We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
LOLTaubes in the NYT
Acg67
Posts: 12,142 Member
Moving the goal posts much?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/opinion/diet-advice-that-ignores-hunger.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/opinion/diet-advice-that-ignores-hunger.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
0
Replies
-
Interesting,
6 days seems a little short for long term theoretical extrapolation.
I am not well read on the subject, or any surrounding the issue of hunger or perceived hunger, so am interested in the feed back of those better read than I.
Cheers, h.
( nor do I suffer from excessive hunger, ETA, hence the not well read)0 -
middlehaitch wrote: »Interesting,
6 days seems a little short for long term theoretical extrapolation.
I am not well read on the subject, or any surrounding the issue of hunger or perceived hunger, so am interested in the feed back of those better read than I.
Cheers, h.
( nor do I suffer from excessive hunger)
There have been at least 3 or 4 discussions here on the low carb versus low fat metabolic ward study.
It wasn't designed to test long term diet success. What it does do is disprove the insulin hypothesis of weight.0 -
middlehaitch wrote: »Interesting,
6 days seems a little short for long term theoretical extrapolation.
I am not well read on the subject, or any surrounding the issue of hunger or perceived hunger, so am interested in the feed back of those better read than I.
Cheers, h.
( nor do I suffer from excessive hunger)
But ward trials are generally tightly controlled vs longer term trials that rely on self reported intake figures, which are notoriously inaccurate, especially among the obese. I'd guess Taubes would be just fine with a ward trial that supported his hypothesis0 -
Still, interesting to read, thanks for sharing it!0
-
I need cliff notes, I just couldn't find the point of the article, lol... Is it that the only diet that works is the one that doesn't leave you hungry? because in this case, I'm doomed to fail (and I'm PMSing right now and starving so yeah, I'm just tired of being hungry sometimes).
But hunger doesn't seem to be the same for everyone anyway. Example that 'how do people who eat 1200 calories do it' thread. If I ate what those people eat, I'd always be hungry.0 -
middlehaitch wrote: »Interesting,
6 days seems a little short for long term theoretical extrapolation.
I am not well read on the subject, or any surrounding the issue of hunger or perceived hunger, so am interested in the feed back of those better read than I.
Cheers, h.
( nor do I suffer from excessive hunger)
There have been at least 3 or 4 discussions here on the low carb versus low fat metabolic ward study.
It wasn't designed to test long term diet success. What it does do is disprove the insulin hypothesis of weight.
While I totally understand most people not understanding the actual results of this study, since not everyone knows how to properly interpret scientific studuies, but I feel as though Taubes should know better.
0 -
middlehaitch wrote: »Interesting,
6 days seems a little short for long term theoretical extrapolation.
I am not well read on the subject, or any surrounding the issue of hunger or perceived hunger, so am interested in the feed back of those better read than I.
Cheers, h.
( nor do I suffer from excessive hunger)
There have been at least 3 or 4 discussions here on the low carb versus low fat metabolic ward study.
It wasn't designed to test long term diet success. What it does do is disprove the insulin hypothesis of weight.
^This. Let's not forget how he sensationalized the results from the Minnesota starvation experiment to frame his argument as well.
Since Taubes is heading up NuSI, one would think he'd have better skills at interpreting research and presenting it.
0 -
I need cliff notes, I just couldn't find the point of the article, lol... Is it that the only diet that works is the one that doesn't leave you hungry? because in this case, I'm doomed to fail (and I'm PMSing right now and starving so yeah, I'm just tired of being hungry sometimes).
But hunger doesn't seem to be the same for everyone anyway. Example that 'how do people who eat 1200 calories do it' thread. If I ate what those people eat, I'd always be hungry.
No, Taubes' point is that low carb will be the only diet that works because it doesn't leave you hungry because he believes in an entirely different theory of obesity and how the body works.
He even brought up the whole stupid "fat storage mode" because he separates caloric intake from the equation.
Carbs make you eat more, carbs make you hungry... that's his mantra.
The problem is that hunger is a complex thing. I overate when I controlled my carbohydrate intake, for example. People eat for reasons other than hunger and experience things like hedonic hunger and confuse it with true hunger.
Regarding fat storage, that's ... a silly argument. Your body stores and burns fat all day in cycles. If you're eating too many calories, you'll store excess fat on balance. If you're eating less calories than you burn, you'll lose fat. If you eat a balance of calories compatible with your energy needs? You'll maintain your weight.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »Interesting,
6 days seems a little short for long term theoretical extrapolation.
I am not well read on the subject, or any surrounding the issue of hunger or perceived hunger, so am interested in the feed back of those better read than I.
Cheers, h.
( nor do I suffer from excessive hunger)
There have been at least 3 or 4 discussions here on the low carb versus low fat metabolic ward study.
It wasn't designed to test long term diet success. What it does do is disprove the insulin hypothesis of weight.
^This. Let's not forget how he sensationalized the results from the Minnesota starvation experiment to frame his argument as well.
Since Taubes is heading up NuSI, one would think he'd have better skills at interpreting research and presenting it.
A cynical person might say that he knows full well how to properly do all that, he just chooses not to to fit his agenda.
I wish there was a cynical person here to say that.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I need cliff notes, I just couldn't find the point of the article, lol... Is it that the only diet that works is the one that doesn't leave you hungry? because in this case, I'm doomed to fail (and I'm PMSing right now and starving so yeah, I'm just tired of being hungry sometimes).
But hunger doesn't seem to be the same for everyone anyway. Example that 'how do people who eat 1200 calories do it' thread. If I ate what those people eat, I'd always be hungry.
No, Taubes' point is that low carb will be the only diet that works because it doesn't leave you hungry because he believes in an entirely different theory of obesity and how the body works.
He even brought up the whole stupid "fat storage mode" because he separates caloric intake from the equation.
Carbs make you eat more, carbs make you hungry... that's his mantra.
The problem is that hunger is a complex thing. I overate when I controlled my carbohydrate intake, for example. People eat for reasons other than hunger and experience things like hedonic hunger and confuse it with true hunger.
Regarding fat storage, that's ... a silly argument. Your body stores and burns fat all day in cycles. If you're eating too many calories, you'll store excess fat on balance. If you're eating less calories than you burn, you'll lose fat. If you eat a balance of calories compatible with your energy needs? You'll maintain your weight.
To fill in my personal n=1 study on the subject, I had a typical keto person's breakfast today. Eggs with bacon and cheese, about 500 Calories. I could have had a second portion of that right then and there and would still have had room for more. So there goes the "you're not hungry eating low carb".0 -
stevencloser wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »Interesting,
6 days seems a little short for long term theoretical extrapolation.
I am not well read on the subject, or any surrounding the issue of hunger or perceived hunger, so am interested in the feed back of those better read than I.
Cheers, h.
( nor do I suffer from excessive hunger)
There have been at least 3 or 4 discussions here on the low carb versus low fat metabolic ward study.
It wasn't designed to test long term diet success. What it does do is disprove the insulin hypothesis of weight.
^This. Let's not forget how he sensationalized the results from the Minnesota starvation experiment to frame his argument as well.
Since Taubes is heading up NuSI, one would think he'd have better skills at interpreting research and presenting it.
A cynical person might say that he knows full well how to properly do all that, he just chooses not to to fit his agenda.
I wish there was a cynical person here to say that.
I honestly don't think he does any more. I think he's so blinded by his own biases at this point that he's gone to crazy town.
0 -
Since you are a judge on what constitutes insanity, it will be easy for you to answer at least one question he poses: "If people on low-carb diets eat less (the conventional explanation for any loss of fat that ensues), why aren’t they hungry? Where’s the semi-starvation neurosis? And if they don’t eat less, why do they lose weight? It implies a mechanism of weight loss other than caloric deprivation and suggests that the carbohydrates and fats consumed make a difference."
And remember, your N=1 says just as little or just as much as my N=1. Good luck.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »Interesting,
6 days seems a little short for long term theoretical extrapolation.
I am not well read on the subject, or any surrounding the issue of hunger or perceived hunger, so am interested in the feed back of those better read than I.
Cheers, h.
