new dieter, just read Taubes' book; questions
berninicaco3
Posts: 16
I'm 240# and 5'6", and starting to get (genuinely) serious about weight loss. I dabbled in it for the past year and got diddly for results, surprise.
So there's obviously a lot of literature on nutrition, and I've read almost none of it relatively.
Directed by a recent (5 mo old) ny times article, I read Taubes' 'why we get fat' book. Now Atkins was big when I was still in middle school and I never read any books on it, but the gist of it was low, low carbs, high protein instead-- and high fat if you like, correct?
It sounds like Taubes is giving similar advice.
So I wanted to clarify some things as I approach my own diet.
Taubes gave some good evidence that calories in/ calories out isn't by itself helpful. There was the interesting matter of Zucker mice, who when fed deficit diets, simply became sedentary to make up the difference (and stayed fat), and then when fed STARVATION diets, simply lost muscle mass and even organ mass, and became extremely sedentary (and stayed fat) even all the way to the point that they died of malnutrition with atrophied vitals and, still fat.
That's probably a genetic extreme, and my family, while we're all heavy, doesn't have a multigenerational genetic predisposition to extreme obesity like Zucker mice were bred to have. My own weight ought to be reparable.
He did provide some other studies where again, strict calorie counting wasn't effective, even the ones that were rigidly controlled (many were compromised, and one could imagine the subjects ate more than was reported to researchers).
Next point Taubes really repeated was his 'carbs -> insulin -> fat' mantra. He wrote that high insulin both stores fat and robs muscles of energy, creating fatigue and initiating hunger: that high insulin simultaneously made you fat, tire, and hungrier.
So he really argues against carbs, especially the simple ones that spike your insulin.
Now, it makes it more believable that he DOES say that simple carbs create a greater appetite. He doesn't actually say that a calorie deficit is ineffective, rather, he writes that a calories deficit with a diet very high in starches and simple carbs is ineffective by raising insulin and prompting the body to store even its reduced calories all as fat, and robbing the individual of energy to be active with.
Instead he says that a low-carb diet, or at least low simple carb (he's not perfectly clear there), will keep insulin from spiking and storing everything as fat, and secondly, will keep insulin from spiking and prompting a greater appetite-- so that low carbs makes more nutrition available for muscles to burn and lowers the appetite, so that if you do maintain a calorie deficit it can be an effective one (unlike for the poor zucker mice).
As a bit of a sugar addict (and it's only 15 calories a tsp, so it doesn't have to be high calorie if you control yourself), I want to be clear on this point-- should I simply count sugar calories and maintain a numerical deficit, or is it really quite important to virtually eliminated simple sugars and starches?)
Much less clear is another passage where he starts talking about less simple carbs-- yams, bananas, oatmeal, even broccoli. Are these nearly as harmful as sucrose and fructose and starchy white potatoes? Do I have to be careful how much broccoli I eat, even?
So I can give up venti pumpkin spice frappuccinos, and frappes and fries at the burger joint-- those are obvious simple carb sources. But is a bowl of oatmeal with 2 tsp of honey on top still as problematic a carb as a small shake or a large fries (probably similar in calories to the oatmeal)?
So there's obviously a lot of literature on nutrition, and I've read almost none of it relatively.
Directed by a recent (5 mo old) ny times article, I read Taubes' 'why we get fat' book. Now Atkins was big when I was still in middle school and I never read any books on it, but the gist of it was low, low carbs, high protein instead-- and high fat if you like, correct?
It sounds like Taubes is giving similar advice.
So I wanted to clarify some things as I approach my own diet.
Taubes gave some good evidence that calories in/ calories out isn't by itself helpful. There was the interesting matter of Zucker mice, who when fed deficit diets, simply became sedentary to make up the difference (and stayed fat), and then when fed STARVATION diets, simply lost muscle mass and even organ mass, and became extremely sedentary (and stayed fat) even all the way to the point that they died of malnutrition with atrophied vitals and, still fat.
That's probably a genetic extreme, and my family, while we're all heavy, doesn't have a multigenerational genetic predisposition to extreme obesity like Zucker mice were bred to have. My own weight ought to be reparable.
