Noticed that as well; about half way through he introduces the thermo-dynamics issue and the implied (but useless) truth-ly-ness of fat people eating more than non-fat people, then spends the entire remainder of the article stating, re-stating and re-phrasing that same point again and again and again with different analogies, examples and mock conversations.

It was about 2 paragraphs away from the end (before the last mock conversation) that I realized he was baiting for his book OR doesn't have a conclusion strong enough to share.

I absolutely could be wrong, but I can't stand being lead around by my chin with arm-waving tomfoolery and flashing lights just to find out there is nothing there.

If he had made his compelling point, or at least hinted at it more than the very last comment -- "Maybe when we get fat it’s because those physiological, metabolic and genetic factors you mentioned are dysregulating our fat tissue, driving it to accumulate too much fat, and that’s why we eat so much and appear" -- I would have been more interested.

I don't know that what I quoted there was even the correct "hook" at his book premise as it starts "when we get fat..." talking about AFTER someone is already fat, when the premise of his book is "why we get fat" which is the before... the cause.

I am interested enough to want to pick his book up, but also annoyed enough to take my sweet time doing it in case it's hollow.

---- EDIT ----

I was critical above of Gary's blog post so I did some more reading to see if I would be interested in his book and his ultimate point being made.

I found this review on Amazon that completely sold me on it: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1IGC558QIFYRU/ref=cm_cr_pr_per...

While I haven't read the book yet (downloading on iPad now) and proposition that Gary is making (according to this reviewer) is fascinating to me and jives with the way I feel at times.

Gary talks about how sugars and the insulin response feed your fat and your fat itself takes on a self-sustaining role in your body, not the passive storage-mechanism we understand it to be.

Agreed. In stark contrast, I appreciate Michael Pollan's pithiness:

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

It's not that complicated, folks.

No offense, but that's complete bullshit, and the sort of tautological reasoning he's mocking. Of course you should eat "not too much" -- eating "too much" is too much!

The key word in that quote is "food", though; the "not too much" is an afterthought.

It's 7 words and you think the last 5 are not important enough to be criticized?

Not if the criticism is a blanket "this is total bullshit".

I agree with you. I thought I must have missed something, and I'm pretty sure it was the very last line:

"Maybe when we get fat it’s because those physiological, metabolic and genetic factors you mentioned are dysregulating our fat tissue, driving it to accumulate too much fat..."

I think that's probably what he intends to elaborate on.

His point is that one of the major health problems in the US and elsewhere is blamed (almost universally by the media, government, medical and weight loss industries) on an idea which is simply wrong and is misleading people to even worse health. A detailed argument can't be made through tweets.