Gary Taubes
Options
Replies
-
I am currently reading the diet delusion by Gary Taubes, I am finding it an interesting read, as it shows how different diets fail and work with different people.
Like all work and studies he looks at, the all have to be tested to see if they work, in the same respect new things are being discovered, 50 years ago we never heard about leptin or ghrelin, who knows what else will be discovered in the next 20 years...0 -
I'm familiar with some of Taube's writing, well versed in research, and am working on a masters degree in physiology. I actually find most of Taubes' work to be based on very legitimate science, although, as with anything in science, you will be able to find a source that disagrees if you look hard enough. And as much as I hate to say it, people's blogs and forums (like this one) are not going to guarantee good information, even if they mean well. Something worth researching is Sweden's recent changes in dietary recommendations to be very similar to what Taube's recommends. This change was based on a massive review of 16000 scientific articles by some very credible dieticians.
Sweden's new dietary suggestions are lower carbs, but not 'low carb' per se. Once doesn't have to look very hard to find studies results that refute Taube's opinions.
Blogs and forums are fine for recommendations, as long as references to peer reviewed published studies are provided.
Actually the Swedish council (SBU) has stated the benefits of LOW carb diets for both obesity and diabetes.
Here's a quote: …"a greater increase in HDL cholesterol (“the good cholesterol”) without having any adverse affects on LDL cholesterol (“the bad cholesterol”). This applies to both the moderate low-carbohydrate intake of less than 40 percent of the total energy intake, as well as to the stricter low-carbohydrate diet, where carbohydrate intake is less than 20 percent of the total energy intake. In addition, the stricter low-carbohydrate diet will lead to improved glucose levels for individuals with obesity and diabetes, and to marginally decreased levels of triglycerides."
English translated version found here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-vid-fetma-/
Yes, the new Swedish recommendation suggests lowering carbs, with lower carb intake associated with greater health benefits. I have a few articles that I will post links to once my school gets its online library access up and running again (It seems they are updating the website over the winter break). And although I technically can't cite my own life experiences, I have met several people who have been struggling with weight for years, traditional low fat diets were not working (in the long term), and have finally had success following low carb.
Also, until recently I was completely against this LCHF idea until I really researched it.
Totally with you on this BLins. I too was a skeptic, and on a business trip to Scandanavia, I learned about the eating lifestyle that is taking the Scandinavian coutries by storm, and now even the government agencies, like the Swedish council SBU is recommending it as the right way of eating. When I came back home, I looked into it and took a leap to try it out. And thankfully it works so well. I have struggled for many years to lose weight, and nothing seemed to work. And I finally am now...yay! Those Scandinavian doctors and nutritionists rock!0 -
I have access finally! Here are some citations. I'm sorry the Great Fat Debate papers don't show an abstract and but if you are a university student (or know one) you should be able to get access through the school's online library.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/17341711
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/21515107
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/16476868. --> this is a meta-analysis, the highest level of evidence based medicine. It combines the results of many individual studies to look at the big picture.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/?term=meta-analysis+of+prospective+cohort+studies+evaluating+the+association+of+saturated+fat+with+cardiovascular+disease --> another meta-analysis!
And to Fruttibiscott, congratulations on your success!0 -
I have access finally! Here are some citations. I'm sorry the Great Fat Debate papers don't show an abstract and but if you are a university student (or know one) you should be able to get access through the school's online library.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/17341711
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/21515107
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/16476868. --> this is a meta-analysis, the highest level of evidence based medicine. It combines the results of many individual studies to look at the big picture.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/?term=meta-analysis+of+prospective+cohort+studies+evaluating+the+association+of+saturated+fat+with+cardiovascular+disease --> another meta-analysis!
And to Fruttibiscott, congratulations on your success!
If anyone wants to look at these, go to pubmed and type in the study number.
Here is the meta analysis. Which does not say what I think you think it does.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=164768680 -
I don't agree completely with everything he claims but I think he has got a lot more right about why we got fat then the conventional dietary guidelines have been spouting.
