Gary Taubes

I'm familiar with some of Taube's writing, well versed in research, and am working on a masters degree in physiology. I actually find most of Taubes' work to be based on very legitimate science, although, as with anything in science, you will be able to find a source that disagrees if you look hard enough. And as much as I hate to say it, people's blogs and forums (like this one) are not going to guarantee good information, even if they mean well. Something worth researching is Sweden's recent changes in dietary recommendations to be very similar to what Taube's recommends. This change was based on a massive review of 16000 scientific articles by some very credible dieticians.

Sweden's new dietary suggestions are lower carbs, but not 'low carb' per se. Once doesn't have to look very hard to find studies results that refute Taube's opinions.

Blogs and forums are fine for recommendations, as long as references to peer reviewed published studies are provided.

Actually the Swedish council (SBU) has stated the benefits of LOW carb diets for both obesity and diabetes.

Here's a quote: …"a greater increase in HDL cholesterol (“the good cholesterol”) without having any adverse affects on LDL cholesterol (“the bad cholesterol”). This applies to both the moderate low-carbohydrate intake of less than 40 percent of the total energy intake, as well as to the stricter low-carbohydrate diet, where carbohydrate intake is less than 20 percent of the total energy intake. In addition, the stricter low-carbohydrate diet will lead to improved glucose levels for individuals with obesity and diabetes, and to marginally decreased levels of triglycerides."

English translated version found here:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-vid-fetma-/

Yes, the new Swedish recommendation suggests lowering carbs, with lower carb intake associated with greater health benefits. I have a few articles that I will post links to once my school gets its online library access up and running again (It seems they are updating the website over the winter break). And although I technically can't cite my own life experiences, I have met several people who have been struggling with weight for years, traditional low fat diets were not working (in the long term), and have finally had success following low carb.
Also, until recently I was completely against this LCHF idea until I really researched it.

I have access finally! Here are some citations. I'm sorry the Great Fat Debate papers don't show an abstract and but if you are a university student (or know one) you should be able to get access through the school's online library.

http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/17341711
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/21515107
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/16476868. --> this is a meta-analysis, the highest level of evidence based medicine. It combines the results of many individual studies to look at the big picture.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/?term=meta-analysis+of+prospective+cohort+studies+evaluating+the+association+of+saturated+fat+with+cardiovascular+disease --> another meta-analysis!

And to Fruttibiscott, congratulations on your success!

I have access finally! Here are some citations. I'm sorry the Great Fat Debate papers don't show an abstract and but if you are a university student (or know one) you should be able to get access through the school's online library.

http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/17341711
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/21515107
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/16476868. --> this is a meta-analysis, the highest level of evidence based medicine. It combines the results of many individual studies to look at the big picture.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/?term=meta-analysis+of+prospective+cohort+studies+evaluating+the+association+of+saturated+fat+with+cardiovascular+disease --> another meta-analysis!

And to Fruttibiscott, congratulations on your success!

If anyone wants to look at these, go to pubmed and type in the study number.

Here is the meta analysis. Which does not say what I think you think it does.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=16476868

I have access finally! Here are some citations. I'm sorry the Great Fat Debate papers don't show an abstract and but if you are a university student (or know one) you should be able to get access through the school's online library.

http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/17341711
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/21515107
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/16476868. --> this is a meta-analysis, the highest level of evidence based medicine. It combines the results of many individual studies to look at the big picture.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.cyber.usask.ca/pubmed/?term=meta-analysis+of+prospective+cohort+studies+evaluating+the+association+of+saturated+fat+with+cardiovascular+disease --> another meta-analysis!

And to Fruttibiscott, congratulations on your success!

If anyone wants to look at these, go to pubmed and type in the study number.

Here is the meta analysis. Which does not say what I think you think it does.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=16476868

Could you please elaborate?

I don't agree completely with everything he claims but I think he has got a lot more right about why we got fat then the conventional dietary guidelines have been spouting.

What many of you on here keep overlooking when spouting off about it all being about burning more then you consume. What you consume significantly effects how much you burn.

Well, I might be one of those 'spouting off' in your opinion, but I do know that what you consume does NOT (in fact) significantly effect how much you burn.

I'm curious, are you suggesting the thermic effect of food does not exist? Hint: it exists, and it increases when you eat more. Also, when you reduce food intake substantially you will have less energy. This may not be the case for someone who is overweight because they chronically overeat, but that is not why everyone is overweight. You can't apply that to average people who are simply looking to tone up, as calorie restriction is not conducive to building muscle. This is a time when the type of food you eat will have a greater effect on your results than the amount of food (again, of course if you are not chronically overeating what is appropriate for your body type and activity level).

WHAT you consume, not how much. As in, if you eat more protein you use more calories to digest it. Which is not true. I don't need hints about metabolism, thanks, LOL.

I don't agree completely with everything he claims but I think he has got a lot more right about why we got fat then the conventional dietary guidelines have been spouting.

What many of you on here keep overlooking when spouting off about it all being about burning more then you consume. What you consume significantly effects how much you burn.

Well, I might be one of those 'spouting off' in your opinion, but I do know that what you consume does NOT (in fact) significantly effect how much you burn.

I'm curious, are you suggesting the thermic effect of food does not exist? Hint: it exists, and it increases when you eat more. Also, when you reduce food intake substantially you will have less energy. This may not be the case for someone who is overweight because they chronically overeat, but that is not why everyone is overweight. You can't apply that to average people who are simply looking to tone up, as calorie restriction is not conducive to building muscle. This is a time when the type of food you eat will have a greater effect on your results than the amount of food (again, of course if you are not chronically overeating what is appropriate for your body type and activity level).

WHAT you consume, not how much. As in, if you eat more protein you use more calories to digest it. Which is not true. I don't need hints about metabolism, thanks, LOL.

I am not sure why you think that is not true. If you don't need hints about metabolism you should know that it is process requiring energy. Glycolysis alone requires 8 APT I believe? More glucose intake = more glucose to break down = more ATP required. If you actually find something I said incorrect I would appreciate an explanation, not a thanks LOL.

I don't agree completely with everything he claims but I think he has got a lot more right about why we got fat then the conventional dietary guidelines have been spouting.

What many of you on here keep overlooking when spouting off about it all being about burning more then you consume. What you consume significantly effects how much you burn.

Well, I might be one of those 'spouting off' in your opinion, but I do know that what you consume does NOT (in fact) significantly effect how much you burn.

I'm curious, are you suggesting the thermic effect of food does not exist? Hint: it exists, and it increases when you eat more. Also, when you reduce food intake substantially you will have less energy. This may not be the case for someone who is overweight because they chronically overeat, but that is not why everyone is overweight. You can't apply that to average people who are simply looking to tone up, as calorie restriction is not conducive to building muscle. This is a time when the type of food you eat will have a greater effect on your results than the amount of food (again, of course if you are not chronically overeating what is appropriate for your body type and activity level).

WHAT you consume, not how much. As in, if you eat more protein you use more calories to digest it. Which is not true. I don't need hints about metabolism, thanks, LOL.

I am not sure why you think that is not true. If you don't need hints about metabolism you should know that it is process requiring energy. Glycolysis alone requires 8 APT I believe? More glucose intake = more glucose to break down = more ATP required. If you actually find something I said incorrect I would appreciate an explanation, not a thanks LOL.

Of course it requires energy to process. Please show me where I said that it didn't.

I'm sorry, but your reading comprehension is so poor, I feel I have done all I can do here, with you, anyway. Good luck with school.

So, how many of you would say that you are clean eaters, or maybe even adhere to the Paleo diet?

So, there is no genetic component, whatsoever, that controls fat regulation?
And, do you see food as medicine?

his theory makes biological sense.

his theory makes biological sense.

Why do you think that? Because he said so?

Because I have read his book, front to back, and have gone into it with no expectations.
And the 20+ pages of sources that he uses, historical and current, is pretty solid.

Have you read Why We Get Fat in its entirety?
If you have not, I don't understand why you think he's completely wrong.

I've only read a few of his articles and hypothesis, but check this out:

Taubes has won the Science in Society Journalism Award of the National Association of Science Writers three times and was awarded an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellowship for 1996-97. He is a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation independent investigator in health policy.

Doesn't sound like a snake oil salesman to me. . . .

I don't agree completely with everything he claims but I think he has got a lot more right about why we got fat then the conventional dietary guidelines have been spouting.

What many of you on here keep overlooking when spouting off about it all being about burning more then you consume. What you consume significantly effects how much you burn.