Why We Get Fat - G. Taubes
sbarrett7171
Posts: 65 Member
Going through this book now. Have already read Good Calories / Bad Calories.
If you believe what he has researched and argues........it makes a big part of this site irrelevant.
Agree?
If you believe what he has researched and argues........it makes a big part of this site irrelevant.
Agree?
0
Replies
-
Another guy who says that if people are obèse or overweight, it is because of carbs or fat or meat or veggies ( yes, yes, i've read this lol)? It is so easy to find a guilty food, instead of really thinking how we are eating?
If we are fat, it is because we eat too much. Like Pigs. And we forgot to cook by buying all this ****s in wallmart or other store.
Sorry, no miracle food!0 -
*takes front row seat for fireworks*0
-
*takes front row seat for fireworks*
Save me a spot!0 -
I want to see too!
But I do have two cents too. There has to be something to the eat and burn routine. Look at healthy countries (think on your own here) and think back in time. On a farm, breakfast and lunch were the largest meals because that is when you were doing the work. This suggests (in the current day) a positive correlation to eating and working out in the same couple of hours timeframe. Eating easy carbs (or any processed foods for that matter, IMHO) and then sitting - no matter how much you worked out the day before - just seems to fasten itself to my belly as if stuck there by superglue!
But that does not make this site irrelevant I think. I do, however, think the 'miracle foods' are just what nature provides; we should eat fresh foods, not processed.
That said, I have only read the Amazon preview pages of the book. Might be a good idea for a good read indeed! I wonder what he has to say that is different than Dr. Barry Sears?
Cheers, Christy0 -
I haven't read the book, but when I look at how many people using the site are finding success within the MFP framework, I can't believe that the foundation of the site is irrelevant. There are certainly some concepts preached here that don't really apply to everyone, especially those with specific medical conditions that have different dietary requirements. The tool itself however, is fantastic and founded on solid principles.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, my grandma used to say. I have found that my own personal exceptions are pretty easy to incorporate into use of the site.0 -
I'm not convinced. Read this perspective:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/why-we-get-fat/
It's all very interesting but I have yet to find my combination/balance. I know that if we stick to the calorie-in/calorie-out process it provides a mathematical balance...no?0 -
Since I started to use this site, I loose weigth by cutting carbs (and other stuffs), like pastas. I did not do it because of funny theories, but because those kind of carbs had much more calories that I could imagine. Nothing more complicated than that.
I read a study that show that with a high fat and high protein diet, during a long time, you reduces your life time. I can post it there but it is in french, my mother tongue...
That pisses me off with all these theories, is that a lot of people imagine they will continue to eat like pigs and loose weight by cutting some sort of food and keeping some others. They are just lazy, and miracle doctors that write those kind of books know that.
Eat everything and learn to eat less, to listen to your body and to decorrelate emotions from food, and you will loose weigth.0 -
I'm not convinced. Read this perspective:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/why-we-get-fat/
It's all very interesting but I have yet to find my combination/balance. I know that if we stick to the calorie-in/calorie-out process it provides a mathematical balance...no?
The writer admits that a low carb diet works at losing weight, and improves blood lipid profiles. This is accomplished because eating a high fat, low carb diet suppresses your appetite, and this causes you to consume less calories.
Well... where's the argument. By saying that Taube's statement about the calories in/calories out model is incorrect, he creates his own strawman.
Low carb
> supresses appetite
> people lose weight
When he says that the calories in/calories out model doesn't work is like saying "you can't see the forest for the trees" (don't focus on the details). Animals that are lean in nature, aren't lean because they count calories. My dog never gets fat. It's not from lack of food, her dish is always full. They eat when they're hungry, and stop when they're full. Shouldn't it be the same with humans?0 -
Taubes, Atkins, Sears, even Gary Noughton hit the bullseye when it comes to weight loss! I'm an Atkins girl, myself. I'm about to download "Why We Get Fat..." (Taubes) on my Kindle, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to love it. But it doesn't necessarily make this site irrelevant. MFP seems to have the most extensive food list, and the diary tool makes it easy to track net carbs (carbs minus fiber), and your macro nutrients. Plus, these forums are always entertaining and sometimes informative!
More and more people are beginning to realize that calories in/calories out is not the method that works for a huge percentage of the population. Hopefully, in my lifetime, that "conventional wisdom" will switch to low-carbing as a lifestyle change.0 -
let's start with these and the Taubes followers can respond...
McLaughlin T, et al. Differences in insulin resistance do not predict weight loss in response to hypocaloric diets in healthy obese women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 1999; 84 (2): 578-581.
de Luis DA, et al. Differences in glycaemic status do not predict weight loss in response to hypocaloric diets in obese patients. Clinical Nutrition, Feb 2006; 25 (1): 117-122.
Due A, et al. No effect of inhibition of insulin secretion by diazoxide on weight loss in hyperinsulinaemic obese subjects during an 8-week weight-loss diet. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, Jul 2007; 9 (4): 566-574.
also here are some interesting reads on Taubes
http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2011/01/book-review-gary-taubes-why-we-get-fat.html
http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2010/10/update-gary-taubes-email-my-response.html0 -
*takes front row seat for fireworks*
This.
But, for what it's worth, I think that Taubes has a lot of interesting insights. I don't agree with the idea of miracle foods or silver bullets (though I think his hypothesis is a bit more nuanced than that), but I do think he is pointing out a lot of places where the "common wisdom" about obesity doesn't line up with what is actually observed.0 -
Anyone who says something like this:[restricting carbohydrates]…leads to weight loss and particularly fat loss, independent of the calories we consume from dietary fat and protein. We know that the laws of physics have nothing to do with it.
has zero credibility.0 -
*takes front row seat for fireworks*
This.
But, for what it's worth, I think that Taubes has a lot of interesting insights. I don't agree with the idea of miracle foods or silver bullets (though I think his hypothesis is a bit more nuanced than that), but I do think he is pointing out a lot of places where the "common wisdom" about obesity doesn't line up with what is actually observed.
Depends on what you mean by "common wisdom". That's a pretty low standard. That's like saying that the rules of mathematics don't apply because first graders can't do algebra.0 -
Anyone who says something like this:[restricting carbohydrates]…leads to weight loss and particularly fat loss, independent of the calories we consume from dietary fat and protein. We know that the laws of physics have nothing to do with it.
has zero credibility.
Why the ad hominem? Have you read the book?
People aren't machines. All of these BMR numbers we use are just estimates. The amount of energy our bodies use isn't consistant from person to person, or even day to day.
Again, people on low carb/high fat diets aren't restricted on calories, yet they eat a considerable amount less than people on the traditional low cal/low fat diets. That's why they work.0 -
Again, people on low carb/high fat diets aren't restricted on calories, yet they eat a considerable amount less than people on the traditional low cal/low fat diets. That's why they work.
so you're saying the energy balance equation holds, by eating less calories then you burn you lose weight0 -
Again, people on low carb/high fat diets aren't restricted on calories, yet they eat a considerable amount less than people on the traditional low cal/low fat diets. That's why they work.
so you're saying the energy balance equation holds, by eating less calories then you burn you lose weight
No, I'm not questioning the laws of thermodynamics, but our bodies are far from being closed systems. Hormones control how much energy our bodies use (calories out), and also control our appetite (calories in).
When I was doing a low fat/low calorie lifestyle, I had to watch everything I ate and make sure to workout. I was tired and hungry, and on top of that, I had little results. We all know it's hard work, right?
Fast forward a couple months on the low carb lifestyle. I eat until I'm full (which is less calories than on low fat), and I have tons of energy. I still workout, but I don't need to workout as hard or as much as I use to. I've lost 15 pounds since.
Edit: Sorry, I know this is anecdotal evidence. Just thought I'd share my experience. YMMV0 -
Anyone who says something like this:[restricting carbohydrates]…leads to weight loss and particularly fat loss, independent of the calories we consume from dietary fat and protein. We know that the laws of physics have nothing to do with it.
has zero credibility.
Why the ad hominem? Have you read the book?
People aren't machines. All of these BMR numbers we use are just estimates. The amount of energy our bodies use isn't consistant from person to person, or even day to day.
Again, people on low carb/high fat diets aren't restricted on calories, yet they eat a considerable amount less than people on the traditional low cal/low fat diets. That's why they work.
I'm not sure you understand either the term "ad hominem" or the discussion at hand. "The laws of physics don't apply" is an unambiguous statement. It means that the idea that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" no longer applies in Taubes' world (think of the "magic grits" in My Cousin Vinny). That's absolute nonsense--anyone who would say such a thing is either ignorant or cynically manipulative. In either case, they have no credibility. Nothing they say can be trusted and any "accurate" statements they might make are more random chance than anything else.
Your statements about BMR and your explanation of why low carb diets might be effective have nothing to do with the initial statement I cited. In fact, they support my position.
If someone loses weight on a low carb diet because, according to your theory, they eat considerable (sic) amount less, that is fully consistent with the concept of "calories in/calories out". As are variations in BMR.
The topic is not: can low carb eating plans be effective. It's about the credibility of Taubes. . Those are completely different topics.0 -
There is nothing complex about this topic what so ever.
Humans eat food with poor nutritional value, and too much of it, while moving around too little. It's quite simply, as easy as that.0 -
I do low carbs and find this site extremely useful! (Note, I don't want to discuss my diet and all the arguments for and a against low carbing. I am not "no" carbing and it's working for me. Just wanted to comment that the site is relevant for anyone who is wanting to track some portion of their nutritional breakdown. It's part of what I love about MFP, I can adjust the settings to reflect what I need to do and it shouldn't effect your plan.)0
-
Depends on what you mean by "common wisdom". That's a pretty low standard. That's like saying that the rules of mathematics don't apply because first graders can't do algebra.
True enough.
Does he actually say that the laws of physics don't apply? (He does have a degree in physics from Harvard.) I guess I understood his main argument to be that something(s) in our food supply causes our our bodies to shove a lot of the calories we are eating immediately into our fat stores so our metabolism adjusts down and burns less or we compensate by eating even more precisely because of thermodynamics, not in spite of it. But maybe I am misunderstanding his point.0 -
I'm totally sitting in for this one...0
-
No, I'm not questioning the laws of thermodynamics, but our bodies are far from being closed systems. Hormones control how much energy our bodies use (calories out), and also control our appetite (calories in).
ah, but he states that it is insulin that is controlling how much energy we use and how much is stored as fat, yet proposes eating a high protein/fat diet, which is odd since protein is highly insulingenic, so if he wanted to prevent spikes in insulin, he should have said to stay away from protein as well. Also if you read the studies i've posted above it totally debunks his theory on insulin, fat loss/gain. Which is par for him, cherry picking science to fit his agenda0 -
I'm not sure you understand either the term "ad hominem" or the discussion at hand. "The laws of physics don't apply" is an unambiguous statement. It means that the idea that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" no longer applies in Taubes' world (think of the "magic grits" in My Cousin Vinny). That's absolute nonsense--anyone who would say such a thing is either ignorant or cynically manipulative. In either case, they have no credibility. Nothing they say can be trusted and any "accurate" statements they might make are more random chance than anything else.
Your statements about BMR and your explanation of why low carb diets might be effective have nothing to do with the initial statement I cited. In fact, they support my position.
If someone loses weight on a low carb diet because, according to your theory, they eat considerable (sic) amount less, that is fully consistent with the concept of "calories in/calories out". As are variations in BMR.
The topic is not: can low carb eating plans be effective. It's about the credibility of Taubes. . Those are completely different topics.
You're taking "The laws of physics don't apply" out of context. He means in regards to why people are getting fatter. I don't think you should disregard his whole book based on this one statement, but ok.ah, but he states that it is insulin that is controlling how much energy we use and how much is stored as fat, yet proposes eating a high protein/fat diet, which is odd since protein is highly insulingenic, so if he wanted to prevent spikes in insulin, he should have said to stay away from protein as well. Also if you read the studies i've posted above it totally debunks his theory on insulin, fat loss/gain. Which is par for him, cherry picking science to fit his agenda
No... he promotes high fat/ moderate protein/ low carb. Insulin does control the amount of fat we store, and even supresses the use of fat for energy. Without carbohydrates in the blood, the body is put into a state of ketosis, and uses fat as the main source of energy.0 -
I think the most important thing to remember is that losing weight is pretty simple... calories in, versus calories out and a deficit will lead to weight loss. People get too hung up on trying to eat the "right" things for weight loss, when everyone should just focus on eating food that was naturally grown on earth and stop eating cheetos.
With that said, I did read part of that book; however, I didn't finish it. I stopped reading it when he suggested that excercise only lead to being hungry and eating more. Excercise is not only for weight loss! It has many cardiovascular benefits well!
It's an interesting read but I wouldn't take it TOO seriously.
There's so many books out there, like the Paleo diet which claim eating like we did in the Stone Age is going to solve all of our problems. Today is a different world, and the food is nutritionally different, and there is no possible way to eat like how our ancestors did.0 -
No... he promotes high fat/ moderate protein/ low carb. Insulin does control the amount of fat we store, and even supresses the use of fat for energy. Without carbohydrates in the blood, the body is put into a state of ketosis, and uses fat as the main source of energy.
insulin does indeed play a role in fat storage, but it is neither the only or most important hormone to do so, that would be acylation stimulation protein, whose levels can increase without an increase in insulin.
his main point is to avoid CHO because CHO spikes insulin and insulin makes us fat, which is sort of true, but avoids the fact that protein spikes insulin as well and you can store fat without spikes in insulin. again the studies i posted showed that preventing spikes in insulin vs a control group lead to no greater increase in weight loss.
in fact there are no real controlled studies that show there is a metabolic advantage to ketogenic diets ie. weight loss is the same in controlled situations regardless of CHO intake0 -
I by no means am an expert on fat/weight loss. Nor am I a physician. But and it's a big BUT-- one thing that is possibly overlooked in many of these theories is the complexity of the digestive system.
Take, for instance, a person who is diagnosed with adult onset Celiac disease (auto immune response to gluten) realize that 39% of these patients are overweight-- more so --30% of those are morbidly obese.
The theory behind their weight increase is a malabsorbtion issue due to "gut deficiency" in this case the inability for their bodies to properly use grains. When these people eat something with a gluten sensitive stomach their bowels fill with water --hence the auto immune response-- therefore the vitamins and minerals derived from other foods are washed away resulting in deficiencies. Then their bodies "hold on" to everything-- even th bad stuff- in order to leech out what it can resulting in overweight. Yes, a side effect of this/these disease is weight loss over time but by the time that happens they are so ill (villi atrophy) medical intervention is a must.
Other "gut sensitivities" that involve malnutrition and deficiencies due to food include:
B-12 anemia (found in many alchoholics)
Ulcerative Colitis
Chron's Disease
Lactose Intolerence
Irritable Bowel Disease
H Pylori Ulcers
Gall Bladder Disease
So for some where cutting out carbs works: does cutting out grains make you feel better (gluten/celiac disease)?
Others its dairy: does eating no cheese/milk make you feel better? (lactose intolerence)
High protein: cutting out meat make you fell better (gall bladder disease)
you get the idea.
edited to add: I'm just saying this might be the reason why low carb works for some not others, low fat for some not others etc. I think it's just something that shouldn't be overlooked when these "scientists" do their studies.0 -
I do low carbs and find this site extremely useful! (Note, I don't want to discuss my diet and all the arguments for and a against low carbing. I am not "no" carbing and it's working for me. Just wanted to comment that the site is relevant for anyone who is wanting to track some portion of their nutritional breakdown. It's part of what I love about MFP, I can adjust the settings to reflect what I need to do and it shouldn't effect your plan.)
I have read both of Mr. Taubes' books and spent a ton of time on various sites/forums (Mark's Daily Apple, PaleoHacks, etc.). What it boils down to for me is that while I did in fact lose almost 60 lbs starting 7 years ago using the standard percentages of calories from fat, protein and carbs, I have been slowly but steadily regaining it over the last 3 years, in spite of exercising more and more and removing more and more processed crap from my diet. What gives? A marathon runner who eats healthy whole grains, low fat, etc., and I SIMPLY CANNOT KEEP THE FRICKING WEIGHT OFF! Something is wrong w/this picture.
I have gradually been working into a Primal/Paleo way of eating w/much lower carbs, no grains of any kind, and while my weight loss is slow (but at least not continuously gaining), I have been able to cut my dose of thyroid medications (I am hypothyroid) from 150 mcg a day to 45 mcg a day. I am sleeping much better and I feel better when I exercise. My mood is more stable, too (I am a 51-year-old woman, so I have various hormonal things going on at this point). Perhaps most importantly, I am CONTENT w/the calories I eat. When I was eating the higher percentage of carbs that athletes are "supposed" to eat, I honestly would feel hungrier after a meal than I was before I ate! How crazy is that?
I would certainly never say that this is the ONLY way and everyone should eat this way, but for me, it's working. I will continue to work with it and tweak it, but this is the first ray of hope I've had in the last few years, so I figure it's worth a try. Been there, done fat, NOT going back!
Edited to add: In no way does this make the site irrelevant. I have found that overeating will make me gain weight, no matter WHAT I eat. The point, for me, of eating this way is that I can eat fewer calories, be satisfied, slowly lose weight and have markers of my general health increase (less need for thyroid replacement, better sleep, etc.) where the same number of calories in a more conventional distribution would leave me hungry, prone to binge, and result in no weight loss even if I managed to "be good." I still need to watch proportions of fat, protein and carbs as well as overall calories, hence I use the site.0 -
*takes front row seat for fireworks*
Save me a spot!
Ditto!!
I know very little about nutrition, but I know how I FEEL. I have lost and gained many pounds on different eating plans. Currently am trying to eat paleo/Primal (mostly) and have lost 9 of my total 12 lbs since doing this. For months I would calculate calories and fat but always felt exhausted. Was running my *kitten* off and didnt lose an ounce! So I ditched grains, restric my carbs but still kept around 1200 calories, plus what I earned by working out.
I have more energy and just feel better when I eat nutrient dense/rich foods. Dark leafy greens, bright vegtables all FRESH (the little orange and green things in a lean cuisine box dont count to me as vegtables) whole fresh eggs, wild game (moose, deer, bear harvested by yours truly) nuts and seeds, seasonal fruit. I avoid grains like rice, wheat, oats because they make me FEEL sluggish and crappy. Plus they are way higher in calories with less nutrition than other choices I can make. This may not be appropriate for other peoples goals BUT........this works for me 0 -
Gary Taubes: The conventional wisdom both in the medical community and among the rest of us is that we get fat because we consume more calories than we expend. We overeat, in a word, or we’re too sedentary. And so it’s all about energy consumed and expended. But, as I describe in GC, BC and argue, forcefully, I hope, in Why We Get Fat, this calories–in/calories–out idea fails to explain some of the critical observations in the field. Men and women fatten differently, for instance. So they both have to be taking in more calories than they expend — that’s just the laws of thermodynamics, which always hold. But that fact tells us absolutely nothing about why the fat goes to different places on different sexes. Obesity and overweight have a strong genetic component — body types tend to run in families, not just hair and eye color and facial features. So the question becomes, what are these genes determining? How much we want to eat and exercise, or how much and where we store fat on our bodies? Prior to World War II, as I discuss in the book, European researchers and clinical investigators would define obesity not as a disorder of energy balance, as virtually everyone does today, but as a disorder of excess fat accumulation, which is the simplest possible thing you can say about the condition. And that leads you to ask the simple question, what regulates fat accumulation? The argument I’m making in the book, in a nutshell, is that obesity and overweight are disorders in the hormonal and enzymatic regulation of fat tissue.
and from page 97 of Why We Get Fat -Whatever makes us both fatter and heavier will also make us overeat. This law is one fact we can count on from the first law of thermodynamics, the law of energy conservation, which health experts have been so determined to misapply. Anything that increases its mass, for whatever reason, will take in more energy than it expends. So, if a regulatory defect makes us both fatter and heavier, it is guaranteed to make us consume more calories (and so increase our appetite) and/or expend less than would be the case if this regulation was working perfectly.
I think Taubes has done a great job at presenting his research. I don't think he's trying to tell you "what" to think, he's just asking you to think.
I've never read anything indicating that he believes there is one diet that works for everyone, but I have read and seen him say numerous times "Not all of us get fat eating carbohydrates".
Don't want to jump in to the argument, just post a few of his words to hopefully clear up some of the confusion on his view of the
laws of thermodynamics.
0 -
I think Taubes has done a great job at presenting his research. I don't think he's trying to tell you "what" to think, he's just asking you to think.
Well done, and I think what you said right here about "asking you to think" is really key.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions