Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
In this installment of The Practical Scientist we take a look at Bray’s review of Good Calories Bad Calories. Bray’s review is very in-depth and offers counter points to some of Taubes’ key assumptions. Bray’s review provides a key lesson in separating Fact from Fiction.
Key Points from Good Calories Bad Calories Gary Taubes; New York: AA Knopf (Bray 2008).
“Good Calories, Bad Calories is a scholarly book that
musters the evidence for the case against the high-fat
hypothesis for heart disease, cancer and obesity and in
favour of the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis. The bibliography
is robust and contains a wealth of information.
The book begins with Mr William Banting and the diet
he published in 1863 as a small pamphlet called ‘A Letter on Corpulence Addressed to the Public’. In this pamphlet,
Banting described his dietary success with a low carbohydrate
diet. The hostility that Mr. Banting aroused
among the ‘medical establishment’ in the 1860s is reminiscent
of some of the comments about popular diets that have
come from the ‘medical establishment’ in the last half of
the 20th century.
The background work on energy expenditure
in human beings from Antoine Lavoisier, Hermann Helmholtz,
Robert Mayer Carl Voit, Max Pettenkoffer, Max
Rubner and Wilbur Atwater is very nicely detailed by Mr
Taubes. In addition to these, there are many other descriptions
of scientists and their work that make this book
particularly fascinating to read.
Good Calories, Bad Calories is divided into three main
parts. The first part is a critique of the Diet-Heart hypothesis,
and the idea that dietary fat was the principal culprit
in the rising incidence of heart disease during the 20th
century. From an analysis of published data and discussion
with many leaders, Taubes concludes that the Diet-Heart
hypothesis detracted from our understanding of the relation
of diet to heart disease. As Taubes sees it, Ancel Keys
played the role of major villain in selling the idea
The second part of Good Calories, Bad Calories sets
forth the ‘carbohydrate hypothesis’. This hypothesis is
Taubes’s basis for explaining the evils of the ‘nutrition
transition’ that have afflicted countries moving from their
traditional diets to the Western type of high-fat, high-sugar,
high-salt diet.
In the third part of Good Calories, Bad Calories, called
the ‘Mythology of Obesity’, the author argues that the
energy-balance equation does not adequately explain
obesity because obese people do not eat more than lean
ones, and because they can lose weight eating a large
number of calories, provided that the calories are very low
in carbohydrates – that is, high in protein and fat.
In the section on ‘The Mythology of Obesity’ and the
carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis, there is no mention of
doubly labelled water, a sophisticated technique that has
allowed us to ‘check’ on the accuracy of self-reports of food
intake. Also missing is a discussion of the ‘nutrient’ balance
hypothesis. These limitations may change the conclusions
that are reached from reading Good Calories, Bad Calories.
Critique of Good Calories, Bad Calories
One summer I admitted a group of four overweight teenagers
to our clinical research unit at the Harbor UCLA
Medical Center and put them on a 1000-cal diet under
direct observation. As expected, all of the girls lost weight
and were delighted with the result. When they left at the
end of the summer, one of the girls, who lived only a short
distance from the hospital, wanted to come back to see us
so she could continue to lose weight. We instructed her on
how to keep a food diary. When she returned 2 weeks later,
she had gained a few pounds. She showed us her diary,
which was very neatly and carefully kept. The average daily
food intake was about 300–400 kcal d-1. As she had lost
weight eating 1000 kcal d-1 while directly observed in the
hospital, we were sceptical of the accuracy of her outpatient
recording. We instructed her again on keeping food
records. She returned after another 2 weeks, having gained
even more weight and with records still showing she only
ate 300 kcal d-1 or so. There was an obvious discrepancy,
reflecting the difficulty of keeping reliable records. It was
thus clear that this girl was either kidding herself or trying
to kid us about how much she was eating. We have subsequently
had the opportunity to study weight loss in a
number of subjects in both the metabolic unit and then on
similar diets in an outpatient setting. Weight loss under
observation is about 50% faster than with the equivalent
‘prescribed’ energy deficit in an outpatient setting. The
difference is adherence to or compliance with the diet.
Obesity is the result of a prolonged small positive energy surplus with
fat storage as the result. An energy deficit produces weight
loss and tips the balance in the opposite direction from
overeating.”
Comments from Taubes Responses from Bray
Comment: “The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin
secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis – the
entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily
digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on
our health, weight and well-being.
