The Holes
Gary’s biggest mistake is not understanding the ability of human error in measurement of calorie consumption. All it takes is 100 extra calories a day to gain 10lbs in 1 year. That is it. Introduce me to 10 people you know that weigh and measure their food (not in measuring cups either because that is largely flawed). You can’t give me 10, even if you are largely involved in fitness and health, you can’t give me 10 who weigh and measure their food. Now Gary says “Lean people will often insist that the secret to their success is eating in moderation, but many fat people insist that they eat no more than the lean-surprising as it seems, the evidence backs this up-and yet are fat nonetheless.”
I call bull. And here is why.
The Genetically Gifted
I have talked about this before and I have gone on and on in the new edition of the Troubleshoot about it. You often hear people talk about, and even myself in the past, about the genetically gifted. Let me explain briefly who that is and why chances are if you are reading this that you are not one of them.
Who we dub “gifted” is the guy with the six-pack abs who just chugged down loads of beer after killing off a 16’ inch pizza. The girl who can eat a burger and fry combo and never gain a pound of fat and has a perky bum. They don’t kill them selves in the gym, yet they are cut and lean and have a general good bit of strength. The men have healthy testosterone levels and a statue like look and the women are bouncing with estrogen features and good beauty. They are the people you hate, they are the gifted.
The reason you hate them may not be the area you think.
They don’t have fast metabolisms, they don’t burn fat faster, this isn’t about being a mesmomorph or about having a hot mommy and daddy…well that could help actually but the point is that it isn’t about how they break down what they eat so much as understanding the fuel they need. The genetically gifted merely understand one thing by INSTINCT that you do not. They understand naturally when they are in a positive or negative energy state and they eat/feed accordingly.
That’s it.
That is what it means to be genetically gifted. You simply understand the energy needs of your body naturally without having to test out activity level, exercise, caloric timing, carb sensitivity, all that crap that the average person doesn’t need to know about. All they really need to know, all you really need to know or do is listen to your body.
Can this function of “hearing” what your body needs be disrupted by a faulty communications system. Yes, it can very much. Can fast acting refined sugars give you a false sense of alarm in this feed system and throw of your internal sensors if you are genetically predisposed to not listening well to your body? Yes. This is where Taubes gets it right, but again he is missing the bigger picture. The problem of fat gain is still excess energy, period. It does not matter what is wrong with your system, it does not matter how bad your system functions, it is still excess energy that is the blame.
Let me explain further.
Let us say that your body should by all accounts need 2000 calories a day to stay the weight you are. That is SHOULD by all accounts because of height, weight, age, etc burn 2000 calories a day. You take some online quiz and it tells you that yes, 2000 calories a day is your limit. Well what if it is really 1800 calories a day you are burning? That is a 20lb gain in 1 year if you ate at 2000 calories a day. Are you getting the picture yet Taubes? It is not as complicated as some study in the deep reaches of Africa may suggest.
Now what slows metabolic rates? This is a whole other story, this is where all the fun stuff comes in from hormone dysfunction to thyroid problems and more. IF and let me state that most don’t, but IF you have a problem then your energy expenditure and burning system is off and your energy level is very low. This could mean that you think 2000 calories is your burn level but in reality it is 800 calories, now this is a extreme, extreme case but if so then that is a gain of 125lbs in 1 year if you consume that 2000 calories a day. So if you have a metabolic dysfunction then yes you can eat the same amount as that of a lean person but still gain weight. How often does someone ACTUALLY have one of these metabolic dysfunctions? It is very rare.
The True Killer of Fat Loss
I make the big bucks not because I am some all amazing guru, not because I understand how a carbohydrate breaks down in the body, not because I understand leptin and hormone production, but because I convince people to go to their local Target and pick up a digital food scale and finally take into account and get hit in the face with how much they eat in a day. That my friends is how come I make the big bucks, that is why I have earned the title of “There is no one I can’t get to lose fat”. I hold people accountable for what it is they put in their mouth.
I want you to take a look at the video below for a rude awakening of the difference that it makes to just measure your food by digital scale.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVjWPclrWVY
So you can see that it is the high starch, full fat items and your personal denial that bring about the worse miss-measure of your caloric intake. Just that being off, if taken into account over a year, is 34lbs of finger pointing fat gain.
Why Protein is Never the Victim of a Lynch Mob
The reason protein is never the victim of a witch hunt style attack is very simple. If you are choosing lean proteins like chicken, turkey, or egg whites how much can you really mess it up? If you are off by a few grams with protein its nothing, its chump changes in calories. Same thing goes for something like broccoli or spinach. These are very low calorically dense foods, any smart health professional knows that by putting you on a high protein/high veg diet just up their chance of getting you to succeed in your fat loss journey, not because of magical thermic processes and not because carbs are the ultimate of evil. It is because it’s hard for you to mess it up! As a society we lack really basic common sense.
I have reason to believe that Taubes is smart enough to know better and it is this reason alone why I get angry at this book because no matter how you slice it (no carb pun intended) fat loss success always rests in the land of energy in and out. You may not like your in and out, your in and out may have a dysfunction, but that is how the carb finger pointing crumbles my friends.
Let us also not ignore the fact that eating low carb or keto for a long-term basis can do real damage to that hormone and information system that you need to start listening too. It is safe to say that while Taubes and many of his followers and believers want to crucify the use of carbohydrates they do not make clear that extremes on both ends are bad. This is likely to cause worse problems for those who bodies will force them back to eating carbs but now due to absence will have poor enzyme and hormone production. THUMBS UP for that one!
Hunger And Exercise
One of the funniest aspects of the book is Taubes take on exercise and his observation with the fact that exercise increases hunger. Well…um yeah your point being? Exercise is going to increase your caloric deficit, meaning it is going to start you on the track towards burning your stored fuel sources. This is without a doubt going to cause you to be hungry. What you do with that hunger is up to you. If you are in need of losing fat then you decide if you are going to feed that hunger or not. This is will power, simple as that. Perhaps you are ungifted into having a lot of it or you are just apathetic and really don’t want to change, that isn’t my concern and again not relevant to the science of fat loss.
You don’t eat, you get hungry. You exercise, you get hungry. You don’t hydrate yourself enough and it send signals of thirst that are confused for hunger signals. See most of the time you are reading thirsty as hungry. Again you just aren’t gifted enough to know how to read your body. At a point you will (if the body is functioning correctly) start to send out peptide signals that silence the hunger pangs. It is much like those who try to quit smoking, you have to hold out on the 10-15 min stabs of cravings and then you will be fine. Again this is your choice, your fate, it is in your hands. Eating oatmeal or a rice krispy treat isn’t going to do much to change this either way.
The Final Conclusion: Good Taubes, Bad Taubes
• If you are looking for a resource to try and help prove that you are the 1%, then this book is for you!
• If you are looking for a resource to help back up why the government has it all wrong and not shockingly is trying to manipulate you, the general public, then this book is for you!
• If you are looking to learn endless study story after study story about why the “nutritional pyramid” is on crack, then this book is for you!
• If you are looking for another source to blame something other than yourself for why you aren’t losing fat, then this book is for you!
• Finally, if you are looking to have a ride on the hate the carb train even though time and again study after study has shown that diet on high carbs can cause you to lose weight if in a caloric deficit but still carbs are evil then you have found your literal best friend!
Sorry folks, the simple truth is and will always be this…
Excess calories cause fat gain.
I may even hit at a Part 3, 4 and even more. For now this is as simple as it gets and as complicated as it should get.
8 comments:
A couple years ago I posted information about calorie excretion on a forum called "Calories per hour." For what it's worth, here's one of the threads:
Posted: 23 May 2005 04:58 pm
Most weight control experts teach that reducing caloric intake and increasing caloric expenditure through exercise are absolutely necessary to achieve and sustain weight loss. Many dieters have been successful with this approach but does it work for everybody? Not really. Why? Well, some people are not genotrophically equipped to thrive on a low-fat/low-calorie diet no matter how much exercise they get. (The genotrophic concept, by the way, simply refers to the fact that each of us is biochemically and physiologically unique and that this uniqueness is determined by genes.)
A number of books have been published over the years suggesting that adding calories (especially fat calories) to the diet can produce weight loss. The first I'm aware of is "Calories Don't Count" by Herman Taller, MD. It caused quite a stir as reported by Ruth Adams in her 1972 book "Did You Ever See A Fat Squirrel?" In Chapter 7 subtitled "Calories Do Count or one foot is a lot different than ten feet" she reports, "The case of 'Calories Don't Count' reached the halls of Congress in the fiery address of one knowledgable congressman who called the FDA's attack on the book 'Trial by press release.' A lot of unfair and inaccurate things were said about Dr. Taller and his book in the decade following its publication. The government seized his books and safflower oil capsules displayed nearby from health food stores calling the capsules 'drugs' and the book 'labeling' of these drugs."
While Dr. Taller's book contained a few inaccuracies and despite it's apparent contradiction, his approach, which recommended a daily intake of 3935 calories (more or less) as calculated by Ruth Adams, did work for a lot of people. But on to the next book.
Published two decades later, Why "Calories Don't Count" by biochemist Paul Stitt, MS did not attract any attention, probably because Robert Atkins was taking so much heat at the time. Poorly edited and clumsily written, the book actually contains a reference to research documenting unabsorbed calories.
Another book entitled "How to Lower Your Fat Thermostat" by Remington, Fisher, and Parent describes force feeding experiments where subjects were unable to gain more than small amounts of weight despite huge amounts of extra eating. Most subjects quickly returned to their pre-study weight after a return to normal caloric intake. There's also some interesting discussion describing how food denial (caloric restriction) can increase the surface area of the gut which increases efficiency of calorie absorption. They noted, "Rats eating only one meal a day have a markedly increased rate of food digestion and absorption. Many obese people also seem to digest food more quickly, perhaps because of dietary efforts and periods of food denial."
Fast forwarding to the present, "Prevention" magazine recently released a 52-page booklet advertising "The Doctors Book of Food Remedies." I'm ordering a copy to see if the book contains any references to research that documents what the advertiser asserts; namely that some fats, calories, and cholesterol do not get absorbed but are excreted when certain fiber-containing foods are eaten with every meal. Here are a few pages of that advertisement:
Fat-Blocker foods!
Foods that fill you up...block absorption of calories & fat...and make it easy to shed 10, 20, 30 pounds, or more.
Page 9 - Imagine being able to shed all the pounds and inches you want, NOT by starving yourself, but by actually eating MORE of certain types of food?
Oh, how satisfying that would be! But it couldn't possibly be true, could it? Doctors are responding with a resounding YES! Here's the story...
Medical researchers have identified dozens of delicious foods bursting with this amazing combination of benefits - they're not only scrumptious, but they also block the absorption of fat and calories in the other foods you eat!
What's more, the same foods leave you feeling full - totally satisfied - for much longer periods of time, so you automatically eat less during the day. In other words, these delicious foods give you an enormous DOUBLE advantage in your efforts to lose weight. First, you automatically eat less because you feel full and satisfied longer. And then, (Page 10) when you do eat, you absorb far fewer fat and calories! (Their mistake, not mine.)
That's why these "fat-blocker foods" are a dieter's dream-come-true. And in The Doctors Book of Food Remedies, you're going to learn all about them, and how to use them to lose more weight than you've ever thought possible.
The Greatest Weight-Loss Secret of All-Time ?
The secret behind Mother Nature's incredible fat-blocker foods can be summed up in a single word - fiber.
But not just any fiber. In recent years, researchers have discovered that foods rich in a certain type of fiber have an almost magical power to trap fat and calories as they pass through your system...block their absorption...and carry these unwanted fats and calories right out of your system before they have a chance to pack their weight on your thighs, hips, rear, or belly.
But only one type of fiber does this, and on pages 201-203 of The Doctors Book of Food Remedies, you're going to discover the many foods that are richest in it. Thank goodness, there are dozens of these fat-blocker foods to choose from, so you'll easily find a host of favorites to enjoy for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks, as you watch pound after pound melt away so easily.
Blocks Out the Fat in Your Steak...So You Don't Absorb It!
Just how easily does it work? Let's look at an example...
A big reason we gain weight - and find losing it so hard - is because of the fat in our diets. Fat makes you fat! When you eat a steak, for example, molecules of fat and cholesterol pass through your intestinal wall and into your bloodstream...and eventually get deposited as fat someplace in your body where you least want it.
Page 12 - But before that can happen, the special fiber in these fat-blocker foods prevents you from absorbing these fats and calories in the first place. When you eat these foods, their special fiber dissolves in your digestive tract, forming a sticky gel that acts like a protective coating, preventing fat and cholesterol from getting through your intestinal wall.
Remember the example of the steak? If you accompanied it with a heaping serving of one of these fat-blocker foods, its special fiber would turn into gel, trapping molecules of fat and cholesterol and preventing them from getting into your body. And because this fiber itself isn't absorbed, it passes out of your body, taking the fat and cholesterol with it!
You'll get complete details of this wonderful form of fiber on page 201 of The Doctors Book of Food Remedies. Then on page 202, you'll see all the foods richest in this near-miraculous ability. This information is worth its weight in gold because it makes losing weight so much easier than you've ever experienced!
Now you can lose by eating, not starving! There are no pills to take, no unhealthy fad diets to follow, and, best of all, no starvation! Losing weight was never so easy!
What's more, these fiber-rich fat-blocker foods bring you many other benefits, as well. They keep you as regular as a Swiss watch. They lower your cholesterol, and cut your risk of heart disease in half. They can also reduce your risk of cancer by 31% because they sweep food particles out of your colon faster and keep your insides cleaner. This is why some doctors call fiber "Mother Nature's broom."
In another section starting on page 32 and titled Cut Your Risk of Heart Attack by 80 % or more, there's further mention of unabsorbed fat and cholesterol. For example, on page 33 under the heading Traps Cholesterol in Your Body Like Velcro and Flushes It Away Harmlessly one reads, "Take Pears for example. They contain an all-natural compound called lignin, which is Mother Nature's most ingenious antidote to high cholesterol. Lignin acts just like nutritional Velcro, attaching itself to the cholesterol in your body, trapping it in your intestine, and ushering it right out of your system so you don't absorb it!"
Finally, on page 35 under the heading Your Internal Cholesterol-Busting "Police Force" one reads, "You'll get an entire list - plus lots of recipes - of the best cholesterol-busting foods you can eat. All share this incredible benefit: they're filled with a substance that forms a gummy gel in your digestive tract that mops up fat and cholesterol, dragging it straight out of your body before it gets deposited on your artery walls."
Well, don't you just love advertising copy? Considering the darth of information on the subject, one wonders where the author(s?) of Food Remedies got the idea that fiber can "sweep" fat, calories, and cholesterol out of the body. I look forward to finding out.
Dave Brown
Last edited on 2 June 2005 05:29 am by Dave Brown
flyawayana
Senior Member
Joined: 22 May 2005
Location: Michigan USA
Posts: 62
Posted: 23 May 2005 05:45 pm
Quote Reply
oh my god, thats really long. haha.
now to the point - i personally think its hiarious how they keep refering to this "special fiber" .. its just insoluble fiber! thats all! nothing special about that. haha.
this isnt some kind of breakthrough diet at all - its been know that increased fiber intake lowers cholesterol, lowers risk for heart disease, clears out the system, lowers colon cancer risk. thats old news. now, like any other diet people create - they are trying to take a peice of information and make millions from people who fall for their diet plan. of course people will see some results - people in american get maybe 10g of fiber a day ...... of the needed 25-30g. so of course poeple arent getting the beifits of what fiber does for you!.. they arent eating it to begin with! i would be willing to bet that this "special foods list" is simply a list of whole grains and vegitables. funny how those are the same foods you want to eat on a nornal "exsercise and eat healthy plan" its nothing special or new!
however, fiber does not sweep calories away. cholesterol yes, possible carsinogens in the digestive tract yes... but calories? sorry, your stuck with what you eat unless you burn it off as energy.
fly
peterinwa
New Member
Joined: 24 April 2005
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
Posts: 36
Posted: 23 May 2005 06:25 pm
Quote Reply
When I eat a diet rich in fiber I have more frequent and more regular bowel movements. Clean and easy and no constipation. I think the idea is that fiber simply moves food through your system faster and easier.
To carry it a step further, this might reduce the chance of cancer (doesn't food get rancid when you let it sit around?) and possibly even cause fewer calories to be absorbed.
Dave Brown
Senior Member
Joined: 26 April 2005
Location: Kalispell, Montana USA
Posts: 121
Posted: 24 May 2005 07:13 am
Quote Reply
Flyawayana, thanks for the response. It's nice to encounter someone with a longer-than-normal attention span.
I must confess, I'm into details and accuracy. It's actually soluble fiber that forms the gel in the intestine and "sweeps" the calories past the receptor sites before they can get absorbed into the bloodstream. Here's what Luis Guerra, MD says on page 27 of "The Bio-Diet." "Pectin is a soluble fiber found in fruits and some vegetables. Pectin has very important properties. It decreases the absorption of cholesterol, lowering blood cholesterol levels. It decreases the insulin-releasing action of carbohydrates, thus helping in appetite control."
In other words, pectin slows the absorption of carbs and likely completely blocks some carbs from getting absorbed. This would be a mechanical effect in the sense that the pectin keeps molecules of all sorts from touching the intestinal wall. If you view the digestive tract as similar to a river, the bloodstream like a system of irrigation ditches, and the receptor sites as passive gates and pumps, then what do you think happens to nutrients in midstream that did not make contact with receptor sites by the time they reached the colon?
Here are more of Dr. Guerra's observations: "Pectin has the highest water-holding capacity. Bran has high water-holding capacity and leaves the intestines without being digested, but it can produce diarrhea...the most important property of pectin is that it saves calories because it decreases the absorption of fat. The amount of fat lost in the stools when ingesting pectin ranges from 2 to 43 percent..."
Unfortunately Dr.Guerra does not provide documentation for what he asserts, but do not despair. On page 183 of What the Bible Says About Healthy Living by Rex Russell, MD there is some actual documentation for the following: "In 1970, Dr. Dennis Burkett's study at a military base in Africa confirmed the benefits of high-fiber foods such as fruits and vegetables. Native prisoners were compared to a group of soldiers. The natives who were studied ate vegetables, grains and breads they had grown (can one grow breads?). The military personnel ate processed sugars, white bread, and other refined foods. Both groups ate the same number of calories a day. Fecal material from each of the participants was collected for several days. The caloric content of the fecal material of the military personnel contained 20 percent of the ingested calories. In contrast, the feces of the natives contained 60 percent of the caloric content of what they had eaten."
Now you say, "Fiber does not sweep calories away. Cholesterol yes, possible carcinogens in the digestive tract yes... but calories? Sorry, you're stuck with what you eat unless you burn it off as energy."
Do you have any evidence to back that assertion or is your belief based on consensus of opinion or the authority of mainstream nutrition science? I've got more evidence but not time to present it at this point.
Again, thanks for your response. I like to find out what people are thinking.
Dave Brown
Spaz Cadet
New Member
Joined: 29 April 2005
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 6
Posted: 1 June 2005 09:03 am
Quote Reply
Well, I've never heard of any of this being backed up by science ... but ...
I had a roomate in college who swore that drinking a lot of water each day helped "sweep" fat through the system so it didn't have a chance to get absorbed. No special fiber needed. She was a hard-core athlete who was on top of all the nutrition research and everything.
On a completely mechanical level, I can dig it. But it seemed too good to be true, and possibly best applied with a diet already fairly low in fat to begin with — I certainly wouldn't expect to flush the fat of a serving of fries with a couple of apple skins and glasses of water! :chew:
As for particular foods containing particular chemicals, I'm going to second flyawayana's remarks that just getting people to eat fibrous plants will cause a certain amount of physical improvement.
Besides, how would a scientist measure the amount of fat "excreted" along with the pectin and lignin? I'm not envisioning an easy method of collecting samples, here.
Flowergirl
New Member
Joined: 1 June 2005
Location:
Posts: 1
Posted: 1 June 2005 06:32 pm
Quote Reply
So, what are examples of fiber rich (insoluble fiber) foods that will "sweep out" the fat from our bodies??
what about pectin, what are examples off foods that have pectin in them??
Dave Brown
Senior Member
Joined: 26 April 2005
Location: Kalispell, Montana USA
Posts: 121
Posted: 2 June 2005 09:48 am
Quote Reply
For Flowergirl,
Regarding your first question, it's soluble fiber that causes fat and other calories to pass through the digestive tract without being absorbed. Insoluble fiber (also called roughage) speeds the passage of material through the digestive tract. Soluble fiber forms a gel which tends to slow passage of food.
Pectin is a soluble fiber in apples and other fruits. The rind of citrus fruits is about 30% pectin. Both soluble and insoluble fiber are in vegetables.
Soluble fiber has a water-holding capacity that decreases fat absorption. Vegetables such as celery, carrots, eggplant, green beans, asparagus, cauliflower, and tomatoes (a fruit actually) have a high water-holding capacity. Zuchinni, cucumber, lettuce, broccoli, summer squash, radish, cabbage, turnips, kale, beets, brussel sprouts (does anyone like the taste?), bean sprouts, and rutabaga have a lower water-holding capacity. I just eat whatever I like of both groups and don't worry about how much fat is being carried out of my system.
Since fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, & K are not well absorbed unless there's fat in the gut, it makes sense to consume fat whenever vegetables are consumed. I put lots of butter or melted cheese on cooked vegetables and use a dressing made from sour cream (1/2), yogurt (1/4), and cottage cheese (1/4); full fat version for all of these. This dressing is seasoned with onion and parsley flakes and Morton Nature's Seasons seasoning blend. We use it as both dip and salad dressing. If the saturated fat in dairy worries you, I suggest you type "The Oiling of America" into a search engine and inform yourself about fat metabolism.
Thanks for your questions,
Dave Brown
Last edited on 2 June 2005 09:54 am by Dave Brown
Dave Brown
Senior Member
Joined: 26 April 2005
Location: Kalispell, Montana USA
Posts: 121
Posted: 2 June 2005 04:36 pm
Quote Reply
Spaz Cadet wrote: Well, I've never heard of any of this being backed up by science ... but ...
Spaz Cadet,
You've never heard of any of this being backed up by science? That is precisely why I posted information about unabsorbed calories on this forum. It is all too common for scientists to close their minds to evidence and its implications. In fact, it seems to be part of human nature to base beliefs on consensus of opinion rather than evidence.
One of the guilty little secrets of science is that most scientists (and non-scientists for that matter) do not read any more than they have to to get by. Consequently, those who behave this way have no recourse but to choose up sides when a controversy arises. The current debate about low-fat/low-carb diets is a perfect example of this sort of thing. Having exhaustively examined both sides of the issue (I'm still studying this), I have to say that both sides ignore the fact that calories are excreted in the feces. Anybody who changes the diaper of a baby that has been fed corn or peas has witnessed this. Any farmer who raises pigs probably knows this because pigs often eat some of their own excrement.
My brother-in-law once told me about a pig feeding experiment he read about in a farm journal. He was in high school at the time so that would have been in the late 60s. Briefly, here's what he said.
Researchers fed three groups of pigs in the following manner. Group one ate a diet designed to cause weight gain. Group two ate the excrement from group one. Group three ate the excrement from group two. There was no difference in weight gain for groups one and two. Group three gained both fat and muscle but not as quickly as groups one and two.
As far as high-fat intake is concerned, pigs gain more fat on skim milk than they do on whole milk. My sister-in-law told me that their son exhibited a grand champion pig at the fair one year and that pig was fed whole milk. Another farmer who raises pigs told me that "Pigs become real butterballs on skim milk." Finally, you can visit westonapricefoundation.org website and read Sally Fallon's testimony before the 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee wherein she said that children put on fat faster drinking skim milk than they do drinking whole milk.
Dave Brown
Corina
Distinguished Member
Joined: 1 August 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan USA
Posts: 559
Posted: 22 August 2005 09:57 pm
Quote Reply
Dave,
I don't quite understand why children put on weight faster when drinking skim milk rather than whole milk. It seems to me that Skim milk has less calories and less fat, whereas whole milk has more.
Well, I guess I'll check out that site you mentioned. All of this stuff I've been reading in this post seems so confusing. Do I really need to add fat to my vegetables? Isn't just eating healthy and exercising enough?
-Corina
Last edited on 22 August 2005 09:59 pm by Corina
Dave Brown
Senior Member
Joined: 26 April 2005
Location: Kalispell, Montana USA
Posts: 121
Posted: 23 August 2005 05:06 pm
Quote Reply
Corina,
It is confusing, no doubt about that. That's why I've spent so many years researching nutritional issues and why I encourage others to explore alternative viewpoints. I just stumbled across a new website (new to me that is) called TheOmnivore.com that presents the case for eating a high-fat diet to ensure sound health.
Dave
Having read your so called "review",I must admit It doesn't sound to me like you even read the book. For if you had, you would have surely read that his purpose was to provide a historical perspective on, and an alternative hypothesis to, the low fat diet heart hypothesis. Your diatribe offers no refutation of the science he uses to support his hypothesis, and the issues you raise are akin to complaining that a baseball pitcher doesn't throw enough touchdowns.
Did you guys drink the kool aid?
How bout this, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH FAT. If the book had been just about that and the history, would have had no problems. But Taube had to mess it up by turning it in to a "how I lost my last 20 pounds" publicity stunt and sell books based on low carb propagandas and blaming obesity on sugars, not the calories that make them up.
So Mr. Dill, had he just stuck to those issues then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, if he hadn't of gone on Larry King and given all the low carber out there a new idol of worship I wouldn't be having a issue.
Ms. Peele,
Upon reading your response, I must say that I again fail to understand your complaint as it relates to the book. It sounds to me like you are upset with the marketing, or his comments during a personal appearance. I do not watch Larry King, nor do I care enough about him to watch a video of episode you mentioned. My sole criteria for evaluating the book, is the book itself, having read it in its entirety, Taubes wrote exactly what he said he was going to. He also didn't write what he said he wasn't going to. It was not intended to be a "fair and balanced" look at all possible explanations, nor an exhaustive review of all the research related to obesity. If you had read the introduction, that much at least should be apparent. Your ad hominem attacks on Taubes add little to the discussion. Given the wide variation of responsiveness to various dietary treatments, the calorie is a calorie mantra tends to hold true in averaged results, not individual results. People with varying degrees of insulin resistance will respond quite differently to varied levels of carbohydrate intake, with the most insulin resistant responding more favorably to increased restriction of carbohydrate. Some of the recent work by Volek, as well as on going research at Duke, Johns Hopkins, and UPenn, confirm this. For some reason, you, like many other folks, equate low carb diets with ketogenic diets. While ketogenic diets are low carb diets, not all low carb diets are ketogenic. Low carb diets are currently being defined as containing less than 45% of calories from carbs. So a typical maintenance diet of 2400 calories with 240g carb is low carb, imagine that.
K fed-
1) I am aware of the differences in what is considered to be high, mod, and low carb. Taubes in print and in marketing has specifically attacked the intake of grains. You have no idea what my recommendations are or level of study, and that is fine, how could you. Though, you will find in older posts that I, in general, recommend a nutritional balance of at least 30% of everything. Meaning that on average I think going higher than a 40% intake is really not needed in carbohydrates. I just don't fear bread, especially being that the general harmful properties for 1-4% of Americans is not the carbohydrate properties in bread but the proteins that holds it together.
2) Taubes in the book blames obesity on sugar, states that calories are not what leads to fat gain, and shows an obvious and strange lack of understanding of basic physic principals.
3)Is there one thing I said in my review that was a lie? Point me to one thing I said in my review that wasn't the truth? I can say that in Taubes book he does not have a understanding, or more so in my opinion, ignores the understanding of simple energy equations.
You can't give me 1 causation study on these issues of carbohydrates. Just the same as you can't give one on fats. Nutritional balance is key all the way around. What is funny is this book attacks the events that lead to the cause of the low fat debacle, when the dramatic irony is, it is occurring right now with carbohydrates, specifically complex ones.
You can twist studies any way you want to provide the outcome you desire, what do I do? I use common sense. Let's take our recent study of the "Effects of Soft Drink Consumption on Nutrition and Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"
Now here are three spins that could occur from this one study.
1) HFCS causes obesity
2) Fast acting sugar is responsible for recent increase of diabetes
3) Soda drinkers are more likely to be depressed (because sodas "make you fat", so being fat makes you depressed, and to take it further studies show that your friends will be fat too, so now you are depressed, fat, so are of your friends and you all commit a massive shoplifting spree of carbohydrates that you are addicted to that got you to this point!)
What do I read the study as saying?
You drink more soda (take in more caloric energy) than you need and you will get fat. Shocker.
Or
Drink a lot of soda only and you will be unhealthy. Shocker.
or
DO A LOT OF ANY ONE THING AND CHANCES ARE, A BAD RESULT WILL COME!
Eat enough carrots and it will kill you.
Drink to much water and you can die.
Yeah consume too much sugar, fat, protein, doesn't matter too much of anything can be bad. I don't need a study to tell me that, just some common sense. That being said, I have tons of studies that back up my really crazy and out there energy theory, causation at that, so I am feeling pretty solid about not only my reasearch K-Fed but my common sense.
I have no problem with an intellegent debate about studies but you taubes people want to
1)Accuse me over and over of promoting low fat/high carb which I don't.
2)Say I haven't read the book when really I don't think you did or at least understood it.
3)Assume that I don't understand the value and the dangers of studies in the wrong hands.
To me guys the only danger right now is the thought or the propaganda of knocking out ANY macronutrient. I am trying to preserve the beauty of balance, you are trying to encourage another mistake. Don't worry though, soon enough we will see the same book by a different author stating "why carbs don't cause obesity after all."
What I find best is that the two of you love your research so much, come on to my blog to argue about this book, yet have no idea what my work itself is about. How about this guys, read my blog before you start shooting off about what I do or do not support.
lp - gas
I challenge you, in any statement anywhere on the Internet, to find where I have endorsed, or agreed with Taubes conclusions. You won't find it. My complaint is that your review was really an op-ed about your views of reality, not about the book. IMNSHO - the entire point of the book is that he was capable of using the same data and techniques to crucify grains and sugar as "they" used to crucify fat. Hence, the "alternative hypothesis". During the process he clearly, to me at least, elucidates how unreliable data of this sort is. He goes on at length about the difference between correlation or association and causation. I don't think he presented "The Truth" in a platonic sense as much as he was rattling cages, He certainly seemed to rattle yours. FWIW, my views on nutrition are not so different from yours. I don't fear bread, I just think that in general, grains are relatively nutrient poor sources of calorically dense food. Compare 200 cal worth of your favorite whole grain to 200 cal worth of lean beef or your favorite non starchy vegetable in terms of vitamins and minerals etc.. Diets based on grains also tend to elevate markers of systemic inflammation. Finally my dear, beauty, dontcha know, is in the eye of the beholder. :-)
K-Fed
I like you, but I digress...
And I am not rattled, merely annoyed by lack of common sense by those deemed so intelligent and by accounts should be.
In the book Taubes decided to talk about fat loss/fat gain. When he started out the book (and I don't have it near me right now so forgive my paraphrasing) with the story of the guy who did everything to try to lose weight but finally got on a "meat diet" and dropped the pounds I saw exactly where this was going.
I have stated all the things I don't have a problem with. This is not a formal review for the Times.
This is a book I read recently that discusses there is a reason for fat gain beyond that of excess calories (for the majority of obese people) and that is simply a false statement.
I also think that while no, the interviews Taubes have given were not in the book, that how he is advertising the book is discussing the very same issues of carbohydrates. That had me thinking, "Gee man you have this whole book about building a society of fear off of a few crap studies but you are just talking about carbs making you fat?"
I am a fitness professional and author about things related to fat loss. Obviously I am going to pick out the aspects in the book of exercise and energy to discuss in my blog. Not one statement I have made about the book has been untrue.
If you don't support it, that is fine, I can see how you can take issue with my only discussing this aspect of the book instead of the whole book. Still, what I am discussing is true and if you read between the lines of that book my friend you will find that it is more about weight loss then seems at first and there does appear to be a hidden agenda. Now that is not a "truth" I can prove so I have left that out of my review, but for what it is worth I think Taubes is smart enough and knows exactly what he is doing with that book.
To me he is just the new leader of twisting and cherry picking information for your own personal gain.
[blush] aw shucks...[/blush]
now you've done gone an ruined my ornery!
Post a Comment