Gary Taubes

Brentm77

"they never went through the peer review process."

His books aren't studies. Studies go through peer review. Not books.

Furthermore, peer review wouldn't help. After all, he is trying to debunk what is wildly believed by the medical/nutrition community (i.e., the view that the only thing that matters is calories in vs. calories out, and low fat is healthy). I highly doubt he would be able to receive fair peer review.

All I know is that after spending the last ten years of my life trying to count calories, loosing some weight, then gaining it back after I could no longer bear the constant feeling of hunger, Taubes' book changed my life.

For the first time in over ten years, I am no longer obese. The most amazing part was loosing the weight without feeling like I was starving all of the time. I agree that Gary doesn't have a degree in nutrition. That fact is not hidden, as he clearly gives his background in the book. But that doesn't mean a person can't read the book and decide if it makes sense. We are all capable of critical thought. For me, it made a ton of sense. It was the thing that "clicked" for me after so many years of being a failure in the weight loss area.

Not only am I not obese, but I have good muscle mass. This was not the case when I lost weight on low calorie low-fat diets in the past. On those diets, my muscle mass decreased the more weight I lost.

Everyone is different. But for many obese people, I believe Taubes' book holds the answers as to why they can't permanently loose weight. Heck, most low-calorie diets are actually low-carb diets when you look at the total carbs consumed (the percentage of carbs consumed is irrelevant, but is a factor in how hungry you will feel).

I understand that there are people out there that can become thin, or stay thin while eating mostly carbs. If you are one of those people, great. My wife is and I am glad for her. People in that boat will never understand what it is like to be someone who is insulin resistant, as so many obese people are. Taubes acknowledges that not everyone needs to eat low carb.

I don't understand the animosity. It isn't like Taubes is taking people's life's savings. It is a cheap book - cheaper than a month of Weight Watchers or other low-calorie plan. You can even check it out from the library if you want. But to have animosity towards someone for having a different opinion than you is so closed minded. Furthermore, it might discourage people from giving his ideas a try, like I did. Who are you to say this won't work for someone else?

I would encourage anyone who thinks they are a failure, because they lack will power, to read this book. Overeating is a symptom more than a cause of being overweight. Please, check out the book. It could change your life like it did mine, despite all the negative comments from people that can't relate to what you or I have been through.

yarwell

Taubes books have not "stood up to peer review

He is referenced quite heavily in http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v65/n11/full/ejcn2011132a.html with 17 mentions in the text, so some nutritional professionals are paying attention to him.

mmapags

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.

Or so the lunatic fringe has always believed. Right from Banting's time to today.

Silverkittycat

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.

Or so the lunatic fringe has always believed. Right from Banting's time to today.

yes yes.

Brentm77

"Or so the lunatic fringe has always believed/"

That is a convincing argument; just call the people you disagree with lunatics. As we all know, the consensus is always right. For example, they were right when they pushed to put "vegetable oil" in everything during the 80's and 90's. I remember those good old years when mom would feed us margarine and tell us it was good for us. She was right based on the then current consensus. They can never get it wrong, so why would they have it wrong this time?

The human body is extremely complicated. I am sure we have moved in the right direction in many areas of health. But we will discover and learn new things and realize the mistakes we have made for many years to come. To assume that we could not have some medical "facts" wrong now is overly optimistic.

The simple fact remains that thousands of people are loosing weight, keeping it off, keeping muscle mass, and feeling great following a low carb diet. But because it doesn't fit into some people's world view, those people must be lunatics.

BoydLabBuck

You meatheads sure do provide a high entertainment value.

Signed,
Primal Lunatic

mmapags

"Or so the lunatic fringe has always believed/"

That is a convincing argument; just call the people you disagree with lunatics. As we all know, the consensus is always right. For example, they were right when they pushed to put "vegetable oil" in everything during the 80's and 90's. I remember those good old years when mom would feed us margarine and tell us it was good for us. She was right based on the then current consensus. They can never get it wrong, so why would they have it wrong this time?

