Scott Alexander shares links to a debate between Gary Taubes and Stephan Guyenet about the health effects of sugar, praising the high-level discussion. Longer summary

This post discusses a debate about sugar's health effects, centered around Gary Taubes' work. Scott Alexander links to Stephan Guyenet's negative review of Taubes' book, then shares Taubes' counterargument. The debate involves multiple essays: Taubes' initial case against sugar on Cato Unbound, responses from Terence Kealy, Yoni Freedhoff, and Guyenet, and finally Taubes' rebuttal. Scott praises all participants for engaging in a high-level debate that has helped clarify his thinking on the topic. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews Stephan Guyenet's critique of Gary Taubes' anti-sugar book, agreeing with Guyenet's multi-factorial view of obesity and disease causes, and retracting his previous support for Taubes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Stephan Guyenet's critique of Gary Taubes' new book 'The Case Against Sugar'. Guyenet argues against Taubes' claim that sugar is the principal cause of obesity and various noncommunicable diseases, instead supporting the view that these issues are multi-factorial. The review highlights several key points, including Taubes' selective use of evidence, his dismissal of calorie intake as a factor in obesity, and his one-sided portrayal of historical debates in nutrition science. Scott acknowledges Taubes' past contributions in debunking misconceptions about dietary fat, but now strongly criticizes Taubes' focus on sugar as the primary culprit in health issues. He apologizes for his previous praise of Taubes and no longer recommends him as a source of nutritional advice. Shorter summary

Scott criticizes a NYT article on sugar industry influence, arguing that such bias is common across food industries and doesn't justify completely reversing nutritional advice. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the New York Times article about sugar industry influence on nutrition research. He argues that while the sugar industry did sponsor biased research, this is common practice across all food industries, including the dairy and meat industries which promote pro-fat research. He suggests that the NYT article overstates the significance of this one instance of sugar industry influence, and that nutrition science has been shaped by an ongoing 'war' between various food industry lobbies. The post cautions against overcorrecting based on this single revelation and emphasizes the complexity of nutrition research and its funding. Shorter summary