*This article pissed so many people off that I may have burned some publishing bridges, so I am putting it here because hey, my blog and I can do what I want with it*
I remember a not to long ago I caught the movie remake of Born Yesterday with Melanie Griffin and Don Johnson on TV. If not aware the movie is a tale of a "dumb" girl trying to smarten herself up so that she can stand along side her shady loads of wealth businessman (John Goodman) of a boyfriend. Goodman has brought them to Washington with dreams of putting in his pocket even more wealth and hopefully not in just currency but in dirty politicians. This is to be fiction correct….
Don Johnson job is to tutor Griffin and one of her first assignments is to read Alexis DeTocqueville's "DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA". The purpose of Griffin reading the book is it is expressed that if you can get through the book and understand it then you have to be, by some men's judgment, an intelligent person.
What amuses me most about the movie is when she starts to read the book she chooses to discuss the book with a local Washington radio personality, if memory serves. Radio or not this women is a who's who, a highly vocal critique, a mind to be reckoned with by the eyes of most politicians on capital hill. Griffin expresses her reading of Tocque and asks her “what her favorite part was”? The woman tosses aside the question in this manner of 'what kind of simpleton are you?’ ‘To think it is the kind of book to have a favorite part’. Griffin shoots back with her favorite part and the women is left speechless and states that and I am paraphrasing here, that "no one has actually read Democracy In America, they just say they have".
So the end point here of course is the "dumb" girl accomplishes a literary feat of reading and understanding an American classic that those who should understand it don't. It also presents the fact that intelligence is really pretty relevant and in the eyes of the judger.
I bring this all up, my long intro about a flop of a mid 90's movie, because I feel that Good Calories, Bad Calories is one such book. At 460 pages plus100 pages of notes and a bibliography, this isn't a hard read persea but a long read. It is full of thought provoking material and opinions that stretch outside the norm. Am I saying it is a new American classic? Absolute not, not even close, not one bit but in a way yes, yes it is.
It shouldn't be a classic because it is a masterpiece of truth. It shouldn’t be a classic because it breaks some new ground and hits upon this world never before traveled. It shouldn't be a classic because it's the clever, exciting, or gripping!
It should be considered an American classic because just like most of Americans we can say it so wrong and do so much bad in such a short format. It is a classic example of just another guy with a one sided point of view, a cherry picker. Our society would not be what it is if not for the classic cherry picker.
Okay so I ruffled your feathers. Before I rip apart Taubes for what he did wrong, and there is a lot to pick apart, please allow me to point out what he did right. At the same time this is precisely why this book angers me so much because Taubes, by his own account, if he would have just read his own book, should have known better.
If the book was called “Good Studies, Bad Studies”, and Taube would have stuck to giving it to the government and companies for their complete unethical method of changing our society based on some very sketchy rulings and findings then I would be standing beside Taubes patting him on the back for a work well done. Not that it is anything new anyway, but certainly a great collection of material that shows how full of holes or research and guidelines in this country are.
This book was incredibly well written and easy to follow, especially considering the topics of information. If any of you have ever actually tried to read studies you know that they are a headache even for the smartest of individuals. Studies really are written like stereo instruction or much like I imagine the “Handbook for the Recently Deceased”. It is really a different language, a geek one. The average person, with a lot of effort, could understand but will unlikely take the time to do so.
To compile this information into a book for the average Joe to understand, to explain to them these technical things in this manner, he really did a top-notch job. He also didn't skimp on the references or notes. This man did not just draw up some opinions here, he dug and read and dug and read some more. There are 100 pages alone of just notes and references, which is why I really want to shake him and just say "Gary, you have been staring at this big boat for hours but still can’t tell me the color of it". Perhaps there will be a 2nd edition and those mistakes will be rectified as there is little to no reference on exercise physiology, and here in lies one of the big problems, the other of course is the witch hunt on carbohydrates. It was so close to being a masterpiece, but just in classic American form, he messes it all up. Again, an American classic.
(End Part 1)
11 comments:
Hi Leigh,
I am a nutrition science analyst. That's a label, not a job title.
I've been studying nutrition and nutritional issues for 30 years. In that amount of time, even a person "of average intelligence can cover a lot of territory.
There is one matter that "trained" health professionals rarely pay close attention to; the individualness of biochemical and physiological makeup. The fact is, the machinery of nutrient assimilation can vary all over the charts in terms how fast or slow or how completely nutrients are absorbed. Likewise, the relative size and hormonal output of the various organs that provide biochemicals that regulate body functions is highly variable. These are important considerations when it comes to predicting who has the capacity to use exercise to control weight and who doesn't.
Which brings me to your comment about exercise physiology. Is there some major disagreement in the field of exercise physiology that has a bearing on the problem of weight regulation? Have scientists and public health authorities been misinforming the public as to the benefits of exercise? I don't think so. We all agree that exercise is beneficial. What we can't seem to agree on is the question of what level of exercise is optimal for any given individual.
Gary Taubes' book is not about exercise, it's about dietary recommendations. Specifically, the recommendation to lower fat (especially saturated fat) intake to lose weight and prevent heart disease.
I took a peek at your June 11, 2007
"The Easiest Nutrition Guidelines Ever" recommendations. I note that you recommend the low-saturated fat approach. Why? Because you haven't investigated the diet-heart hypothesis and you've not found out all there is to know about fat metabolism. So how about doing a little more research? I suggest "Nutrition Against Disease" by Roger J. Williams, PhD and another book by the same author entitled "Biochemical Individuality." In "Nutrition Against Disease" do read the notes in the back as there is some important discussion of fat and carbohydrate metabolism.
In this parting comment I just want to say I think it is unfair to characterize "Good Calories, Bad Calories" as a "witch hunt on carbohydrates." The main thrust of the book concerns the misuse of science by government agencies, the research community, and the commercial sector. Many people base their food choices on what mainstream sources of nutrition instruction tell them. And many people have destroyed their health by swallowing the low-fat dogma.
David Brown
Nutrition Education Project
Hi David,
[QUOTE]I am a nutrition science analyst. That's a label, not a job title.[/QUOTE]
I am intrigued already given that you have completely made up a title for yourself to use in just these situations. Curious if the title actually stood for anything turns out you admit it doesn't AND you seem to spend all your time going around to blogs commenting only on Good Calories, Bad Calories. It to be honest is a tad creepy.
[QUOTE]Which brings me to your comment about exercise physiology. Is there some major disagreement in the field of exercise physiology that has a bearing on the problem of weight regulation? Have scientists and public health authorities been misinforming the public as to the benefits of exercise? I don't think so. We all agree that exercise is beneficial. What we can't seem to agree on is the question of what level of exercise is optimal for any given individual.[/QUOTE]
There is no set number. Some don't even need exercise. You obviously have little research into my views and work. I have clients that lose fat on diet alone and no exercise.
[QUOTE]Gary Taubes' book is not about exercise, it's about dietary recommendations. Specifically, the recommendation to lower fat (especially saturated fat) intake to lose weight and prevent heart disease.[/QUOTE]
It is about a lot more than that, I would be surprised to hear Taubes himself simplify his own material that way.
[QUOTE]I took a peek at your June 11, 2007
"The Easiest Nutrition Guidelines Ever" recommendations. I note that you recommend the low-saturated fat approach. Why? Because you haven't investigated the diet-heart hypothesis and you've not found out all there is to know about fat metabolism.[/QUOTE]
If you followed any of my writings for a long stretch you would know I am not against Saturated Fat, I am one of the few who probably says "little sat fat is good for ya". That being said I am just merely a fan of a balance of all fats. I have actually released two writings (one report, one article) on the importance of the balance of fats and yes saturated fats included. So before you start listing out reading material for me, get your notes straight. I have never said saturated fats should be taken out of a diet, I merely promote balance of poly/mono and think that there are better fat choices, difference. It is much like say yeah lettuce isn't bad for you but its just water really, eat spinach instead.
[QUOTE]In this parting comment I just want to say I think it is unfair to characterize "Good Calories, Bad Calories" as a "witch hunt on carbohydrates." The main thrust of the book concerns the misuse of science by government agencies, the research community, and the commercial sector. Many people base their food choices on what mainstream sources of nutrition instruction tell them. And many people have destroyed their health by swallowing the low-fat dogma.[/QUOTE]
How can you not see this as a witch hunt on carbs?
-He states carbs are addictive and we are addicts of them.
-That it is carbs, not calories, that cause us to gain fat.
-That carbs and HFCS are to blame to obesity.
-Oh and he finally lost 20 pounds in 6 weeks going low carb, because after all we know that all weight lost on low carb is fat and as Taubes himself says "you literally need carbohydrates to store excess fat.".
Some of his statements about hormones function are not only paranoid, they are just wrong.
Stay Tuned David, you will have more to get up in arms about.
P.S.
Upon further investigation I am beyond creeped out...
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/18/science-and-carbs-a.html
http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/11/25/the-most-amazing-sentence-in-good-calories-bad-calories/
http://blog.kir.com/archives/2007/10/kolata_on_good.asp
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-the-new-york-times-diet-and-fat.html
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/10/fatty-food-is-h.html
http://www.eatingliberally.org/story__let_s_ask_marion_is_the_evidence_against_fat_thin_oct_10_2007_id708
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/02/25/a-fat-vegetarian/
http://www.burningthescale.com/gary-taubes-on-larry-king-live/
http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/obesity-news-epidemic.html
http://www.upi.com/Consumer_Health_Daily/Reports/2007/01/26/eat_to_live_meet_trans_fats_replacement/5489/
This isn't even half of them.
I am curious as to your motives to post on these blogs. Regardless post away, I look forward to hearing from the good calories, bad calories serial blogger, what do you have a feed or something?
Hi Again,
Sorry I "creeped" you out. Did you actually read those comments of mine published on the web pages you listed? If so, you likely know that I am a carpenter by trade and that I began studying nutrition in 1977 after sustaining a back injury. After about five years of casual study, I realized that saturated fat was being blamed for heart disease.
Having read Yudkin, Price, Cleave, Williams, Huggins, and a raft of other authors who concluded that excessive sugar consumption was the major factor contributing to clogged arteries, I began to wonder why the nutrition science establishment kept pushing the diet-heart hypothesis. Since the early 1980's I've collected hundreds of newspaper articles demonizing fat in general and saturated fats in particular. I also have a few articles about sugar but none of them link sugar intake to heart disease.
In the course of my investigations I also bought (for $47) a copy of Ancel Keys' "Seven Countries Report". It is extremely boring reading but the conclusions at the end are worth examining. He arbitrarily dismissed sugar as a factor in heart disease without any consideration of the experimental evidence accumulated by the very few researchers able to procure funds to study the effects of sugar intake.
One reason why I recommend "Diet Against Disease" is that the notes at the end of the book contain some interesting observations about variability of response to sugar intake. For example, "...Kuo and colleagues found that the fat tissue of normal subjects converted much of the carbohydrate precursors into water soluble moieties of the lipid molecule, particularly phospholipids, while the tissue of hyperlipidemic subjects incorporated major parts of the precursors into fatty acids. Also, the lipolytic or triglyceride breakdown was greatly accelerated from as much as sixteen to forty-five times higher in the adipose tissues of hyperlipidemic fasting patients."
Sixteen to forty-five times is quite a variation. Obviously, sensitivity to sugar intake can vary greatly from one individual to the next. Here's another observation:
"In their study of eight 'hyperlipidemic' patients, Kuo and colleagues found that dietary sugar (sucrose) administered to patients causes blood fats to increase, while starch tends to lower them. They found that individuals who had low blood fat levels were relatively resistant to the effects of sugar, and that 85 to 90 percent of the total calorie intake in sugar was required to produce hyperglyceridemia."
That's interesting. Apparently some people possess the sort of biochemical machinery that enables them to process large amounts of sugar without noticeable harm.
But enough about sugar. I find it disturbing that a conflict exists between low-carb enthusiasts and the high-carb fitness crowd and between vegetarians and omnivores. Perhaps this is because people who have not thoroughly explored the literature tend to generalize from personal experience. As noted above, a substantial percentage of humanity can metabolically handle a high-carb/low-fat diet without any apparent difficulty; at least over the short term. And some of them have real issues with high-fat intake. Then there the low-carb enthusiasts who followed the low-fat approach for many years with disastrous results. Some of them are really mad at the mainstream health science establishment for telling everyone that a high-fat diet is deadly. My sentiment is, everyone needs to figure out what works for his peculiar metabolism.
At the end of the day, though, the important thing is to consume high quality food of whatever sort suits ones metabolism. High intake of either separated fats or refined sugars will do somewhat the same thing in terms of the depletion of biochemicals stored in the body tissues. But the effects of sugar and refined carbohydrates (and in the case of sensitive individuals, unrefined carbohydrates) on insulin levels is an important consideration for people who are "not" overeating and who find it difficult to control their weight on standard dietary fare.
As to my motive for leaving comments on various blogs and websites on the inter net, I'm just trying to encourage people to acquire information about genetic variability and fat metabolism. I feel these two matters are extremely important.
And I do have a Google Alert out for "Good Calories, Bad Calories" because I'm intensely interested in how mainstream science is going to react to the book. I've been waiting for 25 years for the public health sector to get its act together and issue some strong warnings regarding sugar intake.
If you care to find out what others are saying in favor of saturated fat, Google "saturated fat benefits" or "saturated fat truth."
As for carbohydrates being addictive, like alcohol and tobacco, carbs are only addictive for some and the strength of that addiction depends upon the nutritional status of the individual as well as the person's biochemical makeup.
As for caloric intake being related to weight gain and weight loss, try Googling "David Brown calorie excretion" or "David Brown unabsorbed calories."
Thanks for your comments.
Dave
I am not going to take up a lot of time with this because you again with all your research do not understand my personal angle. You keep going to blog after blog posting on this issue and saying the same things to the people you don't agree with and seem to think I lack research to back my opinions. Trust me, I do plenty.
[quote]Perhaps this is because people who have not thoroughly explored the literature tend to generalize from personal experience. [/quote]
Funny because this is exactly what Taubes and sorry most of the low carb community does. But will we get to that later in my article.
[quote]My sentiment is, everyone needs to figure out what works for his peculiar metabolism.[/quote]
Peculiar? No, the average person just need to more more and not eat so damn much, pretty simple. Everyone wants to complicate things. Just stop filling you mouth with sodas (sugars!!!) and Hot dogs (fats!!! OMG) and maybe you wont be so large and get so sick ya think?
[quote]As for caloric intake being related to weight gain and weight loss, try Googling "David Brown calorie excretion" or "David Brown unabsorbed calories."[/quote]
It is nice to know there is a expert source out there such as yourself who can defy the laws of physics.
It is as simple as this....
IF you have a normal body function, which the average person does but hey everyone wants to be special, then if you eat more (than you need, YOU PERSONALLY NEED) you gain weight if you eat less you lose weight.
Hi Leigh,
In my opening remark in my original comment I thought I made it clear that I am a nutrition science analyst. It's a label, not a title. I don't quite understand why you said that I "completely made up a TITLE" for myself. It's a label like musician or artist or environmental activist. I use it when I write to politicians, educators, journalists, scientists, and science writers. It's merely descriptive of what I do.
When I write or converse with people, I don't try to persuade them to agree with me. I simply share information that has helped me better understand how the real world works.
We all make decisions as to what to eat based on what's available to eat, what we prefer to eat, what we think is safe to eat, and what we think is beneficial to eat.
As for what is safe and beneficial, it's somewhat of a guessing game even when one is familiar with a lot of research. For example, about 12 years ago, when I was in my late 40s, I developed a leg ulcer. Nutrition textbooks of that era suggested that, based on animal experiments, it was impossible for humans to become vitamin E deficient. I believed that fallacy and suffered unnecessarily for 4 months while trying treatments prescribed by my family doctor and a naturopathic physician. I also tried remedies suggested by friends and relatives. Nothing worked. Finally, I took a few days off work to alternately soak and elevate my leg. Some months earlier, Canadian friends had given me a book entitled "Vitamin E, Health Preserver by Wilfred Shute, MD. Prejudiced by the nutrition textbooks and busy with other matters, I ignored the book until, with time on my hands, it caught my eye and I decided to read it.
Dr. Shute detailed how he had used vitamin E to treat congestive heart failure, diabetic gangrene, phlebitis, and leg ulcers. I tried the vitamin E both orally and topically and it worked just as described in the book. Within hours the pain subsided and the wound began to fill in with granulated tissue.
I later figured out that consumption of salad dressing made from cold pressed soy oil was the likely a major contributing factor to the problem.
My point is, after 18 years of studying the popular nutrition literature, scientific papers, and even nutrition text books, I found myself suffering from a condition that could have been avoided had I studied fat metabolism thoroughly. I was blissfully unaware of how damaging the omega-6 vegetable oils can be to one's metabolism. The thing I find really disturbing is that those same oils are still being touted as heart healthy. They are not. They are toxic. I'd have known this if I'd read Mary Enig's books or Ray Peats essays.
In saying all this I'm simply suggesting that there are more important matters to address than the question of which diet is best for everybody or whether low-carb or low-fat is more effective for weight control.
As for biochemical differences not being that important, here is what the research is showing these days:
"Lead researcher James M. Ntambi, PhD, Katherine Berns Von Donk Steenbock Professor of Biochemistry and Nutritional Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and his team of researchers have discovered a specific gene in the liver known as SCD-1, short for stearoyl-Coenzyme A desaturase 1.
It turns out this SCD-1 gene may be the culprit in why some people who eat a high-carb diet keep gaining and gaining weight while others who consume the same diet don't. Apparently, this gene actually causes dietary carbs to be turned into stored body fat rather than being broken down for energy. Conversely, mice that did not have SCD-1 in their liver were able to use the carbohydrates instead of having it turn to fat.
Dr. Ntambi even fed a starchy, sugary diet to mice without SCD-1 in their liver and the excessive carbohydrates were used up and not stored. In other words, the carbs were not a contributing factor to any weight gain in the mice without SCD-1. But normal functioning livers in the control mice with the presence of SCD-1 saw just the opposite happen--the high-carb diet they consumed quickly poured on body fat by eating the exact same food."
This recent research confirms what Kuo and colleagues learned nearly 40 years ago about individual responses to carbs.
I never suggested that you don't have research to back your opinions. What I suggest is that if the research you refer to is mainly epidemiological, the quality of that research may leave something to be desired.
In closing, I have a suggestion. When disagreements exist, its helpful if the parties supply each other with information undergirding their opinions. Can you recommend a specific researcher whom you greatly admire and respect who has influenced your thinking?
Dave
hilarious.....
that was good times reading this :)
what's a nutrition science analyst...how did you get that label?
best nutritional advice I ever heard was a simple, "If man made it, don't eat it"
is that too simple of a post for this talk????
later :)
Hi Dan,
How did I get the "nutrition science analyst" label? Well, indirectly I got the idea for the label from reading the essays of 19th century political philosopher John Stuart Mill. Here are a few paragraphs from "On the Liberty of Thought and Discussion" that have guided me in my quest for understanding of how the real world works:
"There must be discussion to show how experience is to be interpreted. Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument; but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it.
Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning. The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment, depending on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong, reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand.
In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that can be said against him, to profit by as much of it as was just, and to expound to himself and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion and by studying all modes in which in can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of the human intellect to become wise in any other manner.
The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it; for being cognizant of all that can at least obviously be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers - knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties instead of avoiding them and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter - he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or multitude, who have not gone through a similar process."
Hope you liked that, Dan.
I like your policy of not eating manmade foods. But does that include yogurt, cheese, butter, and bread?
Dave
To whom it may concern:
All I know is that I got sick and overweight with low-fat diets (even tried being a vegetarian for 3 years) and I felt awful and had no energy through the process. Controlling my carbs and cutting out sugar helped me overcome anemia and Crohns Disease. That is an autoimmune chronic disease and I have not had any symptoms for over 5 years and I no longer have to take any medications. I just think Taubes' book needs to be out there for people like me who need a different solution and can't understand why our doctors can't find one. I also have a degree in molecular biology, and I have been studying diet and nutrition since I was diagnosed with Crohn's disease over a decade ago. I believe when you don't find solutions to your problem, you have to keep looking. As much as the medical community would like to generalize all of us, we are not all built the same. I think this book provides a balance of information. I don't think we will be able to combat chronic disease as long as we remain absolutist about any particular diet. Let the debate continue...
Respectfully,
Sara R
Hi. Like Sara R, I was overweight and felt like crap on high-carb, low-fat diets. Going low-carb back in 1997 (thank you Dr Atkins!) was the best thing that I ever did in terms of losing body-fat and lowering high serum triglycerides.
I've spent the last 11 years studying diet, nutrition & human metabolism and guess what peeps? CALORIES DO COUNT.
What's fascinating is how variable people can be. Many people have good appetite control on high-carb, low-fat diets. I sadly am not one of those people. I over-eat on high-carb diets probably due to roller-coaster blood glucose level.
As Joe & Josephine public eat according to their appetites (which are controlled by a myriad of factors), any diet that reduces appetite will result in weight loss. For people (like me) who are about as active as a Brazilian 2-toed Sloth, carb restriction makes perfect sense as their bodies (like mine) aren't burning much carbs.
Anyway, I've rambled on for quite long enough. Keep up the good work, Leigh.
Cheers, Nige.
P.S. I found your blog via Lyle's site.
For an overall informative review of various pills used by people across the world to treat anxiety, erectile dysfunction, depression as well as to facilitate weight loss, just log in to the website http://www.pill-care.com. An entry to the pill-care zone would acquaint you with the manifold advantages of FDA approved pills for treating anxiety, erectile dysfunction et al and altogether this website would provide you details on how to opt for those pills as well as the correct procedure of administering these pills to your system.
Post a Comment