low carb or not?

martinah4

I know I'm stepping on a hornet's nest here but you could have 100 studies telling me I'm wrong and I won't believe you. I gained about 60# eating the high-carb/low-fat diet that a dietitian gave me for hypoglycemia. This was on top of the 50# I had already gained through pregnancies, etc. putting me at a high of 237.

I was starving all the time and miserable in so many ways but rarely ate over 1500 calories in a day, usually closer to 1200. I felt like a physical wreck, was exhausted all the time, had severe emotional mood swings including severe temper tantrums, became depressed and suicidal and, of course, was still having glucose highs/crashes which was causing most of these problems. I'm surprised my husband didn't divorce me and that my kids didn't run away from home. It was nasty and I wasn't nice a lot of the time.

It took me years of reading everything I could get my hands on before I ever heard of insulinimia (I know I'm spelling that wrong) but I'm referring to the fact that my body way over produced insulin based on the high carbs making me insulin resistant and, eventually, diabetic. And even longer to consider a low-carb eating plan. One reason why I avoided it is that my taste buds love bread, potatos, rice, etc. It's very hard for me to eat meat unless it's smothered in a casserole, between bread, a pasty, and such. I just don't like it much.

But the reality is that eating more protein and lower carb has made a world of difference to me. I am gradually losing weight without hunger (although I do sometimes have a hard time getting all my calories in), my moods are stable and good, I have more energy, I think more clearly, and my blood sugar readings are much improved.

I struggle to keep my carbs below about 60/day (which seems to be the cut-off for me of what my body can handle) and I never get enough protein but I keep working on it. But I feel and look so much better this way it's worth it to keep trying to perfect this way of eating for me. Oh, and my cholesterol numbers and blood pressure are excellent.

Each side of this argument can find hundreds of studies to support their position. And the other side can poke holes in each of the other sides studies. And I realize my anecdotal personal story isn't going to convince anyone but myself but that's OK.

You've convinced me, because I've pretty much discovered the same thing! My body doesn't do refined carbs and processed foods. I keep my net carbs at 20 a day, and you can see my success on my ticker. Wish everyone could get over their carbage fixations!

LowCarbForLife

I will let Taubes himself respond to your criticism stating essentially what I stated earlier. The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO.

http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=2471&pid=58168#pid58168

Taubes himself argues his book was an attempt to review the prevailing wisdom on the cause of obesity and then to propose a new alternative *hypothesis* which should be then tested. I believe that underlying his statement on eating as much protein as you want is the implication that eating protein is self-limiting when you do it in the absence of carbohydrate.

"If you restrict only carbohydra­tes, you can always eat more protein and fat if you feel the urge, since they have no effect on fat accumulati­on"

Location 2519 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat

"But protein and fat don't make us fat-only the carbohydra­tes do-so there is no reason to curtail them in any way"

Location 3064 Why We Get Fat

"The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO. "

in identical isocaloric amounts, what produces the lowest insulin response? White pasta, Brown pasta, Mature Cheddar cheese, Top round beef fillets or steamed Ling fish fillets?

"He was interested in why we have gotten as fat as we have living "in the wild" (i.e. not weighing and measuring every bite on MFP). So to give the hypothesis a fair shake, doesn't it seem like we would really need a long-term, ad libitum study comparing how much weight people end up gaining eating high carb vs. low carb? "

not really since how could you drill all the way down to that higher CHO intake was the cause of the weight gain. if you want to show that CHO is mainly responsible for weight gain and that low CHO diets are best for weight loss, then it should show up in controlled metabolic ward studies.

"But I also think Taubes is right in saying that we might be concentrating on energy balance as the be all and end all of stopping weight gain is not helpful. Yes, caloric restriction results in weight loss but that advice, on a population level, IS NOT WORKING. So maybe it is time to give different advice? Concentrate on food quality and nutrient density instead of calories?"

i don't disagree that food quality and nutrient dense foods should be stressed, but to single out a macronutrient as the cause of obesity is silly

http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf
page 1269
Hmm, which group am I going to eat and which to avoid if I want to control insulin? (relative insulin response % shown)

White bread 100
potatoes 121
baked beans 120
yogurt 115
mars bar 122
jellybeans 160
ice cream 89
cookies 90
crackers 87
grapes 82

eggs 31
cheese, 45
beef 41
fish 59
peanuts 20

??? Um, the link provided only has 13 pages. And what are those numbers supposed to represent?

? 1269 is the page number with the results chart on it. The first page in the paper is 1264.
The numbers are the author's calculated insulin score %, which is the relative insulin impact of the food with white bread the reference food at 100%. If you like bar charts there is a nice comparative one of just the insulin score % on page 1271.

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to systematically compare postprandial insulin responses to isoenergetic 1000-kj
(240-kcal) portions of several common foods. Correlations with nutrient content were determined. Thirty-eight foods separated into six food categories (fruit, bakery products, snacks, carbohydrate rich foods, protein-rich foods, and breakfast cereals) were fed to groups of 11-13healthy subjects. Finger-prick blood samples were obtained every 15 mm over 120 mm. An insulin score was calculated from the area under the insulin response curve for each food with use of white bread as the reference food (score = 100%). Significant differences in insulin score were found both within and among the food categories and also among foods containing a similar amount of carbohydrate. Overall, glucose and insulin scores were highly correlated (r = 0.70, P < 0.001, n = 38). However, protein-rich foods and bakery products (rich in fat and refined carbohydrate) elicited insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses. Total carbohydrate (r = 0.39, P < 0.05, n = 36) and sugar (r = 0.36, P < 0.05, n = 36) contents were positively related to the mean insulin scores, whereas fat (r =-0.2N7S, NS, n =36) and protein (r =-0.24, NS, n = 38) contents were negatively related. Consideration of insulin scores may be relevant to the dietary management and pathogenesis of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hyperlipidemia and may help increase the accuracy of estimating preprandial insulin requirements. Am J Clin Nutr l997;66:l264-76.

EDITED to try and clean up the abstract copy/paste defects.

I see. Were there any whole grains on the chart, or was it more dramatic to only include processed white grains, which pretty much everyone agrees is bad?

Are you asking a question? Grain bread is 56%.

I was asking a question. Why use sugary foods in the comparison? I think everyone agrees those are bad. But fish is 59% and Grain bread is 56%. Non-ground whole grains would likely be even lower. That would suggest that whole grain carbs are no worse than a lot of things you used as "good" examples. I'm not saying that you should eat grains. That's your decision. I just don't see the point in the comparison of junk food as an agrument for going low carb. That's an argument for going low junk food.

The point of including those various food types is that they are the ones that people actually eat. The paper wasn't looking at only foods people should eat.

Beyond the insulin raising properties of particular foods there is also the issue of the release of the corresponding hormone glucagon which has the opposite effect from insulin. Several studies I've seen suggest that protein will cause the release of glucagon at the same time as insulin is released and some studies show that the more protein which is eaten the lower the ratio of insulin to glucagon, which according to my eating plan is a good thing. The relationship between glucagon release and carbohydrate is not as strong. So while fish and whole grain may be comparable in their effect on the release of insulin, there may be differences in the ratio of how much glucagon is released which make their overall affect different.

As you said, there are other issues with grain as well and those for me are the ones which have led me to the decision to avoid grains of all types.

Disclaimer: I have probably mucked up effect and affect. That doesn't make me a bad person.

LowCarbForLife

And also, from Why We Get Fat (p. 74), emphasis my own.

Health experts think that the first law (of thermodynamics) is relevant to why we get fat because they say to themselves and then to us, as the New York Times did, "Those who consume more calories than they expend in energy will gain weight." This is true. It has to be. To get fatter and heavier, we have to overeat. We have to consume more calories than we expend. That's a given. But thermodynamics tells us nothing about WHY THIS HAPPENS, why we consume more calories than we expend. It only says that if we do, we will get heavier, and if we get heavier, then we did.

ah, but he also goes on to say that overeating is a symptom of obesity and not the cause of obesity, assuming that is true how did said people get obese?

They became obese by accumulating fat. His hypothesis is that this fat accumulation is directly affected by the body's insulin production. I think it is slightly more complicated that than as I think there are other hormones which effect this fat accumulation but I believe like him that insulin is the primary one to be concerned with and think that his hypothesis is worth testing.

Acg67

They became obese by accumulating fat. His hypothesis is that this fat accumulation is directly affected by the body's insulin production. I think it is slightly more complicated that than as I think there are other hormones which effect this fat accumulation but I believe like him that insulin is the primary one to be concerned with and think that his hypothesis is worth testing.

and did this accumulation of fat happen in a consistent caloric deficit or surplus?

questionablemethods

They became obese by accumulating fat. His hypothesis is that this fat accumulation is directly affected by the body's insulin production. I think it is slightly more complicated that than as I think there are other hormones which effect this fat accumulation but I believe like him that insulin is the primary one to be concerned with and think that his hypothesis is worth testing.

and did this accumulation of fat happen in a consistent caloric deficit or surplus?

Obviously in a consistent surplus. But why are they constantly eating at surplus? Simple gluttony and sloth?

PreshelledPistachio

Low carb is the only diet where I don't get hungry between meals. The more carbs I eat the hungrier I get until I could stuff my face all day and still not be satisfied.

questionablemethods

Low carb is the only diet where I don't get hungry between meals. The more carbs I eat the hungrier I get until I could stuff my face all day and still not be satisfied.

Ditto. And I'm not talking about stuffing my face with junk food, either. I realize this isn't the case for everyone, though.

bcattoes

They became obese by accumulating fat. His hypothesis is that this fat accumulation is directly affected by the body's insulin production. I think it is slightly more complicated that than as I think there are other hormones which effect this fat accumulation but I believe like him that insulin is the primary one to be concerned with and think that his hypothesis is worth testing.

and did this accumulation of fat happen in a consistent caloric deficit or surplus?

Obviously in a consistent surplus. But why are they constantly eating at surplus? Simple gluttony and sloth?

I say yes! People who don't admit that they got fat because they ate too much and exercised too little are just lying to either themselves and/or everyone else. Whether you say "carbs make me want to eat more" or "fat makes me want to eat more" or "XXXX makes me want to eat more", the fact is that nothing other than your own gluttony and sloth actually made you eat more. Just because you find food tasty and want more does not make the food guilty when you get fat. You ate it. You did it. You are guilty.

If you can lose better by avoiding the food, then absolutely you should do that, whatever the food is. But it is still you who lack the self control, not the food.

(you = general "you", not any specific person).

questionablemethods

I say yes! People who don't admit that they got fat because they ate too much and exercised too little are just lying to either themselves and/or everyone else. Whether you say "carbs make me want to eat more" or "fat makes me want to eat more" or "XXXX makes me want to eat more", the fact is that nothing other than your own gluttony and sloth actually made you eat more. Just because you find food tasty and want more does not make the food guilty when you get fat. You ate it. You did it. You are guilty.

Why is there a growing number of obese infants? Also gluttony and sloth?

bcattoes

I say yes! People who don't admit that they got fat because they ate too much and exercised too little are just lying to either themselves and/or everyone else. Whether you say "carbs make me want to eat more" or "fat makes me want to eat more" or "XXXX makes me want to eat more", the fact is that nothing other than your own gluttony and sloth actually made you eat more. Just because you find food tasty and want more does not make the food guilty when you get fat. You ate it. You did it. You are guilty.

Why is there a growing number of obese infants? Also gluttony and sloth?

Yes. Gluttony and sloth of the parent(s). That's where the cycle begins.

questionablemethods

I say yes! People who don't admit that they got fat because they ate too much and exercised too little are just lying to either themselves and/or everyone else. Whether you say "carbs make me want to eat more" or "fat makes me want to eat more" or "XXXX makes me want to eat more", the fact is that nothing other than your own gluttony and sloth actually made you eat more. Just because you find food tasty and want more does not make the food guilty when you get fat. You ate it. You did it. You are guilty.

Why is there a growing number of obese infants? Also gluttony and sloth?

Yes. Gluttony and sloth of the parent(s). That's where the cycle begins.

I don't quite understand how that works with a 6-month-old.

Acg67

They became obese by accumulating fat. His hypothesis is that this fat accumulation is directly affected by the body's insulin production. I think it is slightly more complicated that than as I think there are other hormones which effect this fat accumulation but I believe like him that insulin is the primary one to be concerned with and think that his hypothesis is worth testing.

and did this accumulation of fat happen in a consistent caloric deficit or surplus?

Obviously in a consistent surplus. But why are they constantly eating at surplus? Simple gluttony and sloth?

so they were overeating before they were obese, correct? therefore overeating is the cause of obesity and not a symptom of

questionablemethods

They became obese by accumulating fat. His hypothesis is that this fat accumulation is directly affected by the body's insulin production. I think it is slightly more complicated that than as I think there are other hormones which effect this fat accumulation but I believe like him that insulin is the primary one to be concerned with and think that his hypothesis is worth testing.

and did this accumulation of fat happen in a consistent caloric deficit or surplus?

Obviously in a consistent surplus. But why are they constantly eating at surplus? Simple gluttony and sloth?

so they were overeating before they were obese, correct? therefore overeating is the cause of obesity and not a symptom of

Children getting taller are also "overeating" in that they are taking in more than they need to maintain their current state. Is overeating the cause normal growth in height?

LowCarbForLife

They became obese by accumulating fat. His hypothesis is that this fat accumulation is directly affected by the body's insulin production. I think it is slightly more complicated that than as I think there are other hormones which effect this fat accumulation but I believe like him that insulin is the primary one to be concerned with and think that his hypothesis is worth testing.

and did this accumulation of fat happen in a consistent caloric deficit or surplus?

The answer to that question like most complex questions is, "it depends", because in my opinion all calories are not equal. Many people like to bring up the first law of thermodynamics to support the idea that 'a calorie is a calorie', but they seem to conveniently omit discussion of the second law. When a transformation of matter occurs energy is lost but the rate of loss is not a constant. Calories from different sources are processed differently by the body, some requiring more energy. Then as I mentioned earlier there is quite a bit of variance in the effect certain foods have on the release of various hormones which impact fat accumulation, most notably insulin and glucagon.

While I think this discussion has been reasonably civil and productive, I think I'm done with it. I am obviously not going to convince you of anything based on your signature and this is taking away too much time from other things that need more of my attention.

bcattoes

I say yes! People who don't admit that they got fat because they ate too much and exercised too little are just lying to either themselves and/or everyone else. Whether you say "carbs make me want to eat more" or "fat makes me want to eat more" or "XXXX makes me want to eat more", the fact is that nothing other than your own gluttony and sloth actually made you eat more. Just because you find food tasty and want more does not make the food guilty when you get fat. You ate it. You did it. You are guilty.

Why is there a growing number of obese infants? Also gluttony and sloth?

Yes. Gluttony and sloth of the parent(s). That's where the cycle begins.

I don't quite understand how that works with a 6-month-old.

Mom overeats and gives birth to an obese baby. Baby cries so mom inserts bottle or breast whether or not it should be time for baby to be hungry.

What is your explanation? .

questionablemethods

I say yes! People who don't admit that they got fat because they ate too much and exercised too little are just lying to either themselves and/or everyone else. Whether you say "carbs make me want to eat more" or "fat makes me want to eat more" or "XXXX makes me want to eat more", the fact is that nothing other than your own gluttony and sloth actually made you eat more. Just because you find food tasty and want more does not make the food guilty when you get fat. You ate it. You did it. You are guilty.

Why is there a growing number of obese infants? Also gluttony and sloth?

Yes. Gluttony and sloth of the parent(s). That's where the cycle begins.

I don't quite understand how that works with a 6-month-old.

Mom overeats and gives birth to an obese baby. Baby cries so mom inserts bottle or breast whether or not it should be time for baby to be hungry.

What is your explanation? .

Actually, I recently looked up birth stats because I thought babies were being born larger too. That doesn't seem to be the case from the stats I found (can't recall the source). I am assuming that a baby eating what it is "supposed" to can self-regulate. Cries when it is hungry, eats until it has had enough, grows normally. That's how it has always worked, right? No one is calorie counting for their infant. The obese babies tend to be formula fed. They aren't stopping when they are have had an adequate amount, like breastfed babies do.

Moreover, if they do have an excess of calories for their needs, their metabolisms should rise or they should fidget or something more to burn off the excess, right? That's what thermodynamics tells us must happen.

bcattoes

I say yes! People who don't admit that they got fat because they ate too much and exercised too little are just lying to either themselves and/or everyone else. Whether you say "carbs make me want to eat more" or "fat makes me want to eat more" or "XXXX makes me want to eat more", the fact is that nothing other than your own gluttony and sloth actually made you eat more. Just because you find food tasty and want more does not make the food guilty when you get fat. You ate it. You did it. You are guilty.

Why is there a growing number of obese infants? Also gluttony and sloth?

Yes. Gluttony and sloth of the parent(s). That's where the cycle begins.

I don't quite understand how that works with a 6-month-old.

Mom overeats and gives birth to an obese baby. Baby cries so mom inserts bottle or breast whether or not it should be time for baby to be hungry.

What is your explanation? .

Actually, I recently looked up birth stats because I thought babies were being born larger too. That doesn't seem to be the case from the stats I found (can't recall the source). I am assuming that a baby eating what it is "supposed" to can self-regulate. Cries when it is hungry, eats until it has had enough, grows normally. That's how it has always worked, right? No one is calorie counting for their infant. The obese babies tend to be formula fed. They aren't stopping when they are have had an adequate amount, like breastfed babies do.

Moreover, if they do have an excess of calories for their needs, their metabolisms should rise or they should fidget or something more to burn off the excess, right? That's what thermodynamics tells us must happen.

The flaw with that theory is that there should have been much more obese babies in the past, because there were many more babies fed formula in the past. The push to return to breast feeding didn't happen until the late 70's early 80's. But in the 50's, 60's and 70's (and probably before) obese infants and children were rare.

questionablemethods

The flaw with that theory is that there should have been much more obese babies in the past, because there were many more babies fed formula in the past. The push to return to breast feeding didn't happen until the late 70's early 80's. But in the 50's, 60's and 70's (and probably before) obese infants and children were rare.

Good point. Is formula exactly the same as it was then?

bcattoes

The flaw with that theory is that there should have been much more obese babies in the past, because there were many more babies fed formula in the past. The push to return to breast feeding didn't happen until the late 70's early 80's. But in the 50's, 60's and 70's (and probably before) obese infants and children were rare.

Good point. Is formula exactly the same as it was then?

It's improved nutritionally over the years, I'm sure (added vitamins, iron, etc.). I think it was closer to plain milk or light cream in the past.

Acg67

Children getting taller are also "overeating" in that they are taking in more than they need to maintain their current state. Is overeating the cause normal growth in height?

no it is not, but comparing a growing child to an adult is two totally different things and you're talking about "normal" growth not excessive growth, like excessive fat accumulation. i do see the point you're trying to make though

"Calories from different sources are processed differently by the body, some requiring more energy. Then as I mentioned earlier there is quite a bit of variance in the effect certain foods have on the release of various hormones which impact fat accumulation, most notably insulin and glucagon. "

I don't disagree with that statement (different TEFs of the macors etc), but still to single out CHO as reason why people get fat, well i think that is a large leap of faith to make

questionablemethods

The flaw with that theory is that there should have been much more obese babies in the past, because there were many more babies fed formula in the past. The push to return to breast feeding didn't happen until the late 70's early 80's. But in the 50's, 60's and 70's (and probably before) obese infants and children were rare.

Good point. Is formula exactly the same as it was then?

It's improved nutritionally over the years, I'm sure (added vitamins, iron, etc.). I think it was closer to plain milk or light cream in the past.

Yeah, I don't know. It's hard to even find consistent information about what makes up breast milk. Regardless, it still doesn't explain why the babies are storing the excess calories fat as opposed to burning it off. The first law of thermodynamics tells us the latter must happen.

It also doesn't tell us why animals when fed what they are "supposed" to be eating, regulate their bodyweight just fine. I can leave giant bowls of raw meat for my cat and he doesn't gorge himself and become obese. I don't need to control his intake or put him on a treadmill and force him to run. This is not to say that there aren't obese house cats out there, but what food are they getting obese on?

bcattoes

The flaw with that theory is that there should have been much more obese babies in the past, because there were many more babies fed formula in the past. The push to return to breast feeding didn't happen until the late 70's early 80's. But in the 50's, 60's and 70's (and probably before) obese infants and children were rare.

Good point. Is formula exactly the same as it was then?

It's improved nutritionally over the years, I'm sure (added vitamins, iron, etc.). I think it was closer to plain milk or light cream in the past.

Yeah, I don't know. It's hard to even find consistent information about what makes up breast milk. Regardless, it still doesn't explain why the babies are storing the excess calories fat as opposed to burning it off. The first law of thermodynamics tells us the latter must happen.

It also doesn't tell us why animals when fed what they are "supposed" to be eating, regulate their bodyweight just fine. I can leave giant bowls of raw meat for my cat and he doesn't gorge himself and become obese. I don't need to control his intake or put him on a treadmill and force him to run. This is not to say that there aren't obese house cats out there, but what food are they getting obese on?

There are fat horses, pigs, dogs, cats, most anything that we domesticate and overfeed. In the wild they have to work for it. If we had to work for our food we probably wouldn't be fat either.

questionablemethods

Children getting taller are also "overeating" in that they are taking in more than they need to maintain their current state. Is overeating the cause normal growth in height?

no it is not, but comparing a growing child to an adult is two totally different things and you're talking about "normal" growth not excessive growth, like excessive fat accumulation. i do see the point you're trying to make though

It's not my point, it is Taubes's point. The same point can be made (and I've posted this before), with two 8-year-old children who go into a doctor's office. One child is 6 feet tall and 180 lbs and the doctor immediately recognizes that he probably has a tumor affecting his pituitary and orders tests, etc.

The second child is 4 feet tall and 180 lbs and the doctor tells his mom to "feed him less" and "make him exercise."

Both children have been "overeating" in terms of what they need for normal growth but in the first case a hormonal imbalance is immediately recognized as the cause. In the second case it is gluttony and sloth.

I don't stand being signaling out carbohydrates. I don't know enough of the biochemistry. But again, I'd like to see a study showing weight gain rates with long-term, ad libitum low-carb versus high-carb.

questionablemethods

There are fat horses, pigs, dogs, cats, most anything that we domesticate and overfeed. In the wild they have to work for it. If we had to work for our food we probably wouldn't be fat either.

Overfeed with what? Food they aren't adapted to eat. My cat doesn't have to work for the raw meat and doesn't gorge on it.

Again, thermodynamics tells us that if we "overfeed" an animal, that animal should burn off the excess. The equation needs to be balanced. If I were to force-feed my cat more meat that it needs, you can sure as heck bet he's going to either be more active or eat less over the next day or two, despite there being a constant source of food.

bcattoes

There are fat horses, pigs, dogs, cats, most anything that we domesticate and overfeed. In the wild they have to work for it. If we had to work for our food we probably wouldn't be fat either.

Overfeed with what? Food they aren't adapted to eat. My cat doesn't have to work for the raw meat and doesn't gorge on it.

Again, thermodynamics tells us that if we "overfeed" an animal, that animal should burn off the excess. The equation needs to be balanced. If I were to force-feed my cat more meat that it needs, you can sure as heck bet he's going to either be more active or eat less over the next day or two, despite there being a constant source of food.

If I gave my dog enough meat to fill her up. She'd beg for more. And she'd eat it. This would continue until she was sure I wasn't giving her anymore. Then she'd go curl up on couch or porch swing. She might get up if the cat from next door wandered into the yard, but after that she'd just lay back down. We live a rural area where she's free to roam, but she's pretty lazy most of the time. And a little overweight, though she wasn't when she was younger.

I'm not sure where all this is going though. What does this have to do with carbs and fat babies?

questionablemethods

There are fat horses, pigs, dogs, cats, most anything that we domesticate and overfeed. In the wild they have to work for it. If we had to work for our food we probably wouldn't be fat either.

Overfeed with what? Food they aren't adapted to eat. My cat doesn't have to work for the raw meat and doesn't gorge on it.

Again, thermodynamics tells us that if we "overfeed" an animal, that animal should burn off the excess. The equation needs to be balanced. If I were to force-feed my cat more meat that it needs, you can sure as heck bet he's going to either be more active or eat less over the next day or two, despite there being a constant source of food.

If I gave my dog enough meat to fill her up. She'd beg for more. And she'd eat it. This would continue until she was sure I wasn't giving her anymore. Then she'd go curl up on couch or porch swing. She might get up if the cat from next door wandered into the yard, but after that she'd just lay back down. We live a rural area where she's free to roam, but she's pretty lazy most of the time. And a little overweight, though she wasn't when she was younger.

I'm not sure where all this is going though. What does this have to do with carbs and fat babies?

I don't know, this has gotten way off track. The point being, why are we storing excessive amounts of fat instead of burning off the excess energy? The first law of thermodynamics must apply for maintaining our weight, too.

Acg67

Children getting taller are also "overeating" in that they are taking in more than they need to maintain their current state. Is overeating the cause normal growth in height?

no it is not, but comparing a growing child to an adult is two totally different things and you're talking about "normal" growth not excessive growth, like excessive fat accumulation. i do see the point you're trying to make though

It's not my point, it is Taubes's point. The same point can be made (and I've posted this before), with two 8-year-old children who go into a doctor's office. One child is 6 feet tall and 180 lbs and the doctor immediately recognizes that he probably has a tumor affecting his pituitary and orders tests, etc.

The second child is 4 feet tall and 180 lbs and the doctor tells his mom to "feed him less" and "make him exercise."

Both children have been "overeating" in terms of what they need for normal growth but in the first case a hormonal imbalance is immediately recognized as the cause. In the second case it is gluttony and sloth.

I don't stand being signaling out carbohydrates. I don't know enough of the biochemistry. But again, I'd like to see a study showing weight gain rates with long-term, ad libitum low-carb versus high-carb.

here's the main difference, you can't control your growth, you can control your eating.

questionablemethods

here's the main difference, you can't control your growth, you can control your eating.

Both children were "overeating." The child with giantism could not have gained the weight (and height) without taking in more calories than needed to maintain (and more child than a normally growing 8-year-old).

Acg67

here's the main difference, you can't control your growth, you can control your eating.

Both children were "overeating." The child with giantism could not have gained the weight (and height) without taking in more calories than needed to maintain (and more child than a normally growing 8-year-old).

but the weight is to support his growing frame and new mass, in the obese child that is not the case

questionablemethods

here's the main difference, you can't control your growth, you can control your eating.

Both children were "overeating." The child with giantism could not have gained the weight (and height) without taking in more calories than needed to maintain (and more child than a normally growing 8-year-old).

but the weight is to support his growing frame and new mass, in the obese child that is not the case

But his frame would not be growing without his "overeating."