Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes

He argues that dietary fat has been falsely implicated as the primary cause of the western life-style diseases of heart disease, diabetes and obesity, and that the actual cause is refined carbohydrates such as bread, pasta, and worst of all, refined sugar.

This has been argued for some time and I don't have the energy to dredge up the research, but imo, the facts support this. In fact, this is one of those areas that leads me to be highly suspicious of mainstream opinion in a lot of areas. Carbs are really the problem, not fat. Eat more meat and veggies and less carbs, and that's good for you.

However, there is also the fact that not everyone's body is the same. People have different blood types. Moreover, there are diets with carbs with low heart disease, but they often contain things like lots of cold-pressed olive oil and wine.

This dramatic increase in obesity cannot be attributed to "an increase in carbs".

Actually it can. It's due to an increase in processed food. Keep in mind it's not all carbs such as vegetables, but an increase in certain kinds of carbs that have aspects that are processed very fast within the body.

Bread is a carb to not overdue, but certain breads are better than others and the more refined, the less healthy because the process of digestion is faster and less gradual within the body.

{Stop it Randman - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Non-topic drivel "hidden"

Nutritional ideas such as low carb diet, etc,....are a good reason to be highly skeptical of mainstream scientific opinion because it's so often been incredibly wrong. It's nice someone is doing some science to tell us things we can test out and know for ourselves, but at the same time, waiting for science and "empirical data" can often be a death-knell for people.

I found an experimental product for a friend dying of breast cancer, which had spread in a bad way. She was suppossed to live at most 2-3 months. It's been about 18 now, actually more like 25 months (edit to correct) and her last test was negative so she is staying free. Within hours of taking the product, she noticed a marked decrease in pain (very large decrease I should add.....she said it "left") which by itself wouldn't mean she was being cured but it appears from all the medical tests that this product genuinely destroyed the cancer.

Do I think mainstream medical science will eventually produce a drug from this natural product?

Sure.....in about 20-30 years.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

If it had just been a case of a set of studies being added to the mix of other studies the result would not have been too damaging, but Keys was influential, and he was well known in government circles. He was, for example, responsible for the development of K-rations.

So why were his findings so universally accepted by the medical and scientific community?

Were they are part of some vast conspiracy or something?.....;) Are you questioning the integrity of the scientific establishment or what?...:cool:

I mean clearly there was universal and wide acceptance of this empirical study....probably still is.

Hmmm...

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

What happened is that Key's opinions received the imprimatur of the United States government by way of McGovern's committee, and the United States government through the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies is the single largest source of funds for health research.

So are you saying government funding can dictate scientific consensus? Could that be true for other areas like ToE or global warming or.....?

This is more an argument that the government should not be making decisions that are better left to scientists, but we can't forget the temper of the time.

You mean like deciding whether a local jurisdiction can teach Intelligent Design? or whether man-made global warming is a real threat? Additionally, scientists by the 70s had reached a consensus going along with it. heck, doctors never said, hey, eat more fat and meat and less carbs because it's good for you....not sure, but I think they still don't today.

So in reality, leaving things to mainstream scientists is a highly risky proposition. Could cost one his or her life in fact.

It's interesting on this issue, you seem perfectly willing to take a stance that borders on labelling the scientific community as easily manipulated by government opinion or perhaps even fraudulent.

I tend to agree that mainstream scientific and medical opinion was grossly in error pushing simple carbohydrates so much, but I am also interested in the implications of such a seemingly massive, widespread error.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I am just agreeing with you but it's hard not to discuss the implications, assuming the low carb approach is correct. I certainly think it is, but at the same time it has been the opposite of what mainstream medicine and science has been saying for decades.

Who is correct?

In other words, can we really say the science is yet on the low carb side and not on the side of the "just calories" crowd? I don't know, but since I am not going to rely just on science anyway....

I think it's important to discuss the implications here for THIS TOPIC because I think a simplistic approach, which has often been popular which in this case is the "just calories" approach is the underlying reason this fallacy arose in the first place. It's a real problem that once some simple idea is accepted as scientific consensus, that it's very difficult to break that, even if people's health and lives are at stake, and as you can see in the responses to you this thread, it will be maintained all the science is with the simple idea even when clearly that's not the case. It will be as if people are talking from 2 different realities.

But here is where the rubber meets the road with this concept: this is something people themselves can do and see how it works with their own bodies, and that's what has been happening. Believe me, I think a food's glycemic content and the whole bit is important, and I wish we knew MORE as this way of approaching food needs more study.

I am convinced as well that one size doesn't fit all with food either, and that different people need specific differences in their diet. It'd be nice if science one day gets there and does the work needed to establish some of these ideas, but it might take longer than some have to live....

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

(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.

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?

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?

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.

That being said, the failure of the dietary fat hypothesis cannot be denied, because the US essentially carried out an experiment using the American people as guinea pigs who now suffer under the weight of this bad decision (literally ).

Percy, I hope you receive this in a positive manner but while I agree wholeheartedly with you, it's not really an experiment current science would accept. It can be an impetus to more studies, but imo, the limitations of science prevents it from considering whether the current population had indeed carried out this experiment since there is no scientific verification it is so. It would theoritically be true everyone thinks they cut fat and ate more carbs all the while eating more fat.

Personally, this reminds of where the proof is in the pudding so to speak with developing a relationship with the Lord. Imo, it is eminently reasonable to accept people's personal testimonies of their spiritual experiences as real. That doesn't mean they cannot be interpreted or qualified but the idea they are merely delusions I reject as unreasonable. It's in some sense a real experiment in the life of people.

But it's not a scientific experiment, and neither is the claim concerning Americans adopting a low fat diet. That doesn't make the claim untrue. Science is not the arbiter of truth and is very limited, but just the same....

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I remember when they said eggs were bad and also that margerine was better than butter. Never believed mainstream science for a minute on that although I do think you can eat too much fat if you eat too many carbs, and by that, I have found the combinations of food to be very important. If I cut my carbs down, the fat doesn't bother me, but if I eat fatty meals along with carbs, it does.

I think you are on the right path here though taken to an extreme (and the diet for epilepsy may be an extreme) this can harm the liver, but it will probably be years before science confirms it. What will likely occur is the public will figure this out first and change their diet (occuring now in the beginning phase) and then science will be a johnny-come-lately and confirm, by golly, this is actually right.

Reason for this comment is some fields, science is better than others. In terms of mainstream scientific opinion on nutrition, it has failed badly at times.

Reducing carbs significantly, imo, helps.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

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.