Why We Get Fat

grinch031

I am all for cutting back on carbs. I try to keep mine relatively low and focus on more protein... but I don't think whole grains are going to make me fat. Sugar, ice cream and brownies outside of moderation will!

What is the difference though? When they break down, it all becomes glucose anyways?

What makes whole grain a healthier carbohydrate than a tablespoon of pure sugar?

That's exactly it, once they are broken down there really is no difference.

Satiety and overall nutrition, which imo has a big effect on how we eat now. Carb consumption is about the same as it was in the early 1900's except fiber is about 40% less (exchanging whole for refined grain products) . Not much fast food back then and life was more rural, we moved more.

I agree with your last sentence, but everything else you said before that is pure opinion.

If you are worried about satiety, then fat and protein would be the route to go.

Potatoes are the most satiating food on the planet and many carbs are very satiating, refined carbs not so much to almost non exisitant. Fat on the other hand is not very satiating at all on a calorie for calorie basis.

Plus insulin is supposed to be a satiating hormone yet most obese folks secrete way too much of it but continue to overeat. And if fat wasn't satiating, then people on low carb, high fat diets would not be able to lose weight without counting calories, but many have great success. Sounds like there are paradoxes all over the place.

Unless of course it's the protein in the low carb/high fat diet that is satiating and not the fat so much.

http://ucsyd.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/om_uc_syddanmark/dokumenter/marianne_markers_kursus_NRO/110228_Holt et al Satiety index.pdf

Taubes doesn't claim you can eat in a surplus and not gain weight. He wouldn't use that word at all.

So when he says they have zero effect on fat accumulation and that you can eat as much as you want, what is he saying?

If Taubes says it has zero effect on fat accumulation, then he is saying it is impossible to create a caloric surplus without the presence of carbohydrates. So basically all the excess calories will be wasted by being burned or excreted instead of stored. His argument may be outright wrong, but he never makes claims that a caloric deficit / surplus are not needed for a change in fat stores to occur.

Incorrect, they have no effect on fat accumulation because only carbs illicit an insulin response when eaten, so even if one were to eat to excess none of it could be stored because of no insulin response. Of course you and I know that is ridiculous

Yeah I think we're agreeing that he claims its the carb->insulin response that is necessary for fat storage. But Taubes would argue if someone ate say 8000 calories of fat with no carbs, then their energy expenditure would increase to 8000 to remain in energy balance.

Apparently Taubes spent 6 years researching GCBC, and Why We Get Fat is just a dumbed down version of it, with some additions on diet recommendations. What boggles my mind is how he was so thorough on lipid hypothesis, but missed so much with the insulin hypothesis. Its as if he spent 5y11m on the former and 1 month on the latter.

I've read both, and Why we get fat is less technical but contains the same idiocy. And I don't think Taubes would argue that you'd increase expenditure to match fat intake if you ate all fat, he'd argue that fat causes no insulin response so it can't be stored as fat

Its been several months, but I recall Taubes being clear as day that his hypothesis fully complies with the laws of thermodynamics. He emphasizes that Cals IN and OUT are tightly coupled, which would indicate that the inability to store fat would mean the body must find a way to expend or excrete it. So basically for every calorie eaten, whether it ends up being expended or stored is dependent upon the insulin level and genetic predisposition, but either way it is accounted for in some way. I remember being highly disappointed when I read that section, because it was after I'd already stumbled upon that whole controversy on the internet and didn't think it held much water. He certainly didn't explain how the body would handle the excess fat that it can't store.

I still appreciate what he tried to do even though he F'ed it up by trying to be too specific about an area of science he doesn't seem to know enough about.

daaamon

Side- thanks for all those links.

Glad I am not alone in thinking his claims and conclusions seem pretty... odd. I have no idea why so many people recommended his book.

Because people want to believe that "they" got it wrong. People want to be among a small group that sees the true light while the masses of lemmings and sheep cluelessly follow futile directions from their overlords. It props up their ego and makes them feel good about themselves, something that a lot of overweight people have an issue with.

This.
Eat right, exercise, repeat, done.