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.
GT: The assumption that fat tissue isn't regulated at all is almost naive beyond belief. Every other part of the human body is well regulated, but fat tissue is just this garbage can that all these empty extra calories get dumped into. And it just happily expands, despite having these deleterious effects all over your body.
The idea of homeostasis, where you want to keep the internal environment stable regardless of what else is happening, was first discussed in the 1860s by a French scientist named Claude Bernard. Are our fat cells somehow exempt from this?
As you get fatter, homeostasis gets thrown out of whack, because among other things, fat is a good insulator. So your body starts getting hotter. Now you have to cool it down in ways you didn't have to before. You start sweating, and when you lose body fluids, the salt content in the blood gets higher. All kinds of things start going awry when you start getting fatter.
It makes absolutely no sense that your fat tissue wouldn't be regulated, and yet these people believe that obesity is all about calories.
If you look at animals, all animals regulate their fat tissue very carefully. You can't just force animals to overeat and make them fat.
TM: Really?
GT: They won't do it. The only animals that will get fat by dietary means are very carefully bred rats in laboratories, and house pets that don't eat the foods they evolved to eat.
If you've ever looked at cat food, it's packed with carbohydrates. And yet cats are carnivores in the wild. Felines don't eat carbohydrates. They eat meat. That's what they do. And yet we take then into our homes, we feed them carbohydrates, and lo and behold, they get fat.
The argument I'm making is that [obesity is] a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not of sloth and gluttony. Overeating is the side effect of the disorder, not the cause. What you want to know is, what regulates fat accumulation?
Lots of problems with the logic in this. Homeostasis mechanisms that help keep the body regulated function against the backdrop that the species they are working in evolved. In the environment that humans evolved we had limited amounts of food and high energy expenditures as do all species in the wild. If you provide a novel environment with limitless food, a low exercise condition, and low levels of muscle tissue (due to sedentary lifestyles), then thats not a condition that the body evolved to self regulate in.
It's also problematic comparing humans to other species because compared to other primates we have higher bodyfat levels, probably to provide backup energy during growth when our brains require large amounts of energy (ratio of the energy budget for brain tissue compared to total energy budget is much higher in humans).
Last edited by Gradstudent78 : 05-20-2009 at 11:51 AM.
Taubes is such a fucking noob. Almost NOTHING he says is correct.
Can you give some examples of where he is incorrect? I've heard more about him than the article, btw. I saw a google.videos vid of him talking about this. It was pretty interesting, but some of it was a bit weird. HE talked about a substance that was needed to put fatty acids and glycerol together in fat tissue that could ONLY be made from dietary carbs, so if you didn't eat carbs, that substance wouldn't be in your body and you wouldn't accumilate fat. That sounds kinda weird to me. He called it alpha-something, I can't remember.
The entire article seemed to suggest that lower carb an higher fat was healthier in the long run. Your body would regulate your hunger, and not store as much bodyfat.
Then the author made the point at the end. He stopped eating fruit, started eating bacon, and gained 4 lbs.
The entire article seemed to suggest that lower carb an higher fat was healthier in the long run. Your body would regulate your hunger, and not store as much bodyfat.
Then the author made the point at the end. He stopped eating fruit, started eating bacon, and gained 4 lbs.
If that's not convoluted, I don't know what is.
To be fair the author also said his waist was reduced by 1 inch (implication being that he lost bodyfat, while gaining muscle). Not that the authors individual experience means much.
Can you give some examples of where he is incorrect? I've heard more about him than the article, btw. I saw a google.videos vid of him talking about this. It was pretty interesting, but some of it was a bit weird. HE talked about a substance that was needed to put fatty acids and glycerol together in fat tissue that could ONLY be made from dietary carbs, so if you didn't eat carbs, that substance wouldn't be in your body and you wouldn't accumilate fat. That sounds kinda weird to me. He called it alpha-something, I can't remember.
Just quickly re-read the interview. If I were to give you examples of where he is incorrect, I'd have to cut/paste the whole interview. Seriously.
Seriously as Alan would say it would take an entire book to specify and comment on all the nonsense perpetuated by Taubes especially in Good Calories Bad Calories. Bray does an excellent job pointing out the fallacious arguments presented by Taubes.
Summary
Good Calories, Bad Calories
has much useful information and is well worth reading. Gary Taubes’s tenets related to obesity can be summarized in four statements (i) He believes that you can gain weight and become obese without a positive energy balance; (ii) He also believes that dietary fat is unimportant for the development of obesity; (iii) Carbohydrate, in his view, is what produces obesity and (iv) Insulin secreted by the carbohydrate is the problem in obesity. However,
some of the conclusions that the author reaches are not consistent with current concepts about obesity. There are many kinds of obesity, and only some depend on diet composition. Two dietary manipulations produce obesity in susceptible people: eating a high-fat diet and drinking sugar- or high-fructose corn syrupsweetened beverages. Insulin is necessary but not sufficient in the diet-dependent obesities. When diet is important, it may be the combination of fat and fructose
(the deadly duo) that is most important. Regardless of diet, it is a positive energy balance over months to years that is the sine qua non for obesity. Obese people clearly eat more than do lean ones, and food-intake records are notoriously unreliable, as documented by use of doubly labelled water. Underreporting of food intake is greater in obese than in normal-weight people and is worse for fat than
for other macronutrient groups. Accepting the concept that obesity results from a positive energy balance does not tell us why energy balance is positive. This depends on a variety of environmental factors interacting with the genetic susceptibility of certain individuals. Weight loss is related to adherence to the diet, not to its macronutrient composition.
Peele also wrote a review on the diet. What is really sad is Taubes has done some great work in the past but Good Calories Bad Calories fails to meet criteria needed for solid scientific reporting. This book is a work that is anything but science.
I don't think he ever said you can get fat without a positive energy balance. I think he just said that there are a lot of things that regulate energy out and energy in (Energy in for those of us who don't have the willpower to eat 3kcals a day no matter what).
He talks a lot about stuff that is supposed to make the body expend less energy, etc.
Though I don't agree that you can't eat yourself fat on a protein and fat diet, of course you can, but it is damn hard because it's hard to eat a lot of those foods. I tried eating low carb at 4000-4500cals a day.. it was horrible!
I don't think he ever said you can get fat without a positive energy balance. I think he just said that there are a lot of things that regulate energy out and energy in (Energy in for those of us who don't have the willpower to eat 3kcals a day no matter what).
He talks a lot about stuff that is supposed to make the body expend less energy, etc.
Though I don't agree that you can't eat yourself fat on a protein and fat diet, of course you can, but it is damn hard because it's hard to eat a lot of those foods. I tried eating low carb at 4000-4500cals a day.. it was horrible!
It's just as easy to gain fat on a fat-protein diet as it is to gain fat on a more moderate macro breakdown. But, why should Taubes mention moderate breakdowns when it's a lot easier to compare unrealistic extremes? Because sensationalism sells books.
It's just as easy to gain fat on a fat-protein diet as it is to gain fat on a more moderate macro breakdown. But, why should Taubes mention moderate breakdowns when it's a lot easier to compare unrealistic extremes? Because sensationalism sells books.
Isn't it true that a lot of people on ketogenic diets eat at a deficit even without controlling calories just because they feel fuller? That's my experience, + I've heard other people say the same. Of course, if you were to eat at the same surplus with a ketogenic and a "regular" diet, you'd end up gaining the same amount of weight, but I think it would be harder to get to that surplus with a ketogenic than a regular diet. And isn't that kind of important when it comes to getting regular people to lose weight? If I want to cut, I cut calories, it's simple. If I'm a bit hungry, I don't eat (unless I'm supposed to). but not everyone works like that and if you can find a diet that will reduce someones appetite so that they will naturally eat less calories, then I think that's great.
Of course, ketogenic diets have a problem, people love their carbs and it's hard to adhere to, but if you can eat like that comfortably I bet you'll eat less calories without thinking about the cals, and that's a good thing if you want to drop weight. Disagree?
Hale, getting 4500 cals with just fruits and veggies would be hard, but with eating a lot of bread, pasta, rice and lean meats I bet I could do it easier than I could with a ketogenic diet, now of course, I can't know that until I've tried.
Isn't it true that a lot of people on ketogenic diets eat at a deficit even without controlling calories just because they feel fuller? That's my experience, + I've heard other people say the same. Of course, if you were to eat at the same surplus with a ketogenic and a "regular" diet, you'd end up gaining the same amount of weight, but I think it would be harder to get to that surplus with a ketogenic than a regular diet. And isn't that kind of important when it comes to getting regular people to lose weight? If I want to cut, I cut calories, it's simple. If I'm a bit hungry, I don't eat (unless I'm supposed to). but not everyone works like that and if you can find a diet that will reduce someones appetite so that they will naturally eat less calories, then I think that's great.
Of course, ketogenic diets have a problem, people love their carbs and it's hard to adhere to, but if you can eat like that comfortably I bet you'll eat less calories without thinking about the cals, and that's a good thing if you want to drop weight. Disagree?
Hale, getting 4500 cals with just fruits and veggies would be hard, but with eating a lot of bread, pasta, rice and lean meats I bet I could do it easier than I could with a ketogenic diet, now of course, I can't know that until I've tried.
Protein is the main satiator in any diet. Match the protein between diets, and the variation of fat & carb between the diets isn't going to make a major difference in satiating effect. However, if you compare high-carb & low-carb diets with DIFFERENT PROTEIN CONTENT (which is what Taubes & the keto crowd do to support their religion), then obviously, the low-carb/higher-protein diets will prevail on a number of fronts. A distinction needs to be made between a) keto vs USDA pyramid, and b) keto vs a diet with sufficient protein, and carb content tailored to the individual's activity level and tolerance for carbs. My point is that individualization > blanketly prescribed keto dieting. In my experience with clients, as well as what's been seen in the research, I can tell you that keto is not the universal answer to weight/fat loss.
Weird! I was just talking to Galya, last night, about how fruit was making me fat!
I eat a normal diet of burgers, tacos, donuts, and cookies, with about 250 calories worth of fruit. Man, I was gaining 1/2 lb a week! Soon as I dropped that fruit, the weight gain stopped, too!
Protein is the main satiator in any diet. Match the protein between diets, and the variation of fat & carb between the diets isn't going to make a major difference in satiating effect. However, if you compare high-carb & low-carb diets with DIFFERENT PROTEIN CONTENT (which is what Taubes & the keto crowd do to support their religion), then obviously, the low-carb/higher-protein diets will prevail on a number of fronts. A distinction needs to be made between a) keto vs USDA pyramid, and b) keto vs a diet with sufficient protein, and carb content tailored to the individual's activity level and tolerance for carbs. My point is that individualization > blanketly prescribed keto dieting. In my experience with clients, as well as what's been seen in the research, I can tell you that keto is not the universal answer to weight/fat loss.
Thanks, Alan. That makes a lot of sense. Basically people should probably eat a little more protein to stay saturated + they get a slightly higher thermic effect.
"I don't think he ever said you can get fat without a positive energy balance" Excerpt from Bray's review of Good Calories Bad Calories comment made by Taubes Response made by Bray
“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.fficeffice" />
Response: Consuming excess calories routinely produces obesity, and consuming fewer calories than your body needs produces weight loss.”
On another note eating fruit per se does not make you fat anymore than eating chicken will make you fat. Excerpt from Knowledge and Nonsense:
Bodybuilders trying to get lean shouldn’t eat fruit
The fear of fruit comes from studies suggesting that 60 grams or
more of fructose per day can upregulate de novo lipogenesis (the
process where excessive carbohydrates are converted to
triglycerides in the liver), increase blood triglycerides, and
induce insulin resistance. Keep in mind, fruit generally contains
6–7 grams of fructose. That means it would take a bunch of fruit
to get 60 grams of fructose. In most studies, the high
consumption of fructose is generally due to the consumption of
high levels of high fructose corn syrup (processing where
varying portions of glucose are converted to fructose). Another
consideration is that fructose causes minimal insulin secretion.
Even if fructose consumption were high enough to elevate fat
synthesis, a lack of insulin would probably result in increased fat
oxidation. Assuming a calorie deficit, it all evens itself out at the
end of the day. Eat fruit because it's nutritious and generally low
in calories.
The entry of fructose into cells is not insulin-dependent (unlike
that of glucose entry into specific tissues), and in contrast to
glucose, fructose does not promote insulin secretion. Fructose is
a potent regulator of glycogen synthesis and liver glucose uptake.
