Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes

Hey Percy,
I haven't read Taubes' book, but I have read many along the same lines. I have battled weight for years. Like you, I can gain weight on a 1200 calorie diet. My hubby and I followed the low fat diet for over 20 years. I don't do organize exercise and he is a chronic exerciser. The exercise didn't cause him to lose weight and he was hungry a lot. We even visited a dietitian who said our diet was fine, if that's what we were really eating. She suggested we increase our calories. Didn't help.About 5 years ago I finally called it quits on the low fat diet the doctors prescribed. My weight was going up and I refused to gain any more, but I wasn't going to starve. I wanted a diet that was realistic to a daily routine that I can live with, not suffer through.So it has been a process to get where we are today. I gave up foods with preservatives and high fructose corn syrup to start with. I also gave up low fat foods. My weight dropped. I still ate plenty of protein (my beef is home grown grassfed) and fruits and veggies. I was a high protein and low carb diet. My husband discovered Atkins and strickly followed his advice. I wasn't in a rush to lose and didn't want to get that extreme. But my husband's weight started to drop. I finally got to see some of those muscles from all his exercising. He now does triathelons. He doesn't have six pack abs. There is still some fat belly fat he wants to get rid of, but he didn't have to suffer through hunger pains. The sugar cravings went away. We also didn't have a problem with having a piece of cake at a Birthday party and the next day find that we gained 5 pounds. So we can have a "bad" day but it didn't impact our weight the same as on the low fat diet. We went back to our diet, which is now our norm. Flour and sugar (variations of the two) are the carbs we don't eat. We've even experimented with whole grains and such, but too much and the weight climbs.I read up on metabolic typing because there are people who can eat a higher amount of carbs and not have a weight problem. I'm not a purebred anything. My ancestry covers the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, England, and Native American. When I think of evolution and people evolving in specific areas and the foods available in those area, I wonder how that affects their metabolism or how their bodies react to food. As a hybrid, what does that do to me?When I don't eat any sugar or breads, my cholesterol goes down. The doctors wouldn't believe it. I even experimented with natural sugars. The cholesterol still went up.So we have been able to maintain our way of eating for over 3 years. By insurance charts we are still considered obese, but I'll take a size 14 over a 20 any day.There is a research study here at the University looking for people who are overweight, 50-75, and don't exercise. I'm starting the process to be a part of the study. The advertisement said the study will attempt to determine if weight loss with exercise is more beneficial than exercise alone.Then the email responding to my inquiry said: I went to fill out the consent forms, medical info, and questions about activity.The consent form said under purpose: Now in the letter I have to give to my doctor for permission it says: Does this all sound like the same purpose?When they showed me the diet for the exercise/diet group, it is a high carb, low protein diet. I showed the lady my current diet, which she ignored. If I'm in the diet and exercise group and don't lose more than 8 pounds; I'm removed from the study. If I'm in the exercise only group (resistance training) and lose more than 3 pounds, I'm removed from the study.The diet had breads and grains every day in some way. I told her I'd probably gain on their diet. She said anyone who stays true to the diet would lose at least 2 pounds a week. (I've never lost 2 pounds a week on any diet.) If I end up in the diet and exercise category, this could be an interesting experiment just for my own knowledge of my diet.They are also going to test my current fitness level and if I'm too fit, I'm out even though I don't do organized exercise. It'll make my day if I'm not pathetic enough for the study. Needless to say, I agree that the low fat doesn't work for me. Sorry if this post is disjointed. Grandson is here, enough said.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Hey Percy,
I did watch the video and although he could get into specifics, genetics one area I've thought about concerning my own weight. The United States is such a melting pot, I don't see how any scientist can make a one size fits all decision.I just bought the book and am at page 138. The connection between sugar and cholesterol is one of my issues. I discovered that on my path to losing weight and dealing with cholesterol numbers.I had lost 15 pounds by cutting anything with preservatives in it and white flour, which cut out a lot of refined carbs. My weight went down, but my cholesterol went up. I had not stopped eating candy. I had also not decreased my intake of eggs. I eat about 2 eggs a day. I was actually eating more calories than before I lost the weight. No, I don't do organized exercise. My activity stayed the same.When I stopped all sugar of any kind (even HFCS) my cholesterol went down to just under 200 from 290. My egg, protein, and fat intake stayed the same.When I eat sugar or refined carbs, my cholesterol goes up.My Mom is diabetic (2). When I can get her to stop the sugar and refined carbs, her sugar level is fine.Once I get off the sugar and refined carbs, I don't have cravings.The biggest problem with the way I eat is when interacting with others for holidays, cookouts, etc. We just took a trip to Holiday World in southern Indiana with my husband's family. Although my husband does, his family doesn't tend to have weight problems; but they are finding they have some of those health issues even though they don't have weight issues. High Cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc.Since we rented an RV we were able to take our own food. We have sprouted grain buns with no sugar, hotdogs with no nitrites, grassfed beef, etc. So the rest of the family ate their standard fare and we stuck to our usual food. We did indulge in a somemore or two. There's just no way to substitute for a marshmallow. We don't have a will power issue and we've been eating this way for over 5 years. We aren't hungry. I average about 1400 calories a day.Since I started that research program, my weight went up a bit. I'm in the exercise only bunch. It is 30 minutes of resistance training. They don't expect us to lose weight with exercise only. The diet bunch has their caloric intake decreased by 750 calories.I'm sure they'll lose weight, but I don't feel they can stay there. That type of diet would take will power. They give them a low fat, high carb, low protein diet.I'm anxious to get through the book and see what other research has been done and goes along with what I've discovered through my own situation.

quote:

---

He is against Atkins primarily because the protein levels are too high and because Atkins does not differentiate between good and bad fats.

---

I think many aren't separating good carbs from bad carbs and good fats from bad fats.I eat a lot of beef, but it isn't grain fed beef. I eat grass fed beef. The fat is different since cattle aren't set up to eat the grain they are given. They fatten up faster on corn than grass. I grew up on grassfed beef and had no weight problems until I hit High School and fast foods. I don't eat vegetable oils either. I stick to olive oil.I still think it goes back to where our ancestors evolved. Humans would have evolved around the food available. Given time, humans may adjust to the chemicals they call food and be able to survive. How long does evolution take?

Hey RAZD,Sorry to hear your cancer came back. Lost my father to cancer, I understand the problems.I finished the research study at Purdue. I was in the exercise only group. Now this was only resistance training, no aerobics. I lost inches and a few pounds, but no significant weight loss.That said, once I was done with the study, I stopped eating all sugars, grains, and fruit juices (except for my birthday of course ) Then my weight started to go down. My weight had been stuck for several years and was starting to creep back up, so now it is creeping back down and I've finally gone below my stuck point.Fruit juices were my weakness. I haven't had sodas for over 20 years. I don't eat low fat foods, but I do eat grassfed beef, free range chickens and eggs, fish and some pork. I don't drink milk either. I always figured it really isn't necessary for people to drink mil once they are weaned, just like it isn't necessary for cats or other animals once they are weaned.I'm just getting to the point in the book where he is looking at the research done on high protein and high fat diets. It looks like people could still get all the nutrition they need. In the studies he mentioned people couldn't get fat on meat and fats alone. They needed to add carbs. I think the carbs in these studies were fruits and veggies.I wonder how much of how we process carbs deals with where our ancestors evolved. The all meat and fat diet of the Eskimos vs a group from the climates that are warm year round. I don't recall any of the test subjects being from the warmer areas. That may be approached later in the book. Makes me wonder if they call a malfunction was designed winter survival.Chemo definitely doesn't help. One of the issues I had with my father's treatment is that they didn't address his nutrition. They just told him to eat what he felt like eating. Well he didn't feel like eating much of anything most times and when he did it was the sweets and processed carbs that he preferred. I think he had difficulty tasting also.Chemo depletes nutrients from the body and you probably can't eat enough to restore those nutrients even if you had an appetite. Here is an unexpected twist discovered in a study done by Eli Lilly.
Vitamins to relieve chemotherapy side effectsThe book is a fascinating read.Take care
PD

quote:

---

Hey, good news. Bet it feels good!

​

My willpower is fighting a loosing battle with a desire for certain foods, but still, I'm not doing too bad. The problem with a low carb diet is boredom due to lack of variety.

​

--Percy

---

Yes, variety is a problem. Fortunately for me I have rather boring taste buds. The February 2011 Reader's Digest has an article about Taubes in it. He was interviewed concerning his new book Why We Get Fat--and What to Do About It. It's pretty much a condensed version of the Good Carbs Bad Carbs book.I recommended it to my family since they didn't want to take the time to read the big book. I haven't checked out the new book yet. I figured it's just repackaging parts of the Good Carbs Bad Carbs book. Looks like it is at least 250 pages.Nice option for family members who don't want to read much.
Easier for quick reference.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The new book seems to be geared more towards a layman audience without the heavier science references.

---

That's good.I watched the video. I found the part with the insulin resistance interesting. My mother has that problem and when I get her to go lower on carbs her blood sugar improves. Unfortunately then she listens to her dietitian or doctor and they want her on a low fat, high carb; her blood sugar goes up. Then they up her meds. Scary.She has more trouble with her weight on the high carb diet.It would be nice not to have to think so much about our food.

quote:

---

I seem to do better with weight control with low carbs, but I need to get back on board (I've slipped into some breads and -horrors- cookies). I seem to be maintaining my waist, but I feel like I am gaining weight (don't have a scale).

---

Yep, the holidays got me. Weight started creeping up. My clothes still fit, but for how long.We are starting to work with quinoa. High in protein and good on fiber. Since I'm not much for salads, I don't get enough fiber. Hopefully this will help and not add fat to my body. We shall see in a week or two. I haven't found anything yet that says I can have sugar and not have to exercise. I keep looking though.

From a lay viewpoint, the overall idea I get from Gary's books are that an over abundance of carbs in some people tells the body to store fat. The energy burned may not be from the same fat being stored.Unfortunately for scientist, we are not machines that are made exactly alike. The theory of thermodynamics doesn't seem to work for biology.Increased exercise alone doesn't necessarily cause a person to lose a significant amount of weight.When a theory doesn't ring true for an individual, that individual has to go with what works whether it is a scientific truth or not.As Taubes pointed out, the more we exercise the more we want to eat and the less we eat the less energy we have to exercise. So there is something else at work and IIRC, he attributed to survival needs.There may not be a scientific truth that fits everyone concerning weight.

quote:

---

PD, I would suggest you take a look at the link I posted above. Guyenet specifically addresses thermo:

---

I did and I disagree with your quote. That is not the way I read what Taubes wrote. It was very much about what type of energy enters the body. All calories are not equal. And from the abstract #26Which is what Taubes is looking at, in my understanding. It isn't a simple case of calorie in, calorie out.Did you read the book, Good Calories, Bad Calories? If not, you really can't say whether Guyenet is right or not.

quote:

---

There's more where that came from. Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting la-la-la doesn't make it go away.

---

No it doesn't.Show me how Taubes mangled the papers.

quote:

---

I-don't-like-the-sound-of-that-theory-so-I'm-going-with-my-gut-feeling?

---

Nope. Has nothing to do with sound, it has to do with what works for the individual. One size doesn't fit all. Some people do better with more carbs and some do better with more protein.Resorting to creo rudeness doesn't make your point either.

quote:

---

You're disagreeing with a "B.S. in biochemistry from the University of Virginia ... and a Ph.D. in neurobiology from the University of Washington ... [who professionally studies] the neurobiology of body fat regulation" and siding with a journalist. Huh.

---

Why yes, yes I am. I read the same book he did and I disagree with his statement of what Taubes said. No science involved in that. Just plain reading. If you feel my understanding of what Taubes wrote concerning thermodynamics is wrong, then provide a quote from the book that agrees with Guyenet's statement.

quote:

---

That's fine. Care to support that bare assertion?

---

The title of the book is a big giveaway, but here are two of the conclusions that Taubes felt were inescapable to him based on the existing knowledge. Type of calorie:

quote:

---

Fat people expend more energy because they have to haul around more weight. They also consume more energy than they expend.

---

So what is your point concerning the conclusions of the book. Taubes doesn't deny this issue.

quote:

---

You want to dust off your copy of GCBC and refute that with a couple of quotes?

---

You didn't show me how Taubes mangled the papers. IOW, show me what Taubes said concerning the papers and how it mangled it.

quote:

---

And you failed to address Guyenet's main point. Taubes' hypothesis is, at its core, dead wrong.

---

Mainly because you haven't made an argument. You just quoted Guyenet and Guyenet didn't provide any quotes from the book to match his comments. I don't intend to debate Guyenet.

quote:

---

1. He neglected to mention leptin.

---

Neglecting to mention something isn't mangling a paper. What paper did he mangle concerning leptin?

quote:

---

2. He neglected to mention 81% carbohydrate intake.

---

How did he mangle a paper?

quote:

---

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

---

Again you've made no point of what paper he mangled. I see carbs listed (although I don't see processed carbs and sugar mentioned) and that they were considered in good health. What is your issue? The points he is looking at now is the idea that abundance causes obesity or sedentary lifestyle causes obesity.

quote:

---

You just restate Taubes' erroneous claims. To wit:

---

In Message 305, I stated: That is not the way I read what Taubes wrote. It was very much about what type of energy enters the body. All calories are not equal.You quoted my first sentence and said: That's fine. Care to support that bare assertion?So I quoted from the book where I felt Taubes covered the idea where all calories are not equal and what supported my understanding of what Taubes wrote.

quote:

---

Either refute the evidence or concede the point.

---

What point?
Evidence for what?
What do you think I'm arguing? Message 303What do you think Taubes' central thesis is?

quote:

---

There are literally dozens of papers. Care to comment?

---

Comment on what?I haven't claimed anything concerning insulin.As I said before, neither you nor Guyenet have provided any quotes (other than that one paragraph) from the book for anyone to follow what your issue is with what Taubes printed in the book.From what I can tell you and Guyenet are upset because Taubes didn't get specific on a cellular level.He makes it clear in the book that he is speaking in a more general manner for ease. He didn't write a scientific report. He wrote a book for the public.When he talks about insulin, I understood that he knew the process was more involved, but he was putting forth the basic idea.That idea is that processed carbs and sugar cause some people to store too much fat.

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

Sumo wrestlers work at getting fat.One thought in my mind concerning the differences between breeds of people is about where groups evolved. Wouldn't they evolve to deal with the food in their environment. Processed carbs haven't been around that long.Then we look at the US melting pot. Most of us are hybrids. What does that do to our system?Just more thoughts rumbling around. I'm also looking at the thyroid now. So many pieces to the puzzle.

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

Unfortunately for you this is the Book Nook forum and the discussion is about the book.I didn't bring up any science, I disagreed with the statement that your article made, which had nothing to do with science. If you wanted to debate science then you shouldn't have responded to my post.

quote:

---

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

---

The quote you pulled from the article, IMO, is not the central thesis of the book. The paragraph is from Chapter 21 on "The Carbohydrate Hypothesis, I: Fat Metabolism", page 359. He's talking about an alternative hypothesis of obesity that vanished in the 1980's. It isn't his hypothesis. Only the first proposition in the paragraph is what he has said.

quote:

---

I suggest you look at his discussion of Wilhelm Falta's work. Chapter 22. Page 379. Taubes noted that injecting insulin increased the appetite specifically for carbs. Message 333

---

On that page, Tabues does not say that insulin increases appetite or that injecting insulin increased the appetite specifically for carbs. He's presenting what others have said. Do you disagree with what Falta reported before 1930 or do you feel that Taubes did not summarize the report correctly?Looking on the internet, I don't see any disagreement that insulin therapy can cause people to gain weight.

quote:

---

Taubes' position is perfectly clear. Please see 335.

---

You do realize that page 335 presents a low carb diet as successful don't you?
he whole point of the book is to support the idea of a diet lower in carbs than proteins and fat.

quote:

---

Taubes even has a GCBC chapter called The Carbohydrate Hypothesis II: Insulin!

​

From the first page of that chapter:

​

The fact that insulin increase the formation of fat has been obvious

---

That isn't a statement by Taubes either. It is part of a quote from Reginald Haist and Charles Best, The Physiological Basis of Medical Practice, 1966. What is your point?If you disagree with something that Taubes actually said or a conclusion he actually made, why don't you write a clear argument stating your position. You aren't really presenting anything to discuss.