"Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes

[brikis98]

I just finished reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. The book is certainly not without its flaws, but it references an awful lot of very convincing studies that really challenged a lot my conceptions about diet. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is concerned about the food they put in their body. Pick up a copy of this book and take some time to read it critically. It's definitely dense - basically 450 pages of studies followed by 150 pages of references - but fascinating.

Some key points from the book

I'm still processing the enormous amount of info in this book, but Taubes makes a very strong case for the following:

All calories are not equal
The body responds very differently to different types of protein, fat and carbs. What this means is that when it comes to weight gain/loss, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc "calories in vs. calories" out is NOT the entire story. The quality of the calories is just as important (if not more so) as the quantity.

The impact of carbs
The diet of the paleolithic man - and even the diet of people from ~100 years ago (before the current obesity epidemic) - did not contain processed carbs or sugars. The modern diet does and in astonishingly large quantities. The modern diet also seems to include a higher proportion of carbs in general. Many studies are referenced in the book that show groups of people switching from their traditional/primitive diets to modern diets - that is, adding lots of breads, pasta, rice, sugar, soda, etc. The disturbing result each time is a VERY sharp increase in the rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and even cancer and Alzheimers. All of these "Western Diseases" show up with the only notable change in diet being the massive increase in carbs (especially of the processed variety) but no real change in caloric intake or activity levels. Read that again: large populations saw large fluctuations in obesity and numerous other diseases despite no noticeable change in the calories in vs. calories out formula.

Hormones regulate bodyweight
Our bodyweight is influenced by hormones in the same way as our height, hair color, and numerous other genetic traits. The examples of hormonal effects on weight are all around us: women gain fat when pregnant and after menopause (with or without changes to their caloric intake), men and women store fat in different places (despite identical diets), and different people eating the same diet and exercising the same amount can have very different body compositions. Animals that hibernate will increase body fat percentage at certain times of the year and decrease it at other times and these changes will happen with no apparent difference in caloric intake or expenditure. Numerous studies have shown people and animals losing weight without a caloric deficit and gaining fat without a caloric surplus. None of these cases - and countless others mentioned in the book - can be explained by calories in vs. calories out alone. It is indisputable that hormones play a role and that the composition of our diet can affect these hormones, so there is just no way the caloric balance can tell the whole story.

Calories in vs. calories out is flawed
However, this does not defy the law of thermodynamics. It's not that calories in vs. calories out is wrong, but simply that it is often misinterpreted. It's probably more accurate to say that a caloric deficit is sufficient for weight loss (the missing energy must come from somewhere), but not necessary. In fact, a caloric deficit may not even be an optimal way to achieve weight loss. Without getting into it too much, I'll just note that very often, caloric deficits are sub-optimal due to issues of hunger, inability to control what kind of weight (muscle, fat, organs) is lost, and impact on metabolism & energy levels. Numerous studies are referenced that show it's possible to lose weight without a caloric deficit - and without the associated problems - which I found particularly interesting. Looking at the other half of the picture, a caloric surplus is necessary for weight gain (the energy must again come from somewhere), but not sufficient. Studies have shown it's possible to eat WELL above maintenance calories without any weight gain. Moreover, it's seems possible to be obese without "excess calories" as can be witnessed in various African (iirc) tribes that have high levels of obesity despite subsisting on a mere ~1500 calories per day.

The "official line" is largely not supported by science
The US government's "official" dietary recommendations, and indeed the recommendations of many "authorities" today - specifically those of low fat, low calorie diets - are based on shockingly little data. The whole story of how low fat and low calorie became the "official line" is quite interesting.

Some Issues

Having said all that, I still feel like there are a number of issues not adequately handled by the book:

1. Taubes dismisses exercises as a means for weight loss, but his analysis seems woefully incomplete. In the same way that the type of calories matters, the type of exercise should too, and not all types of exercise are considered. Specifically, the effects of weight training and high intensity workouts will be VASTLY different than the usual "exercise" observed in these studies, which is very low intensity walking, running, swimming, etc. Even though Tabues argues that the body has differing hormonal responses to different types of food, he seems to ignore the possibility that the hormonal response will vary depending on the type of exercise as well, which would affect not just bodyweight, but cardiovascular health as well.

2. Most of the experiments Taubes brings up that shoot down a "caloric deficit" as an effective means to lose weight are also incomplete. A number of them drop the caloric intake to ridiculously low levels (600, 800, and 1500 depending on the study), but a "moderate caloric deficit" - just a few hundred below maintenance - is rarely discussed. The need to maintain lean body mass while on a caloric deficit by keeping protein intake high and weight training is also never discussed. This is the exact approach that worked for me and many others, so it seems like a pretty glaring omission.

3. The biggest weakness in the book overall is that Taubes doesn't seem to consider or give enough weight to studies that contradict what he's trying to prove. That is, he's making the same mistake that he condemns through out the book.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Seems like a stretch on a few of those claims.

Yes, obesity has risen greatly in modern times but we are also much less active than we used to be.
Soda and junk food are a big problem but so is the couch potato.
Then saying that his hypothesis doesn't violate thermodynamics and then goes on to provide an explanation that clearly disobeys thermodynamics.
The biggest issue is measuring the in vivo calories of diets versus estimating the number we can extract from certain foods.

Moderation is the best advise you can give someone right now.
Eat a nice variety of foods and stick to healthier options as much as possible.
Get in some exercise and try not to just do the same workout over and over.
See what works best for you, as there is a great deal of variance at the hormonal level among us.

 

[KoolDrew]

I haven't read the book, nor do I wish to after reading some of the ridiculous claims in the past. Here's a discussion on Lyle McDonalds forum though:

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com...t=249&highlight=Taubes

Originally posted by: Lyle McDonald
I can summarize Taube's book pretty briefly: it's comlpete crap.

Taubes takes the studies he wants and ignores the ones that contradict him, alik all of the idiots who argue for a metabolic advantage to low carb diets

he bases his simplistic model of fat storage that only includes insulin, a model that hasn't been right for about 15 years.

you can get shredded on a high-carb diet and you can get fat on a zero carb diet. The inuit don't have any problem being fat and they eat very low carbs traditionally

Basically he's looking at studies using self-reported food intake (always wrong) to justify the idea that you can magically lose weight on a lowcarb diet at the same or higher calories. except that NO controlled calorie study has ever supported that idea. And no study has ever shown a metabolic advantage when such things as BMR or TEF are acutally measured.

it's just the same lowcarb bullshit that has refused to die since the days of Atkins

 

[brikis98]

nismotigerwvu - have you actually read the book? I'm well aware that what I listed above may seem a bit outlandish as it goes against the "official" recommendation of the US government, the media and most doctors. However, I'm not exaggerating much when I say that the book is essentially 450 pages describing studies that back up much of what I wrote above. I didn't want to have to recap that much content in this thread, so I just listed the highlights with very little "evidence" - if you want to know more, I strongly recommend reading the book (if you haven't already).

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Yes, obesity has risen greatly in modern times but we are also much less active than we used to be. Soda and junk food are a big problem but so is the couch potato.

As I said, I didn't want to list all the evidence from the book, so I'll list one counter argument to this. Obesity rates are highest amongst the poorer populations in this country. These working class folks, as a general trend, have jobs that involve far more physical labor - and hence activity - than the richer population. If activity levels explained modern day obesity, we'd expect the upper classes, who are generally far more sedentary, to be more obese.

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Then saying that his hypothesis doesn't violate thermodynamics and then goes on to provide an explanation that clearly disobeys thermodynamics.

Nothing I said violated the laws of thermodynamics. I don't want to get into a discussion of fat metabolism (Taubes devotes many pages to this complex topic), but I'll point out a few things. First, the proper caloric equation is:

Change in energy stores = energy intake - energy expenditure

People make many mistakes when reading this equation. For example, they forget that energy stores consist of not just fat, but muscle, in certain cases, other tissues as well. Another issue is the assumption that energy intake and energy expenditure are independent variables. They are not. Modifying one typically affects the other. Many studies have shown that subjects on a caloric deficit can become lethargic and slow their metabolism, so that they burn fewer calories. Conversely, studies also show that the body can expend extra calories through heat. Finally, and this is crucially important: a caloric surplus or deficit may be associated with weight change, but is not necessarily the cause. For example, you must eat a caloric surplus to gain weight, but eating too much or exercising too little is not always the cause. The simplest example is growing kids: kids definitely have to eat a caloric surplus in order to become bigger & taller. But the actual cause for their increase in size is hormonal changes and NOT the positive caloric balance.

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Moderation is the best advise you can give someone right now. Eat a nice variety of foods and stick to healthier options as much as possible.

"Everything in moderation" is decent advice, but this will not work for many people. Two people can eat the exact same foods ("in moderation") and exercise the exact same amount, but have vastly different body compositions - one obese and one healthy. Calories in vs. calories out can't adequately explain this. The differences in hormones - especially a person's insulin sensitivity and consequent reaction to carbs - may be the explanation. As Taubes indicates, further research is needed, but from the numerous studies over the last century, it seems that even "moderate" quantities of highly processed carbs may not be safe, especially for some people. Moreover, there are many potential ties between processed carb intake and cancer and alzheimers that, if proven to be true, should be something all of us consider.

Finally, your advice of sticking to "healthier options" is utterly useless. The entire problem is figuring out what is healthy! For example, you may argue that a low fat diet, or one low in saturated fat is healthy, but a number of studies show this is not the case. Not only does avoiding fats not help prevent obesity or heart disease, Taubes argues that the extra carbs people eat to replace the fats actually increase the risk for both diseases, as well as many others (such as cancer and alzheimers). Studies of Inuit indians show that their diet consists almost entirely of animal meat and typically contains enormous amounts of fat. They eat virtually zero fruits and veggies, considering them "not fit for human consumption". Despite that, these tribes had virtually no obesity, heart disease, cancer, etc. Moreover, despite the lack of fruits and veggies that we consider "healthy", they did not have any of the vitamin deficiency diseases that we'd expect (such as scurvy). So, I ask you, what exactly is "healthy"?

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
I haven't read the book, nor do I wish to after reading some of the ridiculous claims in the past. Here's a discussion on Lyle McDonalds forum though:

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com...t=249&highlight=Taubes

Originally posted by: Lyle McDonald
I can summarize Taube's book pretty briefly: it's comlpete crap.

Taubes takes the studies he wants and ignores the ones that contradict him, alik all of the idiots who argue for a metabolic advantage to low carb diets

he bases his simplistic model of fat storage that only includes insulin, a model that hasn't been right for about 15 years.

you can get shredded on a high-carb diet and you can get fat on a zero carb diet. The inuit don't have any problem being fat and they eat very low carbs traditionally

Basically he's looking at studies using self-reported food intake (always wrong) to justify the idea that you can magically lose weight on a lowcarb diet at the same or higher calories. except that NO controlled calorie study has ever supported that idea. And no study has ever shown a metabolic advantage when such things as BMR or TEF are acutally measured.

it's just the same lowcarb bullshit that has refused to die since the days of Atkins

You may want to change your opinion, and judging by that post, Lyle should too. For example, here's one relevant study. Key points:

* Compares a low-glycemic index diet that was calorie restricted (-500 per day) with a low-carb diet that was not calorie restricted.
* Both diets achieved pretty significant weight loss, but the low-carb diet was close to twice as effective (11.1kg vs 6.9kg).
* Here's the kicker: the low-GI group had a lower total calorie intake than the low-carb group (1335 vs 1550kcal/day). And no, the low carbers did NOT exercise more. No "metabolic advantage", eh?

Here is another study that compares low carb, low fat and mediterranean diets. The low carb diet was once again the only one that was calorie unrestricted, but showed more weight loss than the other two. Moreover, the cholesterol and lipid levels showed the greatest improvement with the low carb diet.

Finally, although it's a bit less scientific, check out this guy's personal experiment. He changed from his normal routine of ~2500 calories per day + exercise to ~3822 calories per day and no exercise. He put in a heroic effort to ensure that 60-80% of his calories came from fat and the rest from protein, with basically nothing coming from carbs. If calories in vs. calories out told the whole story, and if fat was really that bad for us, he should have weighed in ~14lbs heavier at the end of the 30 days. You can read through the thread, but simply put, his weight didn't change one ounce.

The book contains MANY other examples and studies like the ones mentioned above. Like I said, the book is far from perfect and I DO agree that Taubes tends to ignore research that contradicts his own points, but Lyle McDonald and everyone else shouldn't make the same mistake by ignoring Taubes' book!

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: brikis98
nismotigerwvu - have you actually read the book? I'm well aware that what I listed above may seem a bit outlandish as it goes against the "official" recommendation of the US government, the media and most doctors. However, I'm not exaggerating much when I say that the book is essentially 450 pages describing studies that back up much of what I wrote above. I didn't want to have to recap that much content in this thread, so I just listed the highlights with very little "evidence" - if you want to know more, I strongly recommend reading the book (if you haven't already).

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Yes, obesity has risen greatly in modern times but we are also much less active than we used to be. Soda and junk food are a big problem but so is the couch potato.

As I said, I didn't want to list all the evidence from the book, so I'll list one counter argument to this. Obesity rates are highest amongst the poorer populations in this country. These working class folks, as a general trend, have jobs that involve far more physical labor - and hence activity - than the richer population. If activity levels explained modern day obesity, we'd expect the upper classes, who are generally far more sedentary, to be more obese.

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Then saying that his hypothesis doesn't violate thermodynamics and then goes on to provide an explanation that clearly disobeys thermodynamics.

Nothing I said violated the laws of thermodynamics. I don't want to get into a discussion of fat metabolism (Taubes devotes many pages to this complex topic), but I'll point out a few things. First, the proper caloric equation is:

Change in energy stores = energy intake - energy expenditure

People make many mistakes when reading this equation. For example, they forget that energy stores consist of not just fat, but muscle, in certain cases, other tissues as well. Another issue is the assumption that energy intake and energy expenditure are independent variables. They are not. Modifying one typically affects the other. Many studies have shown that subjects on a caloric deficit can become lethargic and slow their metabolism, so that they burn fewer calories. Conversely, studies also show that the body can expend extra calories through heat. Finally, and this is crucially important: a caloric surplus or deficit may be associated with weight change, but is not necessarily the cause. For example, you must eat a caloric surplus to gain weight, but eating too much or exercising too little is not always the cause. The simplest example is growing kids: kids definitely have to eat a caloric surplus in order to become bigger & taller. But the actual cause for their increase in size is hormonal changes and NOT the positive caloric balance.

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Moderation is the best advise you can give someone right now. Eat a nice variety of foods and stick to healthier options as much as possible.

"Everything in moderation" is decent advice, but this will not work for many people. Two people can eat the exact same foods ("in moderation") and exercise the exact same amount, but have vastly different body compositions - one obese and one healthy. Calories in vs. calories out can't adequately explain this. The differences in hormones - especially a person's insulin sensitivity and consequent reaction to carbs - may be the explanation. As Taubes indicates, further research is needed, but from the numerous studies over the last century, it seems that even "moderate" quantities of highly processed carbs may not be safe, especially for some people. Moreover, there are many potential ties between processed carb intake and cancer and alzheimers that, if proven to be true, should be something all of us consider.

Finally, your advice of sticking to "healthier options" is utterly useless. The entire problem is figuring out what is healthy! For example, you may argue that a low fat diet, or one low in saturated fat is healthy, but a number of studies show this is not the case. Not only does avoiding fats not help prevent obesity or heart disease, Taubes argues that the extra carbs people eat to replace the fats actually increase the risk for both diseases, as well as many others (such as cancer and alzheimers). Studies of Inuit indians show that their diet consists almost entirely of animal meat and typically contains enormous amounts of fat. They eat virtually zero fruits and veggies, considering them "not fit for human consumption". Despite that, these tribes had virtually no obesity, heart disease, cancer, etc. Moreover, despite the lack of fruits and veggies that we consider "healthy", they did not have any of the vitamin deficiency diseases that we'd expect (such as scurvy). So, I ask you, what exactly is "healthy"?

And it doesn't take a genius or a scientific study to figure this out. Fish is healthy as long as you watch the mercury. Carrots are healthy. Whole wheat and/or grain bread is healthy. Blueberries are healthy. Cherios are healthy. Unsweetened Tea is healthy. The list goes one.

Same for the opposite. McDonalds burgers/fries are not healthy. Cake is not healthy. Ice Cream is not healthy. The list goes on.

As far as I'm concerned, the more nutrients and sustenance a food provides per serving, the healthier it is. Sure you can probably pull up a study to prove this wrong in some specific cases, I don't really care. With enough searching I can pull up a counter-study, and most people don't need specific details to become generally healthier.

I'm a living example. I gained about 15 lbs over Christmas, which at New Years I decided to lose. I've been losing a steady 1 lb/week since. How? I push myself on the treadmill every other day, lay off the desserts/red meat/fried food, keep an approximate number of the calories I'd taken in in my head to make sure I'm not eating too much. That's all. The only abnormal thing I do is take about 13 capsules/softgells/pills worth of nutritional supplements/day (6 of which are fiber, 3 of which are fish oil) and I've been doing that for about a year. I spent about a week researching the dosages.

I don't use fitday, I don't track how many tablespoons of peanut butter I put on my sandwiches, and I don't read 450 page books of studies. I use a good dose of common sense with some basic research. It may not be the most efficient method, but it works.

For a nerdy analogy, a successful stage 1 Gentoo install is nice and ridiculously fast if done right, but by the time you're done compiling I've been surfing the web and watching DVDs on my Ubuntu installation for a couple of days.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: irishScott
And it doesn't take a genius or a scientific study to figure this out. Fish is healthy as long as you watch the mercury. Carrots are healthy. Whole wheat and/or grain bread is healthy. Blueberries are healthy. Cherios are healthy. Unsweetened Tea is healthy. The list goes one.

Same for the opposite. McDonalds burgers/fries are not healthy. Cake is not healthy. Ice Cream is not healthy. The list goes on.

As far as I'm concerned, the more nutrients and sustenance a food provides per serving, the healthier it is. Sure you can probably pull up a study to prove this wrong in some specific cases, I don't really care. With enough searching I can pull up a counter-study, and most people don't need specific details to become generally healthier.

I'm a living example. I gained about 15 lbs over Christmas, which at New Years I decided to lose. I've been losing a steady 1 lb/week since. How? I push myself on the treadmill every other day, lay off the desserts/red meat/fried food, keep an approximate number of the calories I'd taken in in my head to make sure I'm not eating too much. That's all. The only abnormal thing I do is take about 13 capsules/softgells/pills worth of nutritional supplements/day (6 of which are fiber, 3 of which are fish oil) and I've been doing that for about a year. I spent about a week researching the dosages.

I don't use fitday, I don't track how many tablespoons of peanut butter I put on my sandwiches, and I don't read 450 page books of studies. I use a good dose of common sense with some basic research. It may not be the most efficient method, but it works.

For a nerdy analogy, a successful stage 1 Gentoo install is nice and ridiculously fast if done right, but by the time you're done compiling I've been surfing the web and watching DVDs on my Ubuntu installation for a couple of days.

I think you're totally missing the point. Let me try to do a recap:

1. If we are only to discuss your weight loss, there are many other relevant questions you need to consider: could you have lost the weight faster with a different diet? Is the weight you are losing fat, muscle, or water? Unless you made special efforts at weight training and eating lots of protein, I'd bet you're losing more muscle mass than you want. Are you losing the weight due to a caloric deficit? Due to eating less fat? Due to hormonal effects from exercise? Or, by avoiding certain types of food (especially desserts and fried food) did you (perhaps unintentionally) cut your carb intake down? Did you have trouble with hunger? For how long will you be able to keep losing weight like this? Will you be able to maintain the weight loss or will you regain it all as soon as you are "off" the diet? Would this same approach work for everyone? Hell, will it even work for you once you're 10 or 20 years older? You may not be worried about any of these issues now, but they are crucially important to many people and your "everything in moderation" suggestion just doesn't adequately answer these questions.

2. Speaking of which, what you're doing really isn't "everything in moderation". If you're avoiding "desserts/red meat/fried food", then it's not everything in moderation, is it? And 13 capsules per day hardly sounds like moderation to me. If it took you a week to figure out your supplements, and you did have to do "some basic research" for the rest of your diet, then clearly this whole diet thing is NOT as obvious as you try to make it out to be. Hell, if it was obvious, why is anyone fat? And if it was so simple, why did you gain the 15lbs in the first place?

3. As I've already said the question of what is "healthy" and "unhealthy" is the very topic of the diet debate. Maybe you didn't spend time reading a book on this, but where did you get your knowledge from? Why do you believe cheerios are healthy and ice cream is not? Did you hear it on TV? From your mom? Did you read it off the cereal box itself?

4. Moreover, the issues at stake here are not just the ability to lose a few pounds here or there, but a national epidemic of obesity. One third of the country is obese. Think about that for a minute. Despite billions of dollars spent on the diet and exercise industry, despite countless doctors prescribing your "common sense" low fat, low calorie diet, the country continues to get fatter. Moreover, it's likely the same thing that causes obesity is causing heart disease, diabetes and possibly even cancer and Alzheimers. This matter that you consider so simple and obvious is KILLING people and we haven't been able to do anything about it.

Do NOT try to make this seem like some minor issue that a "good dose of common sense" will take care of, especially after you show a complete ignorance of the science involved. Get over yourself and read the book or at least *some* kind of relevant research. You might be surprised what you'd learn. You might even realize that it deeply affects you and everyone you know.

 

[KoolDrew]

You may want to change your opinion, and judging by that post, Lyle should too. For example, here's one relevant study. Key points:

* Compares a low-glycemic index diet that was calorie restricted (-500 per day) with a low-carb diet that was not calorie restricted.
* Both diets achieved pretty significant weight loss, but the low-carb diet was close to twice as effective (11.1kg vs 6.9kg).
* Here's the kicker: the low-GI group had a lower total calorie intake than the low-carb group (1335 vs 1550kcal/day). And no, the low carbers did NOT exercise more. No "metabolic advantage", eh?

More weight loss is a given with a low carbohydrate diet due to water weight. That's nothing new and I don't see anything in the absract about measuring actual fat loss. Show me a controlled calorie study that shows more fat loss with the same or more calories on a low carb diet because I have not seen one.

The bottom line is that given calories are set where they should be, as well as protein and EFA's, the ratio between fat and carbs is not going to make a difference in terms of fat loss.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

You may want to change your opinion, and judging by that post, Lyle should too. For example, here's one relevant study. Key points:

* Compares a low-glycemic index diet that was calorie restricted (-500 per day) with a low-carb diet that was not calorie restricted.
* Both diets achieved pretty significant weight loss, but the low-carb diet was close to twice as effective (11.1kg vs 6.9kg).
* Here's the kicker: the low-GI group had a lower total calorie intake than the low-carb group (1335 vs 1550kcal/day). And no, the low carbers did NOT exercise more. No "metabolic advantage", eh?

More weight loss is a given with a low carbohydrate diet due to water weight. That's nothing new and I don't see anything in the absract about measuring actual fat loss. Show me a controlled calorie study that shows more fat loss with the same or more calories on a low carb diet because I have not seen one.

The bottom line is that given calories are set where they should be, as well as protein and EFA's, the ratio between fat and carbs is not going to make a difference in terms of fat loss.

See what you did there? It's the same thing Lyle accuses Taubes of doing and then does himself: you completely ignore some pretty damn compelling evidence that contradicts your own position. I gave you 3 studies that CLEARLY indicate there is probably more at play than calories in vs. calories out and you ignore it. I could literally list a dozen more reasons and reference a bunch of other studies, but what's the point? Taubes already did just that, and a whole lot more in his book, so go read it.

Oh, and yes, low carb diets do induce some water loss. However, this would NOT account for an average difference of over 4kg. It's also an effect that's typically only takes place during the first two weeks of a low carb diet and will return to normal after that. This study lasted 24 weeks. Here is another study showing the effects of a low carb diet where it is specifically noted that "their weight loss was not attributable to water loss".

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Originally posted by: brikis98
nismotigerwvu - have you actually read the book? I'm well aware that what I listed above may seem a bit outlandish as it goes against the "official" recommendation of the US government, the media and most doctors. However, I'm not exaggerating much when I say that the book is essentially 450 pages describing studies that back up much of what I wrote above. I didn't want to have to recap that much content in this thread, so I just listed the highlights with very little "evidence" - if you want to know more, I strongly recommend reading the book (if you haven't already).

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Yes, obesity has risen greatly in modern times but we are also much less active than we used to be. Soda and junk food are a big problem but so is the couch potato.

As I said, I didn't want to list all the evidence from the book, so I'll list one counter argument to this. Obesity rates are highest amongst the poorer populations in this country. These working class folks, as a general trend, have jobs that involve far more physical labor - and hence activity - than the richer population. If activity levels explained modern day obesity, we'd expect the upper classes, who are generally far more sedentary, to be more obese.

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Then saying that his hypothesis doesn't violate thermodynamics and then goes on to provide an explanation that clearly disobeys thermodynamics.

Nothing I said violated the laws of thermodynamics. I don't want to get into a discussion of fat metabolism (Taubes devotes many pages to this complex topic), but I'll point out a few things. First, the proper caloric equation is:

Change in energy stores = energy intake - energy expenditure

People make many mistakes when reading this equation. For example, they forget that energy stores consist of not just fat, but muscle, in certain cases, other tissues as well. Another issue is the assumption that energy intake and energy expenditure are independent variables. They are not. Modifying one typically affects the other. Many studies have shown that subjects on a caloric deficit can become lethargic and slow their metabolism, so that they burn fewer calories. Conversely, studies also show that the body can expend extra calories through heat. Finally, and this is crucially important: a caloric surplus or deficit may be associated with weight change, but is not necessarily the cause. For example, you must eat a caloric surplus to gain weight, but eating too much or exercising too little is not always the cause. The simplest example is growing kids: kids definitely have to eat a caloric surplus in order to become bigger & taller. But the actual cause for their increase in size is hormonal changes and NOT the positive caloric balance.

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Moderation is the best advise you can give someone right now. Eat a nice variety of foods and stick to healthier options as much as possible.

"Everything in moderation" is decent advice, but this will not work for many people. Two people can eat the exact same foods ("in moderation") and exercise the exact same amount, but have vastly different body compositions - one obese and one healthy. Calories in vs. calories out can't adequately explain this. The differences in hormones - especially a person's insulin sensitivity and consequent reaction to carbs - may be the explanation. As Taubes indicates, further research is needed, but from the numerous studies over the last century, it seems that even "moderate" quantities of highly processed carbs may not be safe, especially for some people. Moreover, there are many potential ties between processed carb intake and cancer and alzheimers that, if proven to be true, should be something all of us consider.

Finally, your advice of sticking to "healthier options" is utterly useless. The entire problem is figuring out what is healthy! For example, you may argue that a low fat diet, or one low in saturated fat is healthy, but a number of studies show this is not the case. Not only does avoiding fats not help prevent obesity or heart disease, Taubes argues that the extra carbs people eat to replace the fats actually increase the risk for both diseases, as well as many others (such as cancer and alzheimers). Studies of Inuit indians show that their diet consists almost entirely of animal meat and typically contains enormous amounts of fat. They eat virtually zero fruits and veggies, considering them "not fit for human consumption". Despite that, these tribes had virtually no obesity, heart disease, cancer, etc. Moreover, despite the lack of fruits and veggies that we consider "healthy", they did not have any of the vitamin deficiency diseases that we'd expect (such as scurvy). So, I ask you, what exactly is "healthy"?

In a short period of time I will have a Ph.D in biochemistry (emphasis in pharmacology).
I've seen claims like these before.
None stand up to a tried and true controlled experiment.
By healthy I mean the obvious.
Fruits, vegetables, lean protein; things anyone would understand to be healthy.
Don't count out dietary fiber as an import aspect of a diet.
There are FAR too many variables involved with most of what you are mentioning with little causal data to support the claims.

I'm glad you enjoyed the book, but for a frame of reference you should look into the other side of the argument so you can decide on your own what you agree with.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

You may want to change your opinion, and judging by that post, Lyle should too. For example, here's one relevant study. Key points:

* Compares a low-glycemic index diet that was calorie restricted (-500 per day) with a low-carb diet that was not calorie restricted.
* Both diets achieved pretty significant weight loss, but the low-carb diet was close to twice as effective (11.1kg vs 6.9kg).
* Here's the kicker: the low-GI group had a lower total calorie intake than the low-carb group (1335 vs 1550kcal/day). And no, the low carbers did NOT exercise more. No "metabolic advantage", eh?

More weight loss is a given with a low carbohydrate diet due to water weight. That's nothing new and I don't see anything in the absract about measuring actual fat loss. Show me a controlled calorie study that shows more fat loss with the same or more calories on a low carb diet because I have not seen one.

The bottom line is that given calories are set where they should be, as well as protein and EFA's, the ratio between fat and carbs is not going to make a difference in terms of fat loss.

Exactly.
Look at reduction in waist circumference as a better indicator.
Oh, sorry, low carb pseudo-science won't publish these numbers.
Body fat percentages would be another good figure...again, no where to be seen for the vast majority of what I've seen.

 

[KoolDrew]

See what you did there? It's the same thing Lyle accuses Taubes of doing and then does himself: you completely ignore some pretty damn compelling evidence that contradicts your own position. I gave you 3 studies that CLEARLY indicate there is probably more at play than calories in vs. calories out and you ignore it.

I addressed the flaws in the studies you provided, that's all. Unless the study is in a controlled calorie state it will do nothing to prove your point that carbs offer some sort of metabolic advantage.

Oh, and yes, low carb diets do induce some water loss. However, this would NOT account for an average difference of over 4kg. It's also an effect that's typically only takes place during the first two weeks of a low carb diet and will return to normal after that. This study lasted 24 weeks.

I know from personal experience that the water weight loss is very significant on a ketogenic diet and doesn't spike back up until carbs are introduced into the diet again.

Here is another study showing the effects of a low carb diet where it is specifically noted that "their weight loss was not attributable to water loss".

Let's take a look at one of the first paragraphs here:

According to lead researcher, Guenther Boden, M.D., "When carbohydrates were restricted, study subjects spontaneously reduced their caloric intake to a level appropriate for their height, did not compensate by eating more protein or fat, and lost weight. We concluded that excessive overeating had been fueled by carbohydrates."

Ok, so let me get this straight. Carbohydrates were restricted, but fat and protein stayed the same? In this case, lowered carbohydrates = less overall calories. Again, just like I've said plenty of times in the past - the only time a lower carbohydrate diet shows any difference is when it makes a difference in total calorie intake or weight loss was the only factor taken into consideration. In order for carbs to have the metabolic advantage you think they do, a study would have to have identical calorie levels and the low carb group show a greater percentage of fat loss. I have yet to see such a study.

I suggest you actually do some more reading. The link I gave above is a good start, as well as this:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.c...calorie-a-calorie.html

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I'll be subscribing to and responding (hopefully in detail) to this thread later in the week. I don't have time currently due to upcoming exams, but will be sure to post.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
I addressed the flaws in the studies you provided, that's all. Unless the study is in a controlled calorie state it will do nothing to prove your point that carbs offer some sort of metabolic advantage.

You mentioned flaws in one of the studies I linked to, ignoring the other two, and I disagree with you that this "flaw" is responsible for the difference in weight loss.

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Ok, so let me get this straight. Carbohydrates were restricted, but fat and protein stayed the same? In this case, lowered carbohydrates = less overall calories. Again, just like I've said plenty of times in the past - the only time a lower carbohydrate diet shows any difference is when it makes a difference in total calorie intake or weight loss was the only factor taken into consideration. In order for carbs to have the metabolic advantage you think they do, a study would have to have identical calorie levels and the low carb group show a greater percentage of fat loss. I have yet to see such a study.

Yes, the article clearly explains that the subjects ended up eating less calories but it was NOT because they were forced to. If you read further, you'll see this very relevant piece of information:

When we took away the carbohydrates, the patients spontaneously reduced their daily energy consumption by 1,000 calories a day. Although they could have, they did not compensate by eating more proteins and fats and they weren't bored with the food choices. In fact, they loved the diet. The carbohydrates were clearly stimulating their excessive appetites.

How many studies of low fat diets do you see where subjects "spontaneously" eat less calories overall? You don't think a VAST change in appetite due to the type of food they are eating is an important factor? If you don't, then you definitely want to read Taubes' book to learn about how appetite plays into the weight gain and weight loss equation. I'll give you a hint: the reason carbs affect appetite is closely tied to the reason carbs may cause obesity, cardiovascular disease and everything else. Shocking, I know.

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
I suggest you actually do some more reading.

I'll be happy to as I approach these issues with an open mind and am always trying to learn more. Before I read Taubes' book I was a staunch believer that calories in vs. calories out tell the whole story. The overwhelming amount of evidence in the book tells me that there is unquestionably more at play.

So yes, I will continue to do more reading. The real question is, will you do the same?

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
The link I gave above is a good start, as well as this:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.c...calorie-a-calorie.html

[/quote]
First, I don't see any references whatsoever for this entire article. Second, the language used in this is incredibly unscientific and highly likely to be deceiving. For example:

One or two studies have shown a slight trend towards greater fat loss in the low-carbohydrate group but it?s rarely huge and is invariably confounded by the issue of hugely varying protein intake.

Well... is it one study or two? Presumably if he read these studies, he should know the exact number and reference them. And how "slight" is this trend towards "greater fat loss". Oh, I see, it's "rarely huge". Does that mean that occasionally, it IS huge? The article is full of vague quotes like the above and with no references to back them up, is utterly worthless.

Oh, and how about the fact that Lyle is clearly stating that it's NOT just calories in vs. calories out. If it was, then protein intake wouldn't matter, right? If the caloric balance was the ONLY thing that mattered, then the amount of protein shouldn't be a relevant factor! And yet, he unequivocally says that it is, which means the type of calories, not just the quantity, DO matter.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Exactly.
Look at reduction in waist circumference as a better indicator.
Oh, sorry, low carb pseudo-science won't publish these numbers.
Body fat percentages would be another good figure...again, no where to be seen for the vast majority of what I've seen.

I've referenced a number of relevant studies in this post, several of which you and KoolDrew have conveniently ignored and several of which we disagree on. Taubes' references countless more studies that you should probably have a look at. You've posted a grand total of ZERO relevant information. When you have something more relevant to say than "nah, I don't agree, I'll just keep using common sense", please share it with us.

 

[KoolDrew]

Yes, the article clearly explains that the subjects ended up eating less calories but it was NOT because they were forced to. If you read further, you'll see this very relevant piece of information:

So? All that study proves is that in an uncontrolled state a low carb diet may result in lower total calories consumed. The end result is still lowered calories, which does nothing but prove "calories in vs. calories out." It is true reducing carbs can often result in less calories and nobody is denying that. That's why most low carb diets succeed, because it forces them to eat less overall calories. However, that is the reason they lost the weight, not because it offers a metabolic advantage, which is what you are claiming.

You mentioned flaws in one of the studies I linked to, ignoring the other two, and I disagree with you that this "flaw" is responsible for the difference in weight loss.

The second study you linked to had the same issue, and the third was not a study.

How many studies of low fat diets do you see where subjects "spontaneously" eat less calories overall? You don't think a VAST change in appetite due to the type of food they are eating is an important factor? If you don't, then you definitely want to read Taubes' book to learn about how appetite plays into the weight gain and weight loss equation.

Again, nobody is arguing against the fact that hunger plays a large role. However, regardless of what is done to achieve fat loss the end result is always reduced calories.

So yes, I will continue to do more reading. The real question is, will you do the same?

I've read plenty of books, articles, studies, etc. on the subject and continue to do so.

First, I don't see any references whatsoever for this entire article. Second, the language used in this is incredibly unscientific and highly likely to be deceiving. For example:

Unfortunately he doesn't take the time to list references in articles. His Protein Book as well as his Ketogenic diet book are filled with references. I don't own the ketogenic book, but since it deals with this topic it may be something you may be interested in.

Oh, and how about the fact that Lyle is clearly stating that it's NOT just calories in vs. calories out. If it was, then protein intake wouldn't matter, right? If the caloric balance was the ONLY thing that mattered, then the amount of protein shouldn't be a relevant factor! And yet, he unequivocally says that it is, which means the type of calories, not just the quantity, DO matter.

You're correct, which is why I specifically said earlier assuming protein is where it should be the ratio between fat and carbs doesn't really matter. Throughout this thread it seems you have mainly been targeting carbohydrates, not protein. Never once in this thread did I say calories are the ONLY thing that matter. I just have a problem with the claims that carbs have some sort of metabolic advantage.

 

[brikis98]

First, for those of you too lazy to read Taubes' whole book, you can instead his article from the New York Times titled "What if it's all been a big fat lie?". It is really the super "lite" version of the book, lacking a LOT of the critical data and research that makes the case so compelling, but it gives a good glimpse into the kind of topics the book deals with and a little bit of the data behind it.

KoolDrew, you should be especially interested, if for nothing else than to note that studies of low carb diets, until recently, were very frequently denied funding. Taubes himself describes the crucial need for more studies of low carb diets and at the end of the book describes several specific studies that would be especially revealing. However, the community's skepticism towards anything away from the status quo (ie, low fat diets) has made this incredibly difficult.

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
So? All that study proves is that in an uncontrolled state a low carb diet may result in lower total calories consumed. The end result is still lowered calories, which does nothing but prove "calories in vs. calories out." It is true reducing carbs can often result in less calories and nobody is denying that. That's why most low carb diets succeed, because it forces them to eat less overall calories. However, that is the reason they lost the weight, not because it offers a metabolic advantage, which is what you are claiming.

Here is yet another study where a low carb diet beat out a low fat diet. This time, the advantage was 26lbs to 14lbs and it clearly says that the "dieters assigned to the low-carbohydrate plan lost more body fat" (and not just body weight or water). Calories for the low carb group were again unrestricted, where as the low fat plan restricted them to 500 or 1000 below maintenance. Unfortunately, I don't have the actual text of the study handy, so it's unclear how many calories the participants actually ate, so I suppose it's possible that those on the low carb diet at less calories than those on the low fat diet. However, this seems highly unlikely.

Again, the lack of studies in this area until just recently makes it hard to pin it down, but can you honestly say you don't see even an inkling of a possibility that a low carb diet has a metabolic advantage? Wasn't it you, after all, who used a PSMF (Protein Sparing Modified Fast) to lose weight, a diet which allows virtually no carbohydrates at all?

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Again, nobody is arguing against the fact that hunger plays a large role. However, regardless of what is done to achieve fat loss the end result is always reduced calories.

Taubes did mention cases where low carb dieters were losing weight despite not eating a caloric deficit, but I couldn't track it down using the index and there is no way in hell I'm scanning through 450 pages to find it. Despite these exceptions, I do agree, that just about any diet that works will result in a caloric deficit. However, the fact that a diet low in carbs reduces or prevents hunger is incredibly important to obesity research. The fact that lower carbs causes a caloric deficit and ultimately weight loss may mean that increased carbs cause a caloric surplus and ultimately weight loss. In other words, the cause of weight gain or weight loss are carbs - eating too much or being too lethargic, therefore, are an effect of this increased carb intake. That means that when choosing a diet, it is NOT enough to just go for a caloric deficit as that would only be treating the symptoms and not curing the underlying cause.

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
You're correct, which is why I specifically said earlier assuming protein is where it should be the ratio between fat and carbs doesn't really matter. Throughout this thread it seems you have mainly been targeting carbohydrates, not protein. Never once in this thread did I say calories are the ONLY thing that matter. I just have a problem with the claims that carbs have some sort of metabolic advantage.

Well, I'm glad we agree that the type of calories and not just the quantity matters. That's more than most diet experts in this country are willing to admit. Taubes believes that cutting carbs does offer a metabolic advantage over cutting fat, but he explicitly calls this the "carbohydrate hypothesis", meaning that more tests are required to confirm it.

 

[KoolDrew]

KoolDrew, you should be especially interested, if for nothing else than to note that studies of low carb diets, until recently, were very frequently denied funding. Taubes himself describes the crucial need for more studies of low carb diets and at the end of the book describes several specific studies that would be especially revealing. However, the community's skepticism towards anything away from the status quo (ie, low fat diets) has made this incredibly difficult.

I do agree, and that's usually the case.

Here is yet another study where a low carb diet beat out a low fat diet. This time, the advantage was 26lbs to 14lbs and it clearly says that the "dieters assigned to the low-carbohydrate plan lost more body fat" (and not just body weight or water). Calories for the low carb group were again unrestricted, where as the low fat plan restricted them to 500 or 1000 below maintenance. Unfortunately, I don't have the actual text of the study handy, so it's unclear how many calories the participants actually ate, so I suppose it's possible that those on the low carb diet at less calories than those on the low fat diet. However, this seems highly unlikely.

You're completely ignoring my point and again show me a study showing an unrestricted diet. In my experience, I tend to eat very little when limiting carbs. It's just simply a lot harder to overeat. Think about it. Removing carbohydrates = removing calories. Since most peoples diet consists of carbohydrates of course they are going to lose more weight. Again, I'm not arguing lower carbs offers an advantage in a uncontrolled situation. What I'm arguing is that carbs have some sort of metabolic advantage. Even if the individual eats more protein and fat to compensate for the carbs, the appetite suppressing effects of protein and the gastric emptying effect of fat will usually result in less calories, which results in people thinking they are eating much more then they really are. That's how many low carb diets were so successful, people simply ate less and when people ate too much of other nutrients, they didn't lose any weight.

Again, I'm not simply ignoring the studies because I'm too stubborn, it simply does nothing to prove your point. If calories are different between both groups, how can you come to the conclusion that the extra weight loss was due to carbs having a metabolic advantage? I've already said it plenty of times in this topic, but to prove your point both groups would have to have identical calories and show more fat loss then the other group.

Again, the lack of studies in this area until just recently makes it hard to pin it down, but can you honestly say you don't see even an inkling of a possibility that a low carb diet has a metabolic advantage? Wasn't it you, after all, who used a PSMF (Protein Sparing Modified Fast) to lose weight, a diet which allows virtually no carbohydrates at all?

Carbohydrates contain calories. The point of a PSMF is to have calories as low as possible without LBM loss. As you know, protein is very important to maintain muscle mass. So in order to accomplish the least amount of calories possible carbs must be removed from the diet. It's that simple. Carbs are not removed for any metabolic advantage, and neither is fat.

The fact that lower carbs causes a caloric deficit and ultimately weight loss may mean that increased carbs cause a caloric surplus and ultimately weight loss. In other words, the cause of weight gain or weight loss are carbs - eating too much or being too lethargic, therefore, are an effect of this increased carb intake. That means that when choosing a diet, it is NOT enough to just go for a caloric deficit as that would only be treating the symptoms and not curing the underlying cause.

This is true for any macronutrient, not just carbs.

 

[KoolDrew]

Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes; New York: AA Knopf.

Bray GA.

Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. brayga@pbrc.edu

Good Calories, Bad Calories has much useful information and is well worth reading. Gary Taubes's tenets related to obesity can be summarized in four statements (i) He believes that you can gain weight and become obese without a positive energy balance; (ii) He also believes that dietary fat is unimportant for the development of obesity; (iii) Carbohydrate, in his view, is what produces obesity and (iv) Insulin secreted by the carbohydrate is the problem in obesity. However, some of the conclusions that the author reaches are not consistent with current concepts about obesity. There are many kinds of obesity, and only some depend on diet composition. Two dietary manipulations produce obesity in susceptible people: eating a high-fat diet and drinking sugar- or high-fructose corn syrup-sweetened beverages. Insulin is necessary but not sufficient in the diet-dependent obesities. When diet is important, it may be the combination of fat and fructose (the deadly duo) that is most important. Regardless of diet, it is a positive energy balance over months to years that is the sine qua non for obesity. Obese people clearly eat more than do lean ones, and food-intake records are notoriously unreliable, as documented by use of doubly labelled water. Underreporting of food intake is greater in obese than in normal-weight people and is worse for fat than for other macronutrient groups. Accepting the concept that obesity results from a positive energy balance does not tell us why energy balance is positive. This depends on a variety of environmental factors interacting with the genetic susceptibility of certain individuals. Weight loss is related to adherence to the diet, not to its macronutrient composition.

If you're interested I have the full paper.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
You're completely ignoring my point and again show me a study showing an unrestricted diet.

No, I'm not ignoring your point at all. That's why I specifically said in my last reply that "it's unclear how many calories the participants actually ate, so I suppose it's possible that those on the low carb diet at less calories than those on the low fat diet". I do not have such a study handy and don't know if one exists, which could mean that carbs really don't have a metabolic advantage or just that no one has conducted such a study due to the very limited funding available. However, I did show you one study where low carb dieters ate less calories than low fat and lost more weight, but you shot it down because you assumed, IMO incorrectly, that the difference in weight loss must be water. The study I linked to in my last reply showed that more body fat was lost on the low carb diet, but the article I linked to did not indicate whether caloric intake was actually measured. However, since the low fat dieters were required to have a caloric deficit while the low carb dieters were not, do you really think it likely the low carb dieters actually ate fewer calories?

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
In my experience, I tend to eat very little when limiting carbs. It's just simply a lot harder to overeat.

Studies indicate it's harder to overeat due to the removal of carbs, not due to the increase in protein or fat. As I've already mentioned, this is a crucially important point in obesity research.

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Think about it. Removing carbohydrates = removing calories. Since most peoples diet consists of carbohydrates of course they are going to lose more weight.

Well, that's obviously true, but if the carbs are being replaced with fat (which has twice the caloric density of carbs), then the number of calories removed might not be that low.

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Even if the individual eats more protein and fat to compensate for the carbs, the appetite suppressing effects of protein and the gastric emptying effect of fat will usually result in less calories, which results in people thinking they are eating much more then they really are. That's how many low carb diets were so successful, people simply ate less and when people ate too much of other nutrients, they didn't lose any weight.

Show me the evidence for this. That is, that it is eating "more protein and fat" that suppresses appetite and people thinking they are eating "much more than they really are". I mean, the paper you reference in your next reply says the exact opposite: that underreporting of food intake is worse for fat than other macronutrient groups.

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Carbohydrates contain calories.

So does fat and protein.

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
The point of a PSMF is to have calories as low as possible without LBM loss. As you know, protein is very important to maintain muscle mass. So in order to accomplish the least amount of calories possible carbs must be removed from the diet. It's that simple. Carbs are not removed for any metabolic advantage, and neither is fat.

