Gary Taubes

fruttibiscotti

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.

I don't need to read his book to have an intelligent discussion on the matter, because all of the research is out there and available for anyone to read. The majority of the research contradicts his theory. He merely picked research that fit his theory, and cites it in his book for scientific cred. While this may fool the majority into thinking his theory is scientifically sound, the fact of the matter is, it is not. Here is a meta-analysis done in 2006 comparing low-carb vs low fat diets. Meta-analysis look at all of the available peer reviewed published scientific papers that meet the criteria of being able to be compared side by side (amongst other things).

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=409791

Note the results and conclusions sections.

Again, Taubes simply looks for research that fits his agenda, and ignores the rest. Cherry picking.

BTW, I found this by doing a simple Google search. No need to line Taubes pockets by buying his decidedly unscientific books. I give him props though for being a good bait and switch master. He can convince thousands to buy his books, but his methods cannot deliver.

I read both Good Calories Bad Calories, and Why We Get Fat. Didn't spend a dime. Didn't line anyone's pocket. Went to the local library and got the books there for free.

fruttibiscotti

BrainyBurro (smartass) the answer to your question is yes. I tracked my calories and exercised based on the calories in and calories out theory and got nowhere fast. For me being carbohydrate sensitive made eating even so called healthy carbs was a challenge. I was hungry and always craving food. My willpower no matter how strong at the get go would always get to a point of thinking if this is what it takes to be thin I would rather stay fat.

Eating healthy fats and keeping my carbs low changed everything. I no longer have blood sugar spikes causing cravings and hunger, I feel energetic and my mood is wonderful. I have no doubt for me this is the only solution to improved health. Diets don't work and you have to find a lifestyle that you can live with. I am sure there a some people that have been successful doing it a different way but that is the point. Just because something isn't effective for you as an individual does not mean it is not the exact right thing for someone else.

THIS!!! ^^ I have read his books and watched many of his lectures. Gary Taubes is a very intelligent man who did research on the subject of excess carbohydrate intake as an answer to the obesity epidemic. His research is extensive to say the least! I must add that I do not agree with every single thing that he talks about, but he is definitely on the right track.

This!
It is fantastic that you are open to new ideas and want to educate yourself.
You can find scientific data to back up just about any theory, thought etc.. now a days.:)

Continue to be open to new ideas and experiment till you find what works for you!

People say this all the time but it's simply not true. The more science we have, the more limited the set of possible theories.

By "limited" do you mean "close minded"? That's what I observe.

Sabine_Stroehm

Never read him. Don't really plan to. I have one work friend who swears by his books, but it seems a little out there and a fair bit of fear mongering. Again, that's just my opinion based on what my work friend says.

Acg67

Could you highlight the data that supports Taubes?

I am assuming this is directed at me?

Taubes recommends a high fat, low carb diet to combat diabetes and obesity and he discusses other factors such as why this is not going to increase risks of cardiovascular disease, the main argument often put against high fat diets.

Here is what I said before, in response to the comment that this meta analysis does not say what I think it says:

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.

---

So to summarize that, compared to a high carb, low fat, calorie restricted diet, the high fat, low carb, not calorie restricted diet showed:

- greater weight loss
- lower serum triglycerides (high serum triglycerides are strongly associated with heart disease)
- higher HDL (low HDL is a stronger measure of heart disease risk than cholesterol)

Now the parts that the authors warn against:

- higher LDL ('bad cholesterol')
Why this is not actually a bad thing: more recent research (after the publication of this article) discuss the different subgroups of LDL. It has been determined that high fat diets promote the production of a form of LDL not linked to atherosclerosis. High carbohydrate diets are linked to the production of a form that is highly linked to atherosclerosis.

- higher total cholesterol
This measure does not consider the different types of cholesterol (mainly, an increase in HLD only would cause an increase in total cholesterol and be considered negative, when that is actually a positive change). It also does not consider the subpopulations of LDL that I just mentioned.

---

This is an article that I also already shared but they discuss the different types of LDL.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205916

Does that answer the question?

Sorry that doesn't support Taubes hypothesis in GCBC or Why We Get Fat. Why does he recommend a low carb, high fat diet in those books? If you read the books, you'd know it was because of his belief in the books that carbs and carbs only have an impact on insulin. He managed to completely ignore the fact that protein is highly insulinogenic, also there is nary a mention of the role ASP can play in fat accumulation. In a word he did exactly what he chastised others for, he created a hypothesis, then cherry picked data to support it, ignoring everything that went against his hypothesis.

fruttibiscotti

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

Exactly this. Protein causes the same insulin spike effect that carbs do. Protein can be converted to glucose just like carbs. Yet Taubes completely ignores that entire biological fact in order to push his agenda and sell his books. His entire premise is that insulin causes fat gain, and without insulin, there's no fat gain. 2 problems with that. De novo lipogenesis is one of them. De novo lipogenesis allows the body to create and store fat without insulin. Then there's the protein is insulinogenic problem, as he claims that cutting carbs eliminates insulin response and solves all problems, except it really doesn't.

Are you talking about de novo lipogenesis in the circumstance if excess protein. Taubes does not stress eating high protein diet. He talks about eating high fat diet. In fact, he points out how counterproductive it is to eat the lean cuts (ie chicken breast) all the time and not the fatty parts. I think you are mixing a variety of issues up and creating a storyline just to throw the argument out.

Let me repeat.....high fat diet.

I will say it one more time.....high fat diet.

janesmith1

Every single one of these no-carb jerks are idiots.

Have you been to France, Paris in particular? People eat BREAD, great bread btw, every single day. It's amazing bread and guess what? They are thin as the thinnest Asians.

Italy - Sophia Loren said that her gorgeous body was due to PASTA. She was also pretty skinny most of her life too. PASTA people. PASTA.

I've been to Italy and Italians for the most part are THIN. Southern Italians too but there is NO STIGMA in Italy about what size you are. However most Italians are RAIL THIN. And they eat loads of CARBS.

Germans are thin too, RAIL THIN. They eat potatoes, loads of them, all the time, and bread, loads of it, and they are THIN.

neanderthin

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

Exactly this. Protein causes the same insulin spike effect that carbs do. Protein can be converted to glucose just like carbs. Yet Taubes completely ignores that entire biological fact in order to push his agenda and sell his books. His entire premise is that insulin causes fat gain, and without insulin, there's no fat gain. 2 problems with that. De novo lipogenesis is one of them. De novo lipogenesis allows the body to create and store fat without insulin. Then there's the protein is insulinogenic problem, as he claims that cutting carbs eliminates insulin response and solves all problems, except it really doesn't.

Are you talking about de novo lipogenesis in the circumstance if excess protein. Taubes does not stress eating high protein diet. He talks about eating high fat diet. In fact, he points out how counterproductive it is to eat the lean cuts (ie chicken breast) all the time and not the fatty parts. I think you are mixing a variety of issues up and creating a storyline just to throw the argument out.

Let me repeat.....high fat diet.

I will say it one more time.....high fat diet.

Thought I'd also mention that even though protein elicits an insulin response it doesn't actually increase blood sugar, unless there's carbs involved, but since were talking in vacuums, there is that difference.

fruttibiscotti

I'm very disturbed by the postings here. I've turned to a high fat moderate protein and low carb diet. Seems like it was the only thing that works for me. Not only has my weight dropped, but so many other health issues improved, like asthma gone, skin cleared, joints no longer hurt, stomach problems gone, etc. I waited a while to do the LCHF thing on myself before helping others in my family and circle of friends do it, and just I recently worked with my mother, a type 2 diabetic, and got her started on high fat moderate protein low carb diet too. Miraculously, in about 4 weeks we now have her down to one sixth of her medication. Her blood sugars have stabilized. Doctor is very happy and they are watching her improve. It makes me angry. I'm not a freaking doctor, and the information (which gets bashed such as in this forum) is available to all. Seriously. Do you guys realize the harm you are causing spreading confusion arguments just to "win" your side of the argument? People are harmed by the same old crap advice that has been fed to the public, like the SAD diet, mostly coming from political and financial camps. Let it go. Seriously.

Sabine_Stroehm

Every single one of these no-carb jerks are idiots.

Have you been to France, Paris in particular? People eat BREAD, great bread btw, every single day. It's amazing bread and guess what? They are thin as the thinnest Asians.

Italy - Sophia Loren said that her gorgeous body was due to PASTA. She was also pretty skinny most of her life too. PASTA people. PASTA.

I've been to Italy and Italians for the most part are THIN. Southern Italians too but there is NO STIGMA in Italy about what size you are. However most Italians are RAIL THIN. And they eat loads of CARBS.

Germans are thin too, RAIL THIN. They eat potatoes, loads of them, all the time, and bread, loads of it, and they are THIN.

I've spent quite a bit of time in France, and Italy. What struck me was how different the bread tasted and how small the portions were, and how small the pasta portions were. But yes, the French paradox is quite well known. It's apparently also changing as they transition more and more to our diets. Same with the asian communities known for being lean.

tigersword

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

Exactly this. Protein causes the same insulin spike effect that carbs do. Protein can be converted to glucose just like carbs. Yet Taubes completely ignores that entire biological fact in order to push his agenda and sell his books. His entire premise is that insulin causes fat gain, and without insulin, there's no fat gain. 2 problems with that. De novo lipogenesis is one of them. De novo lipogenesis allows the body to create and store fat without insulin. Then there's the protein is insulinogenic problem, as he claims that cutting carbs eliminates insulin response and solves all problems, except it really doesn't.

Are you talking about de novo lipogenesis in the circumstance if excess protein. Taubes does not stress eating high protein diet. He talks about eating high fat diet. In fact, he points out how counterproductive it is to eat the lean cuts (ie chicken breast) all the time and not the fatty parts. I think you are mixing a variety of issues up and creating a storyline just to throw the argument out.

Let me repeat.....high fat diet.

I will say it one more time.....high fat diet.

High fat diet? Even easier for the body to store as fat, as absolutely no conversions are necessary. Fatty acids can be stored directly in adipose tissue as they are. Over 80% of an adipose cell consists of fatty acids. That doesn't require insulin, either. Fat gain is caused by calorie surplus. Period.

Taubes is a pretty good tabloid journalist, but not a good objective scientist.

fruttibiscotti

Every single one of these no-carb jerks are idiots.

Have you been to France, Paris in particular? People eat BREAD, great bread btw, every single day. It's amazing bread and guess what? They are thin as the thinnest Asians.

Italy - Sophia Loren said that her gorgeous body was due to PASTA. She was also pretty skinny most of her life too. PASTA people. PASTA.

I've been to Italy and Italians for the most part are THIN. Southern Italians too but there is NO STIGMA in Italy about what size you are. However most Italians are RAIL THIN. And they eat loads of CARBS.

Germans are thin too, RAIL THIN. They eat potatoes, loads of them, all the time, and bread, loads of it, and they are THIN.

I have more frequent flier points than anyone I know...I don't even know what it's like to fly in coach class, it's all free business upgrade. My parents are European, I grew up in a European family. I've been to the European countries you mentioned numerous times (I lost count more than a decade ago) and I can tell you this. You....are....wrong!!!!! Many statements above are wrong. Have you read the latest European health report. The statistics are THERE in black and white, don't even have to travel.

janesmith1

My family is also European, and I was just there, last year. Were you? I spend a LOT of time in Europe. I also have family there right now. My husband is from there and when I met him he was....skinny as a rail. RAIL THIN is NORMAL in Europe, especially in those countries. When was the last time you were there? I go 2x per YEAR or MORE!

Oh and since you're humble bragging about flying biz class, honey we're always in business class when we fly. I am pretty sure you haven't been back in quite a long time.

BTW I googled and the European Health Report is from WHO. LOL. That is what they do btw, they talk about obesity in Europe. But as I said in the countries we go to all the time (btw, let me humble brag here, we have a family membership at the Louvre & at the D'Orsay, we are there that often), I can't vouch for any of the rest of the countries. I know about the UK, I visit there frequently too, but I did not mention them since they have a similar obesity epidemic like we do here in the USA.

I specifically mentioned Italy, France, and Germany. Period. You can't refute what I said, and you most likely haven't been there in several years.

BTW, I am not putting down what you believe works for you. YK if it works for you fine. It's not scientifically proven, it's a theory from crackpots, but if you believe in it, good for you.

FrauMama

Y'all are classic with your fighting about who travels more and what class you fly and whatnot.

I live in Germany and, yes, they do eat a lot of (very fresh) bread. And they walk EVERYWHERE. And most tend to be thin, though the thing that surprises me is how much juice and soda people here drink. It's insane.

Anyway, I've read almost everything Taubes has written (the books...might have missed an article or two, but I'm not sure). The first of his books I read made me question everything I'd ever thought (which was basically that LCHF was total, unhealthy BS) and reassess my approach to diet.

Although I've always been fairly lean, my health markers/blood work are improved by eating much fewer carbohydrates and MUCH more fat than I had previously. Ironically, when I was about 10% body fat with poor cholesterol levels/ratios, my doctor gave me a handout on upping my "heart healthy whole grains" (haha), cutting out fats, etc....exactly the eating (combined with genetics, sadly) that had gotten me to that point. Now, about 12 years and two kids later, I am still lean, but my insides are more in line with the outward appearance.

I don't think there is one answer for everyone. But it does behoove all of us to examine research with an open mind and perhaps question those things you feel are "fact". I used to give people SO much **** for doing the Atkins diet...it's embarrassing to remember.

ETA: Also, I'm very happy to read and consider opposing (or, those that don't mesh with my current opinions) viewpoints and literature. There is something to be learned from almost all of them.

msf74

]I've spent quite a bit of time in France, and Italy. What struck me was how different the bread tasted and how small the portions were, and how small the pasta portions were.

Ever been to a French "All You Can Eat" Buffet? No, me neither...

If the French are generally slimmer than people in the US and the UK I think it is because they have a better relationship with food, cooking and eating in general.

It's about the experience rather than over consumption for the sake of it.

NittyGrittyBritty

I would greatly appreciate someone linking me to a paper about how protein intake leads to fat storage. I have not been able to find one. Yes, protein causes insulin secretion but how the insulin affects movement of nutrients is going to depend on the nutrients present. Also, the general high carb diet sits at 60% carbs if not higher. Regardless of whether I was a vegetarian (which I was for a long time) or a virtual carnivore (now) my protein intake has sat roughly at 20-30%. I think that is about average. The insulin spikes that occur on a HFLC diet are almost assured to be less than a HCLF diet. If Taubes states that protein does not affect insulin, he is wrong on that count but to say that makes his entire theory irrelevant is an oversimplification.

Fat is stored as triglycerides, a molecule made of both fats and glycerin, a by product of carbohydrate metabolism. When not bound by glycerine, the free fatty acids are a readily consumed source of energy. Less carbs, less glycerine, less ability to store fat (plus more reason to burn it if there are fewer quick burn carbs available).

I am almost through GCBC, thanks to school I have little time for leisure reading and what I have taken away is mostly the discussion on cardiovascular health (and the Alzheimer's part. I am a neuroscientist so naturally it caught my attention). He does discuss more than insulin in the book! Apologies for any typos, I wrote this on my phone.

Edit: that might be glycerol... Not glycerine. It is late and I don't feel like brushing up on my biochemistry at the moment! Forgive me.

RhineDHP

So most of these posts went over my head. So here's a llama.


