Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions

On Oct 16, 6:57 pm, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
"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".

It might also be an emerging science vs. what you can debunk/say with
more certainty. My reading of the book leaves a lot of room for other
hormones
and factors (see Aaron's post above). But it points, pretty squarely,
at insulin
as problem #1 for most people. Again, doesn't exclude cortisol,
gherlin, thyroid,
leptin, homocystine, or anything else better research is opening, just
puts out
that insulin is probably the main problem in what is a very
complicated picture.

I don't think that's particularly controversial. If there's something
controversial
in the book, it's not the omission of emerging science, it's how bad
the
science that the conventional wisdom is based on is. Maybe not
controversial,
maybe shocking, depressing, infuriating or "Bring a Gun to Work and
Shoot at
Congress, the FDA and the USDA from the roof"-ing. (I can see all
three with
the naked eye from where I eat lunch... thank goodness I'm not a gun
owner).

Hollywood wrote:
:: On Oct 16, 6:57 pm, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
::: "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".
::
:: It might also be an emerging science vs. what you can debunk/say with
:: more certainty. My reading of the book leaves a lot of room for other
:: hormones
:: and factors (see Aaron's post above). But it points, pretty squarely,
:: at insulin
:: as problem #1 for most people. Again, doesn't exclude cortisol,
:: gherlin, thyroid,
:: leptin, homocystine, or anything else better research is opening,
:: just puts out
:: that insulin is probably the main problem in what is a very
:: complicated picture.

I think I've said mostly the same things you're saying now. Still, it does
seem as if it would be worth some mention. Also, as I said before, the
finger has been pointed at insulin for quite some time now. Perhaps that's
really all of the story that Taubes wanted to tell, since I think, as you
do, that exposure of the failing medical establishment is really the
objective of the book and is what he really is best at, IMO.

::
:: I don't think that's particularly controversial. If there's something
:: controversial
:: in the book, it's not the omission of emerging science, it's how bad
:: the
:: science that the conventional wisdom is based on is. Maybe not
:: controversial,
:: maybe shocking, depressing, infuriating or "Bring a Gun to Work and
:: Shoot at
:: Congress, the FDA and the USDA from the roof"-ing. (I can see all
:: three with
:: the naked eye from where I eat lunch... thank goodness I'm not a gun
:: owner).

Pat wrote:
::::: 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

How's your riding going this year? I'm on tap to complete 6 or seven full
centuries this year, even with less overall (through the week) riding.

Hollywood wrote:
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.



OK, I forgive you. :-)

Pat wrote:


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"?

Famous words... "Your Mileage May Vary" ... applies to most things
dietary, and is responsible for difficulties in obtaining clear simple
study results.

When I hiked the Appalachian Trail, I would pig out quite a lot when we
stopped at trail towns to resupply.

At one place, we were driven to a local takeout BBQ/Sandwich outfit and
loaded up for dinner back at the hostel. After finishing off my
purchase, I proceeded to eat the leftovers from three other guys who
bought big because they were hungry. I was complimented on the
magnificent pig-out job.

"Excess" is in the eyes and mind of the beholder, or speaker.

Congress is supposed to define "excess", but they can't get around to it
due to excess prior work.

Jim wrote:

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

I started my career at JPL but eventually switched to commercial
for the better pay.

Possibly you are one of those supersecret people?

I did have a security clearance at one point but never a high one.
I had to be escorted through many places. One place I had to
carry this big blinking light with a beeper. The thing embarrased
my escort so much but i just thought it was funny.

Hollywood 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.

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

They collected exhaled air and measured CO2 and O2 in it.
Excellent. Thanks!

This study compared high-carb/low-fat/medium-protein with
high-protein/low-fat/medium-carb. Nice. Now I want the study that
low carbers want - compare high-carb/low-fat/medium-protein with
high-fat/low-carb/medium-protein because that's how the numbers
come out.

Hollywood 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.

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

Speaking of pre-concieved notions known to be false like high protein
being bad for kidneys, check out the last few paragraphs of that
write-up. It repeats the old assertion about kidneys then points out
that this study shows the old assertion is false. Then they go on to
blither about saturated fat!

How's your riding going this year? I'm on tap to complete 6 or seven full
centuries this year, even with less overall (through the week) riding.

Bleah! It's either raining or the wind is blowing so hard, or a new one:
fog! We've had over 3 times the usual amount of rain this year so far, and
if it keeps going this way, it'll set a record.

Pat in Tx

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.

Pat