Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 6:57 PM
194 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 193 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,459 Year: 3,496/19,786 Month: 491/1,087 Week: 81/212 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 241 of 451 (472684)
06-24-2008 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Percy
06-22-2008 7:09 AM


Re: Epidemic? Sure, but is it universal?
Percy writes:

They would say that however little I'm eating, it's still too much, and that however much I'm exercising, it's still too little.

The truth is that it's all a bunch of bull. Thirty years ago I couldn't gain weight on a diet of 3000 calories/day, and now I can't lose weight on a diet of 1400 calories/day, and the reason for the difference is metabolic changes. Metabolic differences also explain why some people are fat and some people are skinny. We still don't know precisely what these changes and differences are, but we're gaining a better understanding with time, especially now that the dietary fat hypothesis is weakening its stranglehold on research.

Your own case does seem unusual. There are certainly metabolic (and other) differences that make some people tend to be fatter than others, and those differences have always existed. They don't explain large scale increases in the average weight of whole populations though, do they? Consider this:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

The four countries at the bottom have an average per capita income higher than the average of the four at the top, and there's no reason why the top four shouldn't have statistics like those of the bottom four (which have the minor obesity problems we had here in the U.K. 20 to 40 years ago - and I don't think we've mutated genetically a great deal since then!).

I don't see how the metabolic rates of individuals explain what appear to be cultural differences. They would help explain who is going to be in the top 30% within each country, but not why all of that 30% are obese in the U.S., but only one in four in (wealthier) Switzerland.

So, while I agree from your own account that you personally might well have difficulties that are hard to solve by lifestyle changes, I see no reason why most of the obese in the U.S. and the U.K. can use their metabolism as an excuse.

"Routine and moderate activity may well be more beneficial than short bursts of intense activity" (Westerterp 2001).

I don't know about "routine", but "constant moderate activity" seems to work for me, and I like walking, so, like my ancestors, I walk a lot and don't count my calories at age 50 (I've no idea how many I average, I just eat when I'm hungry). I'm probably lucky with metabolism etc. but "Mr Average" used to walk more a generation ago (and go to the gym less) so there might be something to be said for it.

Anyway, good luck with the diet. The more people who try out different things, the better our chances of getting to the roots of the problem, which is clearly there. The worst part of it is when you see kids who can hardly walk. I suppose I'll be considered unsympathetic for suggesting that they usually seem to have bloody stupid parents.

We could put it all down to metabolism problems that were rare in my youth, and are still relatively rare in wealthy Switzerland and wealthy Japan, but I don't think we should.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Percy, posted 06-22-2008 7:09 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 06-24-2008 10:01 AM bluegenes has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 242 of 451 (472699)
06-24-2008 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by bluegenes
06-24-2008 2:14 AM


Re: Epidemic? Sure, but is it universal?
bluegenes writes:

Your own case does seem unusual.

Actually, my case is typical. The typical experience as one ages is greater and greater difficulty keeping off the pounds. The only thing unusual about me is that I'm probably much more active than your average 56 year-old.

There was a time when I was happy with my weight, and when I blamed overweight people for their own weight problem. I remember my smugness and self-satisfaction very well because it was only a year ago. After all, I had twice successfully lost weight. Then I began the 3rd diet of my life and hit a brick wall. I couldn't lose weight no matter what.

So I have now, in effect, walked a mile in the shoes of the obese, and it has been eye opening. Blaming the obese for their obesity makes no sense. Being overweight carries with it a host of social, employment and medical problems, and if it were easy to lose weight then few would be fat. The fact of the matter is that mere willpower is no match for metabolism.

It goes like this. The first week you're on your diet and you go to bed hungry you're fine with it, because the early weight lose is significant and easy. The second week of hunger is fine, too, because you're still optimistic. And the third week of hunger is okay, and maybe the fourth, and maybe for weeks and weeks more. It all depends upon how many diets you've been on before, how many nights of hunger you've already had to endure. At some point you just break down, you say the heck with it, and you go downstairs, open the fridge and just gorge. The next day you castigate yourself and vow to be stronger, and the cycle of hunger wearing down willpower begins again. Eventually willpower is defeated and docile and you put the weight back on and then some.

I'm not trying to be dramatic. Anyone who has battled obesity through their life will confirm that this is true, and many just become resigned to their obesity, especially since increasing age brings with it metabolic and lifestyle changes that make weight loss increasingly difficult.

There are certainly metabolic (and other) differences that make some people tend to be fatter than others, and those differences have always existed. They don't explain large scale increases in the average weight of whole populations though, do they?

You're right, they don't. These metabolic differences are not being introduced into the discussion as the explanation for the obesity/diabetes epidemic. But given the same diet/exercise regimen, metabolic differences cause different people to have different weight gain/loss experiences, and elevated levels of carbohydrate intake cause metabolic changes in the direction of obesity/diabetes. This underlying principle of Taubes argument is just that simple.

Naturally the metabolic processes and pathways are very complex, it's just the basic principle that is simple, just as simple as the dietary fat hypothesis that it seeks to replace.

Consider this:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

The four countries at the bottom have an average per capita income higher than the average of the four at the top, and there's no reason why the top four shouldn't have statistics like those of the bottom four (which have the minor obesity problems we had here in the U.K. 20 to 40 years ago - and I don't think we've mutated genetically a great deal since then!).

I think it might be better to consider diet versus obesity, not average per capita income versus obesity. In particular, national figures on fat and carbohydrate consumption would be very helpful. Also, there's a confounding issue when comparing different countries, because their statistic gathering techniques and criteria can differ a great deal.

Anyway, good luck with the diet.

Thanks, and speaking of the diet, it continues to go well, but very slowly. We (my wife and I) had gradually worked in higher proportions of foods with carbohydrates (still no sugar carbohydrates), causing us to both plateau for a few weeks. A week or so ago we reduced the proportions of these foods again and weight loss resumed. I'm now down 13-1/2 pounds and just this week had to take my belt in a notch. Weight loss is very slow, but for me it has to be. If I diet too aggressively I find I run out of energy quickly during exercise.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by bluegenes, posted 06-24-2008 2:14 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by bluegenes, posted 06-24-2008 4:36 PM Percy has responded

  
Joe T
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 41
From: Virginia
Joined: 01-10-2002


Message 243 of 451 (472729)
06-24-2008 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Percy
06-22-2008 7:09 AM


Re: Epidemic? Sure, but is it universal?
Percy said:

quote:
Pepperidge Farm 9 Grain Whole Grain Bread, presumably made with unrefined grain,...

Here your assumption may not be correct. I think that in the US labeling can be misleading. "Whole Grain" does not necessarily mean 100% Whole Grain. In my pantry is some pasta labeled "Whole Grain" that is only 51% whole grain. If the label says, "100% Whole Grain" then you can take that as truth. You are correct though that even 100% Whole Grain stuff can have sugar, HFC or other such sweeteners.

You also wondered if white rice is considered a refined carb and the answer is a definite yes. White rice is just about empty calories as it has little protein, vitamins or minerals and zero fiber. Whole grain brown rice (again you have to be careful as not all things labeled “brown rice” are whole grain) is better, but maybe not the best of grains. Whole grain wheat, barely and quinoa all have more fiber and protein than does whole grain rice.

Good luck with your diet. I have had good results limiting, but not eliminating carbs. I get about 70-100 grams of carbs from whole grains (1 cup grains and about 1-2 slices of bread). I don’t know how much from vegetables and fruits as I eat most of them with abandon. I also limit my fat intake to about 30-35% of my calories and have changed my fat sources. Most of my fat is unsaturated and comes from fish, nuts, seeds and olive oil (although I do loves me some steak or a pork chop every now and then). I have been able to sustain this diet for almost 2 years and have lost about 35 lbs.

Joe T.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Percy, posted 06-22-2008 7:09 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 06-25-2008 6:53 AM Joe T has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 244 of 451 (472767)
06-24-2008 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
06-24-2008 10:01 AM


Re: Epidemic? Sure, but is it universal?
Percy writes:

Actually, my case is typical.

What I thought was unusual was your extreme light weight for someone of average height when you were young, and then battling with being overweight (not obese) when a full 75 lbs heavier. You would have been one of a small minority who could have put on 50 lb in adult life without being overweight!

Percy writes:

Blaming the obese for their obesity makes no sense.

Who else do you want do blame, apart from consumerist capitalism, which is the underlying problem? But you'll get lynched for blaming that in your country.:)

I understand addiction and craving very well, because I've overcome more than one serious addiction in my life. So I understand your "mere willpower" in the face of "metabolism" comment.

But when an addict, I always slightly envied the food addicts, because I thought they had a choice. At least they were addicted to something that, in moderation, we all have to do, so it seemed to me that if they exercised enough in the right way then they could still enjoy their food. So, unlike with my addictions, it wasn't a question of giving up completely.

Now, I'm not the only one who thinks that what people used to do in a pre-mass car ownership, pre-mass obesity society was to walk a lot. Very light, steady exercise. You don't break sweat, and it's so natural to us that it doesn't even feel like exercise. But in this hectic consumer/producer world, walking takes time, and time is money, so walking is out. The U.S.A. is famed for being the leading anti-walking society of all time.

Diet books can be marketed to people, and people can be charged for the use of a gym and other leisure facilities, but no-one can make money out of walking. How could a health advice book saying "give up thy car and walk" be spun out for 200 pages? So walking is not a consumer item, and it will not be marketed as a solution.

I don't know how much walking our ancestors used to do, but I expect that it was a minimum of 21 miles a week. Show me someone who does their 3 miles a day average, and I'll show you someone who could be slightly overweight, but isn't obese.

I think it might be better to consider diet versus obesity, not average per capita income versus obesity. In particular, national figures on fat and carbohydrate consumption would be very helpful. Also, there's a confounding issue when comparing different countries, because their statistic gathering techniques and criteria can differ a great deal.

Certainly, we should always regard international surveys and statistics as very approximate, and it would be interesting to know if the Japanese eat less carbs or whatever than the U.S., but in this case that avoids the issue, because it is well known that the countries we live in had much lower obesity rates in the recent past, when, in the case of Britain, people were eating plenty of notoriously bad food, gym membership was lower, and numbers of people on planned diets was lower.

More manual work was being done, and lots more walking was being done.

(At 5'10", you would have to be 209 lbs to be considered obese in that survey - you've never been there, from what I understood).

My suggested 21 miles of walking is only a guessed distance, and is not instead of other exercise, it's a basic part of being a human being, and includes any walking done (down to the bottom of the yard and back = fifty metres, etc.). Ideal would probably be 2 one mile (20 minute) walks per day every day, and the other mile in little bits, which most people probably do any way.

Someone who wanted to get fit, put on muscle, would do more energetic exercise in addition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 06-24-2008 10:01 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by randman, posted 06-24-2008 6:32 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 249 by Percy, posted 06-25-2008 7:50 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2973 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 245 of 451 (472798)
06-24-2008 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by bluegenes
06-24-2008 4:36 PM


Re: Epidemic? Sure, but is it universal?
What I thought was unusual was your extreme light weight for someone of average height when you were young, and then battling with being overweight (not obese) when a full 75 lbs heavier. You would have been one of a small minority who could have put on 50 lb in adult life without being overweight!

It's a more common pattern than you think, at least from what I have noticed. Of course, it could be related to thyroid fluctuations, from high to low. Of course, diet could affect that as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by bluegenes, posted 06-24-2008 4:36 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by bluegenes, posted 06-24-2008 6:35 PM randman has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 246 of 451 (472799)
06-24-2008 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by randman
06-24-2008 6:32 PM


Re: Epidemic? Sure, but is it universal?
randman writes:

Of course, it could be related to thyroid fluctuations, from high to low. Of course, diet could affect that as well.

Percy's avatar does look as though its thyroid's in a bit of a state.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by randman, posted 06-24-2008 6:32 PM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2973 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 247 of 451 (472801)
06-24-2008 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Percy
06-20-2008 7:28 AM


Re: The Ketogenic Diet
It has been a surprising discovery to find that the diet/health research community is in some ways similar to pseudoscientific communities, such as those surrounding UFOs, Bigfoot or ESP.

Maybe those communities aren't as pseudoscientific as you once thought. I think forms of ESP, for example, are part of normal human experience and very real. Many forms of intution, for example, are a form of ESP. Don't want to get too off-topic, but:

Apparently, because actual real-world relationships between diet and health are so difficult to tease out using traditional research methods,

But that is true for a lot of things. However, I think it's less true for nutrition. I can understand difficulties in researching spiritual areas, alien encounters or UFOs (not saying they are alien btw) or even a remote creature like Bigfoot, but nutritional research doesn't pose the same sorts of problems. I think it's more institutional bigotry more than anything else.

Keep in mind almost every alternative nutritional idea and many that are now accepted in the mainstream stemmed from some research at some point. It can and is tested. The testing, imo, isn't the issue. The willingness to properly understand it and test it, and also the misguided dogmatism of "science" to assume if it hasn't or cannot test it, that somehow it isn't correct.

The right approach is that if it hasn't or cannot be tested, then science and scientists should have an openminded attitude towards the idea until that occurs. Btw, I do grant that some ideas weren't or haven't been able to be tested, sometimes due to time and budget contsraints.

Hence you'll find myths being perpetuated that have no scientific support, such as your example that low-carbohydrate diets can cause liver damage. There is no body of research indicating such a risk, not even for no-carbohydrate diets.

I thought there was some evidence of this for very low carb diets such as adkins. If not, I do know of some anecdotal evidence but I think not all people's bodies are the same. One size doesn't fit all when it comes to diet.

In cases where there is already significant liver damage, perhaps due to alcoholism, a low-carbohydrate diet might not be recommended because the damaged liver couldn't handle the higher protein load, but lack of carbohydrates seems a very unlikely cause of liver damage.

That could be true. Some could have preexisting liver damage, especially with the way college life is for many today or rather the past 40-50 years....

But I unexpectedly find that I must agree with your comment that "in some fields, science is better than others." In this case it has created irrational fears that low-carbohydrate diets are not only equivalent to quackery, but dangerous. Certainly until recently I, too, believed this to be the case, and it wasn't until I read Taubes book that the science (as well as what I've experienced personally as I grow older regarding diet and weight loss) began to make sense.

I do think low or lower carb diets are better for most people. I know the less certain kinds of carbs I eat, the better I feel, more energy less weight, etc,... even if eat a lot more fat. That's not a scientific analysis, but the proof is in the pudding.

The difference between eating a fatty meal with low carbs, just veggies, is striking when eating the same meal with carbs. If I eat a lot of fat and simple carbs, I get kind of sleepy....probably fat in the arteries, but don't have any of that if I cut the carbs. That to me suggests the alternative guys arguing the process is more complex and not just a matter of the fat you intake are correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Percy, posted 06-20-2008 7:28 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 248 of 451 (472839)
06-25-2008 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Joe T
06-24-2008 2:12 PM


Re: Epidemic? Sure, but is it universal?
Hi Joe,

It sounds like you could tell that the heart of my dieting dilemma is choosing the right foods that have carbohydrates. I'm encountering two problems:

  1. Labeling. Labels do not describe carbohydrates beyond breaking it down into fiber, sugar and alcohol sugar (whatever that is). I assume that the sugar portion is roughly 50/50 glucose/fructose and the fiber is indigestible and can be ignored when considering contributions to nutrition. But what is the nature of the remaining carbohydrates? Using my wheat-bread/white-bread example, is the 17 grams of carbohydrates in wheat bread of a better nature than the 21 grams of carbohydrates in white bread? Does the additional mere gram of fiber in wheat bread really provide any measurable advantage? It seems to me the glycemic index would be very informative in this regard, but it isn't included on the label.

  2. What is a refined carbohydrate? I know you addressed this concerning white rice, but it seems to me there's a spectrum of carbohydrate complexity ranging from the very simple to the very complex. Simplest is sugar, which is 50/50 glucose/fructose. Ignoring fructose, all other carbohydrates are sugars that are broken down into glucose in the digestive system. The more work the digestive system has to do to break a carbohydrate down into glucose, the better that carbohydrate is for you. In other words, the more complex the carbohydrate, the more healthy it is judged to be.

    So even though white rice and white bread and regular pasta are made from refined carbohydrates, they are still more complex than glucose. The question is, how much more complex than glucose are they? Once again I think the glycemic index would be helpful here.

Unfortunately the glycemic index for a specific type and brand of food often isn't available. What you can find is generic measures for glycemic index at websites, which for things like broccoli and potatoes are probably pretty accurate, but for things like whole grain bread and pasta is very likely extremely brand/product dependent. So in the grocery store, how do you know (I mean actually *know*, not guess and hope) which carbohydrate foods to buy?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Joe T, posted 06-24-2008 2:12 PM Joe T has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by randman, posted 06-25-2008 2:30 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 249 of 451 (472843)
06-25-2008 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by bluegenes
06-24-2008 4:36 PM


Re: Epidemic? Sure, but is it universal?
bluegenes writes:

What I thought was unusual was your extreme light weight for someone of average height when you were young, and then battling with being overweight (not obese) when a full 75 lbs heavier. You would have been one of a small minority who could have put on 50 lb in adult life without being overweight!

More than 50. Not so long ago I was within shouting distance of double my age-18 weight of 105.

(At 5'10", you would have to be 209 lbs to be considered obese in that survey - you've never been there, from what I understood).

By that measure that takes into account height, weight and waist measurements, I was obese, but I think that says more about the limited application of this type of measure than anything else. This is going to sound kind of trite, but I hate clothes shopping, and one of my motivations for reducing weight is so that I don't have to buy more clothes, because the ratio of those that fit to those that didn't was getting scaringly small for a while. I like to tell myself that this is the most minor of my reasons for wanting to lose weight, but sometimes I'm not sure I'm being honest with myself.

Concerning an increasingly obese population and looking at it in terms of addiction, when such a huge proportion of the population has the same problem, then I think it might more accurately be considered as being within the normal range of behavior.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by bluegenes, posted 06-24-2008 4:36 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2973 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 250 of 451 (472872)
06-25-2008 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Percy
06-25-2008 6:53 AM


Re: Epidemic? Sure, but is it universal?
Unfortunately the glycemic index for a specific type and brand of food often isn't available. What you can find is generic measures for glycemic index at websites, which for things like broccoli and potatoes are probably pretty accurate, but for things like whole grain bread and pasta is very likely extremely brand/product dependent.

There are books that are very helpful. Blueberries, for example, are better than some other fruit. On bread, rice, pasta and potatoes, if you really want to lose weight, just cut all of them out. No starches. Try to just eat meat and fish/seafood, vegetables, beans, eggs, cheese, some nuts and fruit. Focussing on cutting all starches as much as possible and all unnecessary sugar works and you don't go hungry.

Problem for me is business travel. It's not always easy to find something on the menu that meets that criteria that I'm willing to stick with. At home, it's much easier though it requires more money, especially buying organic for many things, and more time in preparation.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 06-25-2008 6:53 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 06-26-2008 9:44 AM randman has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 251 of 451 (472985)
06-26-2008 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by randman
06-25-2008 2:30 PM


Re: Epidemic? Sure, but is it universal?
It sounds like your conclusions about this are pretty similar to mine, especially the "no bread, rice, pasta, potatoes" part. I haven't had any problems so far when on the road or eating at other people's houses, usually I just stick to the meat or vegetable dishes. Of course, they could serve spaghetti with a rich tomato sauce and garlic bread, and then I'd have no options.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by randman, posted 06-25-2008 2:30 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 252 of 451 (473711)
07-02-2008 7:26 AM


More About Fructose
A recent New Scientist article describes research finding that fructose causes "alarming changes in body fat and insulin sensitivity that do not occur after eating glucose" (Is fructose fuelling the obesity epidemic?, requires a subscription to read the whole article on-line).

As described in this thread, the highest sources of fructose by far are sugared products. Table sugar, sucrose, is a 50/50 mix of fructose and glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), the sweetener of choice in soft drinks, is a 55/45 mix of fructose/glucose. Sugar and HFCS are by far the highest sources of fructose in our diet. For comparison, a 12 ounce can of Coca-Cola contains 22 grams of fructose, while a cup of grapes contains only 2.

The study found that in obese subjects who consumed a diet where 25% of energy came from either fructose or glucose that:

In those given fructose there was an increase in the amount of intra-abdominal fat, which wraps around internal organs, causes a pot belly and has been linked to an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This did not happen with the group who consumed glucose instead, even though both gained an average 1.5 kilograms in weight.

As the article goes on to relate, more study is required to understand the relationship and interactions between glucose and fructose, but Peter Havel, the lead researcher from the University of California, Davis, says that those with metabolic syndrome might be wise to avoid consuming too much of HFCS products. Interestingly and unsurprisingly, PepsiCo funded the research and disagreed with this conclusion.

The yet-to-be-published paper was presented at the meeting of the Endocrine Society in San Francisco that took place in mid-June, and Havel's talk is listed in the conference program (Endocrine & Metabolic Effects of Consuming Beverages Sweetened with Fructose & Glucose).

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by molbiogirl, posted 07-04-2008 1:03 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 253 of 451 (473961)
07-04-2008 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by PaulK
06-16-2008 1:58 PM


Re: Insufficiently Supported Dietary Recommendations
Well, well, well!

Things have certainly heated up since my abrupt departure.

Let me say, Paul, you have made a compelling argument here.

Each of your points is well-argued and concise.

Taubes' central thesis is full of holes. None of his "evidence" stands up to even a rudimentary review of common sense questions -- which your able dissection of Percy's post shows.

Aside from the biochemistry arguments (which Molbiogirl disputed - and she likely knows better than either of us) the arguments seem to be very poor, and even inconsistent.

Oh, don't even get me started.

Taubes' hack job on carbohydrate metabolism is a horror.

Let's put it this way.

Ever read one of the EvC threads where a creo takes on a geologist or a physicist? And he gets the basics so very, very wrong it makes your skin crawl just to read it?

That's me trying to read Taubes' book.

I tried earlier in the thread to pull apart the carbohydrate metabolic pathways for Percy's benefit to no avail.

I finally settled on some really obvious flaws (no "temporary fat storage in the liver" after carb digestion, no "elevated VLDL levels" after carb digestion, etc.) to try and drive the point home ... no dice.

I washed my hands of the affair.

I am eager, anxious even, to discuss the nitty gritty of the biochemistry.

It is SO obvious that Taubes is wrongedy wrong wrong to someone -- like me -- who knows even a smidgen of biochem.

But Percy refuses to discuss the details.

So there you have it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2008 1:58 PM PaulK has not yet responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 254 of 451 (473962)
07-04-2008 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Percy
06-18-2008 11:00 AM


Re: The Ketogenic Diet
A ketogenic diet is low in carbohydrates and high in fat. It has been known since the 1920s that such a diet can significantly reduce the incidence rate of epileptic seizures in children.

What you have failed to mention is that the reduction in epileptic seizures is accompanied by over 1/3 of the children suffering significant cognitive impairment.

Which you would have known had you watched the Charlie Rose interview (Taubes/Dr. Howard/Dr. Ornish) that I linked earlier in the thread.

Taubes tried to throw the ketogenic diet/epilepctic seizure connection in Dr. Howard/Dr. Ornish's face and got a thorough dressing down -- with the facts.

The same mechanism for eliminating the seizures is apparently responsible for seriously degrading cognitive processes.

Rather a hard bargain, wouldn't you say?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 06-18-2008 11:00 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 255 of 451 (473965)
07-04-2008 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Percy
07-02-2008 7:26 AM


Re: More About Fructose
First, let me say that the New Scientist link you provide is referencing a 2001 paper by Havel. That's kinda funny, donchathink? A 2008 article discussing 7 year old findings?

Second, let me ask: Have you read the full Havel paper?

Third, here's the entire New Scientist article you linked for those unwilling to fork over the moolah to read it.

We know about good and bad fats. Now suspicion is growing that not all sugars are created equal either. Overweight adults who consume large amounts of fructose have been found to experience alarming changes in body fat and insulin sensitivity that do not occur after eating glucose.

Pure fructose is found in fresh fruit, fruit juice and preserves. But much of it sneaks into our diets though high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in soft drinks - which gets broken down into 55 per cent fructose and 45 per cent glucose in the body - or via sucrose (ordinary sugar), which is broken down into the same two sugars.

Fears that fructose and are fuelling the obesity epidemic and triggering insulin resistance and diabetes have been circulating for years (New Scientist , 1 September 2001, p 26), but there have been few direct investigations in humans.

So Peter Havel at the University of California, Davis, persuaded 33 overweight and obese adults to go on a diet that was 30 per cent fat, 55 per cent complex carbohydrates and 15 per cent protein for two weeks. For a further 10 weeks, they switched to a diet in which 25 per cent of their energy came from either fructose or glucose.

In those given fructose there was an increase in the amount of intra-abdominal fat, which wraps around internal organs, causes a pot belly and has been linked to an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This did not happen with the group who consumed glucose instead, even though both gained an average 1.5 kilograms in weight.

Those who consumed fructose also had raised levels of fatty triglycerides, which get deposited as intra-abdominal fat, and cholesterol. Their insulin sensitivity also fell by 20 per cent. Glucose appeared to have no effect on these measures. Havel presented the results at a meeting of the Endocrine Society in San Francisco last week.

Because Havel's test looked only at pure fructose, not HFCS or sucrose, it is not yet clear whether these substances are to blame for obesity and diabetes. "The question is, what is the amount of HFCS or normal sugar you need to consume to get these effects?" says Havel, who is planning a long-term study to find out. But he says it's not too soon for people with metabolic syndrome - the blend of conditions including belly fat and insulin resistance that raise the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease - to avoid drinking too many fructose-containing beverages.

PepsiCo, which sponsored Havel's research, disagrees. "This is a very interesting and important study," says a spokeswoman. "But it does not reflect a real-world situation nor is it applicable to PepsiCo since pure fructose is not an ingredient in any of our food and beverage products."

In a separate study, Havel's team compared the immediate effects of consuming a meal in which 25 per cent of the energy came from one of HFCS, sucrose, fructose or glucose. Blood triglyceride levels were all elevated to a similar level 24 hours after consuming fructose, sucrose or HFCS, but not glucose (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition , vol 87, p 1194), suggesting that all three substances may have similar, negative health impacts. Longer-term studies are needed to confirm whether the triglycerides produced by sucrose or HFCS have similar effects to fructose on abdominal fat and insulin resistance.

"It adds to what we have known for a long time," says Francine Kaufman at the Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles. "It's probably not a good idea to consume too much sugar."

Ooooo. 595 words on fructose and obesity. Now that's convincing.

Fourth. I have read the 2001 Havel article.

This review explores whether fructose consumption might be a contributing factor to the development of obesity and the accompanying metabolic abnormalities observed in the insulin resistance syndrome.

Along with an increase in total energy consumption over the past few decades (19), there has been a shift in the types of nutrients consumed in the American diet. The consumption of fructose has increased, largely because of an increased consumption of soft drinks and many other beverages that are high in fructose and because of the consumption of foods such as breakfast cereals, baked goods, condiments, and prepared desserts sweetened with sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

Problem No. 1. The obesity epidemic started long before HFCS was a staple of the American diet. HFCS wasn't developed until 1957. Obesity was already a problem. Remember the Pima!

The commercial use of HFCS began to increase in the 1970s and, by 1985, HFCS accounted for {approx}35% of the total amount of sweeteners by dry weight in the food supply (21).

And the American obesity epidemic was already underway -- for over two decades.

Calculated on a daily basis, the per capita use of added fructose, obtained by combining the disappearance data for the fructose contained in sucrose and in HFCS, increased by 26%, from 64 g/d in 1970 to 81 g/d in 1997. This represents an average daily energy intake from added fructose of {approx}1356 kJ (324 kcal).

Yes. Exactly. Increased caloric intake.

More recently, a low-dose infusion of fructose has been shown to increase carbon flux through glycogen synthase (EC 2.4.1.11) and thereby stimulate glycogen synthesis in humans (25).

Glycogen. Not fat! (A reminder for those who haven't read the entire thread -- carbs are metabolized into glycogen -- a form of energy that is stored in the muscles and liver that isn't fat.)

Fructose has also been found to restore the ability of hyperglycemia to regulate hepatic glucose production (26), and the addition of 7.5 g fructose to the standard 75 g glucose reduced the glycemic response to oral-glucose-tolerance tests in adults with type 2 diabetes (27). Thus catalytic amounts of oral fructose may be beneficial in improving glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. In addition, fructose ingestion results in smaller postprandial glycemic excursions (28).

Huh. Fructose is good for Type 2 diabetics. Taubes would have a fit.

De novo lipogenesis does not increase in response to eucaloric glucose ingestion (31).

Translation of biochem speak: de novo lipogenesis = making new fat. Taubes kinda missed this fact in his "exhaustive" studies.

The effects of dietary fructose on weight gain have been reported in 3 studies in human subjects.

Well, bust out the Nobel. Three whole studies.

(In one of the 3 studies) body weight increased in a group of 14 middle-aged men, 11 with type 2 diabetes mellitus and 3 with type 1 diabetes mellitus, who incorporated 50–60 g fructose/d into their diets for 24 wk (38).

14 guys! Most of whom had diabetes. I'm serious. Somebody call the Nobel committee.

Fructose, unlike glucose, does not stimulate insulin secretion from pancreatic ß cells (40, 41). ... Although high-carbohydrate meals stimulate leptin production in humans relative to high-fat meals (80), if the carbohydrate provided in this study had been fructose rather than glucose, the results would probably have been different because of the dissimilar effects of the 2 sugars on insulin secretion. To compare the effects of glucose and fructose on leptin production, plasma leptin concentrations were measured in rhesus monkeys after intravenous infusion with saline, glucose, or fructose. Glucose infusion markedly increased plasma glucose and insulin concentrations and progressively increased plasma leptin 4–8 h into the infusions. In contrast, an intravenous infusion of the same amount of fructose only modestly increased plasma glucose and did not stimulate insulin secretion or increase circulating leptin concentrations over an 8-h period (65).

There goes yet another of Taubes' pet theories. He thinks insulin is the driving force behind obesity.

Although fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion (41), the insulin resistance and obesity induced by long-term fructose feeding in experimental animals induces compensatory hyperinsulinemia.

Another puzzle for Taubes. How on god's green earth is hyperinsulemia induced without insulin?

The classic relation between insulin resistance, increased fasting plasma insulin concentrations, and glucose intolerance has been hypothesized to be mediated by changes in ambient nonesterified fatty acid concentrations (see review in reference 96). The exposure to increased concentrations of nonesterified fatty acids may reduce insulin sensitivity by increasing the intramyocellular lipid content (98). Increased portal delivery of nonesterified fatty acids, particularly from visceral adipose tissue, could also lead to impaired carbohydrate metabolism, because elevated portal nonesterified fatty acid concentrations increase hepatic glucose production (99, 100). In addition, over time, increased nonesterified fatty acid concentrations may have a deleterious effect on ß cell function (101).

Whaddaya know. There's our old friend fat. How do you think Taubes would rationalize the critical role fat plays in both obesity and diabetes?

An increased supply of nonesterified fatty acids in the liver also leads to an increase in the production of VLDL triacylglycerol (102).

Aha! Elevated VLDL correlated with fat! Poor old Taubes. He's getting a licking in this paper.

The combination of the high-fat diet with fructose resulted in increased circulating triacylglycerol, and fructose with copper deficiency resulted in significant increases in blood cholesterol.

Uh oh. Looks like one needs both fat and fructose to elevate TAGs. More bad news for Taubes.

Hyperlipidemia did not develop when starch was combined with a high-fat diet (110).

Translation of biochem speak: hyperlipidemia = putting on too much fat aka getting pudgy.

And starch = carbs. Nail in the coffin for Taubes, if you ask me.

Hellerstein (111) showed that there is little de novo lipogenesis from glucose under eucaloric conditions in humans.

Yet another study Havel mentions that completely destroys Taubes' central argument.

---

And that's the end of the paper.

This paper pulls Taubes to pieces.

You really ought to read the stuff you cite, Percy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 07-02-2008 7:26 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019