Response: The problem is a positive energy balance persisting over an extended
period of time, which may be exacerbated by high-fructose/high-fat
foods and other environmental agents acting on genetically
susceptible individuals.
Comment: Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined
carbohydrates, starches and sugars are the dietary cause of
coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely
dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and the other
chronic diseases of civilization.
Response: There is no convincing evidence that carbohydrates are producing
cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, or coronary artery
disease.
Comment: Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating,
and not sedentary behaviour.
Response: Obesity is the result of a small positive energy balance occurring over
time. The Laws of Conservation of Energy (First Law of
Thermodynamics) do not tell us why this imbalance occurs.
Comment: Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter any
more than it causes a child to grow taller. Expending more energy
than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to
hunger.
Response: Consuming excess calories routinely produces obesity, and consuming
fewer calories than your body needs produces weight loss.
Comment: Fattening and obesity are caused by an imbalance – a
disequilibrium – in the hormonal regulation of adipose tissue and fat
metabolism. Fat synthesis and storage exceed the mobilization of
fat from the adipose tissue and its subsequent oxidation. We
become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue
reverses this balance.
Response: Fat accumulation cannot occur without caloric intake exceeding
expenditure. Fat deposits differ in their health risks: visceral fat is
strongly related to heart disease and diabetes; subcutaneous
abdominal fat much less so; and fat on the legs may be ‘protective’.
These differences in fat locations partly determine the differences in
life expectancy between men and women.
Comment: Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels
are elevated – either chronically or after a meal – we accumulate fat
in our fat tissue. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat
tissue and use it for fuel.
Response: Insulin is needed for fat storage, but it is for the purpose of storing the
‘extra’ calories not needed for daily energy expenditure. Chronic
elevation of insulin, as in insulinoma, has only a modest effect on
weight – something else is needed for ‘obesity’ in addition to insulin.
Comment: By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and
ultimately cause obesity. The fewer carbohydrates we consume, the
leaner we will be.
Response: Calories count. Fructose (HFCS or sugar) plus a modest- or high-fat
diet enhance the risk of overpowering the homeostatic feedback
system.
Comment: By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger
and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and
physical activity.
Response: The quantity of fat we eat in a day is less than 0.5% of the fat we have
stored, and these changes in fat deposition do not lead to increased
appetite, as they are hardly seen on the concentration of leptin and
other adipose tissue-related peptides.”
My thoughts
I enjoyed the review. I liked the comment and response section of the paper the most. I have read reviews from various authors on this book and they all conclude that the book contains some good reading but also contains much NONSENSE.
The key messages that Taubes promotes are nothing new. Many nutrition authors have suggested insulin causes obesity, calories don’t really matter, and carbohydrates make you fat and so on. Many of the readers of popular nutrition books seem to like the idea that there is something more to it than calories. They can’t believe what Primary Researchers have been telling them for years- CALORIES DO MATTER. Many book readers enjoy science fiction. Should we expect different when it comes to nutrition books?
References
G. A. Bray (2008) Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes; New York: AA Knopf
Obesity Reviews 9 (3) , 251–263.
What I find a bit confusing is what is Bray's comment and what is Taubes' comment. Could you repost (edit time must have expired) using different colours for his comments....
I believe the "Comment" is a statement by Taubes and "Response" is by Bray.
I liked this book. It investigates why some people gain weight on excess calories and some don't, and looks at obesity as a symptom of something else, rather than an end result. And, Taubes doesn't really say that calories in/calories out doesn't matter. Just that it doesn't fully explain why some people are obese by eating excess calories and some are not.
The responses to Taubes' comments seem rather simplistic. coach hale, have you read GCBC? I wonder what your thoughts are on the book.
__________________
"If 'toning' is the goal, strength is the method." ~ Mark Rippetoe
I reread the entire part and now more closely and I finally understood the entire section was written by Mr. Bray.
Tracking calories is an art of its' own.. EVEN when you're trying to be completely honest with yourself. As soon as you no longer weigh anything but eyeball stuff or use volume you're already OFF. Also, the psychological part is huge. I've started tracking calories since the summer of 2004 and for a couple of months the simple task of having to track everything I ate made me eat less.
There's one thing I really dislike about the entire discussion pro/con Taubes' GCBC is that everyone seems to be prejudiced already before drawing a conclusion. Unfortunately Taubes is one of them as apparently he cherry picked the studies.
I must say from experience that nearly every single person who adopts a (Very) low carb diet spontaneously eats far less than they need. Unless they want to train hard as I had countless binges upon trying to stay below 30-50g of carbs and still try to do HIIT or high rep workouts. Carb cycling solved this problem. But most obese people on a VLC diet don't train and they generally respond very well to a VLC diet because of appetite suppression. Except.. when they are fooled to believe they can eat as much fat as they want and still drop weight like crazy. Since that is effectively NOT true.
Not even when you limit frankenfoods but just eat calorie dense cheese, nuts and/or sausages.
Finally, something the book doesn't address but I've experienced first hand, food intolerances can make you overconsume precisely those foods that you don't tolerate well. When you cut them out.. it becomes much easier to just 'listen' to your body and stop eating when you're satiated.
This of course is what Taubes meant by how you spontaneously can eat just enough when you cut out excess calories. He also has a very good point in how exercise can make you so hungry that you will overconsume calories. Many on this forum have experienced exactly this when doing very strenuous (metabolic) workouts.
And, Taubes doesn't really say that calories in/calories out doesn't matter. Just that it doesn't fully explain why some people are obese by eating excess calories and some are not.
"He also has a very good point in how exercise can make you so hungry that you will overconsume calories. Many on this forum have experienced exactly this when doing very strenuous (metabolic) workouts"
My experiences have shown the opposite effect. The majority of my clients generally eat less when conductiong strenuous workouts. I eat less when a train hard.
A study conducted by Erdmann et. al. (2007) investigated the effect of exercise intensity and duration on ghrelin (ghrelin is produced primarily in the stomach- it has been shown to increase appetite and food intake) release and subsequent ad libitum food intake. Bicycle exercise on an ergometer for 30 min at 50 W which was below the aerobic-anaerobic threshold led to an increase of ghrelin which remained unchanged during the higher intensity at 100 W. In a second group 7 subjects cycled at 50 W for 30, 60 and 120 min. Ghrelin concentrations rose significantly above baseline for the respective periods of exercise. The researchers concluded that low rather than high-intensity exercise stimulates ghrelin levels independent of exercise duration.
The following is an excerpt from Freedman MR, King J, Kennedy E (2001) Popular diets: A scientific review. Obesity Research 9(S1): 1–40.): “Many factors influence hunger, appetite, and subsequent food intake. Macronutrient content of the diet is one, and it may not be most important. Neurochemical factors (e.g. serotonin, endorphins, dopamine, and hypothalamic neuropeptide transmitters), gastric signals (e.g. peptides and stomach distention), hedonistic qualities of food (e.g. taste, texture, smell), genetic, environmental (e.g. food availability, cost, and cultural norms), and emotional factors (e.g. eating when bored, depressed, stressed, or happy) must be considered. These parameters influence appetite primarily on a meal-to-meal basis. However, long-term body weight regulation seems to be controlled by hormonal signals from the endocrine pancreas and adipose tissue, (i.e. insulin and leptin).”
You are right: exercise can both induce as well as suppress appetite. And indeed the harder the exercise, the longer the appetite suppression lasts. However, the appetite comes back with a vengeance. At least it did for me. So much so that I'd invented an acronym for it : DOH or Delayed Onset of Hunger.
This was especially true in the days I was a weekend warrior and habitually cycled over 100miles on most Saturdays, sometimes culminating in over 300mi for 2 days.
Nothing like sticking your head in the ground, ignoring all alternate opinions.
Compared to other popular science books (and certainly popular nutrition books), Taubes acknowledges quite a few alternate opinions in Good Calories Bad Balories.
Anywho, I thought you were a science guy? A moron like me can make a variety of ad hominem arguments ad infinitum but I expect more from someone with self professed objectivity.
But this forum doesn't exist in a black hole where conclusion can precede premise. If you want to sway opinions, it's helpful to not present your argument as an emotional knee jerk conclusion, but as a rational series of premises leading up to a well reasoned conclusion.
ok...is "building a strawman" the phrase of the day/month/year? I see you use it a lot.
I cannot help it if people prefer to present their own idea than actually read what is said.
Quote:
Now, if we were to go back in posts a bit, you would see:
but that would require reading
Quote:
Thus, i'm not saying your opinion is emotional, but rather your response.
My response is my opinion, and based on observation of Taubes. So my opinion is not emotional, but my response is, which is my opinion, which is not emotional
Quote:
You certainly do have a well reasoned out opinion, but your ability to convey it is pretty...retarded (to use your word).
If I thought your opinions were emotional only, I'd pass up your posts as being totally w/o value. As it stands, you come across as an idiot savant.
Perhaps the emotion of the response (or the opinion) is blinding your views, but then perhaps you mistake my response as meaning that I care whether you value my posts or not?
There's one thing I really dislike about the entire discussion pro/con Taubes' GCBC is that everyone seems to be prejudiced already before drawing a conclusion.
I'm with you on that. I read the book around last April, as part of my initial exploration of low-carb, something I'd shied away from quite strenuously previously. (I took singular care to define how I was eating for the past couple of years, more or less per the advice of Diana Schwarzbein in The Schwarzbein Principle, as "moderate carb.") I found Taubes' book to be pretty compelling in a lot of ways, then came head up against the opinion of a source I respect (in this case, Tom Venuto) that really didn't have a heckuva lot of good to say about the book, though Venuto hadn't read it, because of his perception that it was meant to promote the general low-carb fan club's insistence that "low carb diets give a metabolic advantage" (i.e., in weight/fat loss). Also, of course, people over at Venuto's board (Burn the Fat Inner Circle) were pretty amused by Taubes' claim in his book & in media appearances that exercise was useless for weight loss.
My frustration was that Taubes does present some compelling arguments, but... well, as you say:
Quote:
Unfortunately Taubes is one of them as apparently he cherry picked the studies.
Yes, he left a lot out, at least with his whole insulin/carb theory of "what makes us fat." For what remains of value in his book, you've got to read with a discerning eye.
Meantime, his book is definitely lionized by those low-carb fans who believe in the "metabolic advantage" myth, & who insist that carbs & insulin will make a person fat even if they don't eat an excess of calories.
My own journey with low-carb since then has been: well, I want to know the facts, about low-carb diets in general & about ketogenic low-carb diets in particular, because over the past couple of years I'd become increasingly convinced that even if higher carb diets were suitable for some people, high carb diets were completely screwed up ways to deal with insulin resistance, prediabetes, diabetes. -- Which is how I eventually landed at Lyle McDonald's website to pick up his book on The Ketogenic Diet. So I feel pretty clear now about very low carb diets & ketosis: essentially, yes, they work, & work very well, for some people in some situations. But there's no one-size-fits-all diet. And calories do count.
Quote:
I must say from experience that nearly every single person who adopts a (Very) low carb diet spontaneously eats far less than they need. Unless they want to train hard as I had countless binges upon trying to stay below 30-50g of carbs and still try to do HIIT or high rep workouts. Carb cycling solved this problem. But most obese people on a VLC diet don't train and they generally respond very well to a VLC diet because of appetite suppression. Except.. when they are fooled to believe they can eat as much fat as they want and still drop weight like crazy. Since that is effectively NOT true.
[Bold added.] Yes, & I think that's the real problem posed by the "metabolic advantage" crew: they give people eating low carb diets the false impression that they can eat as much as they want without having to pay attention to calories & the laws of thermodynamics. Not to mention other errors in science.
For example, one of the ideas often propounded by the "metabolic advantage" ideologues (& echoed quite a bit in Taubes's book) is that because insulin is the "fat storage hormone," carbs that you eat will turn into bodyfat. I.e., their claim is that the liver will take ingested carbs & synthesize it into new fat -- in the process called de novo lipogenesis -- to be added to your fat stores. That kinda made sense to me, until I read somewhere where Lyle McDonald said "de novo lipogenesis is actually pretty rare in humans" and, surprised, I did a lot of research in PubMed for myself & found that -- yeah, he's right! Mice & rats do de novo lipogenesis all over the place, but in humans it happens only in fairly rare circumstances (& my research taught me exactly what those circumstances are). The real problem with eating lots of carbs, in terms of getting fat, is in eating an excess of calories: the carb calories spare your bodyfat. In other words, your body will burn those carb calories to meet its energy needs, & leave all those adipocytes sitting around in your big fat storage facility strictly alone. And since you're likely also eating dietary fats with your excess calories, they'll get added to the fat depots.
Unfortunately, Bray's review is simplistic about a few things too. For example:
Quote:
Response: There is no convincing evidence that carbohydrates are producing cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, or coronary artery disease.
Not carbohydrates per se, certainly. But I think there is growing evidence that overconsumption of carbs, especially highly refined carbs (the kind that Taubes is especially critical of) contributes to these ills through promotion of chronic high blood sugar & insulin levels, not to mention really whacked out swings in blood sugar levels, which has a big effect on hunger/appetite/satiety. And I know firsthand, as a prediabetic, that my blood sugars are in much better control, as is my appetite, ever since switching over to a moderate carb diet two years ago, or the low-carb plan I'm following for now.
But there is also growing evidence that fat metabolism plays a huge role in the development of insulin resistance. (See Philip Wood's book How Fat Works.)
Fortunately there are a few people out there who are accurate & knowledgeable about how low carb diets really work, but aren't idealogues about it, whether for or against -- John Berardi & Lyle McDonald are two names that come to mind. Anthony Colpo is a low-carb advocate, but at least is accurate that there's no "calories don't count metabolic advantage" to low-carb. (He seems to have a little war about it going on with the Eades' of Protein Power fame.)
But as a prediabetic, if those folks weren't around -- well, I'd still listen to Atkins, the Eades', & Taubes over & above the American Diabetes Association about what insulin resistant people ought to be eating. Better yet, Dr. Richard Bernstein, the Type 1 diabetic who has been steering his diabetic patients away from the iatrogenic high-carb ADA diet for decades now.
-- Mel
__________________ Blog
Female, 49, 5 ft. 2-1/4; insulin resistant/prediabetic/PCOS
Started 210 lbs/95 kilos | Current 177 lbs/80.5 kilos | Goal ~140 lbs/64 kilos
Unfortunately, Bray's review is simplistic about a few things too. For example:
Not carbohydrates per se, certainly. But I think there is growing evidence that overconsumption of carbs, especially highly refined carbs (the kind that Taubes is especially critical of) contributes to these ills through promotion of chronic high blood sugar & insulin levels, not to mention really whacked out swings in blood sugar levels, which has a big effect on hunger/appetite/satiety.
If you could keep your blood sugar & insulin levels chronically elevated, you'd actually have LESS hunger.
Quote:
And I know firsthand, as a prediabetic, that my blood sugars are in much better control, as is my appetite, ever since switching over to a moderate carb diet two years ago, or the low-carb plan I'm following for now.
Your improved appetite profile is likely a function of an increase in protein and/or fiber, rather than an overall decrease in carbohydrate.
If you could keep your blood sugar & insulin levels chronically elevated, you'd actually have LESS hunger.
I don't know the science well enough to do other than to trust you on that (esp. since I know you do know the science) -- but my best understanding from reading Richard Bernstein & others involved in diabetes prevention & care is that in recompense for my reduced hunger, I'd also be encouraging the swifter progress of diabetic complications.
Quote:
Your improved appetite profile is likely a function of an increase in protein and/or fiber, rather than an overall decrease in carbohydrate.
Could be so -- I eat nonstarchy veggies up the ying-yang, with plenty of fiber, & probably my protein intake has increase as well from what I used to eat before I paid any particular attention to it. When I ate moderate carbs (~100-125g/day), I had no problems, as long as I steered clear of the refined carbs that used to be a staple with me -- my old vending machine & junk food diet, which has no sticking power.
Maybe I'm making the error of summing up into one changed variable what is in fact several changed variables: I not only have lowered carbs (esp. the refined kind), but also increased protein, increased nonstarchy veggies (& hence fiber), & increased the better classes of dietary fats. I do know that at present, if I eat too large a carbload in one meal (over about 35g), I get a blood sugar spike -- but even so I can't claim that's led to weirdnesses with my own appetite.
Anecdotally, I've heard from plenty of people who have big issues with carb cravings following very closely on high-carb meals. How would you explain that? That they weren't eating enough protein/fiber with those meals? These are people who are insulin resistant (many of them diabetic) who now tend to avoid high-carb meals mostly because of blood sugar fluctuations, but many still struggle a lot with carb cravings.
Thanks for any input.
-- Mel
__________________ Blog
Female, 49, 5 ft. 2-1/4; insulin resistant/prediabetic/PCOS
Started 210 lbs/95 kilos | Current 177 lbs/80.5 kilos | Goal ~140 lbs/64 kilos
Anecdotally, I've heard from plenty of people who have big issues with carb cravings following very closely on high-carb meals. How would you explain that? That they weren't eating enough protein/fiber with those meals? These are people who are insulin resistant (many of them diabetic) who now tend to avoid high-carb meals mostly because of blood sugar fluctuations, but many still struggle a lot with carb cravings.
Thanks for any input.
The cravings following high-carb meals could be due to a number of variables. One of them is the possibility that the meal simply isn't large enough to make a dent in hunger. And as you mentioned, an increase in protein, fiber (& fat) per meal would also contribute to satiety/craving reduction. Appetite is a problematic area of study, since the related measures are subjective. Unless, of course, you draw these trials out over a period of weeks or months and measure bodycomp & other endpoints that are more concrete. In the latter case, things such as glycemic index & glycemic load - which you'd think would have a substantial impact on satiety & bodycomp - for the most part do not.
The cravings following high-carb meals could be due to a number of variables. One of them is the possibility that the meal simply isn't large enough to make a dent in hunger. And as you mentioned, an increase in protein, fiber (& fat) per meal would also contribute to satiety/craving reduction. Appetite is a problematic area of study, since the related measures are subjective.
It's a pretty bizarre area, really. At the moment I'm using Lyle McDonald's Rapid Fat Loss, his adaptation of the Protein Sparing Modified Fast -- eating about 800-900 cal/day mostly in protein, just 10g omega 3s & incidental other fats, plus nonstarchy veggies which is all the carbs I get (aside from free meals a couple times a week) -- now most people would say that wouldn't be enough to dent hunger, but no complaints here, or from most of the people who are keeping logs on the PSMF over at Lyle's forums. Then, some report, they go back to adding carbs into their diet, usually while maintaining the same levels of protein/nonstarchy veggies/omega 3s -- & all of a sudden their appetites take off. More so for some people than others -- I can eat a normal maintenance meal without going nuts, but at least one other person reports almost instantly being hit by carb cravings.
Quote:
Unless, of course, you draw these trials out over a period of weeks or months and measure bodycomp & other endpoints that are more concrete. In the latter case, things such as glycemic index & glycemic load - which you'd think would have a substantial impact on satiety & bodycomp - for the most part do not.
I was a big cheerleader for glycemic index when I first learned about it a couple years ago, & actually once I started paying attention to it & tossed all the high GI stuff out of my diet, I immediately had a cessation of longstanding problems with acid reflux. But I've lost my conviction about most of the benefits that are touted about it -- & I'm not so sure that it was low GI in & of itself that ended my acid reflux. (Glad as I am that it's gone.)
Thanks for the reply.
-- Mel
__________________ Blog
Female, 49, 5 ft. 2-1/4; insulin resistant/prediabetic/PCOS
Started 210 lbs/95 kilos | Current 177 lbs/80.5 kilos | Goal ~140 lbs/64 kilos
It's probably because I had a free meal last night.
Good to make your acquaintance, BTW. Subbed to your research review earlier this month: great product.
-- Mel
Did you hear that, everyone? Subscribe to AARR and you will post intelligently despite running a massive calorie deficit and other factors that may affect cognition!
Seriously though, thanks for that, & it's good "meeting" you as well.
I enjoyed the review. I liked the comment and response section of the paper the most. I have read reviews from various authors on this book and they all conclude that the book contains some good reading but also contains much NONSENSE.
The key messages that Taubes promotes are nothing new. Many nutrition authors have suggested insulin causes obesity, calories don’t really matter, and carbohydrates make you fat and so on. Many of the readers of popular nutrition books seem to like the idea that there is something more to it than calories. They can’t believe what Primary Researchers have been telling them for years- CALORIES DO MATTER. Many book readers enjoy science fiction. Should we expect different when it comes to nutrition books?
References
G. A. Bray (2008) Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes; New York: AA Knopf Obesity Reviews 9 (3) , 251–263.
I think this is bang on... he uses the "exercise does not cause weight loss" angle to spark controversy/interest. As you say, his strogest arguments have been made ad nauseum already - although to be fair, not with the same attention to detail and conviction.
His conclusions on exercise are incomplete, obfuscated and sloppy, but they are presnted with a certainty equal to that of his conclusions on the lipid hypothesis.
Good Calories Bad Calories Review
Linear Mode
