Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 76 of 451 (465617)
05-08-2008 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
05-08-2008 4:27 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
I think this study is in the general neighborhood of the initial part of the process that Taubes describes, that elevated glucose levels cause increased triglyceride output from the liver: Effects of dietary fructose or glucose on triglyceride production and lipogenic enzyme activities in the liver of Wistar fatty rats, an animal model of NIDDM.
That's funny.
I read that abstract last night.
Unfortunately, I haven't online access before 2002 for this journal, so I can't evaluate the paper.
I will note, however, these are diabetic rats, so it's no surprise there are liopgenic enzyme abnormailities. That is a well-known feature of diabetes.
We need to document normal folks/rats.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 05-08-2008 4:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 77 of 451 (465618)
05-08-2008 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
05-08-2008 4:27 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
Bingo!
I just tried "lipogenic enzyme" + "glucose" and look what I found.
Transcription of a number of genes involved in lipogenesis is stimulated by dietary carbohydrate in the mammalian liver. Both insulin and increased glucose metabolism have been proposed to be initiating signals for this process, but the pathways by which these effectors act to alter transcription have not been resolved...For many lipogenic enzyme genes, these two factors may provide an integrated signaling system to support the overall nutritional response to dietary carbohydrate.
Glucose and Insulin Function through Two Distinct Transcription Factors to Stimulate Expression of Lipogenic Enzyme Genes in Liver
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 276, Issue 12, 9437-9445, March 23, 2001
Paper.
So the answer is: "We don't know if it's glucose or insulin. And we can't assume one or the other. But we're guessing it's both."
Clearly this aspect of the metabolic pathway isn't worked all the way out. But it is way too earlier to jump the gun and say "Glucose upregulates VLDL production." Way too early.
And insulin has been clearly shown to suppress VLDL, as I documented earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 05-08-2008 4:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 78 of 451 (465631)
05-08-2008 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
05-08-2008 4:27 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
I hit the link the second I saw it and I missed this.
This is consistent with Taubes premise, which is that repeatedly abusing the body's metabolic processes with blood sugar spikes causes insulin resistance and obesity, creating an environment where elevated blood sugar levels cause increased triglyceride production by the liver. This is the part that I've been saying is not controversial, and it doesn't appear to be an incredibly rare process as you've been claiming.
Woah, there, Percy. Slow down.
We haven't gotten thru with our first 2 questions.
In order to establish that "blood sugar spikes causes insulin resistance and obesity", we will have to take it step by step, just as we are with glucose and VLDL.
We can't take Taubes at his word. We need to independently establish each and every assumption he is making about metabolic processes.
And, as I pointed out earlier, these are diabetic rats. They in no way support Taubes' assertion (that dietary glucose intake in normal folks leads to insulin resistance/obesity) is "not controversial" and not "an incredibly rare process as (I've) been claiming."
Diabetes is associated with insulin resistance. No question.
Obesity is associated with diabetes. No question.
In order to untangle the question of glucose intake and the development of insulin resistance (or obesity) in perfectly ordinary people with no metabolic defects, we need to crank open a whole new can of worms.
And I know I have enough on my plate as is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 05-08-2008 4:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by molbiogirl, posted 05-08-2008 7:30 PM molbiogirl has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 79 of 451 (465633)
05-08-2008 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by molbiogirl
05-08-2008 7:16 PM


Insulin resistance
There has been considerable progress over the past few years in unravelling the mechanisms of insulin action, and the molecular defects that give rise to insulin resistance.
Recent advances dissecting the signalling pathways, cellular architecture and spatial compartmentalization of proteins, coupled with the sophisticated genetic analysis of the system, have yielded quantum leaps in our insight into how proteins and tissues interact to control glucose and lipid metabolism.
But many gaps remain in our understanding of these processes, and in the pathophysiology underling insulin resistance.
We need to define the missing steps in the insulin-signalling network, elucidate the mechanisms of cross-talk in the system, and determine the genetic susceptibility of insulin resistance and the interactions between genes and environment.
