You're accusing me of saying something I didn't say - your words, "to say that of the parties involved, those who agreed with each other agreed with each other..." I'm talking about all the people involved in the study.
Taubes disagrees with the study, but Taubes was not involved in the study. These people were involved in the study, and they agreed on the design and the findings:
Taubes is not among them.
Those people are from the following organizations:
None of those are a Taubes organization.
This is who paid for the study:
The Nutrition Sciences Initiative - NuSI - is a Taubes organization. They provided dollars for the study. So did several other organizations which provided grants and other support, but NuSI was the biggest donor. Giving money to fund a study is not the same as being involved in a study.
The eleven co-authors of the study were variously involved in the design, execution, and analysis of the study. They signed off on the paper and conclusion. Furthermore, before The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published the study, it went through peer review. The peer reviewers would have criticized the weaknesses of the study and the analysis and, in its final form, found it responsible and worthy of publications in a prestigious journal. Again, Taubes was not involved.
I stand by my original statement regarding this study: they conclude there's no metabolic advantage to a low-carb diet.
OK, I've now listened to it.
I can read a transcript of a 4-minute talk much more quickly than 4 minutes. If I want a quote to comment on a video, I have to then transcribe it myself. I'd rather have had a transcript.
That being said, I find the contents disappointing.
Taube talks about the scientific community in this kind of language: "all of which the subtext is they might be idiots" - it's insulting. It's a cheap laugh line.
But two more substantive things really stand out to me.
First, Taubes mentions several times that the study was "not randomized." This is an entirely pointless criticism.
This was very clearly a quantitative research study. The point was to measure something. Complaining that it wasn't randomized is pretty much a non-sequitur.
If the point was to find out how much a bunch of people weighed, and you performed the experiment of getting 20 people and weighing them, you'd have an estimate based on those 20 people. Period. Complaining that you didn't randomize those 20 people in the weighing process is ridiculous. Wanting to randomly split those 20 people into two groups - half of which would get weighed - is ridiculous. It's simply not that sort of experiment.
If this were intended to be an RCT - a randomized clinical trial - then that criticism would make sense. Also, the Journal would have rejected a study that ought to be an RCT but wasn't randomized. This simply wasn't that kind of study.
This wasn't a trial. (Does this intervention have a given effect, or not?)
This was a measurement. (If we do this amount of this, how much does that change?)
Second, Taubes refers to "this young researcher Kevin Hall... Kevin is the youngest, he's got no clinical experience..." He plays down Kevin Hall as some sort of amateur.
To attempt to paint Hall as a first-timer or amateur amounts, in my opinion, to simply lying.
Hall got his PhD in 1999, eighteen years ago. He's not a newb. Here is a PubMed search for Kevin D Hall as an author:
Here is a list of 20 selected publications from over a decade of work from his bio page at the NIH:
(That's a shrunken iamge; click the link above to read them.)
He has had multiple studies published just in the prestigious American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:
Kevin Hall is obviously nothing less than an accomplished professional scientist in his field.
In the end, I hold Taubes in lower esteem than before watching this video. I can understand being disappointed to have funneled money into work that went against his pre-existing beliefs. It's perfectly legitimate to be skeptical of any single study. And I can understand wanting to down-play those results. But calling the scientific community "idiots" and claiming Hall is a a young guy with "no clinical experience" is disingenuous, at best.