Why We Get Fat - G. Taubes

mtnultra

A website with a "makes sense" approach and the tools to use that approach doesn't make scientific research irrelevant.

Acg67

A website with a "makes sense" approach and the tools to use that approach doesn't make scientific research irrelevant.

What about all the research Taubes ignored?

mtnultra

A website with a "makes sense" approach and the tools to use that approach doesn't make scientific research irrelevant.

What about all the research Taubes ignored?

Starting a subjective argument brings no added value to the table.

This thread is about whether or not taube's ideas (if you agree with them) make this site irrelevant.

Ive seen on one occasion where a moderator here locked a post because of this type of discussion. How's that for myfitnesspal looking out for everyone's best interest?

I'm not here for cals in cals out. I'm using this site to help control moderation.

Silverkittycat

I have no issues with ketogenic/low carb diets, it's only when it's adherents start proclaiming it is the best or only way to lose weight do i take issue with it

So, what you really have a problem with is other people's opinions.

This is your first post on the forums?
Did you come here to contribute? Learn something new? Share something? Or just poke at something Acg said 6 months ago?
Come on... start a new thread if you have something to say.

grinch031

Having read Good Calories, Bad Calories, I think Taubes' hypothesis makes a lot of sense, even though it is flawed.

First thing to make clear is that Taubes' hypothesis is completely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

Anyways even if you set the science aside, I have a hard time believing that humans are the only species incapable of regulating their own fat metabolism, such that when presented with an abundance of food, they will end up obese. That whole notion seems absurd to me. Now people can find flaws in Taubes' hypothesis, but I can't rule it out especially when a HUGE proportion of the obese population has insulin resistance. And we all know insulin resistance can cause further weight gains.

The big question is whether Taubes is right, that excess refined carbohydrate consumption CAUSES insulin resistance and obesity.

Here is one doctor's opinion:

http://www.carbohydratescankill.com/402/carbohydraterich-diet-likely-culprit-for-insulin-resistance-2

grinch031

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?

Conversely, if you believe in this site and how it works (and I do), it makes a big part of what Taubes writes irrelevant.

What's cool is that both this site and Taubes' books lead to weight loss.

Acg67

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?

Conversely, if you believe in this site and how it works (and I do), it makes a big part of what Taubes writes irrelevant.

What's cool is that both this site and Taubes' books lead to weight loss.

and guess what is also cool? they work exactly the same way, a caloric deficit

AmberJslimsAWAY

*takes front row seat for fireworks*

Save me a spot!

Popcorn?

onedayillbamilf

*takes front row seat for fireworks*

Save me a spot!

Snuggles in between y'all.

grinch031

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?

Conversely, if you believe in this site and how it works (and I do), it makes a big part of what Taubes writes irrelevant.

What's cool is that both this site and Taubes' books lead to weight loss.

and guess what is also cool? they work exactly the same way, a caloric deficit

Even Taubes will admit that.

UponThisRock

Silverkittycat

Nice. :laugh:

bcattoes

I haven't read it but I've seen it discussed on here several times. My thoughts on in are the same as my thoughts on anyone that says they know why "we" get fat, and that is that I don't need to read it. I already know why I got fat, and I know that it is not for the same reason as many others.

One of the few things that I am certain of is that there is no one reason 'we' get fat, which is why there is no one way 'we' get thin.

yesthistime

I can't stop watching this.

Rozz77

It's whatever works for you. Different diets work for different folks. However any diet that makes your body rely on it's own fat stores is going to work! Whether it's Atkins or MFP or using both simultaneously. You could using MFP and have a quite healthy diet without junk, lots of healthy veg protein and complex carbs. Or you could be doing Atkins and eating lots of healthy veg, protein and lotsa fat. As long as your body is put in a position where it's eating into it's own fat reserves, you'll lose weight.

FlabulessFam

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.

LOVE THIS! This is EXACTLY true!!

neanderthin

Having read Good Calories, Bad Calories, I think Taubes' hypothesis makes a lot of sense, even though it is flawed.

First thing to make clear is that Taubes' hypothesis is completely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

Anyways even if you set the science aside, I have a hard time believing that humans are the only species incapable of regulating their own fat metabolism, such that when presented with an abundance of food, they will end up obese. That whole notion seems absurd to me. Now people can find flaws in Taubes' hypothesis, but I can't rule it out especially when a HUGE proportion of the obese population has insulin resistance. And we all know insulin resistance can cause further weight gains.

The big question is whether Taubes is right, that excess refined carbohydrate consumption CAUSES insulin resistance and obesity.

Here is one doctor's opinion:

http://www.carbohydratescankill.com/402/carbohydraterich-diet-likely-culprit-for-insulin-resistance-2

Overconsumption of food in general causes insulin resistance, not carbs on their own and diet is only 1 factor that contributes to insulin resistance and why people think it's all that matters is just lack on information.. Anyone can eat all the carbs they want and if it's at a maintenance level, it gets used as energy, or stored as glycogen. If that same person is eating a lot of carbs in a deficit then they become more insulin sensitive, every time. Saying carbs causes obesity is no different than saying saturated fat causes heart disease. The big question, or the big equation that is hard to figure out is that all metabolic dysfuction and the difficulties trying to figure out how we the individual burn calories is enormous, and has everyone saying and thinking everyone is different. In reality all factors that make it difficult to figure out why and how we burn calories are automatically accounted for on the outside of the energy balance equation, even though people don't know what they are, and calories in vs out always works, the problem like i said is people don't know much about the out side of the EBE, as opposed to the in side where it's just calories from food.

bcattoes

One other thing I've noticed is that almost all the MFP posts I've seen raving about this book are from people with some type of hormone/metabolic disorder.

Is there anyone having better results with the methods in this book that has no diagnosed disorders (i.e. as far as you know you are healthy other than your weight)? What other methods did try?

hpsnickers1

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.

I did it the MFP (and the conventional way) for the first six months and lost 10lbs (my goal). But I never lost my belly (even after two months of P90X). I was eating every couple of hours and that consisted of counting calories, weighing and logging food each time. My day was spent thinking about or preparing food. So yes MFP is successful but you will have to count calories the rest of your life to keep from gaining the weight back.

I started Primal Blueprint (no grains, legumes, milk, sugar and real, whole foods) as an experiement and dropped another 10lbs and LOST MY BELLY. With less exercise I maintained my lean muscle mass. And I hit a weight I haven't been since before puberty (I'm 41). This was in four months. And the majority of it was in the first 6 weeks (carbs make your body retain sodium and therefore retain water so I dropped more water retention and now I don't even retain water during TOM). And I don't have to eat every couple of hours because I get hungry maybe a couple of times a day.

Sugar travels the same brain pathways as opiate drugs (i.e. heroin). Grains contain morphine-like compounds called exorphins.

The Need for Steady Fuel: Where fueling the fire of our brain and body's metabolism is concerned, carbohydrates can best be described as kindling. Whole grains and legumes are somewhat like twigs; starch, such as cereals and potatoes, and simple sugars are like paper on the fire; and alcohol might best be described as gasoline on the fire. If you're relying on carbohydrates as your primary source of fuel, you need to feed that fire often, regularly, and consistently. You will be craving that fuel. Unfortunately, most people today have forcibly adapted their bodies to this sort of an unnatural dependence by over-consuming carbohydrates in their diet. (Most - if not all alcoholics have - for instance - severe issues with dysglycemia and sugar addiction. Alcoholics are dependent on and regularly seek fast sources of sugar - alcohol being the fastest...because the problem in alcoholism, in fact, isn't really alcohol, per se, but severe carbohydrate addiction (this is interesting to me because most people I know that have completely stopped drinking develop sweet tooths.)...One might get a burst or a ball of flame with respect to energy from many carbohydrate sources, but no one can get long-term, sustainable energy. As soon as the flame starts to die out, which doesn't take long, you're stuck with cravings for fuel or stimulants again. It can be quite a roller coaster ride. This is why dome dietary experts are always telling you to eat every two hours or to eat "numerous small meals throughout the day". If you're sugar dependent - and almost everyone in this culture is victim to that unnecessary reality - then frequent small meals become necessary to maintain an even keel. If you have ever heated your home with a wood stove using paper, twigs and lighter fluid all day, you'd be a slave to that fire and you'd need a mountain of fuel to constantly feed that hungry beast. You'd be forever preoccupied with keeping that fire going, and you'd have little other life...Nature would never have intended for us to constantly live this way. It is a terribly impractical state to maintain, particularly if you view this from the primitive perspective of ongoing survival in a less certain world where food wasn't constantly available. Our primitive (particularly ice-age) ancestors would never have made it this far if carbohydrates were essential to the diet or if glucose were necessary as a primary source of energy. Nature isn't that crazy or stupid...Mind you, it is possible to live in a state of primary glucose dependence. The idea that we are necessarily dependent on sugar as our primary source of fuel is true only conditionally, only if we've metabolically adapted ourselves to that unnatural dependence....It isn't necessary at all and it will age you faster (and cost you much more in grocery bills and health care). Dietary fat, in the absence of carbohydrates, is like putting a nice big log on the fire. Fat's flame burns as a regular, even rate, and is easily dept going, Protein, consumed in moderate quantities, is mainly diverted toward repair and maintenance. Only in excess does it convert to sugar. Fat's even flame keeps the hormone leptin under control, keeps insulin quiet, and keeps our appetite satisfied...One can go many, many hours on this longer-burning type of fuel without experiencing any discomfort or cravings at all. You may eventually get hungry if you really go a long time without eating, which is normal, bu you are far less likely to experience irritability, dizziness, brain fog, cravings, fatigue, jitteriness, or mood swings because of it. That's the say it's supposed to be!

You are one of two things: you are either a "fat burner" or a "sugar burner". If you are overweight, crave carbohydrates (and stimulants), or are insulin or leptin resistant, then you are a sugar burner. It's that simple. It also should be noted that stress, food sensitivity issues, caffeine and other stimulants, alcohol, sleep deprivation, aspartame, tobacco, and drugs of all types further aggravate and exacerbate excess insulin production (Schwarzbein and Deville 1999). For people who are unconcerned about dietary carbohydrates from a weight-gain perspective because of higher metabolic levels or athletic activity, the caution is this: Although it is possible to burn off the excess glucose, one cannot burn off the excess insulin. Excess insulin production, no matter how thin you are, wreaks metabolic havoc and invariably yields unhealthy consequences over time and accelerates again. It is also possible to be thin and diabetic.

The only thing in the body that needs glucose is red blood cells. Everything else can run on fat and/or ketones. Excess protein can be converted into glucose (and it takes more energy to do this than to just consume carbs/sugar and have that convert to glucose - i.e. burns more calories!!).

grinch031

Having read Good Calories, Bad Calories, I think Taubes' hypothesis makes a lot of sense, even though it is flawed.

First thing to make clear is that Taubes' hypothesis is completely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

Anyways even if you set the science aside, I have a hard time believing that humans are the only species incapable of regulating their own fat metabolism, such that when presented with an abundance of food, they will end up obese. That whole notion seems absurd to me. Now people can find flaws in Taubes' hypothesis, but I can't rule it out especially when a HUGE proportion of the obese population has insulin resistance. And we all know insulin resistance can cause further weight gains.

The big question is whether Taubes is right, that excess refined carbohydrate consumption CAUSES insulin resistance and obesity.

Here is one doctor's opinion:

http://www.carbohydratescankill.com/402/carbohydraterich-diet-likely-culprit-for-insulin-resistance-2

Overconsumption of food in general causes insulin resistance, not carbs on their own and diet is only 1 factor that contributes to insulin resistance and why people think it's all that matters is just lack on information.. Anyone can eat all the carbs they want and if it's at a maintenance level, it gets used as energy, or stored as glycogen. If that same person is eating a lot of carbs in a deficit then they become more insulin sensitive, every time. Saying carbs causes obesity is no different than saying saturated fat causes heart disease. The big question, or the big equation that is hard to figure out is that all metabolic dysfuction and the difficulties trying to figure out how we the individual burn calories is enormous, and has everyone saying and thinking everyone is different. In reality all factors that make it difficult to figure out why and how we burn calories are automatically accounted for on the outside of the energy balance equation, even though people don't know what they are, and calories in vs out always works, the problem like i said is people don't know much about the out side of the EBE, as opposed to the in side where it's just calories from food.

Are we all really that different in caloric expenditure? I don't think we are. I think people who are sedentary burn less than people who are active all day long, and that difference is pretty significant but predictable. But I think the individual activities' expenditures are probably comparable from person to person.