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?

"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.

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.

Roger Zoul 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.


Remember that Taubes told the stories of the fat Japanese wrestlers,
with diets as high as 80% carbohydrates and fats below 15%. These guys
were over 300 pounds and consumed over 5,000 calories a day of "pork stew".

He told other stories.

The secret to excess calories piling on the pounds in his examples was
attributed to the high carbohydrate content (possibly the refined carb
content) of the excess calories. So, at least, is what I seem to have
read today.



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.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Roger Zoul 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.


Remember that Taubes told the stories of the fat Japanese wrestlers, with
diets as high as 80% carbohydrates and fats below 15%. These guys were
over 300 pounds and consumed over 5,000 calories a day of "pork stew".

Well, it take some calories to be a 300 lb wrestler! I doubt one could be
successful in that endeavor for long on a 20 carb / day diet with similar
calories.


He told other stories.

The secret to excess calories piling on the pounds in his examples was
attributed to the high carbohydrate content (possibly the refined carb
content) of the excess calories. So, at least, is what I seem to have read
today.


I simply cannot accept the notion that 5000 calories a day of beef won't
make the normal person fat.
I do think that the carbs will pile the weight on quickly, though,
especially if they aren't burned. Heck, if you don't burn those carb
calories, you'll get lazy. Once the intake starts to exceed the burn, and
the fat starts piling on.

Low carb calories are very different, IMO. It will be very hard to
consistently eat 5000 LC kcals/day, IMO. {Usually, overeating on LC does
means carb creep, IME, which might make things different!} And while they
won't make you lazy per se, they won't allow you do lots and lots of
exercise, or significant high intensity exercise (relative measures that
depend on the person's weight and muscle mass).

Roger Zoul wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...

Roger Zoul 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.


Remember that Taubes told the stories of the fat Japanese wrestlers, with
diets as high as 80% carbohydrates and fats below 15%. These guys were
over 300 pounds and consumed over 5,000 calories a day of "pork stew".


Well, it take some calories to be a 300 lb wrestler! I doubt one could be
successful in that endeavor for long on a 20 carb / day diet with similar
calories.


He told other stories.

The secret to excess calories piling on the pounds in his examples was
attributed to the high carbohydrate content (possibly the refined carb
content) of the excess calories. So, at least, is what I seem to have read
today.



I simply cannot accept the notion that 5000 calories a day of beef won't
make the normal person fat.

Nobody ever said that.

You haven't gotten to the part of the book where he talks about how
other published researchers have tried to force normal subjects into
massive weight gain with overfeeding..... and haven't been all that
successfuyl, have you.

Well, maybe you shouldn't accept it, as it fails to meet with your
preceptions..... like happens with medical experts.


When you read more, you might slow down the standard "shooting from the
hip of familiar biases".

You can be successful at forcing the massive weight gain, apparently,
with a high carb diet, but not a "balanced" one.




I do think that the carbs will pile the weight on quickly, though,
especially if they aren't burned. Heck, if you don't burn those carb
calories, you'll get lazy. Once the intake starts to exceed the burn, and
the fat starts piling on.

Low carb calories are very different, IMO. It will be very hard to
consistently eat 5000 LC kcals/day, IMO. {Usually, overeating on LC does
means carb creep, IME, which might make things different!} And while they
won't make you lazy per se, they won't allow you do lots and lots of
exercise, or significant high intensity exercise (relative measures that
depend on the person's weight and muscle mass).

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Roger Zoul wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...

Roger Zoul 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.


Remember that Taubes told the stories of the fat Japanese wrestlers, with
diets as high as 80% carbohydrates and fats below 15%. These guys were
over 300 pounds and consumed over 5,000 calories a day of "pork stew".


Well, it take some calories to be a 300 lb wrestler! I doubt one could
be successful in that endeavor for long on a 20 carb / day diet with
similar calories.


He told other stories.

The secret to excess calories piling on the pounds in his examples was
attributed to the high carbohydrate content (possibly the refined carb
content) of the excess calories. So, at least, is what I seem to have
read today.



I simply cannot accept the notion that 5000 calories a day of beef won't
make the normal person fat.

Nobody ever said that.

Well, it does say this:

"6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more
than it causes a child to grow taller.
Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight
loss; it leads to hunger."

I think the first statement could mean that we all have a certain
genetic-programming built in which to a large degree determines what we look
like, ie, men in my immediate family then to be around 6' tall. Now that I
think about what Taubes could be saying, the second part probably means a
similar thing: Our ability to be lean is also to a large degree determined
by genetic coding. It could explain why considerable levels of leanness are
much easier for some to achieve while virtually impossible for others.


You haven't gotten to the part of the book where he talks about how other
published researchers have tried to force normal subjects into massive
weight gain with overfeeding..... and haven't been all that successfuyl,
have you.

Well, I decided to fast forward to reading about the straving fat rat in the
chapter on paradoxes.


Well, maybe you shouldn't accept it, as it fails to meet with your
preceptions..... like happens with medical experts.

Absolutely. It's part of the human condition whether any of us like it or
not.



When you read more, you might slow down the standard "shooting from the
hip of familiar biases".

Well, oversimplified statements invite "from-the-hip" responses.


You can be successful at forcing the massive weight gain, apparently, with
a high carb diet, but not a "balanced" one.

Ok, so you're telling me that somewhere in here he presents research results
where those being overfed on high-carb diets always gained massive weight
whereas that didn't universally happen when subjects were overfed on a
"balanced" one. If so, I haven't found that as of yet. I've found where
some would gain nearly 3 times the amount of others (some not gaining any),
but the diet was not specified.





I do think that the carbs will pile the weight on quickly, though,
especially if they aren't burned. Heck, if you don't burn those carb
calories, you'll get lazy. Once the intake starts to exceed the burn, and
the fat starts piling on.

Low carb calories are very different, IMO. It will be very hard to
consistently eat 5000 LC kcals/day, IMO. {Usually, overeating on LC does
means carb creep, IME, which might make things different!} And while they
won't make you lazy per se, they won't allow you do lots and lots of
exercise, or significant high intensity exercise (relative measures that
depend on the person's weight and muscle mass).

Jim wrote:

You haven't gotten to the part of the book where he talks about how
other published researchers have tried to force normal subjects into
massive weight gain with overfeeding..... and haven't been all that
successfuyl, have you.

That's been reported elsewhere also, though I can't recall where I've
read it, but I know I read it relatively recently before picking up
Taubes book.

That's what I personally meant by "new" - not that I expected Taubes to
have done reserach himself, but it'd have been nice if he had reviewed
the most recent research as well as the old stuff that's been reported
generally again and again and again.


Well, maybe you shouldn't accept it, as it fails to meet with your
preceptions..... like happens with medical experts.

Criticizing Taubes is not disagreeing with a low-carb diet; most who are
criticizing here are confirmed low-carbers after all.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

On Oct 15, 8:36 pm, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message

...



Roger Zoul 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.

Remember that Taubes told the stories of the fat Japanese wrestlers, with
diets as high as 80% carbohydrates and fats below 15%. These guys were
over 300 pounds and consumed over 5,000 calories a day of "pork stew".

Well, it take some calories to be a 300 lb wrestler! I doubt one could be
successful in that endeavor for long on a 20 carb / day diet with similar
calories.



He told other stories.

The secret to excess calories piling on the pounds in his examples was
attributed to the high carbohydrate content (possibly the refined carb
content) of the excess calories. So, at least, is what I seem to have read
today.

I simply cannot accept the notion that 5000 calories a day of beef won't
make the normal person fat.
I do think that the carbs will pile the weight on quickly, though,
especially if they aren't burned. Heck, if you don't burn those carb
calories, you'll get lazy. Once the intake starts to exceed the burn, and
the fat starts piling on.

Low carb calories are very different, IMO. It will be very hard to
consistently eat 5000 LC kcals/day, IMO. {Usually, overeating on LC does
means carb creep, IME, which might make things different!} And while they
won't make you lazy per se, they won't allow you do lots and lots of
exercise, or significant high intensity exercise (relative measures that
depend on the person's weight and muscle mass).

I recall a study in Taubes (cruelly left at home, again... the damn
thing weighs
my bag down something fierce) where people were losing weight on
limited carbs
at 3800 carbs a day. Now, 38 is not 50, and it might've been the early
stages, but
it begs the question of what happens to a calorie of fat when there's
nothing to
put it into storage and nothing to burn it.

On Oct 16, 6:56 am, Hollywood wrote:

I recall a study in Taubes (cruelly left at home, again... the damn thing weighs
my bag down something fierce) where people were losing weight on limited carbs
at 3800 carbs a day. Now, 38 is not 50, and it might've been the early stages, but

There's a similar story in one of the Atkins books about a
guy who ate lots of steaks and continued to lose. Very
bad PR to include that story and it has to be an unusual
situation.

it begs the question of what happens to a calorie of fat when there's nothing to
put it into storage and nothing to burn it.

It gets wasted somehow. Maybe much less efficient metabolism,
maybe some sort of excretion, maybe something else. And thus
it appears to violate the carlories-in/calories-out rule by making the
calories-out part extremely more variable than most imagine.