Gary Taubes' Newest Book

[ERD50]

RE: Half an Apple + Peanut Butter seems more filling than a whole Apple.

I tried to explain that in Post #97 but I'll try again.


In light of what I've said in the last few posts, you can see that an Apple is almost all Sugar and Peanut Butter is almost all Fat & Protein. So guess why you weren't hungry.

Thanks, I understand that. I was just commenting on my personal observation of it.

-ERD50

 

[haha]

We are in agreement here, because the situation I'm talking about is voluntary calorie restriction. I'm convinced that simple calorie restriction usually doesn't work because your body eventually demands that you eat more. But in the calorie-constrained environments you talk about, one doesn't have the option of eating more.

IOW, if you put a guy in a cage and restrict his calories, he will lose weight and keep it off as long as you keep him in the cage; the diet will work 100% of the time. But in the real world, he's going to end up eating more at some point.

When your body thinks it's starving (even if it's carrying 300 pounds of fat), it will take control.

Yes; this is how I see it also. I believe there is one other factor too. Plenty of people in wealthy nations are slim on a more average diet (though perhaps with a lot less junk). You before low carbing were one example, and me another. My 28 year old son drinks porter and ale and and has a sedentary job. Though he has no interest in low carb, he has about 7% body fat.

I started low carb for blood sugar management issues, not weight loss. However, I do think that if an American has weight issues, low carbing is a much easier and surer way to loss weight and keep it off than weight watchers, for example. Though many pople do pretty well at weight watchers, as long as they are willing to consider it a life style involving repeated diets rather than a one shot permanent cure.

Ha

 

[aida2003]

I don't find it helpful at all. It's polemics, not reasoning. Taubes and fathead have decided what the truth is, and their only interest is in convincing us that they are right. Fathead tells us that Taubes wrote 2 chapters on thermodynamics, apparently thinking this should be persuasive. Twice as persuasive, I guess, as if he had written just one chapter. So what? Doesn't it matter what was in the chapters?

Bolded is exactly what I thought. Well, the guy will earn royalties and will enlighten discussions among people about fit bodies and souls.

OK, now I'm going to read the whole thread

 

[RonBoyd]

I don't find it helpful at all. It's polemics, not reasoning.

Well, yeah. And it was presented as such. I am sorry it wasn't useful to you and that it appears to have closed this discussion.

polemics [pəˈlɛmɪks]
n (functioning as singular) the art or practice of dispute or argument, as in attacking or defending a doctrine or belief

Taubes and fathead have decided what the truth is, and their only interest is in convincing us that they are right.

So? That is, after all, their mission... their job.

Fathead tells us that Taubes wrote 2 chapters on thermodynamics, apparently thinking this should be persuasive. Twice as persuasive, I guess, as if he had written just one chapter. So what? Doesn't it matter what was in the chapters?

He is, I admit, preaching to the Choir and I would imagine that he assumed that his audience would have read the two Chapters whole rather than for him to repeat them... or even have a need to. Nor is reading those two Chapters that important to understanding his analogy, actually.

In any event, this is beyond my ability to persuade since I cannot put it any better than this Comment:

Rahul says:
January 25, 2011 at 3:39 am
Hahaha, great post, I liked this argument especially, it wasn’t too complex. Although but I’m pretty sure if you are intending this argument or example towards those critics that think you and Gary Taubes don’t have a grasp of thermodynamics, I would say it might be a little over their head and waste of your precious time

I mean clearly most of these critics that come up with these one-line arguments like “There is no question that the science of nutrition needs critical review, but Taubes is just wrong. Calories-in-calories-out is the law of thermodynamics.” clearly haven’t read two words from either of Taube’s books or they would know there are chapters on thermodynamics in both of his books lol. Critics like those are true believers or “following the money” so they will probably ignore any intellectual arguments like the one above by probably putting up the label “This argument is too complicated to keep track off” (just like those government officials that shut down the re-evaluation of the lipid hypothesis

) But anyways great read as always, hope you are having a great start to 2011.

Kind Regards

Rahul

But you had already read that...

 

[RonBoyd]

I started low carb for blood sugar management issues, not weight loss.

This, too, was my motivation, the weight issue was more of an after thought... no, an awakening.

In any event, I can't stress strongly the importance of the A1c and Hemoglobin tests. I would even go further and say that should be one of the first steps in everyone's healthcare. Type 2 Diabetes is not something anyone should mess with. When your body loses it's ability to produce the proper amount of Insulin to fight off the Carb assault, there is no going back... and, furthermore, any damge to that system cannot be repaired. (No, I do not have Diabetes (nor Pre-diabetes) but research showed a risk I was unwilling to accept.)

