Gary Taubes

lisajsund

It actually stemmed from my original post about Gary Taubes.
While I still have more research to do, his theory makes biological sense.
While fat accumulation has a genetic component, I am learning to view food as medicine as a whole.

Exercise will make us fit, but proper nutrition will make us lean.

The argument comes from what is proper nutrition.

jonnythan

his theory makes biological sense.

Why do you think that? Because he said so?

TX_Rhon

In.

Scoot over........... I brought popcorn :drinker:

Holly_Roman_Empire

Wow OP, you're kind of all over the place.

From here it looks like you're just trying to bait people into arguing with you. :yawn:

ETA: Albeit, unsuccessfully, it seems.

lisajsund

his theory makes biological sense.

Why do you think that? Because he said so?

Because I have read his book, front to back, and have gone into it with no expectations.
And the 20+ pages of sources that he uses, historical and current, is pretty solid.

Have you read Why We Get Fat in its entirety?
If you have not, I don't understand why you think he's completely wrong.

jonnythan

his theory makes biological sense.

Why do you think that? Because he said so?

Because I have read his book, front to back, and have gone into it with no expectations.
And the 20+ pages of sources that he uses, historical and current, is pretty solid.

Have you read Why We Get Fat in its entirety?
If you have not, I don't understand why you think he's completely wrong.

OK, you read the book and apparently believed every word of it.

Have you looked up a professional/expert critique or response to his statements? Presumably you're not an expert in the material so you have little basis on which to critically examine the material and see if his conclusions and claims are valid. The intelligent person would read the book and then, before saying it makes sense, see what other experts have to say on the matter.

Have you done so?

JoRocka

"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)

Low carb diets are described as any diet where the macro-nutrient level of the intake for carbs is 20% or lower.

and of course low carb works- if you practically cut out an entire food group- magic 8 ball says- odds are good that you are going to lose weight. (at least initially)

tigersword

I've only read a few of his articles and hypothesis, but check this out:

Taubes has won the Science in Society Journalism Award of the National Association of Science Writers three times and was awarded an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellowship for 1996-97. He is a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation independent investigator in health policy.

Doesn't sound like a snake oil salesman to me. . . .

Taubes is a journalist before he's a scientist. He's very good at cherry picking, sensationalizing, and confirmation bias. He's not so good at actual objective researching. He's also been involved in ethical violations and controversies with his writing. It's part of the reason he had to stop writing about physics (his area of education) and started writing about food (something he's never actually studied formally.) His education is in physics and journalism, a long way from biology and nutrition.

tigersword

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 only recent changes to their dietary recommendations were to add in lower carb (40% carb) as an acceptable strategy for weight loss. They did not change their standard recommendations at all. 40% also isn't really that low, it would be about 200 grams per day for me.

tigersword

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.

False, the thermic effect of the various macronutrients is a very small variation. In fact, higher carb moderate protein, and moderate fat (50/20/30) actually has a higher TEF than low carb, slightly higher protein, and higher fat (15/30/55.)
Higher carb = 204 calores (based on a 2000 calorie intake)
Lower carb = 190 calories (based on a 2000 calorie intake)

As you can see, a large change in macronutrient composition led to a very small change in TEF, only 14 calories.

What you eat has pretty much no bearing on metabolic rate.

fruttibiscotti

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 only recent changes to their dietary recommendations were to add in lower carb (40% carb) as an acceptable strategy for weight loss. They did not change their standard recommendations at all. 40% also isn't really that low, it would be about 200 grams per day for me.

I don't think you have your facts straight, tiger. Here's a quote from Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU), where they discuss both moderate carb (<40%) and low carb (<20%), and advise the low carb for treating obesity! diabetes and improving triglycerides. 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.

You can download their entire report here, it is in Swedish, but if your Google translator is working properly, it will translate it for you...

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-vid-fetma-/

fruttibiscotti

his theory makes biological sense.

Why do you think that? Because he said so?

Because I have read his book, front to back, and have gone into it with no expectations.
And the 20+ pages of sources that he uses, historical and current, is pretty solid.

Have you read Why We Get Fat in its entirety?
If you have not, I don't understand why you think he's completely wrong.

OK, you read the book and apparently believed every word of it.

Have you looked up a professional/expert critique or response to his statements? Presumably you're not an expert in the material so you have little basis on which to critically examine the material and see if his conclusions and claims are valid. The intelligent person would read the book and then, before saying it makes sense, see what other experts have to say on the matter.

Have you done so?

So, you didn't read the book, but you did read opinions on the internet against the book, and side with the opinions. No, that doesn't sound bias at all. :laugh:

jonnythan

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 only recent changes to their dietary recommendations were to add in lower carb (40% carb) as an acceptable strategy for weight loss. They did not change their standard recommendations at all. 40% also isn't really that low, it would be about 200 grams per day for me.

I don't think you have your facts straight, tiger. Here's a quote from Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU), where they discuss both moderate carb (<40%) and low carb (<20%), and advise the low carb for treating obesity! diabetes and improving triglycerides. 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.

You can download their entire report here, it is in Swedish, but if your Google translator is working properly, it will translate it for you...

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-vid-fetma-/

Doesn't seem to contradict anything tigersword said.

Acg67

his theory makes biological sense.

Why do you think that? Because he said so?

Because I have read his book, front to back, and have gone into it with no expectations.
And the 20+ pages of sources that he uses, historical and current, is pretty solid.

Have you read Why We Get Fat in its entirety?
If you have not, I don't understand why you think he's completely wrong.

I've read both GCBC and Why we get fat, it's mostly fiction like the below

"If you restrict only carbohydra­tes, you can always eat more protein and fat if you feel the urge, since they have no effect on fat accumulati­on"

Location 2519 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat

"But protein and fat don't make us fat-only the carbohydra­tes do-so there is no reason to curtail them in any way"

Location 3064 Why We Get Fat

jonnythan

you didn't read the book, but you did read opinions on the internet against the book, and side with the opinions.

Incorrect. Not sure what makes you think this is the case.

tigersword

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 only recent changes to their dietary recommendations were to add in lower carb (40% carb) as an acceptable strategy for weight loss. They did not change their standard recommendations at all. 40% also isn't really that low, it would be about 200 grams per day for me.

I don't think you have your facts straight, tiger. Here's a quote from Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU), where they discuss both moderate carb (<40%) and low carb (<20%), and advise the low carb for treating obesity! diabetes and improving triglycerides. 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.

You can download their entire report here, it is in Swedish, but if your Google translator is working properly, it will translate it for you...

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-vid-fetma-/

And? I do believe I mentioned that the recommendations were for weight loss, which the part you quoted confirmed. Notice the bolded part. I have friends in Sweden, I'm fairly sure they know what they are talking about.

tedrickp

Id like to cage fight Gary Taubes.

Holly_Roman_Empire

his theory makes biological sense.

Why do you think that? Because he said so?

Because I have read his book, front to back, and have gone into it with no expectations.
And the 20+ pages of sources that he uses, historical and current, is pretty solid.

Have you read Why We Get Fat in its entirety?
If you have not, I don't understand why you think he's completely wrong.

OK, you read the book and apparently believed every word of it.

Have you looked up a professional/expert critique or response to his statements? Presumably you're not an expert in the material so you have little basis on which to critically examine the material and see if his conclusions and claims are valid. The intelligent person would read the book and then, before saying it makes sense, see what other experts have to say on the matter.

Have you done so?

So, you didn't read the book, but you did read opinions on the internet against the book, and side with the opinions. No, that doesn't sound bias at all. :laugh:

How did you derive that out of what he said? I didn't gather that at all.

LairdBishop

I'd like to see the scientific research it is based on. From what I have heard, it is zero.

Well, then you shouldn't rely on hearsay (wouldn't even be admissable in court) but oh, I don't know, maybe actually look into it?

The amount of research cited in Taube's book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is astounding and is much of the same research I have encountered from numerous other sources. As a matter of fact, I would say this is the major strength of Taube's book. While there are other books on real nutrition which I would sooner recommend as being more accessible and less dry, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is perhaps one of the most comprehensive books I have read as far as the volume of research presented as well as the history of how we have come to the nutritional paradigm which is most commonly espoused today (and which is destroying the health of those who follow it).

The fact is that much of the material presented by Taubes (and many more sources) run counter to what most people have been spoon fed about nutrition, and that makes him a target for those who would put up big, flashing signs to discredit him without offering any thoughtful counter-thesis, most of him who probably have never even given open-minded consideration to his material.

Remember, you can't disagree with what you don't understand or are not familiar with. You can only make derogatory and ill-founded statements in ignorance.

Read "Good Calories, Bad calories" and then we can have an intelligent discussion.

Acg67

I'd like to see the scientific research it is based on. From what I have heard, it is zero.

Well, then you shouldn't rely on hearsay (wouldn't even be admissable in court) but oh, I don't know, maybe actually look into it?

The amount of research cited in Taube's book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is astounding and is much of the same research I have encountered from numerous other sources. As a matter of fact, I would say this is the major strength of Taube's book. While there are other books on real nutrition which I would sooner recommend as being more accessible and less dry, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is perhaps one of the most comprehensive books I have read as far as the volume of research presented as well as the history of how we have come to the nutritional paradigm which is most commonly espoused today (and which is destroying the health of those who follow it).

The fact is that much of the material presented by Taubes (and many more sources) run counter to what most people have been spoon fed about nutrition, and that makes him a target for those who would put up big, flashing signs to discredit him without offering any thoughtful counter-thesis, most of him who probably have never even given open-minded consideration to his material.

Remember, you can't disagree with what you don't understand or are not familiar with. You can only make derogatory and ill-founded statements in ignorance.

Read "Good Calories, Bad calories" and then we can have an intelligent discussion.

Protein is highly insulinogenic, whoops there goes his whole hypothesis, and what about ASP is their even a mention of it in either book? Nope. Lol intelligent discussion