trying to relate the research and opinions of Dr. Eric Ravussin. I don't know whether the errors are hers or Dr. Ravussin, but here are the portions I would question:

• She applies the "thrifty gene" theory to the Pima Indians. While many will agree that individual metabolisms are highly varied, no such gene across an entire population has ever been identified.
  ​
• She says that the Pima only became fat after the return of Indian servicemen after World War II. In fact, the Pima were already fat by the early 20th century, as the research of Frank Russell and Ales Hrdicka indicates, and that Taubes references in his book and his talks. Frank Russell:
  ​
  Russell 1901-1902 writes:

  ​

  "Many old persons exhibit a degree of obesity that is in striking contrast with the 'tall and sinewy' Indian conventionalized in popular thought."
  ​
  And Ales Hrdicka:
  ​
  Ales Hrdicka 1903-1905 writes:

  ​

  "Especially well-nourished individuals, females and also males, occur in every tribe and at all ages...but real obesity is found almost exclusively among the Indians on the reservations...and among adults of less than 60 years of age.
  ​
  So obesity among the Pima was well established a half century before the NIH article says.
  ​
• Dr. Ravussin is quoted saying, "The only way to correct obesity is to eat less fat and exercise regularly." This is obviously untrue, and we can only hope that Dr. Ravussin was misquoted.
  ​
• It is ironic to have an article about diabetes advocate a diet higher in carbohydrates (starch, in this case), but that's just what this article does:
  ​
  The article writes:

  ​

  "We've learned from this study of the Mexican Pimas that if the Pima Indians of Arizona could return to some of their traditions, including a high degree of physical activity and a diet with less fat and more starch, we might be able to reduce the rate, and surely the severity, of unhealthy weight in most of the population," Ravussin says.

What would be worth exploring is whether the problems the Pima are experiencing today with obesity and diabetes might be addressed with a low carbohydrate diet. Mounting evidence appears to indicate the possibility that the longer elevated levels of carbohydrate intake are maintained, the more an individual's metabolism changes to emphasize fat storage at the expense of other needs, such as for energy and muscle maintenance. It would take a generation to know the results.--Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix garbled explanation about fat cells and insulin.

Taubes wouldn't characterize the Pima at the turn of the 20th century as sedentary. If you listen to that Taubes lecture around the 10-13 minute area you'll hear him talk about how the fattest segment of Pima society, the woman, seemed to do the most and hardest wrok, describing the loads they had to carry and so forth.Taubes believes that while calories are not the most significant factor, they are still very significant. Consume enough calories and you will gain weight, but other factors being equal, he believes that the higher the proportion of carbohydrates the more weight you'll gain. The Mexican Pima may be eating a diet that was traditional somewhere somewhen for Pima, but it is definitely not the diet described by the US expeditionary force back in 1846, which included foods from fishing, hunting and crops. According to The Pima Paradox: Both Pima groups have diets very rich in carbohydrates, the difference being level of physica activity.Your "Obesity and Diabetes" article says that, "Out of 35 Mexican Pimas studied, only three had diabetes..." Three Pima out of 35 is nearly 10%, so I don't understand how they could say "only three". Maybe compared to the Arizona Pima it is small and that's why they said "only three."If the Mexican Pima had actually returned to a traditional Pima diet then it would have been very low in carbohydrates, because the diet of the Pima that we know from the 1840s was from hunting, fishing and crops. Ravussin implies that the Mexican Pima have a higher intake of starch than the Arizona Pima, but if their diet actually does consist primarily of bean, potatoes and corn torillas then it would be hard to imagine having a diet higher in carbohydrates than that.--Percy

I'm just describing Taubes' position, which in the lecture he describes as an observation. He makes a number of observations which he finds supportive of his hypothesis. I don't think he believes these observations constituted any refutation of any other hypothesis, and he never advances the argument that a sedentary lifestyle combined with a high calorie intake doesn't generate obesity. I think I already said this in my previous message, but in case I didn't, Taubes believes you'll gain more weight on a high carbohydrate diet than a high fat diet. Actually, there is, and Taubes refers to it as the dietary fat hypothesis. This is the hypothesis that diets too high in fat, and in particular too high in particular kinds of fat, are responsible for the diseases of western civilization, namely obesity, diabetes and heart disease. These diseases occur at far higher rates in countries with western-style diets than they do elsewhere. Well, it wasn't for lack of trying. If you'd like to raise your point again I'll try to do better. While poking around I did find an article on the web that articulates the carbohydrate position on the Pima, see Low Grain and Carbohydrate Diets Treat Hypoglycemia, Heart Disease, Diabetes Cancer and Nearly ALL Chronic Illness and go about halfway down the page to the section titled "Epidemiological Data". Type II diabetes is caused by high glucose levels (carbohydrates are the source of this glucose), placing a strain on the pancreas with constant demands for more insulin. As the body develops insulin resistance the demands for insulin go up (this, along with a collection of other symptoms, including obesity, constitute metabolic syndrome) until the pancreas gives out resulting in full blown Type II diabetes. Suggesting that a population prone to Type II diabetes should increase their carbohydrate intake seems irresponsible to me. Ah! Thank you for that information. So it made sense to use the adjective "only" for a diabetes rate of almost 10% when compared to a rate of over 50%.It would be interesting to know what the average Pima diet is like today. The information is probably out there somewhere, but I'm out of time as the basketball game is starting.--Percy

I had no idea that you intended the word "directly" to be of key importance, but I'm just explaining my position. Sometimes your responses don't actually address my position but appear to reflect a misunderstanding of it, so when I attempt to clarify my position it won't actually address your objection, and that's neither of our faults since we only just engaged yesterday and haven't had to time establish a common ground for communication yet. I don't see any need to leap to conclusions that I'm inventing strawmen while scoffing and attacking.In his book Taubes is attempting to show two things:

• That the dietary fat hypothesis that has held sway in nutritional circles for the past 30 years is likely wrong.
  ​
• That the carbohydrate hypothesis is likely correct.

It is widely believed in nutritional circles that the dietary and lifestyle modalities associated with western civilization ("prosperity") cause significantly higher levels of obesity, diabetes and heart disease. The dietary fat hypothesis is the idea that it is dietary fat that is most responsible, and that to reduce the risk of these diseases one should reduce their intake of dietary fat, particularly certain types of dietary fat.The dietary fat hypothesis began its journey toward becoming the prevailing wisdom with the issuance of the 1977 McGovern report Dietary Goals for the United States. Here's the summary of the recommendations: While some of these recommendations are obviously dated today and have been significantly revised or eliminated (for example, we now know that dietary cholesterol intake levels are not associated with serum (blood) cholesterol levels, though cholesterol content is still featured prominently on nutrition labels), the first two recommendations of increasing carbohydrate intake while reducing fat intake have had an enormous impact on dietary habits in this country, creating an entire new segment of the food industry that has filled our grocery stores and restaurants with an array of low fat food choices.Concurrent with these changes in dietary habits, the past thirty years have seen the rates of obesity and diabetes Type II skyrocket while heart disease levels remain unabated. Obviously the emphasis on increasing carbohydrate intake while reducing fat intake has had the opposite of the intended effect. I didn't say I offered the source because I thought it was reliable, though hopefully it isn't wrong in any significant way. The reason I offered it was because it represents a clear articulation of the carbohydrate position on the Pima. It wasn't intended to convince you of the carbohydrate position (though that would be nice), but just to make it clear to you because it seemed to me that you had drawn a couple conclusions about what the carbohydrate position says about the Pima that it really doesn't say. If you have links to the sources you found describing the traditional Pima diet, the one prior to 1850, I'd like to look at them.It would also be helpful to know the diet of the contemporary Pima. The links I've found so far haven't provided much detail, though I do see frequent mention of potatoes, corn tortillas and beans, which if accurate would mean the modern Pima diet is very high in carbohydrates. I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic, so I can't follow your request to not mention exercise. Removing glucose from the bloodstream through exercise (because the muscles consume the glucose) should yield similar results to never putting the glucose in the bloodstream in the first place by reducing carbohydrate intake. The fact that the Mexican Pima have a lower incidence rate of obesity and diabetes and a higher consumption level of carbohydrates is confounded by their much higher level of physical activity. This was described clearly in the link I provided. This contradicts other accounts that have government rations high in carbohydrates comprising a significant proportion of the Pima diet after their move to the reservation in the second half of the 19th century. It would be nice if we could find a primary source reference that describes the history of the Pima after 1850, including their diet.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Regardless of anyone's feelings about Taubes' book or low carbohydrate diets in general, I'm sure most would agree that too much sugar is bad for you. But how many know that to the body there is no difference between carbohydrates and sugar?When you eat carbohydrates, they become glucose in the bloodstream.When you eat a candy bar, the sugar in the candy bar, which is a type of carbohydrate, becomes glucose and fructose in the bloodstream. Glucose and fructose are the two components of table sugar, which is also called sucrose.The body cannot tell the difference between carbohydrates and sugar. To the body they are one and the same.So here is some very interesting nutritional information: While M&M candy is highest in both calories and carbs, today the sugar in candy is usually 55% fructose and 45% glucose (it's made with high fructose corn syrup), and fructose is metabolized via different metabolic pathways than glucose. We really want to look at only the glucose component, both because this is what is thought to more directly contribute to obesity and diabetes and because we want to compare apples to apples, and so M&M candy has only 30.9 grams of glucose carbohydrate, which makes it the lowest contributor of glucose in the table except for potatoes.In other words, 100 grams of white bread contributes more glucose to your bloodstream than 100 grams of M&Ms. Also note how little whole wheat bread saves you in terms of calories and carbohydrates. Also note that corn tortillas have more than twice as much carbohydrates as potatoes and nearly as much as wheat bread.The amount of non-fiber carbohydrates in four slices of whole wheat bread is about 84 grams. Just for calibration, a large whole wheat sub roll is 81.7 grams (D'Angelo Bread and Toppings Nutrition Page). Anyway, whether it's four slices of bread or a sub roll, either contains almost as much glucose as 260 grams (more than a half pound) of M&Ms, and that's before even making the sandwich.So if you believe that too much candy is bad for you, then you must also accept that too much bread is bad for you, too, along with pasta, pastry and cereal. This is why the current food pyramid with bread, pasta and cereal forming the broad base is completely backward. Bread, pasta and cereal should be at the top of the pyramid. They should provide the smallest component.Unfortunately for the poor, high carbohydrate foods are also the cheapest source of calories.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Rewrite the sub roll paragraph.Edited by Percy, : Fix number of slices of bread and corresponding carbohydrates.Edited by Percy, : Fix second occurrence of number of bread slices.

Can I suggest that if at first I don't get your point that you might just repeat it, which is what I've been doing since you haven't been getting many of my points, either? I've explained this many times throughout this thread and at least a couple times since you joined. Rather than repeating it yet again, this time I'll just request that if you want the explanation for why exercise and food intake are not independent variables that you seek it out in prior messages. The incorrect conclusion you're jumping to is that I'm inventing strawmen, scoffing and attacking. I'm just putting forward my position, just as you should be putting forward your own instead of focusing so much attention on my obviously many foibles, my weaknesses in comprehension, my antagonistic tendencies, and my demonstrated propensity for underhanded debate tactics like inventing strawmen. If you'd like the discussion to degenerate into accusations like this I can promise you that it won't happen, because I'll just stop responding. If there are problems then you're going to have to identify them instead of just saying they exist. This is the last time I'm going to respond to a passage that accuses me of scoffing at something, okay?Theoretically it would work, but as anyone knows who has tried to follow the standard recommendations of dieting and exercise for losing weight, it doesn't work for the long term. Exercise of the "do it because it is good for you" type is quickly abandoned, as opposed to the "exercise because if you don't you won't eat" variety. If it were really possible for normal people to adhere to regimens of dieting and exercise throughout their lives then there wouldn't be an obesity problem. Obesity brings with it a host of very serious social, employment and health problems, and if dieting and exercise really worked then few would be obese.The reason that dieting and exercise don't work is because they are willpower solutions. You will engage in exercise you don't really enjoy only as long as you can enforce discipline upon yourself, and you will diet only as long as your willpower can overcome your hunger.Let me know if you come across references that describe the Pima diet, both their pre-1850 diet and their current diet.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.Edited by Percy, : Use a better word.

Oh, okay, now I understand. You're making points while I'm just offering excuses. Thank you for explaining this, good to know. I am not guilefully moving back and forth between different arguments in order to create the appearance of a consistency that does not in reality exist. You seem to be the type of person who sees dishonesty, guile, purposeful manipulation, etc, in those who hold different opinions from your own.The evidence of the Mexican Pima is confounded because exercise and appetite are not independent variables, and I said so twice, once indirectly via the link I provided, and again in a message. Of course, and I am not confusing them. Perhaps if you describe your understanding of my position it would help me understand why you think this. You make that case by addressing the evidence and arguments with your own evidence and arguments, instead of with ad hominem. Your emotional undercurrent on this topic has been apparent from the outset, and I think you need to work harder to keep it under control. I have said this in this thread many times. You had addressed a point that you felt was implicit in my argument, not a point that I was explicitly making, so naturally I wouldn't repeat this information. No one ever said that sufficient reductions of calorie intake cannot cause weight loss. Taubes is describing something a bit more complex than that. Not only are exercise and appetite not independent variables, but as I explained in the very next paragraph of my Message 165 that you reference: Everyone's metabolism is different, and this explains why people of identical weight, physical activity level and diet can experience different weight gains or losses. As far as weight control goes, it really isn't as simple as "a calorie is a calorie is a calories," because hormones exert the greatest control over the proportions of calories converted to energy versus fat.There's an overriding point that keeps getting forgotten, and so I feel I have to keep repeating it. I expressed it this way in Message 165: So something is clearly wrong with our thinking about the relationship between diet and health. Independent of whether Taubes' particular thesis is right or wrong, the current accepted hypothesis about dietary fat clearly has severe and probably insurmountable problems that will not allow it to survive much longer.I am an admitted recent convert to the carbohydrate hypothesis, and perhaps I have the unattractive zealousness of the recent convert, but the conversion was forced upon me by experience. A seminal moment occurred in my doctor's office last year when he told me that if I wasn't losing weight on a 1200 calorie/day diet that I must be cheating or not keeping track carefully enough. But I'm a typical obsessive/compulsive engineer, and I was tracking calories the way I do much else, obsessively and compulsively. I was tracking them the same way I had tracked them on two previous successful diets, one of 1600 calories/day about 10 years ago, and another of 1400 calories/day about 4 years ago.What has changed between 10 years ago and today? I'm older. For many individuals, increasing age brings with it increasing difficulty in maintaining a reasonable weight. I'm as active as I ever was, but I can no longer lose weight on any reasonable calorie-reduction style diet. The hunger on less than 1200 calories/day is so great as to prevent sleep.What does being older mean metabolically? I don't know. As has been true throughout my life, blood tests always report normal levels of everything. Last year after my doctor's visit I sought the help of an endocrinologist, and he also reported that everything was normal.So what do I feel I really know for sure at this point? Following my own ad hoc version of a low carb diet, my experience so far has been:

• That you can lose weight on a low carbohydrate diet at a calorie level where simple low calorie diets are ineffective.
  ​
• That you don't get hungry.
  ​
• That you can lose weight faster by going to lower calorie levels, and you will get hungry, but it isn't the kind of gnawing hunger associated with low calorie diets.

I think I can hold myself up as an example because my experience with weight gain and diets is extremely typical of the average person as they age in a western-style society. My experience with low calorie diets was typical of the average person, and judging by the low carbohydrate literature my experience with that is also very typical.One typical criticism of a low carbohydrate diet is that it is actually just a low calorie diet in disguise. My own experience indicates that it is at least a little more complicated than that, because I'm losing weight at a higher calorie level on this diet than I was on a low calorie diet where I couldn't lose any weight at all.But let's say for the sake of discussion that in the end they do the necessary research and are able to show that low carbohydrate diets really are just low calorie diets in disguise. But you don't get hungry on a low carbohydrate diet, and since hunger is what defeats most diets it is an approach that might actually work for the long term.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

What would be the point of discussion if everyone did what you're doing? For example, what if I were to respond like this: I could do the same for the rest of your post, responding to each paragraph by simply echoing your approach and tone back to you. Should we go on in this way? Or would you like to have a meaningful and constructive discussion?--Percy

In my message Message 173 about carbohydrate laden food like bread being just as bad sugar I briefly mentioned fructose. PaulK's Message 181 made it clear that I phrased things in a way that made it seem that fructose's contribution to health isn't important, when the reality is that it is very important. So here is what Taubes says about fructose.Most carbohydrate sources that do not contain sucrose (table sugar) and are not fruit contain very little fructose. Bread, pasta, most vegetables, they all contain little to no fructose. But sugar is 50% fructose (the other 50% is glucose), and today many concoctions like candy and soda are sweetened with a type of sugar that uses high fructose corn syrup, which is 55% fructose, enabling manufacturers to save money by using less sweetener, since fructose is sweeter than glucose. Briefly addressing glucose first, the most significant fact with regard to the carbohydrate hypothesis is that pancreas cells are sensitive to glucose levels and respond by producing insulin. Consistent exposure to glucose causes insulin resistance in body tissues, which means they become less responsive to the presence of insulin which is key to the absorption of glucose, with the result that body tissues absorb glucose more slowly.The reduced uptake rate of glucose by body tissues causes glucose levels to remain elevated, and so the pancreas produces more insulin, and this is the cause of hyperinsulemia, which is chronically elevated insulin levels (hyperinsulemia is one of the symptoms of metabolic syndrome, obesity being another). Elevated insulin levels encourage the uptake of fat by fat issues, so it is continual intake of glucose producing food (high carbohydrate food) that is one of the significant components of chronic obesity. Those with elevated insulin levels will find losing weight exceptionally difficult as the body will store fat at the expense of other body tissues and available energy.But enough about glucose, what about fructose?Fructose is contained in small amounts in fruit, about 8% by weight in grapes. Even though grapes are one of the fruits very high in sugar content, a cup of grapes contains only 2 grams of fructose.Soda, on the other hand (using Dr. Pepper as my example), contains 40 grams of sugar per 12 ounce can, of which 55% is fructose, so one can of soda contains 22 grams of fructose. A 1.5 ounce Hershey bar contains 12 grams of fructose. Soda and candy are extremely high sources of fructose, unnaturally high, and our bodies were not designed to deal with such elevated fructose levels. About this Taubes says on page 144: One interesting point I should make for those who rely upon the glycemic index for guidance is that the glycemic index doesn't include fructose. It is because table sugar is 50% fructose that it has a lower glycemic index than flour or starches. So just forget using the glycemic index to compare anything with sugar to anything without.Fructose is handled by a completely different pathway than glucose because it can only be metabolized by the liver and so contributes almost nothing to blood sugar levels, which is why it doesn't affect a food's glycemic index. What does the liver do with fructose? As Taubes explains on page 200, "The liver responds by converting it to triglycerides—fat—and then shipping it out on lipoproteins for storage. The more fructose in the diet, the higher the subsequent triglyceride levels in the blood."So what we have in sugared foods that combine glucose/fructose is a metabolic double whammy for obesity. Fructose elevates fat levels in the bloodstream, while glucose elevates insulin levels that encourage the uptake of fat by fatty tissue (technically, adipose tissue). In other words, if you're trying to lose weight, you should not, cannot, must not, consume anything with sugar. Not candy, not soda, not pastry, not cake, not pie.But it gets even worse. Elevated triglyceride levels, which can be caused by fructose, are implicated in heart disease.Taubes gets into much more detail that is too complicated for me to relate here. For those who are interested, Taubes devotes an entire chapter to sugar. It's chapter 12 and begins on page 195.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Clarify fourth paragraph.Edited by Percy, : Grammer.

The title is not mine but is actually just the first sentence of a paper that appeared in last November's issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, A Call for Higher Standards of Evidence for Dietary Guidelines. Here's the entire first paragraph: This is the same premise as Taubes' book. An earlier column written by Taubes, The soft science of dietary fat, appeared in the prestigious journal Science for which Taubes has been a regular contributor, and the column is referenced by this paper (the link I provided to Taubes' article is at the National Association of Science Writer's website - it can also be found at the journal Science's website (The Soft Science of Dietary Fat), but that's a pay site).I much prefer to let arguments stand or fall on their own merits without any authoritorial appeal, and so up till now I haven't said much about Taubes' credentials, and I'm not going to say much now. Anyone can be wrong, no matter how greatly respected or accomplished, and this most certainly includes Taubes, but he is a science writer of significant accomplishment, and he deserves far better than having his position casually dismissed as a strawman or as dubious or of being called a lying SOB, which is what has happened in this thread with an enthusiasm and determination that would do Ann Coulter proud.In this paper, Marantz, Bird and Alderman review the history and evidence for dietary recommendations and their potential for harm using the example of the dietary fat hypothesis, the same hypothesis as Taubes. Making the point that firm recommendations with ambiguous support are not good practice, it's worth a read.There's a rebuttal at Do Dietary Guidelines Explain the Obesity Epidemic?, and a response at The Authors Respond. I was wondering if the responding authors would pick up on the distortion of their position concerning causality, and upon the inappropriate comparison of their position to rejecting the Surgeon General's report on smoking, and in reading the response I found they did. It seems that when the evidence is on your side you argue the evidence, and when it's not you pound the table.AbE: The lead author of the paper, Paul Marantz, is interviewed in the February 13, 2008, podcast of Scientic American's Science Talk: Fat Chance: Do Dietary Guidelines Actually Contribute to Obesity?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add mention of podcast.

It's there, right in the first paragraph, Message 186.Rebutting a paper without reading it? In the very same Message 186 where I was harshly critical of just such practices?I don't know what to say, I'm speechless. I guess I'll just say thanks for making my case that the other side isn't engaging in any sincere and informed criticism.--Percy

Yes, how convenient when formulating your rebuttal not to have to deal with or even be aware of the original arguments except as they were characterized by dissenters. This is what constitutes informed discussion for you? Someone who ironically couldn't find the link to the paper even though it was in the opening paragraph? Again, interesting.You seem determined to participate in this thread, so instead of screwing it further why don't you pick out something specific that Taubes actually said or that I described him as having said and we'll focus on that. Okay?--Percy

I have to get back to the ballgame, but real quick: Well, I guess this is just your style and you can't be dissuaded from it. Challenge a position, discuss through a couple rounds of rebuttal, then if your opponent hasn't already surrendered begin the mudslinging. Though you carefully noted that you were addressing the rebuttal and response, the reality is that you were attempting to rebut the position of a paper you had never read. You haven't read Taubes' book, either, yet you're attempting to rebut that. At least you're consistent.As I said before, since you seem determined to participate in this thread, instead of widening your swathe of ad hominem why don't you pick out something specific that Taubes actually said or that I described him as having said and we'll focus on that. Okay?--Percy

I accurately accused you of attempting to rebut the position of a paper based only upon information from dissenters and the author's one page response. Without ever having seen the paper, you argued in favor of likening the paper's position to rejecting the Surgeon General's report on smoking was valid. And without ever having seen the paper you claimed that "Marantz et. al. raise points damaging to the argument seen in this thread." There's no way to hide such reckless scholarship. You were even so sloppy as to somehow miss the link to the paper in the first paragraph, so don't expect it to be convincing that your attention to detail suddenly improved. No, I'm accurately describing what you're doing, while what you're doing is mudslinging because when the first few exchanges didn't result in concessions you broke off from critisizing positions and instead took up attacking the person arguing those positions, and that's ad hominem. The only falsehoods being uttered are yours. I stand ready to discuss the topic anytime you're ready. Anyone who reads this thread beginning from when you joined will see my many attempts to get you to focus on the topic, and to stop accusing me of positions I never stated, but you wouldn't stop and then you began throwing mud, accusing Taubes or me of contriving strawman repeatedly (Message 167 and Message 171), accused me of attacking and scoffing when I never did any such thing, and then just started throwing out unsupported accusations with no argument at all, like that I won't accept criticism, or that I'm making emotional appeals, or that I'm biased, or that the claims are dubious.In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the topic of this thread. Please focus on the topic. And I have made it quite clear that you are either misconstruing or mischaracterizing the arguments in this thread. Then while I was still attempting to make the issues more clear you began your series of posts that grew increasingly personal. Everything I've said about you is true. You appear to be the type of person who thinks ill of those who disagree with him, and even worse, you're also apparently the type of person willing to give voice to those feelings.I stand ready to discuss the topic any time you're ready.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor edit.Edited by Percy, : Typo.

No, you falsely did so.See how this works? Hopefully I've made my point. Once you've taken the debate personal by putting the blame on other people for not being persuaded by your arguments, constructive discussion dies. Keep your focus on the issues and not on the people you're discussing with and things will go much better here.If there's something you'd like to discuss related to the topic without getting personal then please proceed. But if you're just here to accuse me of scoffing and attacking and inventing strawmen when what I've been doing is presenting evidence and argument, then please just go away.--Percy