Gary Taubes

VMarkV

You can still gain weight on low/no carb diets...it really does simply come down to calorie deficits/surpluses.

As an experiment to the lipid hypothesis, I purposely went on a high monounsaturated and high saturated fat diet (3500 kcal/day at least around 50g saturated fat, and around 200g total fat, mostly MUFAs little to no PUFA), little to no carbohydrates (green vegetables only), and moderate protein (60-80g/day). This lasted from last October until April (6 months).

My results for cholesterol: Total Cholesterol 336 mg/dL, HDL>100 mg/dL (the instrument used couldn't detect levels higher than 100 mg/dL for HDL so I couldn't get non-HDL readings. Also, I GAINED 10lbs (172lbs to 182 lbs) despite being low/no carb.

5 weeks later, I am back down 10lbs after using an If It Fits Your Macros (IIFYM) approach. I have inverted my fat and protein; getting around 170g protein and 80g fat and added in 100g carb based on daily activity (cardio mostly).

Ultimately, people who focus more on eating fat and protein over carbohydrates will have better appetite suppression leading to weight loss; however, calories still do matter and it is very possible to gain weight on a low/no carb diet.

yarwell

lol@taking studies using rats seriously.

you brought them up ;-)

UponThisRock

And he's 100%, certifiably, wrong as hell.

Where's your evidence to support that?

And why are you even here commenting if you don't agree with him??

Taubes has been torn apart inside and out other places on the internet, I don't have the time or energy to get into a pubmed ninja war.

The key point that Tabues is missing (or ignoring) is that it has been shown time and again that in studies where people self-report their food intake, they almost always under report.

roachhaley

lol@taking studies using rats seriously.

you brought them up ;-)

i didn't?

PLUMSGRL

OK, so I've known many vegetarians in my life, most are thin.
I've been a fan of body builders since the '80s, and remember several world ranked men that were vegetarian.

Go to Message board, click on groups (right below FOOD), search "vegetarian", there's a bunch of groups, check them out~

hdroddy

I was going to start with chicken and fish if I do it... my husband is a meat eater but he hates fish so I have no idea how to even cook it lol. I've been trying to look up recipes but fish seems so complicated.

I'm not a vegetarian, so I can't speak to a lot of it, though I'm enjoying reading the responses. But a lot of my protein comes from fish, and it is actually quite easy to fix.

Bake it or broil / grill it. About 20 - 22 minutes will adequately cook a filet at around 375 F. I prefer Tilapia and Salmon. If you haven't eaten a lot of fish, you might want to start with something like a Tilapia; very light flavor, doesn't taste fishy. Just season the filets lightly to your taste. I enjoy a bit of lemon pepper seasoning, for example. If you bake it rather than broil / grill, and if you like tart flavors, the filets are really good if you add a bit of lemon juice and lime juice and some garlic and herb seasoning. Simple stuff like that; doesn't have to be hard at all.

pitbulllover

You can still gain weight on low/no carb diets...it really does simply come down to calorie deficits/surpluses.

As an experiment to the lipid hypothesis, I purposely went on a high monounsaturated and high saturated fat diet (3500 kcal/day at least around 50g saturated fat, and around 200g total fat, mostly MUFAs little to no PUFA), little to no carbohydrates (green vegetables only), and moderate protein (60-80g/day). This lasted from last October until April (6 months).

My results for cholesterol: Total Cholesterol 336 mg/dL, HDL>100 mg/dL (the instrument used couldn't detect levels higher than 100 mg/dL for HDL so I couldn't get non-HDL readings. Also, I GAINED 10lbs (172lbs to 182 lbs) despite being low/no carb.

5 weeks later, I am back down 10lbs after using an If It Fits Your Macros (IIFYM) approach. I have inverted my fat and protein; getting around 170g protein and 80g fat and added in 100g carb based on daily activity (cardio mostly).

Ultimately, people who focus more on eating fat and protein over carbohydrates will have better appetite suppression leading to weight loss; however, calories still do matter and it is very possible to gain weight on a low/no carb diet.

So essentially, you used yourself (someone who was not overweight to begin with) as the only participant in a study to prove that fat people are doing something wrong.

What about my studies of 1 person (over a 100 pounds overweight) that tried multiple low calorie diets, including nutri-system, weight watchers, and everything else under the sun? Because this fat person didn't lose weight while following your healthy eating habits for months at a time.

And I do have hormone imbalances, PCOS, insulin resistance, slow thyroid, family history of obesity... the exact person that you'd want in that kind of "experiment".

yarwell

i didn't?

you did actually, the thing you replied to was about MICE.

Only teasing, but I did wonder if you had read it. There's a mouse with a genetic defect ( the ob/ob mouse ) which looks like a small balloon when allowed practically any food. Animal studies provide interesting leads on what might happen in humans, after all we share about 97.5% of our DNA with mice.

pitbulllover

Bake it or broil / grill it. About 20 - 22 minutes will adequately cook a filet at around 375 F. I prefer Tilapia and Salmon. If you haven't eaten a lot of fish, you might want to start with something like a Tilapia; very light flavor, doesn't taste fishy. Just season the filets lightly to your taste. I enjoy a bit of lemon pepper seasoning, for example. If you bake it rather than broil / grill, and if you like tart flavors, the filets are really good if you add a bit of lemon juice and lime juice and some garlic and herb seasoning. Simple stuff like that; doesn't have to be hard at all.

Thanks! Stupid question, but how do you know when it's cooked thoroughly? All recipes state "cook for this amount of time, give or take a few minutes"... well I have no idea how to know!

PaleoPath4Lyfe

You can still gain weight on low/no carb diets...it really does simply come down to calorie deficits/surpluses.

As an experiment to the lipid hypothesis, I purposely went on a high monounsaturated and high saturated fat diet (3500 kcal/day at least around 50g saturated fat, and around 200g total fat, mostly MUFAs little to no PUFA), little to no carbohydrates (green vegetables only), and moderate protein (60-80g/day). This lasted from last October until April (6 months).

My results for cholesterol: Total Cholesterol 336 mg/dL, HDL>100 mg/dL (the instrument used couldn't detect levels higher than 100 mg/dL for HDL so I couldn't get non-HDL readings. Also, I GAINED 10lbs (172lbs to 182 lbs) despite being low/no carb.

5 weeks later, I am back down 10lbs after using an If It Fits Your Macros (IIFYM) approach. I have inverted my fat and protein; getting around 170g protein and 80g fat and added in 100g carb based on daily activity (cardio mostly).

Ultimately, people who focus more on eating fat and protein over carbohydrates will have better appetite suppression leading to weight loss; however, calories still do matter and it is very possible to gain weight on a low/no carb diet.

So essentially, you used yourself (someone who was not overweight to begin with) as the only participant in a study to prove that fat people are doing something wrong.

What about my studies of 1 person (over a 100 pounds overweight) that tried multiple low calorie diets, including nutri-system, weight watchers, and everything else under the sun? Because this fat person didn't lose weight while following your healthy eating habits for months at a time.

And I do have hormone imbalances, PCOS, insulin resistance, slow thyroid, family history of obesity... the exact person that you'd want in that kind of "experiment".

I am in the boat with you..........hormone imbalances, PCOS, was diabetic, thyroid disease.

Between Dr Atkins, Gary Taubes and Dr Jack Kruse I am finally losing weight again and re-gaining my health.

nehushtan

Learn the word tendentious. It's Gary Taubes all over. It's typical of autodidacts. He's also rather a conspiracy theorist, and too much of a hothead -- he's very binary but the science of the human digestive system is not.

I say this as a former Atkins dieter. I know it can work (it worked for me in 1996), but I also know that calorie deficit dieting works too. Taubes is just too one-sided.

yarwell

Thanks! Stupid question, but how do you know when it's cooked thoroughly? All recipes state "cook for this amount of time, give or take a few minutes"... well I have no idea how to know!

if the oven was hot to start with 20 minutes will cook fish fillets, so just eat them. They do change colour and texture.

