I actually recommend them in reverse order. Good Calories, Bad Calories is information dense and the consequent fact that essentially nobody has actually read it and everyone is working off of third-hand summaries of summaries, even the people here on HN, is plainly obvious every time the topic turns to that book. Start with "Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It" and back up to GCBC if you still want more history and a list of citations longer than your arm (and slightly older science).
Also, I would adjust some expectations. The common "science" understanding seems to be that it's Gary Taubes, crazed whacko, against nutritionists, bearer of the holy and uncontested Peer Review. In fact it's Gary Taubes advocating that we take mainstream 21st century endocrinology seriously, with its actual biochemistry and explanation for the behavior of fat accumulation in the body in general, beyond mere obesity, and discard a scientifically unsupported nutrition philosophy unchanged since the 1960s that can not explain the matter of fat accumulation except in terms so broad and vague (and, ultimately, wrong) that I can't hardly even understand why it is still taken seriously when there's another branch of science that utterly subsumes it. This juxtaposition becomes much more clear and refined in his second book, though it is technically pretty much all there in GCBC if you go looking for it.
That is, not "nut vs. science", it's "science vs. science", and yeah, I make no bones about which science I think explains a hell of a lot more than the other.
Also, I would adjust some expectations. The common "science" understanding seems to be that it's Gary Taubes, crazed whacko, against nutritionists, bearer of the holy and uncontested Peer Review. In fact it's Gary Taubes advocating that we take mainstream 21st century endocrinology seriously, with its actual biochemistry and explanation for the behavior of fat accumulation in the body in general, beyond mere obesity, and discard a scientifically unsupported nutrition philosophy unchanged since the 1960s that can not explain the matter of fat accumulation except in terms so broad and vague (and, ultimately, wrong) that I can't hardly even understand why it is still taken seriously when there's another branch of science that utterly subsumes it. This juxtaposition becomes much more clear and refined in his second book, though it is technically pretty much all there in GCBC if you go looking for it.
That is, not "nut vs. science", it's "science vs. science", and yeah, I make no bones about which science I think explains a hell of a lot more than the other.