What many of you on here keep overlooking when spouting off about it all being about burning more then you consume. What you consume significantly effects how much you burn.
Well, I might be one of those 'spouting off' in your opinion, but I do know that what you consume does NOT (in fact) significantly effect how much you burn.
I'm curious, are you suggesting the thermic effect of food does not exist? Hint: it exists, and it increases when you eat more. Also, when you reduce food intake substantially you will have less energy. This may not be the case for someone who is overweight because they chronically overeat, but that is not why everyone is overweight. You can't apply that to average people who are simply looking to tone up, as calorie restriction is not conducive to building muscle. This is a time when the type of food you eat will have a greater effect on your results than the amount of food (again, of course if you are not chronically overeating what is appropriate for your body type and activity level).0 -
I have access finally! Here are some citations. I'm sorry the Great Fat Debate papers don't show an abstract and but if you are a university student (or know one) you should be able to get access through the school's online library.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/17341711
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/21515107
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/16476868. --> this is a meta-analysis, the highest level of evidence based medicine. It combines the results of many individual studies to look at the big picture.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/?term=meta-analysis+of+prospective+cohort+studies+evaluating+the+association+of+saturated+fat+with+cardiovascular+disease --> another meta-analysis!
And to Fruttibiscott, congratulations on your success!
If anyone wants to look at these, go to pubmed and type in the study number.
Here is the meta analysis. Which does not say what I think you think it does.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=16476868
Could you please elaborate?0 -
I don't agree completely with everything he claims but I think he has got a lot more right about why we got fat then the conventional dietary guidelines have been spouting.
What many of you on here keep overlooking when spouting off about it all being about burning more then you consume. What you consume significantly effects how much you burn.
Well, I might be one of those 'spouting off' in your opinion, but I do know that what you consume does NOT (in fact) significantly effect how much you burn.
I'm curious, are you suggesting the thermic effect of food does not exist? Hint: it exists, and it increases when you eat more. Also, when you reduce food intake substantially you will have less energy. This may not be the case for someone who is overweight because they chronically overeat, but that is not why everyone is overweight. You can't apply that to average people who are simply looking to tone up, as calorie restriction is not conducive to building muscle. This is a time when the type of food you eat will have a greater effect on your results than the amount of food (again, of course if you are not chronically overeating what is appropriate for your body type and activity level).
WHAT you consume, not how much. As in, if you eat more protein you use more calories to digest it. Which is not true. I don't need hints about metabolism, thanks, LOL.0 -
I have access finally! Here are some citations. I'm sorry the Great Fat Debate papers don't show an abstract and but if you are a university student (or know one) you should be able to get access through the school's online library.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/17341711
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/21515107
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/16476868. --> this is a meta-analysis, the highest level of evidence based medicine. It combines the results of many individual studies to look at the big picture.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/?term=meta-analysis+of+prospective+cohort+studies+evaluating+the+association+of+saturated+fat+with+cardiovascular+disease --> another meta-analysis!
And to Fruttibiscott, congratulations on your success!
If anyone wants to look at these, go to pubmed and type in the study number.
Here is the meta analysis. Which does not say what I think you think it does.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=16476868
Could you please elaborate?
They found low carb at LEAST as effective as calorie restriction. And cautioned about possible unfavorable effects.
______________________________
CONCLUSIONS:
Low-carbohydrate, non-energy-restricted diets appear to be at least as effective as low-fat, energy-restricted diets in inducing weight loss for up to 1 year. However, potential favorable changes in triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values should be weighed against potential unfavorable changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values when low-carbohydrate diets to induce weight loss are considered.
______________________________
Also a note: This meta was done 7 years ago, so it does not include the most recent research. Which goes on to show even more prove that LC is not superior in terms of dietary adherence (the key to long term success), nor to total weight loss, nor to health benefits.0 -
"You don't get fat because you eat too much, you eat too much because you are fat."
um.. right there.. wrong.. I don't need to read anymore.,,. you have to over eat to get fat initially.. AND I was obese and under eating. so poo on him.
Also.. i always ask.. where is the low carb threshold set at? under 100?? under 50? Am I low carb? (not intentionally I assure you!! LOL)0 -
I don't agree completely with everything he claims but I think he has got a lot more right about why we got fat then the conventional dietary guidelines have been spouting.
What many of you on here keep overlooking when spouting off about it all being about burning more then you consume. What you consume significantly effects how much you burn.
Well, I might be one of those 'spouting off' in your opinion, but I do know that what you consume does NOT (in fact) significantly effect how much you burn.
I'm curious, are you suggesting the thermic effect of food does not exist? Hint: it exists, and it increases when you eat more. Also, when you reduce food intake substantially you will have less energy. This may not be the case for someone who is overweight because they chronically overeat, but that is not why everyone is overweight. You can't apply that to average people who are simply looking to tone up, as calorie restriction is not conducive to building muscle. This is a time when the type of food you eat will have a greater effect on your results than the amount of food (again, of course if you are not chronically overeating what is appropriate for your body type and activity level).
WHAT you consume, not how much. As in, if you eat more protein you use more calories to digest it. Which is not true. I don't need hints about metabolism, thanks, LOL.
I am not sure why you think that is not true. If you don't need hints about metabolism you should know that it is process requiring energy. Glycolysis alone requires 8 APT I believe? More glucose intake = more glucose to break down = more ATP required. If you actually find something I said incorrect I would appreciate an explanation, not a thanks LOL.0 -
That will forever be debatable./....personally a lower carb diet shows improved health markers and when LDL subfractions are taken into account can actually be less atherogenic. Of course debating with a carb rich environment will always be a hard row to hoe, always.I have access finally! Here are some citations. I'm sorry the Great Fat Debate papers don't show an abstract and but if you are a university student (or know one) you should be able to get access through the school's online library.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/17341711
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/21515107
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/16476868. --> this is a meta-analysis, the highest level of evidence based medicine. It combines the results of many individual studies to look at the big picture.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/?term=meta-analysis+of+prospective+cohort+studies+evaluating+the+association+of+saturated+fat+with+cardiovascular+disease --> another meta-analysis!
And to Fruttibiscott, congratulations on your success!
If anyone wants to look at these, go to pubmed and type in the study number.
Here is the meta analysis. Which does not say what I think you think it does.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=16476868
Could you please elaborate?
They found low carb at LEAST as effective as calorie restriction. And cautioned about possible unfavorable effects.
______________________________
CONCLUSIONS:
Low-carbohydrate, non-energy-restricted diets appear to be at least as effective as low-fat, energy-restricted diets in inducing weight loss for up to 1 year. However, potential favorable changes in triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values should be weighed against potential unfavorable changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values when low-carbohydrate diets to induce weight loss are considered.
______________________________
Also a note: This meta was done 7 years ago, so it does not include the most recent research. Which goes on to show even more prove that LC is not superior in terms of dietary adherence (the key to long term success), nor to total weight loss, nor to health benefits.0 -
I don't agree completely with everything he claims but I think he has got a lot more right about why we got fat then the conventional dietary guidelines have been spouting.
What many of you on here keep overlooking when spouting off about it all being about burning more then you consume. What you consume significantly effects how much you burn.
Well, I might be one of those 'spouting off' in your opinion, but I do know that what you consume does NOT (in fact) significantly effect how much you burn.
I'm curious, are you suggesting the thermic effect of food does not exist? Hint: it exists, and it increases when you eat more. Also, when you reduce food intake substantially you will have less energy. This may not be the case for someone who is overweight because they chronically overeat, but that is not why everyone is overweight. You can't apply that to average people who are simply looking to tone up, as calorie restriction is not conducive to building muscle. This is a time when the type of food you eat will have a greater effect on your results than the amount of food (again, of course if you are not chronically overeating what is appropriate for your body type and activity level).
WHAT you consume, not how much. As in, if you eat more protein you use more calories to digest it. Which is not true. I don't need hints about metabolism, thanks, LOL.
I am not sure why you think that is not true. If you don't need hints about metabolism you should know that it is process requiring energy. Glycolysis alone requires 8 APT I believe? More glucose intake = more glucose to break down = more ATP required. If you actually find something I said incorrect I would appreciate an explanation, not a thanks LOL.
Of course it requires energy to process. Please show me where I said that it didn't.
I'm sorry, but your reading comprehension is so poor, I feel I have done all I can do here, with you, anyway. Good luck with school.0 -
I have access finally! Here are some citations. I'm sorry the Great Fat Debate papers don't show an abstract and but if you are a university student (or know one) you should be able to get access through the school's online library.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/17341711
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/21515107
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/16476868. --> this is a meta-analysis, the highest level of evidence based medicine. It combines the results of many individual studies to look at the big picture.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/?term=meta-analysis+of+prospective+cohort+studies+evaluating+the+association+of+saturated+fat+with+cardiovascular+disease --> another meta-analysis!
And to Fruttibiscott, congratulations on your success!
If anyone wants to look at these, go to pubmed and type in the study number.
Here is the meta analysis. Which does not say what I think you think it does.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=16476868
Could you please elaborate?
They found low carb at LEAST as effective as calorie restriction. And cautioned about possible unfavorable effects.
______________________________
CONCLUSIONS:
Low-carbohydrate, non-energy-restricted diets appear to be at least as effective as low-fat, energy-restricted diets in inducing weight loss for up to 1 year. However, potential favorable changes in triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values should be weighed against potential unfavorable changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values when low-carbohydrate diets to induce weight loss are considered.
______________________________
Also a note: This meta was done 7 years ago, so it does not include the most recent research. Which goes on to show even more prove that LC is not superior in terms of dietary adherence (the key to long term success), nor to total weight loss, nor to health benefits.
Yes, the study was cautious in going against the current national dietary recommendations however, they looked at weight loss, blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL, HLD, and triglyceride levels. Of these 6 measures of cardiovascular health, 4 improved on a high fat diet (weight, blood pressure, HLD, triglycerides). As for the measures that increased unfavourably with the high fat diet: LDL increased because saturated fat intake increased, however it is the ratio of HDL to LDL that is more predictive of heart disease than LDL levels alone, and so as the LDL increase was accompanied by an increase in HDL (if you look at individual studies the HDL increase is greater than the LDL increase) it is likely not increasing CVD risk. Total cholesterol increased because both HLD and LDL increased.
Also, high triglycerides are a better predictor of CVD risk than cholesterol, and triglycerides decrease on the high fat diet.
Another consideration with the increased LDL being considered a problem: LDL exists in multiple forms and not all are equally dangerous. There are small dense LDL (strongly related to CVD) and larger, lighter LDL particles which are actually beneficial. I believe one of the studies I already shared (the A to Z one) discusses how the large LDL is increased in a high fat diet whereas a high carb diet promotes the small dense (bad) LDL.
So yes, in the brief conclusions in the abstract the researchers are cautious in their recommendations but if you have a knowledge of the current literature and look at the data, it supports the high fat, low carb diet as beneficial. Yes, this study is 7 years old but the data is sound and stronger than any single randomized controlled trial. If you can find a newer comprehensive meta-analysis I would be very interested in reading it.0 -
I don't agree completely with everything he claims but I think he has got a lot more right about why we got fat then the conventional dietary guidelines have been spouting.
What many of you on here keep overlooking when spouting off about it all being about burning more then you consume. What you consume significantly effects how much you burn.
Well, I might be one of those 'spouting off' in your opinion, but I do know that what you consume does NOT (in fact) significantly effect how much you burn.
I'm curious, are you suggesting the thermic effect of food does not exist? Hint: it exists, and it increases when you eat more. Also, when you reduce food intake substantially you will have less energy. This may not be the case for someone who is overweight because they chronically overeat, but that is not why everyone is overweight. You can't apply that to average people who are simply looking to tone up, as calorie restriction is not conducive to building muscle. This is a time when the type of food you eat will have a greater effect on your results than the amount of food (again, of course if you are not chronically overeating what is appropriate for your body type and activity level).
WHAT you consume, not how much. As in, if you eat more protein you use more calories to digest it. Which is not true. I don't need hints about metabolism, thanks, LOL.
I am not sure why you think that is not true. If you don't need hints about metabolism you should know that it is process requiring energy. Glycolysis alone requires 8 APT I believe? More glucose intake = more glucose to break down = more ATP required. If you actually find something I said incorrect I would appreciate an explanation, not a thanks LOL.
Of course it requires energy to process. Please show me where I said that it didn't.
I'm sorry, but your reading comprehension is so poor, I feel I have done all I can do here, with you, anyway. Good luck with school.
You said that what you eat does not effect what you burn, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I scored well above average on the reading comprehension section of the MCAT so perhaps it's your writing that's hard to comprehend.0 -
I don't agree completely with everything he claims but I think he has got a lot more right about why we got fat then the conventional dietary guidelines have been spouting.
What many of you on here keep overlooking when spouting off about it all being about burning more then you consume. What you consume significantly effects how much you burn.
Well, I might be one of those 'spouting off' in your opinion, but I do know that what you consume does NOT (in fact) significantly effect how much you burn.
I'm curious, are you suggesting the thermic effect of food does not exist? Hint: it exists, and it increases when you eat more. Also, when you reduce food intake substantially you will have less energy. This may not be the case for someone who is overweight because they chronically overeat, but that is not why everyone is overweight. You can't apply that to average people who are simply looking to tone up, as calorie restriction is not conducive to building muscle. This is a time when the type of food you eat will have a greater effect on your results than the amount of food (again, of course if you are not chronically overeating what is appropriate for your body type and activity level).
WHAT you consume, not how much. As in, if you eat more protein you use more calories to digest it. Which is not true. I don't need hints about metabolism, thanks, LOL.
I am not sure why you think that is not true. If you don't need hints about metabolism you should know that it is process requiring energy. Glycolysis alone requires 8 APT I believe? More glucose intake = more glucose to break down = more ATP required. If you actually find something I said incorrect I would appreciate an explanation, not a thanks LOL.
Of course it requires energy to process. Please show me where I said that it didn't.
I'm sorry, but your reading comprehension is so poor, I feel I have done all I can do here, with you, anyway. Good luck with school.
You said that what you eat does not effect what you burn, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I scored well above average on the reading comprehension section of the MCAT so perhaps it's your writing that's hard to comprehend.
Yes, and you needed to read the post I was respond ing to (within the quotes) rather than just my response to it, for the proper context. In the future you will find that will save you from posting lengthy lectures that have no relevance.0 -
In to find later for knowledge and entertainment.
0 -
So, how many of you would say that you are clean eaters, or maybe even adhere to the Paleo diet?0
-
So, how many of you would say that you are clean eaters, or maybe even adhere to the Paleo diet?
"Clean" eating and paleo are unnecessary complications. There are no benefits to entering a restrictive diet plan and they only serve to distract you from the things that really matter.
There are enough things to worry about you don't need to worry about that kind of BS as well.0 -
So, there is no genetic component, whatsoever, that controls fat regulation?
And, do you see food as medicine?0 -
So, there is no genetic component, whatsoever, that controls fat regulation?
And, do you see food as medicine?
I have no idea how you jumped to these questions from your previous one.
I thought you were looking for advice, so I gave you advice. Now it seems you're looking for someone to practice clean eating arguments with. I'm not interested right now. Maybe later.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions