Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
106 online now:
dwise1, nwr (2 members, 104 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,180 Year: 6,292/6,534 Month: 485/650 Week: 23/232 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4217 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 136 of 451 (468875)
06-02-2008 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by molbiogirl
06-02-2008 1:13 AM


Looks like mainstream science agrees with you
(2) A recent National Academy of Sciences Macronutrient Report recommended that 45 to 65 percent of calories be in the form of carbohydrates.

http://www.carbs-information.com/health-effects-of-low-carb-diets.htm

From the National Academies web-site.....

The primary role of carbohydrates (sugars and starches) is to provide energy to cells in the body, particularly the brain, which is the only carbohydrate-dependent organ in the body. The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for carbohydrate is set at 130 g/d for adults and children based on the average minimum amount of glucose utilized by the brain. This level of intake, however, is typically exceeded to meet energy needs while consuming acceptable intake levels of fat and protein (see Chapter 11). The median intake of carbohydrates is approximately 220 to 330 g/d for men and 180 to 230 g/d for women. Due to a lack of sufficient evidence on the prevention of chronic diseases in generally healthy individuals, no recommendations based on glycemic index are made.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=265

Note:

no recommendations based on glycemic index are made

The American Heart Association Dietary and Lifestyle Recommendations released June 2006 emphasized saturated fat—setting lower goals for the amount of saturated fat in the diet. Given that the Recommendations encourage people to consume ≤ 7% of calories from saturated fat while meeting total fat recommendations of ≤ 35% and with the intent of encouraging food manufacturers to develop products to meet this goal, products with ≤ 7% of calories from saturated fat will be allowed to have ≤ 40% of calories from total fat until August 31, 2008.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11899&page=260

But science is often behind in nutrition based on the fact people experiment with their own lives often first before a verdict is in, and what works for them, works.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by molbiogirl, posted 06-02-2008 1:13 AM molbiogirl has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4217 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 137 of 451 (468879)
06-02-2008 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by molbiogirl
05-04-2008 2:53 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
The French have historically had very low obesity rates and very low CHD rates. In fact, Taube mentions it in the book.

"The French Paradox".

The French have historically eaten LOADS of fat and LOADS of refined carbs. Just LOADS.

So.

Why, in the past year and a half, have French obesity rates doubled?

The South Beach/Low carb types argue that their mixing of carbs with fat made a significant difference. In other words, the high fat intake helped reduce heart disease.....I would argue some other things did too, like wine, genetics, walking and a certain mental attitude.

But why do you think obesity rates are going up? Doesn't it coincide with eating a more American style diet?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by molbiogirl, posted 05-04-2008 2:53 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 06-02-2008 9:42 AM randman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20974
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 138 of 451 (468894)
06-02-2008 7:54 AM


Correcting Misinformation
Just correcting more misinformation provided by Molbiogirl in Message 135:

molbiogirl writes:

Taubes claims that carbs are the sole cause of cancer and Alzheimer's, along with heart disease, obesity and type II diabetes.

Taubes makes no such claim.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by molbiogirl, posted 06-02-2008 3:20 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20974
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 139 of 451 (468905)
06-02-2008 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by randman
06-02-2008 2:41 AM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
Molbiogirl incorrectly claimed the French paradox included obesity. It's actually only about heart disease.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Slight rewording.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 2:41 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by molbiogirl, posted 06-02-2008 3:29 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 140 of 451 (468908)
06-02-2008 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by molbiogirl
06-02-2008 1:13 AM


Incorrect Assertions
It's been claimed that this assertion:

Taubes claims that carbs are the sole cause of cancer and Alzheimer's, along with heart disease, obesity and type II diabetes.

is incorrect.

Can you back it up? Perhaps it was just a bit of careless hyperbole?

Thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by molbiogirl, posted 06-02-2008 1:13 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Joe T, posted 06-02-2008 2:11 PM AdminNosy has not replied
 Message 142 by molbiogirl, posted 06-02-2008 3:19 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Joe T
Member (Idle past 1487 days)
Posts: 41
From: Virginia
Joined: 01-10-2002


Message 141 of 451 (468938)
06-02-2008 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by AdminNosy
06-02-2008 10:18 AM


Re: Incorrect Assertions
quote:
It's been claimed that this assertion:

quote:
Taubes claims that carbs are the sole cause of cancer and Alzheimer's, along with heart disease, obesity and type II diabetes.

is incorrect.

Can you back it up? Perhaps it was just a bit of careless hyperbole?


I'm not Molbiogirl, but maybe she got that from this excerpt from Taubes' book. From ABC News

quote:
4. Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and the other chronic diseases of civilization.

I notice that the word "sole" is missing from this quote, but Molbiogirl did reference some videos of Taubes as support for her claim about his claims. I didn't check out the videos, so I can't say.

While googling along, I noticed some other provocative things that Taubes is saying. He apparently believes that fiber is unnecessary in the diet, that meat provides all of the necessary vitamins and minerals (including Vitamin C) and that exercise does not help you lose weight, it just makes you hungry. Sounds like his book would be an interesting read.

Joe T.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by AdminNosy, posted 06-02-2008 10:18 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by molbiogirl, posted 06-02-2008 3:40 PM Joe T has not replied
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 06-02-2008 5:13 PM Joe T has not replied
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 06-02-2008 7:24 PM Joe T has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1960 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 142 of 451 (468947)
06-02-2008 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by AdminNosy
06-02-2008 10:18 AM


Re: Incorrect Assertions
Nosy.
I provided the link earlier.
The man says it himself.

From 122.

Carboyhydrates cause heart disease, type II diabetes, cancer, Alzheimers.
5:30
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/StopSugarShock/2007/...

Can't do much better than that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by AdminNosy, posted 06-02-2008 10:18 AM AdminNosy has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1960 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 143 of 451 (468948)
06-02-2008 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Percy
06-02-2008 7:54 AM


Re: Correcting Misinformation
I suggest you listen to his Sugar Shock broadcast.
He says, in no uncertain terms, that carbs are the cause of cancer and Alzheimers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 06-02-2008 7:54 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Percy, posted 05-29-2009 5:20 PM molbiogirl has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1960 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 144 of 451 (468951)
06-02-2008 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Percy
06-02-2008 9:42 AM


The French Paradox
Percy.

The French Paradox isn't a study. Therefore, it doesn't "include" anything.

It's slang.

And there's plenty of work out there that deals with both the French Paradox and obesity.

Here's just a small sample.

Overweight and Increased Cardiovascular Mortality
No French Paradox
Frank B. Hu
Hypertension. 2005; 46:645

Recent national French food and nutrient intake data
Jean-Luc Volatiera and Philippe Vergera
British Journal of Nutrition (1999), 81: S57-S59

Effects of Dietary Modification and Treatment of Obesity
Emphasis on Improving Vascular Outcomes
N. Stone
Medical Clinics of North America, Volume 84, Issue 1, Pages 95 - 122


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 06-02-2008 9:42 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 3:32 PM molbiogirl has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4217 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 145 of 451 (468953)
06-02-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by molbiogirl
06-02-2008 3:29 PM


Re: The French Paradox
So when numerous people reduce their carb intake while adding other things and see positive health benefits, what would you attribute that to?

Also, are you of the opinion that the standard food pyramid showing grains and such at the bottom as basically correct and healthy for most people as a rule of thumb to follow?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by molbiogirl, posted 06-02-2008 3:29 PM molbiogirl has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1960 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 146 of 451 (468954)
06-02-2008 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Joe T
06-02-2008 2:11 PM


Re: Incorrect Assertions
Hi Joe!
Thanks for the GMA link.

Gary is nowhere near this circumspect in his Sugar Shock interview.

Q: Let's go into one of the conclusions you make ... You were saying that refined carbs and sugars could give you cancer and heart disease and Alzheimers disease and Type II diabetes.

A: Yeah. The basis of these ideas -- the concept of diseases of civilization -- and diseases of civilization, Western diseases, diseases that people get when they start eating the diets that we've all grown up eating. And these observations made by -- used to be physicians working in missionary hospitals or colonial hospitals around the world -- populations that eat their traditional diet -- whether they're African or Southeast Asian or Polynesian Islanders or the American Indian -- they don't get the diseases we get. They don't get heart disease, they don't get cancer, they don't get demented, they don't get diabetes, they don't get obese.

No fussiness about "most likely" in that quote.

I'd love to see his evidence that folks on non-Western diets don't get cancer! That's a hoot!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Joe T, posted 06-02-2008 2:11 PM Joe T has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1960 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 147 of 451 (468955)
06-02-2008 3:47 PM


Defense of Body Weight
Since you were so unhappy with the rat studies I provided earlier, I found something that addresses the question of defense of body weight v. caloric restriction that is easier to understand.

From the introduction to:
Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques
Volume 13, Number 4, 2003
Mechanisms of Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery
Louis Flancbaum

The defense of body weight has been well demonstrated in numerous human and animal studies. These data have led to the suggestion of a “set-point” for weight, similar to that for body temperature, so that the body maintains compensatory mechanisms designed either to restore or to protect weight in the event of change, or a buffering mechanism designed to oppose and minimize any imposed weight change, similar to the action of a chemical buffer.

Caloric restriction, as in low-calorie (800–1500 kcal/d) and very low-calorie (800 kcal/d) diets, results in semi-starvation, a condition in which the individual experiences sustained negative nitrogen balance. Semistarvation is associated with changes in body composition and energy expenditure that mediate weight loss, in addition to compensatory changes designed to prevent it. It is these adaptive responses that make it so difficult to lose weight on diets and maintain the weight loss.

Just as I said.
1200/day is just way too low for you.
1500/day is just right.


Percy
Member
Posts: 20974
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 148 of 451 (468967)
06-02-2008 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Joe T
06-02-2008 2:11 PM


Re: Incorrect Assertions
Joe T writes:

I'm not Molbiogirl, but maybe she got that from this excerpt from Taubes' book. From ABC News

quote:
4. Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and the other chronic diseases of civilization.

Hi Joe,

Molbiogirl has Taubes book in hand and so not only knows that he doesn't say they are the *sole* cause of these diseases, but also knows that this short excerpt from the introduction is written in a specific context. Taubes is writing in the context of the chronic diseases of western civilization, the responsibility for which has been laid at the door of dietary fat over the past 30 years, ever since the McGovern committee released the report Dietary Goals for the United States. This he calls the dietary fat hypothesis.

As an alternative to the dietary fat hypothesis Taubes offers the carbohydrate hypothesis, and he backs it up with a lot of science in his book. Rather than increased intake of dietary fat, Taubes argues that it is increased intake of refined carbohydrates that are responsible for the greatly increased incident rates of the chronic diseases in western civilization.

Chinks are finally starting to appear in the armor of the dietary fat hypothesis, primarily because during the 30 years that it has held sway in nutritional circles the incident rates of obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes have skyrocketed even more. Our supermarkets are filled to overflowing with low fat food, yet we get fatter and fatter, and it is very likely due to increased intake of carbohydrates.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Joe T, posted 06-02-2008 2:11 PM Joe T has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 7:02 PM Percy has replied
 Message 157 by molbiogirl, posted 06-04-2008 3:30 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4217 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 149 of 451 (468994)
06-02-2008 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
06-02-2008 5:13 PM


Re: Incorrect Assertions
Chinks are finally starting to appear in the armor of the dietary fat hypothesis, primarily because during the 30 years that it has held sway in nutritional circles the incident rates of obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes have skyrocketed even more. Our supermarkets are filled to overflowing with low fat food, yet we get fatter and fatter, and it is very likely due to increased intake of carbohydrates.

That may well be true. I certainly think it is, but it doesn't mean there is any real science in terms of extensive studies agreeing with the idea carbs are the problem which may be one reason there is a conundrum between you and molbiogirl.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 06-02-2008 5:13 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 06-02-2008 7:31 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20974
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 150 of 451 (468998)
06-02-2008 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Joe T
06-02-2008 2:11 PM


Re: Incorrect Assertions
Hi Joe,

Now that I'm home and have Taubes book in front of me I can provide you a little more information. The excerpt provided at the ABC News site, Read an Excerpt: 'Good Calories, Bad Calories', is from the epilogue of Taubes book. It begins on page 453.

This explains why it doesn't set the context for the controversy between the dietary fat and carbohydrate hypotheses that I explained in my previous message, because it's a summary of everything he's already laid out in excruciating detail through the previous 24 chapters and 452 pages.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Joe T, posted 06-02-2008 2:11 PM Joe T has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022