Why We Get Fat - G. Taubes

sbarrett7171

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?

h0taru

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!

lockef

*takes front row seat for fireworks*

SugarBaby1987

*takes front row seat for fireworks*

Save me a spot!

Visser1971

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, Christy

Artemis_Acorn

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.

angiolm

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?

h0taru

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.

lockef

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?

martinah4

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.

Acg67

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.html

questionablemethods

*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.

Azdak

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.

Azdak

*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.

lockef

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.

Acg67

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

lockef

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. YMMV

Azdak

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.

kneeki

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.

knittnponder

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.)

questionablemethods

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.