Though many pople do pretty well at weight watchers, as long as they are willing to consider it a life style involving repeated diets rather than a one shot permanent cure.

I am rather amused that WW has admitted they were wrong all those years and that the "New" WW is an attempt to be more like Atkins.

 

[GregLee]

Well, yeah. And it was presented as such.

It was presented as polemics? Actually, you recommended it because, you wrote, "if you do read it, you will have a much better understanding (IMHO)."

 

[RonBoyd]

It was presented as polemics? Actually, you recommended it because, you wrote, "if you do read it, you will have a much better understanding (IMHO)."

Oh! You were attacking me.

I have already (many times) admitted I have no defense for my ramblings.

 

[HFWR]

It's simple, really...

YouTube - FDA Official: "Just Eat A Goddamn Vegetable"

 

[RonBoyd]

It's simple, really...

There are several other videos you reminded me of:

YouTube - 1 of 2 Gary Taubes on Larry King Live 10/19/2007

YouTube - 2 of 2 Gary Taubes on Larry King Live 10/19/2007

YouTube - Dr. Weil Endorses Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories

 

[zinger1457]

Sounds like you can cherry pick the studies to prove any point of view.

8 reasons carbs help you lose weight - Healthy Living on Shine

Eating carbs makes you thin for life
A recent multi-center study found that the slimmest people also ate the most carbs, and the chubbiest ate the least. The researchers concluded that your odds of getting and staying slim are best when carbs make up to 64% of your total daily caloric intake, or 361 grams.

That's the equivalent of several stuffed baked potatoes (a food we bet you've been afraid to eat for decades).

Most low-carb diets limit you to fewer than 30% of total calories from carbs and sometimes contain as few as 30 grams of carbohydrates a day.

 

[TromboneAl]

If you are overweight, there is a simple solution to interpreting all of the articles, hype, studies, and videos. Instead of arguing, try low carb and see if it works for you. No multi-million-dollar 500-subject study in the world can be more important or relevant than your own.

Whether it works for you is the only important criterion. Everyone's different. You could try an Atkins diet for a month. If you're prediabetic, get a free blood glucose meter and see how it affects your blood sugar. Don't forget to take "before" photos and measure your waist, cholesterol, fasting blood glucose, thighs, and arms before you start.

Here are the results of my study on myself:

It may be tough, but you can probably suffer through a month of rib-eye steaks, lobster, bacon and eggs, prime rib, crab, sausage, ribs, filet mignon, and macadamia nuts.

 

[haha]

So interesting! Whatever the truth of any of this may be, I predict that Taubes' gospel will fall by the wayside over time. He is too self-effacing, too easy going, and not good enough on the tube or dealing with constant shoutover interruption.

Also, he can write about anything. Since his income is not really tied to being a successful diet guru, or a weight loss doctor, and since he does not appear to be a natural marketer, he'll get tired of being slammed and TV will get tired of him.

I went to one of his talks, and hung around after and talked with him. Great guy, but I've met gurus, and taubes is no guru. ( To his credit, IMO)

Ha

 

[GregLee]

There are several other videos you reminded me of:

After watching the first two of these videos, the principle source of disagreement is, in my opinion, the failure to keep separate the best strategy for gaining/losing weight from the question of what causes groups of people (other than dieters) to gain/lose weight. Supposing Taubes is right that too many carbohydrates is the central cause of obesity, it doesn't follow that reducing carbohydrates is the best strategy for dieters. I'm not saying that it isn't the best strategy --- I'm just saying that it doesn't follow (which is close to what Weil was saying, I think).

 

[ERD50]

It may be tough, but you can probably suffer through a month of rib-eye steaks, lobster, bacon and eggs, prime rib, crab, sausage, ribs, filet mignon, and macadamia nuts.

T-Al, you forgot to mention the other 'substitutes' you gave in another post:

Carb Food, Substitute

Chips, Pork Rinds

Pasta, Dreamfields Pasta

Waffles, Same made with CarbQuik

Pancakes, Same made with CarbQuik

Biscuits, Same made with CarbQuik

Chocolate, Chocolate made with artificial sweetener or Chocoperfection

Cranberry Sauce, Cranberry Sauce made with artificial sweetener

Beer, Michelob Ultra

Milk, Michelob Ultra, A&W Diet Root beer

Bread, Oopsies

Cake and Cookies, Waffles with 0-carb syrup and butter or brownies made with CarbQuik

Mashed potatoes, Cauliflower mash with lots of heavy cream and butter

Those don't sound as appealing as the steak/lobster you 'cherry picked'. And I'll say it again, calling 'Michelob Ultra' as a substitute for 'beer' is a criminal act!

-ERD50

 

[harley]

If you are overweight, there is a simple solution to interpreting all of the articles, hype, studies, and videos. Instead of arguing, try low carb and see if it works for you. No multi-million-dollar 500-subject study in the world can be more important or relevant than your own.

Whether it works for you is the only important criterion. Everyone's different. You could try an Atkins diet for a month. If you're prediabetic, get a free blood glucose meter and see how it affects your blood sugar. Don't forget to take "before" photos and measure your waist, cholesterol, fasting blood glucose, thighs, and arms before you start.

Here are the results of my study on myself:

It may be tough, but you can probably suffer through a month of rib-eye steaks, lobster, bacon and eggs, prime rib, crab, sausage, ribs, filet mignon, and macadamia nuts.

My waistline number doesn't even appear on your chart, so this is of no value at all to me.

 

[TromboneAl]

Whatever the truth of any of this may be, I predict that Taubes' gospel will fall by the wayside over time.

My guess is that it will take at least 10-20 years, but that low-carb will eventually gain mainstream acceptance. An analogy is the gradual acceptance of "good" fat like olive oil. We've gone from "avoid all fats" to "eat more healthy fats."

Studies like the ATOZ diet experiment have people paying attention, but we still have to wait for current nutrition experts to die off or retire.

The biggest problem is: corn and wheat. The agriculture industry could never accept this change. Others believe that the pharmaceutical industry could never allow a decrease in their cash-cow diabetics.

But just look at all the overweight and obese people around you -- if the low carb hypothesis is correct, then it has to win out eventually.

OTOH here is something from 1869 which one might have thought would turn the tide towards low carb.

 

[RonBoyd]

My guess is that it will take at least 10-20 years, but that low-carb will eventually gain mainstream acceptance. An analogy is the gradual acceptance of "good" fat like olive oil. We've gone from "avoid all fats" to "eat more healthy fats."

Studies like the ATOZ diet experiment have people paying attention, but we still have to wait for current nutrition experts to die off or retire.

The biggest problem is: corn and wheat. The agriculture industry could never accept this change. Others believe that the pharmaceutical industry could never allow a decrease in their cash-cow diabetics.

Not to mention the power the government has in pushing the "Calories in, Calories out, Low Fat, High Carb" regimen. It takes a pretty [-]strong willed [/-] brave doctor to risk being sued for Malpractice when the Plaintive has the backing of the U.S. Government... even if he/she personally practices a Low-carb diet.

There is a neat quote in Why We Get Fat (Page 216):

"As Blake Donaldson said in his 1962 memoirs, no matter how well someone does on the mostly meat diet that Donaldson prescribed, "any disaster that may overtake him, even to the extent of ground moles getting in his lawn, will be blamed on his diet."

 

[haha]

But just look at all the overweight and obese people around you -- if the low carb hypothesis is correct, then it has to win out eventually.

I have been watching the 4 hour series from history channel called Third Reich- the Rise, and Third Reich, the Fall. There are lots of home movies, street scenes, etc. Germans in the interwar period are well fed, but the degree of extreme obesity that is seen in America today just isn't present. Another obvious thing is how physically well coordinated and active they are. At a festival mature adults are up dancing, and it is clear that they do a lot of this, as the couples are practiced and smooth and both men and women are very comfortable as dancers. Also, compared to today, everyone's posture is excellent-dancing, walking, riding on horseback. These people are clearly comfortable with movement.

OTOH here is something from 1869 which one might have thought would turn the tide towards low carb

I read this too. Who knows why people keep doing self defeating ineffective things. But we know that they do, and likely always will. I lot of it likely comes down to "Who do you want to believe-[authority], or your lying eyes?"

I just want to be sure that I am not counted in that crowd of dummkopfs.

Ha

 

[ERD50]

But just look at all the overweight and obese people around you -- if the low carb hypothesis is correct, then it has to win out eventually.

OTOH here is something from 1869 which one might have thought would turn the tide towards low carb.

I read this too. Who knows why people keep doing self defeating ineffective things. But we know that they do, and likely always will. I lot of it likely comes down to "Who do you want to believe-[authority], or your lying eyes?"

