Gary Taubes
Replies
-
"A number representing the ability of a food, relative to that of glucose, to increase the level of glucose in the blood." as per definition.
Do you eat all of your carbs in a fasted state on their own without any protein or fats...........? If not you can forget GI.0 -
I agree with Gary Taubes in that the simplification of "calories in/calories out" theory is not correct. Humans are complicated biological machines with many hormonal processes and control systems. There is also a lot of variability in each of us due to genetics, lifestyle, and personal interests and ability to self-experiment and self-monitor. Insulin (and hence fast sugars) have a huge impact on our hormonal processes. People enjoy the "calories in/calories out" theory because it is simple to understand. Most people do not have the background in biology and biochemistry that is necessary to understand the complex biological processes in play, so they get onto the "calories in/calories out" bandwagon. Most people also do not read books on nutrition or biology, and skim a few internet articles, and think they know what they are talking about. Bottom line is that if you have lost weight without losing lean mass (ie lost adipose tissue) and maintained it for an extended period of time, without feeling deprived and stressed about food or your lifestyle, and you love your body and you feel healthy - you have been successful!0
-
Pretty much, you want to cover the essential macros first, Fat and Protein. How much you need is extremely variable person to person based on basal metabolic rate, activity, athletic performance, diseases, etc. Once these are figured out, then you fiddle around with carbohydrates based on how much of a calorie surplus or deficit you want and your average daily activity level.
Let's say I want a 250kcal deficit, after figuring out my protein and fat requirements, I have 250 kcal left to reach my maintenance. I then figure I will burn 500 kcal from walking 1 hour (now 750 kcal from maintenance and 500 kcal from my goal deficit). I have 500kcal to reach my goal, so I eat 125g carbohydrates to reach my goal. Alternatively, I could just forgoe exercise altogether and eat no carbohydrates, but still reach my calorie deficit goal. Ideally, your calories from burnt from exercise should match the calories you eat from carbohydrates since carbohydrates are the easiest macro to convert into energy. This approach is what is used for people in fitness/modeling/bodybuilders/etc.
I am sure with some research, you might be able to find specific macros for protein and fat based on needs (medical conditions). That's where the whole keto-diet came from - originally catered for people with seizures.
Going low/no carb will cause exercise performance to suffer but is perfectly fine on days where your activity is low/minimum.
There are lots of responses on here, that I have not read. However, this seems to be the most fair assessment.0 -
And is there anyway something with a low GI might have a high insulin response?Nope.
It's called Milk.
I note you haven't commented on my response to your claim protein doesn't raise insulin?0 -
0
-
And is there anyway something with a low GI might have a high insulin response?
Nope. I eat all my carbs from veggies and fruit. I have cheats here and there but I almost always regret it. I have a banana and oatmeal and my heart pounds. Not saying low carb is the end all be all diet for everyone. Just popping in because there are so many claims and links to back your guys statements up. That's great I can post links all say long expressing how awful grains are and studies on it. Hell go to pub med. plenty of studies proven. Go to dr eades website.
Lol Eades
Here to get you started, and guess what your assertion that oats have a much higher insulin response then eggs? Might want to look into that again.
Inconsistency between glycemic and insulinemic responses to regular and fermented milk products
http://www.ajcn.org/content/74/1/96.full0 -
Picking between reading Taubes or Sisson is like choosing between getting punched in the face or kicked in the crotch, both choices suck
Oh my, I didn't realise we had the reincarnation of Oscar Wilde in our midst!
How thee wit doth slay me!
Such reasoned debate, tell me another kind minstrel.
And if you noticed the people that say to read Taubes and Sisson and the such tend to ignorant statements like we've seen in this thread. If they were good sources, don't you think they wouldn't get simple things wrong?0 -
LOL, these last couple pages have been epic. Gotta love it when a bunch of Taubes arguin' vets mix it up was a brash Taubes lovin' noob.Picking between reading Taubes or Sisson is like choosing between getting punched in the face or kicked in the crotch, both choices suck
Such a great quote.0 -
Certifiably wrong as hell? Hmmm. Right. Since you are a nutritionist. Go ahead buddy, tell us how he is wrong and you're right.
Taubes isn't a nutritionist either, or any sort of scientist, doctor, or in-fact have any training in any medical field.0 -
I lost weight with Gary Taubes - I listened to his audio while walking0
-
You do know that Gary Taubes is a JOURNALIST, and in no way any kind of scientist or nutritionist, right? His entire education is based on writing in a way to make people believe whatever he wants them to believe, regardless of the truth. His job is to spin any topic in whatever direction he wants to spin it. Facts don't matter.
