Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions

Susan writes:

Hollywood wrote:

Quick question: I know cortisol is near and dear to you, Susan. But
what's the percentages in the general population? If it's not a big
number, then maybe it just doesn't fit into the 450 pages of content
that the publisher allowed him. The original draft of the book,
according
to Dr. Mike Eades was over 1100 pages (versus 640 published). The
second draft was over 800 pages. This is a very condensed version of
those. If hypercortisolemia is not the cause for a really large number
of
people (the way that insulin resistance and syndrome X are), maybe it
doesn't make the cut of a broad oversight book. The thing of the 450
pages of content: there's not a lot of fat in there. There's some
repetition,
but there's not many wasted words. So, maybe cortisol was a space
consideration, considering that every 16 pages over 250 probably hurts
sales a bit.

It appears that occult hypercortisolemia is much more common than
previously believed. In fact, it's often present in type 2 DM, and
these folks are those with the most/worst complications.

"Appears." I'm only partway through the book, but so far he's
concentrated on science that's been around a while, that's been
duplicated (or pointing out when it couldn't be duplicated, as with much
of Ancel Keys's research). Maybe he didn't think that a book that's
essentially an expose on bad science should include research that's
still being figured out. Also, he says on page 101 that insulin "plays
the crucial role in the carbohydrate hypothesis." That implies to me
that there are other hormones involved, but their role is less crucial
than insulin's; and they haven't been virtually ignored for decades the
way insulin's role in anything other than diabetes has, so they weren't
important to the history.

I'm sure the book isn't perfect, but it's a very good history of how and
why people have been told what to eat for the last century, which seems
to have been his primary goal.



--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

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.

Can't go along with this one. People aren't born fat.


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 have heard people say that exercising makes them hungry, but it doesn't
work that way for me. Makes me thirsty, but not hungry. And, what is the
definition of "excess energy use"? Who decides what is "excess"?



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

This is an oversimplification.

"Roger Zoul" wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
:: Aaron Baugher wrote:

::: That's not the only way to get rid of excess energy. Mike Eades
::: recently blogged about a study of women that showed they gave off
::: *twice* as much heat when on a low-carb diet.

:: I wonder how that's measured. People can feel heat coming from
:: a person yet the radiating one won't have a higher body temperature.

::: I've wondered about that
::: before, because I seem to be warmer and sweat more than everyone
::: else around me while I'm low-carbing; but it's not really something
::: you can measure for yourself. We're warm-blooded animals, which
::: means we only retain enough heat to maintain our proper body
::: temperature, so measuring that doesn't tell you much. You'd have
::: to put yourself in a sealed chamber that could capture and measure
::: all the heat you're giving off -- exactly the sort of study the big
::: organizations should be funding.
....
:: ... I give off a burst of heat when I fall asleep ...

Perhaps it has to do with where you meausre your "core" temp vs where the
temp radiates from in your body when you giving off this extra heat energy.

It sure blows away the idea that metabolic rate can be determined
by basal body temperature.

I know I generate a lot of heat when I'm riding, but does that mean my core
temp is higher? I certainly haven't tried to measure such. Of course, it
would be that the core is held constant because of the radiated heat. It
might not be so good for the body to hold that heat within.

Human's have active cooling systems include sweat. Dogs have
active cooling systems including panting. Heat output can be
measured by enclosing someone in an insulated room and so
on, but I don't know of any easy way to measure the output.

Even without an accurate way to measure, it's easy to feel heat
or cold coming off of people. Let's all go around massaging a
bunch of low carbers and a bunch of low fatters and a bunch of
low calorie-ers and see what they all feel like. ;^)

"Pat" wrote in message
...

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.

Can't go along with this one. People aren't born fat.


Most aren't born with type 2 diabetes, either, or many of the other chronic
dieases. They get them over time, due to issues involving lifestyle,
environment, and genetics.


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 have heard people say that exercising makes them hungry, but it doesn't
work that way for me.

IME, a certain level of exercise does suppress appetite. However, there is a
point beyond which exercise does dramatically affect appetite. For one,
exercise induced hypoglycemia. Of course, that's a place we need to avoid,
but it doesn't ramp appetite tremendously.

Makes me thirsty, but not hungry. And, what is the definition of "excess
energy use"? Who decides what is "excess"?


That's a good point since these excess calories don't make us fatter. I
assume he means an amount that is beyond that which is considered normal
range for a person of a certain weight.



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

This is an oversimplification.

You're late in the discussion.

Roger Zoul wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
:: Aaron Baugher wrote:
::: "Roger Zoul" writes:
:::
:::: 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.
:::
::: That's not the only way to get rid of excess energy. Mike Eades
::: recently blogged about a study of women that showed they gave off
::: *twice* as much heat when on a low-carb diet.
::
:: I wonder how that's measured. People can feel heat coming from
:: a person yet the radiating one won't have a higher body temperature.
::
::: I've wondered about that
::: before, because I seem to be warmer and sweat more than everyone
::: else around me while I'm low-carbing; but it's not really something
::: you can measure for yourself. We're warm-blooded animals, which
::: means we only retain enough heat to maintain our proper body
::: temperature, so measuring that doesn't tell you much. You'd have
::: to put yourself in a sealed chamber that could capture and measure
::: all the heat you're giving off -- exactly the sort of study the big
::: organizations should be funding.
::
:: I sweat more when I was eating wheat, but that was just another
:: symptom
:: of the indigestion.
::
::: Anyway, anecdotally, I know that I seem to give off a lot more heat
::: when I'm low-carbing and eating plenty. I've had people remark
::: more than once that I'm like a furnace. Those BTUs are coming from
::: somewhere.
::
:: I have a bizzare one - I give off a burst of heat when I fall asleep.
:: So much
:: so that a couple of times I've fallen asleep during a boring meeting
:: that the
:: office and the astonished shout from a person sitting next to me woke
:: me
:: back up. My wife reports it is so consistant she can tell when I
:: fall asleep
:: even when she is facing away from me because the burst of heat is
:: strong
:: enough to be felt through her back. I have no idea what causes this
:: burst
:: of heat or how to measure it, but it sure doesn't come from a change
:: in my
:: core temperature.

Perhaps it has to do with where you meausre your "core" temp vs where the
temp radiates from in your body when you giving off this extra heat energy.

I know I generate a lot of heat when I'm riding, but does that mean my core
temp is higher? I certainly haven't tried to measure such. Of course, it
would be that the core is held constant because of the radiated heat. It
might not be so good for the body to hold that heat within.




About 100 years ago, Wilbur Olin A****er constructed a "respiration
calorimeter" which measured the heat output of humans while exercising
or other activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Olin_A****er

A****er also used calorimetry to measure the energy content of foods for
livestock and humans by means of the Oxygen Bomb Calorimeter. He is
cited by the USDA, where he worked and directed research, as a pioneer
in human nutrition, and they are proud of that heritage yet today.

A few years back, I found quite a few USDA web pages on him and his work
and methods, but they seem to be gone now. He constructed an isolated
instrumented room in which the energy expenditures of people could be
measured.... and I have now forgotten any details I ever knew on this
special room.

People vary a lot in the heat they put out. This is really old stuff. We
aren't steam engines or automobile engines all made from the exact same
molds.

I don't know to what extent the work has been modernized to look at how
"efficiently" various diets are burned or metabolized by people at rest
and doing different activities today. Then too, this could all be old
stuff too that nobody pays much attention to.

Or we as lay readers simply don't know about it.

I'm an actual retired rocket scientist ... no kidding.

Aaron Baugher wrote:
Jim writes:


The book is a public massive exposition that says "Don't Trust You
Doctor Blindly On Diet".... and probably not to trust them blindly on
more than just diet either.


Exactly. It's (in the first 200 pages, anyway) a treatment of what can
happen when a few people with a preconceived agenda get the backing of
government and the press. Congressional and UN committees and
journalists looking for short soundbites make for bad science, where
people latch onto the conclusion that fits their beliefs -- in this
case, that meat-eating was gluttonous and offensive, akin to the
attitude about SUV drivers today -- and do their best to make the
science back up that conclusion.

It's a little scary to see how easily it works, how dedicated and
respected people can ignore entire bodies of research and cherry-pick
and massage the existing data to get the conclusions they like. The
parallels to other topics where science has supposedly established the
undeniable truth are obvious, too, especially when Taubes quotes someone
as saying that the nation's health was so dire that Congress and the
national health boards couldn't afford to wait until they had solid
proof about fat and cholesterol -- and besides, what could it hurt for
people to eat less fat? Turns out it *could* hurt, a lot.

Eventually, it falls apart, though. One of my favorite bits is
actually a quote from Sir Francis Bacon, where he says that "wishful
science" doesn't evolve, it starts out with a burst of ideas and then
goes into a holding action as the truth chips away at it bit by bit;
while science that's on the right track is constantly turning up new
supporting evidence and explaining things better. It may take 50 years,
but it gets there eventually.



His quotes heading the chapters are absolutely wonderful. I wish I could
string together such a wonderful set as he has done.

A little later on, you will be exposed to more of how much of known
behavior and phenomena these cherry-pickers had to ignore to get to the
places where their arguments took them.

It is just astounding.

Sounds like a radio preacher I used to listen to years ago for fun. The
man was so full of righteous purpose that his lies and deceipt were
excused in the interest of saving the Earth from itself.


Go back and reread the entire preface materials about Banting. Now you
will see them in a different light. And do this about every hundred or
so pages.

The preface covers a lot of the book from a different perspective. There
was a lot of depth put into this book, and I envy the ability to do that.

a good chapter heading quote............ Chapt 16 PARADOXES

Page 270

"The literature on obesity is not only volumnious, it is also full of
conflicting and confusing reports and opinions. One might well apply to
it the words of Artermus Ward: 'The researches of so many eminent
scientific men have thrown so much darkness upon the subject that if
they continue their researches we shall soon know nothing'"
Hilde Bruch, "The Importance of Overweight", 1957


Jim

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

Perhaps it has to do with where you meausre your "core" temp vs where the
temp radiates from in your body when you giving off this extra heat
energy.


About 100 years ago, Wilbur Olin A****er constructed a "respiration
calorimeter" which measured the heat output of humans while exercising or
other activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Olin_A****er

A****er also used calorimetry to measure the energy content of foods for
livestock and humans by means of the Oxygen Bomb Calorimeter. He is cited
by the USDA, where he worked and directed research, as a pioneer in human
nutrition, and they are proud of that heritage yet today.

A few years back, I found quite a few USDA web pages on him and his work
and methods, but they seem to be gone now. He constructed an isolated
instrumented room in which the energy expenditures of people could be
measured.... and I have now forgotten any details I ever knew on this
special room.

People vary a lot in the heat they put out. This is really old stuff. We
aren't steam engines or automobile engines all made from the exact same
molds.

There is little under the sun that is truly new. Apparently, anyway.


I don't know to what extent the work has been modernized to look at how
"efficiently" various diets are burned or metabolized by people at rest
and doing different activities today. Then too, this could all be old
stuff too that nobody pays much attention to.

Or we as lay readers simply don't know about it.

I'm an actual retired rocket scientist ... no kidding.

Aerospace firm?

"Hollywood" wrote
On Oct 15, 7:47 pm, Susan wrote:

But Taubes appears to possibly not be objective, from the bits I've
read, except for the epidemiology aspect, that is.


Quick question: I know cortisol is near and dear to you, Susan. But
what's the percentages in the general population? If it's not a big
number, then maybe it just doesn't fit into the 450 pages of content
that the publisher allowed him. The original draft of the book,
according
to Dr. Mike Eades was over 1100 pages (versus 640 published). The
second draft was over 800 pages. This is a very condensed version of
those. If hypercortisolemia is not the cause for a really large number
of
people (the way that insulin resistance and syndrome X are), maybe it
doesn't make the cut of a broad oversight book. The thing of the 450
pages of content: there's not a lot of fat in there. There's some
repetition,
but there's not many wasted words. So, maybe cortisol was a space
consideration, considering that every 16 pages over 250 probably hurts
sales a bit.

While this is a good point you're making, Hollywood, it does seem odd to me
that cortisol doesn't even appear in the index. Neither does
hypercortisolemia. I would hate to think that a cut of nearly 500 pages
would be so "brutal".

Hollywood wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:40 am, Jackie Patti wrote:

Hollywood wrote:

2. Carbohydrates do, because of their effect on the hormone insulin.
The more easily-digestible and refined the carbohydrates and the more
fructose they contain, the greater the effect on our health, weight,
and
well-being.

I'm not getting that from the book. Sugar causes heart disease and
other issues directly due to the glycation of proteins.


It's his inescapable conclusion. When you finish the book, revisit
this.


High serum insulin is definetly bad, but it does not seem worse than
high blood sugars.


3. Sugars--sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup
specifically
--are particularly harmful. The glucose in these sugars raises insulin
levels;
the fructose they contain overloads the liver.

The liver converts fructose to triglycerides, hence raising blood
trigylceride levels. They're removed from the blood and stored in
adipose.


Uhm. Yeah. It's in the book. Definitely considered.

You forgot the step where the plentiful triglycerides are incorporated
into VLDL in such a way as this VLDL gradually converts to the small
particle high density LDL that is so detrimental to aetherosclerosis.

The conversion process is that the triglycerides are extracted during
storage.

There is so much left out of the tense summary that reading it before
you have actually read the full details is just generating wasted
incorrect speculation.

I wish you had never posted this darned thing. Either version.



7. Exercise does not make us lose excess fat; it makes us hungry.

In the earlier parts of the book, he discusses research wrt rice-eating
countries with low heart disease and obesity and makes the point that
the low calories versus the amount of physical work *do* make a difference.


Low-calories and exercise *does* work and he says so early on.


As written, I think there's room for Susan's cortisol concerns.
Insulin IS, as far as we
know, the PRIMARY regulator of fat storage. Other hormones may
contribute, but
insulin is #1. And a hormonal situation that's out of whack and
directs fat to be stored
and not used, well, there's your disequilibrium.

All the hormones contribute. The issue is simplifying the endocrine
system to just insulin, which you can't do as insulin does not exist in
a vaccuum.


If cortisol stores fat by causing excess insulin, fine. The statement
he
makes, time and again, is that the fat cells are most sensitive to
the insulin. When you have the insulin going big, they take stuff in,
not
dump it out. Most other hormones, he contends, move stuff out, to
greater
or lesser extent. But the Insulin is the big factor as to whether they
will give it up or take it in. If that's incorrect (that insulin is
the big dog,
fat storage wise), fine.


A low-carber with thyroid out-of-whack is not gonna lose fat effectively
either. Certainly high carb intake increases insulin, but so can other
hormones being screwed up. Taubes is really not addressing this.


My thyroid had been out of whack until last year. I had successfully
lost
30-40 lbs with LC at a clip twice before. Very efficiently. No
exercise. I
am not dismissing the role of other hormones. I'm just saying that if
you're
looking for a pareto 80/20, low hanging fruit, insulin. And maybe
that's why
the diet works so well for so many and not as well for the minority
(of people
who do it without cheating, creeping, etc).

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

Roger Zoul wrote:

Perhaps it has to do with where you meausre your "core" temp vs where the
temp radiates from in your body when you giving off this extra heat
energy.


About 100 years ago, Wilbur Olin A****er constructed a "respiration
calorimeter" which measured the heat output of humans while exercising or
other activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Olin_A****er

A****er also used calorimetry to measure the energy content of foods for
livestock and humans by means of the Oxygen Bomb Calorimeter. He is cited
by the USDA, where he worked and directed research, as a pioneer in human
nutrition, and they are proud of that heritage yet today.

A few years back, I found quite a few USDA web pages on him and his work
and methods, but they seem to be gone now. He constructed an isolated
instrumented room in which the energy expenditures of people could be
measured.... and I have now forgotten any details I ever knew on this
special room.

People vary a lot in the heat they put out. This is really old stuff. We
aren't steam engines or automobile engines all made from the exact same
molds.


There is little under the sun that is truly new. Apparently, anyway.


I don't know to what extent the work has been modernized to look at how
"efficiently" various diets are burned or metabolized by people at rest
and doing different activities today. Then too, this could all be old
stuff too that nobody pays much attention to.

Or we as lay readers simply don't know about it.

I'm an actual retired rocket scientist ... no kidding.


Aerospace firm?



Yeah, several different ones. Hughes, Aerojet, The Aerospace Corp. ,