Carbs & Sugars :(
Options
Replies
-
Excess weight lost in a low carb diet in the short term is due to water loss. A single carb carries 3-5g water, so naturally a low carb diet results in quicker weight loss, but not quicker FAT loss. Any additional weight lost was nothing more than water, which comes right back on upon assuming a more "normal" level of carbs again.I noticed there are lot of posts on this topic didnt get to read them all... But from my experience I had problems goin over my sugars from eating fruit, like grapes...a friend of mine suggesting eating fruits like berries which are much lower in sugar aslo increase you fiber intake which helps reduce your carb intake (carb intake -fiber intake= net carbs) ...Flat breads and sandwhich things are low in carbs... 97% free butter popcorn is actully high in fiber too! When I made those changes I noticed more weight loss
Any additional fat you lost came from a reduction in calories rather than a reduction in carbs assuming you are not insulin resistant.
I noticed that you often quote the site http://www.bodyrecomposition.com by Lyle McDonald to prove you're statements. Here is what Lyle has to say regarding low carb dieting...
"And the commonality in all of those conditions is not the presence or absence of dietary fat (diets 1 and 3 have little or no dietary fat, diet 2 has quite a bit). Rather, it’s the lack of dietary carbohydrates. Which, based on what we know about how the body determines fuel usage makes sense. As I discussed in the linked articles above, when you eat more carbs, you burn more carbs (and less fat); eat fewer carbs and you burn fewer carbs (and more fat). Which means that in all three conditions above it’s the absence of dietary carbohydrates driving the increase in fat burning, not the presence of dietary fat.
Which isn’t to say that increasing dietary fat intake under some conditions can’t have benefits (such as increased fullness, food enjoyment or flexibility, limiting the daily deficit to moderate levels if that’s the goal, etc.) which are discussed in other articles on the site (I’d suggest the Comparing the Diets series for an overview of different dietary approaches). It’s simply that increasing fat burning per se simply isn’t one of them; rather, that’s accomplished by reducing carbohydrates and total caloric intake."
This appears to completely contradict what you just said. How do you explain this?0 -
The correlations you are referring to - you can't draw up cause/effect from them. You can't say the diet is causing the lack of health, because for all you know they could simply be genetically predisposed due to previous generations. Look no further than the grandchildren of the generation that endured the Great Depression when famine and starvation was everywhere. There was a major increase in diabetes (and I'd imagine insulin resistance, though I don't know how well understood that was back then) for those grand children. It's no surprise to me that populations in countries that have been famished for generations upon generations experience abnormally high rates of insulin resistance. To say it's the refined carbs that cause that, however, is not a proper approach.
You're wrong. Taubes has page after page of citing in "Good Calories, Bad Calories". He is an award winning science writer, not a researcher. Therefore, he is using cause/effect to bring up questions that need to be answered. He isn't claiming it is a replacement for research. He goes through all of your concerns in both books. Maybe you should actually read them if you're going to be so outspokenly against them?I feel you may have some potential misinterpretations about insulin (not saying that to pick on you). Consider reading the following, which is an article based on the peer-reviewed, empirical research surrounding insulin: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
Respectfully, I don't think I do have misinterpretations about insulin. I think that this topic is not well understood and I don't claim expertise. I actually met a diabetes researcher last night who is studying the effects of insulin on epithelial cells. It was a really interesting conversation and what I got from it most of all is that scientists are still struggling to really understand what insulin does throughout the body.Too many calories isn't the only piece of the puzzle - but it is the NECESSARY piece of the puzzle. A hypercaloric diet with excess carbs will be different than one that has excess dietary fat. The thing is, and this is most important, is that for either one of these diets to have a negative impact, it MUST be hypercaloric UNLESS you have a clinical condition to begin with that somehow removes the necessity for a hypercaloric diet.
I never told people who are insulin resistant that calories are calories, in fact I think I've made it perfectly clear that my stance regarding a diet is not applicable to those with clinical conditions such as insulin resistance.
What you're saying just isn't true. You don't need to have a condition for insulin to be a concern. I guess we have to agree to disagree.
I'll leave you with this:
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
The graphic showing the growing numbers of obese Americans (that's obese not overweight) is startling. It isn't due to growing increases in caloric intake and chronic lazyness. It's due to the way we are eating, which is different from the way any humans have ever eaten. Not to go all conspiracy-theorist, but Michael Pollen's excellent book "Omnivore's Dilemma" tracks the history of replacing real food with processed food in this country, how our laws have changed and how it is directly tied to our surplus production of grains, specifically corn. I really can't recommend this book enough.
I think if you grow up eating whole foods, including carbs, then you will probably be fine. But for those of us who grew up in the 70s and beyond, we have been on a steady diet of refined, processed carbs with higher calories and the obesity epidemic is the result.0 -
I think there's some misunderstanding on basic physiology regarding nutrition. Here's a basic understanding of what our bodies would do if we ate a diet SOLELY in a single macronutrient. Let's assume that these are hypocaloric diets (a caloric deficit), so weight loss is the end goal - the person's maintenance is 2,500 calories, so they are eating 2,000 calories for a 500 calorie deficit:
Excess weight lost in a low carb diet in the short term is due to water loss. A single carb carries 3-5g water, so naturally a low carb diet results in quicker weight loss, but not quicker FAT loss. Any additional weight lost was nothing more than water, which comes right back on upon assuming a more "normal" level of carbs again.I noticed there are lot of posts on this topic didnt get to read them all... But from my experience I had problems goin over my sugars from eating fruit, like grapes...a friend of mine suggesting eating fruits like berries which are much lower in sugar aslo increase you fiber intake which helps reduce your carb intake (carb intake -fiber intake= net carbs) ...Flat breads and sandwhich things are low in carbs... 97% free butter popcorn is actully high in fiber too! When I made those changes I noticed more weight loss
Any additional fat you lost came from a reduction in calories rather than a reduction in carbs assuming you are not insulin resistant.
I noticed that you often quote the site http://www.bodyrecomposition.com by Lyle McDonald to prove you're statements. Here is what Lyle has to say regarding low carb dieting...
"And the commonality in all of those conditions is not the presence or absence of dietary fat (diets 1 and 3 have little or no dietary fat, diet 2 has quite a bit). Rather, it’s the lack of dietary carbohydrates. Which, based on what we know about how the body determines fuel usage makes sense. As I discussed in the linked articles above, when you eat more carbs, you burn more carbs (and less fat); eat fewer carbs and you burn fewer carbs (and more fat). Which means that in all three conditions above it’s the absence of dietary carbohydrates driving the increase in fat burning, not the presence of dietary fat.
Which isn’t to say that increasing dietary fat intake under some conditions can’t have benefits (such as increased fullness, food enjoyment or flexibility, limiting the daily deficit to moderate levels if that’s the goal, etc.) which are discussed in other articles on the site (I’d suggest the Comparing the Diets series for an overview of different dietary approaches). It’s simply that increasing fat burning per se simply isn’t one of them; rather, that’s accomplished by reducing carbohydrates and total caloric intake."
Granted, he is talking specifically about fat loss here and not overall weight loss. I know you have said you are only talking about weight loss but the OP did say they were interested in dropping pounds AND toning up. I'm sure the majority of us, when we say we want to lose weight are talking about fat, so this is relevant.
-Diet in pure carbs = less instances of fat gain throughout the day as carbs are stored as glycogen = less direct fat burn as the body has to burn through the dietary carbs first. Eat 2,000 calories of carbs, burn those 2,000 calories of carbs over the course of the day, THEN fat burn will occur as your body has no more glucose to use as energy, which will result in 500 calories from stored fat being used as energy.
-Diet in pure protein = very similar to carbs except for amino acids rather than glucose/fructose/etc.
-Diet in pure dietary fat = more instances of fat gain throughout the day as dietary fat is stored as body fat = more fat burn as the body has no dietary glucose/amino acids to burn. Eat 2,000 calories in fat, store 2,000 calories in fat, burn those 2,000 calories in fat throughout the day, compensate the additional 500 calories from stored fat as you are under maintenance.
In all instances, regardless of the macronutrient composition, the body will still burn 500 calories of previously stored body fat throughout the day.
Lyle talks about this, actually. I'll try and find the link as he can explain it better than I. Give me some time to peruse the site.0 -
Furthermore, not only are carbs protein sparring, the brains much preferred fuel is glucose. If you enjoy brain fog and fatigue to lose weight, by all means go for it.After 1.5 years of eating under 100g daily I haven't had that yet, but I'll sure let you know when I do.Thanks, but I actually have to use my mind. Good luck w/that. BTW - emaciated isn't hot.
First you call her stupid, then you call her unattractive. You're really bringing the tone of the conversation up, aren't you? Is this childish attitude a result of a problem in YOUR diet? I think you need more sugar.0 -
Among all of this, can you show me a single shred of evidence that says people who watch calories, moderate macronutrients, and lead a remotely active lifestyle (or don't, even, so long as they maintain a healthy level of calories) have to worry about insulin outside of those who are insulin resistant?The correlations you are referring to - you can't draw up cause/effect from them. You can't say the diet is causing the lack of health, because for all you know they could simply be genetically predisposed due to previous generations. Look no further than the grandchildren of the generation that endured the Great Depression when famine and starvation was everywhere. There was a major increase in diabetes (and I'd imagine insulin resistance, though I don't know how well understood that was back then) for those grand children. It's no surprise to me that populations in countries that have been famished for generations upon generations experience abnormally high rates of insulin resistance. To say it's the refined carbs that cause that, however, is not a proper approach.
You're wrong. Taubes has page after page of citing in "Good Calories, Bad Calories". He is an award winning science writer, not a researcher. Therefore, he is using cause/effect to bring up questions that need to be answered. He isn't claiming it is a replacement for research. He goes through all of your concerns in both books. Maybe you should actually read them if you're going to be so outspokenly against them?I feel you may have some potential misinterpretations about insulin (not saying that to pick on you). Consider reading the following, which is an article based on the peer-reviewed, empirical research surrounding insulin: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
Respectfully, I don't think I do have misinterpretations about insulin. I think that this topic is not well understood and I don't claim expertise. I actually met a diabetes researcher last night who is studying the effects of insulin on epithelial cells. It was a really interesting conversation and what I got from it most of all is that scientists are still struggling to really understand what insulin does throughout the body.Too many calories isn't the only piece of the puzzle - but it is the NECESSARY piece of the puzzle. A hypercaloric diet with excess carbs will be different than one that has excess dietary fat. The thing is, and this is most important, is that for either one of these diets to have a negative impact, it MUST be hypercaloric UNLESS you have a clinical condition to begin with that somehow removes the necessity for a hypercaloric diet.
I never told people who are insulin resistant that calories are calories, in fact I think I've made it perfectly clear that my stance regarding a diet is not applicable to those with clinical conditions such as insulin resistance.
What you're saying just isn't true. You don't need to have a condition for insulin to be a concern. I guess we have to agree to disagree.
I'll leave you with this:
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
The graphic showing the growing numbers of obese Americans (that's obese not overweight) is startling. It isn't due to growing increases in caloric intake and chronic lazyness. It's due to the way we are eating, which is different from the way any humans have ever eaten. Not to go all conspiracy-theorist, but Michael Pollen's excellent book "Omnivore's Dilemma" tracks the history of replacing real food with processed food in this country, how our laws have changed and how it is directly tied to our surplus production of grains, specifically corn. I really can't recommend this book enough.
I think if you grow up eating whole foods, including carbs, then you will probably be fine. But for those of us who grew up in the 70s and beyond, we have been on a steady diet of refined, processed carbs with higher calories and the obesity epidemic is the result.
That is the information that we need to see. That is the information that research has not been able to supply, but the opposing side (which I stand for) has plenty of information saying non-chronic levels of insulin really mean nothing in the broad scheme of things. The link I provided is a support to that idea.
I don't need to read a book. Just cite me a study. If they exist, it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes.0 -
Chuck -
Here's a link to what I was referring to. It's a 4 part series, so whenever you have time. Although I can paraphrase one thing he says:
"I’ll say it again, for the slow of reading: none of the three diets described in this book is the ‘best’ across the board. Not high-carb, not moderate carb, not low-carb (so please quit calling me the keto guru). Put differently, I am absolutely NOT an advocate of a given dietary approach except inasmuch as it meets the needs of the individual. I’ll rant about this one last time in the next chapter."
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/comparing-the-diets-part-1.html0 -
Oh come on, we all know all dietary studies are total crap unless they house, feed, and monitor the people themselves - which NO ONE does. People underestimate calories, over estimate exercise, and just plain lie. They drop out of diets, cheat on diets, and so on. Taubes cites studies that have been done on rats in which they were controlled in all aspects - the results were interesting but I have worked with rats enough in my own studies to know that rats aren't the same thing as people. Interesting none the less as we are both omnivores.
Reading a book takes longer than 5 minutes, but I really think it's worth it and the subject is important enough to spend your time on. I would recommend Omnivore's Dilema over Taubes, even though it's not a book about dieting or really about carbs specifically, more about the revolution are food has gone through since the 50s. That and Wendel Berry's essays on the loss of agrarian society. Yeah, I know this seemingly has nothing to do with insulin and sugar, but it's all tied together and I am a food geek.0 -
Chuck -
Here's a link to what I was referring to. It's a 4 part series, so whenever you have time. Although I can paraphrase one thing he says:
"I’ll say it again, for the slow of reading: none of the three diets described in this book is the ‘best’ across the board. Not high-carb, not moderate carb, not low-carb (so please quit calling me the keto guru). Put differently, I am absolutely NOT an advocate of a given dietary approach except inasmuch as it meets the needs of the individual. I’ll rant about this one last time in the next chapter."
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/comparing-the-diets-part-1.html
Bookmarked. I am always in constant search of this....since one of the rebuttles is "Lyle clearly thinks that a low CHO is superior".
I will say that for someone that doesn't completely understand the way the body oxidizes nutrients, his statements can be taken in the sense that he believes that low carb has metabolic advantages.
Reps for link.
Waitwut?0 -
I think there's some misunderstanding on basic physiology regarding nutrition. Here's a basic understanding of what our bodies would do if we ate a diet SOLELY in a single macronutrient. Let's assume that these are hypocaloric diets (a caloric deficit), so weight loss is the end goal - the person's maintenance is 2,500 calories, so they are eating 2,000 calories for a 500 calorie deficit:
Excess weight lost in a low carb diet in the short term is due to water loss. A single carb carries 3-5g water, so naturally a low carb diet results in quicker weight loss, but not quicker FAT loss. Any additional weight lost was nothing more than water, which comes right back on upon assuming a more "normal" level of carbs again.I noticed there are lot of posts on this topic didnt get to read them all... But from my experience I had problems goin over my sugars from eating fruit, like grapes...a friend of mine suggesting eating fruits like berries which are much lower in sugar aslo increase you fiber intake which helps reduce your carb intake (carb intake -fiber intake= net carbs) ...Flat breads and sandwhich things are low in carbs... 97% free butter popcorn is actully high in fiber too! When I made those changes I noticed more weight loss
Any additional fat you lost came from a reduction in calories rather than a reduction in carbs assuming you are not insulin resistant.
I noticed that you often quote the site http://www.bodyrecomposition.com by Lyle McDonald to prove you're statements. Here is what Lyle has to say regarding low carb dieting...
"And the commonality in all of those conditions is not the presence or absence of dietary fat (diets 1 and 3 have little or no dietary fat, diet 2 has quite a bit). Rather, it’s the lack of dietary carbohydrates. Which, based on what we know about how the body determines fuel usage makes sense. As I discussed in the linked articles above, when you eat more carbs, you burn more carbs (and less fat); eat fewer carbs and you burn fewer carbs (and more fat). Which means that in all three conditions above it’s the absence of dietary carbohydrates driving the increase in fat burning, not the presence of dietary fat.
Which isn’t to say that increasing dietary fat intake under some conditions can’t have benefits (such as increased fullness, food enjoyment or flexibility, limiting the daily deficit to moderate levels if that’s the goal, etc.) which are discussed in other articles on the site (I’d suggest the Comparing the Diets series for an overview of different dietary approaches). It’s simply that increasing fat burning per se simply isn’t one of them; rather, that’s accomplished by reducing carbohydrates and total caloric intake."
Granted, he is talking specifically about fat loss here and not overall weight loss. I know you have said you are only talking about weight loss but the OP did say they were interested in dropping pounds AND toning up. I'm sure the majority of us, when we say we want to lose weight are talking about fat, so this is relevant.
-Diet in pure carbs = less instances of fat gain throughout the day as carbs are stored as glycogen = less direct fat burn as the body has to burn through the dietary carbs first. Eat 2,000 calories of carbs, burn those 2,000 calories of carbs over the course of the day, THEN fat burn will occur as your body has no more glucose to use as energy, which will result in 500 calories from stored fat being used as energy.
-Diet in pure protein = very similar to carbs except for amino acids rather than glucose/fructose/etc.
-Diet in pure dietary fat = more instances of fat gain throughout the day as dietary fat is stored as body fat = more fat burn as the body has no dietary glucose/amino acids to burn. Eat 2,000 calories in fat, store 2,000 calories in fat, burn those 2,000 calories in fat throughout the day, compensate the additional 500 calories from stored fat as you are under maintenance.
In all instances, regardless of the macronutrient composition, the body will still burn 500 calories of previously stored body fat throughout the day.
Lyle talks about this, actually. I'll try and find the link as he can explain it better than I. Give me some time to peruse the site.
I have been reading his articles and I would admit that what he says is often confusing and he will not hesitate to attack anyone who doesn't understand him. I do find it interesting that one of his books promotes Ketosis, which is of course caused by ingesting low carbs.
Personally i need to read more of his articles before I decide if he is really knowledgeable or just wacky,lol.0 -
So you dismiss dozens upon dozens of dietary studies? Do you know what the law of large numbers is? I'd say it's relevant to the point you're making, which also kind of goes hand-in-hand with external validity. Fact is: what you are saying is not a justification to ignore the results that have been attained from possibly hundreds of studies.Oh come on, we all know all dietary studies are total crap unless they house, feed, and monitor the people themselves - which NO ONE does. People underestimate calories, over estimate exercise, and just plain lie. They drop out of diets, cheat on diets, and so on. Taubes cites studies that have been done on rats in which they were controlled in all aspects - the results were interesting but I have worked with rats enough in my own studies to know that rats aren't the same thing as people. Interesting none the less as we are both omnivores.
No, rats are not the same thing. The pathway that converts carbs to fat (de novo lipogenesis) is HIGHLY active in rats. It is NOT highly active in humans. Basing our understanding of carbs off of rat studies would be like basing out understanding of human muscle potential of researching gorillas in a weight room.
I'm telling you that mainstream anything is USUALLY the enemy to proper scientific research. I don't want to read a book because it's an indirect source. I don't want to watch a Youtube video, like Lustig's video on HFCS, because he left out key information in the data he reported. I want DIRECT sources. I want scientific research; empirical, peer-reviewed.Reading a book takes longer than 5 minutes, but I really think it's worth it and the subject is important enough to spend your time on. I would recommend Omnivore's Dilema over Taubes, even though it's not a book about dieting or really about carbs specifically, more about the revolution are food has gone through since the 50s. That and Wendel Berry's essays on the loss of agrarian society. Yeah, I know this seemingly has nothing to do with insulin and sugar, but it's all tied together and I am a food geek.
I appreciate your passion for learning about nutrition, but books are not your most reliable source of information. Scientific research is. Pubmed.com or Google Scholar far outweigh most any book on the market.0 -
Reps back. Wait, huh? Not srs.Bookmarked. I am always in constant search of this....since one of the rebuttles is "Lyle clearly thinks that a low CHO is superior".
I will say that for someone that doesn't completely understand the way the body oxidizes nutrients, his statements can be taken in the sense that he believes that low carb has metabolic advantages.
Reps for link.
Waitwut?
Lyle is more well-known for the fact that he was among the first to apply the physiology to ketogenic dieting to those aiming for fat loss. Before him, it was most well known for its treatment in epileptic patients to reduce/eliminate seizures. Applying it to fat loss is simply something that has been attributed to him, and thus that's what he's well known for. Among his articles, however, he has no problem with higher amounts of carb intakes. You can even quote him suggesting a 40/40/20 diet, which is funny considering how ill-received diets based on ratios are these days
He's very arrogant, no doubt about it, but he forms his opinions based on research.I have been reading his articles and I would admit that what he says is often confusing and he will not hesitate to attack anyone who doesn't understand him. I do find it interesting that one of his books promotes Ketosis, which is of course caused by ingesting low carbs.
Personally i need to read more of his articles before I decide if he is really knowledgeable or just wacky,lol.
And as said above in this message, he is one of the originators of the ketogenic diet applied to fat loss, but that doesn't mean he sees it as THE BEST. He's just been referenced as one of the people who applied it to body recomposition.
See: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/comparing-the-diets-part-4.html
"If you think of me as the keto-guru, you’re probably expecting me to advocate the ketogenic/low-carb diet over all the others. People seem to think since my first book The Ketogenic Diet was about nothing but, I must be the diet’s strongest promoter. It makes me wonder if these morons actually read the book since I made it clear there that I didn’t feel that ketogenic diets were necessarliy ideal. I repeated this multiple times within that book. People didn’t get it."0 -
Yep. I've read Lyle's book "The Ketogenic Diet", and I think this has to be the best publication available explaining the physiology behind ketosis.0
-
Yep. I've read Lyle's book "The Ketogenic Diet", and I think this has to be the best publication available explaining the physiology behind ketosis.
Anyone considering following a ketogenic diet for any span of time needs to read this publication.
I've read it. Excellent work and Lyle is an excellent resource for information regarding nutrition, however arrogant he comes off.0 -
His arrogance makes it more entertaining to read.Yep. I've read Lyle's book "The Ketogenic Diet", and I think this has to be the best publication available explaining the physiology behind ketosis.
Anyone considering following a ketogenic diet for any span of time needs to read this publication.
I've read it. Excellent work and Lyle is an excellent resource for information regarding nutrition, however arrogant he comes off.
/truthbomb0 -
His arrogance makes it more entertaining to read.Yep. I've read Lyle's book "The Ketogenic Diet", and I think this has to be the best publication available explaining the physiology behind ketosis.
Anyone considering following a ketogenic diet for any span of time needs to read this publication.
I've read it. Excellent work and Lyle is an excellent resource for information regarding nutrition, however arrogant he comes off.
/truthbomb
He's much more fun to read IMO than Tom Venuto
0 -
So you dismiss dozens upon dozens of dietary studies? Do you know what the law of large numbers is? I'd say it's relevant to the point you're making, which also kind of goes hand-in-hand with external validity. Fact is: what you are saying is not a justification to ignore the results that have been attained from possibly hundreds of studies.
If you go look at any "dietary study" you too would quickly become disillusioned with them. They are terrible! The law of large numbers has nothing to do with the fact that people are terrible at reporting what they eat and terrible at staying on diets.I'm telling you that mainstream anything is USUALLY the enemy to proper scientific research. I don't want to read a book because it's an indirect source. I don't want to watch a Youtube video, like Lustig's video on HFCS, because he left out key information in the data he reported. I want DIRECT sources. I want scientific research; empirical, peer-reviewed.
I appreciate your passion for learning about nutrition, but books are not your most reliable source of information. Scientific research is. Pubmed.com or Google Scholar far outweigh most any book on the market.
I am fully familiar with reading research. I have access to virtually all scientific journals and if I read a mainstream article, I almost always go back and read the original research, or at least the abstract since scientific reporting is appalling. That doesn't mean that I can't see the value in books and exploring interconnected ideas and issues in a way that cannot be done in a short journal article. I am a scientist and I appreciate studies in their place, but they aren't a replacement for critical thinking and discussion. Anyhow, Taubes books are critiquing the scientific research on diet, so it should be interesting to you if you read so many dietary studies. It's a ****ing thick book though, I don't blame you for not wanting to read it.0 -
Very entertaining. I implemented a ketogenic diet for around 10 weeks a while back (for increased satiety).
This is the same reason I implement IF. I LOVE TO EAT, and hunger control is something I strive after. Lol.
Keto was fine until I realized there was no way I could sustain the diet and be happy/generally satisfied without carbs. I heart cereal and oatmeal. Since using IF, hunger is gone (for the most part).0 -
Never got into Venuto much. Some of the bits of things I've seen from him have been very, 'meh.' I know some of his books have been very well-received, but some things I've seen him say can rub me the wrong way.He's much more fun to read IMO than Tom Venuto
Alan Aragon all the way for me. Anyone who really wants to learn should invest in his research review immediately. Pay $10/month and you have access to 2 years of his critiquing dozens upon dozens of published science. You can download everything he's submitted, and he updates it once every month.0 -
AA FTMFW.0
-
Law of large numbers weeds out the discrepancies/anomalies over a long periods of time. After decades of nutritional data compiled via peer-reviewed publication, it's safe to say we can start to make SOME sorts of conclusions. Insulin being an evil hormones that should be avoided at all costs is false based on some of these conclusions, as it does not defy a caloric deficit and the law of thermodynamics, again, outside of those who are insulin resistant.If you go look at any "dietary study" you too would quickly become disillusioned with them. They are terrible! The law of large numbers has nothing to do with the fact that people are terrible at reporting what they eat and terrible at staying on diets.
I am fully familiar with reading research. I have access to virtually all scientific journals and if I read a mainstream article, I almost always go back and read the original research, or at least the abstract since scientific reporting is appalling. That doesn't mean that I can't see the value in books and exploring interconnected ideas and issues in a way that cannot be done in a short journal article. I am a scientist and I appreciate studies in their place, but they aren't a replacement for critical thinking and discussion. Anyhow, Taubes books are critiquing the scientific research on diet, so it should be interesting to you if you read so many dietary studies. It's a ****ing thick book though, I don't blame you for not wanting to read it.
You can see value in books, but the main purpose of writing a book in this context is to make money. Scientific research is done for pretty much no reason outside of expanding knowledge. The overwhelming majority of researchers don't make money for attaining interesting findings; they research for the purpose of knowledge. Their pay doesn't change based on the results they stumble upon.
The research of interest is clinical trials. Taubes doesn't have any that are relevant to human physiology. I have yet to see empirical evidence in the form of clinical trials that implicates insulin as being as demonic a hormone as many, like Taubes, seems to think. Again, outside of those who are insulin resistant.
Best day of my life? Getting mod repped by Alan Aragon. Better than losing my virginity, better than graduating college, and better than my future wedding + birth of child.AA FTMFW.
Just sayin'.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions