It's time you give in and read the primary materials. As someone who has read both the major Taubes books, I am yet to see you successfully characterize his arguments. Please note I did not say "successfully attack his arguments", because that is something else; characterizing them correctly is a necessary first step. You think you understand them, but when you try to explain them to someone else you are wrong about them. Again, I am not saying that the arguments Taubes makes are right or wrong, I am saying I have not yet seen you correctly explain them.
That is not an adequate summary of the latest Gary Taubes book, which is, well, exactly what the title says. If there is something you can "do" about it it's hardly "not your fault" now, is it?
He's not a quack. There are a lot of people who want you to think he's a quack, but he's not. He may not be right but he is certainly not a quack. For that matter if he's a quack in his latest book for suggesting that the science of endocrinology should be taken seriously on the topic of how fat works, then the entire science of endocrinology is quackery. (Incidentally, I mean literally "how fat works"; not "how one becomes obese" but the actual workings of what fat cells take for input, what they give as output, and what affects the two, all of it coming from endocrinology.)
I don't claim to know much about Taubes, nor did I claim to characterize his arguments. Perhaps you noticed that I explicitly disclaimed any direct knowledge of his book?
My only direct knowledge of him is reading one of his blog posts and finding it very misleading, attempting to make a reducto ad absurdum against the standard calories in/calories out theory while ignoring about 90% of the calories in. Not exactly a compelling reason to shell out $11 and hours of my time on his book.
Here's a reason: Based on reading your other posts, I think you may be very surprised and end up liking his writing. Taubes' science writing is the best I've ever encountered. (And no, that's not because it's the only science writing I've ever encountered, not by a long shot.) Whether he ends up right or wrong in the end, you can not accuse him of not having done his homework, especially in GCBC. I won't guarantee it will convince you, but I am asserting to you that you have misjudged him very badly and I have only rarely seen people show their work more thoroughly, and that only in PhD theses. (That said about the depth of GCBC, start with the latest one. It's shorter and sharper.)
That is not an adequate summary of the latest Gary Taubes book, which is, well, exactly what the title says. If there is something you can "do" about it it's hardly "not your fault" now, is it?
He's not a quack. There are a lot of people who want you to think he's a quack, but he's not. He may not be right but he is certainly not a quack. For that matter if he's a quack in his latest book for suggesting that the science of endocrinology should be taken seriously on the topic of how fat works, then the entire science of endocrinology is quackery. (Incidentally, I mean literally "how fat works"; not "how one becomes obese" but the actual workings of what fat cells take for input, what they give as output, and what affects the two, all of it coming from endocrinology.)