A Perspective - It's Not About the Calories

questionablemethods

Please don't misunderstand my post, I completely agree that food quality is important for health. But not so much for weight loss only. Not without an underlying medical condition.

Agreed, but I am positing that the weight is often the symptom, not the sickness. Maybe the sickness is mental, maybe physical, I don't know, and that perhaps food quality can address that underlying sickness. (And really, I hesitate to even separate the mental from the physical because I think there is growing evidence that quite a lot of mental illnesses, from anxiety to depression to schizophrenia, can be triggered by food intolerances and/or made worse by micronutrient deficiencies.

questionablemethods

And actually, this brings us back to the calories in/calories out equation. Let's talk about weight maintenance.

My problem has always been that when I stop burning more (i.e. stop exercising regularly) I forget to eat less.

Yeah, same here.

Okay, so the question is why do you (or I) forget to eat less when we stop exercising regularly?

Is it just habit? We're used to eating the same thing every day and we forget to scale back our portions? So are we just that bad at listening to our bodies' satiety signals? Moreover, when we've taken in an excess of calories that we need to maintain our weight, why don't we have an insurmountable biological urge to burn it off? After all, that is what is supposed to happen, given thermodynamics, right? (I am NOT disputing the laws of thermodynamics people.)

So what's going on? Are the calories we are eating not allowing us to "hear" the satiety signals? Are we raising our bodies' "set point"? Of course we need some essential fat reserves, but I can't think of one evolutionarily sound reason that we should be able to reach morbidly obese levels.

Furthermore, why is there a growing number of obese INFANTS? Obviously all growing infants are taking in an excess of calories, so if they are taking in a "super" excess amount, why are they just not growing FASTER? (I use "growing" in the height/development sense, not the weight gain sense.) Or, why are they not just burning off the excess through fidgeting or refusing more food? It is a lot more difficult to say "Well that 10 month old is just lazy!"

I'm not saying Taubes's carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis is correct, but I do appreciate that he is asking the questions like these, along with others -- not all of whom agree with the insulin hypothesis, by the way--but they are asking the question and formulating other theories.

bcattoes

And actually, this brings us back to the calories in/calories out equation. Let's talk about weight maintenance.

My problem has always been that when I stop burning more (i.e. stop exercising regularly) I forget to eat less.

Yeah, same here.

Okay, so the question is why do you (or I) forget to eat less when we stop exercising regularly?

Is it just habit? We're used to eating the same thing every day and we forget to scale back our portions? So are we just that bad at listening to our bodies' satiety signals? Moreover, when we've taken in an excess of calories that we need to maintain our weight, why don't we have an insurmountable biological urge to burn it off? After all, that is what is supposed to happen, given thermodynamics, right? (I am NOT disputing the laws of thermodynamics people.)

So what's going on? Are the calories we are eating not allowing us to "hear" the satiety signals? Are we raising our bodies' "set point"? Of course we need some essential fat reserves, but I can't think of one evolutionarily sound reason that we should be able to reach morbidly obese levels.

Furthermore, why is there a growing number of obese INFANTS? Obviously all growing infants are taking in an excess of calories, so if they are taking in a "super" excess amount, why are they just not growing FASTER? (I use "growing" in the height/development sense, not the weight gain sense.) Or, why are they not just burning off the excess through fidgeting or refusing more food? It is a lot more difficult to say "Well that 10 month old is just lazy!"

I'm not saying Taubes's carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis is correct, but I do appreciate that he is asking the questions like these, along with others -- not all of whom agree with the insulin hypothesis, by the way--but they are asking the question and formulating other theories.

I don't know anything about Taube's hypothesis. But I know me and why I eat too much. For me, I like the taste of food and I work too much. I really, really, like food. I prefer the taste of healthy food to junk food, but I can eat a LOT of it. If I didn't have to work I have no doubt I would have no problem exercising everyday. But when you have a commute, sit at a desk for 8-10 hrs, then commute back home to family, dinner, dishes, laundry, etc., it's really difficult to find time for enough exercise. I know I need it and will do it regularly for years at a time, then it's usually something that forces me to stop for a while (injury, illness, vacation, etc.) that throws me off. And I'll go months just doing it intermittently before I realize I've just put on 20 lbs. Then I start exercising again.

This has been my life whether I was eating healthy or unhealthy. Actually I was never overweight at all when I used to live on junk, but I'm sure that's because I was young and I just skipped meals when I thought I'd gained a few and then went back to the tacos and pizza. This is why I think it's about calories. Because for me it has always been.

questionablemethods

I don't know anything about Taube's hypothesis. But I know me and why I eat too much. For me, I like the taste of food and I work too much. I really, really, like food. I prefer the taste of healthy food to junk food, but I can eat a LOT of it.

