Gary Taubes’s Good Calories, Bad Calories is a highly influential and contentious book that challenges decades of conventional dietary advice. Taubes argues that the widespread belief that dietary fat, particularly saturated fat, causes heart disease and obesity is based on flawed science, and he proposes that carbohydrates are the true culprits behind chronic diseases. While the book’s depth and scope are impressive, its criticisms of mainstream dietary guidelines and its promotion of low-carbohydrate diets have sparked significant debate. Below, I provide an in-depth critique of the book, emphasizing its methodological weaknesses, selective use of evidence, and overstated claims — because some of this stuff is just too rich to pass up without commentary.
Selective Use of Evidence: Playing Favorites with Science
One of the most frequent criticisms of Good Calories, Bad Calories is Taubes’s tendency to cherry-pick evidence that supports his arguments while conveniently ghosting studies that contradict his claims. This selective approach isn’t just bad science; it’s like bringing only your A-game tweets to a debate and pretending the bad takes never happened.
Overemphasis on Studies Criticizing the Lipid Hypothesis
Taubes spends an inordinate amount of time dissecting the lipid hypothesis — the idea that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease — as though he’s trying to win a personal vendetta against it. Sure, he points out supposed flaws in studies like Ancel Keys’s Seven Countries Study, but most of his critiques have been debunked, and he glosses over a mountain of evidence that shows a clear relationship between LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk (see my earlier posts). It’s like critiquing a single crack in the Great Wall of China and claiming the whole structure is unsound.
Underrepresentation of Carbohydrate-Tolerant Populations
Taubes’s sweeping generalization that carbohydrates are the root of all dietary evil crumbles when faced with populations that thrive on high-carb diets. Take traditional Asian diets, for instance. These carb-heavy diets have sustained billions of people with low rates of obesity and chronic disease. But Taubes treats these examples like an inconvenient subplot in a novel — acknowledged only in passing, if at all.
Focus on Short-Term Diet Studies
Taubes loves studies where low-carb diets outperform low-fat ones, but only in the short term. What he doesn’t mention is that the honeymoon phase often fades, and over the long haul, weight loss evens out across diets. Ignoring this is like citing the first week of a New Year’s resolution as proof that the gym is a permanent lifestyle — spoiler alert: it’s not.
Overemphasis on Insulin and Carbohydrates: The Villainization of a Hormone
If Good Calories, Bad Calories had a drinking game, every mention of insulin as the evil mastermind behind obesity would leave readers plastered by chapter three. Taubes’s relentless focus on insulin — and its supposed puppet master, carbohydrates — is simplistic to the point of caricature.
Dismissal of Energy Balance
Taubes essentially waves off the idea that calories in versus calories out matters, branding it as naïve. Instead, he zeroes in on insulin as the sole villain. The problem? Decades of research back the energy balance model. Sure, insulin is part of the story, but it’s not the whole novel. It’s like blaming the plot of Game of Thrones on one character and pretending the others don’t exist.
Protein and Insulin
Taubes conveniently ignores that protein also stimulates insulin release. Yet somehow, high-protein diets don’t carry the same metabolic baggage he attributes to carbs. This omission is a glaring plot hole in his argument, akin to forgetting to tie up a loose end in a mystery novel.
Individual Variation
Not everyone processes carbs the same way — a fact Taubes barely acknowledges. Some people’s bodies handle carbs just fine, while others need to be more cautious. It’s like assuming everyone has the same food preferences because you personally hate pineapple on pizza. Spoiler: some people love it.
Misrepresentation of Historical and Scientific Context: Revisionist History at Its Finest
Taubes spends a good chunk of the book dragging the historical development of dietary guidelines, portraying it as a conspiracy of bad science and political maneuvering. While there’s some truth to his criticisms, his portrayal often veers into the melodramatic.
Ancel Keys and the Lipid Hypothesis
According to Taubes, Ancel Keys was practically the Darth Vader of nutrition science, ruthlessly suppressing dissenting views. While Keys may have had his biases, subsequent reanalyses of his work have shown that his conclusions were far more nuanced — and accurate — than Taubes’s takedown suggests. Taubes’s depiction feels less like a balanced critique and more like a hit piece.
Ancel Keys provides a convenient target for Taubes’s “the experts lied to you” narrative — as he is no longer alive, he can’t defend himself. However, many others have come to Keys’s defense. Ancel Keys had a Ph.D. in biology from UC Berkeley and Ph.D. in physiology from Cambridge. Along with a large team of other researchers, he studied the relationship between diet and health around the world for decades. He is credited with promoting the health and longevity benefits of the traditional Mediterranean diet, which is still widely considered to be one of the healthiest eating patterns. It’s worth noting that, following his own dietary recommendations, Ancel Keys lived to the age of 100!