Insulin signalling and the regulation of glucose and lipid metabolism
Nature 414, 799-806 (13 December 2001)
Despite periods of feeding and fasting, plasma glucose remains in a narrow range between 4 and 7 mM (milli molar) in normal individuals.
This tight control is governed by the balance between glucose absorption from the intestine, production by the liver and uptake and metabolism by peripheral tissues.
Please note that the authors mention how tightly the body regulates glucose metabolism.
Please also note that the glucose-derived TAGs are immediately broken down into FFAs and exported. (This is a normal individual.)
Up to 75% of insulin-dependent glucose disposal occurs in skeletal muscle, whereas adipose tissue accounts for only a small fraction.
Skeletal muscle sucks up the glucose (where it is either used or stored as glycogen). And fat gets only a smidge.
Although insulin does not stimulate glucose uptake in liver, it blocks glycogenolysis (breaking down glycogen) and gluconeogenesis (making glucose), and stimulates glycogen synthesis, thus regulating fasting glucose levels.
Glucose does not enter the liver as the result of dietary glucose intake.
Insulin action in tissues not normally considered insulin sensitive, including brain and pancreatic beta-cell, may also be important in glucose homeostasis
"Not considered insulin sensitive" means nobody thought to look at these tissues before. A whole new set of pathways to look into!
Insulin signalling and the regulation of glucose and lipid metabolism
Nature 414, 799-806 (13 December 2001)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by molbiogirl, posted 05-08-2008 7:16 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 80 of 451 (465694)
05-09-2008 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by molbiogirl
05-08-2008 4:40 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
molbiogirl writes:
Good. You can help by digging around in the book and finding the documentation. As I just posted, I have spent hours on this topic (I find it interesting ... probably why I'm a grad student at 42). Finding an answer to a very specific question like these 2 we are working on is not easy unless someone has addressed that very specific question with a paper, and that doesn't appear that that is the case. I keep digging around in the intros of very closely related papers hoping to stumble on the answer.
You have to keep in mind that we're approaching this on two completely different levels. From my point of view, trying to figure out the story from individual research papers is like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces are the size of grains of sand. This is what researchers do. This is what I do in my own field, in a manner of speaking. But in this field I'm a layperson, and I'm not going to be able to piece together the story from research papers.
Research papers present huge problems for those unfamiliar with an area of research, even for those working in fairly similar areas. We encountered this problem with LindaLou, where it became apparent that one can find research papers supporting either side of an issue. The problem is that the first papers focusing on a given issue are preliminary, often cursory, but as the issue attracts attention (and grant money) the studies become higher and higher quality, but it can be very difficult for laypeople to tell the different in quality between studies (there's also the quack journals). Compounding the problem is that the funding process does not encourage replication studies, and so it is rare to find studies that examine the exact same question.
I'm in no way trying to discourage you from trying to piece together the puzzle from research papers. I'm just telling you up front that that particular approach is not where it's worthwhile for me to spend my time. I know you like to work from citations and excerpts, but what really works best is when you describe your position or your information in your own words and provide citations only as references to the source of the information.
At one point you commented that you feel as you imagine Cavediver must feel sometimes, but there's a big difference in this discussion. Cavediver is not claiming that the low level physics research indicates that in the macro world objects should fall up. But the mainstream health establishment is claiming that dietary fat is the big bugaboo of modern health. They claim that the research supports a conclusion that dietary fat is the primary culprit behind heart disease, diabetes and obesity. These claims are responsible for huge efforts to get people to reduce intake of dietary fat, and this whole process is taking place at the same time that modern health with respect to these diseases in western countries continues to worsen.
So the big central question is what accounts for this huge disconnect between what it is claimed the research indicates, and the actual experience of the western world.
In other words, whether it's insulin or glucose or ooblick that influences triglyceride production in the liver is of most interest to researchers like yourself, whose responsibility it is to piece together the story and make recommendations about diet. Ferreting out details like this is actually just tiny steps on the way to understanding what causes heart disease, diabetes and obesity.
But I don't have to be a researcher to know that objects don't fall up, no matter how much the researchers might claim that that's what the research indicates. All it tells me is that they don't really know, and the medical establishment has a long history of making dietary recommendations long before they really know what's going on and that later on turn out to be completely backwards, for example, the early condemnation of eggs because of cholesterol content.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by molbiogirl, posted 05-08-2008 4:40 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by molbiogirl, posted 05-09-2008 12:13 PM Percy has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 81 of 451 (465708)
05-09-2008 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Percy
05-09-2008 8:53 AM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
So the big central question is what accounts for this huge disconnect between what it is claimed the research indicates, and the actual experience of the western world.
You know, I didn't mention this before because I didn't want to sidetrack the conversation (again).
But the "western" world does not have the American problem. France, Italy, Greece, remember?
But the mainstream health establishment is claiming that dietary fat is the big bugaboo of modern health. They claim that the research supports a conclusion that dietary fat is the primary culprit behind heart disease, diabetes and obesity.
Pharmaceutical companies, "corporate food", etc. may still be beating that tired old drum, but the mainstream health establishment includes the researchers. And they do not have a consensus re: this issue.
I really wish you would watch Michael Pollan's Google talk. He gives a brief 110 year history of American diet bugaboos. Starting in the late 1800s, an "evil" food is beaten to death by hucksters and a "good" food is flailed mercilessly by the press. That paradigm holds sway for 2 maybe 3 decades, then another takes it's place.
btw. Gravity is not the appropriate analogy. String theory is.
"Food contains calories" is a low level metabolic understanding. "The biochemical pathway to insulin resistance" is a high level metabolic understanding.
I have demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the biochemical pathways responsible for production of carb-derived lipids and insulin resistance are unknown.
And Taubes' book does a great disservice to the American public by suggesting otherwise.
He is no better than the "medical establishment" that you excoriate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 05-09-2008 8:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 05-09-2008 1:31 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 82 of 451 (465711)
05-09-2008 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by molbiogirl
05-09-2008 12:13 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
Yes, you're right, this is a side issue, but it's what I have time for right now. We're still having Internet issues, so an hour of my time every evening has been going to figuring out the problem. I will come back to the technical issues you mentioned in your last few posts, just not right now.
molbiogirl writes:
Pharmaceutical companies, "corporate food", etc. may still be beating that tired old drum, but the mainstream health establishment includes the researchers. And they do not have a consensus re: this issue.
Well, let me not be specific then. Whoever is responsible for promoting the message about the adverse health effects of dietary fat and low carb diets (and my doctor is certainly one source I can be specific about as far as promoting this message), the fact remains that this message is out there in an extremely prominent, powerful and almost omnipresent way.
But the "western" world does not have the American problem. France, Italy, Greece, remember?
I remember that you keep saying this.
I have demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the biochemical pathways responsible for production of carb-derived lipids and insulin resistance are unknown.
And Taubes' book does a great disservice to the American public by suggesting otherwise.
He is no better than the "medical establishment" that you excoriate.
Hey, excoriate is my word, find your own!
I think you need to separate in your mind your dislike of Taubes for blaming the community of which you are a part from your disagreement with Taubes about his dietary conclusions.
When I criticize what I'll call this unknown source of the dominant dietary message, it's an expression of my own frustration with the years and years of what may very likely be incorrect and even possibly adverse dietary advice. Whoever is to blame deserves to be excoriated.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by molbiogirl, posted 05-09-2008 12:13 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 83 of 451 (465764)
05-10-2008 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by molbiogirl
05-06-2008 4:08 AM


molbiogirl writes:
If you have time, this talk by Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food, is well worth a listen. He touches on many of the things we've been discussing in this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-t-7lTw6mA
It's funny how you never hear of something, and then suddenly you hear about it from all over. Our company had a book sale in the lobby, and the proprietor recommended The Omnivore's Dilemma to me. Then the next day my wife said that on a walk her friend had mentioned The Omnivore's Dilemma. Then here you are a week or so later recommending a talk by the author of The Omnivore's Dilemma.
So I thought it worthwhile to give this a listen, and then right in the first five minutes Michael Pollan said something that echoed Taubes precisely:
Pollan writes:
"What will kill most of us are the chronic diseases that are related to diet, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, several types of cancer, and so people are confused on that one point. And that's the point I decided to bore in on on this book. And I went researching what do we really know? What can we say with confidence? What is the state of play in the science about the links between what we eat and what happens to our bodies.
"The deeper I got into it, I was a little disappointed, I guess, that the science wasn't better than I thought. We actually don't know a lot about the links between diet and health, and that's one of the reasons that the best advice that you hear has been changing from time to time. And it's one of the reasons that I think people become so perplexed. The science is a little sketchy."
Taubes' book says nearly the identical thing, but Taubes also goes a bit further:
Taubes on page 453 writes:
"When I began my research,...I had no idea that I would find the quality of the research on nutrition, obesity, and chronic disease to be so inadequate; that so much of the conventional wisdom would be founded on so little substantial evidence; and that, once it was, the researchers and the public-health authorities who funded the research would no longer see any reason to challenge this conventional wisdom and so to test its validity."
Pollan echos Taubes on another point concerning nutrition as religion:
Pollan at approximately time 7:00 writes:
"It's a little like a religion. If you have a religion where the important thing is invisible, is an abstract deity to whom we no longer communicate directly, our relationship to that deity must be mediated by a priesthood, and today we have a good priesthood that basically tells us how to eat."
And Taubes makes the same comparison, though again he goes a bit further:
Taubes on page 451-452 writes:
"The result is an enormous enterprise dedicated in theory to determining the relationship between diet, obesity, and disease, while dedicated in practice to convincing everyone involved, and the lay public, most of all, that the answers are already known and always have been—an enterprise, in other words, that purports to be a science and yet functions like a religion."
I don't know what Pollan will go on to say from here, but so far his message seems just a friendlier (toward the health research community) version of Taubes'. It appears that Pollan may see the same problems as Taubes, but refrains from actually blaming anyone.
Pollan says outright that today the dietary evil is trans fat, and I remember that about this you said that the answers are complex and do not reduce to a single simple answer, and I of course agree, but the national authorities on health responsible for reducing the research to public recommendations say that the big dietary evil is fat, and while the health community as a whole does not view it as anything like that simple, the fact of the matter is that in the past and probably in the present, too, our public health authorities have had no problem finding prominent health researchers who will state as if there is no ambiguity that the big dietary evil is fat. The scientist who filled this role back in the early 1970s when the McGovern committee did its investigating into diet and health was Ancel Keys. The McGovern committee produced the report Dietary Goals for the United States, which started the whole "fat is evil" attitude still prevalent today.
Interestingly, Pollan is also blaming a group, but he's blaming the average person, not the health community, for engaging in what he calls "nutritionism", and I won't provide his detailed definition, but generally its when you overemphasize the nutritional content of food to the near exclusion of other qualities. I think Pollan would probably agree that people who eat low-fat cream cheese (think edible plastic) are engaging in nutritionism.
Pollan next agrees with Taubes about the health dilemma, and provides a little information about the "French contradiction" that is consistent with the carbohydrate hypothesis:
Pollan at time approximately 11:30 writes:
"And our obsession with health, our reduction of eating this incredibly rich interesting experience that engages us with the natural world, that engages us with other people, to narrow it down to the aperture, to this obsession with health, it hasn't made us any healthier.
"We are...this is what I call the American paradox. You know you've heard the French paradox, these people who eat all this supposedly lethal food, all this saturated fat and triple creme cheeses and frau wau and red wine, and lo and behold, they have less heart disease than we are, they live better than we do, they live longer than we are, they're skinnier than we are, and we scratch our heads, what's wrong here, what's wrong with this picture."
Taubes would agree with all this, and in fact has said much the same thing, and note that Pollan says that the French eat more saturated fat than we do, which means their carbohydrate intake must be lower, completely consistent with the carbohydrate hypothesis and contrary to the dietary fat hypothesis.
I'm beginning to wonder why you cited this Pollan talk as containing a truer message than Taubes, because Pollan has just stated in his own words Taubes' thesis:
Pollan at approximately time 12:25 writes:
"Now nutritionism, this way of looking at food, I could deal with it, even though it does ruin many otherwise perfectly good meals, I could deal with it if it worked. If this narrow, pseudo-scientific way of looking at food made us healthier, prolonged our life, okay, we should accept it. But all the evidence points to the fact that it has done no such thing. That for the period in which nutritionism has held sway in this country, which I date to the 70s, our nutritional health has gotten worse."
You gave me the impression that Pollan was going to contradict Taubes. Instead it is so far the exact same message with different packaging. Pollan even traces the origin of our current dilemma back to the 70s, just like Taubes, perhaps back to the same McGovern committee as Taubes.
I'm now at 13:11 and Pollan has just launched into an exposition that precisely aligns with Taubes views about the lack of valid science behind modern nutritional recommendations. As far as I can see, Pollan and Taubes must agree on far, far more than they disagree, so I'm going to stop quoting Pollan every time he agrees with Taubes, I'd probably end up quoting half his talk. From here on in this message I'll only take note if I come across any notable differences between Pollan and Taubes. And if the agreement becomes too congruent I might just stop listening, I don't have infinite time and I already know what Taubes thinks, I don't need Pollan to echo him.
I have to make an exception for this one, and I'm going to stop listening now:
Pollan at approximately time 16:00 writes:
Nutrition science in my view is sort of where surgery was in the year 1650.
Though they might quibble about the exact year, I'm sure Taubes would concur.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by molbiogirl, posted 05-06-2008 4:08 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by molbiogirl, posted 05-10-2008 12:30 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 84 of 451 (465781)
05-10-2008 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by molbiogirl
05-06-2008 4:08 AM


Here's a lecture to the endocrinology department at UC Berkeley by Gary Taubes. I've watched it all the way through, and it is an even more clear presentation of his thesis than his book. It's rather long at 1:48:17, but after watching it you'll have a clear understanding not only of what he is saying, but also of some of the evidence behind what he is saying:
At one point you questioned the lack of hunger associated with low carbohydrate diets, and I know you like studies, so here's one: The Effects of High Protein Diets on Thermogenesis, Satiety and Weight Loss: A Critical Review. From the first paragraph of the Satiety section:
Of 14 studies that compared high protein to at least one other macronutrient, 11 found that the protein preload significantly increased subjective ratings of satiety.
There's a lot more detail in that section if you're interested, but you can see that it really isn't controversial.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by molbiogirl, posted 05-06-2008 4:08 AM molbiogirl has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 85 of 451 (465787)
05-10-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
05-10-2008 7:11 AM


Pollan echos Taubes on another point concerning nutrition as religion.
Taubes is just opening his own branch. A Martin Luther, if you will.
Pollan next agrees with Taubes about the health dilemma, and provides a little information about the "French contradiction" that is consistent with the carbohydrate hypothesis.
The French Paradox doesn't help Taubes.
The obesity and CHD rates for France, Greece and Italy have historically been extraordinarily low.
All 3 countries eat lots of refined carbs.
You gave me the impression that Pollan was going to contradict Taubes.
That wasn't my intention. I just think Pollan has a more nuanced view.
Pollan even traces the origin of our current dilemma back to the 70s, just like Taubes, perhaps back to the same McGovern committee as Taubes.
That's not surprising. I mentioned it as well. The statistical trends are not a secret. But it started in the 50s. It accelerated in the 70s.
Nutrition science in my view is sort of where surgery was in the year 1650.
Which means that Taubes can't have a clue either!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 05-10-2008 7:11 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 05-10-2008 4:48 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 05-10-2008 5:41 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 86 of 451 (465800)
05-10-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by molbiogirl
05-10-2008 12:30 PM


Taubes and Pollan agree on a great, great deal, most significantly that the dietary recommendations that emerged in the 1970s have contributed to worsening health trends regarding heart disease, diabetes and obesity. They also agree that the state of research regarding diet's effect on health is rudimentary at best.
So apparently it is Taubes' advocacy for a specific alternative, the carbohydrate hypothesis, that is at the root of your objections. While seeking Pollan's position on carbohydrates I found a review of Pollan's book In Defense of Food which said at one point:
Taubes' book is a heavier read than Pollan's, thickly documented and heavy on the science. Pollan faults it for not being skeptical enough about the current identification of carbohydrates as the enemy that fats were once thought to be: "As its title suggests, 'Good Calories, Bad Calories,' valuable as it is, does not escape the confines of nutritionism."
So clearly Pollan disagrees with Taubes about carbohydrates, but the first sentence reveals a clear distinction between Pollan's and Taubes' books. Taubes' book is "a heavier read than Pollan's, thickly documented and heavy on the science," and though you've made clear that your criteria is the quality of the science, and though you express an interest in exploring the scientific issues, instead all you do is relentlessly slam Taubes and the book that is "heavy on the science." Are you under some weird misimpression that what you're doing resembles objective scientific practice in any way?
I think examination of scientific issues like this requires objectivity and emotional detachment. If you've got your mind made up already and have only entered into this discussion to take jabs at Taubes at every opportunity then this isn't really a dialogue and there's no point in me responding anymore.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by molbiogirl, posted 05-10-2008 12:30 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by molbiogirl, posted 05-11-2008 1:05 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 87 of 451 (465801)
05-10-2008 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by molbiogirl
05-10-2008 12:30 PM


molbiogirl writes:
The French Paradox doesn't help Taubes.
The obesity and CHD rates for France, Greece and Italy have historically been extraordinarily low.
All 3 countries eat lots of refined carbs.
If this data is important to your conclusions about Taubes' views on carbohydrates then it might be worthwhile examining it.
I didn't really have much luck looking into this. I know there was the Seven Countries Study concerning diet and heart disease around 50 years ago, but it didn't collect information on carbohydrate intake.
I found no information about formal studies.
The informal information I found on France said it was known for a high fat intake, not carbohydrate.
Countries like Italy and Greece include the regions from which the outlines of the Mediterranean Diet were drawn, and upon which the South Beach low carb diet is based, so while I'm sure there are regions of Italy where pasta consumption is high, there are other regions where it isn't, and on a national level it might possibly average out, we'd have to have data to know for sure.
I once traveled in Greece for two weeks, and I didn't find the land of lamb kabobs to be consuming many foods notable for their carbohydrate content. Standard fare in most tavernas is a Greek (of course) salad consisting of tomatoes, cucumber and a few olives, and souvlaki (a couple kabobs with lamb, peppers, onions, etc.). Bread, while not absent, wasn't served that much. I don't remember any pasta at all, though I'm sure there must have been some. We didn't see a lot of soda, either.
So I guess what we want to do is take a look at the available studies of populations with high carbohydrate intake coincident with low obesity rates.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by molbiogirl, posted 05-10-2008 12:30 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 88 of 451 (465885)
05-11-2008 9:57 AM


Looking for More Country Obesity Data
I have a few minutes before I have to leave this morning, so I'm poking around on the Internet. It would be great to find a table for each country of obesity rates by year along with fat and carbohydrate intake levels, but no such luck. I'm only finding anecdotal information.
From France Battles a Problem That Grows and Grows: Fat in the NY Times on 1/25/2006, this indicates the growing success of fast food restaurants, and probably indicates an increase in inexpensive refined carbohydrates in their diets in the form of hamburger rolls, french fries, soft drinks and deserts:
NY Times writes:
Some of the reasons for the increase in obesity are those that plague the United States and much of Europe: the lure of fast food and prepared foods, the ubiquity of unhealthy snacks and sedentary lives.
McDonald's is more profitable in France than anywhere else in Europe. Sales have increased 42 percent over the past five years. Some 1.2 million French, or 2 percent of the population, eat there every day.
This article at Navigator.com (France heading for US obesity levels says study) comments on the same thing you did, but this reporter didn't know whether this was myth or not:
The so-called French paradox - the belief that there is something in the French lifestyle that protects them against obesity, heart disease, and diabetes - may be a myth or it may be a truism that is passing into history.
I'm continuing to look for the source of the "French paradox" information, but all the articles I'm finding early in the Google list are from the same time and are actually reporting on the release of a study's results about obesity in France.
To the extent that Taubes has a thesis it is that repeatedly spiking blood sugar levels, usually through intake of refined carbohydrates found in bread, pasta and products that include sugar like soda and ice cream, over a number of years eventually causes metabolic syndrome. The increasing evolution of the French diet to more closely resemble that of the American diet to have a greater emphasis on prepared meals and fast food, which is higher in refined carbohydrates than the more traditional French diet, is coincident with an increasing obesity rate.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 05-11-2008 6:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 89 of 451 (465898)
05-11-2008 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
05-10-2008 4:48 PM


I think examination of scientific issues like this requires objectivity and emotional detachment. If you've got your mind made up already and have only entered into this discussion to take jabs at Taubes at every opportunity then this isn't really a dialogue and there's no point in me responding anymore.
As you wish.
My intent was to track down the specifics of the metabolic pathways Taubes "uses" to make his points.
And, as I suspected, he glosses over some very important gaps in the metabolic pathways.
Until he fills in the gaps (glucose's relationship to the carb-derived TAGs, the mysterious claim that TAGs are temporarily stored in the liver, etc.), his claims are nothing more than speculation.
Reminds me of this cartoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 05-10-2008 4:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 05-11-2008 4:28 PM molbiogirl has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 90 of 451 (465913)
05-11-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by molbiogirl
05-11-2008 1:05 PM


molbiogirl writes:
My intent was to track down the specifics of the metabolic pathways Taubes "uses" to make his points.
Taubes doesn't have any metabolic pathways of his own, he's just trying to present the research, and I've just been trying to present what he presents. You have been so certain that Taubes is wrong that you jumped to numerous wrong conclusions and left me saying multiple times, "No, Taubes isn't saying that."
Would you please relax? If Taubes is wrong then the evidence will show that he's wrong, but you have to figure out what he's saying first. You're driving both me and you crazy jumping with a big "Aha!" on every little detail, and you've been mostly wrong with your citations so far and wasting both our time.
Taubes isn't saying anything all that controversial. Paraphrasing Taubes from the conclusion of his lecture at Berkeley, "The carbohydrate hypothesis is consistent with the evidence and deserves to be explored by further study." Given that you agree with Pollan, and given that Pollan agrees with Taubes, and given that they both agree that health research is in its infancy, it's hard to find much problem with that.
But Taubes does say much that is very specific, for instance the part about carbohydrates role in heart disease by causing an increase in levels of small, dense LDLs, and the part about sustained intake of refined carbohydrates over the years playing a significant role in the onset of metabolic syndrome associated with diabetes type 2 and obesity. As that book review said, Taubes' book is rather heavy on the science, and soon you'll have the book in hand. You might also want to listen to that lecture he gave at Berkeley, the link's in Message 84, because it focuses more exclusively on details of diet/health relationships and metabolic processes, and it will only take an hour and forty-eight minutes, while reading the book will take you at least 10 hours.
Reminds me of this cartoon.
This is just another shot at Taubes. Haven't you done enough of this? Do see anyone here going after your side like this? Anyone, for example, bringing up your errors, like that VLDLs are the same as small, dense LDLs, and then accusing you of starting religions or being a sloppy researcher or leaving out significant steps?
Of course not. Refraining from that kind of childish stuff is what viewing this as a partnership of exploration means: accepting that everyone involved in the process is honest and earnest and sincere but is also human and makes mistakes. It's a very bad thing to view every misstep or mistake as a dishonest attempt at misrepresentation and subterfuge, and it's an especially bad thing when you're actually just jumping to conclusions.
Discussions will not get anywhere if each side just sits in their respective corners shouting insults at each other. In addition to simple fairness and decency, that's why I'm not doing it and won't do it, so I really, really, really wish you would please stop.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by molbiogirl, posted 05-11-2008 1:05 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by molbiogirl, posted 05-11-2008 5:56 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024