Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes

British obesity on rise since the mid 1800s. Zweiniger-Bargielowska, Ina: The Culture of the Abdomen: Obesity and Reducing in Britain, circa 1900-1939
Journal of British Studies (44:2) [Apr 2005] , p.239-273. We didn't have a "1970s-1990s" like spike in obesity early in the 20th century.

Nutrition and Health in France: Dissecting a Paradox
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Volume 105, Issue 12, December 2005, Pages 1870-1873
France BellisleWhat do you suppose makes up the other 60%? Key word? Recent.The French rate of obesity doubled in the last 2 years.They currently eat low quantities of carbs.How does that help Taubes? How do you suppose researchers figured out that 35-40% of French dietary intake was fat?They measured total dietary intake. Total includes carbs, Percy.

Well. Now I see why you quoted the same 6 sentences over and over.Taubes makes mention of LDL (and VLDL) for a total of 3 pages. 170-3.And, as I've shown, he gets the biochemistry all wrong.And it's no wonder.Look at the bibliography, Percy.The first page. Of 17 cites, 12 are 1970s or older.The second page 14/22.The third page. 25/30.The man doesn't cite recent work!It's just as I said.He ignores the vast majority of research. I just had no idea it was this obvious.

Let's take a look at a specific example.On page 156, Taubes makes the claim that "carbohydrates elevate VLDL".The source of this revelation?Research from 1958 and 1963.Current research, however, clearly shows that the insulin response to carb intake inhibits VLDL.

There's a problem with your hypothesis.From the paper: And there's this: And this: And this: As I pointed out earlier, it is the apo particle levels that increase, not TAGs or FFAs.And this: And this: That last line is important. The test subjects did not make more fat.So. A high carb diet:(1) Does not increase VLDL production.
(2) Does not increase cholesterol plasma levels.
(3) Does not increase fat biosynthesis.
(4) Reduces LDL levels and cholesterol levels.
(5) Merely increases the time the VLDL particles are in the blood (their half life).Again. Taubes' conclusions about the biochemistry of carb metabolism is clearly wrong -- recent research does not support his arguments.Which is why he cites stuff from 60 years ago.

Taubes seems to think that diabetes is the result of dietary carb intake.
As I pointed out earlier, he's got a tough row to hoe, considering it's been around for millenia.So. Let's take a look at diabetes. Specifically, adult onset diabetes.Type II diabetes (T2D) has a genetic origin. Studies suggest that the risk varies widely across populations, from 5% or less in White and Asian populations to 50% or more among Pima Indians and South sea Island populations (Elbein et al. 2002). Lifetime concordance rates among identical twins approach 100%.The genetic status of T2D is being sorted out as we speak. In just the last 2 years, 3 very strong candidate genes have been identified: PPARG, KCNJ11 and TCF7FL2. It was only in 2006 that TCF7FL2 was identified as a T2D gene. Since then, 20 studies have confirmed its association with the disease.The pertinent question is whether genetic influences are exerted by few “major genes”, each with relatively large effect, or by a large number of “polygenes”, each with relatively minor effect (Stern 2000). Theoretical studies also have emphasized that as few as 20 susceptibility variants may suffice to explain as much 50% of the disease (Yang et al. 2005).(As few as 20 genes. Huh. And Taubes seems to think that somehow carbs upregulate 20 genes. That's ... remarkable.)Furthermore, studies have shown that both impaired insulin secretion and insulin action seem to be inherited and could represent the primary defects in glucose metabolism in those at genetic risk of developing T2D (Vauhkonen et al. 1997).The studies from Lyssenko et al. (2007) confirm earlier findings and establish that the predisposition to T2D is the result of reduced insulin secretion rather than reduced insulin action.In fact, most of the reliable candidate genes like PPARG, KCNJ11 favor impaired insulin secretion, not insulin action (Damcott et al. 2006; Florez et al. 2006; Saxena et al. 2006; Scott et al. 2006; Chandak et al. 2007).Now. Here’s the fun part.The magnitude of the TCF7L2 effect is much higher than any other confirmed T2D candidate. The individual effects of the other variants are modest, ranging from 10 to 30%.TCF7L2, however, doubles your risk of T2D (Florez et al. 2006). At the same time, tho, it dramatically increases the effectiveness of both exercise and caloric restriction.And yet Taubes would have us believe that if one eats carbs, one develops diabetes. Bada bing, bada boom. From page xxiii: Translation: I can’t explain the mechanisms, but I have the answer!Clearly, this brief outline of current research shows that this is not the case. There is no one “fundamental cause” of diabetes, any more than there is one “fundamental cause” of cancer.If you’d like to watch a wonderful talk given last year by the guy who discovered the TCF7L2 gene, here it is:The New YorkerElbein SC 2002. Perspective: The search for genes for
Type 2 Diabetes in the Post-Genomic Era.
Endocrinology, 143(6): 2012-2018. 1186-1191.
55: 3630-3634.Stern Michal P 2000. Strategies and prospects for finding
insulin resistance genes. J Clin Invest, 106(3): 323-
27.Yang Q, 2005. How many genes underlie the
occurrence of common complex diseases in the
population? Int. J Epidemiol. 34: 1129-1137.Vauhkonen IIkka,
1997. Defects in Insulin Secretion and Insulin Action
in Non-insulin dependent Diabetes mellitus Are
Inherited. J Clin Invest, 100: 86-96.Lyssenko Valeriya, 2007.Mechanisms
by which common variants in the TCF7L2 gene
increase risk of type 2 diabetes. J Clin Invest, 117:
2155-2163.Damcott CM, 2006.
Polymorphisms in the transcription factor 7-like 2
(TCF7L2) gene are associated with type 2 diabetes
in the Amish: replication and evidence for a role in
both insulin secretion and insulin resistance.
Diabetes, 55: 2654 - 2659.Florez JC, 2006. TCF7L2 polymorphisms and
progression to diabetes in the Diabetes Prevention
Program. N Engl J Med, 355: 241 - 250.Chandak GR, 2007. Common variants in the TCF7L2
gene are strongly associated with type 2 diabetes
mellitus in the Indian population. Diabetologia,
50: 63-67.

Yes, he does.P. 177. That's wrong.From message 103. That's not true, Percy.Page 170-3. Your favorite 6 sentences. He is explicit in his (erroneous) interpretation of the metabolic pathway.Your argument that an increased VLDL half-life is what Taubes is referring to is suspect. Nowhere in the book does Taubes mention the half-life of VLDL particles.He does, however, spend 3 pages describing a fictional metabolic process for the production of VLDL particles.Second. Even if I were to concede for the sake of argument that Taubes may have been referring to the VLDL half-life, of what use it that?The VLDL particles are NOT converted into LDL particles. The LDL levels fell! Cholesterol levels fell! Nothing happens while the VLDL particles are in the blood.Half-life simply means the VLDL particles are in the blood for 25 minutes instead of 12.And finally. Re: your point that Taubes doesn't mention insulin.Taubes harps on insulin and carbs ad nauseum. From your favorite 6 sentences, page 173. From page 394. There's a darn good reason why Taubes neglected to mention insulin in his fictional account of the metabolic pathway re: carbs and VLDLs (p. 170-3).The research contradicts his hypothesis.Krauss and Taubes discuss Taubes' ideas on NPR here:Not All Calories Are Created Equal, Author Says : NPRAt 7:44, Krauss scolds Taubes to "not oversimplify the science" regarding carbs and body weight regulation.Krauss goes on to say "There's an awful lot of regulation ... that determines obesity, involving organs like the brain, the intestines, the liver and muscle and involve integrated circuits and are not simply responding to insulin." "Regulation is much more complex than just insulin or no insulin."Krauss does not agree with Taubes re: carbs/insulin and weight.Krauss also mentions his research re: sdLDLs and specifically points out that it is those who are already overweight and those that have metabolic syndrome that have elevated levels of sdLDLs. Krauss paper.He immediately goes on to dispute Taubes' simplistic notions re: sdLDLs and carbs.From the Krauss paper you cited (immediately following what you quoted): Multiple genetic determinants. Multiple environmental (one of which is dietary intake) determinants.Immediately preceding your quote: And the final sentence of that paragraph and the following paragraph: Metabolic syndrome, hyperlipidemia, hyperapobetalipoproteinemia and hypoalphalipoproteinemia. Not normal folks. Those that suffer from metabolic syndrome, hyperlipidemia, hyperapobetalipoproteinemia and hypoalphalipoproteinemia.Krauss does not agree with Taubes re: carbs/insulin and weight nor does he agree re: carbs and sdLDLs. He makes that abundantly clear in the interview. He repeatedly chastises Taubes for oversimplifying the science.

The NPR link is in the message, Percy.
Always has been.Krauss was polite but stern with Taubes.
And he made the same points I have been making (repeatedly) in this thread.The metabolic pathways are extraordinarily complex and interlinked (he calls them integrated circuits).The metabolic pathways are very tightly regulated.The metabolic pathways do not have a single trigger, like carbs or glucose or insulin.And finally, Taubes is oversimplifying the science and doing a disservice both to the science and the public.btw.Weight loss plateau = all the water weight gone.
2 weeks = 1 pound lost = ~1500 calories/day is the appropriate caloric restriction level. Not 1200.

No. They are not. He contradicts Taubes on every point Taubes tries to make. Taubes brushes him off by saying "Ron's in the public health business".At 7:35. Krauss does not agree with Taubes. Nor does he support the way Taubes butchers the science. Metabolic syndrome. Again, allow me to remind our readers that this is not applicable to normal folks.Once you have metabolic syndrome, yes, carbs play into that. But if you do not have the disease condition, carbs do not have that effect.These metabolic pathways -- fat metabolism, carb metabolism, etc. -- are very tightly regulated. Very precise. Very functional.If a disease condition interrupts or disturbs or redirects these processes, then of course things go haywire. "Substitute carbs for fat". Let's unpack that.Dr. Krauss mentions (earlier in the interview) the cheap, highly caloric carb snacks that folks gobble up when they go on a low fat diet. Those are the carbs Dr. Krauss is referring to.He is suggesting that folks cut out the substituting stuff. He also suggest veggies and whole grains.He does not support the wholesale reduction of carbs and he makes that point repeatedly throughout the interview.At 19:35. At 24:04. And Dr. Krauss' sdLDL reference is regarding those who suffer from metabolic syndrome. From here.In folks with metabolic syndrome!Taubes' insistence that this happens in normal folks is akin to my suggesting that all smokers will develop lung cancer.

Percy, this is silly. Why would your weight loss stop? Why should you cut you caloric intake further? 1 pound a week or every other week will continue and that is a perfectly acceptable weight loss. It just means it will take a year to drop that remaining 30 lbs, that's all.(btw. 1#/week is the weight loss you will see with any caloric restriction diet.) Dr. Krauss repeatedly contradicted Taubes. He even went so far as to tell Taubes "You are misinterpreting the data."Taubes response? "Huh uh."From 109: Translation: Taubes, you are misinterpreting the data again.From 109. Krauss is talking about carbs in the context of metabolic syndrome, not normal intake.Krauss isn't the only scientist whose work Taubes mangled. And he's not the only one to speak up.Scientist #1. Scientist #2. Big Fat FakeScientist #3. Australia's leading consumer advocacy group | CHOICEScientist #4. Australia's leading consumer advocacy group | CHOICEScientist #5. Australia's leading consumer advocacy group | CHOICETaubes is thoroughly dishonest. Australia's leading consumer advocacy group | CHOICEDr. Dean Ornish and Dr. Barbara Howard kicked the snot out of Taubes on Charlie Rose.Take a look.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPyme62niYMAnd who are the scientists that publicly support Taubes? Andrew Weil and Mehmet Oz. Birds of a feather!Edited by molbiogirl, : citeEdited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Percy, how you can hear Krauss correcting Taubes over and over again and still come up with this ... interpretation ... is beyond me.Maybe you're not used to scientist-talk. Krauss was harsh in his criticism. Please don't butcher the science.It is simplistic to suggest that one is "genetically predisposed" to disease. That is true of nearly every disease.Carb intake does not play a significant role in the development of metabolic syndrome. If that were true, it would be all over pubmed.Do the pubmed search yourself, Percy. You will find nothing. Nada. Squat. Taubes ignores the uptick in caloric intake over the past 2 decades.And obesity (from increased caloric intake) leads to diabetes and heart disease.Whenever prosperous folks get their hands on lots of food, they get fat. That has been true for millennia, not just the last 2 decades here in the States.Over 150 years ago, when Britain's industrial revolution created a middle class, those folks got fat.The Chinese, South Pacific islanders, Mexicans, South Americans and some African tribes have historically prized obesity (obesity = sign of wealth) and overfed their children (and their women) to plump em up. http://tojou.wetpaint.com/...y+Trends+by+Geographic+Location I've ignored your anthro stuff so far, but this is too much.
We do not have a "carnivorous evolutionary background".
Where on god's green earth did you get this idea? Mark Teaford and Peter Ungar
Diet and the evolution of the earliest human ancestors
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 97, No. 25 (Dec. 5, 2000), pp. 13506-13511

Pissed off scientists who have been quotemined by a popsci writer are nothing new.Pointing out that Taubes is dishonest is easy when half a dozen scientists have come forward to highlight his dishonesty. This is disingenuous, Percy.
Of course a quotemine is "accurate" is some sense of that word.
The point each of these half dozen PIs is making is that he ripped their words out of context and twisted them to fit his agenda.
Their science does not support what he says. Have you any idea how much this sounds like a creo?The zeal with which researchers defend their work against its misinterpretation is indeed a thing to behold.Researchers fight all the time. And the squabbling is part and parcel of advancing science. You know that.It is rare, tho, that they accuse a colleague of quotemining. For good reason. Were a PI to quotemine a paper that he cited in his work, he would be eviscerated by the community as a whole.Taubes isn't subject to any such community censure, however.Which is why the bookshelves groan under the weight of unbelievably bad popsci books.This reminds me of the deception that the producers of Expelled used with Dawkins and Myers.When their words were ripped out of context, the shit hit the fan. As it should. Deception, like that used by Taubes and by those that made Expelled, is reprehensible. You know, I've let this pass one too many times, because I didn't want to sidetrack the discussion.But, since you have chosen to end the discussion, I see no reason to continue to ignore this nonsense.You have not shown anything I've said to be (1) wrong (2) false (3) inaccurate or (4) erroneous.I, on the other hand, have caught you with your pants down around your ankles on several occasions.The latest of which was your wrong/false/inaccurate/erroneous insistence that Taubes did not claim that VLDL overproduction was the end result of dietary carb intake. You said you were no longer interested in discussing "the science".From 107. I can understand your frustration. You don't have access to the literature, for one thing. I do.However. It is vital to pick apart his bogus arguments using the available research.For example. I can make the argument that when one eats sugar, the liver converts the available glucose into ammonia and this lowers blood pH which then interferes with brain function.How would you go about disproving that nonsense?By referencing the literature, of course.I have shown that Taubes simply manufactures nonexistant metabolic pathways. No temporary fat storage, no TAG biosynthesis, no overproduction of VLDL particles in carb metabolism, for instance.Don't you understand that this undermines his entire argument?There is NO metabolic pathway that fits his description!I could do the same with the rest of the bogus "science" in his book. I've done quite a bit of the research already.Dr. Ornish and Dr. Howard did the same thing on Charlie Rose. Picked his arguments to pieces. Using current research.But you aren't interested.

Another thought.Taubes has offered the scientific community the golden key to curing -- not alleviating, but curing -- 3 of the deadliest diseases in the U.S. today ... heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.#1 - Diseases of the heart (27.2%)
#3 - Obesity (13.5%)
#5 - Diabetes mellitus (3.1%)But those goddamn scientists are just too blind, just to wedded to the status quo!Apparently, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of American scientists are just too stubborn to run with Taubes' brilliant idea and pick up a Nobel for their efforts.The nerve.

Percy, don't even front.You've been talking "to" me in the third person for a week now.When you're ready to discuss the science, let me know.And, yes, this means the nitty gritty biochemical details.Taubes made up, out of whole cloth, biochemical pathways.It's up to you, or some other forum member, to provide evidence to the contrary.It speaks volumes that no one on this board has leapt to your defense.I'm not too awful worried, tho.I've reviewed the literature and I know Taubes is wrong.Here's another question for you, Percy.Name a scientific theory as earth-shattering as "Carbs and carbs alone cause heart disease, diabetes, obesity" that has no support in the scientific community.Go on. Name one.Even string theory has a whole host of scientific reseachers willing to stand up for it.Where're the carb guys?Why is it that folks like Dr. Atkins (who NEVER published in the peer reviewed literature), Gary Taubes, and Arthur Agaston are out there on their own?Oh, lest I forget, alt med gurus Dr. Oz and Dr. Weil, too.Why is it that no one, absolutely no one, who has published in the peer reviewed literature has published anything in support of this ... "theory"?Even conspiracy theorists have their supporters!Look at polywater. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater.htmlEven bogus shit like polywater can garner scientific support.Wherefore art thou carb-causes-heart-disease-diabetes-obesity supporters?FYI.In his own words.Carbohydrates cause obesity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPyme62niYM
10:51Carboyhydrates cause heart disease, type II diabetes, cancer, Alzheimers.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/StopSugarShock/2007/...
5:33Edited by molbiogirl, : spEdited by molbiogirl, : citesEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Shorten display form of long URL, to restore page width to normal.

Taubes claims that carbs are the sole cause of cancer and Alzheimer's, along with heart disease, obesity and type II diabetes.As I've said before, Percy, when you are ready to discuss the science, let me know.