He did provide some other studies where again, strict calorie counting wasn't effective, even the ones that were rigidly controlled (many were compromised, and one could imagine the subjects ate more than was reported to researchers).
Next point Taubes really repeated was his 'carbs -> insulin -> fat' mantra. He wrote that high insulin both stores fat and robs muscles of energy, creating fatigue and initiating hunger: that high insulin simultaneously made you fat, tire, and hungrier.
So he really argues against carbs, especially the simple ones that spike your insulin.
Now, it makes it more believable that he DOES say that simple carbs create a greater appetite. He doesn't actually say that a calorie deficit is ineffective, rather, he writes that a calories deficit with a diet very high in starches and simple carbs is ineffective by raising insulin and prompting the body to store even its reduced calories all as fat, and robbing the individual of energy to be active with.
Instead he says that a low-carb diet, or at least low simple carb (he's not perfectly clear there), will keep insulin from spiking and storing everything as fat, and secondly, will keep insulin from spiking and prompting a greater appetite-- so that low carbs makes more nutrition available for muscles to burn and lowers the appetite, so that if you do maintain a calorie deficit it can be an effective one (unlike for the poor zucker mice).
As a bit of a sugar addict (and it's only 15 calories a tsp, so it doesn't have to be high calorie if you control yourself), I want to be clear on this point-- should I simply count sugar calories and maintain a numerical deficit, or is it really quite important to virtually eliminated simple sugars and starches?)
Much less clear is another passage where he starts talking about less simple carbs-- yams, bananas, oatmeal, even broccoli. Are these nearly as harmful as sucrose and fructose and starchy white potatoes? Do I have to be careful how much broccoli I eat, even?
So I can give up venti pumpkin spice frappuccinos, and frappes and fries at the burger joint-- those are obvious simple carb sources. But is a bowl of oatmeal with 2 tsp of honey on top still as problematic a carb as a small shake or a large fries (probably similar in calories to the oatmeal)?
0
Replies
-
IMHO, Taubes is in the business of fear monering. He's selling you dragon slaying services, only the dragon is imaginary and he has named it sugar.
People who demonize specific foods are always trying to sell something, whether that is a book, video or whatever.
That said, sugar can be a trigger food for some people, but only you can know if that is the case for you. Also, illnesses like diabetes can affect how you react to it.
I would try eating foods you like at an appropriate deficit. If you find that little bits of sugar tend to induce huge cravings, then it may be a good idea, for your own comfort, to keep it out of your diet for a bit. But, labeling sugar as bad or forbidden serves no purpose but inducing guilt (and often associated overeating) when you cave and have some.
Sugars and starches have benefits for most people. Eating a high carb snack can give you energy to fuel a workout. Sweet things can make many people happy, even in moderation.
If you would like resources about sugar that I have read through, I'd be happy to send a message with them, just let me know.
ETA: I think you would be pretty hard pressed to find a body builder or athlete on this forum who adheres to adheres low carb diet. The only reason a human would react to a starvation diet in the way Taubes' mice did, that I can think of, is if the person had no functioning pancreatic alpha cells.0 -
Complicated question. I recently attended a series of lectures on this at MIT. There is some truth to what Taubes says, but he also looks only at what evidence fits with his own bias. It's more complicated.
For one thing, calories in, calories out, does matter, and big time. You have to have a calorie deficit in order to lose weight. That said, eating lower carb can help. Here is a Scientific American report on a study that was talked about at the MIT lecture...in fact, by the doctor who conducted the study: (actually, it's the glycmeic index and glycemic load that matter, which is a little more complicated than just saying carbs)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-dieting-not-all-calo
The three groups were all placed on diets with the same daily calories. they were randomly assigned (very important) and they were in a setting where it was known that they ate the right amount of calories. They all lost weight, but the group on low glycemic lost more weight. The one on VERY low carb, an Atkins diet, lost the most weight, but they also showed some troubling blood-test results. and Atkins is hard to stick with. So the conclusion of the researchers was that low glycemic, easy to live with, healthy, and better than higher-glycemic at producing weight loss, was the way to go.
Low glycemic doesn't have to mean very low or low carb. What they found was that there's a big difference between whole foods, where the body has to work harder to get at the sugars, and refined carbs, where the sugars are more quickly digested and lead to blood-sugar spikes. An apple, for example, has a lot of sugar. Apple juice is basically just sugar water. But an apple is a whole different matter. The sugars are locked within the matrix of the fruit, especially the fiber. So the body has to work harder and gets at the sugars bit by bit.
There's a very big difference between instant oatmeal, the researcher said, and steel-cut oats, the latter being much lower on the glycemic scale. Rolled oats are somewhere in between.
Eating whole grains that have been heavily processed gives you fairly minimal improvement in glycemic index. Bread is bread, except for the flourless, sprouted-grain bread. Yes, whole wheat is better than white, but it's still been heavily processed, making the sugars more easily available.
So you don't need to deprive yourself. Just go for whole foods, keep carbs within a reasonable amount, and especially keep sugar consumption down. That doesn't mean you can't ever have sugar. You want something you're going to be able to live with and feel good on, because in the end what works is what you'll stick with and enjoy for the rest of your life.
Hope this helps..0 -
Thanks for the measured response.
That makes sense-- just read the article (or maybe it was only the abstract-- it was suspiciously short).
Even Taubes did have a line agreeing with this statement (about carbs locked behind fiber):
"But an apple is a whole different matter. The sugars are locked within the matrix of the fruit, especially the fiber."
So the real 'dragon' is simply insulin spikes? Not carbs, not even insulin, but highly elevated insulin?
And I imagine that a bit of sugar is OK where as a lot of sugar would be less so.
If my math is right --and I had to make at least one assumption-- the venti pumpkin spice frappuccino as I prefer to have it (with 3x the amount of pumpkin flavoring) is about equal to nearly 25 teaspoons of sugar!
Even on those days, I counted the 650 calories that I'd just drunk (i've been lazy about fitnesspal if you check my profile, but been counting nonetheless) towards my daily limit... but really not good enough.
I'm good about bread, and starches, and I hear you on whole wheat bread (it has more nutrition on top of the bad stuff-- but still has the bad stuff).
But what I do need is to cut out the sucrose. I eat a lot of sugar, even when I do count those calories. And a lot of cereal-- 1-2 large bowls (500cal) a day. Some of it is probably better than others, I think I should give my box of cheerios to the roomate.
Hey, is yogurt bad? We're talking around 30g of sugar, across any number of brands. I've had the 'health' ones too; I mean, they're all that sugary. How much sugar should I limit myself to?
If I had to decide whether to eat 2 yogurts in a day, or have 3 tablespoons of honey with my oatmeal, that sort of thing-- to keep better track of the simple sugars I'm eating.
Fascinating (surprising) about instant and cut! Could you clarify? A friend and I were curious the other month and looked it up and all we could tell was that instant oatmeal was simply cut up a bit further, to increase surface area (so it hydrates that much faster when you cook it). But it didn't sound like it was chemically broken down any further, or even different at all-- just the difference between granulated sugar and confectioners sugar, a matter of particle size and no more.
But maybe there's more too it.
It took a few minutes of google-foo to even find that answer on the difference between instant and 'original/classic/whatever' rolled oats. Most answers just talked about if a recipe called for one or the other, could you substitute... not on what the actual difference was.0 -
Trying to read Taubes like it is factual information is understandably confusing.0
-
Hahahaha.
I should actually check out the 'stickies' here, or on bodybuilding-- locally there's a gym called ferrell's that has some nutrition advice, or I can use p90x's nutrition calculator-- well, what else should I read?0 -
Interesting.
So if the Glycemic Index is where I should actually be looking, there are some revelations:
One is that sugar and bananas are darn close to each other, and honey too-- while carrots. Carrots! I thought those were perfect snack foods. Are near the top, next to corn flakes (many cereals) and above even high fructose corn syrup (which is around 90 I think).
