Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions

On Oct 22, 3:51 am, wrote:

Oh well, most won't believe this. Instead they'll read books by the
Taubes of the world and buy into his "white rice" is fattening
theory. Billions of people on this planet show that to be false.

GVK:

I buy your observations. I don't think you are looking at the
complete underlying mechanisms. And white rice isn't the problem,
though you (and most of Asia) would probably be better off with
whole grain rice instead.

FWIW: by cutting starch and sugar from my diet, I have lost a lot
of weight (so that my pictures from Asia look like another guy). And
I have been eating a lot of food too. So, there are different ways to
get there. But I am eating something that's roughly the opposite
of the rural asian diet (terrestrial animals vs. marine ones, low veg
vs. high veg, high sat fat vs. low sat fat, high calories vs. lower
calories, etc etc etc) and gotten a lot better. And really, a diet is
about change, not maintenance. Perhaps the Asian diet is the
ideal to maintain a lean body. But does it get you there when you're
not already lean? I don't know. I think there are many paths, but
for most Americans, I think carb cutting is closer to the optimal
solution.

"Hollywood" wrote
On Oct 22, 3:51 am, wrote:

Oh well, most won't believe this. Instead they'll read books by the
Taubes of the world and buy into his "white rice" is fattening
theory. Billions of people on this planet show that to be false.

GVK:

I buy your observations. I don't think you are looking at the
complete underlying mechanisms. And white rice isn't the problem,
though you (and most of Asia) would probably be better off with
whole grain rice instead.

I find it hard to believe that Asians eat white rice for any reason other
than it's cheap, available, and fills bellies. I think if they had other
choices, they'd pursue those as those in this country have.

Also, don't forget that GVK said that these Asians tend to walk a lot. We
don't as we tend to drive as a rule and exercise as the exception. Carbs are
not a food for the sedentary. That combination promotes accumulation of fat.

I do think that white rice is a processed food, though, while not highly
processed as are all of the crap items we have here.


FWIW: by cutting starch and sugar from my diet, I have lost a lot
of weight (so that my pictures from Asia look like another guy). And
I have been eating a lot of food too. So, there are different ways to
get there. But I am eating something that's roughly the opposite
of the rural asian diet (terrestrial animals vs. marine ones, low veg
vs. high veg, high sat fat vs. low sat fat, high calories vs. lower
calories, etc etc etc) and gotten a lot better. And really, a diet is
about change, not maintenance. Perhaps the Asian diet is the
ideal to maintain a lean body.

Is there any evidence to support this? Being slender doesn't mean you're
lean. It doesn't also imply greater fitness, longevity or anything else,
necessarily.

But does it get you there when you're
not already lean? I don't know. I think there are many paths, but
for most Americans, I think carb cutting is closer to the optimal
solution.

Certainly so since we have so many choices of highly processed carb-based
foods. If white rice were the only choice, perhaps people would eat less out
of boredom! Boredom can be a good thing, perhaps. Our highly-processed
carb-based foods have flavor enhancers which tend to drive people to eat
more of them.

wrote:
"FOB" wrote:

But we don't live in Asia, we live in societies where processed food is the
norm. No one is going to eat like people in other cultures. In this
situation carbs are bad.

More importantly - Look at second and third generation
immigrants. They have the choice between eating the
local food and eating the traditional food of their heritage.
Look at how many get fat. What folks eat in their native
culture is irrelevant and intellectually dishonest when used
without this observation.

Well, I eat mostly like they eat in Asia. Oh, not the exact same
dishes, but the general makeup of carbs, fat, protein is similar to
that eaten in Asia.

You and what percentage of third generation immigraants?

Its really not difficult, and it allows me to eat more than I could
consume eating in the traditional American style.

Irrelevant - Eating low fat low calorie diets work just fine for
some portion of the population. "It works for me therefore it
works for everyone" is a hugely dishonest and ignorant
assumption. Do you find anyone here bashing the native
Asian diet? No. Yet here you are bashing low carb bashed
on that. You're not being honest in your methods. Having
low fat work for those forced into it (native diets) and having
it work for a percentage of the population that happens to
include you does NOT mean low carb is in any way bad and
it does NOT mean that low fat works for everyone.

However I do use whole wheat pasta, and whole wheat couscous, but I
still eat white rice along with heaps of veggies and fairly small
portions of meats.

I'm wheat intolerant. Trying what you eat would be a miserable
failure for me. Does this mean I think your method is bad for
you? No. But if you imply it should work for my then I will call
you an idiot. Your entire argument is based on a set of invalid
assumptions like that.

Its rather amazing, but after living in Asia for many months in
several different years, you just get the same "buzz" off of much
smaller portions of meat.

The word "you" is used incorrectly here. It's an important point
as it reveals your false logic of "if it works for me it must work for
everyone".

Eat like Asians and as I said, you'll soon be slender like Asians.
Perhaps not skinny, but fairly fit.

Sure, but check out the statistics of third generation immigrants
who have the choice of eating either way just like I have that
choice. They get fat.

You know, something else I noticed. In American Chinese restaurants,
if you go to that place after lunch or before they open for dinner,
you can find the staff eating.
Mostly white rice with veggies, and only a very small amount of meat.
Look at their body style. Normally they are slender.

Generally first generation immigrants. It does show a good point -
Lifelong cultural influence starting in childhood is equivalent to not
having the option of choice. It engrains habits that last a lifetime,
so teaching your children to eat food other than junk is the right
thing. Of course both low carb and low fat count as other than
junk.

I believe what I see in the local Asian markets and food stores. Its
not magic. They are not hungry but remain slender. If I was
chronically obese, I'd consider going to Asia and spending 6 to 12
months to see what happens.

And then you'd come back to the west, have the choice of what
to eat. How would you continue to eat like during your loss
phase? Travelling to Asia basically just removes your access to
junk food as it is straightforward to eat Asian style here.

Maintenace counts for much more than the loss phases in the
long run.

Oh well, most won't believe this.

Don't confuse finding your errors with not believing. I believe your
observations but I know how and why being true for you and
being true for people with no other options isnot the same as
being true for everyone with options.

On Oct 22, 5:29 am, Hollywood wrote:
On Oct 21, 3:56 pm, wrote:


My travels in Asia (5 countries) find smaller portions. But what do I
know?

They don't eat what would be termed "subsistence" rations.

Well its just a observation but the average person in many of those
Asian countries weighs far less than the average American.
So if you go somewhere in Indonesia and weigh the average guy coming
in to eat, you might find him to be about 120 pounds.
Now go stand outside the average American restaurant and weight the
typical guy. What? 180? more?

So right there you would expect the expected American portions to be
50% greater.
Or to put it another way, you'd expect the Asian portions to be only
2/3's or less of what you might feel is adequate.
Now, in many Asian areas, especially if you include women, I'd say
the average customer weight is somewhere around 100 to 110 pounds.
Place a scale outside a Denny's and see what you get.
Closer to 200 pounds. Thus the need, or tradition, of much larger
portions.

On Oct 22, 6:39 am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:
"FOB" wrote:


More importantly - Look at second and third generation
immigrants. They have the choice between eating the
local food and eating the traditional food of their heritage.
Look at how many get fat. What folks eat in their native
culture is irrelevant and intellectually dishonest when used
without this observation.
at eaten in Asia.

You and what percentage of third generation immigraants?

Sure, but check out the statistics of third generation immigrants
who have the choice of eating either way just like I have that
choice. They get fat.


And then you'd come back to the west, have the choice of what
to eat. How would you continue to eat like during your loss
phase? Travelling to Asia basically just removes your access to
junk food as it is straightforward to eat Asian style here.

Maintenace counts for much more than the loss phases in the
long run.

Well I think we agree entirely. But thats not what Taubes says. He
says there is something in the carbs thats is bad.
You have stated the reality for most of overweight Americans exactly
as it exists.

They are used to carbs, especially processed ones. They are
surrounded by sugars and they love them. They, generally speaking,
don't want to change their habits they've grown up with. All true.
And in remaining in the same patterns and preferences they find it
very very difficult to drop weight and even harder to maintain any
loss. We all know this. You have spelled it out correctly.
You also correctly point out that 3 generation immigrants as well as
wealthy Asians still living there are choosing to eat as most
Americans eat and are gaining weight and becoming diabetic.
All true.

But also true is that if most overweight Americans were to eat in a
similar fashion (in terms of types of carbs, and veggies, meats and
dairy) then most, but not all, of them would slowly lose weight ending
up somewhere far lower than their current weight. Especially if their
daily activities included similar physical movement.

So while you may correctly point out that very few Americans are
willing to live that lifestyle, it is a lifestyle that would leave
most of them at a much lower weight while not being hungry although
perhaps not "satisfied" according to their prior tastes.
Hey, I eat this way now, but I didn't do it overnight. I very
gradually over many years changed this and that and now am just as
happy eating as i previously was.
Like I said, I'm not a vegetarian, but I get a complete meat buzz
from portions that are about 1/3 of what I use to consume. I don't
suggest anyone try to change overnight. Small steps over several
years make it almost effortless.

So, I guess I agree with you in that you made it clear that the
problem for most Americans is tradition, availability, habit, and
mental rather than that consumption of the fairly high carb diet that
Asians eat "won't work".
And you are correct in assuming that most Americans aren't going to go
to Asia to hang out for several months to find out if eating a
"traditional" Asian diet would work for them.
They have jobs, family, etc etc, that preclude doing that experiment.
I understand all of that.
On the other hand to take the Taubes theme, he would make it out to
be factual that the Asian lifestyle I speak about is not going to work
at all. He dismisses it, saying things like, those Asians all used
to eat whole grained flowers and brown rice. Thats just not true, or
atleast I can't find his brown rice anywhere except in some lonely
small canister in the very very back of some market where the
merchants tell me its the lowest seller of perhaps 15 rices available.
So Taubes is saying some things about the Asian diet that simply are
not true. I think he does so either out of ignorance or because he
has to "stick" with ideas that make his theory work.
I, on the other hand, walk around Asia and look at the tens of
thousands of people I encounter.
I see what their bodies look like. I observe what they eat. I
observe how active they are.
Its not just the genes because as you have observed, the 2nd and 3rd
generation who come to America as well as the newly wealthy still in
Asia are getting fat and diabetic much more frequently.

So, there is a viable alternative. Its NOT the same as what people
grew up with, but it can lead people to healthier lives without
suffering caloric deprivation and lifelong hunger.
I eat in a similar manner and I don't feel like I am being punished
at each meal.

I go to the stores. I know the wind is blowing in the other
direction. I know whats on the shelves at the stores and in nearly
every restaurant. Following another path is not made simple for those
who have not seen millions doing daily year after year. Its, well, I
guess you could say, its foreign. It like traveling to another
country. But its not all about deprivation and hunger. In saying
this other path doesn't exist, I think Taubes is being misleading.

I see places where millions and even billions live with little excess
weight. I experience that.
The I live in the USA, and travel to Western Europe and I see where
hundreds of millions live with lots of excess weight. I experience
that.
Then I ask myself which set of dietary patterns leads to people having
less weight problems and the associated problems.
The picture is clear. Now it may not be the tradition and it may not
be the habits, and it may not be what people would wish, but the
picture is clear. I have seen it rather than just read about it.

Wishing it weren't true won't change the truth on the ground.
Taubes thinking may be best for the typical American who chooses to
eat in a manner similar to what he finds offered in his social network
and in his local stores.
But I contend there is another choice which the world shows works for
other areas and which is quite possible to follow in America. Taubs
tends to dismiss this other choice as being untrue or being so ancient
and bizzare that it isn't practical.
He is narrow minded. Of course it helps to be narrow minded to sell
books. Taubes sells books.
Thats how he makes his living along with is other articles. A bias?
Perhaps.

Just one last thing. Aside from having far less processed sweets,
one of the most interesting things I've learned over the decades from
Asian diets is the world of veggies. They use so many varieties and
prepare them in so many ways, that its far easier to understand why
they aren't so focused on a big slab of meat. Its like meat is flip-
flopped with veggies in importance. Neither is gone, but their
veggies are so much better and interesting that you don't need a hunk
of meat to make the plate interesting.
They are not vegetarian so I'm certainly not pointing people in that
direction.
In closing, and I've already gone on too long. They engage in an
alternative way of eating and it leaves them slender but not hungry.
Hey, its a option that Taubes should not dismiss.

Have you read the actual Taubes book?

Or just the one page overly condensed "Ten Inescapable Conclusions"
which were published in the Epilog, intended for people who had read the
entire 600 pages and presumably knew the detailed discussions and points
that led to these overly condensed "Conclusions".




wrote:
On Oct 22, 5:29 am, Hollywood wrote:

On Oct 21, 3:56 pm, wrote:


My travels in Asia (5 countries) find smaller portions. But what do I
know?


They don't eat what would be termed "subsistence" rations.


Well its just a observation but the average person in many of those
Asian countries weighs far less than the average American.
So if you go somewhere in Indonesia and weigh the average guy coming
in to eat, you might find him to be about 120 pounds.
Now go stand outside the average American restaurant and weight the
typical guy. What? 180? more?

So right there you would expect the expected American portions to be
50% greater.
Or to put it another way, you'd expect the Asian portions to be only
2/3's or less of what you might feel is adequate.
Now, in many Asian areas, especially if you include women, I'd say
the average customer weight is somewhere around 100 to 110 pounds.
Place a scale outside a Denny's and see what you get.
Closer to 200 pounds. Thus the need, or tradition, of much larger
portions.

wrote:

Just one last thing. Aside from having far less processed sweets,
one of the most interesting things I've learned over the decades from
Asian diets is the world of veggies. They use so many varieties and
prepare them in so many ways, that its far easier to understand why
they aren't so focused on a big slab of meat. Its like meat is flip-
flopped with veggies in importance. Neither is gone, but their
veggies are so much better and interesting that you don't need a hunk
of meat to make the plate interesting.
They are not vegetarian so I'm certainly not pointing people in that
direction.

I've disagreed with much of your argument, but strongly agree here.

Those who've had most success on both low-carb and low-fat diets
significantly increase their intake of vegetables.

IMO, no one eats enough vegetables and they should be the bottom of the
food pyramid, not just for weight loss, but for overall health.

This has little to do with low-carb vs. high-carb though. Nonstarchy
vegetables are very low-calorie so eating a lot of them crowds out the
macronutrients in your diet... carbs, protein and fat.

As for the rice thing... I have diabetes, a blood glucose meter, and
thus the knowledge that I cannot tolerate more than a TB of rice at a
time without causing organ damage.

I do stirfries several times a week and since my husband isn't very fond
of rice, I just don't bother. The lack of starch just means we eat more
veggies, so there's no downside. There's nothing missing by skipping
the rice.


In closing, and I've already gone on too long. They engage in an
alternative way of eating and it leaves them slender but not hungry.
Hey, its a option that Taubes should not dismiss.

I *must* dismiss it.

I might not be diabetic today had I eaten a different diet from birth,
but given that I have to deal with the state of my health today, rice is
not ever going to be in the picture in any significant amount.

Most Americans have overdosed on sugar for so long that many likely have
metabolic syndrome even if they're not yet frankly diabetic. They're
not going to lose weight eating rice having already screwed up their
insulin systems.

Some will... my SIL lost over 100 lbs on Weight Watchers. I presume the
combination of her genetics and the insulin resistance induced by her
previous diet was not severe enough to cause her to need to go low-carb
for weight loss.

But I will note that she lost most of her weight with a diet very
similar to mine in that it consists primarily of fruits and vegetables.

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

wrote:
:: Hollywood wrote:
::: On Oct 17, 4:18 pm, "Pat" wrote:
::::::: 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 --
::::
:::: In the populations around the world where meat is too expensive
:::: for many people to eat, there is not a lot of overweight people.
:::: That's why I said it was an oversimplification. Also, we need to
:::: get out of our cars. If I were king of the US, I would immediately
:::: close all "drive through" and "drive up" windows.
:::
::: In Taubes review of this, the cultures that eat a lot of carbs,
::: percentage wise,
::: are the cultures where they eat a lot less, volume of calories wise.
::: The cites
::: of Japan in the 7 country study noted low fat consumption, high
::: carb. They
::: didn't note (in any report that came out of it) the low calorie
::: consumption of
::: those under study.
:::
::: If my choices a
::: low carb, adequate protein, eat to satiation
::: or
::: low fat, low protein, subsistence rations
::: I think I know what the American in me is gonna choose. That I can
::: be as well
::: off, well, that's gravy to me. Pan gravy, thickened with heavy
::: cream.
::
:: Well, I've traveled to SouthEast Asia for amost 30 years. Rural
:: areas as well as cities.
:: Most of the people in those areas are slender. Most of them eat
:: white rice as their main source of calories.

And why do they do this? Because white rice is so very good for them? Or,
might it be because they don't have a lot else to eat? Or, is it more
affordable or what? I have Asian friends here who eat rice but they do so
because that's what they have eaten from childhood.
They are slender but I'm not so certain they are particularly fit or robust.

:: A couple points..
:: 1. They tend to walk more.

More than what? More than Americans? How much more?

:: 2. They tend to NOT eat lots of other sugars and processed carbs or
:: sodas or desserts.

Why don't they eat these things?

::
:: They don't eat what would be termed "subsistence" rations. They eat
:: until full but they don't pack it in.

I'm curious as to how you know this? Because they are slender, perhaps?
I'm pretty sure you didn't walk around taking notes on how people have eaten
over the past 30 years. But unless you've bothered to accurately track by
some means how much they eat you can't say for sure that you know - and I
see no reason to believe you.

:: I think my biggest problem with Taubes is that he makes carbs, just
:: like the ones eaten in Asia, as the culprit.

Carbs, just like the ones eaten in Asia, are the problem when the are
overconsumed.

:: Had he just stuck with processed carbs, and sugars, I'd be a bit
:: more inclined to agree with him.

There are lots of people even here who have gotten fat without eating a lot
of junk food. Some just eat rice and/or pasta and/or other starchy foods.

:: I might add that it is also true that the slender folks in Asia also
:: as a matter of habit eat far less fat than in the USA although they
:: do use oils.

And you know this how? Have you taken data? Are you inferring this from the
fact that they tend to eat less meat?

::
:: I would say this. If......and its a big IF...... If you put 100
:: typical Americans on a typical diet from Indonesia or the Philipines,
:: they would on average, over a year or two, probably lose at least
:: 50% of their "excess" body weight.

Why is that such a big IF if you think this is the reason Asians are
slender?

:: But one has to remember, that this is not the diet you typically see
:: in the average Asian restaurant you find either in America or in
:: Asia, and that is where most people get their ideas about Asian
:: eating.

So what you're saying here is that Asians really eat fewer carbs than what
you'd see in the typical restaurant in Asia or America, right? Since they
are slender, they are more than likely eating a diet whose carb content is
appropriated matched to their activity level. That's what the Atkins
Controlled Carb nutritional program is about, and that's also where Taubes
ends his book. It's not a blanket "carb are bad" mantra, it's about
out-of-control carb consumption due to them being a cheap food source and
being able to make them taste good through processing.

::
:: I have to wonder if Gary Taubes has ever visited Asia and gone to
:: the markets and stores to see what people are really buying for
:: their home cooking.
:: Buy what they buy, and eat what they eat, and you'll find yourself
:: looking a lot more like they look after a few years.
:: But hey, as I always suggest, Go to Asia, and travel around for 2
:: or 3 months. See reality rather than reading it from some NY Times
:: reporter why may have never ventured into Asia.
:: I'd say $2000 spent traveling to Asia would be a better investment
:: than going to some expensive program at some health spa. Eye
:: opening.
::
:: As that joke goes.......... Who ya gonna believe, ME or your own
:: eyes?
:: The "ME" being Gary Taubes

I'm not going to believe you until you have presented something that's more
than just off-the-cuff opinion. Taubes has.

On Oct 22, 2:34 pm, wrote:
On Oct 22, 5:29 am, Hollywood wrote:

On Oct 21, 3:56 pm, wrote:

My travels in Asia (5 countries) find smaller portions. But what do I
know?

They don't eat what would be termed "subsistence" rations.

Well its just a observation but the average person in many of those
Asian countries weighs far less than the average American.
So if you go somewhere in Indonesia and weigh the average guy coming
in to eat, you might find him to be about 120 pounds.
Now go stand outside the average American restaurant and weight the
typical guy. What? 180? more?

So right there you would expect the expected American portions to be
50% greater.
Or to put it another way, you'd expect the Asian portions to be only
2/3's or less of what you might feel is adequate.
Now, in many Asian areas, especially if you include women, I'd say
the average customer weight is somewhere around 100 to 110 pounds.
Place a scale outside a Denny's and see what you get.
Closer to 200 pounds. Thus the need, or tradition, of much larger
portions.

I wouldn't argue portion size, but at 6'2", in all 5 countries I went
to
(Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore), I had no trouble
seeing over the crowd. And, in our party of 16 Americans, 1 Canadian,
1 Taiwanese and 1 Indian, almost everyone had the same experience.
Now, I'm not saying that tall makes you heavy (it should make you
heavier, how much is debatable), but from our combined observations,
we might conclude that being shorter on average makes you slim.
Clearly,
in our party, there was correlation. It's not causation.

That said, how much of a factor is the import tariff on cars or the
price of
petrol in Asia? You've cited walking. It might be an economics issue
rather than a diet issue. In which case, the proper public health
recommendation is steep tariffs on cars and European/Asian gas prices,
rather than a food pyramid.

The sum of my observation here is that for most of my life (and all
that I've
paid attention, we can skip my pre-teen years), nearly everyone in the
public health sector has been telling everyone to eat less fat, eat
more
carbs, don't sweat sugar, limit red meat and get 5 serves of veggies a
day.
In that time, the average person has gained five lbs. The average
person
outside of the Denny's has probably gained ten. So, there's something
broken there.

Last thing: Taubes suggests that by going low calorie, and adjusting
hunger,
you can get the same effects as going low carb, blood sugar/insulin/
cholesterol
wise. So, if my choices for good health are Asian Diet (whatever that
is... Viet
is different from Thai, both are not Malay, and none are Japanese, and
Szechuan
is not Hunan and neither are Haka, yet all three are Chinese, and none
eat
like Thais, Malays, Viets or Japanese for the most part) at 1200-1500
calories,
achieved gradually over time, or American Diet hold the potato at
2000-2500
calories, and I get the same benefit, I make my choice. You're welcome
to yours.

Real last thing: There's the question of timing. Perhaps this Asian
diet works for
so many Asians because they are born into it and it doesn't do harm on
a healthy
system. Since probably 50% or more Americans are already stricken with
Metabolic Syndrome, you have to figure what the intervention would do
at that
point, not on a healthy person. And the science suggests low fat-high
carb-low
cal is pretty far from the best solution for MetS.

Hollywood wrote:

Real last thing: There's the question of timing. Perhaps this Asian
diet works for
so many Asians because they are born into it and it doesn't do harm on
a healthy
system. Since probably 50% or more Americans are already stricken with
Metabolic Syndrome, you have to figure what the intervention would do
at that
point, not on a healthy person. And the science suggests low fat-high
carb-low
cal is pretty far from the best solution for MetS.

I think that point is most important; as I previously posted, it is too
late for me to start eating rice given the diabetes.

It might have made a huge difference had I eaten that way from birth,
but I can't change my past diet, only my future one, and have to make
choices based on the damage that's already been done.

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