Me too. But that right there is saying that there is something going besides simple caloric balance. Again, nobody misunderstand. I'm not denying the laws of thermodynamics. I am pointing out that the laws of thermodynamics govern weight maintenance just as much as they govern weight gain and loss.

So you're saying that the palatability of food makes you eat to caloric excess. If it was just purely about the calories, then you should naturally eat until your body has had enough, and then stop. Or, your body's metabolism should go up to burn off any slight excess. Or you should burn off the excess, maybe not with conscious exercise, but maybe with fidgeting or pacing or something that burns off the excess to keep you in caloric balance.

Now, I can understand biologically why we might be able to get 10-20 lbs of excess fat on us. That seems evolutionarily adaptive (times of famine and all that). But can that alone explain much greater levels of weight gain? How is it evolutionarily adaptive for some people's bodies to allow them to put on an extra 100 lbs of fat, often making it more difficult to do things like walk or climb?

And again, how can we explain growing rates obese infants? (I'm not talking about adolescents -- infants.)

Infants are naturally out of caloric balance. Through development they must take in more calories than they need to "maintain" their weight because they aren't supposed to be maintaining -- they are supposed to be growing and developing. But then how have we ended up with a growing population of obese/overweight newborns and infants? (Here's a news article that talks about the study http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/49328.php).

So how do infants end up taking in more calories than their bodies can use to grow and develop at typical rates? Thermodynamics predicts that they should either 1) refuse excess calories (because they are not hungry) or 2) "burn off" the excess (fidgeting more, raised metabolism, something).

Again, the ability for a baby to store some extra fat seems adaptive, but that alone can't explain why the numbers of overweight infants seems to be growing, can it?

I'm really interesting in having a discussion about this. I know what Taubes says (you can see a lecture here that he says covers everything in his new book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4) and I don't know that Taubes is right in his hypothesis. But then I am interested in hearing other hypotheses.

freerange

If it is about Calories In / Calories Out, how did I lose weight on the low carb plan, but not the tradiitonal low fat plan previously prescribed?????

P.s - I measured my food on both plans.

a possible undiagnosed metabolic disorder?

regardless this is a N=1 situation, controlled studies have repeatedly shown the energy balance equation holds.

I love it, "well, well it's well it's n=1. " Whenever something doesn't fit their agenda it always comes back to n=1. I wonder how many n=1's do we need to have a n=something they will take seriously? LOL

questionablemethods

If it is about Calories In / Calories Out, how did I lose weight on the low carb plan, but not the tradiitonal low fat plan previously prescribed?????

P.s - I measured my food on both plans.

a possible undiagnosed metabolic disorder?

Again, this is another confirmation that, at least in some situations, we realize that it *is* about more than energy balance. Same caveat as before, I am NOT saying the laws of thermodynamics do not hold. I am reminding us that weight maintenance is governed by the laws of thermodynamics just as much as weight gain and loss.

What does it mean to have an "undiagnosed metabolic disorder"? Presumably it means that something in the body is causing a person to take in more calories than they expend -- and the result is fat accumulation. Children who are growing are in positive energy balance -- they are taking in more calories than they need to maintain their weight because their pituitary glad is secreting growth hormone -- we don't say that they are "over eating" but we acknowledge that their horomones are causing them to eat more than they need to "maintain" (which is good in this case -- we don't want a 2-year-old to "maintain" his/her weight).

To use a similar example that I just heard Taubes make:

Imagine that two 8-year-olds show up in a pediatrician's office. One of the children is 6'3 tall and 200 lbs and the doctor immediately schedules an MRI because he suspects that the child has giantism -- a tumor in his pituitary gland stimulating an excess of growth hormone (and an increase in caloric intake to fuel the growth).

The other child is 4' tall and weighs 200 lbs. What would the doctor most likely do? Tell his mother to make sure he eats less and gets more exercise. How are they different? Both children are in positive energy balance above and beyond that required for normal development. Why wouldn't most doctors look for the underlying cause of this second child's drive to take in more calories than needed for normal growth?

HMonsterX

It means something that most of us dont have, therefore in basic speak its pretty safe to say calories in/calories out, in 99% of cases, that's the truth.

Acg67

If it is about Calories In / Calories Out, how did I lose weight on the low carb plan, but not the tradiitonal low fat plan previously prescribed?????

P.s - I measured my food on both plans.

a possible undiagnosed metabolic disorder?

Again, this is another confirmation that, at least in some situations, we realize that it *is* about more than energy balance. Same caveat as before, I am NOT saying the laws of thermodynamics do not hold. I am reminding us that weight maintenance is governed by the laws of thermodynamics just as much as weight gain and loss.

What does it mean to have an "undiagnosed metabolic disorder"? Presumably it means that something in the body is causing a person to take in more calories than they expend -- and the result is fat accumulation. Children who are growing are in positive energy balance -- they are taking in more calories than they need to maintain their weight because their pituitary glad is secreting growth hormone -- we don't say that they are "over eating" but we acknowledge that their horomones are causing them to eat more than they need to "maintain" (which is good in this case -- we don't want a 2-year-old to "maintain" his/her weight).

"What does it mean to have an "undiagnosed metabolic disorder"? Presumably it means that something in the body is causing a person to take in more calories than they expend -- and the result is fat accumulation. "

ah but you see that means the energy balance equation still holds, take in more cals then you expand = fat gain. Cals out is really a combo of things like BMR, NEAT, TEF etc and there are other things that effect those things, but that doesn't change the fact that the energy balance equation still holds

questionablemethods

"What does it mean to have an "undiagnosed metabolic disorder"? Presumably it means that something in the body is causing a person to take in more calories than they expend -- and the result is fat accumulation. "

ah but you see that means the energy balance equation still holds, take in more cals then you expand = fat gain. Cals out is really a combo of things like BMR, NEAT, TEF etc and there are other things that effect those things, but that doesn't change the fact that the energy balance equation still holds

Of course it does! I never said it didn't. But the energy balance equation holds for weight maintenance too!

How about the children? Why does the doctor go looking for a cause of the growth in height in one child but only treats the symptom (weight gain) in the other? Both have been taking in more calories than they need for normal growth.

CharlieJuliette

Bump, to read later.

hpsnickers1

The correlation between a diet high in saturated fat (especially the kind found in milk products and red meat) and incidence of heart disease has proven true in enough medical studies done since Ancel Keys' research that it is generally recommended to limit those types of saturated fat.

And there are also studies showing that there is no correlation between saturated fat intake and heart disease. You don't hear much about those in the media though.... hmmmm

Yeah, this is why people claim that Gary Taubes cherry-picked his data.

"...By critically examining the research that led to the prevaling wisdom and health, this book may appear one-sided, buy only in that it presents a side that is not often voiced publicly. Since the 1970s, the belief that saturated fat causes heart disease and perhaps other chronic diseases has been justified by a series of expert reports - from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Surgeon General's Office, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Department of Health in the U.K., among others. These reports present the evidence in support of the fat-cholesterol hypothesis and mostly omit the evidence in contradiction. This makes for a very compelling case, but it is not how science is best served. It is a technique used to its greatest advantage by trial lawyers, who assume correctly that the most persuasive case to a jury is one that presents only one side of the story. The legal system, however, assures that judge and jury hear both sides by requiring the presence of competing attorneys.
In the case of the fat-cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease, there has always been considerable skepticism of the hypothesis and data is rarely made public is a major theme of this book. In fact, skeptics have often been attacked or ignored, as if disloyal at time of war. Skepticism, however, cannot be removed from the scientific progress. Science does not function without it.
...Researchers and clinical investigators by necessity focus their attention on a tiny fragment of the whole, and then employ the results of other disciplines to extend the implications of their own research...
The problem is exacerbated in the study of nutrition, obesity and chronic disease because significant observations emerge from so many diverse disciplines. Indeed. the argument can be made that, to fully understand obesity alone, researchers should have a working familiarity with the literature in clinical treatment of obesity in humans, body-weight regulation in animals, mammalian reproduction, endocrinology, metabolism, anthropology, exercise physiology, and perhaps human psychology, not to mention having a critical understanding and familiarity with the nuances of clinical trials and observational epidemiology. Most researchers and clinicians barely have time to read the journals in their own sub-specialty or sub-sub-specialty, let alone the dozens of significant journals that cover the other disciplines involved. This is a primary reason why the relevant science if plagued with misconceptions propagated about some of the most basic notions. Researchers will be suitably scientific and critical when addressing the limitations of their own experiments, and then will cite something as gospel because that's what they were taught in medical school, however many years earlier, or because they read it in The New England Journal of Medicine. Speculations, assumptions, and erroneous interpretations of the evidence then become truth by virtue of constant repetition. If is my belief that when all the evidence is taken into account, rather than just a prejudicial subset, the picture that emerges will be more revealing of the underlying reality."
Good Calories, Bad Calories; Gary Taubes; Prologue


Heart disease rates have not declined. Deaths from heart disease has declined. Because of drugs.

freerange

I didn't read any of this. I mean, I skimmed, but really, if you try to throw thousands of words at people whom you want to make an impression, you're going to bore most of us. I'm pretty sure EVERYONE here has a goal of looking good naked, whether that comes from being fit and healthy or just plain thin, and I really think that's the important part to focus on.

I'm pretty sure those that only have a goal of looking good naked, would be bored reading more than a couple hundred words at one sitting.