If that argument was true, and since fat has 9 calories per gram vs. 4 calories per gram in carbs, shouldn't you just remove all fat to make the "calories as low as possible"?

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
This is true for any macronutrient, not just carbs.

What is true for any macronutrient? Are you saying that cutting the fat intake of my diet or the protein intake of my diet - while eating "unrestricted" calories - would have the exact same effect as cutting carbs?

 

[brikis98]

Here are two more studies that show that the body does react to carbs and fat differently:

Low-carbohydrate diet burns more excess liver fat than low-calorie diet
"It appears that for the people on a low-carbohydrate diet, in order to meet that expense, their livers have to burn excess fat."

Results indicate that patients on the low-carbohydrate diet increased fat burning throughout the entire body.

Eat Fat to Lose Fat
Therefore, the researchers say in the May issue of the journal Cell Metabolism, the liver needs new fat to regulate fat burning.

"On a normal diet they were OK," Semenkovich said. "We went to a very extreme low-fat diet, and these animals paradoxically accumulated an extremely large amount of fat in their livers."

 

[brikis98]

KoolDrew - judging by the part of the paper you quoted, I'm not sure the full article is worth reading.

(i) He believes that you can gain weight and become obese without a positive energy balance;

Um, no, I don't think this is a central tenet at all. Taubes does list some examples where the amount of body fat can change without a caloric surplus, but I don't think he ever makes the claim that weight can increase without a caloric surplus.

(ii) He also believes that dietary fat is unimportant for the development of obesity;

To phrase it more accurately, Taubes does not believe that excess dietary fat is the cause of obesity.

(iii) Carbohydrate, in his view, is what produces obesity

Again, to be more precise, it's the increase in the proportion of carbohydrates in our diet, especially highly processed carbs, that led to the obesity epidemic.

(iv) Insulin secreted by the carbohydrate is the problem in obesity.

Insulin isn't secreted by carbohydrates, it's secreted in response to carbohydrates. The more carbs - or, to be more accurate, the higher the glycemic load - the more insulin is released, which Taubes indicates may be the cause of obesity.

Insulin is necessary but not sufficient in the diet-dependent obesities. When diet is important, it may be the combination of fat and fructose (the deadly duo) that is most important.

I'd be curious to see the research to back up this "deadly duo" hypothesis.

Regardless of diet, it is a positive energy balance over months to years that is the sine qua non for obesity.

No one is disputing that. But the relevant question is why is there a positive caloric balance? Why, around 1980, did people suddenly start eating so much more? Taubes argues that the positive caloric balance and obesity are both symptoms of some underlying problem.

Obese people clearly eat more than do lean ones, and food-intake records are notoriously unreliable, as documented by use of doubly labelled water. Underreporting of food intake is greater in obese than in normal-weight people and is worse for fat than for other macronutrient groups.

I'd like to see the research to back this up.

Accepting the concept that obesity results from a positive energy balance does not tell us why energy balance is positive. This depends on a variety of environmental factors interacting with the genetic susceptibility of certain individuals. Weight loss is related to adherence to the diet, not to its macronutrient composition.

There are two thing seriously wrong with this statement:

1. Even though the author admits there something that is CAUSING the positive energy balance and obesity (namely, "environmental factors" and "genetic susceptibility"), he argues we should NOT worry about the cause but instead just deal with one of the symptoms (positive energy balance). That's like prescribing advil for someone that has knee pain from bad form on squatting. Sure, it'll bring down the swelling and may temporarily reduce the problem, but until you take care of the underlying cause - the incorrect squatting form - you're not solving anything.

2. The phrase that weight loss is only "related to adherence to the diet" is a tautology. In other words, the author is claiming that his "diet" (presumably one that just ensures a caloric deficit) MUST work and if it doesn't, the dieter is a liar and didn't follow the diet. In other words "my diet works... or you're not on my diet".

 

[KoolDrew]

However, I did show you one study where low carb dieters ate less calories than low fat and lost more weight, but you shot it down because you assumed, IMO incorrectly, that the difference in weight loss must be water.

I didn't assume anything. I simply pointed out that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the low carb-diet produced more weight loss, which is already known. The extra weight loss coming from water just happens to be a lot more likely then low carbs magically defying the laws of thermodynamics.

Show me the evidence for this. That is, that it is eating "more protein and fat" that suppresses appetite and people thinking they are eating "much more than they really are". I mean, the paper you reference in your next reply says the exact opposite: that underreporting of food intake is worse for fat than other macronutrient groups.

You're joking, right?

If that argument was true, and since fat has 9 calories per gram vs. 4 calories per gram in carbs, shouldn't you just remove all fat to make the "calories as low as possible"?

Uh... no. A PSMF is protein only, that's it. As little carbohydrates and fat as possible, which would obviously allow calories to be brought even lower then just removing fat or carbs.

What is true for any macronutrient? Are you saying that cutting the fat intake of my diet or the protein intake of my diet - while eating "unrestricted" calories - would have the exact same effect as cutting carbs?

No.

You posted this topic claiming lowered carbs offered some metabolic advantage. Since you couldn't prove that you've now backpedaled and am trying to argue with me that lowered carbohydrates can offer an advantage in an unrestricted situation, which I've already stated can happen. What even amazes me more is that you claim it's not about calories, but then go onto to say the opposite that all successful diets, result in reduced calories. So what is it?

Anyway, I'm not replying to this topic anymore. The fact that you're not even willing to read the paper addressing the book in the OP just shows we're not going to get anywhere. The bottom line is that the end result no matter what kind of diet is reduced calories, that's what it always comes down to, which I've already stated plenty of times in this topic. If you are willing to admit this fact and discuss macronutrients effects satiety and satiation maybe I'll respond, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you carbs don't magically defy the law of thermodynamics. There's really no point.

 

[Deeko]

I only read parts of this thread....does the book address the unhealthy side effects of ketosis on the body? The books I've read on nutrition all highly recommended staying out of ketosis.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Deeko
I only read parts of this thread....does the book address the unhealthy side effects of ketosis on the body? The books I've read on nutrition all highly recommended staying out of ketosis.

He definitely discusses it, although I must admit I don't don't remember exactly what he says (I can check the book when I get home). I think his argument was that there are no negative effects - the body runs just fine on ketosis - but I believed he expressed the need for long term studies of both ketosis and low carb diets in general (the exact kind of long term studies that were not done of low fat diets before they became the "official" recommendation). Moreover, the book doesn't really endorse ketosis or officially recommend any actual diet strategy. Instead, the focus is on shooting down the low fat and low calorie approaches and to explain the carbohydrate hypothesis. Even if proven true, the hypothesis doesn't require eating zero carbs, just fewer carbs (and especially fewer processed carbs) then we eat now. Not all low carb diets reduce carbs enough for ketosis.