So, I just saw A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity posted on Google News. It was written by Carson Chow, a mathematician for a division of the NIH. He argues, essentially, that it's calories in v. calories out concluding that "There’s no magic bullet on this. You simply have to cut calories and be vigilant for the rest of your life."
The other day, I saw Taubes' argument on The Daily Beast (Why the Campaign to Stop America's Obesity Crisis Keeps Failing). Most people here probably have a good idea of what this article says: Taubes places heavy blame in insulin impacting foods--that insulin spikes cause fat fat cells, which therefore causes fat humans.
If we could put these two in a room together to debate obesity's causes and solutions, who would win and what would the argument look like?
As a corollary question, what do you think of Marianne Cusato's condemnation of the Taubes' article as "short-sighted and dangerous"?
(The question title is an homage to The Big Bang Theory and Numb3rs, both of which had episodes with convergence in the title.)