( nor do I suffer from excessive hunger)
There have been at least 3 or 4 discussions here on the low carb versus low fat metabolic ward study.
It wasn't designed to test long term diet success. What it does do is disprove the insulin hypothesis of weight.
^This. Let's not forget how he sensationalized the results from the Minnesota starvation experiment to frame his argument as well.
Since Taubes is heading up NuSI, one would think he'd have better skills at interpreting research and presenting it.
A cynical person might say that he knows full well how to properly do all that, he just chooses not to to fit his agenda.
I wish there was a cynical person here to say that.
;-)0 -
Since you are a judge on what constitutes insanity, it will be easy for you to answer at least one question he poses: "If people on low-carb diets eat less (the conventional explanation for any loss of fat that ensues), why aren’t they hungry? Where’s the semi-starvation neurosis? And if they don’t eat less, why do they lose weight? It implies a mechanism of weight loss other than caloric deprivation and suggests that the carbohydrates and fats consumed make a difference."
And remember, your N=1 says just as little or just as much as my N=1. Good luck.
I didn't eat less on a low carbohydrate diet.
Where does that leave his question?
The question is full of problems. It's predicated on a bunch of assertions he has to prove.
Look, I do not want to argue low carbing with people who enjoy doing it. Have at it.
Taubes is a lousy scientist and can't logic properly. That's all I'm here to talk about.
0 -
Since you are a judge on what constitutes insanity, it will be easy for you to answer at least one question he poses: "If people on low-carb diets eat less (the conventional explanation for any loss of fat that ensues), why aren’t they hungry? Where’s the semi-starvation neurosis? And if they don’t eat less, why do they lose weight? It implies a mechanism of weight loss other than caloric deprivation and suggests that the carbohydrates and fats consumed make a difference."
And remember, your N=1 says just as little or just as much as my N=1. Good luck.
The studies show that results even out over time. One point I've seen that makes sense to me (and also explains the success of such things as raw vegan or simply 80-10-10 vegan diets, which Taubes would claim can't be filling, but they seem to be) is that in the short term a dramatic change in diet will cause you to eat less. Lots of people experience this with a conventional diet, where they simply aren't hungry even at 1200 calories, and if you cut out foods you are used to eating it takes a while to adjust and start finding ways to replace them that fit with the new way of eating. I'm someone who initially realized I was eating less than 1200, and it's because I'd cut down on carbs and fat (my carbs were lower than now, but not so low as Taubes thinks is needed to control hunger) and did not initially think to increase my protein servings as much as I would have needed to to get my calories up. Because it was new and I'm a volume eater, I wasn't hungry.
Also, I think there seem to be a subset of people who feel insatiably hungry eating higher carb diets (although often poor carb choices for the most part) who lose that feeling when they cut carbs. This is not the case for everyone -- I've always found it easier to overeat some fat/protein foods than carbs (and plain carbs without fat don't entice me to overeat at all). But on the whole my overeating has never been driven by real hunger.
Finally, many or most traditional diets are far higher in carbs than Taubes claims is necessary to control hunger, and I seriously doubt even a subset of those populations were hungry all the time despite getting adequate calories, because carbs. Far more likely the contemporary hunger/overeating issues have more complex causes.0 -
Since you are a judge on what constitutes insanity, it will be easy for you to answer at least one question he poses: "If people on low-carb diets eat less (the conventional explanation for any loss of fat that ensues), why aren’t they hungry? Where’s the semi-starvation neurosis? And if they don’t eat less, why do they lose weight? It implies a mechanism of weight loss other than caloric deprivation and suggests that the carbohydrates and fats consumed make a difference."
And remember, your N=1 says just as little or just as much as my N=1. Good luck.
Why would it imply a mechanism other than a caloric deficit? Why does he ignore the vast majority of literature that suggests that carbs and fats do not make a difference?0 -
Since you are a judge on what constitutes insanity, it will be easy for you to answer at least one question he poses: "If people on low-carb diets eat less (the conventional explanation for any loss of fat that ensues), why aren’t they hungry? Where’s the semi-starvation neurosis? And if they don’t eat less, why do they lose weight? It implies a mechanism of weight loss other than caloric deprivation and suggests that the carbohydrates and fats consumed make a difference."
