Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes

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.

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: 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.

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:

---

Inherent within the dietary fat hypothesis is that obesity coincides with prosperity, and that prosperity brings with it increased fat intake (overeating) and a sedentary lifestyle. Taubes introduces the example of the Pima Indians to show that obesity can also coincide with poverty.

---

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.

quote:

---

Taubes wouldn't characterize the Pima at the turn of the 20th century as sedentary. If you listen to that Taubes lecture around the 10-13 minute area you'll hear him talk about how the fattest segment of Pima society, the woman, seemed to do the most and hardest wrok, describing the loads they had to carry and so forth.

---

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:

---

The Mexican Pima may be eating a diet that was traditional somewhere somewhen for Pima, but it is definitely not the diet described by the US expeditionary force back in 1846, which included foods from fishing, hunting and crops.

---

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:

---

Both Pima groups have diets very rich in carbohydrates, the difference being level of physica activity.

---

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:

---

Your "Obesity and Diabetes" article says that, "Out of 35 Mexican Pimas studied, only three had diabetes..." Three Pima out of 35 is nearly 10%, so I don't understand how they could say "only three". Maybe compared to the Arizona Pima it is small and that's why they said "only three."

---

Apparently so: More than half of all Pima Indians over age 35 have diabetes

quote:

---

If the Mexican Pima had actually returned to a traditional Pima diet then it would have been very low in carbohydrates, because the diet of the Pima that we know from the 1840s was from hunting, fishing and crops

---

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.

Percy, your use of strawmen - whether derived from Taubes or your own thinking - remains far too obvious.

quote:

---

There was never a hypothesis that prosperity in itself directly caused obesity.

​

Actually, there is, and Taubes refers to it as the dietary fat hypothesis. This is the hypothesis that diets too high in fat, and in particular too high in particular kinds of fat, are responsible for the diseases of western civilization, namely obesity, diabetes and heart disease. These diseases occur at far higher rates in countries with western-style diets than they do elsewhere.

---

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:

---

While poking around I did find an article on the web that articulates the carbohydrate position on the Pima, see Low Grain and Carbohydrate Diets Treat Hypoglycemia, Heart Disease, Diabetes Cancer and Nearly ALL Chronic Illness and go about halfway down the page to the section titled "Epidemiological Data".

---

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:

---

Suggesting that a population prone to Type II diabetes should increase their carbohydrate intake seems irresponsible to me.

---

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. 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.

quote:

---

I had no idea that you intended the word "directly" to be of key importance, but I'm just explaining my position.

---

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 don't see any need to leap to conclusions that I'm inventing strawmen while scoffing and attacking.

---

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:

---

Concurrent with these changes in dietary habits, the past thirty years have seen the rates of obesity and diabetes Type II skyrocket while heart disease levels remain unabated. Obviously the emphasis on increasing carbohydrate intake while reducing fat intake has had the opposite of the intended effect.

---

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:

---

It would also be helpful to know the diet of the contemporary Pima. The links I've found so far haven't provided much detail, though I do see frequent mention of potatoes, corn tortillas and beans, which if accurate would mean the modern Pima diet is very high in carbohydrates.

---

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:

---

I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic, so I can't follow your request to not mention exercise.

---

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:

---

This contradicts other accounts that have government rations high in carbohydrates comprising a significant proportion of the Pima diet after their move to the reservation in the second half of the 19th century.

---

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.

quote:

---

Can I suggest that if at first I don't get your point that you might just repeat it, which is what I've been doing since you haven't been getting many of my points, either?

---

I was simply commenting that my point was much clearer than your excuse conceded.

quote:

---

I've explained this many times throughout this thread and at least a couple times since you joined. Rather than repeating it yet again, this time I'll just request that if you want the explanation for why exercise and food intake are not independent variables that you seek it out in prior messages.

---

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:

---

The incorrect conclusion you're jumping to is that I'm inventing strawmen, scoffing and attacking. I'm just putting forward my position, just as you should be putting forward your own instead of focusing so much attention on my obviously many foibles, my weaknesses in comprehension, my antagonistic tendencies, and my demonstrated propensity for underhanded debate tactics like inventing strawmen. If you'd like the discussion to degenerate into accusations like this I can promise you that it won't happen, because I'll just stop responding.

---

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:

---

If there are problems then you're going to have to identify them instead of just saying they exist.

---

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:

---

Theoretically it would work, but as anyone knows who has tried to follow the standard recommendations of dieting and exercise for losing weight, it doesn't work for the long term. Exercise of the "do it because it is good for you" type is quickly abandoned, as opposed to the "exercise because if you don't you won't eat" variety. If it were really possible for normal people to adhere to regimens of dieting and exercise throughout their lives then there wouldn't be an obesity problem. Obesity brings with it a host of very serious social, employment and health problems, and if dieting and exercise really worked then few would be obese.

---

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.

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.

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
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 ?

quote:

---

There's a rebuttal at Do Dietary Guidelines Explain the Obesity Epidemic?, and a response at The Authors Respond. I was wondering if the responding authors would pick up on the distortion of their position concerning causality, and upon the inappropriate comparison of their position to rejecting the Surgeon General's report on smoking, and in reading the response I found they did. It seems that when the evidence is on your side you argue the evidence, and when it's not you pound the table.

---

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.

quote:

---

Rebutting a paper without reading it? In the very same Message 186 where I was harshly critical of just such practices?

---

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:

---

I don't know what to say, I'm speechless. I guess I'll just say thanks for making my case that the other side isn't engaging in any sincere and informed criticism.

---

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

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: 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.

quote:

---

Yes, how convenient when formulating your rebuttal not to have to deal with or even be aware of the original arguments except as they were characterized by dissenters.

---

Let me repeat. I didn't even try to rebut the paper.

quote:

---

This is what constitutes informed discussion for you? Someone who ironically couldn't find the link to the paper even though it was in the opening paragraph? Again, interesting.

---

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:

---

This is what constitutes informed discussion for you? Someone who ironically couldn't find the link to the paper even though it was in the opening paragraph? Again, interesting.

---

And you couldn't even be bothered to read my post.. As I said, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

quote:

---

Well, I guess this is just your style and you can't be dissuaded from it. Challenge a position, discuss through a couple rounds of rebuttal, then if your opponent hasn't already surrendered begin the mudslinging.

---

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:

---

Though you carefully noted that you were addressing the rebuttal and response, the reality is that you were attempting to rebut the position of a paper you had never read. You haven't read Taubes' book, either, yet you're attempting to rebut that. At least you're consistent.

---

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:

---

As I said before, since you seem determined to participate in this thread, instead of widening your swathe of ad hominem why don't you pick out something specific that Taubes actually said or that I described him as having said and we'll focus on that. Okay?

---

I did that. And rather than address it you prefer to make false accusations. You've even added a new one.

quote:

---

I accurately accused you of attempting to rebut the position of a paper based only upon information from dissenters and the author's one page response

---

No, you falsely did so.

quote:

---

Without ever having seen the paper, you argued in favor of likening the paper's position to rejecting the Surgeon General's report on smoking was valid.

---

I certainly did not. I argued that the response did not adequately deal with the objection, which did NOT make such an assertion.

quote:

---

And without ever having seen the paper you claimed that "Marantz et. al. raise points damaging to the argument seen in this thread."

---

I said that they raised them IN THEIR RESPONSE TO THE REBUTTAL.

quote:

---

No, I'm accurately describing what you're doing, while what you're doing is mudslinging because when the first few exchanges didn't result in concessions you broke off from critisizing positions and instead took up attacking the person arguing those positions, and that's ad hominem.

---

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.