LLAMA BREAK TIME.

camtosh

bump

Acg67

I would greatly appreciate someone linking me to a paper about how protein intake leads to fat storage. I have not been able to find one. Yes, protein causes insulin secretion but how the insulin affects movement of nutrients is going to depend on the nutrients present. Also, the general high carb diet sits at 60% carbs if not higher. Regardless of whether I was a vegetarian (which I was for a long time) or a virtual carnivore (now) my protein intake has sat roughly at 20-30%. I think that is about average. The insulin spikes that occur on a HFLC diet are almost assured to be less than a HCLF diet. If Taubes states that protein does not affect insulin, he is wrong on that count but to say that makes his entire theory irrelevant is an oversimplification.

Fat is stored as triglycerides, a molecule made of both fats and glycerin, a by product of carbohydrate metabolism. When not bound by glycerine, the free fatty acids are a readily consumed source of energy. Less carbs, less glycerine, less ability to store fat (plus more reason to burn it if there are fewer quick burn carbs available).

I am almost through GCBC, thanks to school I have little time for leisure reading and what I have taken away is mostly the discussion on cardiovascular health (and the Alzheimer's part. I am a neuroscientist so naturally it caught my attention). He does discuss more than insulin in the book! Apologies for any typos, I wrote this on my phone.

Edit: that might be glycerol... Not glycerine. It is late and I don't feel like brushing up on my biochemistry at the moment! Forgive me.

Protein has calories, no?

As for the bolded

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/900730-fat-makes-you-fat-fatter

And you know that little section Taubes talks about the Pima and how evil carbs made them fat? Research not even once

RESULTS— We estimated that the traditional Pima diet, although seasonably variable, was ∼ 70–80% carbohydrate, 8–12% fat, and 12–18% protein.

CONCLUSIONS— The major composition change in the Pima Indian diet over the last century has been that the
high complex carbohydrate/high fiber foods have been replaced by high-fat modern foods. This change in the Pima
Indian diet parallels the increase in diabetes.

The Traditional Pima Indian Diet: Composition and adaptation for use in a dietary intervention study

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/16/1/369.full.pdf+html

NittyGrittyBritty

I would greatly appreciate someone linking me to a paper about how protein intake leads to fat storage. I have not been able to find one. Yes, protein causes insulin secretion but how the insulin affects movement of nutrients is going to depend on the nutrients present. Also, the general high carb diet sits at 60% carbs if not higher. Regardless of whether I was a vegetarian (which I was for a long time) or a virtual carnivore (now) my protein intake has sat roughly at 20-30%. I think that is about average. The insulin spikes that occur on a HFLC diet are almost assured to be less than a HCLF diet. If Taubes states that protein does not affect insulin, he is wrong on that count but to say that makes his entire theory irrelevant is an oversimplification.

Fat is stored as triglycerides, a molecule made of both fats and glycerin, a by product of carbohydrate metabolism. When not bound by glycerine, the free fatty acids are a readily consumed source of energy. Less carbs, less glycerine, less ability to store fat (plus more reason to burn it if there are fewer quick burn carbs available).

I am almost through GCBC, thanks to school I have little time for leisure reading and what I have taken away is mostly the discussion on cardiovascular health (and the Alzheimer's part. I am a neuroscientist so naturally it caught my attention). He does discuss more than insulin in the book! Apologies for any typos, I wrote this on my phone.

Edit: that might be glycerol... Not glycerine. It is late and I don't feel like brushing up on my biochemistry at the moment! Forgive me.

Protein has calories, no?

As for the bolded

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/900730-fat-makes-you-fat-fatter

And you know that little section Taubes talks about the Pima and how evil carbs made them fat? Research not even once

RESULTS— We estimated that the traditional Pima diet, although seasonably variable, was ∼ 70–80% carbohydrate, 8–12% fat, and 12–18% protein.

CONCLUSIONS— The major composition change in the Pima Indian diet over the last century has been that the
high complex carbohydrate/high fiber foods have been replaced by high-fat modern foods. This change in the Pima
Indian diet parallels the increase in diabetes.

The Traditional Pima Indian Diet: Composition and adaptation for use in a dietary intervention study

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/16/1/369.full.pdf+html

Ah yes, dietary studies on rats being extrapolated to humans. I love rats. In fact, as I type this I am waiting for an experiment to finish so I can take my own rats back to their homes, feed them, and go home myself. Rats do not make a good animal model for human dietary research. One of the reasons nutrition research is so difficult to conduct is that humans are really the only animal that eats like humans and we have too long of a lifespan to really see the effects of diet (on a large scale in a randomized controlled trial type of setting). This is why people use rats, but you can't make the claim that because fat makes rats fat, it makes people fat. For argument sake, let's say rats are a great model of human dietary needs. I work with a lady who uses high carb and low protein to induce metabolic problems and diabetes in rats. I have friends who feed mice high carb diets to induce diabetes.

Acg67

I would greatly appreciate someone linking me to a paper about how protein intake leads to fat storage. I have not been able to find one. Yes, protein causes insulin secretion but how the insulin affects movement of nutrients is going to depend on the nutrients present. Also, the general high carb diet sits at 60% carbs if not higher. Regardless of whether I was a vegetarian (which I was for a long time) or a virtual carnivore (now) my protein intake has sat roughly at 20-30%. I think that is about average. The insulin spikes that occur on a HFLC diet are almost assured to be less than a HCLF diet. If Taubes states that protein does not affect insulin, he is wrong on that count but to say that makes his entire theory irrelevant is an oversimplification.

Fat is stored as triglycerides, a molecule made of both fats and glycerin, a by product of carbohydrate metabolism. When not bound by glycerine, the free fatty acids are a readily consumed source of energy. Less carbs, less glycerine, less ability to store fat (plus more reason to burn it if there are fewer quick burn carbs available).

I am almost through GCBC, thanks to school I have little time for leisure reading and what I have taken away is mostly the discussion on cardiovascular health (and the Alzheimer's part. I am a neuroscientist so naturally it caught my attention). He does discuss more than insulin in the book! Apologies for any typos, I wrote this on my phone.

Edit: that might be glycerol... Not glycerine. It is late and I don't feel like brushing up on my biochemistry at the moment! Forgive me.

Protein has calories, no?

As for the bolded

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/900730-fat-makes-you-fat-fatter

And you know that little section Taubes talks about the Pima and how evil carbs made them fat? Research not even once

RESULTS— We estimated that the traditional Pima diet, although seasonably variable, was ∼ 70–80% carbohydrate, 8–12% fat, and 12–18% protein.

CONCLUSIONS— The major composition change in the Pima Indian diet over the last century has been that the
high complex carbohydrate/high fiber foods have been replaced by high-fat modern foods. This change in the Pima
Indian diet parallels the increase in diabetes.

The Traditional Pima Indian Diet: Composition and adaptation for use in a dietary intervention study

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/16/1/369.full.pdf+html

Ah yes, dietary studies on rats being extrapolated to humans. I love rats. In fact, as I type this I am waiting for an experiment to finish so I can take my own rats back to their homes, feed them, and go home myself. Rats do not make a good animal model for human dietary research. One of the reasons nutrition research is so difficult to conduct is that humans are really the only animal that eats like humans and we have too long of a lifespan to really see the effects of diet (on a large scale in a randomized controlled trial type of setting). This is why people use rats, but you can't make the claim that because fat makes rats fat, it makes people fat. For argument sake, let's say rats are a great model of human dietary needs. I work with a lady who uses high carb and low protein to induce metabolic problems and diabetes in rats. I have friends who feed mice high carb diets to induce diabetes.

Strong reading comprehension, maybe you should have read the whole post? And Taubes uses plenty of animal models in his books, rodents, bovine etc, so not really the best thing to use?