Comparison of glycemic index and glycemic load of certain foods
Food Glycemic index Glycemic load
Apple 40 6
Baked potato 85 26
Brown rice 50 16
Carrots 92 5
Corn flakes 92 24
Orange juice 50 13
Plain bagel 72 25
Potato chips 54 11
Pound cake 54 15
Wheat bread 53 11
Table sugar (sucrose) 58 6
Ranges for glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL)
GI GL
High 70 or more 20 or more
Medium 56 to 69 11 to 19
Low 55 or less 10 or less
From International Table of Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load Values by K.F. Powell et al (2002, Am J Clin Nutr 2002; 76:5-56)0 -
This blog and it's comments from 2010 is on a similar theme, and should prove amusing;
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/0 -
As a further qualification, at my current fitness and body weight, I do have trouble expending tons of energy in intensive exercise. I can only jog 1/2mi - 3/4 mi, I can only do 30 pushups, etc.
It might be that someone already composed of all lean muscle with 5% body fat is going to eat 5000 calories of all sorts of carbs and burn them all off in a triathlon, whereas I'd find it impossible to actually complete a triathlon.
So for someone trying to cut fat, while building some endurance,
the diet advice to take home is low GI foods, combined with a modest calorie deficit? (like 2000 calories/day of low-GI carbs and proteins).0 -
just checking: you believe that the content of that blog is GOOD, and what will prove amusing is Taubes' book in contrast?
Ok, sounds like the voice of moderation:
"The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity. Pointing the finger at fructose while dismissing dosage and context is like saying that exercise should be avoided because it makes you fat and injured by spiking your appetite and hurting your joints."
Some sugar is ok, some high-GI (like fructose) is OK; but I think if I look at my OWN diet it really does have a lot more high-GI foods than I realized. Carrots, for one. Or the twice-weakly jaunt to subway for 800 calories of 6" sandwich --and I do count them-- but at least 200 of them are in the refined bread and certainly some sugars in the sauces. The rest is in fatty meat, cheese, and sauces (which might be OK?) except of course, it still is 800 calories at a sitting.0 -
how seriously did you try calorie counting? It is very easy to make it much more difficult then it needs to be. Just start, the details will follow.
One of the issues with all diets that cut out certain foods is that you'd better be sure that you don't really want this again. By all means reduce your intake of processed sugar and other processed sweeteners. Monitor how you are doing with the help of your food log. Proteins keep you full longer, but carbs give you energy, so find a balance and see what works for you.
This link is a response to Taubes book
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
this is quite a good read as well (it persuaded me to use the food scale full time and it made a huge difference)
http://www.acaloriecounter.com/blog/why-am-i-not-losing-weight/0 -
An up to date first year university textbook on human physiology and nutrition would be a better starting point than any of the various ebooks and such like out on the internet. Internet ebooks are written by people with something to sell, and even the minority that contain good science still usually have a gimmick in there somewhere. However university textbooks are written by university professors who want students to be able to pass exams, and so have a vested interest in providing straight forward, scientifically correct information, without any gimmicks or any need or desire to dress the truth up as something that it's not.0
-
Although the voice of moderation sounds wishy-washy and unhelpful, the demonising or banning of foods is no more constructive.
The take home is that to lose weight successfully, you need a moderate calorie deficit.
How easy that deficit is to maintain, is affected by your food choices.
I'd recommend that you try to make those calories count, you need to fit in all of your essential macro and micronutrients into those calories, plus the very occasional treats that would make your new life feel like a short term punishment if you had to live without them.0 -
Not seriously enough, in honest truth.
Giving it a greater shot going forward.
Can I count exercise? If the elliptical says I burned 400 calories, is it true? If an online estimator says that a 5 miles brisk walk is 650 calories for a 240# man such as myself, is that accurate, too-- and I can eat 650 more calories? (but probably not that 650 calorie frappe
)
It was Taubes' message of 'calorie in calorie out is a lie!' that I wanted to double check,
but even he mid-book kindof conceded that a low-carb diet simply made calorie deficit much more palatable and more effective/ sustainable,
not that calorie-in/calorie-out was patently incorrect (as the introduction said).
I'll read the blog now-- looks good from a brief skimming. I just bought a food scale (rather than using measuring cups/ eyeballing) last weekend.0 -
Carrots are my go too food when I have sugar cravings - sweet enough and I assume that the glycemic index would mean I am getting the fix quickly. So It depends on what your goals are...
Mine are to stop myself from having a total stuff everything I can into my face moment when I feel super hungry and weak (evidently blood sugar drops a bit too much)
So I think carrots are totally awesome.0 -
Sounds like a great way of making things far more complicated than they need to be.
All you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight. Demonizing food groups is not necessary.
Taubes, like everyone else in the diet industry, is just trying to make money. No-one is going to pay to be told to just eat what they do now, but less of it, so instead they create something for you to buy, like a book of apparently acceptable carbs to eat while on a 'diet.'0 -
Calories In/Out definitely has it's own uncertainties on both sides of the equation but Taubes' carbs = insulin = fat storage hypothesis is woefully lacking the complete hormonal picture.
A bit like Mark Sisson (The Primal Blueprint) and his ludicrous carbohydrate curve.
I've read 'em all and when it comes down to it a moderate calorie deficit will work for most, medical conditions (diagnosed) not withstanding. IMO, etc. 0 -
Not seriously enough, in honest truth.
Giving it a greater shot going forward.
Can I count exercise? If the elliptical says I burned 400 calories, is it true?
It's an estimate based on averages. It's not going to tell you the exact number of calories you burned.If an online estimator says that a 5 miles brisk walk is 650 calories for a 240# man such as myself, is that accurate, too-- and I can eat 650 more calories? (but probably not that 650 calorie frappe )
same answer. it's not going to tell you how many calories you burned. if you're doing the method of eating back calories, eating only 80% back to account for overestimated burns is a good strategy. Or alternatively use the TDEE - x% method, whereby you estimate your total calorie burn for the day, and eat percentage less than that. It's still just an estimate, but with only one number to work with, it's a lot easier to adjust that number up or down based on real world results, e.g. if you find your not losing on your estimate, subtract 200 cals and try again.... if you're constantly starving hungry on that estimate, then add 200 calls and try again... it takes a bit of trial and error to find the right number of calories for slow and steady fat loss without feeling deprived or constantly hungry, but it's worth the effort to find that number. Calculators give you a starting point... they're estimates but usually not that far from the truth. Start with the estimate, then adjust the calorie goal based on your results.It was Taubes' message of 'calorie in calorie out is a lie!' that I wanted to double check,
but even he mid-book kindof conceded that a low-carb diet simply made calorie deficit much more palatable and more effective/ sustainable,
not that calorie-in/calorie-out was patently incorrect (as the introduction said).
low carb diets are easier to stick to for a lot of people than low fat diets (which were promoted in the past, but are not very healthy or sustainable). If you take most people who eat way too much fat and carbohydrate, and tell them to eat more protein and avoid carbs, they will end up eating a lot fewer calories than before, even if they're allowed to eat as much protein and fat foods as they want. Protein is the most filling of the macronutrients, and fat is more filling than carbs. So a lot of people succeed at low carb dieting. Not because calories in v calories out isn't true (it is), but because this creates a calorie deficit for them without counting calories.
However, for high intensity exercise, the body needs carbohydrate. And some people are less able to tolerate low carb, e.g. more prone to low blood sugar and issues that come from that, some of which can be severe, e.g. some people with anxiety disorders find that their symptoms are much worse with low blood sugar, so for those people low carb diets will not be a good idea at all.
Calorie counting trumps all the various methods of achieving a calorie deficit without counting calories (e.g. eating low calorie density foods, eating slowly, eating smaller serving sizes, eating frequent small meals, not eating after 6pm, only eating carbs for breakfast, etc etc etc) because it's more accurate. The others are all hit and miss methods that probably will work for a lot of people but not everyone, or people will have success initially when they have a lot to lose, then hit a plateau when they get to a certain point where this method is no longer helping them to create a deficit. Calories in v calories out is true for everyone, if they're not getting success from this method, then either they're taking in more calories than they think (a lot of people don't measure their portion sizes accurately enough), or burning fewer calories than they think (e.g. overestimating calorie burns, or in some cases it's due to medical issues that make the metabolism slower than it should be for their weight/height) - but calories in v calories out is still correct in every case.
