Campbell has multiple degrees in biochemistry and nutrition, and from what I can tell, seems to be pretty well respected in his field.
On the other hand, Gary Taube, who wrote Good Calories, Bad Calories, and who people here seem to hold up as some kind of nutritional guru - basically is a science writer, with no formal education in nutrition at all.
Campbell basically spends the first few chapters debunking many of Gary Taubes's conclusions, and then talking about the current low-carb fads.
Despite not being done the book yet, could you give us an idea what the general premise is, and how it somehow disproves what to me at least is the overwhelming real world effectiveness of a low carb diet for losing weight?
He’s been vegan for >20 years, and he studies and advocates a vegan diet, because he claims that eating animal products is unhealthy / causes disease. He is the darling of vegans, among whom he has a large following.
Among books written from that perspective, my understanding from reading various reviews is that this is one of the best argued and supported ones, with lots of solid citations of scientific literature. Because the perspective is controversial (e.g. it’s different than the norm, it threatens “conventional wisdom” and food businesses) the book has also drawn some flak from other scientists who disagree with the book’s conclusions.
While I'm not going to get into good or bad about vegan/meat eaters, you do know that the China Study has been heavily criticised for selective data picking right? Thus, just because he was part of it doesn't mean he is a reliable source.
I've included the link below as a starting point for the criticism of the China Study. There is a good bit of scientific literature on it as well (am at work, don't have the links handy)
Essentially, Campbell claims that Taubes fails to distinguish between the carbohydrates in foods such as fruits, vegetables and whole grains, versus that from refined carbohydrates.
Also, he claims that Taubes mis-represents the "low-fat" diet advocated by most health officials since the 1970's - and that the SAD (Standard American Diet) has never really been low-fat. It has around 30% of calories from fat, as opposed to the 10 - 12% that he advocates. Hence, when we compare a low-carb, high-fat diet against the normal "low-fat" diet, we're really just going for a high-fat, high refined carbohydrate diet, which is meaningless.
He also points to some studies, and says we need to do more research on the long-term effects of high-fat, low-carb diets:
I don't know if I'd agree with everything yet, and I'm definitely not vegan...haha.
But I've found I've been trying to exercise fairly regularly (cycle to work, swim/run), and keep my portion sizes small. I've been eating a tonne of fruit lately though...lol.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Low-Carb-Fraud-Colin-Campbell/dp/1...
Campbell has multiple degrees in biochemistry and nutrition, and from what I can tell, seems to be pretty well respected in his field.
On the other hand, Gary Taube, who wrote Good Calories, Bad Calories, and who people here seem to hold up as some kind of nutritional guru - basically is a science writer, with no formal education in nutrition at all.
Campbell basically spends the first few chapters debunking many of Gary Taubes's conclusions, and then talking about the current low-carb fads.
Definitely a good read, and approachable.