|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I'd be very surprised if the book didn't include the titles of the works it cites. Even if the footnotes only include author and year it ought to have a list of references or a bibliography in the back which will let you find the titles (that arrangement is not unusual).
If it really doesn't include the titles anywhere that would be a huge warning sign.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I've resisted the temptation to comment up to now, seeing flaws on both sides.
But surely the comparison is implicit in Taubes' point. Obviously he is bringing up the Pima tribe as a counter to the assertion that modern prosperity is a cause of obesity. This article makes some interesting points:
The Pima Indians maintained much of their traditional way of life and economy until the late 19th century, when their water supply was diverted by American farmers settling upstream,
In the 1890s, the traditional Pima Indian diet consisted of only about 15 percent fat and was high in starch and fiber, but currently almost 40 percent of the calories in the Pima diet is derived from fat. As the typical American diet became more available on the reservation after the war, people became more overweight.
...Out of 35 Mexican Pimas studied, only three had diabetes and the population as a whole was not overweight, according to Ravussin.... "We've learned from this study of the Mexican Pimas that if the Pima Indians of Arizona could return to some of their traditions, including a high degree of physical activity and a diet with less fat and more starch, we might be able to reduce the rate, and surely the severity, of unhealthy weight in most of the population," Ravussin says.
Of course the point about prosperity is that it permits a sedentary life and a high-calorie diet. If the Pima were unable to hunt or farm, instead relying on handouts of lard, sugar and flour it is entirely possible that they would have a sedentary life and if the handouts were generous enough their diet could easily be high in calories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Aside from general skepticism about all hypotheses at diet I have noticed a tendency to the use of strawmen in your relation of Taubes' claims (to what extent these are due to Taubes or to you, I cannot say). To deal with the example in this post.
quote: Is Taubes seriously suggesting that the "dietary fat hypothesis" claims that poor people with a sedentary lifestyle and a high calorie intake will NOT become fat ? Surely the only relevance of prosperity is that it permits many people to live a sedentary lifestyle and eat lots of calories. To say otherwise is to put the cart before the horse ! Your comments on the article don't address an important point - the comparison with the Mexican Pima. Nor really the difference between the traditional diet and the modern diet. But surely these are the most important points for Taubes' hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Which is an entirely different argment. Arguing that a group of poor people don't get fat does NOT refute the idea that a sedentary lifestyle combined with a high calorie intake generates obesity. There was never a hypothesis that prosperity in itself directly caused obesity. Yet that was what you said that Taubes was trying to refute !
quote: I raised the issue of comparison with the Mexican Pima and a comparison with the traditional diet as separate points - clearly NOT equating the two. Thus your comment here does not address anything I said.
quote: But the Mexican Pima diet is full of starch. So in fact the recommendation that you scoffed at was a suggestion that the American Pima should live more like the Mexicans.
quote: Apparently so: More than half of all Pima Indians over age 35 have diabetes quote: That really depends on the proportions. According to the article cited above the Pima were primarily an agricultural people. I suspect that the Mexican Pima diet is closer to the traditional diet than you allow, with crops forming the major portion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Percy, your use of strawmen - whether derived from Taubes or your own thinking - remains far too obvious.
quote: Firstly it is obvious that the hypothesis you describe is NOT a hypothesis that obesity is DIRECTLY caused by prosperity. It is the high-calorie diet combined with a sedentary lifestyle that is the direct cause. And even that is something of a strawman since it doesn't deal with the fact that it is the calories rather than fat specifically that are linked to obesity, and it is only saturated fats that are strongly linked to heart disease. (Don't you see the obvious conflict between attacking Taubes' opponents for saying that "a calorie is a calorie" and also attacking them for saying that fat alone is responsible for obesity ? If a calorie is a calorie, then sugar is as bad as fat, or worse !)
quote: Now I don't know why you consider this a reliable source on the traditional Pima diet. Based on the titles in the references, it seems that the only article cited on the Arizona Pima is one from the NYT. And it just so happens that the article is recommending a "hunter-gatherer" diet, like the one it attributes to the Pima. So, especially given the emphasis on irrigation systems in other sources and the claims that fat consisted of just 15% of the traditional Pima diet, I am still skeptical of the idea that hunting was as important as you suggest, or if it was, it is relevant to the "harmlessness" of fat.
quote: The evidence is that the Mexican Pima have a significantly lower incidence of diabetes. So I have to ask (again) why suggesting that the Arizona Pima make their lifestyle more like the Mexican Pima is so obviously bad. If you are right, then why aren't the Mexican Pima even worse off ? (Don't say exercise, since that was part of the recommendation). Addition: This study evaluates what it refers to as traditional Pima foods.
Their diets today are considerably different from those before 1930, which were dominated by wild and cultivated desert legumes (3), with cacti, fish, and small seeds as supplements (4). Mesquite, corn, and legumes together provided 40-50% of food intake by weight. The "before 1930" issue obviously raises questions, so this doesn't settle the issue, but it does tend to support the idea of agriculture as a major factor in their traditional diet. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You also seem to have missed the context, and the additional qualifier "in itself". It's really simple. Saying "these poor people got fat so the dietary fat hypothesis is wrong" does not make sense. Aside from the fact that it isn't logically valid, it ignores the real points of diet and exercise.
quote: I'm not jumping to conclusions, though. I am pointing out real problems in your arguments. You really need to take a good critical look at what you're saying. There are plenty of other issues, too. Your latest post has some really obvious problems, too.
quote: I can't speak to the situation in the U.S, but over here the biggest changes have been relatively recent. And a lot of them are cosmetic, like putting "low fat" labels on food that never contained much fat in the first place. And surely you should be talking about actual diet to show that the change really has happened, and to deal with possible confounding factors.
quote: I've only seen those in relation to the Mexican Pima. From what I remember the Arizona Pima eat a more typical American diet.
quote: THe recommendation you scoffed at including increased exercise ("a high degree of physical activity"). If exercise works for the Mexican Pima why wouldn't it work for the Arizona Pima ? How is that difficult to understand ?
quote: Since the varieties used are said to be local it seems very likely that these foods were part of the Pima diet. And there's been no evidence that the Pima had a high-fat diet in the past. Even the article you cited said otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I was simply commenting that my point was much clearer than your excuse conceded.
quote: For most of the points being made they should be treated as independant. You do when it is useful to your case (e.g. the Mexican Pima). It is certainly plausible that there is a practical issue which many recommendations ignore, but you must not confuse what happens if you try and fail to follow those recommendations with what would happen if you successfully followed them.
quote: You have some major errors in this paragraph. I have not jumped to these conclusions. I have been careful to point out that it is NOT clear to me whether the strawmen come from you or from Taubes. My position is that the arguments you make for Taubes case are often bad, and even in places dishonest. How can I make that case without criticising those arguments ?
quote: Which is it Percy ? Do you want me to criticise your arguments or not ? I can point out some glaringly obvious problems. You should be able to, too.
quote: Now try and remember that. Especially the first part "theoretically it would work...". If you'd just said that the exercise part of the recommendation was impractical because people wouldn't stick to it Im wouldn't have had a problem. I'm going to guess that it is Taubes who is responsible for moving from "theoretically it would work..." to "the theory is wrong". (e.g. the criticism of "a calorie is a calorie" in Message 165.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Percy it seems that you won't accept any criticims of your arguments.
You argue that we must accpet that there is a confiunding factor in the case of the Mexican Pima. But when it comes to the U.S. diet your evaluation is based on official advice rather than actual consumption and don't even consider the possibility of confounding factors. (e.g. reduced exercise - British children are kept in more than I was as a child and video games and other sedentary entertainments are more common. Mayber there is something similar in the U.S.). Your Message 173 aside from the emotional appeal ignores factors that you are clearly aware of - because you have mentioned them in this thread - to "justify" the exclusion of fructose. Did you really consider everything carefully ? It seems quite obvious that your bias in favour of Taubes' claims is affecting your posts. I strongly suggest that you take a step back and critically examine what you are saying. As I say I find it reasonable that meat might be better for controling appetite. It seems plausible and at least your anecdotal experience backs it up. The rest of the claims seem very dubious, at least in so far as I can evaluate them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Well I'm glad that my statements have had some impact, but you don't seem to acknowledge the issues.
This is from you Message 173
While M&M candy is highest in both calories and carbs, today the sugar in candy is usually 55% fructose and 45% glucose (it's made with high fructose corn syrup), and fructose is metabolized via different metabolic pathways than glucose. We really want to look at only the glucose component, both because this is what is thought to more directly contribute to obesity and diabetes and because we want to compare apples to apples,...
Given that sugar is 50% fructose, and you clearly believe that fructose is dangerous shouldn't you be saying that the M&M's are MORE like sugar - not removing the fructose from consideration ? What's the justification ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No link was provided to the original paper, but on reading the rebuttal and response, I find that neither is of any help to the argument based on dietary recommendations I've seen in this thread (e.g. Message 172). The point the rebuttal makes on smoking - and other hazards is on the question of paternalism. It is pointed out that all health and safety advice can be seen as paternalistic. Marantz et al. do not point out any clear misrepresentation or even fully address the point. They argue that there is a difference between providing information and advice but it seems a very fine point and not one that is brought out. (Is putting mandatory health warnings on cigarette packets purely informational ? We have not gone that far on dietary fat, even now. And where would a ban on tobacco advertising or heavy taxation to encourage giving up smoking fall ?) It is on the question of causation, though, where Marantz et. al. raise points damaging to the argument seen in this thread. The conclusion that carbohydrates are responsible for obesity etc. is stronger than the hypothesis that the advice was a cause (because it proposes a specific cause). Marantz et al assert that even the weaker conclusion is only as well supported as the original recommendations. And they propose an alternative explanation that there was too much emphasis on fat, resulting in people eating too many calories on the assumption that they were safe if they avoided fat. So even the weaker conclusion, without considering possible confounding factors (such as the substitution for sugar for fat in processed food). In contrast, the rebuttal to the original paper points to more recent and stronger evidence of harm from fat, which is it alleged that Marantz et al. ignored. There is no response to this point, even though it would seem to be more damaging than the issues that are addressed. In short, these links are both damaging to the case against carbohydrates as it has been presented here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Eh ? I didn't even try to rebut the paper. I just commented on the rebuttal and the response with regard to a specific argument raised in this thread.
quote: People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Having now read the paper, I have to ask if you have. The only major point of agreement with Taubes is the idea that the dietary guidelines may have contributed to obesity. But it does not support the idea that fat is somehow better than carbohydrates, rather it calls such a conclusion into question.
As I noted earlier the argument you used refers only to the guidelines and not the actual change in diet. This paper does not make that mistake:
The major contributor to reductions in the percent of calories from fat was not a reduction in the numerator (absolute fat intake), but an increase in the denominator (total caloric intake)
According to this paper, women's consumption of fat even increased in absolute terms. Quite frankly, I find it hard to see what it is that I am supposed to be rebutting in this paper. The point discussed above clearly supports my position and damages yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Let me repeat. I didn't even try to rebut the paper.
quote: No, I'm just pointing out that you obviously didn't read my post before replying. Hence your false claim that I tried to rebut the original paper. Obviously you still haven't read it.
quote: And you couldn't even be bothered to read my post.. As I said, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Percy, you are falsely accusing me of attempting to rebut a paper I haven't read instead of addressing the substantive comments in my post. That's mudslinging. The comment you dislike is an offer to call things even, although the stubborn way you cling to your falsehood has rather tilted the balance against you.
quote: The reality is that I did not try to rebut the paper. The reality is that the paper supports my position. I am not even trying to rebut Taubes' books. I have made it quite clear that I am commenting on arguments put forward in this thread. That's reality.
quote: I did that. And rather than address it you prefer to make false accusations. You've even added a new one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No, you falsely did so.
quote: I certainly did not. I argued that the response did not adequately deal with the objection, which did NOT make such an assertion.
quote: I said that they raised them IN THEIR RESPONSE TO THE REBUTTAL.
quote: No, you're engaging in false accusations to avoid dealing with the substantive points I raised. Anyone who follows this exchange can see that. You haven't even responded to my points about the original paper. Made AFTER reading it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024