What Really Makes Us Fat

[KevinNYC]

In a recent thread (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6937339&postcount=19) I pointed out a book by Gary Taubes called Why We Get Fat.

In NY Times this week, he points to a study that just came that has really interesting implications.

What Really Makes Us Fat (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/what-really-makes-us-fat.html)


[QUOTE]The Journal of the American Medical Association published the results of a clinical trial by Dr. David Ludwig of Boston Children

[-p.tiddy-]

What Really Makes Us Fat

inactivity and eating too much crap food

/thread

[Nick Young]

carbs make you fat-wow what a controversial conclusion, who knew:facepalm

[Cowboy Thunder]

cliffs?


Americans just don't move enough. IMO

[Loneshot]

I'm confused; how is eating low-fat a controversial conclusion to weight loss?

I've seen some other studies that show it is primarily sugar that leads to health issues/weight gain/obesity. My girlfriends dad looked into this study and experimented with not eating sugar but still eating fat and he ended up losing weight; as did some others i know who tried it out.

Apparently sugar is a toxin that should be regulated on a level that rivals alcohol.

[Meticode]

A calorie is a calorie I feel is the simplest way to lose weight. If you watch your calories in versus calories out you should probably lose weight in that time frame. The biggest reasons where getting more obese than every is they ware our society is designed. Everything is automated.

100 years ago we walked to our jobs, had more manual labor jobs, we broke a bike to our job

Today people drive everywhere sitting on their asses drinking and eating in the morning.

A study was down that back in the 1960s almost 70%+ of kids walked to school. Today only 5% to 10% of kids in schools walk to school.

20+ years ago kids got out and played and exercised. F*ck I remember going out and playing baseball in a church parking lot 3-4 days a week for a few hours. Shit was fun as hell.

Today kids are engrossed into their screens. They're watching their TV screen, their computer screen, their iPod screen, their iPad screen, etc.

Fast food is EVERYWHERE today. Human instinct is to eat high calorie content that is dense in calories, when we were hunters and gatherers this was in our nature back then because meals were way more scarce. It's hard to turn that psychological feeling off and to cut back on calories.

It's so much easier to go through the drive-thru and pay for a 5-10 minute meal than it is to go to the store and pick up the food and decide what you want.

My opinion...

More advanced cultures that are "westernized" are becoming fan and obese because our society is geared towards making money off obesity. The US government pays farmers to only grow corn and grain farms which account for high fructose corn syrup and other horrible un-nutrional things for you. While farmers who grow a variety of fruits and vegetables get paid less. Because of those demand for this product that's cheap and easy to produce we take the easy way out of providing our bodies energy. Which is to reach for the big-mac versus making the food ourselves.

Personally I cut down on my calorie intake by 300-500 a day and upped my exercising to running 30 minutes a day. That's all i changed. I didn't keep and exact count, but I eat portions better while drinking only water during 90% of the time and lost 60 pounds.

[Meticode]

cliffs?


Americans just don't move enough. IMO
Agreed.

[Cowboy Thunder]

I'm confused; how is eating low-fat a controversial conclusion to weight loss?

I've seen some other studies that show it is primarily sugar that leads to health issues/weight gain/obesity. My girlfriends dad looked into this study and experimented with not eating sugar but still eating fat and he ended up losing weight; as did some others i know who tried it out.

Apparently sugar is a toxin that should be regulated on a level that rivals alcohol.


No doubt. The "fat free" stuff is bullshit. Did you see the 60 minutes special on Sugar being a toxin?

[Loneshot]

No doubt. The "fat free" stuff is bullshit. Did you see the 60 minutes special on Sugar being a toxin?

No, i had been reading some articles and a bunch of user-info on the rogan board. There was also a video that i didn't watch that may have been that which you're referring to. I need to watch it asap though.

[Meticode]

No doubt. The "fat free" stuff is bullshit. Did you see the 60 minutes special on Sugar being a toxin?
Sugars are bad for you if you consume too much. Typically 25-35g a day is ideal, but people are consuming like double and triple that. Which onsets diabetes and puts you at risk because it makes you insulin resistant.

It's like the schools that did away with pop machines. Well those same pop machines that have soda...well those soda companies own the sugary energy drink/oj companies too. Those have just as many calories/sugar in them as pop. Only it has vitamin C in it. So you get vitamin C, but you still get just as fat off of it versus pop.

[Cowboy Thunder]

I dunno Meticode.


I am under the belief that natural sugars are fine.

I don't believe 100% Grape, Apple, Orange, etc. juice made people obese.

Pop is just on a another level with how your body breaks it down.


My philosophy on nutrition is to eat as natural as possible and cook real meals as my grandparents did. Aka, I spend way too much money on food. :cry:

[LJJ]

Sitting on your ass all day, eating Taco Bell and drinking soda, and generally being a piece of shit person is what's making you fat.

[DurantFor40]

Genetics also play a major role

[KevinNYC]

So which of the commenters so far have actually read the article?

Because some of you are posting the exact opposite of what it says.

[Cowboy Thunder]

So which of the commenters so far have actually read the article?

Because some of you are posting the exact opposite of what it says.

Ok, I finally did.


So that was a really long winded way of saying in a one month trial they concluded that "The fewer carbohydrates we eat, the more easily we remain lean. "

[KevinNYC]

More advanced cultures that are "westernized" are becoming fan and obese

One interesting section of Gary Taubes' book is a section where they look at pre-modern tribes that were/are obese.

[KevinNYC]

Ok, I finally did.


So that was a really long winded way of saying in a one month trial they concluded that "The fewer carbohydrates we eat, the more easily we remain lean. "
And it also indicates it's not fat that makes you fat.

If the conclusions of the study are true, then the low-fat diet that has been recommended most for the past 30 years actually contributes to obesity, that food pyramid we have been taught is actually bad for us.
[IMGhttp://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/Fpyr/pmap1.gif[/IMG]

[Cowboy Thunder]

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/Fpyr/pmap1.gif


no doubt fruits and veggies should replace the bottom of the pyramid

[sunsfan1357]

And it also indicates it's not fat that makes you fat.

If the conclusions of the study are true, then the low-fat diet that has been recommended most for the past 30 years actually contributes to obesity, that food pyramid we have been taught is actually bad for us.
[IMGhttp://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/Fpyr/pmap1.gif[/IMG]
it's been pretty widespread for a while now that the food pyramid is a bunch of shit and, at least from what reading I've done, many nutritionists recommend eating a healthy dose of fat instead of neglecting it like many fad diets recommend.

[LikeABosh]

Genetic do play a big part in it sometimes. I never count calories or worry about what I eat at all. I exercise alot but eat what ever I want. I have a friend who goes to the gym all the time, runs, and is crazy strict with his diet yet is still just fat...

[Quizno]

Fast food is EVERYWHERE today. Human instinct is to eat high calorie content that is dense in calories, when we were hunters and gatherers this was in our nature back then because meals were way more scarce. It's hard to turn that psychological feeling off and to cut back on calories.

LMAO. you're really reaching here. people eat fastfood because it tastes good, it's convenient and it's really cheap. it has nothing to do with us being hunter-gatherers thousands of years ago :roll:

[KevinNYC]

it's been pretty widespread for a while now that the food pyramid is a bunch of shit and, at least from what reading I've done, many nutritionists recommend eating a healthy dose of fat instead of neglecting it like many fad diets recommend.

There has been a lot of talk about it, but it's still pretty much heresy amongst nutritionist to push something else.

Nutritionist are becoming transparent about the fact the we still know so little about the science of nutrition and genetics may play a giant part in the variability of people responses. I bet 30 years from now, they move towards more customized diets for different people not a one pyramid fits all type of thing.

[LikeABosh]

also people eat fast food because it's cheap, convenient and tastes damn good. As a guy in his 20's what do you expect me to eat, a bacon cheeseburger with fries and a soda for 6 bucks or some health food sh*t that's expensive as hell and tastes bad? Have you guys ever shopped at whole food market? Place is crazy expensive

[KevinNYC]

Actually, I think Taubes would recommend full fat protein at every meal. Vegetables, yes, fruit not so much.

[Nanners]

The wording in the conclusion of the article is a little confusing. Are they saying that obesity is linked to diets that are high in carbohydrates?

[ace23]

LMAO. you're really reaching here. people eat fastfood because it tastes good, it's convenient and it's really cheap. it has nothing to do with us being hunter-gatherers thousands of years ago :roll:
Yeah, but his post explains why it tastes good. Not a reach at all.

[chazzy]

Keto diet works wonders

[falc39]

Will the food pyramid go down as being the "earth is flat" moment for the nutrition/health sciences?????

Will generations after us laugh and mock it??

[-p.tiddy-]

the food pyramid is fine for people that eat 2000 calories or less a day...

[sunsfan1357]

Maybe I read it wrong, but this seems to be an attempt to reach a conclusion on how fat people get obese. I would question how they got fat in the first place (most likely from gorging on everything in sight), because many performance athletes (runners for example) stay on a high carb diet, some on a 50/25/25 carb/protein/fat ratio.

[knickballer]

1) People/Americans are dumb. They think if they run on the treadmill for 20 minutes they are entitled to eat a big mac with a large coke on the side but the calories they burned isn't close to the calories they just intaked.
2) like others mentioned Fast Food and unhealthy food is everywhere, it's profitable and easy to get. There's non stop commercials for the tasty foods but none for healthy foods
3) People are brought up wrong. In schools they are fed shit like pizza and other frozen foods and it's a bad habit that just carries on.. When people see a McDonalds they stop and munch on it. Parents are doing a bad job of parenting and feeding kids fast food every other day. The family dynamic is also ****ed up nowadays with both parents(or a single parent household) working meaning no family dinners or fast food replacing home made meals.
4) People are careless. I know people who won't each much meals(and brag about it) but yet they'll have a frapachino when they come in to work, or eat some cookies from the bakery as a snack, etc. Little do they know the small things they are eating can have close to a thousand calories each(I think a frap has like 900 calories..) so in essence they putting on weight and not even knowing it.

Just some of my opinion on the matter

[shlver]

lol the article is baseless. Basically he's saying low carb diets result in an increase in gluconoegenesis and the protein turnover rate require higher metabolic rates than high carb diets. This insignificant 0.04 kg/week, 0.44 kg/12 weeks, 1.76 kg/year at an increased energy expenditure of 41 kcal a day is not enough imo to contribute significantly to curb obesity or on the other diet increase obesity.
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-1-15.pdf
The metabolic advantage of a low carb diet is minimal and insignificant and also comes with the undesirable state of ketosis.

[reppy]

I've watched "The Bitter Truth" videos by Dr. Lustig. One great question he asks to anyone that claims they really know what's causing the obesity crisis is this:

How do you explain the epidemic of obese 6 month olds?

Did they choose to be fat? Not getting enough exercise? Or is it the high fructose corn sugar that's in their baby formula?

[Godzuki]

good tasting food = fattening

unless you brainwash yourself into thinking otherwise.

[shlver]

I've watched "The Bitter Truth" videos by Dr. Lustig. One great question he asks to anyone that claims they really know what's causing the obesity crisis is this:

How do you explain the epidemic of obese 6 month olds?

Did they choose to be fat? Not getting enough exercise? Or is it the high fructose corn sugar that's in their baby formula?
Because of improper feeding practices, not high fructose corn syrup. This also may be a factor because too much baby formula results in overload of triglyceride synthesis resulting in more fat cells to store nutrients than babies who were fed properly. What happens as these babies grow into adults and they diet, the fat cells shrink, creating a situation where the body sends hormonal messages resulting in them having greater motivation to eat.

[Meticode]

I dunno Meticode.


I am under the belief that natural sugars are fine.

I don't believe 100% Grape, Apple, Orange, etc. juice made people obese.

Pop is just on a another level with how your body breaks it down.


My philosophy on nutrition is to eat as natural as possible and cook real meals as my grandparents did. Aka, I spend way too much money on food. :cry:
I know vegetarians that are obese. And they've been vegetarians for 3+ years. It's all about calorie intake, and while juices are obviously more healthy for you because they do offer vitamins and minerals, you do away with all the good things the fruit offers by drinking it in pure liquid form. If you want vitamin C, don't drink OJ, go out and get an orange and peel and eat one. The pulp and natural fibers are what's excellent good for you and add some fiber to your diet. You can get 100% of your vitamin C intake in 1 decent sized orange, and more healthy minerals, but half the calories versus drinking a glass of orange juice.

This is how I feel anyway.

[shlver]

I dunno Meticode.


I am under the belief that natural sugars are fine.

I don't believe 100% Grape, Apple, Orange, etc. juice made people obese.

Pop is just on a another level with how your body breaks it down.


My philosophy on nutrition is to eat as natural as possible and cook real meals as my grandparents did. Aka, I spend way too much money on food. :cry:
A cal of natural sugars is just as bad as a cal from HFCS. The only difference is you get redeeming qualities from fruit like fiber, pectin, etc. Downing calorically dense OJ is just as bad as soda.

[Meticode]

A cal of natural sugars is just as bad as a cal from HFCS. The only difference is you get redeeming qualities from fruit like fiber, pectin, etc. Downing calorically dense OJ is just as bad as soda.
:applause: Totally agreed 100%.

[KevinNYC]

lol the article is baseless. Basically he's saying low carb diets result in an increase in gluconoegenesis and the protein turnover rate require higher metabolic rates than high carb diets. This insignificant 0.04 kg/week, 0.44 kg/12 weeks, 1.76 kg/year at an increased energy expenditure of 41 kcal a day is not enough imo to contribute significantly to curb obesity or on the other diet increase obesity.
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-1-15.pdf
The metabolic advantage of a low carb diet is minimal and insignificant and also comes with the undesirable state of ketosis.

Are you saying what happened in the study didn't happen? Or are you saying what happened doesn't matter for other reasons?

Because the authors of that paper you cite say right up front that "a calorie is a calorie is wrong" which seems to directly support what Gary Taubes says at the beginning of his article.

[Sarcastic]

It comes down to the food you eat, and the amount of exercise you do.

This guy here proved this when he decided to gain 70 pounds, then proceed to go back to his fit self.

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/602973_401729646546560_1825803070_n.jpg

http://www.fit2fat2fit.com/

[shlver]

Are you saying what happened in the study didn't happen? Or are you saying what happened doesn't matter for other reasons?
The effect of low carb diets and its metabolic advantage has been studied before.
Yes it doesn't matter.

Because the authors of that paper you cite say right up front that "a calorie is a calorie is wrong" which seems to directly support what Gary Taubes says at the beginning of his article.
Sure but it is insignificant to the cause of obesity.

[KevinNYC]

The effect of low carb diets and its metabolic advantage has been studied before.
Yes it doesn't matter.



Yes, but this study is unique in what they attempted to control. So it's further evidence.

What are the reasons it doesn't matter?

[Meticode]

This. It is that simple yet a lot of people just can't do it.
Correct.

[shlver]

Yes, but this study is unique in what they attempted to control. So it's further evidence.

What are the reasons it doesn't matter?
Well, obviously Taubes has an agenda and it shows in the title "What really makes us fat." He assigns to a spectrum disorder a single cause.
Secondly, the study I posted shows a metabolic advantage but I demonstrated by math, using the experimental data from it, that the metabolic advantage of increased gluconeogenesis is insignificant to obesity. 1.76 kg/year is not significant imo. Also, a low carb diet and increased gluconeogenesis results in ketosis. A state indicative of disease.

[shlver]

Taubes wants to sell a book and tbh, to the regular reader with little knowledge in science and biochemistry, they would have no idea how a low carb diet would result in a metabolic advantage. These diet gurus and "science journalists" are pushing pseudoscience to make a profit.

[LilKateMoss]

lol the article is baseless. Basically he's saying low carb diets result in an increase in gluconoegenesis and the protein turnover rate require higher metabolic rates than high carb diets. This insignificant 0.04 kg/week, 0.44 kg/12 weeks, 1.76 kg/year at an increased energy expenditure of 41 kcal a day is not enough imo to contribute significantly to curb obesity or on the other diet increase obesity.
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-1-15.pdf
The metabolic advantage of a low carb diet is minimal and insignificant and also comes with the undesirable state of ketosis.

I've never seen anybody try so hard to sound smart. Do you think anybody actually reads your posts?

[Bucket_Nakedz]

the fact that processed corn syrup bullshiet that our bodies have become so used to, is cheaper than healthy food.

america - the only country where being poor makes you fat.

[rufuspaul]

People that go on low carb diets do lose weight. Problem is after they reach their goal they go back to eating carbs because, well, your body craves them, especially after you haven't had any for a long time. And guess what? These people gain all the weight back and then some. I've seen it happen time and time again.

If you want to lose weight there are only a few things that you have to get rid of or severely reduce your intake of:

Sugars-especially hfcs in soda
Alcohol-empty calories can add up in a hurry
Fast food
Processed food-high in calories and hfcs

Moderately reduce your intake of:

Red meat
Carbs-try to stay with whole grains and limit to 2-3 servings a day

Combine with an increase in exercise and watch the pounds melt away. Easier said than done, but quite doable nonetheless.

Later, gotta go hunt and gather.

[rufuspaul]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AB0jscEVGh4/TSXKzVQfeQI/AAAAAAAAAbw/arEdmpi9nNI/s1600/exorcist.jpg

FAT BEGONE!!


:roll: :hammerhead:


Although I've heard that harboring an evil spirit can add 20 lbs.

[shlver]

I've never seen anybody try so hard to sound smart. Do you think anybody actually reads your posts?
:rolleyes: Who cares? I know the average person like you is ignorant to most science and the biochemistry of nutrition but it's always better to spread knowledge against pseudoscience.

[Raz]

I dunno Meticode.

I am under the belief that natural sugars are fine.
I don't believe 100% Grape, Apple, Orange, etc. juice made people obese.

Pop is just on a another level with how your body breaks it down.

My philosophy on nutrition is to eat as natural as possible and cook real meals as my grandparents did. Aka, I spend way too much money on food. :cry:

Wrong. Juice is garbage, unless in moderation and if it's full of pulp.
The flesh of the fruit is what you want, not all the sugars squeezed out.

Meticode is right. Eat healthy, and restrict incoming calories if you want to lose weight. And you HAVE to EXERCISE.

Here's your basic rule of thumb (dependent on body size):
Lose weight:
2,000 calories in (healthy food) - 2,500 calories out (via exercise)
Do this every day and you should lose about 2-3 pounds a week.

Gain weight:
3,000 calories in (healthy food) - 2,500 calories out (via exercise)
Do this every day and you should start to gain weight - combine with weight lifting and whey protein for muscle growth.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand. Here's the key - do your own research. Do NOT believe anything a large company tells you.

Since January I have been going to the gym every day. I have improved my eating habits, and since Spring I have been biking to work every day 15km each way - so 150km a week. Guess what happened? My gut got smaller, I'm much fitter, and I have put on 10lbs of muscle. My weight went up because I consume slightly more calories as to what I burn, but I have been lifting weights like crazy, so my weight has gone up.

[Meticode]

Wrong. Juice is garbage, unless in moderation and if it's full of pulp.
The flesh of the fruit is what you want, not all the sugars squeezed out.

Meticode is right. Eat healthy, and restrict incoming calories if you want to lose weight. And you HAVE to EXERCISE.

Here's your basic rule of thumb (dependent on body size):
Lose weight:
2,000 calories in (healthy food) - 2,500 calories out (via exercise)
Do this every day and you should lose about 2-3 pounds a week.

Gain weight:
3,000 calories in (healthy food) - 2,500 calories out (via exercise)
Do this every day and you should start to gain weight - combine with weight lifting and whey protein for muscle growth.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand. Here's the key - do your own research. Do NOT believe anything a large company tells you.

Since January I have been going to the gym every day. I have improved my eating habits, and since Spring I have been biking to work every day 15km each way - so 150km a week. Guess what happened? My gut got smaller, I'm much fitter, and I have put on 10lbs of muscle. My weight went up because I consume slightly more calories as to what I burn, but I have been lifting weights like crazy, so my weight has gone up.
I agree with your post 100%. Congratulations on the health kick. It's hard to keep it going though. I got 7 pounds from my goal and slipped slightly and gain 4-5 pounds back. I'm back on track though. Already lost 3.6 of those 4-5 pounds I gained.

What you said is exactly right. People get overweight most of the time because they simply have too many calories in versus calories out. Eating just 100 more calories a day than what your body burns ultimately will make you over weight over the course of a few years.

[Jello]

You can maintain weight with junk food. It's just the ubiquity and ease of access caters to the lazy nature of most humans and causes them to eat calorie dense foods that are not satiating which causes them to eat more.

[Raz]

Congratulations on the health kick.

I'm at a bit of an advantage compared to the regular person - I have always been super fit (until last year due to workload).

So for me it's not so much losing weight, as it is just toning up and adding muscle. I started in January at about 198lbs, now I'm at 208lbs. 6'4" frame, and I still look skinny - lots of muscle weight in my legs


You can maintain weight with junk food. It's just the ubiquity and ease of access caters to the lazy nature of most humans and causes them to eat calorie dense foods that are not satiating which causes them to eat more.

Taking diet advice from someone called 'jello' is a recipe for failure.

[KevinNYC]

Well, obviously Taubes has an agenda and it shows in the title "What really makes us fat." He assigns to a spectrum disorder a single cause.
Secondly, the study I posted shows a metabolic advantage but I demonstrated by math, using the experimental data from it, that the metabolic advantage of increased gluconeogenesis is insignificant to obesity. 1.76 kg/year is not significant imo. Also, a low carb diet and increased gluconeogenesis results in ketosis. A state indicative of disease.

Taubes wants to sell a book and tbh, to the regular reader with little knowledge in science and biochemistry, they would have no idea how a low carb diet would result in a metabolic advantage. These diet gurus and "science journalists" are pushing pseudoscience to make a profit.

Taubes obviously has an agenda, but to say he's merely trying to sell a book indicates you haven't read his books. His ambition is larger than mere royalty checks. First off, he had been writing about nutrition for well over a decade before his first book and he's put out only two books on the subject. The first took 5 years to write, was not written for a general audience and had 60 page bibliography. It was described as "five hundred pages of densely-written, heavily annotated scientific prose." Hardly, the stuff that's going to knock 50 Shades of Grey off the list. The second book which was a popularizing of the first book with some new stuff took four years. He is not writing in the form that brings about big sales, specifically didn't turn his new book into a diet book, even though that would have been a much better seller. He wants to argue with the experts.

So you posted a study that agrees with Taubes and then made your own back of the envelope calculation that shows why Taubes and the study are wrong, then added an assertion about ketosis. I assume you can see why I'm unconvinced.

On a related note Taubes argues that we lost a what we used to know about diet. It was commonly thought of into the sixties that starches would make you fat and that exercise made you hungrier. Once reason we got away from this was the study of obesity moved away from doctor's who had actually fat patients to treat and would see what worked and what didn't to biochemists who weren't physicians and thus didn't have any patients.


To me the question is not whether or not he has an agenda, but is his agenda correct? Before he starting writing about nutrition he wrote about the hard sciences like physics and took a very skeptical eye to them, what he found when he started looking at the nutrition studies was that the science was very weak. I don't think he is beyond criticism and nor does he. He once said:
When people challenge the establishment, 99.9 per cent of the time they are wrong. If I was writing about me, I'd begin from the assumption that I am both wrong and a quack.'

[pauk]

1. To much calories / Bad nutrition / Poison (Nicotine, Caffeine, Alcohol are the normal ones)
2. Not exercising / Not exercising enough / Not exercising correctly
3. Genetics / Metabolism / Digestive system

[Meticode]

3.6 pounds? I think you have an eating disorder, homie.
Pen!ses. Lots of pen!ses.

[shlver]

Taubes obviously has an agenda, but to say he's merely trying to sell a book indicates you haven't read his books. His ambition is larger than mere royalty checks. First off, he had been writing about nutrition for well over a decade before his first book and he's put out only two books on the subject. The first took 5 years to write, was not written for a general audience and had 60 page bibliography. It was described as "five hundred pages of densely-written, heavily annotated scientific prose." Hardly, the stuff that's going to knock 50 Shades of Grey off the list. The second book which was a popularizing of the first book with some new stuff took four years. He is not writing in the form that brings about big sales, specifically didn't turn his new book into a diet book, even though that would have been a much better seller. He wants to argue with the experts.
So he dips into the sea of contradictory medical research to support his opinions but then criticizes it. Do you not see the disconnect?


So you posted a study that agrees with Taubes and then made your own back of the envelope calculation that shows why Taubes and the study are wrong, then added an assertion about ketosis.
It doesn't agree with Taubes. Taubes writes an article with no link to the actual study, with no real experimental data so I provided my own. It agrees on the metabolic advantage and does nothing more. It isn't a back of the envelope calculation, it is directly from the experimental data. What do you mean by assertion? Ketosis does occur during low carb diets. This is indisputable fact not assertion. If you want me to get into the biochemistry about how ketosis occurs by negative feedback I can give outline it for you.

I assume you can see why I'm unconvinced.
No I don't.

On a related note Taubes argues that we lost a what we used to know about diet. It was commonly thought of into the sixties that starches would make you fat and that exercise made you hungrier. Once reason we got away from this was the study of obesity moved away from doctor's who had actually fat patients to treat and would see what worked and what didn't to biochemists who weren't physicians and thus didn't have any patients.


To me the question is not whether or not he has an agenda, but is his agenda correct? Before he starting writing about nutrition he wrote about the hard sciences like physics and took a very skeptical eye to them, what he found when he started looking at the nutrition studies was that the science was very weak. I don't think he is beyond criticism and nor does he. He once said:'[
And he consistently dips into the sea of medical research and cherrypicks to misconstrue the evidence.

[SacJB Shady]

Weight gain is merely an accumulation of calories. That's all it is. Sure, certain people respond differently to different foods, but at the end of the day if you are not burning up your calorie intake, you will gradually gain weight. There is no reason to overcomplicate this conclusion.

Simply put, today's world is more automated. As technology progresses and becomes more and more automated, humans move less. It's as simple as that. People spend lots of time on facebook and even time on forums such as this one, people watch youtube, and spend less time working out.

Before blaming food manufactuers, understand that You don't have to overeat by very much to gain weight overtime. It simply is those 50 to 100 extra calories a day that causes weight gain overtime. That movie Supersize Me wasn't a very good example of why we gain weight. The reason why I say that is because the guy stuffed himself and gained like 20 pounds in a month. Most people don't gain weight that rapidly. It's usually a gradual process. That's why if all you did was exercise more and even keep your calories close to the same, you would still be in better shape.

People keep wanting this world more and more automated. Making things too easy makes us lazy. This world is automated enough as it is.

[Mach_3]

As long as your eating semi healthy (getting your protein, low fat, etc) and you burn more than what you take in, you can stay as skinny as you wanna be. What's making Americans fat is that sedentery lifestyle where even if we wanna go to the corner store we drive there instead of walk:banghead:

[SacJB Shady]

As long as your eating semi healthy (getting your protein, low fat, etc) and you burn more than what you take in, you can stay as skinny as you wanna be. What's making Americans fat is that sedentery lifestyle where even if we wanna go to the corner store we drive there instead of walk:banghead:


yes. There is no need to overcomplicate things. It's just a matter of getting moving and not taking in more than you burn or vice versa. Karl Malone ate whatever he want, but busted his butt 2 hours on the stairs.

[cuad]

What do you have against ketosis, shlver?

[Scholar]

So a scientist found out that carbs make you fat, something that people have known for decades on end. Tell me more about this controversial finding, please. :facepalm

[Unstoppabull]

Pen!ses. Lots of pen!ses.
Cocks. Lots of Cocks.

[KevinNYC]

So a scientist found out that carbs make you fat, something that people have known for decades on end. Tell me more about this controversial finding, please. :facepalm

There's a couple of things going on here.

One is the claim that carbs make you fat.
The other is the claim that eating fat does not make you fat.

If you don't understand why that is not controversial, you have haven't been awake for any significant time in the past three decades.

The knowledge about carbs is forgotten knowledge, something we use to believe until we started to believe something different.

Believe me, I remember the ad campaigns saying that potatoes don't cause weight gain as long you don't put butter on them.

You also missed the introduction of the fat free foods that were full of sugar.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JcXLi7b-TeQ/TlXREFMJtKI/AAAAAAAACmw/I11hMz2_Co0/s1600/snackwells.jpg

[Eat Like A Bosh]

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0703/grant_g_nathans_d1_576.jpg

[KevinNYC]

Article that describes the experiment in more depth.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/27/science/la-sci-calories-20120627

[hoopaddict08]

A couple years ago I weighed about 192. I decided I wanted to drop down to 170. My diet changed drastically and I ended up losing too much weight. Within a couple of months I was at 150 and within 3 months I was at 138. This was just last summer. At first I was skipping meals and eating fruit and then at dinner I would eat a good sized portion of whatever my mom made for dinner that day. I did that for about 2 weeks and then I started eating a bowl of cereral in the morning and ate more fruit along with dinner in the evening. I quickly became obsessed with my weight in just a short period of time. This was not healthy living.

My Dad on the other hand was someone who weight well over 200 pounds in his 30's. He started eating healthy and now happens to work at a gym and is in great shape.

Losing weight and being healthy is really about portion control and putting the right things into your body along with daily excerise.

I now weigh a healthy weight but I still need to get in the practice of daily excerise.

[gigantes]

i did find the article interesting. one of the bigger takeaways for me is that carbs seem to be a very efficient, energy-dense nutrient. that alone gives me pause since i eat at subways quite often, and that's a whole lot of bread going on. a low-fat, low-cal wrap would be a much better idea.

aside from the kcal / weight-storage and insulin issues, there's also the cardiovascular implications of those three diets. that's pretty huge IMO. if i have my facts right, heart disease is the #1 killer in the USA right now, and the average person here has some level of heart disease by age 35. not sure what the statistical relationship is between that and strokes, but it's certainly tied together by the same issue- fatty plaque built up in the blood vessels.

AFAIK the meditteranean diet is one of the most respected diets, if not outright #1, by the nutritional science community. one of the keys is the high quantity of mono-unsaturated fats, like olive oil and avocado. these things raise HDL levels, which produces a cleansing effect on fatty plaque in the bloodstream.

by contrast, atkins doesn't look so good to me- the high levels of saturated fats boost LDL and triglycerides, which is not what people should want long-term.

so if i have a point here, it's that almost everyone here probably needs to do more than just keep their weight down. they also need to keep their sat fats and trans fats down in order to avoid a slew of health issues a little later down the pike.

[KevinNYC]

atkins doesn't look so good to me- the high levels of saturated fats boost LDL and triglycerides, which is not what people should want long-term.


There seems to be an emerging body of evidence that this is not true.
That following a low carb diet reduces triglycerides and boosts good cholesterol.

http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/9412

People who followed a low-carbohydrate diet for six months raised their good cholesterol and lowered their triglycerides, changes that can help lower the risk of heart disease, Duke University Medical Center researchers found.
Note: The lead researcher on these trials went on to write the latest Atkins Diet book once he did the science.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16256003

Increased dietary carbohydrates, particularly simple sugars and starches with high glycemic index, can increase levels of small, dense LDL and HDL, primarily by mechanisms that involve increasing plasma triglyceride concentrations. Low-carbohydrate diets may have the opposite effects


http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/6/1339.full

Very low-carbohydrate diets (VLCDs)
Prospective studies indicate that VLCDs improve the lipoprotein profile independently of weight loss. Although not as effective at lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), VLCDs consistently improve postabsorptive and postprandial triacylglycerols (TAGs), HDL cholesterol (HDL-C), and the distribution of LDL-C subfractions to a greater extent than low-fat diets. VLCDs also improve proinflammatory markers when associated with weight loss. Studies usually report mean lipid responses, but individual data indicate a large degree of variability in the magnitude and in some cases the direction (e.g., LDL-C) of lipoprotein responses to both low-fat and VLCDs. Such variability makes it hard to defend a single diet recommendation, especially considering the potential for low-fat/high-carbohydrate diets to exacerbate TAG, HDL-C, and other characteristics of the metabolic syndrome. Considering the effectiveness of VLCDs in promoting fat loss and improving the metabolic syndrome, discounting or condemning their use is unjustified. We encourage a more unbiased, balanced appraisal of VLCDs.

[KevinNYC]

Gigantes you have mail.

[shlver]

What do you have against ketosis, shlver?
Because it is not regulated like other processes in the body. It is based on an abundance of acetyl-coenzyme A. Your body will continue to produce ketone bodies whether or not the levels are poisonous. Ketosis isn't "bad" per se, but under prolonged diets these levels can reach dangerously high levels.

[KevinNYC]

For a different take on that study.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/nutrition/q-and-a-are-high-protein-low-carb-diets-effective.html?src=me&ref=general

This is a continuation of a debate the author and Taubes having been having for a while now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/books/review/Letters-t.html

[gigantes]

Gigantes you have mail.
A PM? Dang, it's not showing up. And I don't have email enabled, so I don't know how else it might have come.