Gary Taubes, on the other hand, was an overweight journalist who lost weight on the Atkins Diet. He then set out to discover why, learning along the way that he could make a lot of money by telling people that “they were lied to by the experts” and that their unhealthy eating habits are actually good for them.
Evolution of Dietary Guidelines
Taubes argues that dietary guidelines were based on flimsy science and political agendas. While early guidelines may have overemphasized the dangers of dietary fat, they were a product of their time and have since evolved. Taubes conveniently ignores how current recommendations place greater emphasis on food quality and balance. It’s like criticizing a smartphone from 1995 and pretending modern ones don’t exist.
Lack of Nuance in Dietary Recommendations: One-Size-Fits-All Doesn’t Fit All
Taubes’s promotion of low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diets as a universal cure-all feels like a blunt instrument in a world that requires a scalpel.
Population Diversity
Many populations thrive on high-carb diets. Take the Okinawans, whose diet — heavy on sweet potatoes — has fueled some of the longest-lived people on the planet. If carbs are as evil as Taubes claims, these folks didn’t get the memo. Taubes’s lack of acknowledgment here feels like cherry-picking at its finest.
Focus on Macronutrients Over Food Quality
Taubes’s fixation on macronutrient ratios overlooks the importance of food quality. Whole grains, fruits, and legumes have vastly different effects on the body compared to refined sugars and white bread. Lumping them together is like saying all cars are bad because you once drove a lemon.
Sustainability, Practicality, and Long Term Health Concerns
Let’s face it: LCHF diets aren’t for everyone. They’re restrictive, hard to sustain, and don’t align with many cultural cuisines. And while they can result in weight loss in the short term, studies suggest that they are less healthy in the long term than more balanced alternatives. Taubes doesn’t spend much time addressing these realities.
Overstated Claims and Speculative Hypotheses: Bold, but Not Always Beautiful
Taubes has a knack for making bold claims, but sometimes they’re bolder than the evidence warrants. This tendency can make the book feel more like a manifesto than a balanced scientific discussion.
Carbohydrates and Cancer
Taubes speculates that carbs and insulin are central to cancer development. While there’s some early research linking insulin resistance to cancer risk, it’s far from definitive. Taubes’s leap from speculation to conclusion feels more like a pole vault.
Causation vs. Correlation
Taubes often uses observational studies to support his arguments but doesn’t hold them to the same standard of scrutiny he applies to studies that contradict him. It’s a classic case of having your cake and eating it too — assuming, of course, the cake is low-carb.
Writing Style and Rhetoric: Engaging but Combative
While Taubes’s writing is at times engaging, his tone often comes across as combative and self-assured to the point of arrogance.
Adversarial Tone
Taubes frequently portrays public health officials and researchers as either misguided or outright corrupt. While some skepticism is healthy, his relentless criticism risks alienating readers who value a more balanced perspective. It’s like watching someone argue with a brick wall — entertaining, but not particularly productive.
Dense and Overwhelming
The book is packed with detail, which is great for science enthusiasts but overwhelming for the average reader. It’s like being served a five-course meal when all you wanted was a snack. This can also make it difficult for non-experts to critically evaluate his claims. Taubes also has a penchant for citing very old, hard to find books and articles — perhaps because he hoped that no one would check his references, as he often misquotes or misrepresents the works he cites.
Conclusion
Good Calories, Bad Calories is a provocative and ambitious book that challenges conventional nutritional wisdom. While Taubes raises important questions about the role of carbohydrates and dietary fat in chronic disease, his selective evidence, oversimplifications, misrepresentations, and overstated claims ultimately undermine his argument. Readers should approach the book with a critical eye, recognizing it as one perspective in a much broader conversation. For a more nuanced understanding of nutrition, look beyond Taubes.
For those looking to dive deeper into nutrition science, consider resources like Marion Nestle’s Food Politics for insight into the role of industry and policy, or The Blue Zones by Dan Buettner to explore dietary patterns associated with longevity. Additionally, reputable organizations like Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health provide accessible, evidence-based resources that offer a more balanced and comprehensive view of the complex relationship between diet, health, and chronic disease. Sadly, we’ll never know how many people’s health and longevity were compromised because they were taken in by the flawed narrative of Gary Taubes and other low carb zealots.
Next, we take a critical look at Nina Teicholz’s book, The Big Fat Surprise.