Because of its lipogenic properties, excess fructose in the diet
can cause glucose and fructose malabsorption and greater
elevations in TG (triglycerides) and cholesterol compared to
other carbohydrates. In the liver, fructose is metabolized into
glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone phosphate. These
particular fructose end products can then readily converge with
the glycolytic pathway.
Fructose’s ability to bypass the main regulatory step of
glycolysis, the conversion of glucose-6-phosphate to fructose
1,6-bisphosphate, which is controlled by phosphofructokinase, is
of key importance. So while glucose metabolism is
negatively
regulated by phosphofructokinase, fructose can continuously
enter the glycolytic pathway. Therefore, fructose can
uncontrollably produce glucose, glycogen, lactate, and pyruvate,
providing both the glycerol and acyl portions of acyl-glycerol
molecules. These particular substrates, and the excess energy
flux due to unregulated fructose metabolism, promotes the
The funny fact is that there is a discussion thread on the t-nation forums where at least most people get generally how wrong this article is however like usual, we have the countless bros who talk science without getting it whatsoever. This is basically my views on this matter atm (what I posted on t-nation):
Its not that ketogenic diets/ very low carb diets are not effective, its the fact that treating them as the godly standard in everything from fat loss to muscle gain is highly misguided. Cutting out all carbohydrates is not the most important place to start when trying to lose fat. Reducing overall caloric intake to just below maintenace level, increasing protein intake, consuming moderate amounts of fat and healthy carbohydrates, and increasing activity are the basic tenets of fat loss and 80% of results can be achieved just by adhering to such rules. Low carbohydrate diets are simply a dietary modification that chooses fat as the preferred energy nutrient over carbohydrates.
Take two identical individuals with a maintenance level of 3000 calories; they both consume a diet of about 2500 calories, both consuming lets say 1g of protein/pound of bodyweight and the rest of their calories from carbs or fat. The first guy consumes the remainder of his calories from 50% high quality carb sources and 50% high quality fat sources. The second guy ditches carbs completely and only opts for fats. Both individuals do identical exercise. Does anyone honestly think there will be a substantial difference in their results? Both ways are easy to argue for; one can say that the added benifit of ketogenisis will augment fat loss and that controlling blood sugar and insulin will prevent fat from being stored. On the other hand, one can argue that carbohydrates are probably a better energy source for exercise and do have a higher thermic effect vs. fat. Still, against the laws of thermodynamics either argument does not stand very strong.
Can you give some examples of where he is incorrect? I've heard more about him than the article, btw. I saw a google.videos vid of him talking about this. It was pretty interesting, but some of it was a bit weird. HE talked about a substance that was needed to put fatty acids and glycerol together in fat tissue that could ONLY be made from dietary carbs, so if you didn't eat carbs, that substance wouldn't be in your body and you wouldn't accumilate fat. That sounds kinda weird to me. He called it alpha-something, I can't remember.
alpha-glycerol phosphate, or glycerol-3 phosphate
glucose can be used to create glycerol 3 phosphate, but so can glycerol...
anotehr strange thing, is that the body can produce something called glucose from a number of different sources for metabolic requirements
IF you are going with taubes on that story, theres this used bridge you might like to buy.
Though I don't agree that you can't eat yourself fat on a protein and fat diet, of course you can, but it is damn hard because it's hard to eat a lot of those foods. I tried eating low carb at 4000-4500cals a day.. it was horrible!
I gained fat on a low carb diet with the same calories that i gain fat on a higher carb diet. It was nowhere near horrible.
I'm not going with taubes on anything, I'm just asking for your input on some of the things I've observed. IF it was nowhere near horrible for you, then you're better at eating than I am
And about the whole calories don't matter thing, I still don't think he actually says that. What causes a teenager to grow? It's a calorie surplus, sure, he admitts to this, he follows the law of thermodynamics. But why does that surplus occur? It's because he is more hungry so he eats more. He simply says that hunger controlls calorie in for most people. He talks about how many people thing that energy in and out are independend variables, and goes on to say that they are not, they are dependant on each other.
I buy that. Of course if you eat in a calorie surplus you're going to gain weight. I think the solution to the obesity problem lies in controlling peoples hunger (energy in) and energy out. I'm not saying Taubes has the solution, but I agree with him about what the problem is. What can we do to controll hunger and increase energy out through our diet? I don't know (except protein for hunger)
Of course, again, this goes for the general population who eat when they are hungry, etc.
