Why We Get Fat

InnerFatGirl

If people eat very low calorie diets, of course they're not going to keep it off. The metabolism will slow down and adjust to the lower calorie intake, and then you'll have to up to maintenance when you reach goal, which will likely put you over your TDEE. Because, think of it like this, if your metabolism has adapted to 1200 calories, but your TDEE is 2000 for your weight, you're gonna gain. If you eat at a deficit without eating low calorie, you should be fine. The Eat More To Lose Weight crew has some in depth information about this.

Also, about people who claim it's not calories in/calories out - I had one of those idiots arguing with me yesterday. Yep, mate, it's not calories in, calories out? Okay, remind me how I've lost a stone then.

grinch031

Well right now we have an unprecedented obesity epidemic. Over 30% of Americans are obese, and within the next 18 years that number is projected to hit 42%. That right there is pretty significant. Now people constantly site sedentary lifestyle as a main culprit, but this problem largely began around 1980, way before video games were that popular and before the internet even existed. Most people didn't know what the internet was until probably mid 1990s. Plus there is little evidence that exercise makes that much difference in managing weight.

and Internet is the only thing that makes you sedentary?
there's another thing actually, but it seems that in US people are taking it for granted so much that they'll rather think of internet then of - cars. From what I've seen of US and from what I've heard of friends who have lived there for some time, US infrastructure is extremely pedestrian-unfriendly, and even cyclist-unfriendly. People simply don't walk any more. My partner just came back from LA and he was complaining about huge lack of pedestrian zones/paths. A friend of mine lived in mid-west for a year, she didn't have a driving licence and had huge problems doing shopping since everything is designed for cars. She even was openly told that it's her own fault since "everyone should have a car". As far as I'm concerned, this is far greater problem than internet and carbs together. When I was eating 500g of white bread daily (+ pastry from bakeries) and looked like I did on that profile picture, I was also walking for at least half an hour every morning to get that bread. No big shopping malls, no huge shopping once a week - just up and down the hill, up and down the stairs every day, to get your food in local bakeries and small shops. However, westernisation of lifestyle, opening of huge shopping malls and disappearance of small local business are taking their toll in all developed world.
where did you get this about little evidence?

Sorry I don't buy any of this. Running has grown enormously over the past couple years and has not stopped obesity. We have had cars for over a century, so you're going to use that to explain an obesity epidemic that only began skyrocketing over the past 30 years? Much of the forms of sedentary entertainment blamed for the lack of exercise as a cause of obesity also only picked up steam in the past 10 years or even less, so there is still 20 years of skyrocketing obesity to be accounted for.

The only obvious trend that began at the same time as the obesity epidemic is the change in the American diet to one where grain intake increased and fat intake decreased.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

You are saying that people who are running or simply being very active their whole life, from early childhood, and never lose that habit, get obese anyway at the very same rate like non active people? I have hard time imagining that. (btw, running twice a week is not exactly the 'active lifestyle' I have in mind).
No, you didn't have cars for a century lol. not in today's numbers and usage.
If you truly believe that it's just about diet you'll have to explain how cultures that traditionally eat a lot of grains (crazy high amounts of bread and pastry for example) are only starting to see rise in obesity in last few years. (although, you might be onto something when you say high carbs/low fat, since where I'm coming from crazy high grain usage is accompanied by a lot of animal fat.)
dismissing activity level when it comes to obesity epidemic is really hard to buy for me. here's a paper which shows very clearly importance of active lifestyle on a similar diet:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00574.x/abstract

(boys in villages are much, much more active than boys in cities)

Well when I was in high school I had a low body fat percentage, did less exercise, and ate whatever I wanted in as much quantity as I desired. In my 20s and 30s, I now do more exercise (marathon running, competitive tennis, lift weights), eat less calories, and continued to gain weight until I went on a low-carb diet. I'm right now at about 15% body fat, but I can feel the pressure to overeat as soon as I start eating too many carb foods.

Anyways I'm not going to make claims that exercise has exactly the same effect on weight loss as non-exercise, because I don't believe that. I do think a primary benefit of exercise is improved insulin sensitivity among other benefits. I just think for weight loss purposes it would be a disappointment, because the body will simply increase appetite. It might suppress it temporarily, but in the end body fat is regulated and exercise expedites some fat burning which would lead to a compensatory response.

InnerFatGirl

Also, if you're JUST focusing on calories, and not changing bad habits, you're gonna fall back into the same trap that made you gain weight. It's not solely calorie counting at fault.

HonkyTonks

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.

Yep - we got fat - let's blame carbs! Or fat! Or something that wasn't the fact that we simply just eat too much food. It really is as simple as eating less. Unfortunately unless you count calories some people just really don't realise how much food they are actually eating.

I do think more protein is a good thing though - more satisfying and all that. But I don't agree with eliminating carbs at all, especially if it's something you can't stick with.

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.

only_5mom

I have read the book. He spends chapter after chapter talking about science of it. I thought much of that was personal opinion and not backed up. I was anxious for the practical "and What to Do About It" part, and it left me wanting.

As far as results go, I ate low carb for 4 months and lost 30 pounds. I have switched to calorie counting and exercise and have gained back 7 of what I lost over the last 7 weeks. I am discouraged, but am sticking with it, because I have a hard time thinking that I can live the low carb lifestyle. If the trend continues, I will have to go back to it though and give it a shot. I don't want to go back to being fat! I do wonder if Taubes has a point, since instead of losing, I am gaining on the calorie counting program. Of course, the trauma of the change may be inhibiting my loss, or maybe I am one of those people he is talking about who just can't handle the carbs. IDK. I am going to stay the calorie counting course for now with more calories and see what happens. I had been sticking with about 1200-1400 calories, but reading and listening to fat2fit radio and a couple of others I found out about through MFP and think that maybe 1800-2000 is more appropriate for me. I am learning how to eat those 1800 calories healthfully, not empty calories. I fear that my metabolism is screwed up really bad from the yo-yo-ing.

grinch031

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.

Yep - we got fat - let's blame carbs! Or fat! Or something that wasn't the fact that we simply just eat too much food. It really is as simple as eating less. Unfortunately unless you count calories some people just really don't realise how much food they are actually eating.

I do think more protein is a good thing though - more satisfying and all that. But I don't agree with eliminating carbs at all, especially if it's something you can't stick with.

I highly doubt its about people wanting to be the minority group that sees the light or has an ego problem. If that were the case, I'd probably believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories but I'm mainstream on that one. Most of us tried counting calories and it either didn't work, or we couldn't sustain it because of excess hunger or too tedious. I think most of us decide to pick the theory that makes the most sense to us as opposed to just following the mainstream just because its mainstream. I don't buy the idea that a physics equation can explain how a complex biochemical process works.

The main reason I don't believe in the calorie hypothesis is:

1) There is undeniable proof that body fat is regulated and not simply a matter of behavioral eating patterns
2) There is a lot of bad science that has propogated its way through the entire medical industry
3) It doesn't even come close to explaining my own experiences and observations of others
4) Researchers admit obesity is not well understood

The energy balance model is equivalent to saying someone becomes rich because their bank account has more deposits than withdrawls. Doesn't explain where the person got all that money to deposit and how they managed to keep their expenses low to accumulate wealth.

Acg67

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

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.

Acg67

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

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.