One thing I'm wondering about is how much people didn't like them because I was saying controversial things while also saying, "I will give more justification for this later," which would have been avoided by not splitting the posts.

Well, to be frank the reason I don't like the posts in question is that their main argument is the same kind of intellectually dishonest strawman you accuse Taubes of making.

"I will give more justification for this later,"

Did people complain about this?
I'm sure you paid more attention than I did, but I only remember this complaint on part 1, the part that was better received. Moreover, I only remember you saying this in part 1. I think the more popular complaint about parts 2 and 3 is that they were not central to Taubes and not interesting topics. But those complaints might have been avoided by having a single post.

One thing I'm wondering about is how much people didn't like them because I was saying controversial things while also saying, "I will give more justification for this later," which would have been avoided by not splitting the posts.

I didn't downvote them, but think they would have been a better fit for discussion than for main. While a summary of research or case studies on nutrition would have made a good post for main, I don't think a criticism of a popular book on nutrition (that I haven't read nor even heard much about here) is as generally interesting and useful.