Message 316 of 451 (629233) 08-16-2011 2:02 PM

Reply to: Message 313 by molbiogirl 08-16-2011 10:10 AM

About point 1, you're expending a lot of effort attacking it, but I can't see where PD uses the words "insulin" or "appetite" anywhere recently, and that insulin increases appetite doesn't ring any bells as something Taubes claim, though it's been three years since I read his book.

I think you mistake what it is that Taubes is saying that we support. We agree with Taubes that it is increased intake of refined carbohydrates rather than fat that is responsible for problems with obesity. If you want to argue that Taubes is wrong to implicate insulin and that it is instead something else that is responsible, fine, go ahead. But I'm getting the feeling that you disagree with the overall premise about carbohydrates and obesity.

--Percy

Message 317 of 451 (629234) 08-16-2011 2:12 PM

Reply to: Message 316 by Percy 08-16-2011 2:02 PM

I probably mangled all that pretty well, but the gist is close.

Message 318 of 451 (629240) 08-16-2011 2:36 PM

Reply to: Message 316 by Percy 08-16-2011 2:02 PM

From GCBC:

He condemns all carbs, not just refined. Particularly refined, not only refined.

I have yet to mention yet another problem with Taubes' hypothesis.

Protein raises insulin too.

And unrefined carbs raise insulin as much as refined.

These are well established facts. I can post plenty of supporting research.

His hypothesis is indefensible. I said it 3 years ago, I'll say it again.

He's just another "expert" who decided the fleece the American public with a fad diet.

Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Message 319 of 451 (629241) 08-16-2011 2:38 PM

Reply to: Message 317 by Aware Wolf 08-16-2011 2:12 PM

The whole post is worth a read.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/...f-obesity.html#more

Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Message 321 of 451 (629247) 08-16-2011 3:27 PM

There's plenty of genetic evidence that implicates the leptin signaling pathway in obesity, but nothing re: "obesity and insulin action on fat cells."

Where are the mutations that support Taube's hypothesis? The variant alleles?

There are over 20 single gene disorders that implicate leptin (which affects the hypothalamus, not adipose tissue). There are lots of alleles that implicate leptin.

Taubes even mentions one of the genetic studies which implicate leptin, not insulin.

He just forgets to mention the leptin!

Message 322 of 451 (629251) 08-16-2011 4:20 PM

Reply to: Message 319 by molbiogirl 08-16-2011 2:38 PM

A few months back I read Why We Get Fat... and was impressed enough to make a change to my diet; I now eat significantly less carbs than the typical Westerner. It seemed to "work" for me in that I lost about 5lbs of belly fat (I was already fairly lean; now I've got pretty close to a 6 pack if you squint a bit). I also seemed to get over a problem of occasional gassiness that I had. I was pretty happy with all that, and as a lay person I thought Taubes' arguments sounded pretty "scientific". (yeah, I know how stupid that sounds).

But I have to admit, Guyenet sounds pretty impressive, too. And I already wondered about people like Asians, and also my wife, who seem to eat a high percentage of carbs and stay slim anyways.

But on the other hand, the low carb thing seems to "work" for me...

Ug.

BTW - in my post 317 I wasn't saying Taubes was right, just that he did in fact claim that insulin works to increase appetite, at least indirectly.

Message 323 of 451 (629252) 08-16-2011 4:32 PM

Reply to: Message 322 by Aware Wolf 08-16-2011 4:20 PM

Caveman diet, eat right for your blood type diet, atkins diet, low fat diet, low carb diet, zone diet, south beach diet.
Eat all you want, just don't eat this!

And I didn't think you were advocating Taubes' silliness.

Message 324 of 451 (629258) 08-16-2011 5:31 PM

Reply to: Message 309 by molbiogirl 08-16-2011 9:14 AM

quote:

---

1. He neglected to mention leptin.

---

quote:

---

2. He neglected to mention 81% carbohydrate intake.

---

quote:

---

3. He neglected to mention the Pima were lean on a carb diet.

---

I see carbs listed (although I don't see processed carbs and sugar mentioned) and that they were considered in good health. What is your issue? The points he is looking at now is the idea that abundance causes obesity or sedentary lifestyle causes obesity.

quote:

---

You just restate Taubes' erroneous claims. To wit:

---

You quoted my first sentence and said: That's fine. Care to support that bare assertion?

So I quoted from the book where I felt Taubes covered the idea where all calories are not equal and what supported my understanding of what Taubes wrote.

quote:

---

Either refute the evidence or concede the point.

---

What do you think Taubes' central thesis is?

Message 325 of 451 (629262) 08-16-2011 6:26 PM

Reply to: Message 314 by molbiogirl 08-16-2011 11:15 AM

quote:

---

There are literally dozens of papers. Care to comment?

---

I haven't claimed anything concerning insulin.

As I said before, neither you nor Guyenet have provided any quotes (other than that one paragraph) from the book for anyone to follow what your issue is with what Taubes printed in the book.

From what I can tell you and Guyenet are upset because Taubes didn't get specific on a cellular level.

He makes it clear in the book that he is speaking in a more general manner for ease. He didn't write a scientific report. He wrote a book for the public.

When he talks about insulin, I understood that he knew the process was more involved, but he was putting forth the basic idea.

That idea is that processed carbs and sugar cause some people to store too much fat.

Message 326 of 451 (629297) 08-16-2011 7:43 PM

Reply to: Message 318 by molbiogirl 08-16-2011 2:36 PM

It would be very nice and convenient if it were just a case of calories-in and calories-out, but the evidence suggests it isn't that simple. There are other factors. Even something as simple as when you eat has an influence. The composition of each individual's intestinal flora is a factor. Some people are more efficient at extracting calories from food. Aging is associated with weight gain for most people.

Your comments and citations of research seem as full of misrepresentations, misinterpretations, misstatements and errors as last time you were here when you proved pretty convincingly that you couldn't engage in discussion without becoming a bit too emotionally wound up, and you seem unchanged. It's okay to be passionate about what you believe, but you're getting carried away again.

--Percy

Message 327 of 451 (629357) 08-17-2011 6:13 AM

Reply to: Message 317 by Aware Wolf 08-16-2011 2:12 PM

I won't judge the accuracy, like I said it's been a while since I read the book, but this is at least recognizably along the lines of something Taubes would say. Saying "Insulin increases appetite" is accurate in the same way as "Gasoline causes traffic deaths". No one makes the actual claim that Molbiogirl is putting in Taubes mouth, though she later quotes him accurately:

Taubes never says or even suggests anything as simplistic as, "Insulin increases appetite," but it does play a role. Insulin secretion is a response to increasing blood sugar levels, and it plays a key role in metabolizing serum blood sugar, and low blood sugar levels induce a hunger response. But in a normal person's body the mere secretion of insulin to maintain even blood sugar levels isn't causing anyone's appetite to increase.

The problem with carbohydrates is that they cause higher serum blood sugar levels than other foods, and this causes a higher insulin response. It is hypothesized that sustained high blood sugar levels and the resulting high insulin levels cause insulin resistance, a condition where it takes ever increasing amounts of insulin to metabolize blood sugar and the body eventually cannot produce enough insulin and requires additional amounts to be prescribed. This is type II diabetes. Low carb diets are often ameliorative to varying degrees.

The perverse position that Molbiogirl is taking has her trying to prove that other foods commonly cause as great an insulin response as carbohydrates (some do, most don't, the glycemic index is a pretty fair indicator of insulin response), that insulin doesn't play a role in fat uptake, and that it isn't part of a process affecting hunger. The personal experience I'm sure many of us have had is of eating Chinese food with lots of fried rice and then being hungry again a couple hours later, something that is never true of a steak dinner. Molbiogirl understands this since she recently conceded that low carb diets do seem to be associated with less hunger, but she wants PD and me to defend a position that neither of us have taken, that Taubes is correct to blame insulin. Medical research over the past century has been woeful when it comes to generating dietary recommendations, as witness all the reversals of recommendations about foods like eggs and supplements like vitamin E and so forth, so if Taubes is wrong about insulin he has a lot of company in the entire rest of the medical establishment that has been and still is wrong about so many things regarding diet. As Michael Pollan complains, it has caused many to allow nutrition labels to drive their food decisions when the science behind what many food ingredients do is not solid at this time.

Whatever the details of the internal processes behind heart disease, obesity and diabetes, there is a great deal of evidence that carbohydrates, particularly refined carbohydrates, play a key role.

--Percy

Message 328 of 451 (629358) 08-17-2011 6:26 AM

Reply to: Message 322 by Aware Wolf 08-16-2011 4:20 PM

quote:

---

And I already wondered about people like Asians, and also my wife, who seem to eat a high percentage of carbs and stay slim anyways.

But on the other hand, the low carb thing seems to "work" for me...

---

One thought in my mind concerning the differences between breeds of people is about where groups evolved. Wouldn't they evolve to deal with the food in their environment. Processed carbs haven't been around that long.

Then we look at the US melting pot. Most of us are hybrids. What does that do to our system?

Just more thoughts rumbling around. I'm also looking at the thyroid now. So many pieces to the puzzle.

Message 329 of 451 (629360) 08-17-2011 6:42 AM

Reply to: Message 327 by Percy 08-17-2011 6:13 AM

There's never enough anecdotes and always far too much science, so...

I started a bastardised version of the Dukan Diet back at the end of May. The end result is that I have lost over 20 pounds, and I'm still losing weight despite the fact that I no longer recognise that I'm on the diet. The major factor has been very much reduced hunger. In fact, I'm starting to get a little concerned as I am now approaching 160 pounds and still going down And this is despite eating out regularly, with no restrictions whatsoever. It's just for normal meals, I have cut out most of the carbs.

Message 330 of 451 (629368) 08-17-2011 9:01 AM

Reply to: Message 324 by purpledawn 08-16-2011 5:31 PM

I don't intend to debate Tuabes. I intend to discuss the science underlying his hypiothesis.

Please provide cites to support your argument. Not Taubes' quotes. Cites.

I've already posted it twice. I've even supplied the original quote from GCBC.