Some people may *prefer* some of the non calorie counting methods, e.g. the rules I listed above, because that's easier for them to maintain in the long term and they succeed with them, but that doesn't make calories in v calories out untrue. People succeed with these methods because they create a calorie deficit for them, so it's still calories in v calories out.0 -
What is your fasting blood glucose? I am 5'6" and was diagnosed with diabetes when I weighed 235
Don't let all the calorie in vs calorie out crowd get to you. That is true, but if you have metabolic disorder or diabetes there is more important business to take care of besides losing weight!
I had a few really ****ty doctors that I think just wanted to push pills on me in the beginning. I remember the first doctor I had telling me to stop drinking alcohol (not bad advice) and eat more oatmeal and grains like whole wheat bread and pasta, and cereals...oh and low fat yogurt. I did all that for a couple years and just got worse and my meds had to increase. Then I was like screw it and went in denial for about 5 years and didn't even check my BG at all...ever. I did my annual appointments where I found my A1C rising and rising every year.
About a year ago somebody posted the video "Fathead" on Facebook and it all made sense. I started watching my carbs, read the Primal Blueprint, Wheat Belly and a bunch of blogs and message boards. I lost 25 pounds in about 3 months and my BG was under control to the point that my meds were giving me a lot of low BG episodes which suck really bad. I kinda fell off the wagon for a while with the holidays and never got back on track....gained back about 15 pounds. Then in September I started again, not low carb, not primal, but my own program of moderation with an emphasis on lowering my carb intake. I try and eat about 50g or so a day, if I go over one day I don't say "well today's already blown so I'll just have that piece of cake and 6 beers" like I would've in the past. Every day is new to me and I try to stick to 50-75g. Well my BG is pretty much under 125 all the time now and I've cut one of my meds in half and am pretty close to cutting it in half again. I also walk 3-5 miles every day, and feel great.
If I was still doing the "everything in moderation" diet with the 300g RDA of carbs, I would have rollercoastering BG levels, be tired all the time, and be headed to insulin injections and I don't really want to go there.0 -
Well, this is my second day of REALLY being honest with myself.
I mean, for the whole year from say 2011 to middle of 2012 I was eating chic fil a daily --including a shake-- REALLY bad. But that was already a year ago.
So I thought that I was being 'good' in contrast for this entire past year by sharply cutting down on the worst offenders, but while I gave up the daily milkshakes, I think i've been eating more than I realized. Obviously, I haven't lost anything, so.
Kept it to 2200 calories today, honest to god truth, and it was shockingly easy to eat that much. So I've probably been on a 3000 calorie/day diet even for this past year.
I'm 26 to your 41 and don't have any of the indicators of diabetes, nor any signs of a metabolic disorder. Not saying that I wouldn't have blood glucose problems by 41 if I were to have kept up the chic fil a diet, however!
We also don't have any history of diabetes in our family; genetics do matter some.0 -
quick question.
So today I ate a fair bit in the morning, but then went from 7am to 7pm on 700 calories, and went to a workout session at the local rec center.
I was shocked to find myself shaking and uncoordinated after just 20-30 minutes! Of really only moderate work. We were doing squats --kindof a weakness of mine, especially since it's a body weight exercise and I'm 240#-- so that was harder. But when we moved to simple upper body work, I found curling 15# to be a burden. Which is unusual: as a fat guy, some muscle comes with the fat. I can usually curl 30# no problem.
I presume in retrospect that this is what low blood sugar feels like? It's not a common feeling for me-- either a) I don't work out as intensely, as quickly, usually --walking 6 miles would never do what just 30min of actually intense cardio did-- or more likely b) it was the long interval with fewer calories than I'm used to; 700 calories in 12 hours THEN a workout.
I wasn't even hungry actually, or even tired --that is to say, the muscles had not been worked anywhere near their capacities and they weren't sore yet-- just completely depleted on energy! Like I said, an unusual and novel feeling for myself, having overate and underworked for years
When I got back home I had some oatmeal and a tsp of honey and felt rather better.
I left mid-session to walk home; it was obviously not going to happen for the remaining 30 minutes of the session.
Two questions.
To prevent this in the future and have energy for the workout, how many calories, of what sort, and how far in advance, do you like to eat? E.g, do you aim for 300 calories of oatmeal 30 minutes before going into more moderate cardio? I'd eaten 200 calories of peanut butter just beforehand, but obviously that wasn't enough/ or wasn't the right thing.