What I don't buy is how he thinks carbs and insulin are the main issue. Like you said, you don't actually need to have carbs in your diet to make glycerol 3 phosphate, like he claims.
I'm not going with taubes on anything, I'm just asking for your input on some of the things I've observed. IF it was nowhere near horrible for you, then you're better at eating than I am
And about the whole calories don't matter thing, I still don't think he actually says that. What causes a teenager to grow? It's a calorie surplus, sure, he admitts to this, he follows the law of thermodynamics. But why does that surplus occur? It's because he is more hungry so he eats more. He simply says that hunger controlls calorie in for most people. He talks about how many people thing that energy in and out are independend variables, and goes on to say that they are not, they are dependant on each other.
I buy that. Of course if you eat in a calorie surplus you're going to gain weight. I think the solution to the obesity problem lies in controlling peoples hunger (energy in) and energy out. I'm not saying Taubes has the solution, but I agree with him about what the problem is. What can we do to controll hunger and increase energy out through our diet? I don't know (except protein for hunger)
Of course, again, this goes for the general population who eat when they are hungry, etc.
What I don't buy is how he thinks carbs and insulin are the main issue. Like you said, you don't actually need to have carbs in your diet to make glycerol 3 phosphate, like he claims.
What you're missing is the fact that Taubes is talking straight out of his ass, and his assertions are not only contradictory, but scientifically unsupportable.
What you're missing is the fact that Taubes is talking straight out of his ass, and his assertions are not only contradictory, but scientifically unsupportable.
I'm not saying I agree with everything he says. But like I said in my previous post, I think he has identified the problem.
An ultimately disappointing interview. I would have thought a trainer of all people would actually put the screws to GT a bit and ask him to clarify his obfuscated and evasive conclusions on exercise.
What the hell does Taubes classify as "exercise". To this day, to my knowledge he has yet to clarify this. The Taubes apologists always pull the "his book was edited", "it wasn't about exercise" and other rhetoric but the distinction is vastly important.
Walking on a treadmill at 3.3mph for 35 min. and Intermittend wind sprints interspersed with full body resistance training are clearly different in terms of their fat burning potential.
One can only assume at this point that Taubes feels this discernment unimportant and I will continue to wait with bated breath to see if he will ever clarify this.
If he denies the importance, he's an idiot.
If he acknowledges that there is in fact a difference bewteen exercises in terms of fat burning potential, he is dishonest.
"It's interesting to see Brandenburg's site - completelely dismissing the growing role of ASP. Now I'm not intimately familiar with the research on ASP, but he seems pretty dismissive of it being independent of insulin.
ASP (Acylation stimulating protein) definitely does regulate body-fat, if you have more then you’ll store more fat. But, if you dig just a little deeper you’ll find this: #1. Insulin increases ASP production 2 fold http://www.jlr.org/…/reprint/38/1/1 J Lipid Res. 1997 Jan;38(1):1-11 #2. “ASP… secretion is regulated by insulin” Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2001 Jun;21(6):1034-9 http://atvb.ahajournals.org/…/full/21/6/1034 So, ASP seems to be related to insulin."
Taubes' followers essentially fall for 3 logical fallacies;
1. Apeal to authority. His followers borderline worship him and every word he says. They don't question it because Taubes said it. GT is a voice for the low carb taliban and they will do everything they can to squelch criticism of his work (they usually use the word "persecute" in these instances.
2. Proof by verbosity: Taubes wrote a big book - ooh and there's references - a hundred pages worth! Every one of those references surely backs up what he says.
3. Confirmation bias: The extreme low carbers already believe with all of their hearts that it is carbs and only carbs that make people fat (of course the insulin from carb intake). And Taubes is exactly bang on with exercise not leading to weight loss because many of these low carbers did "hours" of exercise and didn't lose weight.
The sad irony is that Taubes will never believe in exercise as a fat burning implement because he's training with the superslow training advocate Fred Hahn. Which means he's not allowed any cardio and will do superboring errr... superslow tempo training on machines 2x a week ('cause you should only work out with resistance twice per week).
Calories don't matter, but fruit makes you fat
ffice" />
Linear Mode