The human body is extremely complicated. I am sure we have moved in the right direction in many areas of health. But we will discover and learn new things and realize the mistakes we have made for many years to come. To assume that we could not have some medical "facts" wrong now is overly optimistic.

The simple fact remains that thousands of people are loosing weight, keeping it off, keeping muscle mass, and feeling great following a low carb diet. But because it doesn't fit into some people's world view, those people must be lunatics.

You know I honestly have no problem with low carb diets. I think they work fine for some. Especially those who have insulin sesnsitivity issues and other health problems that a low carb diet helps with.

Where you lose me and it becomes the lunatic fringe for me is the proseltizing for it as thought it is some kind of cure all. It is a tool. Just one in a toolbag of many. And when advocates of low carb start trotting out Taubes as a proof source it has even less creibility.

For those for whom it works, great! But carbs are just one macro of 3 to intelligently manage. Low carb diets are not the universal answer to the nutritional problems of the world and Taubes with his idiotic statment like the ones liisted by Acg67 is a poor spokesman.

pattyproulx

"Or so the lunatic fringe has always believed/"

That is a convincing argument; just call the people you disagree with lunatics. As we all know, the consensus is always right. For example, they were right when they pushed to put "vegetable oil" in everything during the 80's and 90's. I remember those good old years when mom would feed us margarine and tell us it was good for us. She was right based on the then current consensus. They can never get it wrong, so why would they have it wrong this time?

The human body is extremely complicated. I am sure we have moved in the right direction in many areas of health. But we will discover and learn new things and realize the mistakes we have made for many years to come. To assume that we could not have some medical "facts" wrong now is overly optimistic.

The simple fact remains that thousands of people are loosing weight, keeping it off, keeping muscle mass, and feeling great following a low carb diet. But because it doesn't fit into some people's world view, those people must be lunatics.

You know I honestly have no problem with low carb diets. I think they work fine for some. Especially those who have insulin sesnsitivity issues and other health problems that a low carb diet helps with.

Where you lose me and it becomes the lunatic fringe for me is the proseltizing for it as thought it is some kind of cure all. It is a tool. Just one in a toolbag of many. And when advocates of low carb start trotting out Taubes as a proof source it has even less creibility.

For those for whom it works, great! But carbs are just one macro of 3 to intelligently manage. Low carb diets are not the universal answer to the nutritional problems of the world and Taubes with his idiotic statment like the ones liisted by Acg67 is a poor spokesman.

I think the reason low-carb proponents are so vocal about this is because many of us have literally tried everything and followed every diet guideline provided to us by the government and were unsuccessful - then we discovered this lifestyle and it has changed our lives around.

Prior to going Paleo, I had been doing the Eat Clean Diet for over a year (low-fat, moderate protein, complex carbs - nothing processed). I also counted calories and ate 6 small meals a day (as was commonly recommended at the time). I've also always been quite active playing competitive sports 2-3 nights a week and owning two dogs.

I did everything by the book. I lost some weight but was still stuck at around 220-225lbs (and was always damn hungry - as soon as I stopped counting calories, my weight would jump because I couldn't listen to my body).

Then I discovered eating Primal and low-carb (Gary Taubes). So much of what he writes rang so true to me and when I did start watching my carbs, my weight started to drop. He also uses science, research, and logic to back up his claims which to me is bonus. I don't agree with absolutely everything he says, but I think he's spot on on a lot of stuff.

So no, not everyone needs to go low-carb, but I'd argue that many overweight people who've struggled with weight-loss would do a whole lot better on it than by simply counting calories (which only really works as long as you maintain the counting).

Brentm77

Mmapags - it sounds like we probably agree about more than we disagree.

To give you some perspective as to why we Tabues fans are such hardcore fans - people like me struggled for so many years. We couldn't understand why we were such failures in the area of weight, when we were successful in so many areas of our lives (for example, I am a good dad, successful attorney, book author, have run two marathons, etc). But we beat ourselves up for years for a perceived lack of will power over food.

Along comes someone who lays out some fairly convincing evidence that it isn't a lack of will power. We give it a try and it actually works. We have all lost weight before, but this time it is very different. We don't have the feeling that we are starving our bodies to death. For the first time in our lives, we are in control of our weight and aren't suffering for that control.

You can see why this would make us fanatics. Now, to agree with you, we need to be more practical and open to the idea that this isn't the ideal diet for everyone. My wife could never eat like this, but she doesn't need to. I am good with that. But it doesn't lessen my enthusiasm and desire to share this book with everyone I can.

Acg67

"Or so the lunatic fringe has always believed/"

That is a convincing argument; just call the people you disagree with lunatics. As we all know, the consensus is always right. For example, they were right when they pushed to put "vegetable oil" in everything during the 80's and 90's. I remember those good old years when mom would feed us margarine and tell us it was good for us. She was right based on the then current consensus. They can never get it wrong, so why would they have it wrong this time?

The human body is extremely complicated. I am sure we have moved in the right direction in many areas of health. But we will discover and learn new things and realize the mistakes we have made for many years to come. To assume that we could not have some medical "facts" wrong now is overly optimistic.

The simple fact remains that thousands of people are loosing weight, keeping it off, keeping muscle mass, and feeling great following a low carb diet. But because it doesn't fit into some people's world view, those people must be lunatics.

You know I honestly have no problem with low carb diets. I think they work fine for some. Especially those who have insulin sesnsitivity issues and other health problems that a low carb diet helps with.

Where you lose me and it becomes the lunatic fringe for me is the proseltizing for it as thought it is some kind of cure all. It is a tool. Just one in a toolbag of many. And when advocates of low carb start trotting out Taubes as a proof source it has even less creibility.

For those for whom it works, great! But carbs are just one macro of 3 to intelligently manage. Low carb diets are not the universal answer to the nutritional problems of the world and Taubes with his idiotic statment like the ones liisted by Acg67 is a poor spokesman.

Then I discovered eating Primal and low-carb (Gary Taubes). So much of what he writes rang so true to me and when I did start watching my carbs, my weight started to drop. He also uses cherry picked science and fantasy to back up his claims which to me is bonus. I don't agree with absolutely everything he says, but I think he's spot on on a lot of stuff.

Fixed

Brentm77

"He also uses cherry picked science and fantasy to back up his claims"

I have to admit, that was funny. But you are missing the bigger point. Although I don't think it is true, it doesn't really matter if he used cherry picked science, because it works for so many of us when low-calorie/low-fat didn't. It also makes sense to me from a logical standpoint.

The medical establishment, government, and the media have been preaching low-fat/low-calorie for decades now, and America just gets fatter.

You the equivalent of someone sitting in front of me while I eat a great tasting steak, all the while telling me it tastes terrible and that the author of the cookbook cherry picked his recipes to bolster his idea that steak tastes great. I know that to me, the steak tastes great. And I know that for me, low carb works, event if Taubes left out some studies that may have challenged his theory.

Contrary to your statement, he actually sites numerous studies that challenge his theory. But he also points out why the studies are flawed. To me, his ability to critique studies is well developed. He is better at it than I will ever be. He gives logical reasons as to why we should be skeptical of most studies, including ones that support his theory.

Not that it is relevant as to whether Taubes is right, but doctors cherry-pick studies all the time to support their view or nutrition. I had one recently lecture me for 30 minutes as to why I should be a vegetarian after learning that I had lost 50 pounds by eating mostly meat. He sited all kinds of crazy studies, such as the debunked Asia Study. Everybody cherry picks facts that support their world view (in all areas of life, not just nutrition). But we ultimately need to figure out what works for us. And you aren't going to convince me that low carb doesn't work for me.

I hope others who read this threat are not discouraged to give Taubes a try. Even if you have tried low-carb before (I had for very short time periods), there was something about this book that really clicks. Once you understand the theory, it is easier to put it into practice for some reason.

Acg67

I have to admit, that was funny. But you are missing the bigger point. Although I don't think it is true, it doesn't really matter if he used cherry picked science, because it works for so many of us when low-calorie/low-fat didn't. It also makes sense to me from a logical standpoint.

Go on, what is the logic behind it?

You the equivalent of someone sitting in front of me while I eat a great tasting steak, all the while telling me it tastes terrible and that the author of the cookbook cherry picked his recipes to bolster his idea that steak tastes great. I know that to me, the steak tastes great. And I know that for me, low carb works, event if Taubes left out some studies that may have challenged his theory.

Strong reading comprehension

Contrary to your statement, he actually sites numerous studies that challenge his theory. But he also points out why the studies are flawed. To me, his ability to critique studies is well developed. He is better at it than I will ever be. He gives logical reasons as to why we should be skeptical of most studies, including ones that support his theory.

Actually I've read both of his books and articles he's written. Do a little more research and then get back to me

Brentm77

Acg67 - What are you talking about? Your comments are unresponsive and/or unclear.

What is the logic behind what? Behind Taubes book? If that is what you mean, do you really want me to summarize it? You claim to had read both of his books. But I will indulge you. To put it simply, too many carbs spike a person's insulin. When insulin is spiked, fat cells are signaled to store energy. Because energy is being stored as opposed to being used to fuel a person's body, that person feels that he/she needs to eat more to get energy. The person eats more, but the insulin is spiked again and the additional food goes to storage again. Then the cycle repeats. Not everyone is as sensitive to the insulin spike and therefore how many carbs different people can eat and stay thin is different from person to person. Also, the average person cannot stay in a constant state of starvation to stay thin. Hence, statically, most people don't keep weight off following conventional low-fat/low-calorie wisdom. Sounds logical to me. But again, I am not a scientist. I can only tell you that it worked for me, and many others.

What is not logical about it?

"Strong reading comprehension"

What is that supposed to even mean? My analogy wasn't perfect, but it was somewhat accurate. Many on this thread are standing on a soap box telling people what is working for them isn't working, or at least that it scientifically shouldn't work for them because Taubes cherry-picked studies. I don't see what reading comprehension has to do with it.

As far as doing more research, I never claimed to be all that knowledgeable in this area. But it has worked for me, why would I need to do more research? What would I do if I found proof that eating low carb shouldn't have worked?

Interestingly, I have found that people who claim to know everything (or imply that they do, like you have), often know the least. Because anybody that knows anything about a complex subject quickly realizes that they barely know anything. Can you comprehend that convoluted sentence?

Acg67

What is the logic behind what? Behind Taubes book? If that is what you mean, do you really want me to summarize it? You claim to had read both of his books. But I will indulge you. To put it simply, too many carbs spike a person's insulin. When insulin is spiked, fat cells are signaled to store energy. Because energy is being stored as opposed to being used to fuel a person's body, that person feels that he/she needs to eat more to get energy. The person eats more, but the insulin is spiked again and the additional food goes to storage again. Then the cycle repeats. Not everyone is as sensitive to the insulin spike and therefore how many carbs different people can eat and stay thin is different from person to person. Also, the average person cannot stay in a constant state of starvation to stay thin. Hence, statically, most people don't keep weight off following conventional low-fat/low-calorie wisdom. Sounds logical to me. But again, I am not a scientist. I can only tell you that it worked for me, and many others.

What is not logical about it?

And does anything other than carbs "spike insulin"?

"Strong reading comprehension"

What is that supposed to even mean? My analogy wasn't perfect, but it was somewhat accurate. Many on this thread are standing on a soap box telling people what is working for them isn't working, or at least that it scientifically shouldn't work for them because Taubes cherry-picked studies. I don't see what reading comprehension has to do with it.

Another reading comprehension fail

Interestingly, I have found that people who claim to know everything (or imply that they do, like you have), often know the least. Because anybody that knows anything about a complex subject quickly realizes that they barely know anything. Can you comprehend that convoluted sentence?

Woohoo, more reading comprehension issues

mmapags

To put it simply, too many carbs spike a person's insulin. When insulin is spiked, fat cells are signaled to store energy. Because energy is being stored as opposed to being used to fuel a person's body, that person feels that he/she needs to eat more to get energy. The person eats more, but the insulin is spiked again and the additional food goes to storage again. Then the cycle repeats. Not everyone is as sensitive to the insulin spike and therefore how many carbs different people can eat and stay thin is different from person to person. Also, the average person cannot stay in a constant state of starvation to stay thin. Hence, statically, most people don't keep weight off following conventional low-fat/low-calorie wisdom. Sounds logical to me. But again, I am not a scientist. I can only tell you that it worked for me, and many others.

What is not logical about it?

First I'm glad that you have found what works for you and your health has improved. Bravo!

What you've listed is the crux of the credibility question with Taubes. Carbs are not the only thing that spikes insulin. As had been previously mentioned, so does protein. For those that have pooh poohed that, or just plain ignored it, there never was a coherent response, help your self to a read;
http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html
If Taubes theory is correct, why doens't protein cause a problem also? Some have mentioned GI but that is a measure of blood glucose not insulin. Another who is diabetic mentioned that thier prick tests don't show elevated blood sugar but then it wouldn't. So, I can only come to one conclusion. Taubes may have stumbled onto something but he has not idea what and his reasoning as to why is just false. Krieger proved this pretty decisively.

So, why does eating low carb work for you and some others? I don't really know but it does. It also doesn't work for many. If we are going to use personal anecdote, I feel weak and light headed on low carb. Can't get in good workouts and I don't lose weight any better than a reasonable amount of carbs and a reasonable deficit. The data suggests that there are at least as many people like me as there are people like you. Probably more. I get the semi fanatacism of struggling to find a solution and then finally finding it. However, I believe those for whom only carb will work are a small percentage of the population and the reasons are as yet unknown. I certainly don't believe Taubes has found the key. Far from it.

So what prompted the "lunatic fringe" comment is posts like the one I quoted where the implication is made that the whole world is in the process of being converted to low carb one person at a time. Really, that's just ludicrous. Low carb has been around by that poster's references, for roughly 100 years and that hasn't happed.

So again, for you and others like that low carb has proved to be the missing piece of the puzzle, that's awesome. It's application is not universally effective. Far from it.

Sidesteal

To put it simply, too many carbs spike a person's insulin. When insulin is spiked, fat cells are signaled to store energy. Because energy is being stored as opposed to being used to fuel a person's body, that person feels that he/she needs to eat more to get energy. The person eats more, but the insulin is spiked again and the additional food goes to storage again. Then the cycle repeats. Not everyone is as sensitive to the insulin spike and therefore how many carbs different people can eat and stay thin is different from person to person. Also, the average person cannot stay in a constant state of starvation to stay thin. Hence, statically, most people don't keep weight off following conventional low-fat/low-calorie wisdom. Sounds logical to me. But again, I am not a scientist. I can only tell you that it worked for me, and many others.

What is not logical about it?

First I'm glad that you have found what works for you and your health has improved. Bravo!

What you've listed is the crux of the credibility question with Taubes. Carbs are not the only thing that spikes insulin. As had been previously mentioned, so does protein. For those that have pooh poohed that, or just plain ignored it, there never was a coherent response, help your self to a read;
http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html
If Taubes theory is correct, why doens't protein cause a problem also? Some have mentioned GI but that is a measure of blood glucose not insulin. Another who is diabetic mentioned that thier prick tests don't show elevated blood sugar but then it wouldn't. So, I can only come to one conclusion. Taubes may have stumbled onto something but he has not idea what and his reasoning as to why is just false. Krieger proved this pretty decisively.

So, why does eating low carb work for you and some others? I don't really know but it does. It also doesn't work for many. If we are going to use personal anecdote, I feel weak and light headed on low carb. Can't get in good workouts and I don't lose weight any better than a reasonable amount of carbs and a reasonable deficit. The data suggests that there are at least as many people like me as there are people like you. Probably more. I get the semi fanatacism of struggling to find a solution and then finally finding it. However, I believe those for whom only carb will work are a small percentage of the population and the reasons are as yet unknown. I certainly don't believe Taubes has found the key. Far from it.

So what prompted the "lunatic fringe" comment is posts like the one I quoted where the implication is made that the whole world is in the process of being converted to low carb one person at a time. Really, that's just ludicrous. Low carb has been around by that poster's references, for roughly 100 years and that hasn't happed.

So again, for you and others like that low carb has proved to be the missing piece of the puzzle, that's awesome. It's application is not universally effective. Far from it.

Great post.

Brentm77

"Another reading comprehension fail"

I still don't understand your use of this phrase. If you are trying to say that I don't comprehend what you are reading, have you considered that maybe it is a writing clearly problem on your end?

As for the issue raised by others, the protein spikes insulin, that is an interesting point. Frankly, I don't have enough knowledge as to whether that is true. If it is, then obviously there is something more going on than Taubes says. I suspect that it is more likely that if there is an insulin response, it isn't nearly as strong as it is from carbs. I don't claim that Taubes theory is true, only that it works for many people.

We are agreement on low carbs not being right for everyone. But then you should also agree that the medical/nutrition community's claim that low calorie/low fat will work for everyone (long term) is wrong too based on your comments??? That is my bigger concern. I wonder how many thousands of people believe that they are complete failures when they could actually be very successful if they knew there was alternatives to what their doctor tells them.

I did give Taubes' book to an M.D. friend. He read it, agreed that it made sense, and is now trying it. So there may be some M.D.'s coming around to the idea. But I also understand that he is only one M.D. out of many.

Acg67

"Another reading comprehension fail"

I still don't understand your use of this phrase. If you are trying to say that I don't comprehend what you are reading, have you considered that maybe it is a writing clearly problem on your end?

You stated "Many on this thread are standing on a soap box telling people what is working for them isn't working, or at least that it scientifically shouldn't work for them because Taubes cherry-picked studies." Now go back and quote where people or I have said that.

HorseWithNoName27

Taubes fans are the cobra...for logical reasons

Brentm77

Here is one example along those lines:

Question posted: And why are you even here commenting if you don't agree with him??
Answer posted: So other people don't fall for his crap??

It is implied (or expressly stated) all throughout this thread that anyone that believes Taube’s theory is falling for crap. That is a condescending attitude towards a theory that has held up for so many of us. We are smart enough to understand that anecdotal evidence isn’t always reliable. But when you a hear a theory, put it to the test, and it works, you at least believe that there is a good chance that the theory is correct. At least others on this board are skeptical but open to the possibility that Taube's may be onto something.

Some other examples:

“I think his conclusions aren't supported by his cherry-picked studies and I'd recommend people don't put too much stock in his information.”

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

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

The above just don't ring true for those of us that have put the theory to the test and found that it works.

HorseWithNoName27

Acg67

Here is one example along those lines:

Question posted: And why are you even here commenting if you don't agree with him??
Answer posted: So other people don't fall for his crap??

It is implied (or expressly stated) all throughout this thread that anyone that believes Taube’s theory is falling for crap. That is a condescending attitude towards a theory that has held up for so many of us. We are smart enough to understand that anecdotal evidence isn’t always reliable. But when you a hear a theory, put it to the test, and it works, you at least believe that there is a good chance that the theory is correct. At least others on this board are skeptical but open to the possibility that Taube's may be onto something.

Some other examples:

“I think his conclusions aren't supported by his cherry-picked studies and I'd recommend people don't put too much stock in his information.”

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

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

The above just don't ring true for those of us that have put the theory to the test and found that it works.

Another reading comprehension fail, you're not very good at this, are you?

invictus8

Taubes is partly right. That is, he's right on these points:

1. It's not just calories in/calories out: high glycemic carbohydrates can have a fat-storing effect on many people.
2. Eating cholesterol is perfectly fine, and non-saturated fats are generally good for you.

BUT he overlooks these points:

2. Calories in/calories out is still very important, and the bedrock of any successful diet; part of the success of Taubes' approach is that people find protein and fat more filling than high-glycemic carbohydrates.
3. Saturated fat is bad, bad, bad -- and should be avoided. Thus Taubes' bacon habit is truly inadvisable.

lalipoon

vegetables and fruits have protein as well. I have been a vegetarian for 53 years and eat many vegan receipes. I gained wt because I stress eat. MFP has helped me track and wt is coming off. You can lose wt as a vegetarian and I am not too low on protein @ all.

Acg67

Taubes is partly right. That is, he's right on these points:

1. It's not just calories in/calories out: high glycemic carbohydrates can have a fat-storing effect on many people.
2. Eating cholesterol is perfectly fine, and non-saturated fats are generally good for you.

BUT he overlooks these points:

2. Calories in/calories out is still very important, and the bedrock of any successful diet; part of the success of Taubes' approach is that people find protein and fat more filling than high-glycemic carbohydrates.
3. Saturated fat is bad, bad, bad -- and should be avoided. Thus Taubes' bacon habit is truly inadvisable.

The only thing he was right about was his part on the lipid hypothesis

It's not just calories in/calories out: high glycemic carbohydrates can have a fat-storing effect on many people.

Lol que?

3. Saturated fat is bad, bad, bad -- and should be avoided. Thus Taubes' bacon habit is truly inadvisable.

???

Brentm77

"Another reading comprehension fail, you're not very good at this, are you?"

Whatever. I think it is clear to just about anyone that it is the reverse. I was not providing a direct quote, so it would be impossible for me to provide one now. But the quotes I provided are clear enough.

I have not made personal attacks, and won't resort to that now. You replies do little to move the debate forward.

I will let others read and decide for themselves.

Acg67

"Another reading comprehension fail, you're not very good at this, are you?"

Whatever. I think it is clear to just about anyone that it is the reverse. I was not providing a direct quote, so it would be impossible for me to provide one now. But the quotes I provided are clear enough.

I have not made personal attacks, and won't resort to that now. You replies do little to move the debate forward.

I will let others read and decide for themselves.

Since I have to spell it out to you

"Many on this thread are standing on a soap box telling people what is working for them isn't working, or at least that it scientifically shouldn't work for them because Taubes cherry-picked studies"

Not one of the quotes you listed supports the above statement, not a single one of those quotes says or implies anything about low carb diets not working or being effective for weight loss.

If you actually read and comprehended Taubes' work, you would know he supports the insulin hypothesis of obesity. That is what people have commented on and disagreed with, not the efficacy of low carb diets. So maybe now you understand why I have been saying your reading comprehension is terrible. That is not a personal attack but a truth

mmapags

As for the issue raised by others, the protein spikes insulin, that is an interesting point. Frankly, I don't have enough knowledge as to whether that is true. If it is, then obviously there is something more going on than Taubes says. I suspect that it is more likely that if there is an insulin response, it isn't nearly as strong as it is from carbs.

That is why I posted the link to An Insulin Index of Foods by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The insulin responses are similar in the charts. Slightly higher for some carbs, like white potatoes for example and slightly lower for others. The same applies to the proteins.

Brentm77

Now we are getting somewhere. The problem is that your replies, attacking my reading comprehension, left me guessing at what you are referring to. Why not just say what you mean?

Until your last post, your writing capabilities were lacking. That is not a personal attack, just a fact.

Now I understand what you are arguing, because you have actually made the argument. You are correct that I was reading into the attack on Taubes as an attack on a low carb diet. That isn't reading comprehension, but is instead a bias on my part.

The people I quoted were not distinguishing between low carb diets and the insulin theory in their responses to Taubes. In fact, I believe that I can find posts that attack low carb diets in general (it isn't worth the effort at this point). When the posters didn't clarify what they were attacking, I assumed they were attacking low-carb diets, and you assumed they were only attacking the insulin theory. Both of us made an assumption. But because you made a different assumption than me, you assume it is my reading comprehension that is lacking??? If we could all just think like you, then we would all be great readers.

Brentm77

"That is why I posted the link to An Insulin Index of Foods by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition"

True, but I was too busy to read it. You have raised my interest, and I will be sure to look into it.