LEVELS – A Whole New Level #289 - Why Nutrition Science Got It WRONG (and the Case for the Carb-Insulin Model) | Gary Taubes & Mike Haney
Jan 1, 2026
Gary Taubes, an investigative science journalist and author focused on nutrition, joins Mike Haney to challenge traditional views on diet and obesity. They delve into how much of nutrition science is based on shaky evidence, particularly criticizing the overreliance on observational studies. Taubes introduces the carbohydrate–insulin model, arguing it offers a clearer explanation for obesity than the calorie-balance model. He highlights the cultural dogmas in nutrition science that hinder rigorous debate and concludes by encouraging personal experimentation with low-carb diets.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Physics' Rigor Versus Nutrition's Limits
- Physics taught Taubes the rigor of hypothesis testing and the danger of self‑deception in science.
- Nutrition lacks that experimental reproducibility, so different standards prevailed.
Investigations That Exposed Flawed Dietary Claims
- Gary Taubes investigated the DASH and salt debates, finding weak evidence linking salt to hypertension.
- That work led him to probe dietary fat and conclude the evidence linking fat to heart disease was also weak.
Why Nutrition Science Uses Weak Evidence
- Nutrition research often lowered evidentiary standards because long RCTs are hard and expensive.
- Observational studies and epidemiology filled the gap and became the basis for policy despite weak causal support.