A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 15th, 2007, 04:00 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Hollywood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions

In his concluding chapter of Good Calories, Bad Calories, Taubes comes
to ten inescapable conclusions based on his five years of research and
his attempt to put it all together. I'll paraphrase, but you can find
the actual ones around about page 427 or so.

1. Dietary fat doesn't cause obesity, heart problems, or other
chronic diseases of civilization.
2. Yes, carbs are the real problem. It's in how they work with
insulin and therefore the entire hormonal regulatory system.
3. Sugar is the worst. We're talking table sugar and HFCS here. And
it's the duality of glucose+fructose that's the real killer (OJ
Simpson's quest for the real killers not withstanding).
4. Carbs cause coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the
most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's, and other chronic
diseases of civilization.
5. Being overweight/obese is a disorder of excess fat accumulation,
not overeating and not couching around. The "too much to eat and too
little movement causes fat folks to be fat" crowd has it backwards.
Being fat makes you couch around and overeat.
6. Excess calories don't make you fatter. Excess energy use doesn't
lead to weight loss in the long term. It does lead to hunger.
7. Fattening is caused by an imbalance in the hormonal regulation
of fat tissue and fat metabolism. Fat creation and storage outpace fat
use. To get lean, you must get your hormones back into balance (i.e.
your insulin under control)
8. High insulin = fat goes into storage. Low insulin = an
environment where you can move fat out of fat cells.
9. Carbs stimulate insulin secretion, which leads to fat storage.
Fewer carbs = leaner us.
10. Carbs also make us hungry. If hunger/cravings are signals that
cells need nutrition and insulin is putting everything into storage,
you can imagine what chronic hyperinsulemia can do to your
"willpower". Carbs also make us move less, through the same fat
storage story. If you are chronically elevated, and your food is going
into storage, instead of use, the use cells will be starved and not
feel like doing anything. It's the same story, and it's the
explanation of why people have it backwards.

For the folks who maintain that it's the quantity of macronutrients
rather than the quality or that dietary fat is the enemy of
weightloss, I would like to see an alternative model that accounts for
the role of insulin vs. all other hormones in fat accumulation/fat
loss. I would like to see a hole punched in these "inescapable
conclusions" by Chung, Kaz, and all the other volume/calorie/fat
watchers out there who dismiss low carb, either as a calorie limiting
mechanism or as inferior to any other approach to weight loss.

For the rest of us, can we make this the Low Carb Equivalent of Martin
Luther's 95 Theses? The kind of thing we tack to the doors of our
local branches of the USDA, the AHA, both ADAs, local fitness
celebrities, etc? I live in the residential half of a complex that
houses the Diabetic ADA. I work about half a mile from USDA
headquarters. Are they in need of Martin Luther thesising?

  #2  
Old October 15th, 2007, 04:37 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,790
Default Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions


"Hollywood" wrote

1. Dietary fat doesn't cause obesity, heart problems, or other
chronic diseases of civilization.


I can buy this.

2. Yes, carbs are the real problem. It's in how they work with
insulin and therefore the entire hormonal regulatory system.


I think that depends. If carb consumption is out of line with activity
level, then there is a problem.

3. Sugar is the worst. We're talking table sugar and HFCS here. And
it's the duality of glucose+fructose that's the real killer (OJ
Simpson's quest for the real killers not withstanding).


Don't have a problem with this one, especially if they aren't burned off
quickly.

4. Carbs cause coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the
most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's, and other chronic
diseases of civilization.


Don't have a problem with this one, especially if they aren't burned off
quickly.

5. Being overweight/obese is a disorder of excess fat accumulation,
not overeating and not couching around. The "too much to eat and too
little movement causes fat folks to be fat" crowd has it backwards.
Being fat makes you couch around and overeat.


Well, this seems like the chicken and the egg thing.

6. Excess calories don't make you fatter. Excess energy use doesn't
lead to weight loss in the long term. It does lead to hunger.


I think the research is either not solid on this point or Taubes is wrong.
Note that a carb intake which might drive hormones out of balance can be
fixed by appropriate / heavy exercise. That's why people can lose weight on
a low-fat, high-carb diet. Too much food intake can create an anabolic state
within the body, as too little food intake can create a catabolic state
within the body. Insulin will follow those states. Exercise can affect
those states as well, either by lessening the anabolic state or by
increasing the degree of catabolism within the body.

If Taubes doesn't believe that excess calories don't make us fatter over
time, then he must point to evidence of significant human food energy
existing within our poop.

7. Fattening is caused by an imbalance in the hormonal regulation
of fat tissue and fat metabolism. Fat creation and storage outpace fat
use. To get lean, you must get your hormones back into balance (i.e.
your insulin under control)


No problem there.

8. High insulin = fat goes into storage. Low insulin = an
environment where you can move fat out of fat cells.


No problem there.

9. Carbs stimulate insulin secretion, which leads to fat storage.
Fewer carbs = leaner us.


Where is exercise in the equation? It is well known that exercise can
influence this balance.

10. Carbs also make us hungry. If hunger/cravings are signals that
cells need nutrition and insulin is putting everything into storage,
you can imagine what chronic hyperinsulemia can do to your
"willpower". Carbs also make us move less, through the same fat
storage story. If you are chronically elevated, and your food is going
into storage, instead of use, the use cells will be starved and not
feel like doing anything. It's the same story, and it's the
explanation of why people have it backwards.


Well, I can buy this too, to a degree. He does say "chronically elevated"
though.


For the folks who maintain that it's the quantity of macronutrients
rather than the quality or that dietary fat is the enemy of
weightloss, I would like to see an alternative model that accounts for
the role of insulin vs. all other hormones in fat accumulation/fat
loss. I would like to see a hole punched in these "inescapable
conclusions" by Chung, Kaz, and all the other volume/calorie/fat
watchers out there who dismiss low carb, either as a calorie limiting
mechanism or as inferior to any other approach to weight loss.


Well, I don't see why one must use this as a reason to justify low carb.
This explains why we get fat : we generally eat too many carbs for our
activity level. Carbs aren't evil. They have a place. We engineer food to
taste good and we generally like to eat carbs and we slow down as we get
older (many of us slow down must quicker than others, too). We end up
getting fat. I can buy that too many carbs (relative to activity level)
creates a situation that makes us lazy, too.


For the rest of us, can we make this the Low Carb Equivalent of Martin
Luther's 95 Theses? The kind of thing we tack to the doors of our
local branches of the USDA, the AHA, both ADAs, local fitness
celebrities, etc? I live in the residential half of a complex that
houses the Diabetic ADA. I work about half a mile from USDA
headquarters. Are they in need of Martin Luther thesising?


No. It's about controling (or adjusting) carb consumption relative to your
activity level {What Atkins referred to later on a "controlled carb"
nutrition.}. It should be tacked to the doors of the ADA for sure however,
and perhaps the AHA since they seem to think fat is dangerous. They do have
it wrong, by and large, IMO, but a flat out "carbs are evil" statement
{which is what the above sounds like} is no better than "fat is evil". The
question about what is a healthy diet is critical here, though. Too many
carbs and too little activity is unhealthy. But so is too many calories and
too little activity. The latter may not be so easy to do compared to the
former if the calories are really low carb calories, but it is still more
true than false, IMO.

Thanks for the post.


  #3  
Old October 15th, 2007, 06:44 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Hollywood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions

On Oct 15, 11:37 am, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
"Hollywood" wrote


6. Excess calories don't make you fatter. Excess energy use doesn't
lead to weight loss in the long term. It does lead to hunger.


I think the research is either not solid on this point or Taubes is wrong.
Note that a carb intake which might drive hormones out of balance can be
fixed by appropriate / heavy exercise. That's why people can lose weight on
a low-fat, high-carb diet. Too much food intake can create an anabolic state
within the body, as too little food intake can create a catabolic state
within the body. Insulin will follow those states. Exercise can affect
those states as well, either by lessening the anabolic state or by
increasing the degree of catabolism within the body.

If Taubes doesn't believe that excess calories don't make us fatter over
time, then he must point to evidence of significant human food energy
existing within our poop.


IIRC: He does point to poop calories. But it's more based on a
cellular
level conservation discussion than a macro, person level conservation
issue.
I found it compelling. I have not slacked in my exercise, either. I
don't know
that this is cognitive dissonance or just I like the other, non-weight
loss
things I get from exercise.

9. Carbs stimulate insulin secretion, which leads to fat storage.
Fewer carbs = leaner us.


Where is exercise in the equation? It is well known that exercise can
influence this balance.


If it's about the exercise lowering insulin/improving response, then
it fits
fine. If it's about exercise calories burning adipose tissue, well,
there's
room for discussion.

10. Carbs also make us hungry. If hunger/cravings are signals that
cells need nutrition and insulin is putting everything into storage,
you can imagine what chronic hyperinsulemia can do to your
"willpower". Carbs also make us move less, through the same fat
storage story. If you are chronically elevated, and your food is going
into storage, instead of use, the use cells will be starved and not
feel like doing anything. It's the same story, and it's the
explanation of why people have it backwards.


Well, I can buy this too, to a degree. He does say "chronically elevated"
though.


Don't recall as the book is at home. If I were going to start Martin
Luthering
the district, I think I'd quote the book directly. Maybe email Taubes
to see if
it'd be a problem. Of course, better to ask forgiveness than
permission.

Thanks for the post.


No problem. Thanks for the response.

  #4  
Old October 15th, 2007, 09:56 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,790
Default Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions


"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
Susan wrote:

It's never just ONE hormone, they all readjust to compensate for each
other, but with a pituitary or adrenal tumor secreting excess ACTH and
cortisol, there's no predictability or rhyme or reason for the hormonal
secretion patterns.


The problem with focusing on insulin is that there is no such thing as
just one hormone; the endocrine system is incredibly complex and operates
on feedback loops that change everything else in the system. It's not
about just insulin or just cortisol or just thyroid or just
estrogen/progesterone imbalance... it's all one system and you can't
change any individual bit of it without changing ALL of it. There is no
simplistic cause-and-effect in the endocrine system; everything is a cause
and everything is an effect and it goes on like that, wheels within
wheels.


I think the reason Taubes focuses on insulin is that's where most fo the
research has been done at the time of his work. It probably catches a good %
of the T2DM & obese out there, but certainly not all.

My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the stuff
we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and glucagon; it
sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of low-carb, though
much more well-organized than most. No one posting about it has said
anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into it very far yet, so
don't know if there will be more useful info or not.


I think his book is more about how we've come to this point of
understanding...with "researchers" having tunnel vision and all...not seeing
(or trying to see) the full picture and blindly slaving (or getting rich) at
finding prove for what they want to believe.
Well, at least in the first chapter....

It may well be that from time to time the medical research needs to be
reviewed by objective external reviewer team. Heck, if Taubes can do it
than those with more formal and current research backgrounds can do so too.


  #5  
Old October 15th, 2007, 10:43 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Jackie Patti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 429
Default Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions

Susan wrote:

It's never just ONE hormone, they all readjust to compensate for each
other, but with a pituitary or adrenal tumor secreting excess ACTH and
cortisol, there's no predictability or rhyme or reason for the hormonal
secretion patterns.


The problem with focusing on insulin is that there is no such thing as
just one hormone; the endocrine system is incredibly complex and
operates on feedback loops that change everything else in the system.
It's not about just insulin or just cortisol or just thyroid or just
estrogen/progesterone imbalance... it's all one system and you can't
change any individual bit of it without changing ALL of it. There is no
simplistic cause-and-effect in the endocrine system; everything is a
cause and everything is an effect and it goes on like that, wheels
within wheels.

My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the stuff
we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and glucagon; it
sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of low-carb,
though much more well-organized than most. No one posting about it has
said anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into it very far yet,
so don't know if there will be more useful info or not.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
  #6  
Old October 15th, 2007, 11:00 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Jackie Patti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 429
Default Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions

Hollywood wrote:

For the rest of us, can we make this the Low Carb Equivalent of Martin
Luther's 95 Theses? The kind of thing we tack to the doors of our
local branches of the USDA, the AHA, both ADAs, local fitness
celebrities, etc? I live in the residential half of a complex that
houses the Diabetic ADA. I work about half a mile from USDA
headquarters. Are they in need of Martin Luther thesising?


Dr. Davis rants about the AHA the same way educated diabetics rant
against the ADA. A while back, his blog discussed the AHA logo on the
box of Cocoa Puffs:
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/20...coa-puffs.html

He summarized, "My advice: Until they change their tune, anything that
carries the endorsement of the American Heart Association should be
eliminated from your diet."

Personally, I noticed the box had one of those "whole grains" logos too.

The reason I keep referring to Dr. Davis is... he has his patients have
heart scans to actually measure their coronary plaque. Then he suggests
various dietary changes (cutting out wheat is primary and he isn't fond
of corn either), exercise, supplements and drugs as needed (he uses
drugs much less than most cardiologists), and the patients get lower
scores on subsequent heart scans.

He has found out what actually works to REVERSE coronary plaque, similar
to how Bernstein found what actually worked for controlling bg in diabetics.

He is somewhat anti-saturated fat, but he seems to be wavering on that
question to some degree. Like the Eades, he changes his mind when it
turns out to be useful. For example, his book suggests l-arginine
supplementaiton, but his blog has back-pedaled as he's noticed a lot of
patients improving their scores without using it.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
  #7  
Old October 15th, 2007, 11:16 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,790
Default Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions


"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
Roger Zoul wrote:
"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the stuff
we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and glucagon; it
sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of low-carb,
though much more well-organized than most. No one posting about it has
said anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into it very far yet,
so don't know if there will be more useful info or not.


I think his book is more about how we've come to this point of
understanding...with "researchers" having tunnel vision and all...not
seeing (or trying to see) the full picture and blindly slaving (or
getting rich) at finding prove for what they want to believe.
Well, at least in the first chapter....


I'm not yet sure if there's anything actually *new* or even relatively
recent.

Maybe, the mainstream hasn't "got" the whole carb thing just yet, but the
relationship of sugar and insulin was well-established back when I was in
college a couple decades ago. And it goes back even further - farmers
have known to feed lots of corn to fatten pigs for one heck of a long
time.

It seems Taubes is largely preaching to the choir; selling a book to
low-carbers to justify why they do what they do. Is anyone besides us
reading this thing?


Well, that's going to be extremely hard for us here {LCers} to know.
However, I'd guess that since he has had some press that he might get some
non-LCers to read his book. Jim posted a "response" that some low-fat guy
wrote almost the day Taubes' book hit the stands.

Most people who mistake Cocoa Puffs for a heart-healthy whole grain are
not exactly gonna be the sort to work their way through a book of
research, so I'm not sure what good this book will do.


Well, those types don't do much beyond listen to 30-second sound bites
anyhow.


  #8  
Old October 15th, 2007, 11:32 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Jackie Patti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 429
Default Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions

Roger Zoul wrote:
"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the stuff
we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and glucagon; it
sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of low-carb, though
much more well-organized than most. No one posting about it has said
anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into it very far yet, so
don't know if there will be more useful info or not.


I think his book is more about how we've come to this point of
understanding...with "researchers" having tunnel vision and all...not seeing
(or trying to see) the full picture and blindly slaving (or getting rich) at
finding prove for what they want to believe.
Well, at least in the first chapter....


I'm not yet sure if there's anything actually *new* or even relatively
recent.

Maybe, the mainstream hasn't "got" the whole carb thing just yet, but
the relationship of sugar and insulin was well-established back when I
was in college a couple decades ago. And it goes back even further -
farmers have known to feed lots of corn to fatten pigs for one heck of a
long time.

It seems Taubes is largely preaching to the choir; selling a book to
low-carbers to justify why they do what they do. Is anyone besides us
reading this thing?

Most people who mistake Cocoa Puffs for a heart-healthy whole grain are
not exactly gonna be the sort to work their way through a book of
research, so I'm not sure what good this book will do.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
  #9  
Old October 15th, 2007, 11:44 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Alice Faber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions

In article ,
"Roger Zoul" wrote:

"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
Roger Zoul wrote:
"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the stuff
we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and glucagon; it
sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of low-carb,
though much more well-organized than most. No one posting about it has
said anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into it very far yet,
so don't know if there will be more useful info or not.

I think his book is more about how we've come to this point of
understanding...with "researchers" having tunnel vision and all...not
seeing (or trying to see) the full picture and blindly slaving (or
getting rich) at finding prove for what they want to believe.
Well, at least in the first chapter....


I'm not yet sure if there's anything actually *new* or even relatively
recent.

Maybe, the mainstream hasn't "got" the whole carb thing just yet, but the
relationship of sugar and insulin was well-established back when I was in
college a couple decades ago. And it goes back even further - farmers
have known to feed lots of corn to fatten pigs for one heck of a long
time.

It seems Taubes is largely preaching to the choir; selling a book to
low-carbers to justify why they do what they do. Is anyone besides us
reading this thing?


Well, that's going to be extremely hard for us here {LCers} to know.
However, I'd guess that since he has had some press that he might get some
non-LCers to read his book. Jim posted a "response" that some low-fat guy
wrote almost the day Taubes' book hit the stands.


There was a really nasty response in my local paper this morning, by a
Yale Medical School "expert" on obesity (an MD, no less). It really
amounted to him saying that he didn't *like* the book, because it
contradicted everything he'd been recommending, both to patients and in
popular columns.

--
"[xxx] has very definite opinions, and does not suffer fools lightly.
This, apparently, upsets the fools."
---BB cuts to the pith of a flame-fest
  #10  
Old October 16th, 2007, 12:05 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,790
Default Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions


"Alice Faber" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Roger Zoul" wrote:

"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
Roger Zoul wrote:
"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the
stuff
we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and glucagon; it
sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of low-carb,
though much more well-organized than most. No one posting about it
has
said anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into it very far
yet,
so don't know if there will be more useful info or not.

I think his book is more about how we've come to this point of
understanding...with "researchers" having tunnel vision and all...not
seeing (or trying to see) the full picture and blindly slaving (or
getting rich) at finding prove for what they want to believe.
Well, at least in the first chapter....

I'm not yet sure if there's anything actually *new* or even relatively
recent.

Maybe, the mainstream hasn't "got" the whole carb thing just yet, but
the
relationship of sugar and insulin was well-established back when I was
in
college a couple decades ago. And it goes back even further - farmers
have known to feed lots of corn to fatten pigs for one heck of a long
time.

It seems Taubes is largely preaching to the choir; selling a book to
low-carbers to justify why they do what they do. Is anyone besides us
reading this thing?


Well, that's going to be extremely hard for us here {LCers} to know.
However, I'd guess that since he has had some press that he might get
some
non-LCers to read his book. Jim posted a "response" that some low-fat guy
wrote almost the day Taubes' book hit the stands.


There was a really nasty response in my local paper this morning, by a
Yale Medical School "expert" on obesity (an MD, no less). It really
amounted to him saying that he didn't *like* the book, because it
contradicted everything he'd been recommending, both to patients and in
popular columns.


See...this is good...when folks read this...they might read the book, so
they can ask their doc what's up. Of course, s/he'll say Taubes is an
idiot...most people think their doctor walks on water if they like
h/im/er....


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Taubes Book - Requires Slow Reading -- and cooling off breaks Jim Low Carbohydrate Diets 18 October 12th, 2007 10:10 PM
Nice Reader Review of Taubes Book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" Jim Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 October 1st, 2007 05:24 PM
More on Taubes Book Jim Low Carbohydrate Diets 7 September 16th, 2007 03:28 AM
Taubes: Good Calories, Bad Calories Roger Zoul Low Carbohydrate Diets 7 September 13th, 2007 05:03 PM
Diet Conclusions Aplin17 General Discussion 28 September 29th, 2004 05:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.