Why the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity is probably wrong: A supplementary reply to Ebbeling and Ludwig’s JAMA article

Stephan Guyenet · 3 Jul 2018

Stephan Guyenet did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

Our reading
Low-carbohydrate diets do cause fat loss and are a legitimate tool, even though the theory offered to explain them is wrong.

Their wordsLike most diets, low-carbohydrate diets aren’t very effective against obesity in the average person, but they do have some effectiveness and they are certainly a valid tool in the toolbox.
Our reading
Recommending a diet to the public before the science behind it is settled is the same mistake the USDA made with low-fat advice in the 1980s.

Their wordsIf the science isn’t settled yet, perhaps it’s not the right time for bestselling books that confidently promote the CIM and a diet based on it to the public?
Our reading
The test of a scientific model is not whether supporting evidence can be found for it, but whether it fits the totality of the evidence.

Their wordsThe question we must answer is not “can we find evidence that supports the CIM”, but rather “does the CIM provide the best fit for the totality of the evidence”.
Our reading
The carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity is probably wrong: it does not fit the totality of the evidence.

Their wordsCertain forms of carbohydrate probably do contribute to obesity, among other factors, but I don’t think the CIM provides a compelling explanation for common obesity.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.