You can buy smoked ready to eat ones, and warm them up if you want or eat them cold.

pitbulllover

Learn the word tendentious. It's Gary Taubes all over. It's typical of autodidacts. He's also rather a conspiracy theorist, and too much of a hothead -- he's very binary but the science of the human digestive system is not.

I say this as a former Atkins dieter. I know it can work (it worked for me in 1996), but I also know that calorie deficit dieting works too. Taubes is just too one-sided.

I don't understand why you think calorie-deficits will work for everyone if they worked for you. Can no one understand that we're all slightly physiologically different??

And in my first post, I said that low-carb diets aren't for everyone. If you don't want to eat low-carb, then don't comment here. I was just looking for others going through similar things as me. I wasn't looking to have to defend myself against everyone coming to tell me how wrong I am.

callmeBAM

Some scientific truths, at one time, that have been debunked:
- human settlement caused a permanent increase in rainfall
- alchemy
- 16th century: California was an island separate from the North American mainland.
- Geocentricity
- the four humors
- Vitalism
- Maternal Impression
- phlogiston
- spontaneous generations

My point? Science is always evolving and discovering new truths and disproving old ones. To dismissively write off a nutritional belief, theory, study that you don't agree with because it goes against what you've been told is adolescent.

Acg67

Learn the word tendentious. It's Gary Taubes all over. It's typical of autodidacts. He's also rather a conspiracy theorist, and too much of a hothead -- he's very binary but the science of the human digestive system is not.

I say this as a former Atkins dieter. I know it can work (it worked for me in 1996), but I also know that calorie deficit dieting works too. Taubes is just too one-sided.

I don't understand why you think calorie-deficits will work for everyone if they worked for you. Can no one understand that we're all slightly physiologically different??

And in my first post, I said that low-carb diets aren't for everyone. If you don't want to eat low-carb, then don't comment here. I was just looking for others going through similar things as me. I wasn't looking to have to defend myself against everyone coming to tell me how wrong I am.

Print Print Email Email
You Are Not Different

All over the internet, on forums dedicated to everything from weight loss to muscle gain, people will loudly argue that they are different. “My metabolism is different.”, “My nervous system is different”, “My muscles are different”, things of that sort. Everyone is a unique and delicate flower, just like their mom told them.

This usually follows them explaining why the good advice that others have used can’t possibly work for them. They are also usually the ones making no progress who won’t even consider trying something else. THEY. ARE. DIFFERENT.

Individuals who have a lot of fat to lose either think that they can magically gain weight eating only a few hundred calories per day, or that they can lose weight just by rearranging their food in some special way. Because their metabolism is different.

Diets play on this of course, hiding the simple fact that they are causing you to eat less in a complicated pseudoscience of macronutrient ratios and such. But there is never any magic to be had when you look at these books critically: it all comes down to making the person eat less, exercise more, or both. It’s just hidden in complex schemes and pseudo-physiology.

In short: you can’t beat thermodynamics anymore than anything else in the universe. You. Are. Not. Different. You can’t gain bodymass unless your energy intake exceeds your energy output because you can’t make something out of nothing (muscle or fat). And you can’t lose bodymass unless your energy intake is less than your energy ouput. These are rules that every system in the universe has to follow, including the human body. Nature’s rules, not mine to quote the all-knowing Mr. Miyagi. We may not like them, but we have to live by them anyway.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html

tigersword

Learn the word tendentious. It's Gary Taubes all over. It's typical of autodidacts. He's also rather a conspiracy theorist, and too much of a hothead -- he's very binary but the science of the human digestive system is not.

I say this as a former Atkins dieter. I know it can work (it worked for me in 1996), but I also know that calorie deficit dieting works too. Taubes is just too one-sided.

I don't understand why you think calorie-deficits will work for everyone if they worked for you. Can no one understand that we're all slightly physiologically different??

And in my first post, I said that low-carb diets aren't for everyone. If you don't want to eat low-carb, then don't comment here. I was just looking for others going through similar things as me. I wasn't looking to have to defend myself against everyone coming to tell me how wrong I am.

Because calorie deficits are the reason you lose weight, regardless of your diet. You've already admitted to having several metabolic and hormonal issues, which have negative impacts on the metabolism. A person who normally burns 2000 calories and eats 1500 calories, loses weight. A person with a metabolic disfunction may only eat 1500 calories, but due to the inefficiency of the metabolism, may only burn 1000 calories, leading to weight gain. Changing the diet to compensate for those inefficiencies will help the metabolism to run normally, leading to weight loss, even while eating the same total calories as the first diet, and sometimes even more.

So, it's all about calories in vs calories out. Having a metabolic illness changes the actual numbers, but doesn't change the Laws of Thermodynamics.

The problem with Gary Taubes, is, for one thing, he has absolutely ZERO nutritional education. His degree is in journalism. He studied engineering and aeronautics. He's not a scientist, or a doctor, he's a writer. He has no more expertise or credibility to talk nutrition than any random poster on this site. However, as a journalist, it's his job to write in a way to make people believe him, the truth is irrelevant.

pitbulllover

No one here is disputing the laws of thermodynamics. No one is claiming they create matter out of thin air.

When I go on low calorie (but still high carb) diets, I sleep. A lot. I can sleep 12 hours and still feel worn out. I can try to exercise, but I'll feel dizzy shortly after. I stay fat, because my body converts my meals into fat instead of giving me energy.

Why are naturally thin people able to convert their meals into energy so that they can be active and healthy?

And why does restricting my carbs allow me to lose some weight without feeling sick and tired?

And why are you here???

ReinventingLisa

Honestly, I've had no problems eating low/moderate carbs. It's helped me clean up my diet, reduce my caffeine intake, and drink more water vs diet soda and anything with aspartame. If anything, I need to increase my fruits and veggies a little more since I am a picky eater, and I am working on it.

The problem I have with studies is that they seem to typically aim towards what they were looking to prove, and science and discoveries.. everything is always changing. I'm not saying that implies that I think all scientific studies are flawed.. but more or less I think we're in the infancy of really knowing. Gary Taubes just brings to light some information I may be already looking for that's out there. But I take studies with a grain of salt, and look for what I've noticed is try and true for me.

I think "calories in calories out" is plausible and proven and has worked for me, but I also think there is more to it than that.

RobynC79

lol@taking studies using rats seriously.

Seriously guys, rats react differently than humans to a LOT of stuff. We've pretty much cured every disease in RATS, doesn't mean that same drug or treatment will work in humans.

This statement is incorrect. Rodent models are the primary biomedical tool for understanding basic mechanisms of physiology and pathophysiology. We have not 'cured every disease in rats' - not even close. Mammals have very highly conserved physiology, which is why most drug development and basic research is done on rodents - they are a small mammal, readily available and easy to work with.
Not everything that is effective in a rodent model translates to success in clinical trials, but your assertion that you laugh at rat or mice studies reveals a facile and flawed understanding of basic biomedical research science.

Acg67

lol@taking studies using rats seriously.

Seriously guys, rats react differently than humans to a LOT of stuff. We've pretty much cured every disease in RATS, doesn't mean that same drug or treatment will work in humans.

This statement is incorrect. Rodent models are the primary biomedical tool for understanding basic mechanisms of physiology and pathophysiology. We have not 'cured every disease in rats' - not even close. Mammals have very highly conserved physiology, which is why most drug development and basic research is done on rodents - they are a small mammal, readily available and easy to work with.
Not everything that is effective in a rodent model translates to success in clinical trials, but your assertion that you laugh at rat or mice studies reveals a facile and flawed understanding of basic biomedical research science.

i thought this was good about that subject



http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2012/02/of-mice-men-my-rodent-study-disclaimer.html