Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions

Cubit wrote:
With the title Good Calories, Bad Calories it is reasonable to guess that
calories are addressed.

Yes, but please try not to judge a book by its cover, or title too much.


IMHO: The "Kind of Calories" has an effect on appetite, the "appestat,"
eating behavior, and health. Apart from that (body fat), from my miles in
Fitday data, I believe that I could be eating a diet entirely of Junior
Mints, if the calories were correct.

The satiating nature of Fat and or Protein has not been addressed that
much in the first dozne or so chapters, but the emptiness of the
carbohydrate and refined carbohydrate has been mentioned.

The emptiness in terms of any nutritive value besides just energy for
sugars and numerous refined carbs.

The emptiness in terms of the ability to be hungry in a few hours after
eating a large starchy/sugary meal has been mentioned.

The difficulty of regularly eating an extra 1000 cal/day on a meat based
diet has also been mentioned.

The ease of eating thousands of extra calories per day on refined/sugary
carbs has been mentioned as well and on mixtures of fat and
refined/sugary carbs.

These were in the last few chapters I have read so far. But much more is
to come. I have forgotten how old the research is on the above issues.

Have another gallon of ice cream. You can do it if you try, can't you?
Fat and sugar, you know. Should be easy. :-)



Unfortunately, I would go insane with respect to eating behavior and, of
course, my type 2 diabetes would return with raging blood statistics. Ah,
and then my teeth would start rotting again, and I'll bet my cardiovascular
system would corrupt into death. Getting the flu 2 or 3 times a year would
probably return too. There is question in my mind whether cancer is a trans
fat or carb issue.

I'm just saying that one can be thin on carbs. However, what I should be
saying is that it is not enough to eat right. Moderate calorie control is
needed too, even if they are good calories.




"Jim" wrote in message
...

Cubit wrote:

I sometimes help relatives pick Christmas presents for me. Taubes' book
will be on the list.

Thanks for the summary.

I've caught flak for my anti-exercise stand in this newsgroup, over the
years. It is good to have a reference book (of sorts) to point at.

During my 174 pound weightloss, I found that exercise (YMCA weight
training) made no difference, personally.

I have not read the book, but I'm a bit concerned that the summary list
does not seem to include the issue of total calories in addressing the
issue of body weight.

Cubit
320/155/160

How comprehensive and accurate is any less than one page summary of a 600
page book going to be?

And, you are reading from a "condensed simplified version" of Taubes's
actual summary.

What if it isn't Total Calories, but that the Kind of Calories and Mixture
of Macronutrients (and micronutrients too) which is more or equaly
important?

By the way, "Your Mileage May Vary", YMMV, as always.

Jim






"Hollywood" wrote in message
egroups.com...


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?

With the title Good Calories, Bad Calories it is reasonable to guess that
calories are addressed.

IMHO: The "Kind of Calories" has an effect on appetite, the "appestat,"
eating behavior, and health. Apart from that (body fat), from my miles in
Fitday data, I believe that I could be eating a diet entirely of Junior
Mints, if the calories were correct.

Unfortunately, I would go insane with respect to eating behavior and, of
course, my type 2 diabetes would return with raging blood statistics. Ah,
and then my teeth would start rotting again, and I'll bet my cardiovascular
system would corrupt into death. Getting the flu 2 or 3 times a year would
probably return too. There is question in my mind whether cancer is a trans
fat or carb issue.

I'm just saying that one can be thin on carbs. However, what I should be
saying is that it is not enough to eat right. Moderate calorie control is
needed too, even if they are good calories.




"Jim" wrote in message
...
Cubit wrote:
I sometimes help relatives pick Christmas presents for me. Taubes' book
will be on the list.

Thanks for the summary.

I've caught flak for my anti-exercise stand in this newsgroup, over the
years. It is good to have a reference book (of sorts) to point at.

During my 174 pound weightloss, I found that exercise (YMCA weight
training) made no difference, personally.

I have not read the book, but I'm a bit concerned that the summary list
does not seem to include the issue of total calories in addressing the
issue of body weight.

Cubit
320/155/160

How comprehensive and accurate is any less than one page summary of a 600
page book going to be?

And, you are reading from a "condensed simplified version" of Taubes's
actual summary.

What if it isn't Total Calories, but that the Kind of Calories and Mixture
of Macronutrients (and micronutrients too) which is more or equaly
important?

By the way, "Your Mileage May Vary", YMMV, as always.

Jim






"Hollywood" wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

"Jim" wrote
Roger Zoul wrote:

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


Aerospace firm?

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

I had a visit to Aerospace Corp in El Segundo back in June.

Roger Zoul wrote:
"Jim" wrote

Roger Zoul wrote:

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


Aerospace firm?

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


I had a visit to Aerospace Corp in El Segundo back in June.



It was the nicest place in the industry that I worked at.

They often would show visitors the special sundial they had out by the
library. It was accurate to the minute, or so, at all times of the year.

The cafeteria was excellent. The library was a nice place to hide in.

Did you see the building that they can't tell you what is inside? That
probably expanded after 9/11.

Possibly you are one of those supersecret people?

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

This is an oversimplification.

You're late in the discussion.

I was gone over the weekend, mulling it over. I just hate oversimplification
and "either or" flat statements.

pat

Jim wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: "Jim" wrote
:::
:::: Roger Zoul wrote:
::::
:::::: I'm an actual retired rocket scientist ... no kidding.
:::::
:::::
::::: Aerospace firm?
::::
:::: Yeah, several different ones. Hughes, Aerojet, The Aerospace Corp.
:::: ,
:::
:::
::: I had a visit to Aerospace Corp in El Segundo back in June.
:::
:::
::
:: It was the nicest place in the industry that I worked at.
::
:: They often would show visitors the special sundial they had out by
:: the library. It was accurate to the minute, or so, at all times of
:: the year.
::
:: The cafeteria was excellent. The library was a nice place to hide
:: in.
::

Remember walking through the cafeteria. Don't remember the library. Don't
remember the dial, but I did see several birds.

:: Did you see the building that they can't tell you what is inside?
:: That probably expanded after 9/11.

No, they didn't mention it to me but they did get all up in my stuff. PC,
phone, etc. Brought back days of old...

::
:: Possibly you are one of those supersecret people?

Not anymore. I used to be though...when I worked at TRW down the road...very
supersecret. Don't miss that though I do miss LA - or, some aspects of it,
that is.

On Oct 16, 2:30 pm, 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.

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/21/1/55#SEC1

"Pat" writes:

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.

I'm not sure for myself. Heavy labor, especially lifting and carrying
things, seems to tighten up my abdominal muscles to the point where I'm
not hungry at all immediately after; but later in the day when they
relax, I'm suddenly ravenous. It's hard to say what the overall effect
is.

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

This is an oversimplification.

It's certainly a simplification, but I wouldn't call it an
oversimplification. Yes, there are people who have other health issues
like the cortisol stuff that's been discussed in this thread that keeps
simple carb reduction from taking off the weight. But for the general
population, "fewer carbs = leaner" is true. If all the soda and bread
and other high-carb foods disappeared from the grocery stores tomorrow,
forcing people to eat more meat and vegetables, all the evidence says
we'd be a leaner, healthier people within a few months.



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

"Cubit" writes:

With the title Good Calories, Bad Calories it is reasonable to guess
that calories are addressed.

IMHO: The "Kind of Calories" has an effect on appetite, the
"appestat," eating behavior, and health. Apart from that (body fat),
from my miles in Fitday data, I believe that I could be eating a diet
entirely of Junior Mints, if the calories were correct.

Unfortunately, I would go insane with respect to eating behavior and,
of course, my type 2 diabetes would return with raging blood
statistics. Ah, and then my teeth would start rotting again, and I'll
bet my cardiovascular system would corrupt into death. Getting the
flu 2 or 3 times a year would probably return too. There is question
in my mind whether cancer is a trans fat or carb issue.

Could be both. Taubes cites several societies which had almost no
cancer on "primitive" diets and saw it jump greatly when Westerners
started importing refined carbs. However, trans-fats weren't in the
picture back then, so there's no reason they too couldn't play a role in
modern cancer levels.

I'm just saying that one can be thin on carbs. However, what I should
be saying is that it is not enough to eat right. Moderate calorie
control is needed too, even if they are good calories.

Why?



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

On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, Jim wrote:

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.

Me too. Sorry.