And remember, your N=1 says just as little or just as much as my N=1. Good luck.
I ate low carb, I was still hungry. All it takes to disprove a "people who X never Y" is one example of the opposite.0 -
Also when I recently had a Subway salad instead of a sub, I was full on those 200-ish calories. I don't go around proclaiming people who eat salads don't feel hungry though.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Since you are a judge on what constitutes insanity, it will be easy for you to answer at least one question he poses: "If people on low-carb diets eat less (the conventional explanation for any loss of fat that ensues), why aren’t they hungry? Where’s the semi-starvation neurosis? And if they don’t eat less, why do they lose weight? It implies a mechanism of weight loss other than caloric deprivation and suggests that the carbohydrates and fats consumed make a difference."
And remember, your N=1 says just as little or just as much as my N=1. Good luck.
The studies show that results even out over time. One point I've seen that makes sense to me (and also explains the success of such things as raw vegan or simply 80-10-10 vegan diets, which Taubes would claim can't be filling, but they seem to be) is that in the short term a dramatic change in diet will cause you to eat less. Lots of people experience this with a conventional diet, where they simply aren't hungry even at 1200 calories, and if you cut out foods you are used to eating it takes a while to adjust and start finding ways to replace them that fit with the new way of eating. I'm someone who initially realized I was eating less than 1200, and it's because I'd cut down on carbs and fat (my carbs were lower than now, but not so low as Taubes thinks is needed to control hunger) and did not initially think to increase my protein servings as much as I would have needed to to get my calories up. Because it was new and I'm a volume eater, I wasn't hungry.
Also, I think there seem to be a subset of people who feel insatiably hungry eating higher carb diets (although often poor carb choices for the most part) who lose that feeling when they cut carbs. This is not the case for everyone -- I've always found it easier to overeat some fat/protein foods than carbs (and plain carbs without fat don't entice me to overeat at all). But on the whole my overeating has never been driven by real hunger.
Finally, many or most traditional diets are far higher in carbs than Taubes claims is necessary to control hunger, and I seriously doubt even a subset of those populations were hungry all the time despite getting adequate calories, because carbs. Far more likely the contemporary hunger/overeating issues have more complex causes.
Bolding to emphasize two very good points.
The first being the vast array of ways of eating not only in this country, but around the globe.
The second being the silly notion that there's a single solution to issues with weight control/management.
While it does come down to energy balance, the reasons for it being out of balance in any given individual are variable, and often multi-factorial.
0 -
I'm not sure why he is attempting to apply the findings of a study of normal weight volunteers who became underweight (down to a BMI of 14, in one instance) to dieters, who typically start with either an overweight or obese BMI and stop when they achieve a normal BMI.
I'd also like to see some support for his assertions that people who reduce their fat intake are hungry, people on low-carb diets "eat less" (fewer calories? less variety of foods? reduced volume? or just fewer carbs?) and that they aren't hungry.
As to the lack of semi-starvation neurosis, I don't see any evidence that shows putting normal weight individuals on a low-carb diet and controlling their activity output and caloric intake while keeping them on track to lose 25% of their body weight in 12 weeks so that they are significantly underweight does not result in any semi-starvation neurosis.
Taubes clings desperately to his assertions and beliefs regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof).0 -
I think Taubes (and the article he referenced) made a few good points:
- CICO does not always equal expected weight loss, especially when a diet is low in an essential nutrient (fat).
- Hunger does not diminish on a calorie restricted low fat diet, even after almost 6 months.
- It is difficult to cut back on calories (and lose weight) when hungry.
- Those who eat low carb (not just restricted carb) tend to experience less hunger and are able to restrict calories with greater ease.
- A low fat diet beat a restricted carb diet in weight loss, over 6 whole days, by an average of a 110 gram loss in 19 healthy but overweight people.
- The low fat diet is deemed unsustainable because the FAO and UN believe 15% is the lower limit for fat intake.... Very low fat works well for 6 day crash diet and not in a long term diet for substantial weight loss.
- The study did not address the satiety of the subjects on the two diets. Was one group hungry? Both? Neither?
- Anyone will lose some weight on a calorie restricted diet but is that sustainable over many months if the dieter is hungry, and therefore uncomfortable?
JMO.
Have you read Taubes' books? He does bring up some interesting points.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I need cliff notes, I just couldn't find the point of the article, lol... Is it that the only diet that works is the one that doesn't leave you hungry? because in this case, I'm doomed to fail (and I'm PMSing right now and starving so yeah, I'm just tired of being hungry sometimes).
But hunger doesn't seem to be the same for everyone anyway. Example that 'how do people who eat 1200 calories do it' thread. If I ate what those people eat, I'd always be hungry.
No, Taubes' point is that low carb will be the only diet that works because it doesn't leave you hungry because he believes in an entirely different theory of obesity and how the body works.
He even brought up the whole stupid "fat storage mode" because he separates caloric intake from the equation.
Carbs make you eat more, carbs make you hungry... that's his mantra.
The problem is that hunger is a complex thing. I overate when I controlled my carbohydrate intake, for example. People eat for reasons other than hunger and experience things like hedonic hunger and confuse it with true hunger.
Regarding fat storage, that's ... a silly argument. Your body stores and burns fat all day in cycles. If you're eating too many calories, you'll store excess fat on balance. If you're eating less calories than you burn, you'll lose fat. If you eat a balance of calories compatible with your energy needs? You'll maintain your weight.
To fill in my personal n=1 study on the subject, I had a typical keto person's breakfast today. Eggs with bacon and cheese, about 500 Calories. I could have had a second portion of that right then and there and would still have had room for more. So there goes the "you're not hungry eating low carb".
I'm in the same boat, if I don't have some carbs it doesn't fill me up as much.0 -
Wrong!!I think Taubes (and the article he referenced) made a few good points:- CICO does not always equal expected weight loss , especially when a diet is low in an essential nutrient (fat).
- Hunger does not diminish on a calorie restricted low fat diet, even after almost 6 months.
- It is difficult to cut back on calories (and lose weight) when hungry.
- Those who eat low carb (not just restricted carb) tend to experience less hunger and are able to restrict calories with greater ease.
- A low fat diet beat a restricted carb diet in weight loss, over 6 whole days, by an average of a 110 gram loss in 19 healthy but overweight people.
- The low fat diet is deemed unsustainable because the FAO and UN believe 15% is the lower limit for fat intake.... Very low fat works well for 6 day crash diet and not in a long term diet for substantial weight loss.
- The study did not address the satiety of the subjects on the two diets. Was one group hungry? Both? Neither?
- Anyone will lose some weight on a calorie restricted diet but is that sustainable over many months if the dieter is hungry, and therefore uncomfortable?
JMO.
Have you read Taubes' books? He does bring up some interesting points.
Always CI/CO....remember science.
0 -
Wrong!!I think Taubes (and the article he referenced) made a few good points:- CICO does not always equal expected weight loss , especially when a diet is low in an essential nutrient (fat).
- Hunger does not diminish on a calorie restricted low fat diet, even after almost 6 months.
- It is difficult to cut back on calories (and lose weight) when hungry.
- Those who eat low carb (not just restricted carb) tend to experience less hunger and are able to restrict calories with greater ease.
- A low fat diet beat a restricted carb diet in weight loss, over 6 whole days, by an average of a 110 gram loss in 19 healthy but overweight people.
- The low fat diet is deemed unsustainable because the FAO and UN believe 15% is the lower limit for fat intake.... Very low fat works well for 6 day crash diet and not in a long term diet for substantial weight loss.
- The study did not address the satiety of the subjects on the two diets. Was one group hungry? Both? Neither?
- Anyone will lose some weight on a calorie restricted diet but is that sustainable over many months if the dieter is hungry, and therefore uncomfortable?
JMO.
Have you read Taubes' books? He does bring up some interesting points.
Always CI/CO....remember science.
I was just stating the points Taubes seemed to make:
"The subjects were 36 conscientious objectors, some lean, some not. For 24 weeks, these men were semi-starved, fed not quite 1,600 calories a day of foods chosen to represent the fare of European famine areas: “whole-wheat bread, potatoes, cereals and considerable amounts of turnips and cabbage” with “token amounts” of meat and dairy.
...The men lost an average of a pound of body fat a week over the first 12 weeks, but averaged only a quarter-pound per week over the next 12, despite the continued deprivation."
In 24 weeks, the men lost 15 lbs on 1600 calories per day. I'm guessing that most were eating close to a 1000 calorie deficit per day (over 168 days) which should have been a loss of 48lbs, or 24lbs if this was a 500 calorie deficit each day... according to CICO.
0 -
Lowered TDEE from the weightloss itself, lost LBM, downregulation of BMR from the continued deficit, less energy leading to less NEAT... also 1600 is a 500 deficit for an average height/average weight guy, if they're not overly active.
Wrong!!I think Taubes (and the article he referenced) made a few good points:- CICO does not always equal expected weight loss , especially when a diet is low in an essential nutrient (fat).
- Hunger does not diminish on a calorie restricted low fat diet, even after almost 6 months.
- It is difficult to cut back on calories (and lose weight) when hungry.
- Those who eat low carb (not just restricted carb) tend to experience less hunger and are able to restrict calories with greater ease.
- A low fat diet beat a restricted carb diet in weight loss, over 6 whole days, by an average of a 110 gram loss in 19 healthy but overweight people.
- The low fat diet is deemed unsustainable because the FAO and UN believe 15% is the lower limit for fat intake.... Very low fat works well for 6 day crash diet and not in a long term diet for substantial weight loss.
- The study did not address the satiety of the subjects on the two diets. Was one group hungry? Both? Neither?
- Anyone will lose some weight on a calorie restricted diet but is that sustainable over many months if the dieter is hungry, and therefore uncomfortable?
JMO.
Have you read Taubes' books? He does bring up some interesting points.
Always CI/CO....remember science.
I was just stating the points Taubes seemed to make:
"The subjects were 36 conscientious objectors, some lean, some not. For 24 weeks, these men were semi-starved, fed not quite 1,600 calories a day of foods chosen to represent the fare of European famine areas: “whole-wheat bread, potatoes, cereals and considerable amounts of turnips and cabbage” with “token amounts” of meat and dairy.
...The men lost an average of a pound of body fat a week over the first 12 weeks, but averaged only a quarter-pound per week over the next 12, despite the continued deprivation."
In 24 weeks, the men lost 15 lbs on 1600 calories per day. I'm guessing that most were eating close to a 1000 calorie deficit per day (over 168 days) which should have been a loss of 48lbs, or 24lbs if this was a 500 calorie deficit each day... according to CICO.
CICO has to always represent your weight loss. Your body can't conjure up extra energy from nothing, so if the weight loss slows down at the same intake, it means your output shrunk.0 -
Wrong!!I think Taubes (and the article he referenced) made a few good points:- CICO does not always equal expected weight loss , especially when a diet is low in an essential nutrient (fat).
- Hunger does not diminish on a calorie restricted low fat diet, even after almost 6 months.
- It is difficult to cut back on calories (and lose weight) when hungry.
- Those who eat low carb (not just restricted carb) tend to experience less hunger and are able to restrict calories with greater ease.
- A low fat diet beat a restricted carb diet in weight loss, over 6 whole days, by an average of a 110 gram loss in 19 healthy but overweight people.
- The low fat diet is deemed unsustainable because the FAO and UN believe 15% is the lower limit for fat intake.... Very low fat works well for 6 day crash diet and not in a long term diet for substantial weight loss.
- The study did not address the satiety of the subjects on the two diets. Was one group hungry? Both? Neither?
- Anyone will lose some weight on a calorie restricted diet but is that sustainable over many months if the dieter is hungry, and therefore uncomfortable?
JMO.
Have you read Taubes' books? He does bring up some interesting points.
Always CI/CO....remember science.
I was just stating the points Taubes seemed to make:
"The subjects were 36 conscientious objectors, some lean, some not. For 24 weeks, these men were semi-starved, fed not quite 1,600 calories a day of foods chosen to represent the fare of European famine areas: “whole-wheat bread, potatoes, cereals and considerable amounts of turnips and cabbage” with “token amounts” of meat and dairy.
...The men lost an average of a pound of body fat a week over the first 12 weeks, but averaged only a quarter-pound per week over the next 12, despite the continued deprivation."
In 24 weeks, the men lost 15 lbs on 1600 calories per day. I'm guessing that most were eating close to a 1000 calorie deficit per day (over 168 days) which should have been a loss of 48lbs, or 24lbs if this was a 500 calorie deficit each day... according to CICO.
Adaptive thermogenesis not even once.
I've read both of Taubes books, they are mostly fictional.0 -
For another n of 1 , I usually have a terrible time with hunger on higher carb & it's the worst w lower protein days (any time I don't consume meat). Satiety easily achieved with lots of protein, fat & complex carbs.0
-
I think Taubes (and the article he referenced) made a few good points:
- CICO does not always equal expected weight loss, especially when a diet is low in an essential nutrient (fat).
That CICO does not equal expected weight loss is... a red herring. CICO as a statement is the oversimplification of a very complex interaction of systems and data that we don't use the most accurate methods to track. Taubes knows this. By and large, energy balance is how weight is regulated. He has a theory he's desperate to sell, so he's blowing smoke around the opposing theory. - Hunger does not diminish on a calorie restricted low fat diet, even after almost 6 months.
Going on what basis? The Minnesota Starvation experiment data? Did it pass your notice that those men were also restricted for protein? They were starved.
Again, Taubes was playing a shill game here, he wasn't relating any real information in a logical fashion. Dieters don't create energy deficits or macro imbalances as extreme as those seen in the Starvation Experiment diet. To use that as a basis from which to draw comparative data is craven and sensationalist. - It is difficult to cut back on calories (and lose weight) when hungry.
To that I say bulloney. What kind of hunger? Too many people are precious about their hunger, especially the obese, and people like Taubes babying that notion annoy me to no end.
Obese people often have no idea what true hunger is, they've lost all sense of satiety signaling and act as if hunger is an emergency.
This is NOT something that needs to be catered to. It is bad, learned behavior which needs to be corrected and overcome. And it can be. - Those who eat low carb (not just restricted carb) tend to experience less hunger and are able to restrict calories with greater ease.
Depends what kind of hunger you're talking about. You're not accounting for hedonic hunger at all. There are plenty of fat people running around who could put away a ton of steak because it's just THAT good. And they won't stop because they're too full.
Now, maybe if you're younger and tall you could get away with that, but get a short older woman? Goodbye calorie deficit. [/b[ - A low fat diet beat a restricted carb diet in weight loss, over 6 whole days, by an average of a 110 gram loss in 19 healthy but overweight people.
Wasn't the point of the study. The length of the study was long enough to show what it set out to prove. - The low fat diet is deemed unsustainable because the FAO and UN believe 15% is the lower limit for fat intake.... Very low fat works well for 6 day crash diet and not in a long term diet for substantial weight loss.
Wasn't the point. The fat was that low so that protein levels could be kept constant between the two diets. The diet was never supposed to be a model for long-term use. - The study did not address the satiety of the subjects on the two diets. Was one group hungry? Both? Neither?
Wasn't the point. The point of the study was to, um, basically disprove Taubes theory. LOL. Sort of. Someone else can explain the study better than I can, I'm sure. - Anyone will lose some weight on a calorie restricted diet but is that sustainable over many months if the dieter is hungry, and therefore uncomfortable?
Taubes should, as a researcher, have understood the point of the study. There are two possibilities here. The study flew in the face of his pet theory. Now, I personally think he's a nutjob, but I'll be charitable here and just call this piece damage control. He's out in the media trying to spin this and outright making himself look like he can't interpret the study (because most people can't interpret studies, so who will know better?) to do some damage control.
JMO.
Have you read Taubes' books? He does bring up some interesting points.
Having read and listened to him, I would never spend a dime on anything that man wrote. I think he's a fraud.
0 - CICO does not always equal expected weight loss, especially when a diet is low in an essential nutrient (fat).
-
Just my interpretation of what he wrote.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions