LOLTaubes in the NYT
Options
Replies
-
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
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »[*] 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.
To add to this... did he say that? Because that extra loss wasn't fat. It was water weight from glycogen depletion and even a small amount of LBM loss (which btw. didn't happen in the low fat groupt).
0 -
I'm confused. I understood that participants in the MSE lost 25%of bodyweight, so where does 15 pounds come from?0
-
Just my interpretation of what he wrote.
Or showing your lack of knowledge of simple things.
"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."
^ LOL-1 -
You'll have to explain why you LOL at my lack of knowledge of simple things. Most young men do not eat between 2100 to 2600 calories per day? What?
I guess I must need a lesson on how CO slows as weight is lost so weight loss often slows. Okay, go.0 -
sheldonklein wrote: »I'm confused. I understood that participants in the MSE lost 25%of bodyweight, so where does 15 pounds come from?
It came from Taubes:
"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."0 -
You'll have to explain why you LOL at my lack of knowledge of simple things. Most young men do not eat between 2100 to 2600 calories per day? What?
I guess I must need a lesson on how CO slows as weight is lost so weight loss often slows. Okay, go.
It's a continuing trend. But since you seem to want to learn and need a nudge in applying simple logic, what variables might affect calories out, then did any of those variables change throughout the experiment? We'll start with baby steps
As for adaptive thermogenesis, I already gave you the name, you're more than able to do some research on it.
-1 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »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".
Not really, you just said you "had room for more". That isn't remotely connected to being hungry. I think I ate 250 calories for breakfast, possibly less. That was 2 hours ago. I could have eaten more. I'm not hungry.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25402637 "Thus, the clinical benefit of a ketogenic diet is in preventing an increase in appetite, despite weight loss, although individuals may indeed feel slightly less hungry (or more full or satisfied). Ketosis appears to provide a plausible explanation for this suppression of appetite."0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 971 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions