Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 361 of 451 (629421)
08-17-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by molbiogirl
08-17-2011 1:47 PM


Low Carb, not No Carb
You're being obtuse. Maybe skinny people just can't read fat books.
Taubes is not the one saying that all carbs are bad, that's your wording.
He's arguing that the low fat - high carb diets, and the restriction diets are not lowering the obesity epidemic.
He's shown that people in the past intent on gaining weight used certain types of carbs to fatten up. They chose the carbs that will fatten the easiest.
IOW, it makes more sense to take a closer look at carbs and the impact they have on our bodies. That isn't saying they are all bad.
Realistically, I'm not going to be pigging out on green beans enough to tell my body to store fat, but I can do it easily with fruit juice.
It's a shame you can't understand what he wrote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2011 1:47 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2011 4:14 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied
 Message 369 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 7:28 AM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 362 of 451 (629423)
08-17-2011 4:12 PM


Back to this...
A few posts back, I pointed out that Taubes quote mined some research.
1. He neglected to mention leptin.
2. He neglected to mention 81% carbohydrate intake.
3. He neglected to mention the Pima were lean on a carb diet.
Since PD doesn't find this explanation satisfactory, I will rephrase.
1. The title of the paper is: Low dose leptin administration reverses effects of sustained weight-reduction on energy expenditure and circulating concentrations of thyroid hormones. He co-opted it, and other studies by the same authors, as evidence for his insulin hypothesis. In fact, he used their work 22 times and never mentioned leptin.
2. "The typical diet is 81% carbohydrate, and primarily based on sorghum, according to Taubes's own reference. Taubes states here that the typical diet is "primarily milk", therefore by inference, low in carbohydrate." Just as he did with the leptin studies, Taubes conveniently neglects to mention that which does not support his hypothesis.
3. "[The Pima diet was] high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet based on corn, beans, starchy squash, and a modest amount of gathered animal and plant foods from the forest and rivers in the area." They were lean and healthy on a high starch diet. Probably why he forgot to mention that part.
It turns out I'm not the only one to notice the quote mining.
For those interested, another blogger has been checking Taubes' references to see if they match the original papers. Her take down of Taubes can be found here:
Guyenet v. Taubes: Thoughts on Stephan's Demolition of the Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Percy, posted 08-17-2011 5:17 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 371 by purpledawn, posted 08-18-2011 8:42 AM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 363 of 451 (629425)
08-17-2011 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by purpledawn
08-17-2011 4:06 PM


You're being obtuse.
This from the girl who claims that when Taubes quotes a paper to support his hypothesis, "he didn't say that" so it doesn't count.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by purpledawn, posted 08-17-2011 4:06 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 364 of 451 (629432)
08-17-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by molbiogirl
08-17-2011 4:12 PM


Re: Back to this...
Hi Molbiogirl,
I think the biggest problem for the fat hypothesis and the research supporting it is that during the very period when low fat diets were receiving by far the greatest emphasis and people replaced fat calories with carbohydrate calories, much of the western world experienced explosive growth rates in obesity and diabetes. I understand that a significant proportion of the medical establishment favors the fat hypothesis, but that position stands in stark contrast to our experience of the last 30 years or so.
Why does the majority of the research implicate fat instead of carbohydrates? I don't know.
But more importantly, why did obesity and diabetes rates soar during a period of decreasing fat intake and increasing carbohydrate intake?
The answer lies in the fact that making a firm connection between studies at the level of biochemistry and the experience of actual people isn't something we've proven we can do very effectively. For example, biochemical research said that free radicals were bad, but studies on actual people reveal that taking supplements that reduce free radicals have a negative impact on health. For another example, just look at all the failed drug trials with drugs that appeared very promising in the lab. This is the way it goes with this kind of research. The obvious conclusions from the test tube level do not often translate well to people.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2011 4:12 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2011 8:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 376 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 9:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 365 of 451 (629452)
08-17-2011 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Percy
08-17-2011 5:17 PM


Re: Back to this...
I'm following this topic with great interest: I'm a big fat fuck, I'm interested in biochemistry and particularly the biochemistry of obesity, Molbiogirl's contributions are always "must read" for me, and I'm pretty sure that Molbiogirl is right that Taubes has pretty flimsy scientific support for his conjecture about the role of insulin but that Percy is right that the shift in caloric composition of the American diet from being fat-heavy to carb-heavy is strongly correlated with an immediate increase in the rate of obesity.
I think that Taubes can be attacked without disputing the massive evidence that the medically-driven shift in dietary emphasis from fats to carbs has been perhaps the most dramatic failure of the public health establishment in the last 40 years. For my own part, based on no evidence at all, I think an important part of the story has to do with how nutrients are absorbed in the intestine; sugars may diffuse, but fats are primarily transported actively, which means that the body may have the ability to reject excess fat in the diet. Total bullshit speculation on my part, though.
Also I would point out that Taubes' insulin hypothesis directly contradicts the stated rationale for fructose being the cause of all this obesity, since the idea there is that fructose doesn't raise insulin levels, which would cause satiety and reduce overeating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Percy, posted 08-17-2011 5:17 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by nwr, posted 08-17-2011 11:18 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 370 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 7:37 AM crashfrog has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 366 of 451 (629459)
08-17-2011 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by crashfrog
08-17-2011 8:53 PM


Re: Back to this...
crashfrog writes:
Molbiogirl's contributions are always "must read" for me
Yes, I'm following her posts in this thread.
Personally, I have increased the proportion of carbs (but not sugar) in my diet, and lost a little weight. Well, okay, that's mostly a matter of reducing fat.
To some extent, I think the parties are talking past each other.
As best I can see, there are two issues with weight gain. One is the metabolism issue. The other is the psychological issue (what causes you to eat too much). And Molbiogirl is mostly talking about the first of those, while the others are more concerned about the second.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2011 8:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2011 11:37 PM nwr has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 367 of 451 (629461)
08-17-2011 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by nwr
08-17-2011 11:18 PM


Re: Back to this...
Yes, I'm following her posts in this thread.
Quite! Percy's recent attempt to portray her as someone whose emotions get the better of her evidence didn't ring true for me. Sure, she spits hot fire in the finest tradition of EvC, but she's got the evidence to back it up, in my experience. She's definitely on my very short "in any disagreement, I'm almost certainly the one who's wrong" list.
Personally, I have increased the proportion of carbs (but not sugar) in my diet, and lost a little weight. Well, okay, that's mostly a matter of reducing fat.
Fiber carbs, or "refined"?
For me the winning strategy seems to be foods that increase satiety.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by nwr, posted 08-17-2011 11:18 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by nwr, posted 08-18-2011 1:06 AM crashfrog has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 368 of 451 (629466)
08-18-2011 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by crashfrog
08-17-2011 11:37 PM


Re: Back to this...
crashfrog writes:
Fiber carbs, or "refined"?
Mostly the fiber carbs.
I don't much like things that are too sweet.
crashfrog writes:
For me the winning strategy seems to be foods that increase satiety.
That is a problem with fiber carbs. I eat them, and still feel hungry. So I have some coffee to try to delay further eating until the fiber carbs begin to digest enough that the hunger goes away.
It's a bit off topic, but I wonder about artificial sweeteners. I have mostly avoided them. If I have a soda with sugar or similar sweetener, it does increase satiety. But artificially sweetened sodas seem to act as appetizers, and encourage more eating.
crashfrog writes:
Sure, she spits hot fire in the finest tradition of EvC, but she's got the evidence to back it up, in my experience.
Yes, that was my impression.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2011 11:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 369 of 451 (629494)
08-18-2011 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by purpledawn
08-17-2011 4:06 PM


It's a shame you can't understand what he wrote.
Just one more comment.
Saying something along the lines of "carbs, but especially refined carbs..." is the same as saying "dogs, but especially golden retrievers...".
As I stated earlier, Taubes only bothered to qualify his remarks 86 times in a 600 page book.
He can't indicte refined carbohydrates and only refined carbohydrates because his hypothesis rests on insulin. Both refined and unrefined carbs raise insulin levels to a similar degree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by purpledawn, posted 08-17-2011 4:06 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by purpledawn, posted 08-18-2011 9:16 AM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 370 of 451 (629497)
08-18-2011 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by crashfrog
08-17-2011 8:53 PM


Thanks Crash & nwr!
I'm following this topic with great interest: I'm a big fat fuck...
And I'm a very skinny girl who eats nothing but carbs. Sort of like a vegetarian who doesn't really eat vegetables. But that's where personal anecdotes get you. Nowhere near an explanation.
Also I would point out that Taubes' insulin hypothesis directly contradicts the stated rationale for fructose being the cause of all this obesity, since the idea there is that fructose doesn't raise insulin levels...
I'm itching to discuss the role of insulin, but neither Percy nor PD are interested. It's the lynch pin of Taubes' hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2011 8:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2011 11:20 AM molbiogirl has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 371 of 451 (629503)
08-18-2011 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by molbiogirl
08-17-2011 4:12 PM


One Size Doesn't Fit All
The problem is that you keep giving me the punch line and not the joke.
I'll try this one more time.
1. Please provide the page of the book with the argument impacted by not mentioning leptin, then explain how not mentioning leptin changes the point he was making.
2. Again, page number. Who's diet was primarily milk? Taubes makes a lot of little points through out the book. What point was he making and how does not mentiong the 81% impact his point?
3. Again, page number. The section I read on the Pima dealt with the issue of abundance. Prosperity is also blamed for the increase in obesity. He was showing that the Pima were not obese during their prosperity, but during their poverty.
Taubes is addressing many different issues concerning obesity. That's why I keep asking you to provide the quotes from Taubes that are impacted by the concerns you present.
People who are genetically geared to store fat are concerned about why they are storing excess fat. For many, the low fat way of eating didn't keep them lean. For many, exercise didn't keep them lean.
As I said before, there may not be one absolute answer that fits all people. Even within one family there can be one lean and one fat even though they are sitting down to the same food. Just the anecdotes on this thread shows that we each have a ratio that works for us.
One size doesn't fit all.
From your link:GCBC Reference Check ~ Part I of ? ~ Metabolic Adaptability & Energy Balance
To the metabolically literate, it is obvious that some foods contain more energy than others in the same bulk; like energy stores in the body, fat-rich foods are more energy-rich, whereas carbohydrate-rich foods contain less energy for the amount of bulk -- especially hydrated bulk, which is what they will be by the time they reach the stomach. Therefore, the metabolically literate eater consumes a diet relatively high in carbohydrate foods and low in fat-rich foods. By this means, he or she can actually have a very full stomach and yet not ingest excessive amounts of energy, especially if the carbohydrate is largely in unrefined forms (fruit, vegetables, cereals rather than sugar). The trick may be to be aware of which foods contain fat: pastry, biscuits, potato chips and red meat are examples of foods which may be thought of as carbohydrate- or protein-rich, but which actually contain a lot of fat. This is not just a theoretical argument; a number of studies have shown that body weight is related to the habitual fat content of the diet, with those on lower-fat diets aving, on average, lower body weights.
The article doesn't get into what type of fat they were using, but the low fat, high carb doesn't work for everyone. This article doesn't address the differences between grass fed meats and grain fed meats, homemade pastries and biscuits and commercially made with preservatives, etc.
Even that article quoted Frayn: So the nature of the diet rather than the amount has to be changed.
This part that Taubes quoted from Frayn should make great sense to anyone who believes in evolution.
...fight against mechanisms which have evolved over many millions of years...
I don't want to buck the mechanism. I'm trying to understand the mechanism. Why do I want to swim upstream? Why should I?
So when we look at the feast or famine issue for those people who are geared to store fat; the idea that eating more less-energy-rich foods may tell our bodies famine. Eating more more-energy-rich foods may tell our bodies feast.
It is important to me that any change in my diet has to make a difference without added "exercise". So when I change the nature of my diet and the fat recedes (not muscle), that is a diet worth managing.
We try to find the balance that doesn't tell our bodies to store fat.
Again, mileage may vary.
I do like this part though.
As food in take drops, the level of thyroid hormone fals and metabolic rate is lowered.
This brings up other issues my family is dealing with and gives me another avenue to investigate.
I may or may not agree with everything that Taubes says, but he brings up issues that cause me to research what might work for me and mine. I'm not worried about anyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2011 4:12 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 9:40 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 372 of 451 (629509)
08-18-2011 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by molbiogirl
08-18-2011 7:28 AM


quote:
He can't indicte refined carbohydrates and only refined carbohydrates because his hypothesis rests on insulin. Both refined and unrefined carbs raise insulin levels to a similar degree.
I don't feel his overall hypothesis rests on insulin. Wasn't my take away from the book.
We had already dumped the low fat diet for 3 years before I read the book. Just confirmed some of my thoughts and no, insulin wasn't an issue.
It's great that you are skinny and don't have to worry about what you eat.
His point is that there seems to be something metabolically different in those who store fat than those who don't. Whether it is due to evolution or a glitch, we don't necessarily know. IMO, everyone is still guessing.
If you have a need to debate how insulin and leptin work in the body, start a science thread. I won't be in it, but I don't think you're going to get what you want in this thread.
Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 7:28 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 9:42 AM purpledawn has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 373 of 451 (629512)
08-18-2011 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by molbiogirl
08-17-2011 11:53 AM


Re: Taubes: All carbs are bad
molbiogirl writes:
Taubes: All carbs are bad.
P. 394
1. Carbohydrates are singularly responsible for prompting insulin secretion 2. Insulin is singularly responsible for inducing fat accumulation 3. Dietary carbohydrate are required for excess fat accumulation. Note he doesnt say refined carbs. Just carbs. In searching Chapter 22 (The Carbohydrate Hypothesis II: Insulin) online, I see that he doesnt qualify his use of carbohydrate with refined.
In fact, Taubes uses the word refined 86 times. In a 600 page book.
You seem to think that he thinks it's primarily refined carbohydrates responsible for obesity. Would you like to discuss this aspect of his book?
In Taubes' view the greater the insulin response the more dangerous the food with respect to obesity and diabetes. Refined carbohydrates cause the greatest insulin response and are therefore the most dangerous.
The more refined the carbohyrates consumed, the higher the resulting blood glucose level. Insulin is mostly a response to blood glucose levels, and the higher the blood glucose levels, the greater the insulin response.
It would make no sense, it would be inconsistent with his fundamental hypothesis, for Taubes to include the claim that foods associated with small insulin responses (like complex carbohydrates) could be responsible for the high rates of obesity and diabetes. As he says in the prologue while summarizing old studies:
Taubes on page ix-xx writes:
...these diseases appeared in these populations only after they were exposed to Western foods - in particular, sugar, flour, white rice, and maybe beer. These are known technically as refined carbohydrates...
That's Taubes hypothesis in a nutshell, that the increase in intake of refined carbohydrates are responsible for the high rates of obesity and diabetes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2011 11:53 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2011 10:07 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 374 of 451 (629516)
08-18-2011 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by purpledawn
08-18-2011 8:42 AM


Discussing science, not opinion
Taubes is addressing many different issues concerning obesity. That's why I keep asking you to provide the quotes from Taubes that are impacted by the concerns you present.
I've posted the relevant Taubes quotes. I've posted both Taubes' summary of his hypothesis and a couple of snippets of the research he cites to support his hypothesis. You seem to have a problem with Taubes quotes I post when they are research he is citing to support his hypothesis.
Look. I keep asking you for cites. You give me the cites that Taubes uses to support the quotes you post and I'll give you page numbers for the mangled research. Fair enough?
If you're interested in discussing the science, so am I. I would like to begin a discussion of the role insulin plays in Taubes' hypothesis. (His hypothesis is nothing without insulin.) I would also like to finish the mangled research thing. Tho, I have to say, you've got the book, PD. You can't flip to the index and look up "Pima"? Or "leptin"? You can't use books.google to find quotes?
I would like to add, I am not interested in discussing opinions, gut feelings or anecdotes. At all.
From your link:GCBC Reference Check ~ Part I of ? ~ Metabolic Adaptability & Energy Balance...The article doesn't get into what type of fat they were using...
Here's a link to Frayn's book. I suggest you go to the source.
Metabolic Regulation: A Human Perspective - Keith N. Frayn - Google Books
And did you miss this Frayn quote in that post?
If the obese or overweight person wants to lose weight, the solution is simple and inarguable: energy expenditure must exceed intake for a suitable length of time.
Frayn might not be the guy to cite to support your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by purpledawn, posted 08-18-2011 8:42 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by purpledawn, posted 08-18-2011 11:10 AM molbiogirl has not replied

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


Message 375 of 451 (629517)
08-18-2011 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by purpledawn
08-18-2011 9:16 AM


I don't feel his overall hypothesis rests on insulin. Wasn't my take away from the book.
From a science point of view, his hypothesis rests on insulin. If you would like to discuss that, I'm game.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by purpledawn, posted 08-18-2011 9:16 AM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Percy, posted 08-18-2011 11:39 AM molbiogirl 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