That's a pretty cynical way to look at journalism.0 -
According to the people that are considered authorities in nutrition, he is pretty much just cherry picking evidence to support his theories.0
-
You might want to learn more about the glycemic index before you go attributing any kind of importance to it.
Pizza (30) has a lower GI than apples (38.) Pizza, at 30, also has a lower GI than bananas, cantaloupes, grapes, peaches, pears, pineapples, strawberries, oranges, and apricots. Even a Snickers bar (55) has a lower GI than bananas, apricots, pineapples, and watermelons. Heck, Coca-Cola has a lower GI than beets, parsnips, and some carrots and sweet potatoes.
GI is absolutely meaningless when it comes to whether food is healthy or not.0 -
You do know that Gary Taubes is a JOURNALIST, and in no way any kind of scientist or nutritionist, right? His entire education is based on writing in a way to make people believe whatever he wants them to believe, regardless of the truth. His job is to spin any topic in whatever direction he wants to spin it. Facts don't matter.
You do know he also has degrees in applied physics from Harvard University and aerospace engineering from Stanford University?
He was also debunking cold fusion prior to writing about food science.
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Science-Short-Weird-Fusion/dp/0394584562
Lol did he really debunk cold fusion or just rehash events?
Both, but your average journalist isn't going to put together anything closely resembling a coherent statement regarding that topic without some scientific training.0 -
I haven't read Taubes book....however, it sounds like maybe his message is what my endo explained to me..
My endo explained that my symptoms are due to excess insulin in my system.
My blood sugar numbers are fine....but ever since I had my child 10 years ago (I had gestational diabetes) I have had to be really careful what I eat...I always have to have protein in the morning and I become very tired after I eat especially if there are too many carbs....and eating any sugar treat like icecream will cause me crash hard!
I eat healthy. I rarely eat processed food. I only drink water and unsweetened tea and coffee. I don't eat very much food at all. Less than most people... I have tried calorie restricted diets but they leave me with no energy, lightheaded, lethargic, and starving!
My endo explained that this insulin issue is common in woman who have had gestational diabetes. He put me on a low dose of Metaformin which has made a huge difference in my energy levels during the two weeks I have been on it....and told me to eat protein and lots of veggie...and to get my carbs from veggies...and he did say to go easy on the red meat:)
So I will now be cutting out whole grain bread and pasta...all grains....
He said the medicine will even out my insulin levels and that my high insulin levels are causing me to store fat. The high levels also cause more Androgens which then caused the facial hair....and they also raised my cholesterol.
Before I was pregnant I never really had a weight problem...an extra 5 pounds from time to time.....over the past ten years I have gained and loss 50 pounds about three times..I'm only 5'1....and my health has been getting worse each year...I have even developed a huge thyroid tumor although my thyroid numbers are ok...
I am happy that I am finally getting some answers because it really is not as easy as calories in vs. calories out....
I believe other posters were trying to explain that by giving the name of their conditions but if people don't understand the conditions then they are not going to understand that our bodies have different requirements. Cutting calories may work for someone who has gained weight from eating too much...but it won't help for people who have endocrine issues....
And with the rise in diabetes, PCOS, and other endocrine issues it seems that Taubes may have something here as to why so many people are struggling with their weight...why the rise of diabetes? It is not because suddenly everyone is eating too much.
It took 10 years for a doctor to finally help me....It bothers me to see people still saying that it is all about calories in vs. calories out...
We have travelled down the same path.
I was barely eating and yet gaining weight.
Some of these thick skulled people on this site will be insistent that we just sat around all day gorging ourselves, when in turn you barely eat.
Adrenal Gland Fatigue
Leptin Resistance
Type 2 Diabetes
PCOS
Thyroid Issues
All of these conditions come down to an issue with the Pituitary gland. My metabolic endocrinologist told me that.0 -
Well, I'm finishing my history degree. Since history is a science, I guess I have scientific training also, so I guess I'm just as credible and knowledgeable about nutrition as Taubes. We both have scientific training in completely unrelated fields.
And? Since when is aerospace engineering nutrition? Alan Aragon has a Masters degree in Nutrition, would you trust him to build a plane for you? I mean, he has college degrees in completely unrelated fields, so he should know everything about everything else too, right?You do know that Gary Taubes is a JOURNALIST, and in no way any kind of scientist or nutritionist, right? His entire education is based on writing in a way to make people believe whatever he wants them to believe, regardless of the truth. His job is to spin any topic in whatever direction he wants to spin it. Facts don't matter.
You do know he also has degrees in applied physics from Harvard University and aerospace engineering from Stanford University?
He was also debunking cold fusion prior to writing about food science.
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Science-Short-Weird-Fusion/dp/0394584562
And Taubes doesn't have a degree in physics, he has degrees in engineering and journalism. Being an engineer does not make a person a biologist.
I was pointing out the fact that he isn't just a journalist but he does have scientific training. Seems like cherry picking is on both sides of the arguments these days. Please continue though, as Gary Taubes is serious business, and some one on the internet is wrong!0 -
Can a sistah get a bacon sammich around here??0
-
Well, I'm finishing my history degree. Since history is a science, I guess I have scientific training also, so I guess I'm just as credible and knowledgeable about nutrition as Taubes. We both have scientific training in completely unrelated fields.
And? Since when is aerospace engineering nutrition? Alan Aragon has a Masters degree in Nutrition, would you trust him to build a plane for you? I mean, he has college degrees in completely unrelated fields, so he should know everything about everything else too, right?You do know that Gary Taubes is a JOURNALIST, and in no way any kind of scientist or nutritionist, right? His entire education is based on writing in a way to make people believe whatever he wants them to believe, regardless of the truth. His job is to spin any topic in whatever direction he wants to spin it. Facts don't matter.
You do know he also has degrees in applied physics from Harvard University and aerospace engineering from Stanford University?
He was also debunking cold fusion prior to writing about food science.
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Science-Short-Weird-Fusion/dp/0394584562
And Taubes doesn't have a degree in physics, he has degrees in engineering and journalism. Being an engineer does not make a person a biologist.
I was pointing out the fact that he isn't just a journalist but he does have scientific training. Seems like cherry picking is on both sides of the arguments these days. Please continue though, as Gary Taubes is serious business, and some one on the internet is wrong!
Sorry, but history is considered a social science, which is a "soft science", not a hard science like physics, chemistry, biology and the like.0 -
It's still a science, and is about as similar to nutrition as engineering is.0
-
It's still a science, and is about as similar to nutrition as engineering is.
Except engineers are much, much smarter in general.
No offense. Facts are facts.0 -
It's still a science, and is about as similar to nutrition as engineering is.
Well I do have a degree in Civil Engineering and work as an engineer....
Sure helps with this calorie counting thing. Engineering teaches us how to model and solve complex problems using mathematics. Maybe Taubes sucked at engineering?
If anyone is interested, "The Hackers Diet", written by the guy that founded Autodesk, is free online. Its not a diet per se, basically a how to-manual, calorie counting for engineers and others with a mathematics background.0 -
It's still a science, and is about as similar to nutrition as engineering is.
I have two History degrees and I don't consider History a science. History is part of humanities which also include anthropology, archaeology, political science, geography and law. We can not apply the scientific method to anything that we do, and any conclusions that we come to through analysis is subjective, at best. How many history experiments have you conducted? Your attitude towards actual scientists demonstrate your lack of understanding of what they do.0 -
I have a BS in biology, an MS in Molecular Biology, another in BioInformatics, and have done research at the NIH at the National Cancer Institute, and the National Human Genome Research Institute. None of which even remotely qualifies me to provide serious advise on nutrition. What my education has given me is a good understanding of basic biology, and the ability to read, comprehend, and evaluate the merits of research.
IMO, biology is not rocket science, but the science education in this country is so poor that a huge segment of the population does not know how their own bodies work.0 -
"I have a banana and oatmeal and my heart pounds."
^^
You've got issues, man. :noway: Either a supreme liar, or something wrong with your heart.
Also, Taubes is full of ****. But then again, nowadays anyone can cherry-pick a few studies and write a "revolutionary, ground-breaking book!" No degree or actual knowledge required. I should get on that bandwagon and make myself some cool bucks while my followers stuff their faces with coconut oil and bacon. Hell, if I add a disclaimer, their relatives can't sue me when they have problems later on from eating that greasy crap! :laugh:0 -
You're completely missing the point. I have as much actual nutrition education as Gary Taubes, why is he more credible than I am when it comes to talking about nutrition? He's completely unqualified to talk about it. His training is in a COMPLETELY UNRELATED FIELD, like mine. If you think all scientists are the same, and one scientist trained in one discipline understands and can explain and analyze any other discipline of science, simply because he is educated in a specific, completely unrelated field of science, then I would think you may have a lack of understanding of what scientists do.It's still a science, and is about as similar to nutrition as engineering is.
I have two History degrees and I don't consider History a science. History is part of humanities which also include anthropology, archaeology, political science, geography and law. We can not apply the scientific method to anything that we do, and any conclusions that we come to through analysis is subjective, at best. How many history experiments have you conducted? Your attitude towards actual scientists demonstrate your lack of understanding of what they do.0 -
It's funny because it's not true.It's still a science, and is about as similar to nutrition as engineering is.
Except engineers are much, much smarter in general.
No offense. Facts are facts.
The IQ range for social scientists is 95-125. Engineers also range from 95-125. College professors are actually rated as the smartest, by profession, ranging between 95-135. Nice try with the childish insult, though.0 -
I'm not convinced that biology isn't actually MORE difficult than rocket science. I'm just a business guy, but it seems to me that the interactions of hormones and enzymes and other chemicals that drive the human system is more complicated than the physics involved in propelling an object to space.I have a BS in biology, an MS in Molecular Biology, another in BioInformatics, and have done research at the NIH at the National Cancer Institute, and the National Human Genome Research Institute. None of which even remotely qualifies me to provide serious advise on nutrition. What my education has given me is a good understanding of basic biology, and the ability to read, comprehend, and evaluate the merits of research.
IMO, biology is not rocket science, but the science education in this country is so poor that a huge segment of the population does not know how their own bodies work.
I don't know if Taubes is right, but I think that he at least believes that he's right. He's also done a crapload of research into the various scientific studies of obesity, enough to convince me that while "calories in calories out" is absolutely correct, it's also incredibly oversimplified. The kind of calories, the timing of their consumption, the nutrient load of the food all have have a huge effect on not only how many more calories you will consume, but also how many you will burn. I'm not confident that there even is a consensus regarding obesity solutions, and if there is, I'm not sure it's correct.The IQ range for social scientists is 95-125. Engineers also range from 95-125. College professors are actually rated as the smartest, by profession, ranging between 95-135. Nice try with the childish insult, though.
I'm hesitant to even participate in this part of the discussion. I've known too many people who are in Mensa (IQ 130ish +) who are complete idiots. However, are you sure about that info? This link seems to indicate something different. http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/03/iq-in-different-fields.htmlAlso, Taubes is full of ****. But then again, nowadays anyone can cherry-pick a few studies...I have as much actual nutrition education as Gary Taubes, why is he more credible than I am when it comes to talking about nutrition?
I don't know if Taubes is full of it or not, but he certainly did more than cherry pick a few studies. He spent years studying the available research, and his first book had over 60 pages of references. He might be wrong, but he's not just talking out of his butt. The biggest deficiency I see in Taubes is that he has not had strong responses to certain specific criticisms. Unfortunately I haven't seen many people talking about those criticisms. Most people who disagree seem to be just saying he's a stupid doodie-head.0 -
I do get the feeling he is serious and did a lot of research, a lot of what he says about conflicting research results makes sense to me. In the end I decided he is wrong, but I'm biased in that I have no inclination to follow his advice. I'd rather stick with "eat sensibly" and count calories - it's working for me so far.
He and Dr. Oz disagree, and based with my current attitude that Dr. Oz can no longer be trusted - that gives Taubes 5 stars0 -
If you think all scientists are the same, and one scientist trained in one discipline understands and can explain and analyze any other discipline of science, simply because he is educated in a specific, completely unrelated field of science, then I would think you may have a lack of understanding of what scientists do.
Every scientist uses the scientific method, the discipline is unimportant. It's the foundation of every science education. You really need to look at the big picture. You write as if he just woke up one day wrote a book and did no research. You act as if once someone finishes going to school, they can never acquire new knowledge or research anything outside of what that degree says they can. With a science education, you can cross field lines, with enough time and energy despite the fact that his original degree is in something else. He's been studying nutrition and analyzing studies for well over a decade and has regularly published papers in scientific publications in these fields. His books in nutrition have been held up to peer review (more universal science norms) by nutritionists, doctors and other medical personnel. Of course there is decent, there is in every field, you can find many that disagree with him.
Oh and btw, Taubes did graduate from Harvard with his degree in physics, not that it matters to you, because unless the degree says nutrition, he is of no authority to write such a book.0 -
Taubes books have not "stood up to peer review," they never went through the peer review process. He wrote and published them privately, and most reviews I've seen from the scientific community are negative, or dismissive. He wrote his books with hypothesis in hand, and chose his research to support it. That's not the scientific method.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions