I don't have time for a lengthy answer. Here is my view based on extensive reading of both Taubes and Guyenet (and a lot of KGH too)
- I do not believe that macronutrient ratios are singularly the cause of metabolic derangement. Full stop. Does hyperinsulinemia vis-a-vis carbohydrate intake play a role...perhaps. People might be tired of the Kitavans but this requires an explanation which to date has not been provided solely by the Carbohydrate Theory as professed by Taubes
- I believe that Neolithic Agents of Disease - excess fructose, O-6, gluten - are likely culprits as causal factors vis-a-vis inflammation, fatty liver, leaky gut, etc. I am not saying singularly!
- I also believe that it is very compelling that (transgenerational) epigenetics may be a contributor. Therefore someone might be deranged at birth before either macronutrient ratios or Food Reward are in play. I think people that are objecting to Food Reward are confounding this point
We can debate the cause until we are blue in the face. But, everyone can agree it is multifactorial, right? On this basis I cannot accepts Taubes' continued assertion since the writing of GCBC. This does not in any way diminish my gratitude for what Gary Taubes has done to demolish the bad science and politics underlying Diet-Heart/Lipid hypotheses and the incorrect vilification of saturated fat/cholesterol.
Once metabolically deranged irrespective of the cause, the question is how to do you remediate? This is where potentially we might feel that we are at a fork in the road, though I do not view it this way. SG already acknowledged in his series (will insert link later) that Low Carbohydrate diets are effective for weight loss. He also said that Low Fat could work too. YMMV. The key difference is that Stephan is not making an insulinogenic arugment necessarily but rather than the "numbing" effect of Low Reward food that results in spontaneous reduction in calories. In this sense, if one ignores the specific biochemical mechanism, you could view Food Reward as a superset of Carbohydrate Theory.
So my bottom line
- I think Taubes is wrong due to his singular focus on carbohydrates
- If we stop getting hung up on the word DOMINANT, I believe Stephan is likely right regarding Food Reward, in part because he clearly asserts it is not the only factor. And he has provided some studies to back it up, but additional work is required to validate IMO.
My money is on Stephan. This is not synoymous with saying Food Reward is the ONLY factor. But I have a lot more to write on this, but my stupid neolithic day job calls. TTFN...
QUICK EDIT IN BETWEEN MEETINGS -
I am primarily focusing on being overweight/obese in my response and not other derangements like T2 diabetes. If you are diabetic, then damn straight I would avoid carbs like the plague. If I had cancer, damn straight I would be on a ketogenic diet. Just want to be clear on my focus.
Regardless, at the expense of stating the obvious, the cause of metabolic derangement vs the subsequent dietary modifications to control/remediate need not be the same thing!!!
- Running over a nail might give me a flat tire
- If the nail didn't go in too far, maybe simply pulling out the nail will avoid the tire leaking
- If the nail was sufficiently deep and caused a leak, I need to pull out the nail. Pulling out the nail does not seal the leaky tire
That doesn't mean the nail didn't give me the flat. Nor does this invalidate the need for different solution to seal the leak...or possibly acknowledge the tire is beyond repair.
End Lame Analogy