Gary Taubes

blandwriter

This is ironic, because I watched "Fathead" over the weekend (you can watch it for free on Hulu), which leans heavily (pun intended) on Taubes' work and studies questioning the so-called lipid hypothesis. I thought the whole thing was funny and fascinating, especially the fact that the documentarian used lipid tests to try to support his argument that people gain weight because of metabolic syndrome. Frankly, I would have been deeply impressed by the argument had he chosen to have his A1C levels tested over time rather than his cholesterol and those blood sugar levels had been impacted by his higher fat-lower carb "diet." But, oh well.

All scientific dogma aside, including those who say X's statements are 100 percent all wrong all the time, well, my proof is on the scales. Since January I've followed less-than-dogmatically the South Beach plan and I've lost 37 pounds. I'm someone who is the walking, talking poster child for metabolic syndrome and I'm following this plan on the recommendation of my physician, who would probably be the first to admit he's no nutritionist but he does know a butt load more about insulin resistance than someone who, for instance, makes movies. (I do like the Drs. Eads as well, but wish they had something published bookwise that's more recent than 2005.)

I'm not evangelical about the low carb lifestyle. It doesn't work for everyone. But, anectdotally, I do not have the insane carbohydrate cravings that I had while I was gaming the points system on Weight Watchers. I am losing weight. And I'm fairly certain that my A1C will be lower when I have it checked. (If you don't know what it is, you don't have a really serious problem with metabolic syndrome is my guess.)

VMarkV

I've watched FatHead many times

What really seems to account to successful low carb diets is the appetite suppressing affects from eating high amounts of protein and fat...simply people eating more protein and fat eat fewer calories.

It seems more beneficial to go high protein and moderate fat (say around 75g/day) as far as appetite suppression and losing weight simply because protein is 4kcal/g vs fat being 9kcal/g (easier to go into a calorie deficit). In terms of appetite suppression, Protein<Fat<Carbohydrate. But high protein is contraindicated in diabetics and those with kidney malfunction/abnormalities.

hdroddy

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!

It will flake nicely and easily when you cut into it with the edge of a fork. Also, it will appear less translucent, more opaque. Try to make sure the edges don't dry and curl; then it is overcooked.

Sidesteal

What I am seeking are the reasoned opinions of folks who have expertise in this area.

Thanks.

That's a fair statement.

I would start here and be sure to view the links attached within the articles as some will direct you to peer reviewed research:

http://weightology.net/?p=251
http://weightology.net/?p=265

hdroddy

Why would anyone want to go low carb AND veggie? That sounds like you'll end up denying your body all sorts of needed sources of nutrition. People should focus less on eliminating entire food groups and more on MODERATION and well-planned balanced diets.

I've always been a vegetarian (at least since I was a kid). I'm trying to go low-carb now. It's not that I WANT to be a vegetarian, it's just that it's somewhat emotionally disturbing to me to think of eating meat. But it's obviously making the low-carb thing difficult... hence all my questions about how to cook meat/fish and my questioning whether I should try eating meat again.

And moderation didn't work for me, that's why I'm trying low carb.

I guess an important question would be, are you working to limit carbs, or eliminate carbs? I eat carbs, but I don't eat a lot. Too much makes me feel loggy and sleepy. But on the other hand, if I eat NONE, I feel the same way. You have to find the balance that works for your metabolism and dietary needs.

I don't eat much in the way of bread, for example, but I'll eat corn or lima beans. Some brown rice or whole wheat pasta.

I do eat quite a bit of protein, and a lot of vegetables (mostly carb-free). But I don't eat much fat.

I don't think it would be a good idea to completely eliminate carbs; I tried that, for a while, and felt lousy. But I don't eat a lot of them, either, and I feel pretty good most of the time.

I'm no expert. I've just figured out what my body needs through trial and error over a period of time. And, even though I'm really only trying to maintain at this point, I'm still slowly losing weight, so I'll probably change mine up again soon to stop that.

I don't know Taubes, and I don't read a lot of the scientific studies. I think someone else said in here that you can find scientific studies to support or declaim pretty much any claim out there. You have to take all of them with a grain of salt. It is perhaps best to study both viewpoints and garner what knowledge you can, and then try to find a safe and effective middle ground that actually works for you.

yarwell

A UK medical doctor on low carb - http://www.drbriffa.com/category/low-carbohydratecarbohydrate-restriction/

and a UK veterinarian with a physiology degree http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/getting-fat-staying-fat.html

not specifically Taubes, but perhaps better qualified people taking a similar view

MoreBean13

I have not read this whole thread so I apologize if this is redundant....I did vegetarian low carb for a while. It is possible.

BUT it is very restrictive, and I got sick of it quickly. Also, I felt crappy all the time. I haven't quite felt the same about eggs since. It wouldn't be something I recommend based on my personal experience but I can help you figure out what to eat if you want to try it.

hdroddy

Let me add, too, that the calories in versus calories out argument is valid. You have to burn more than you consume, or you will never shed pounds. Whether you consume it in the form of carbs or vitamins or proteins or fats, that still holds true.

Assuming that you are doing that, the proper ratio of carbs to proteins, for example, will be the key in how effectively you are able to lose, and how quickly.

Sidesteal

and a UK veterinarian with a physiology degree http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/getting-fat-staying-fat.html

Unless this veterinarian thinks that people should eat 100% fat, then his conclusion isn't supported by his information. Protein increases insulin, and he neglects to mention this by claiming that fat does not raise insulin and carbohydrate raises insulin (the statement is true, but the exclusion of the fact that protein raises insulin basically negates that as a support for removing carbs. After all, if you're going to claim that carbs cause insulin spikes and therefore make you fat and therefore should be eliminated, then wouldn't you also conclude the same for protein?).

EDIT: The lead-in about lipase was a good read. No idea if it's correct as that's beyond me, but I enjoyed reading about that.

Sarauk2sf

Tagging to read later

crisanderson27

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??

So other people don't fall for his crap??

tigersword

Let me add, too, that the calories in versus calories out argument is valid. You have to burn more than you consume, or you will never shed pounds. Whether you consume it in the form of carbs or vitamins or proteins or fats, that still holds true.

Assuming that you are doing that, the proper ratio of carbs to proteins, for example, will be the key in how effectively you are able to lose, and how quickly.

And this is where Taubes' theories completely fall apart. He is trying to convince people that you can eat an unlimited amount of calories from fat and protein, and never gain weight. It's one thing to say that some people may need to eat lower carbs due to metabolic reasons, and to explain how carbs are mishandled by someone with a metabolic disorder, but to say that someone could eat 10,000 calories a day of protein or fat if they want to, and as long as they eat no carbs, they won't gain weight is just asinine, and completely, horribly wrong.

selfishshellfish

Re. the tired old 'you can't rewrite the laws of thermodynamics' quip: the first law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems.

We are not closed systems.

It is clear from this thread that some of us, for whatever reason, cannot lose - or in my case even steadily maintain a pretty high - weight using the standard macronutrient ratios. Even though we don't eat junk and exercise constantly. And possess iron willpower.

Why the dogma? If the received wisdom doesn't work, there's nothing at all wrong with trying to find a way that does.

crisanderson27

Re. the tired old 'you can't rewrite the laws of thermodynamics' quip: the first law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems.

We are not closed systems.

It is clear from this thread that some of us, for whatever reason, cannot lose - or in my case even steadily maintain a pretty high - weight using the standard macronutrient ratios. Even though we don't eat junk and exercise constantly. And possess iron willpower.

Why the dogma? If the received wisdom doesn't work, there's nothing at all wrong with trying to find a way that does.

Exactly...the point is they don't work the way the Taubes is trying to say they do. His methods may work for you...but certainly not for the reasons he's stating. Unless your body doesn't spike insulin with protein like everyone elses, his statements are still false, even for you.

monty619

i think it would be easier for you to reach your goals if you ate meat... not sure bout this taubes guy tho.

selfishshellfish

Re. the tired old 'you can't rewrite the laws of thermodynamics' quip: the first law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems.

We are not closed systems.

It is clear from this thread that some of us, for whatever reason, cannot lose - or in my case even steadily maintain a pretty high - weight using the standard macronutrient ratios. Even though we don't eat junk and exercise constantly. And possess iron willpower.

Why the dogma? If the received wisdom doesn't work, there's nothing at all wrong with trying to find a way that does.

Exactly...the point is they don't work the way the Taubes is trying to say they do. His methods may work for you...but certainly not for the reasons he's stating. Unless your body doesn't spike insulin with protein like everyone elses, his statements are still false, even for you.

Yeh, true about the insulin, but from what I remember from my physiology classes, the insulin response caused by protein tends to be mitigated by the effects of glucagon (not sure if this applies to diabetics).

I play it safe by mostly swapping my carbohydrates for good old fat, not protein.

My scepticism about the recommended dietary macros was consolidated by watching my mother develop more profound insulin resistance the closer she adhered to them. Eventually her resistance became total and she died.

I personally found Taubes' narrative confusing and muddled (and I have higher degrees in cognate disciplines), but feel that he does seem to attract disproportionate flak. Most of the doctors I know are equally clueless about nutrition (and obese and/or diabetic to boot) but we all seem quite happy not to criticise their state of understanding. It all seems a bit arseways up. But that's just my point of view.

crisanderson27

Re. the tired old 'you can't rewrite the laws of thermodynamics' quip: the first law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems.

We are not closed systems.

It is clear from this thread that some of us, for whatever reason, cannot lose - or in my case even steadily maintain a pretty high - weight using the standard macronutrient ratios. Even though we don't eat junk and exercise constantly. And possess iron willpower.

Why the dogma? If the received wisdom doesn't work, there's nothing at all wrong with trying to find a way that does.

Exactly...the point is they don't work the way the Taubes is trying to say they do. His methods may work for you...but certainly not for the reasons he's stating. Unless your body doesn't spike insulin with protein like everyone elses, his statements are still false, even for you.

Yeh, true about the insulin, but from what I remember from my physiology classes, the insulin response caused by protein tends to be mitigated by the effects of glucagon (not sure if this applies to diabetics).

I play it safe by mostly swapping my carbohydrates for good old fat, not protein.

My scepticism about the recommended dietary macros was consolidated by watching my mother develop more profound insulin resistance the closer she adhered to them. Eventually her resistance became total and she died.

I personally found Taubes' narrative confusing and muddled (and I have higher degrees in cognate disciplines), but feel that he does seem to attract disproportionate flak. Most of the doctors I know are equally clueless about nutrition (and obese and/or diabetic to boot) but we all seem quite happy not to criticise their state of understanding. It all seems a bit arseways up. But that's just my point of view.

Actually, most of us who criticize Taubes, have little or no respect for medical professionals in a dietary or fitness health capacity either.

And for the record...I do agree there are correlations between carbs and health in individuals who have (or have developed) compromised health to begin with. I almost liken it to an allergic reaction of sorts (this of course isn't correct, but its my mental image regardless). But the point I and others here are arguing, is that calories in versus calories out, is the rule. Anything else may exist as an exception and/or modifier, but the rule is still the rule.

TheVimFuego

There may be an element of showmanship in Taubes but in my view it is outweighed by the fact that, for me, the majority of what he says rings true.

On a scientific, evolutionary and intuitive level.

And that is way more than I have got by traditional means from any other so called 'nutrition expert'.

Hell, just go back the Banting diet in the early 1900s and see what the wisdom was back then ... Did they count calories back then? Of course not.

The sad fact is we have seriously gone backwards nutritionally but they momentum is swinging back the other way, one person at a time.

selfishshellfish

I'm certainly willing to agree that calorie balance may well be the bottom line in all this.

At the moment though I'm unconvinced whether it's a law or a heuristic.

tidmutt

he writes well, as a science writer he is distilling knowledge that's out there and becoming more available via the internet.

I don't think medical doctors get much education in nutrition unless they specialise you might like Drs Mike and Mary Eades too who plough a similar furrow to Taubes.

I'm a low carb eater. I eat lots of nice tasty filling stuff without a pile of starch to accompany it ;-)

From what I know (from friends who are in med school) doctors get the same education in nutrition as well as everything else. Nutritionists only have the nutrition side of education and lack all of the other stuff doctors learn. In short, I trust doctors more than nutritionists.

Wow... this is so completely wrong. I'm sorry, but completely off-base. You're average doctor doesn't know squat about nutrition. A dietician spends many years being educated specifically in the biochemical systems relating to nutrition among many other things. I know this because my sister is a dietician and I was there for her 6 years of study, and her subsequent years of hands on training in hospital wards. I recall her describing how they had to inject themselves in the stomach like a insulin dependent diabetic must do in order to better understand what they go through (now that's education!). A GP however receives some minimal training relating to appropriate nutrition and of course some more general training relating to biochemistry which will help but it's minor compared to the intensive study a dietician must do.

When it comes to nutrition I would trust a dietician FAR FAR more than an average GP.