Gary Taubes

Options
1…5678911»

Replies

  • HorseWithNoName27
    HorseWithNoName27 Posts: 188 Member
    Options
    listen-very-carfully-youll-hear-the-familiar-sound-of-no-one-caring.jpg
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    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
    invictus8 Posts: 258 Member
    Options
    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
    lalipoon Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    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
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    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
    Brentm77 Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    "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
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    "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
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options

    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
    Brentm77 Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    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
    Brentm77 Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    "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.
  • VorJoshigan
    VorJoshigan Posts: 1,106 Member
    Options

    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.

    Thank you. That was a good link. I knew that protein stimulated insulin, but I did not know that it was to that degree - though it makes sense in the context of insulin stimulating protein formation.

    I wonder if this is why so many people are recommending not just a low carb diet, but a high fat one for weight loss i.e. less insulin stimulating food overall.

    I think Taubes is giving generally the right advice (eat less carbs, especially processed carbs, especially sugar) , but for insufficient reasons. Given the incredible complexities of the human body, the insulin hypothesis is just not complete enough to describe everything that's going on. For me, I know that mental health has been as important as diet in getting physically healthier.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options

    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.

    Thank you. That was a good link. I knew that protein stimulated insulin, but I did not know that it was to that degree - though it makes sense in the context of insulin stimulating protein formation.

    I wonder if this is why so many people are recommending not just a low carb diet, but a high fat one for weight loss i.e. less insulin stimulating food overall.

    I think Taubes is giving generally the right advice (eat less carbs, especially processed carbs, especially sugar) , but for insufficient reasons. Given the incredible complexities of the human body, the insulin hypothesis is just not complete enough to describe everything that's going on. For me, I know that mental health has been as important as diet in getting physically healthier.

    Agreed on all counts. The biggest issue I have with low carb, low protein, high fat is the maintenance of lean muscle mass. It requires protein. I think there is something there when it comes to over consumption of carbs and especially highly processed carbs. I limit them myself to what I consider reasonable levels. But I think Taubes misses the boat when with the whole insulin hypothesis and where he goes with it from there.

    edited to add: I just thought I would define reasonable for me. Around 150 grams per day on a non workout day. 200 to 220 on a workout day. Staying in this zone, I have no problems with cravings and have enough carbs to fuel my workouts and my recovery.

Categories