If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
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? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
"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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
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? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
"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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
"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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Taubes Book - Requires Slow Reading -- and cooling off breaks | Jim | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 18 | October 12th, 2007 10:10 PM |
Nice Reader Review of Taubes Book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" | Jim | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | October 1st, 2007 05:24 PM |
More on Taubes Book | Jim | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 7 | September 16th, 2007 03:28 AM |
Taubes: Good Calories, Bad Calories | Roger Zoul | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 7 | September 13th, 2007 05:03 PM |
Diet Conclusions | Aplin17 | General Discussion | 28 | September 29th, 2004 05:06 PM |