Is what he said correct about Carbs?

Sidesteal

Wow, I don't feel so bad now.

Nothing to feel bad about. I still want to know what piece of information you provided, that he is trying to dispute.

SergeantSunshine_reused

Wow, I don't feel so bad now.

Nothing to feel bad about. I still want to know what piece of information you provided, that he is trying to dispute.

My guess is that she said it is calories in vs calories out *shrugs*
That's what they have told me at my university. But i dont know anything *whistle whistle*

agthorn

Wow, I don't feel so bad now.

Nothing to feel bad about. I still want to know what piece of information you provided, that he is trying to dispute.

I was going to ask, but then I read "and it is not a matter of calories in v calories out...that is just not right" and figured it just wasn't worth it. I do still want to know what joejccva71 thinks I said somewhere else though.

willnorton

sunshine88..... you said you were not going to respond to anything i said....

oops.......

please try to block me so i wont have to look at the things you say on here.....

talk to a doctor and ask about cals in v cals out....doesnt work that way in all people..i have many low carb friends on here that are slim and fit because of that life style ....


and the lard thing was an exaggeration ....for you ...it meant eating something real bad for you all month...

whatever

darlilama

Me and one my friend were talkin about how she recently(over the summer) lost 30 lbs W/O EXERCISING! When she told me that my mouth dropped. Then this guy who put on a great deal of muscle in the past 1-2 years told me that if you cut out all the carbs in your diet you'd loose a great amount of weight because all the fat on your body is carbs. I'm not very bright in the food and nutrition departmment so was he right? If I stop eating things like white rice, bread, pasta, etc I loose a bunch of weight.:huh:

Yes, of course you can lose weight without exercising… but why would you not exercise? "Thin" does NOT equal "Healthy". I think that's where the term "skinny fat" comes in. Exercise … strength and cardio … improves your health, keeping your body strong, not just thin.

As for the "cut out all carbs" guy, I personally think this is ridiculous. Common sense to me is to eat quality foods in the right balance of nutrients. I think the science is pretty much closed on the whole idea that we need fats, carbs, and protein to sustain our bodies. Granted, the "right balance" can be different for different people. Diabetics obviously have to watch their carb intake more closely than the average person. Body builders need to ensure they get the protein they need to build/sustain muscle. I do tend to eat a little more protein and fewer carbs than what MFP set as my goals. Granted, I'm still working on the whole "quality" thing, but I do believe in it! I read nutrition labels on everything I eat… and it does help me make better choices.

tidmutt

Yes, of course you can lose weight without exercising… but why would you not exercise? "Thin" does NOT equal "Healthy". I think that's where the term "skinny fat" comes in. Exercise … strength and cardio … improves your health, keeping your body strong, not just thin.

As for the "cut out all carbs" guy, I personally think this is ridiculous. Common sense to me is to eat quality foods in the right balance of nutrients. I think the science is pretty much closed on the whole idea that we need fats, carbs, and protein to sustain our bodies. Granted, the "right balance" can be different for different people. Diabetics obviously have to watch their carb intake more closely than the average person. Body builders need to ensure they get the protein they need to build/sustain muscle. I do tend to eat a little more protein and fewer carbs than what MFP set as my goals. Granted, I'm still working on the whole "quality" thing, but I do believe in it! I read nutrition labels on everything I eat… and it does help me make better choices.

The science is not closed on this, we probably understand 1% of what we need to. On the topic of the "right balance", what is that? A "balanced diet" is the ridiculous concept in my opinion. Is it balanced based on the macro nutrients available? So 33.3% each? Balanced based on our imperfect understanding of the biochemistry of our bodies? Or perhaps balanced based on a evolutionary perspective, so what we evolved to eat? What is balanced may well vary from person to person and even day to day, season to season. It's a silly concept.

No one so far in this thread has mentioned the role of Leptin or other hormones in fat regulation. Our metabolic processes are NOT simple, they cannot be boiled down to a few anecdotes. As some people have mentioned there is substantial individual variation in our responses to different macro nutrient ratios. That's not even considering other factors such as stress or environment. It's an incredibly complex set of variables which is why no one has a single perfect solution to weight loss. I've conducted a n=1 experiment on myself, tracking intake and exercise, experimenting with different macro nutrient ratios. My reality is that a simple calorie deficit is not sufficient to induce consistent weight loss, I can be in deficit for months and go nowhere. Many people, especially those who have only had 10 - 20 lb to lose think that it's crazy because their own anecdotal experience is that a simple calorie deficit is sufficient to meet their goals. However, it's possible that someone who is 100 lb overweight may suffer from a completely different condition to the 10 - 20 lb person. It could be that specific macro nutrient ratios will help them lose weight more consistently or reliably.

My own experience has shown that I can lose weight using many different combinations of macro ratios but I choose to reduce my carb intake because I find it reduces my calorie intake further than a high carb diet and there is some possibility that the resulting hormonal impact may help as well, although I honestly don't know that for sure. It does seem to result in more consistent weight loss, even at similar caloric intake. I also believe that avoiding refined carbs may ultimately be better for my health, although that doesn't mean eating no carbs.

A few other points:

1) Body Fat is not carbs. What he is possibly saying is based on one theory that eating foods with a higher GI results in a insulin spike resulting in increased fat storage.
2) Exercise is great for maintaining lean muscle mass while dieting and increasing it. Personally I find doing it expecting it to significantly increase my weight loss is a mistake. So yes, you can lose lots of weight without exercising because losing weight is really all about diet. Saying that, what you should aim for is reducing Body Fat %, to do that you need to exercise, preferably resistance training.


People are so confused about what to eat to lose weight, in my opinion that's down to plenty of bad science, lots of bad journalism and the fact that our attempts to shoehorn weight loss into simple theories have just failed miserably. My answer has to be to find out what works for me by experimentation.

hockey7fan

I have lost all my weight without doing exercise outside of normal everyday stuff. I do play with my son and we go on walks around the neighborhood and we go play in the swimming pool, but I don't do any kind of planned exercise.

I do eat a low carb plan. I eat around 50 grams of carbs a day. I follow the Primal Blueprint, but I have followed the Atkins plan in the past.

Atkins is NOT a zero carb diet. Those who say it is have never read the book. The first phase of Atkins is 20 grams of carbs a day from vegetables. That's about 2 cups of non-starchy veggies. Then you add back in carbs 5 grams at a time until you stop losing. That's your ongoing weight loss carb amount. Once you have lost all the weight you want to, you add in more carbs until you stop losing and that's your maintenance amount of carbs.

AT NO TIME DOES THE ATKINS PROGRAM TELL YOU ONLY TO EAT MEAT AND FAT!

MikeSEA

So yeah. It really is calories in vs calories out in that you have to burn more than you take in. The fun part is that I don't have a bomb calorimeter inside my body. Not all nutrients are as bio available as others for all people.

That said, speaking in generalities that are shown to be true for most people doesn't mean we're saying that must be true for all. If [random statement x] doesn't hold true for [random person], then so what? It just means they fall out of the norm. I think everyone capable of understanding that when we talk about things being True in a general way, we accept that there are one-offs and exceptions.

HMonsterX

The bottom line is that for WEIGHT LOSS it really is calories in vs calories out. Whether you lose fat, muscle, whatever, if you eat less burn more you will lose weight. Maybe not all fat, but you will lose weight.

However, for overall health, it's more than that. Macros etc play a massive part too.

tidmutt

The bottom line is that for WEIGHT LOSS it really is calories in vs calories out. Whether you lose fat, muscle, whatever, if you eat less burn more you will lose weight. Maybe not all fat, but you will lose weight.

However, for overall health, it's more than that. Macros etc play a massive part too.

The macros may help indirectly more than you allude too. For example, if you believe some of the research on Leptin, reducing carb intake may result in greater Leptin Sensitivity resulting in better regulation of appetite leading to a reduction in calories. So yes, calories are important, but the macro ratios can help you control the intake. What's interesting here is that it shows how useless calories in vs calories out is in helping people to lose weight. Taubes was right about that, claiming that weight gain is about calorie surplus is like saying an alcoholic is an alcoholic because he drinks too much alcohol, it's not very helpful.

Also, the jury is still out on whether the hormonal impact of macros have a direct impact on fat loss, it's quite possibly they do.

Grokette

sounds like the atkins diet...
i think its hard because you're not allowed to eat ANY carbs! (youre not allowed to eat anything sweet, you might get cravings) it only works if you eat proteins and fats ONLY. this is really unhealthy. you can do it to lose the last 5 pounds. but i wouldnt do it for a long time. its not good for your body.

Umm with any lower carb plan or Atkins you eat plenty of carbs. Where do you all get that Atkins is NO carb????????????

You eat a lot of vegetables on Atkins.

And for the record, there is nothing unhealthy about eating proteins and fats only, carbs are NOT necessary..............Check out the forum Zeroing in on Health. It is a forum and website dedicated to people that only eat Fat and Protein = 0 carbs.

Grokette

Yes and no. Yes, you would lose a lot of weight. No, it's not possible to completely cut out carbs. If you're talking processed carbs (like the white rice, bread, pasta, etc. that you mentioned) then you will obviously lose weight faster. The problem with this is it's unrealistic to maintain something like this. I've definitely cut down on my carbs and have switch to whole grains, brown rice, and more complex carbs, but it's all about finding a balance that works for you.

why would you lose weight faster if you cut out processed carbs?

It boils down to calories in vs calories out. When you cut carbs you deplete glycogen resulting in a loss of a lot of water weight

It is calories in vs calories out, but some people don't feel full after eating procesed carbs in the same way that they would if they ate a more protein-heavy meal. So if that ultimately led to more eating later on in the day, that could slow their weight loss.

You've gone down "this road" before, and I told you before that this isn't because of refined or processed carbs...this is a LACK OF SELF CONTROL ON THE PERSON.

What is it going to take for you to understand?

Umm anyone that eats anything and then gets hungry after a short time and has to repeatedly eat through out the day does not lack self control.

Do some research on Leptin Resistance as this is what it is caused from. Most people aren't over weight because they want to be. It is due to something malfunctioning in the metabolic or endocrine system to cause over eating or under eating and until the ROOT CAUSE of the issue is fixed in the body they will not be able to lose weight and keep it off.

tidmutt

Yes and no. Yes, you would lose a lot of weight. No, it's not possible to completely cut out carbs. If you're talking processed carbs (like the white rice, bread, pasta, etc. that you mentioned) then you will obviously lose weight faster. The problem with this is it's unrealistic to maintain something like this. I've definitely cut down on my carbs and have switch to whole grains, brown rice, and more complex carbs, but it's all about finding a balance that works for you.

why would you lose weight faster if you cut out processed carbs?

It boils down to calories in vs calories out. When you cut carbs you deplete glycogen resulting in a loss of a lot of water weight

It is calories in vs calories out, but some people don't feel full after eating procesed carbs in the same way that they would if they ate a more protein-heavy meal. So if that ultimately led to more eating later on in the day, that could slow their weight loss.

You've gone down "this road" before, and I told you before that this isn't because of refined or processed carbs...this is a LACK OF SELF CONTROL ON THE PERSON.

What is it going to take for you to understand?

Umm anyone that eats anything and then gets hungry after a short time and has to repeatedly eat through out the day does not lack self control.

Do some research on Leptin Resistance as this is what it is caused from. Most people aren't over weight because they want to be. It is due to something malfunctioning in the metabolic or endocrine system to cause over eating or under eating and until the ROOT CAUSE of the issue is fixed in the body they will not be able to lose weight and keep it off.

Exactly what I was saying, the root cause is what is interesting here. Sick of hearing about gluttony and sloth, sure we all have to take personal responsibility, but there is a lot more going on here than lack of will power. Love the reference to Leptin Resistance.

tidmutt

The body needs complex carbs to function. Cutting out carbs and living on protein and fat is the Atkins diet in a nutshell. The weight comes off quickly, but the diet is difficult to maintain and once the individual begins to eat carbs again they usually go for the simple, starchy types like pastas and breads that don't offer as much nutritional value as say vegetables. The human body needs carbs, just as it needs protein and even fat along with the essential vitamins and minerals we require as well. People need to stop fearing carbs and just start eating the proper type. There is no easy way to lose weight and keep it off other than healthy eating and exercising.

This is wrong. Your body can survive quite nicely without consuming any carbohydrates. There are cultures that do this and live to a ripe old age and are very healthy. I'm not saying you have to eat no carbs of course, just that it's quite possible. Agreed that vegetables are a better source of carbs than pasta and bread. However, if you only get your carbs from vegetables then you will most likely be eating a low carb diet. Several people have mentioned that you misrepresented the Atkins Diet so I won't address that.

neanderthin

The bottom line is that for WEIGHT LOSS it really is calories in vs calories out. Whether you lose fat, muscle, whatever, if you eat less burn more you will lose weight. Maybe not all fat, but you will lose weight.

However, for overall health, it's more than that. Macros etc play a massive part too.

The macros may help indirectly more than you allude too. For example, if you believe some of the research on Leptin, reducing carb intake may result in greater Leptin Sensitivity resulting in better regulation of appetite leading to a reduction in calories. So yes, calories are important, but the macro ratios can help you control the intake. What's interesting here is that it shows how useless calories in vs calories out is in helping people to lose weight. Taubes was right about that, claiming that weight gain is about calorie surplus is like saying an alcoholic is an alcoholic because he drinks too much alcohol, it's not very helpful.

Also, the jury is still out on whether the hormonal impact of macros have a direct impact on fat loss, it's quite possibly they do.

I understand what your trying to say, and I agree that there's many factors that go undetected when trying to lose weight. Where I disagree with you is in the cals in vs out and the mathematical template that most use to lose weight. There's many hormones that control how and how much we eat and sure, leptin is one, but there's also other physiological events that also influence satiety like cholecystokinin (CCK), glucagon, peptide YY, amylin, ghrelin etc. Also exercise induced changes in post absorptive physiology, our energy metabolism, can influence our staiety level on a hormonal level. There's also the hedonistic aspect of food and reward system vs foods we find normal or let me say healthier. Foods that are highly palatable and tasty are generally related to reward or gratification on some level, which also effect other metabolic events that can very powerful secondary consequences releasing other and not easily controled ohormones like dopamine, endocannabinoids, and opiates. Anyway, with the food culture in this nation where portion size is directly corrolated with value and with most calories coming from refined carbs, sugar and fat it's almost impossible for some people to control weight loss.

This is were Taubes audience lies, in the grey area of weight loss where blame is misdirected to carbs. Taubes said that people are not obese because of overeating, but because they eat too many carbs. Of course this would appeal to a certain segment of his audience that believes calories in vs out is flawed. Nobody in nutritional science agree's with this, nevertheless many countless followers do. Some people do have a hard time losing weight and it is always attributed to what we don't know, which is all metabolic physiological that can effect the way we eat or the way we see food and the weight loss journey. All complications that we don't know about including the leptin story you elluded to is accounted for on the outside of the energy balance equation, it's just the fact that we now understand better the regulation of weightloss these have over us. Overeating, plain and simple is the reason people gain weight, unfortunately that is the IN side of the Energy BalanceEquation and is easy to see and calculate, hormonal imbalance and reward endorphines are hard to resist.

Personally I've restricted my carb intake and find I have no problems with satiety or over eating for the last 5 years and don't really count calories at all.....I just make minor adjustments on a bi-weekly or monthy basis. The carb hypothesis of Gary Taubes is alive and well, simply because people can't stop eating them for one reason or another, but that doesn't mean carbs make us fat, it means someone is not in control. Hormones or any other factor is again part of the energy out side of the energy balance equation..........there is no grey area, only Gary Taubes. lol

CharlieLopez2005

Me and one my friend were talkin about how she recently(over the summer) lost 30 lbs W/O EXERCISING! When she told me that my mouth dropped. Then this guy who put on a great deal of muscle in the past 1-2 years told me that if you cut out all the carbs in your diet you'd loose a great amount of weight because all the fat on your body is carbs. I'm not very bright in the food and nutrition departmment so was he right? If I stop eating things like white rice, bread, pasta, etc I loose a bunch of weight.:huh:

What your guy friend might be alluding to is that the body will readily convert excess non-fiber carbs into body fat. If the body can't immediately use glucose (digested from non-fiber carbs) or store it as glycogen in muscle cells via the hormone insulin, then your body stores it as fat. Why? Because excess glucose in the body can become highly toxic. Getting rid of excess glucose by converting it to body fat takes a much higher priority over trying to use stored body fat.

Therefore, in the absence or restriction of carbs, higher insulin levels are not provoked, and the body can begin burning stored body fat (a state called "ketosis") more often. In ketosis, the body uses stored body fat for energy instead of glucose, and ketone bodies can't be converted back to stored fat; it's either used or excreted, like through breath or urine. So ketostix (pee sticks) can be used to directly determine if one is in ketosis or not, and body fat machines can help one indirectly assess body fat loss or gains over time.

I've been able to turn this concept into practice and lose 30% body fat within a year so far by eating low-carb. And a lot of lean muscle that I've gained in the gym is starting to show with the decrease of body fat.

neanderthin

Me and one my friend were talkin about how she recently(over the summer) lost 30 lbs W/O EXERCISING! When she told me that my mouth dropped. Then this guy who put on a great deal of muscle in the past 1-2 years told me that if you cut out all the carbs in your diet you'd loose a great amount of weight because all the fat on your body is carbs. I'm not very bright in the food and nutrition departmment so was he right? If I stop eating things like white rice, bread, pasta, etc I loose a bunch of weight.:huh:

What your guy friend might be alluding to is that the body will readily convert excess non-fiber carbs into body fat. If the body can't immediately use glucose (digested from non-fiber carbs) or store it as glycogen in muscle cells via the hormone insulin, then your body stores it as fat. Why? Because excess glucose in the body can become highly toxic. Getting rid of excess glucose by converting it to body fat takes a much higher priority over trying to use stored body fat.

Therefore, in the absence or restriction of carbs, higher insulin levels are not provoked, and the body can begin burning stored body fat (a state called "ketosis") more often. In ketosis, the body uses stored body fat for energy instead of glucose, and ketone bodies can't be converted back to stored fat; it's either used or excreted, like through breath or urine. So ketostix (pee sticks) can be used to directly determine if one is in ketosis or not, and body fat machines can help one indirectly assess body fat loss or gains over time.

I've been able to turn this concept into practice and lose 30% body fat within a year so far by eating low-carb. And a lot of lean muscle that I've gained in the gym is starting to show with the decrease of body fat.

Whether the body uses stored body fat, or carbs or protein for energy is really not the issue, it's whether we're in a caloric deficit that body fat will over time be reduced. A ketogenic diet like most low carb diets relies on the ability of protein, fiberous vegetables and fat to facilitate a higher satiety level, which it does, but the main factor pertaining to satiety, is protein, not being in a ketgenic state per se. If there's a metabolic advantage of a ketogenic diet vs a higher protein diet I haven't seen it, and I've looked. If a Ketogenic diet is something that is easily adaptable for the individual i see no problem with it, unlike many that thinks it's unnatural, which it isn't simply because of the adaptability of the body to convert glucose from other non carb sources, just no a diet I buy into for the reason most do, which is that the body burns fat as energy and somehow we get leaner. imo

tidmutt

I understand what your trying to say, and I agree that there's many factors that go undetected when trying to lose weight. Where I disagree with you is in the cals in vs out and the mathematical template that most use to lose weight. There's many hormones that control how and how much we eat and sure, leptin is one, but there's also other physiological events that also influence satiety like cholecystokinin (CCK), glucagon, peptide YY, amylin, ghrelin etc. Also exercise induced changes in post absorptive physiology, our energy metabolism, can influence our staiety level on a hormonal level. There's also the hedonistic aspect of food and reward system vs foods we find normal or let me say healthier. Foods that are highly palatable and tasty are generally related to reward or gratification on some level, which also effect other metabolic events that can very powerful secondary consequences releasing other and not easily controled ohormones like dopamine, endocannabinoids, and opiates. Anyway, with the food culture in this nation where portion size is directly corrolated with value and with most calories coming from refined carbs, sugar and fat it's almost impossible for some people to control weight loss.

This is were Taubes audience lies, in the grey area of weight loss where blame is misdirected to carbs. Taubes said that people are not obese because of overeating, but because they eat too many carbs. Of course this would appeal to a certain segment of his audience that believes calories in vs out is flawed. Nobody in nutritional science agree's with this, nevertheless many countless followers do. Some people do have a hard time losing weight and it is always attributed to what we don't know, which is all metabolic physiological that can effect the way we eat or the way we see food and the weight loss journey. All complications that we don't know about including the leptin story you elluded to is accounted for on the outside of the energy balance equation, it's just the fact that we now understand better the regulation of weightloss these have over us. Overeating, plain and simple is the reason people gain weight, unfortunately that is the IN side of the Energy BalanceEquation and is easy to see and calculate, hormonal imbalance and reward endorphines are hard to resist.

Personally I've restricted my carb intake and find I have no problems with satiety or over eating for the last 5 years and don't really count calories at all.....I just make minor adjustments on a bi-weekly or monthy basis. The carb hypothesis of Gary Taubes is alive and well, simply because people can't stop eating them for one reason or another, but that doesn't mean carbs make us fat, it means someone is not in control. Hormones or any other factor is again part of the energy out side of the energy balance equation..........there is no grey area, only Gary Taubes. lol

Actually, you seem to be pretty much agreeing with me. Calories are absolutely important, how could they not be? The matter can't come from nothing, otherwise physics is wrong. I think when someone mentions Taubes, people see "calories don't matter". LOL He did say plenty of other things in his books. Taubes spends a great deal of time agreeing that the laws of thermodynamics do apply and calories are important, in fact he says saying calories cause weight gain is a tautology, I don't know how he can agree with calorie in/out any more strongly. He is a bit inconsistent at times, though, don't get me wrong, I struggle with some aspects of his books. I think he was being a bit sensationalistic sometimes.

What I'm saying, which is one of the things Taubes says is that it's not very helpful to say that calories cause someone to gain weight. The question is why are they driven to eat more or do less? That is where Leptin etc. can potentially be implicated.

I can't help but feel like we are agreeing with each other here. LOL

What I find really fascinating is why did I get fat to begin with. I became fat after I had my tonsils removed as a child. My mother was hyper aware of my food intake, my older siblings are all thin. Yet somehow, I became overweight and struggled ever since. Eliminate that problem and you'll probably take care of a good chunk of adult obesity.

neanderthin

I understand what your trying to say, and I agree that there's many factors that go undetected when trying to lose weight. Where I disagree with you is in the cals in vs out and the mathematical template that most use to lose weight. There's many hormones that control how and how much we eat and sure, leptin is one, but there's also other physiological events that also influence satiety like cholecystokinin (CCK), glucagon, peptide YY, amylin, ghrelin etc. Also exercise induced changes in post absorptive physiology, our energy metabolism, can influence our staiety level on a hormonal level. There's also the hedonistic aspect of food and reward system vs foods we find normal or let me say healthier. Foods that are highly palatable and tasty are generally related to reward or gratification on some level, which also effect other metabolic events that can very powerful secondary consequences releasing other and not easily controled ohormones like dopamine, endocannabinoids, and opiates. Anyway, with the food culture in this nation where portion size is directly corrolated with value and with most calories coming from refined carbs, sugar and fat it's almost impossible for some people to control weight loss.

This is were Taubes audience lies, in the grey area of weight loss where blame is misdirected to carbs. Taubes said that people are not obese because of overeating, but because they eat too many carbs. Of course this would appeal to a certain segment of his audience that believes calories in vs out is flawed. Nobody in nutritional science agree's with this, nevertheless many countless followers do. Some people do have a hard time losing weight and it is always attributed to what we don't know, which is all metabolic physiological that can effect the way we eat or the way we see food and the weight loss journey. All complications that we don't know about including the leptin story you elluded to is accounted for on the outside of the energy balance equation, it's just the fact that we now understand better the regulation of weightloss these have over us. Overeating, plain and simple is the reason people gain weight, unfortunately that is the IN side of the Energy BalanceEquation and is easy to see and calculate, hormonal imbalance and reward endorphines are hard to resist.

Personally I've restricted my carb intake and find I have no problems with satiety or over eating for the last 5 years and don't really count calories at all.....I just make minor adjustments on a bi-weekly or monthy basis. The carb hypothesis of Gary Taubes is alive and well, simply because people can't stop eating them for one reason or another, but that doesn't mean carbs make us fat, it means someone is not in control. Hormones or any other factor is again part of the energy out side of the energy balance equation..........there is no grey area, only Gary Taubes. lol

Actually, you seem to be pretty much agreeing with me. Calories are absolutely important, how could they not be? The matter can't come from nothing, otherwise physics is wrong. I think when someone mentions Taubes, people see "calories don't matter". LOL He did say plenty of other things in his books. Taubes spends a great deal of time agreeing that the laws of thermodynamics do apply and calories are important, in fact he says saying calories cause weight gain is a tautology, I don't know how he can agree with calorie in/out any more strongly. He is a bit inconsistent at times, though, don't get me wrong, I struggle with some aspects of his books. I think he was being a bit sensationalistic sometimes.

What I'm saying, which is one of the things Taubes says is that it's not very helpful to say that calories cause someone to gain weight. The question is why are they driven to eat more or do less? That is where Leptin etc. can potentially be implicated.

I can't help but feel like we are agreeing with each other here. LOL

What I find really fascinating is why did I get fat to begin with. I became fat after I had my tonsils removed as a child. My mother was hyper aware of my food intake, my older siblings are all thin. Yet somehow, I became overweight and struggled ever since. Eliminate that problem and you'll probably take care of a good chunk of adult obesity.

Yeah, we probably are in agreement. Gary's book GCBC was a good read, and I enjoyed it, but he made some pretty bold statements. One was that saying weight loss is independent of the calories consumed, which I guess could be interprited to mean that it hasn't worked well with obesity on the rise. He also said exercise doesn't work, again i'm sure he meant that most can't sustain a lifetime of exercise let alone a year while trying to lose weight......so yeah, it's sensationalism for sure, he knows how to sell books.

tidmutt

I understand what your trying to say, and I agree that there's many factors that go undetected when trying to lose weight. Where I disagree with you is in the cals in vs out and the mathematical template that most use to lose weight. There's many hormones that control how and how much we eat and sure, leptin is one, but there's also other physiological events that also influence satiety like cholecystokinin (CCK), glucagon, peptide YY, amylin, ghrelin etc. Also exercise induced changes in post absorptive physiology, our energy metabolism, can influence our staiety level on a hormonal level. There's also the hedonistic aspect of food and reward system vs foods we find normal or let me say healthier. Foods that are highly palatable and tasty are generally related to reward or gratification on some level, which also effect other metabolic events that can very powerful secondary consequences releasing other and not easily controled ohormones like dopamine, endocannabinoids, and opiates. Anyway, with the food culture in this nation where portion size is directly corrolated with value and with most calories coming from refined carbs, sugar and fat it's almost impossible for some people to control weight loss.

This is were Taubes audience lies, in the grey area of weight loss where blame is misdirected to carbs. Taubes said that people are not obese because of overeating, but because they eat too many carbs. Of course this would appeal to a certain segment of his audience that believes calories in vs out is flawed. Nobody in nutritional science agree's with this, nevertheless many countless followers do. Some people do have a hard time losing weight and it is always attributed to what we don't know, which is all metabolic physiological that can effect the way we eat or the way we see food and the weight loss journey. All complications that we don't know about including the leptin story you elluded to is accounted for on the outside of the energy balance equation, it's just the fact that we now understand better the regulation of weightloss these have over us. Overeating, plain and simple is the reason people gain weight, unfortunately that is the IN side of the Energy BalanceEquation and is easy to see and calculate, hormonal imbalance and reward endorphines are hard to resist.

Personally I've restricted my carb intake and find I have no problems with satiety or over eating for the last 5 years and don't really count calories at all.....I just make minor adjustments on a bi-weekly or monthy basis. The carb hypothesis of Gary Taubes is alive and well, simply because people can't stop eating them for one reason or another, but that doesn't mean carbs make us fat, it means someone is not in control. Hormones or any other factor is again part of the energy out side of the energy balance equation..........there is no grey area, only Gary Taubes. lol

Actually, you seem to be pretty much agreeing with me. Calories are absolutely important, how could they not be? The matter can't come from nothing, otherwise physics is wrong. I think when someone mentions Taubes, people see "calories don't matter". LOL He did say plenty of other things in his books. Taubes spends a great deal of time agreeing that the laws of thermodynamics do apply and calories are important, in fact he says saying calories cause weight gain is a tautology, I don't know how he can agree with calorie in/out any more strongly. He is a bit inconsistent at times, though, don't get me wrong, I struggle with some aspects of his books. I think he was being a bit sensationalistic sometimes.

What I'm saying, which is one of the things Taubes says is that it's not very helpful to say that calories cause someone to gain weight. The question is why are they driven to eat more or do less? That is where Leptin etc. can potentially be implicated.

I can't help but feel like we are agreeing with each other here. LOL

What I find really fascinating is why did I get fat to begin with. I became fat after I had my tonsils removed as a child. My mother was hyper aware of my food intake, my older siblings are all thin. Yet somehow, I became overweight and struggled ever since. Eliminate that problem and you'll probably take care of a good chunk of adult obesity.

Yeah, we probably are in agreement. Gary's book GCBC was a good read, and I enjoyed it, but he made some pretty bold statements. One was that saying weight loss is independent of the calories consumed, which I guess could be interprited to mean that it hasn't worked well with obesity on the rise. He also said exercise doesn't work, again i'm sure he meant that most can't sustain a lifetime of exercise let alone a year while trying to lose weight......so yeah, it's sensationalism for sure, he knows how to sell books.

Well, I see where he is coming on the topic of exercise. It's definitely inflammatory though, he's no dope and I don't blame him for wanting to sell books. The fact is, exercise is not a great way to lose weight, he could have put it better though, but then that wouldn't sell as many books.