Anyone else on the "Why We Get Fat" (Taubes) diet? (Weight Watchers, system)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nutrition, no, but he has degrees in physics (harvard) aerospace engineering (stanford) and journalism (columbia). He has made a career out of debunking fake science, and he turned his focus on how certain calories interact inside the human body.
The main thing his books did for me is get me away from thinking of weight loss as simply calories in vs calories out, because thats not the whole picture.
You can disagree with it all if you want to, but the reality is, he's inspiring many others to question the currently assumed science, and cause many more medical studies to be done on diets in general.
The studies he reports are not his own, instead he has taken on a meta analysis of everything he could find, and reported on it. I think this is exactly what a science journalist is expected to do. Hopefully the medical community will continue to look further into exactly what has caused the obesity levels to grow within any population with a western diet. At McDonalds, is it the Burger, cheese and bacon? or is it the bun fries and 32oz coke...
I have a degree in journalism with a double major, professional certification in organic chemistry, another professional certification in computer technology, I'm also a certified mixologist, a certified aromatherapist, and a Microsoft Professional.
And I, who achieved more education in a month than Taubes has done in his lifetime, say Taubes' diet is silly.
But you go ahead and believe some guy who probably visited the MIT labs down the road a few too many times on the weekends.
You could deconstruct a McDonalds burger and make a low carb meal out of it. All-beef patty, cheese, lettuce, tomato, mustard (no ketchup, onions and pickle are approved items. Of course you'd have to wash it down with black coffee, unsweetened ice tea or water. No fries of course.
Nutrition, no, but he has degrees in physics (harvard) aerospace engineering (stanford) and journalism (columbia). He has made a career out of debunking fake science, and he turned his focus on how certain calories interact inside the human body.
That's great, and while I'm sure he's a very good physicist, engineer and journalist, none of that is even remotely applicable to nutrition or physiology.
Quote:
The main thing his books did for me is get me away from thinking of weight loss as simply calories in vs calories out, because thats not the whole picture.
You can disagree with it all if you want to, but the reality is, he's inspiring many others to question the currently assumed science, and cause many more medical studies to be done on diets in general.
The studies he reports are not his own, instead he has taken on a meta analysis of everything he could find, and reported on it. I think this is exactly what a science journalist is expected to do. Hopefully the medical community will continue to look further into exactly what has caused the obesity levels to grow within any population with a western diet. At McDonalds, is it the Burger, cheese and bacon? or is it the bun fries and 32oz coke...
The reality is that you and many others and been sold a bill of goods and you don't even know it. Have you actually read the studies Taubes cites in his book? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you (nor anyone else pushing this book) probably haven't, otherwise you'd see that a lot of his commentary on these studies is wrong, that irrelevant studies are quoted and more recent research omitted.
Here's some critiques from people who are actually formally educated on health and nutrition.
The problem I have with Taube’s book is this: after criticizing folks for cherry picking their data, he does the exact same damn thing.
He starts with an incorrect/out of date 1980 paper (suggesting that the obese eat the same as the lean) and then goes looking for reasons why this is the case, concluding that it’s insulin.
He then carefully ignores all data that doesn’t agree with him including an enormous amount of data showing that the obese under-report their true food intake (which is why the 1980 survey is garbage.
For someone who ‘spent 5 years raiding the research’, he mainly just selected data that agreed with his pre-formed conclusion, ignoring a tremendous amount of current research that did not.
And that a lot of people keep insisting on a metabolic advantage that NO study has ever been able to measure doesn’t change the fact that NO study has ever been able to measure it. I’d point you to the study by Brehm for example:
“The role of energy expenditure in the differential weight loss in obese women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Mar;90(3):1475-82.”
Which directly measured both resting energy expenditure and thermic effect of food after a low- and high-carb meal. Results? No difference in resting energy expenditure and a higher TEF after the carb-based test meal. If the metabolic advantage exists, it should be measurable with current technology. And no study has been able to find it EVER (it’s always inferred by changes in weight).
And bodybuilders have gotten to sub 10% for a couple of decades with carb-based diets so what Poliquin says doesn’t seem to be that relevant here.
Which isn’t to say that lowcarb diets don’t work for a lot of people. But they work because people eat less, not because of any metabolic magic.
Understand? I’m not anti-lowcarb diets (my first book is about nothing but them), but I am against people preaching magic voodoo that doesn’t exist.
And again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle McDonald
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Yes, I’ve seen and heard it all before but here’s the problem. A major part of Taube’s entire premise is based on a 1980 study that is incorrect.
I’ll simply quote Bray from his review of Taube’s book and then ask you the following question: How come Taubes, in his ’5 years of research’ wasn’t able to realize that the self-reported food data in 1980 was wrong?
It’s 2009 and we know factually that the obese eat more than the lean. Yet somehow Taubes was unable to come across that data point. And refuses to acknowledge it even now. What does that tell you about him and his agenda?
This quote comes from the following paper.
Bray, GA. Good Calories by Gary Taubes. Obesity Reviews (2008) 9:251-263.
Bray says:
“In developing his ideas about calories and obesity in Good Calories, Bad Calories, Taubes argues that obese individuals do not eat more than lean ones do. The data for his belief come from the Diet and Health Report (16) prepared by the National Academy of Sciences. This report said ‘Most studies comparing normal and overweight people suggest that those who are overweight eat fewer calories than those of normal weight’.calories more per day. To maintain this extra weight the women have to eat enough food to provide this extra energy.
We now know that the data used in the Diet and Health Report were wrong and that obese people eat more food energy than do lean ones. The data showed that normal-weight people underreport what they eat by 10–30%. This means that dietary food-intake records underestimate energy expendi- ture by nearly a quarter. For overweight people, the degree of underreporting is higher, varying from 30% to 50%.”
Bottom line, it’s still calories in vs. calories out.
And one last time...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle McDonald
Yes I’ve read it and that is a fundamental aspect of his argument and when you start from a moronic assupmtion you reach moronic conclusions.
Not to mention that he’s simply WRONG about everything else (e.g. exercise is ineffective since it raises hunger). I realize that Taubes tells people what you want to hear but he’s simply full of **** about EVERYTHING.
Every aspect of his hypothesis is disproven by research but he so carefuly cherry picks his data that he makes a convincing sounding argument that is just wrong. James Krieger points this out here
http://www.thebsdetective.com/2009/1...ry-taubes.html Bottom line: Taubes is wrong about everything he claims. Yet in his ’5 years of research’ he seemed to never find the contradictory data. He pushed his agenda just as he claimed the saturated fat people did. And you people can’t see it for one simple reason: he tells you what you want to hear.
And with that I’m closing comments on this thread. Everything that need be said has been said. Those of you who want to believe Taubes message and make excuses, feel free to do so. I’ll keep providing correct information and solutions. When you decide that you’re tired of looking for excuses and want solutions, you know where to come.
You can also check out Alan Aragon's Research Review (Oct 2008 and May 2009) although you will have to pay for them.
Last edited by McBain II; 08-09-2011 at 06:46 PM..
Here's some critiques from people who are actually formally educated on health and nutrition.
You can bring another dozen of links, but that won't change the fact I've known before I ever read anything of this nature that I gain weight when eating carbs and I couldn't care less what any of your "experts" say. I wish it weren't true... Oh, boy, how do I wish it were not true!
You can bring another dozen of links, but that won't change the fact I've known before I ever read anything of this nature that I gain weight when eating carbs and I couldn't care less what any of your "experts" say. I wish it weren't true... Oh, boy, how do I wish it were not true!
No kidding! But you know there has to be a Negative Nellie in every thread.
My last 3 doctors have encouraged me to stay low-carb. Sometimes I trip over a loaf of bread or a potato, however.
You can bring another dozen of links, but that won't change the fact I've known before I ever read anything of this nature that I gain weight when eating carbs and I couldn't care less what any of your "experts" say. I wish it weren't true... Oh, boy, how do I wish it were not true!
You're taking up the wrong argument here Sierra. Do you realize that I've been one of the biggest low carb proponents on this forum and that Lyle McDonald has written one of the better books on ketogenic diets? Understand that this is not about low carb vs. low fat diets but rather about shedding light on the people like Taubes who attach misinformation and outright lies to these diets and then try to profit off the act. You'd have seen that if you read the information I posted.
Also, there is really no debate that low carb diets work well. I've used them myself with great results. What they DON'T do is provide some magic bullet for weight loss. Low carbs diets are just a way of forcing a low enough calorie intake for weight loss. You could achieve the exact same results with a similar calorie deficit no matter what your macro nutrient breakdown was.
Also, there is really no debate that low carb diets work well. I've used them myself with great results. What they DON'T do is provide some magic bullet for weight loss. Low carbs diets are just a way of forcing a low enough calorie intake for weight loss. You could achieve the exact same results with a similar calorie deficit no matter what your macro nutrient breakdown was.
According to Dr. Atkins, you get a 200-300 calorie a day "metabolic effect" because of the way your body processes fats and proteins versus carbs. Therefore eating a 1,700-1,800 calorie a day diet with few carbs would be equivalent to 1,500 on a more balanced one. I have no idea whether or not it's true as I've never tracked my calorie consumption that closely while doing his plan.
That's great, and while I'm sure he's a very good physicist, engineer and journalist, none of that is even remotely applicable to nutrition or physiology.
The reality is that you and many others and been sold a bill of goods and you don't even know it. Have you actually read the studies Taubes cites in his book? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you (nor anyone else pushing this book) probably haven't, otherwise you'd see that a lot of his commentary on these studies is wrong, that irrelevant studies are quoted and more recent research omitted.
Here's some critiques from people who are actually formally educated on health and nutrition.
You can also check out Alan Aragon's Research Review (Oct 2008 and May 2009) although you will have to pay for them.
I have read many critiques of GCBC, but not the blog you posted. I will however read through it.
I'm not going to claim that I know everything about how my body interacts with food. Anyone who really feels they know it all is ignorant. I am always willing to read, and grow my knowledge within this subject. Nutrition is really one of my main interests, and I read pretty much anything I can get my hands on(makes me less productive at work though).
Its becoming more and more clear to everyone that when sugar is found in nature, it is always paired with fiber. When we eat sugar without fiber, it has adverse effects. Now, the debate over processed flour products can be up for discussion, I know that for me, they dont do anything possitive.
My journey is continuing, and as I learn more, I make little changes. Yesterday I ate
3 eggs with some cheese, homemade salsa and guac
1 Plum
1 cup coffee with heavy cream
Left over prime rib on top of romaine lettuce with tomatoes fresh basil and Guac
1 cup blackberries, few pistachios
Organic Pork Sausage (Not cased myself, but I'm going to start) and chicken with peppers and onions cooked in fat from the sausage.
2 cups Broccoli with butter
Now, was that unhealthy because I didnt eat oatmeal for breakfast, or didnt include brown rice with dinner? or was it too much fat?
I dont know, but I get all of the vitamins I need every day, dont take supplements, and continue to lose weight, and stay energized through work and the gym.
I'm not saying I follow any one way of eating. I dont think Taubes knows everything, I just say he opened my mind to consider other things. Maybe the reccomended nutrition from the government isnt right for me... I know when I consume enough fat in any given day, I'm not hungry. When I dont eat enough fat in the morning, I'm hungry before lunch, if I dont eat enough fat at lunch, I dont have enough energy to get through my workout. Maybe your body doesnt work the same way? Who knows, but this is what works for me
Taubes isnt some missiah to me at all, I'm just pro anyone who's willing to question the norm, and offer an arguement behind their reasoning. My reading didnt stop with taubes, which is why the first thing I wrote in here is that Taubes didnt create a diet book. It isnt, its a book that opened a door into the lifestyle for me. I continue to read, and watch documentaries on both sides of the arguement. But for me, the majority of what Taubes claims holds true.
I now make my own pork sausage made from fresh ground pork and Penzy's breakfast sausage seasoning. If I want a breakfast meat with my eggs I just keep a few of those in the fridge and fry them up along with my veggies. No nitrates but still tasty and "no carb".
Have you ever tried hog jowl? To me it tastes 5x better than bacon and seems to be less processed, though truthfully I'm not sure about that. I would much rather have it with my morning eggs than anything else but your sausage sounds good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
