Anyone else on the "Why We Get Fat" (Taubes) diet? (carbohydrate, pounds)
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.
Not true. I'm pretty sure he claims that most people have an intolerance to glucose, not all. Not everyones body processes every the exact same way
And the idea that its simply not just calories in calories out is almost certainly clear. All calories arent created equal... I think most would agree to that
Most people having a intolerance for glucose but not all, is a pretty substantial claim, one that goes against mainstream science, and is abundantly contestable.
Most would agree that the body is modestly less efficient at processing fats and proteins than carbs, so calories from carbs translate into modestly more effective calories than calories from fats and proteins (as I mentioned in my discussion of WW points plus). It is not at all the case that most nutritionists or scientists involved in nutrition accept the various insulin related hypotheses to explain the success (for some) of the Atkins type diets.
Well when I said "low fat" I was speaking in a more general term for calorie deficit diets not based on low carbs. I probably should have chosen my words better.
but thats one of the things that so grating about low carb advocates. I make it a point to include olive oil, fatty fish, nuts, etc in my balanced calorie restricted (not deficit, now that Im on maintenance) approach, yet i am "pro low fat" because I dont follow an Atkins type approach. I can accept that others have different views than I do about the role of sat fat in CVD, but that they mischarecterize the opposition to make their point is very annoying, and VERY, VERY common.
Of course few are as bad about that as Taubes, so I need to be careful I am distinguishing other low carb advocates from him. Clearly I am not the only one who needs to make that distinction. he is perhaps one of the most visible low carb advocates today, so you have your work cut out for you.
Most people having a intolerance for glucose but not all, is a pretty substantial claim, one that goes against mainstream science, and is abundantly contestable.
Most would agree that the body is modestly less efficient at processing fats and proteins than carbs, so calories from carbs translate into modestly more effective calories than calories from fats and proteins (as I mentioned in my discussion of WW points plus). It is not at all the case that most nutritionists or scientists involved in nutrition accept the various insulin related hypotheses to explain the success (for some) of the Atkins type diets.
In your opinion then, sugar is the most effective thing you can eat. Your body doesnt have to work to break it down at all, and burns through it right away... unless of course there is too much of it. Then the body does a good job of storing it for a later date. But, since they do move through the body so quickly and "effectively" we'll continue to be hungry and need more so we can maintain the same level of energy then entire day. So, we'll need to eat 6 meals full of carbs. I've done this, for years, and it doesnt work for me. Sure, I consume more carbs when I'm hiking, because I need that quick burst of energy that'll get me up the mountain. But, if I'm sitting in the office, theres no need for me to drink gatorade and eat cliff bars. If I were to consume the same food, my body would start putting it into storage... I'd rather not have that excess storage.
I dont think carbs are evil, I just think they arent needed in day to day life in the volumes we consume. Fat and protein keep me full longer. My head feels clear, I'm never shaky, never have hunger pains. I consume carbs when I need energy right away, and will burn through everything I take in at that time. I know low carb cyclists, they'll carb load before a big ride, because they need that energy to be on hand, but other then that they'll eat more like me.
Taubes may not have everything right, hell maybe he's totally wrong... but I've noticed that this is how my body handles carbs, fats, and proteins. I havent done enough research within myself to be sure of the effects of saturated fats, I just eat what makes sense to me. Simple carbs are a no, complex carbs are limited unless I need them. Fruits and veggies are fine, but I normally choose both that are higher in fiber. Thats all, GCBC and WWGF arent low carb bibles, they are books that inspire people to question the norm when it comes to nutrition. It inspired me to try out LC, and continue to test myself. I'll continue to get an annual physical, and if a doc tells me my health is getting worse, I'll continue to evolve my diet.
Dont worry about people who come out and say "anyone try the Taubes Diet" they're fad dieters looking for the next quick fix. Once their weight loss slows to about 3-5 lbs a month, they'll fall off the wagon and try something else.
I agree, Taubes made some crazy claims in his book... BUT, he convinced me to do my own research, and come up with my own conclusions, everyone else should be doing the same. You cant trust a book just because you've seen the guy on the cover on TV... but you can let that book introduce a new way of looking at nutrition.
Last edited by Highwyre237; 08-11-2011 at 07:16 AM..
There is something to the fact that eating sugar does make you hungrier sooner. The insulin explanation seems to make perfect sense. I do wonder how our obesity situation would be if the government had pushed a low-sugar agenda rather than low-fat. Although it really should have been "low-sweetener" as more Americans would have just subbed in artificial sweeteners that also promote weight gain. We really need to get away from this national sweet tooth we seem to have.
There is something to the fact that eating sugar does make you hungrier sooner. The insulin explanation seems to make perfect sense. I do wonder how our obesity situation would be if the government had pushed a low-sugar agenda rather than low-fat. Although it really should have been "low-sweetener" as more Americans would have just subbed in artificial sweeteners that also promote weight gain. We really need to get away from this national sweet tooth we seem to have.
I agree 100%
Its crazy too, things I used to think tasted good are just WAAAY too sweet now. If everyone took a break from all sugar outside of fresh fruits and veggies for a month, I think they wouldnt have the need to eat such sweet things...
It seems like its starting though, atleast with sugar, or atleast with soft drinks. Juice will be a whole different fight... How do you convince someone orange juice or apple juice isnt healthy?
Last edited by Highwyre237; 08-11-2011 at 08:34 AM..
Its crazy too, things I used to think tasted good are just WAAAY too sweet now. If everyone took a break from all sugar outside of fresh fruits and veggies for a month, I think they wouldnt have the need to eat such sweet things...
It seems like its starting though, atleast with sugar, or atleast with soft drinks. Juice will be a whole different value... How do you convince someone orange juice or apple juice isnt healthy?
Agree - I can't even walk down the candy aisle at the grocery store because it smells too sweet. And the bread aisle just smells kinda stale.
IIt seems like its starting though, atleast with sugar, or atleast with soft drinks. Juice will be a whole different fight... How do you convince someone orange juice or apple juice isnt healthy?
Let's tax it all and direct the money to Medicare.
In your opinion then, sugar is the most effective thing you can eat. Your body doesnt have to work to break it down at all, and burns through it right away... unless of course there is too much of it. Then the body does a good job of storing it for a later date. But, since they do move through the body so quickly and "effectively" we'll continue to be hungry and need more so we can maintain the same level of energy then entire day..
thats your theory, thats NOT what I said. Its not about time, or hunger. Its simply about the calories the body burns to process protein, which need to be deducted to get effective usable calories. THAT, IIUC, is uncontested. Your paragraph, though SOME people believe it, is NOT uncontested.
There is something to the fact that eating sugar does make you hungrier sooner.
I dont observe in myself that carbs make me hungrier sooner. I find a balanced meal, with all macronutrients, and heavy on fiber, is the best way to delay hunger.
I do wonder how our obesity situation would be if the government had pushed a low-sugar agenda rather than low-fat.
considering that for years the govt has pushed more activity, more fruits and vegetables, and in recent years more lean proteins and whole grains, and less sugar, all without much effect, it probably would have made no difference.
BTW, by Govt, do you mean USDA or CDC? The latter also pushes for more consumption of unsat fats, so I guess this "low fat" agenda is another historical artifact of the Reagan years.
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.
