Actually, I shouldn't call it accessible since it is extremely detailed (and long). But now without purpose, as this is what is required to make a solid scientific case. It is easy to follow as long as you can maintain an interest in the subject at hand.
I must admit eventually I became of suspicious of "Good Calories, Bad Calories", too - who says he didn't handpick the studies to quote, like everybody else? The format of the book was very weird, just this stream of quotes. Not very pleasant to read at all.
Accurately summarizing other sources is how you develop a well-referenced argument. If a quotation can work as a summary then all the better. It is not a format we are used to, but it is how you build a case based on evidence.
For GCBC, I think it is important to differentiate between demolishing the bad fat/cholesterol/salt, good fiber hypothesis, and proposing the new carbohydrate hypothesis. GCBC debunks these weak hypothesis. However, all it can do is propose a new hypothesis given (as admitted by the author) the small amount of research available that directly supports that hypothesis.
It is pretty apparent that he is not cherry-picking. First of all, the book wouldn't need to be as long! Seriously, this represents an absolutely enormous investment in time that as you point out just ends up turning off readers.
Normally a cherry-picker will stoop to low quality sources of information. When demolishing conventional wisdom, Taubes sticks to all (yes all, there aren't that many) of the high quality large-scale studies that actually matter (but goes through the history of lower quality information that lead to the available hypothesis). Again, he admits that the evidence is weaker for his carbohydrate hypothesis.
I think he admitted himself to cherry picking somewhere - everybody would be cherry picking... In principle I have nothing against "more" references, however, in that book it is so much that it becomes once more impossible to check up on it. You can only give in to the sheer number and size of references. Personally I find that a bit unsatisfying and unnecessary. I would have preferred concentration on a few core points.
Good point. Maybe he should have had a couple concentrated chapters at the beginning of the book, and then used the rest as a historical reference. If you want to check up on his arguments against the current dogma just check on his analyses of the the few high quality large scale studies that have been done.