Ha

That old article, like much of what I read from the low carb fans, is not an indictment of carbs, it is an indictment of refined carbs (underline mine). I think it's fair to say that most dietitians do not support a diet high in refined carbs - so there is no tide to turn:

My former dietary table was bread and milk for breakfast, or a pint of tea with plenty of milk, sugar, and buttered toast; meat, beer, much bread (of which I was always very fond) and pastry for dinner, the meal of tea similar to that of breakfast, and generally a fruit tart or bread and milk for supper. I had little comfort and far less sound sleep.

I don't see any of the complex carbs in his former diet that many are recommending - whole grains, legumes, potatoes.

For me, this is like trying to prove that exercise is bad by giving an example of someone who overdid it and hurt themselves.

But just look at all the overweight and obese people around you -- if the low carb hypothesis is correct, then it has to win out eventually.

And if it's not correct? As haha points out, activity is certainly a factor, as is calories in.

-ERD50

 

[haha]

I don't see any of the complex carbs in his former diet that many are recommending - whole grains, legumes, potatoes.
-ERD50

#1, I am not an acolyte or true believer. I would quickly go back to eating refried beans and tacos if it seemed to work for my needs- which is keeping my blood sugar low and even, and my blood fats OK and my energy up and discomfort down. Don't mind the social benefits of being an older, lean man either.

Back to tacos would be way cheaper for one thing, plus more easily portable to places less blessed with cheap protein than the US is.

But I am not sure "complex carbs" are all that different from simple carbs, or that these terms are even very helpful. As it is used, "complex" seems to translate into "good". OTOH, if complex means oligosaccharides, a look at this chart will show that a lot of so-called complex carbs look the same to the body as their corresponding refined products-eg white bread vs whole meal bread. Really, all grain products are complex, whether the whitest of bread or the most granola infested hippy loaf. Milling takes away much of the protein covering, but it doesn't change the nature of the polysaccharides that make up the starch. Anyway, as soon as bread gets chewed up and mixed with saliva those polysaccharides start being cleaved into maltose- a disaccharide made up of two glucose molecules, one step from being as simple as a sugar can get. Table sugar, the white messenger of death to all right thinking people is no different- its just a disaccharide made of one glucose molecule and one fructose, although fructose and glucose are handled differently by the body. Still, a bite of an apple is a concentrated hit of fructose, and what nutritionist would warn us about apples?

Really, it all seems to be just nonsense. I suspect that "complex carbs" is just a good marketing phrase, that also fits well with the simple-minded understanding of dieticians and popular nutritionists. This newest fad is "resistant carbs". Who knows, I suspect there may be something to this, but it will take some self experimentation to find out. Meanwhile, its good marketing.

Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load

Ha

 

[RonBoyd]

Really, it all seems to be just nonsense. I suspect that "complex carbs" is just a good marketing phrase, that also fits well with the simple-minded understanding of dieticians and popular nutritionists. This newest fad is "resistant carbs". Who knows, I suspect there may be something to this, but it will take some self experimentation to find out. Meanwhile, its good marketing.[/COLOR]

Exactly. And I repeat:

"There are Essential Amino Acids and there are Essential Fatty Acids but there are no Essential Carbohydrates."

 

[Bestwifeever]

T-Al, didn't you say once that Mrs. T-Al's results with lo-carb weren't the same as yours? I wonder if the regimen is more effective for men.

 

[RonBoyd]

T-Al, didn't you say once that Mrs. T-Al's results with lo-carb weren't the same as yours? I wonder if the regimen is more effective for men.

Yikes! Some surprise that was... let me show you how many results Google returns:

low-carb +"men vs women" - Google Search

Anyway, everyone has a food or group of foods that stalls the weight loss process. It is just a matter of discovery. In my case, I have isolated Caffeine as one candidate. Diary products seems to affect a large number of people in that way... anecdotally women seem to represent more than men.

And, of course, there is always that plateau that all diets have in common... the one that only perserverance cures.

 

[Bestwifeever]

Yikes! Some surprise that was... let me show you how many results Google returns:

low-carb +"men vs women" - Google Search

Anyway, everyone has a food or group of foods that stalls the weight loss process. It is just a matter of discovery. In my case, I have isolated Caffeine as one candidate. Diary products seems to affect a large number of people in that way... anecdotally women seem to represent more than men.

And, of course, there is always that plateau that all diets have in common... the one that only perserverance cures.

And that's why I don't keep a diary

 

[haha]

Yikes! Some surprise that was... let me show you how many results Google returns:

low-carb +"men vs women" - Google Search

This search is a treasure trove of off the beaten path ideas and people. Young men can get geeky about anything it appears.

Check this out! Turns out that all this somehow explains why women in Mediterranean countries are so good looking.


Dusk in Autumn: Why French, Spanish, and Italian women now look even better than ours