Secondly, if I feel like this again, what sort of calories are a good recovery, I guess is the term? Should i have reached for oatmeal, or an egg/ protein shake as the best solution? Should I bring a granola bar to the workout next time just in case?0 -
btw, I've been fluctuating between 240 and 245# depending on water weight mainly, for at least the past month if not two.
Today the scale read 238#! Been a while. I've eaten 3400 calories in the past 2 days that I've been counting legitimately closely.
I'm realistic enough to know that it may not be real weight loss in only 2 days... but I'll take it as a sign of encouragement nonetheless.0 -
I'm 240# and 5'6", and starting to get (genuinely) serious about weight loss. I dabbled in it for the past year and got diddly for results, surprise.
So there's obviously a lot of literature on nutrition, and I've read almost none of it relatively.
Directed by a recent (5 mo old) ny times article, I read Taubes' 'why we get fat' book. Now Atkins was big when I was still in middle school and I never read any books on it, but the gist of it was low, low carbs, high protein instead-- and high fat if you like, correct?
It sounds like Taubes is giving similar advice.
So I wanted to clarify some things as I approach my own diet.
Taubes gave some good evidence that calories in/ calories out isn't by itself helpful. There was the interesting matter of Zucker mice, who when fed deficit diets, simply became sedentary to make up the difference (and stayed fat), and then when fed STARVATION diets, simply lost muscle mass and even organ mass, and became extremely sedentary (and stayed fat) even all the way to the point that they died of malnutrition with atrophied vitals and, still fat.
That's probably a genetic extreme, and my family, while we're all heavy, doesn't have a multigenerational genetic predisposition to extreme obesity like Zucker mice were bred to have. My own weight ought to be reparable.
He did provide some other studies where again, strict calorie counting wasn't effective, even the ones that were rigidly controlled (many were compromised, and one could imagine the subjects ate more than was reported to researchers).
Next point Taubes really repeated was his 'carbs -> insulin -> fat' mantra. He wrote that high insulin both stores fat and robs muscles of energy, creating fatigue and initiating hunger: that high insulin simultaneously made you fat, tire, and hungrier.
So he really argues against carbs, especially the simple ones that spike your insulin.
Now, it makes it more believable that he DOES say that simple carbs create a greater appetite. He doesn't actually say that a calorie deficit is ineffective, rather, he writes that a calories deficit with a diet very high in starches and simple carbs is ineffective by raising insulin and prompting the body to store even its reduced calories all as fat, and robbing the individual of energy to be active with.
Instead he says that a low-carb diet, or at least low simple carb (he's not perfectly clear there), will keep insulin from spiking and storing everything as fat, and secondly, will keep insulin from spiking and prompting a greater appetite-- so that low carbs makes more nutrition available for muscles to burn and lowers the appetite, so that if you do maintain a calorie deficit it can be an effective one (unlike for the poor zucker mice).
As a bit of a sugar addict (and it's only 15 calories a tsp, so it doesn't have to be high calorie if you control yourself), I want to be clear on this point-- should I simply count sugar calories and maintain a numerical deficit, or is it really quite important to virtually eliminated simple sugars and starches?)
Much less clear is another passage where he starts talking about less simple carbs-- yams, bananas, oatmeal, even broccoli. Are these nearly as harmful as sucrose and fructose and starchy white potatoes? Do I have to be careful how much broccoli I eat, even?
So I can give up venti pumpkin spice frappuccinos, and frappes and fries at the burger joint-- those are obvious simple carb sources. But is a bowl of oatmeal with 2 tsp of honey on top still as problematic a carb as a small shake or a large fries (probably similar in calories to the oatmeal)?
Taubes is anti science. With all the supposed years of research he put into this book and all the references, how did he pass over the fact that protein is highly insulinogenic? No mention at all of ASP? Oh that's right, since that destroys his insulin hypothesis of obesity. He also conveniently ignores the numerous metabolic ward studies and other tightly controlled studies that hold protein and cals constant and found no significant difference in fat loss between the diets. And what about overfeeding trials? What macro actually makes you fatter? Hint:not carbs
To sum it up, Taubes is a joke and that book is more fiction besides his part on the lipid hypothesis0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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