Gary Taubes
Replies
-
Sweden's only recent changes to their dietary recommendations were to add in lower carb (40% carb) as an acceptable strategy for weight loss. They did not change their standard recommendations at all. 40% also isn't really that low, it would be about 200 grams per day for me.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.
I don't think you have your facts straight, tiger. Here's a quote from Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU), where they discuss both moderate carb (<40%) and low carb (<20%), and advise the low carb for treating obesity! diabetes and improving triglycerides. 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.
You can download their entire report here, it is in Swedish, but if your Google translator is working properly, it will translate it for you...
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-vid-fetma-/0 -
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.
OK, you read the book and apparently believed every word of it.
Have you looked up a professional/expert critique or response to his statements? Presumably you're not an expert in the material so you have little basis on which to critically examine the material and see if his conclusions and claims are valid. The intelligent person would read the book and then, before saying it makes sense, see what other experts have to say on the matter.
Have you done so?
So, you didn't read the book, but you did read opinions on the internet against the book, and side with the opinions. No, that doesn't sound bias at all. :laugh:0 -
Sweden's only recent changes to their dietary recommendations were to add in lower carb (40% carb) as an acceptable strategy for weight loss. They did not change their standard recommendations at all. 40% also isn't really that low, it would be about 200 grams per day for me.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.
I don't think you have your facts straight, tiger. Here's a quote from Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU), where they discuss both moderate carb (<40%) and low carb (<20%), and advise the low carb for treating obesity! diabetes and improving triglycerides. 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.
You can download their entire report here, it is in Swedish, but if your Google translator is working properly, it will translate it for you...
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-vid-fetma-/
Doesn't seem to contradict anything tigersword said.0 -
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 read both GCBC and Why we get fat, it's mostly fiction like the below
"If you restrict only carbohydrates, you can always eat more protein and fat if you feel the urge, since they have no effect on fat accumulation"
Location 2519 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat
"But protein and fat don't make us fat-only the carbohydrates do-so there is no reason to curtail them in any way"
Location 3064 Why We Get Fat0 -
you didn't read the book, but you did read opinions on the internet against the book, and side with the opinions.
Incorrect. Not sure what makes you think this is the case.0 -
And? I do believe I mentioned that the recommendations were for weight loss, which the part you quoted confirmed. Notice the bolded part. I have friends in Sweden, I'm fairly sure they know what they are talking about.
Sweden's only recent changes to their dietary recommendations were to add in lower carb (40% carb) as an acceptable strategy for weight loss. They did not change their standard recommendations at all. 40% also isn't really that low, it would be about 200 grams per day for me.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.
I don't think you have your facts straight, tiger. Here's a quote from Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU), where they discuss both moderate carb (<40%) and low carb (<20%), and advise the low carb for treating obesity! diabetes and improving triglycerides. 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.
You can download their entire report here, it is in Swedish, but if your Google translator is working properly, it will translate it for you...
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-vid-fetma-/0 -
Id like to cage fight Gary Taubes.0
-
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.
OK, you read the book and apparently believed every word of it.
Have you looked up a professional/expert critique or response to his statements? Presumably you're not an expert in the material so you have little basis on which to critically examine the material and see if his conclusions and claims are valid. The intelligent person would read the book and then, before saying it makes sense, see what other experts have to say on the matter.
Have you done so?
So, you didn't read the book, but you did read opinions on the internet against the book, and side with the opinions. No, that doesn't sound bias at all. :laugh:
How did you derive that out of what he said? I didn't gather that at all.0 -
I'd like to see the scientific research it is based on. From what I have heard, it is zero.
Well, then you shouldn't rely on hearsay (wouldn't even be admissable in court) but oh, I don't know, maybe actually look into it?
The amount of research cited in Taube's book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is astounding and is much of the same research I have encountered from numerous other sources. As a matter of fact, I would say this is the major strength of Taube's book. While there are other books on real nutrition which I would sooner recommend as being more accessible and less dry, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is perhaps one of the most comprehensive books I have read as far as the volume of research presented as well as the history of how we have come to the nutritional paradigm which is most commonly espoused today (and which is destroying the health of those who follow it).
The fact is that much of the material presented by Taubes (and many more sources) run counter to what most people have been spoon fed about nutrition, and that makes him a target for those who would put up big, flashing signs to discredit him without offering any thoughtful counter-thesis, most of him who probably have never even given open-minded consideration to his material.
Remember, you can't disagree with what you don't understand or are not familiar with. You can only make derogatory and ill-founded statements in ignorance.
Read "Good Calories, Bad calories" and then we can have an intelligent discussion.0 -
I'd like to see the scientific research it is based on. From what I have heard, it is zero.
Well, then you shouldn't rely on hearsay (wouldn't even be admissable in court) but oh, I don't know, maybe actually look into it?
The amount of research cited in Taube's book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is astounding and is much of the same research I have encountered from numerous other sources. As a matter of fact, I would say this is the major strength of Taube's book. While there are other books on real nutrition which I would sooner recommend as being more accessible and less dry, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is perhaps one of the most comprehensive books I have read as far as the volume of research presented as well as the history of how we have come to the nutritional paradigm which is most commonly espoused today (and which is destroying the health of those who follow it).
The fact is that much of the material presented by Taubes (and many more sources) run counter to what most people have been spoon fed about nutrition, and that makes him a target for those who would put up big, flashing signs to discredit him without offering any thoughtful counter-thesis, most of him who probably have never even given open-minded consideration to his material.
Remember, you can't disagree with what you don't understand or are not familiar with. You can only make derogatory and ill-founded statements in ignorance.
Read "Good Calories, Bad calories" and then we can have an intelligent discussion.
Protein is highly insulinogenic, whoops there goes his whole hypothesis, and what about ASP is their even a mention of it in either book? Nope. Lol intelligent discussion0 -
I'd like to see the scientific research it is based on. From what I have heard, it is zero.
Well, then you shouldn't rely on hearsay (wouldn't even be admissable in court) but oh, I don't know, maybe actually look into it?
The amount of research cited in Taube's book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is astounding and is much of the same research I have encountered from numerous other sources. As a matter of fact, I would say this is the major strength of Taube's book. While there are other books on real nutrition which I would sooner recommend as being more accessible and less dry, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is perhaps one of the most comprehensive books I have read as far as the volume of research presented as well as the history of how we have come to the nutritional paradigm which is most commonly espoused today (and which is destroying the health of those who follow it).
The fact is that much of the material presented by Taubes (and many more sources) run counter to what most people have been spoon fed about nutrition, and that makes him a target for those who would put up big, flashing signs to discredit him without offering any thoughtful counter-thesis, most of him who probably have never even given open-minded consideration to his material.
Remember, you can't disagree with what you don't understand or are not familiar with. You can only make derogatory and ill-founded statements in ignorance.
Read "Good Calories, Bad calories" and then we can have an intelligent discussion.
Strong first post.
The statement you made that I bolded makes it obvious to me that you are unfamiliar with some of the people here statements. I'm pretty sure they understand a lot more than what a journalist writes just to sell books.0 -
The amount of research cited in Taube's book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is astounding and is much of the same research I have encountered from numerous other sources. As a matter of fact, I would say this is the major strength of Taube's book. While there are other books on real nutrition which I would sooner recommend as being more accessible and less dry, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is perhaps one of the most comprehensive books I have read as far as the volume of research presented as well as the history of how we have come to the nutritional paradigm which is most commonly espoused today (and which is destroying the health of those who follow it).
Have you read this actual research? What studies did you find most informative?0 -
Exactly this. Protein causes the same insulin spike effect that carbs do. Protein can be converted to glucose just like carbs. Yet Taubes completely ignores that entire biological fact in order to push his agenda and sell his books. His entire premise is that insulin causes fat gain, and without insulin, there's no fat gain. 2 problems with that. De novo lipogenesis is one of them. De novo lipogenesis allows the body to create and store fat without insulin. Then there's the protein is insulinogenic problem, as he claims that cutting carbs eliminates insulin response and solves all problems, except it really doesn't.I'd like to see the scientific research it is based on. From what I have heard, it is zero.
Well, then you shouldn't rely on hearsay (wouldn't even be admissable in court) but oh, I don't know, maybe actually look into it?
The amount of research cited in Taube's book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is astounding and is much of the same research I have encountered from numerous other sources. As a matter of fact, I would say this is the major strength of Taube's book. While there are other books on real nutrition which I would sooner recommend as being more accessible and less dry, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is perhaps one of the most comprehensive books I have read as far as the volume of research presented as well as the history of how we have come to the nutritional paradigm which is most commonly espoused today (and which is destroying the health of those who follow it).
The fact is that much of the material presented by Taubes (and many more sources) run counter to what most people have been spoon fed about nutrition, and that makes him a target for those who would put up big, flashing signs to discredit him without offering any thoughtful counter-thesis, most of him who probably have never even given open-minded consideration to his material.
Remember, you can't disagree with what you don't understand or are not familiar with. You can only make derogatory and ill-founded statements in ignorance.
Read "Good Calories, Bad calories" and then we can have an intelligent discussion.
Protein is highly insulinogenic, whoops there goes his whole hypothesis, and what about ASP is their even a mention of it in either book? Nope. Lol intelligent discussion0 -
The amount of research cited in Taube's book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is astounding and is much of the same research I have encountered from numerous other sources. As a matter of fact, I would say this is the major strength of Taube's book. While there are other books on real nutrition which I would sooner recommend as being more accessible and less dry, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is perhaps one of the most comprehensive books I have read as far as the volume of research presented as well as the history of how we have come to the nutritional paradigm which is most commonly espoused today (and which is destroying the health of those who follow it).
Have you read this actual research? What studies did you find most informative?
Exactly. I could cite research all day, but if I'm cherry=picking, and misinterpreting the stuff I cited, my words are no better than the crap you hear on Dr Oz.0 -
So, there is no genetic component, whatsoever, that controls fat regulation?
And, do you see food as medicine?
Food is medicine if you have a medical condition like diabetes or hyperglycemia, or allergies, etc.0 -
Taubes is one of the old blind men trying to describe an elephant by what he hears. So he picks scientific articles to support his theory by scientists, who are blind and trying to describe the elephant by feel, one grabs the trunk and thinks its like a snake, the other feels its side and thinks its a wall, a third feels the leg and describes it like a tree... Science is always changing, and most theories do have some PART of the story. The body does have different reactions to differing fuel sources, and some are able to handle some better than others, and this is hard to define both to what extent, and to what extent it ultimately makes any difference.
For weight loss however, you can always take any and all of these arguments out of the equation by just setting yourself at a deficit, and the body will take care of the rest. Its hard to stay there, everybody wants an easier answer or a pill, and eating a "specific diet" is easier for people to believe in than something as simple as monitoring calories in/calories out and taking time. But truely it is the most effective.
Even if it is true that carbs are easier to convert to fat (probably), if you set yourself at a caloric intake where you need the calories you consume, you avoid most to all of this issue. If you are in a deficit, the body is not going to make fat out of nothing, and the blood hormone levels will respond to this and the massive benefit of any mild exercise like walking 150 minutes/week.
Its really that simple: find your estimated burn rate, set yourself at a slight deficit, measure well, get reasonable sleep, do easy 150 minutes of any exercise you will keep doing each week, and learn your errors in measurements and burn and adjust: you will lose weight. Maybe you have an "issue" processing some nutrient...most of these will improve on this system, and if they don't, just avoid it. It does work, and every single time you look into someone's case who says it doesn't, they have SOME kind of error in measuring food intake, exercise output, basic activity level, etc. I even keep running into issues of poor measurement or recording in my own case: as much as I'd like there to be some magic "other" reason like a slower metabolism reducing efficiency 3%, etc, if there is, its effect is not as strong as calories in vs calories out for weight loss. Just do it. If you believe in some low carb diet, it will also work better for you, the mind is that strong: then just make a commitment to it and do that!0 -
I'd like to see the scientific research it is based on. From what I have heard, it is zero.
Well, then you shouldn't rely on hearsay (wouldn't even be admissable in court) but oh, I don't know, maybe actually look into it?
The amount of research cited in Taube's book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is astounding and is much of the same research I have encountered from numerous other sources. As a matter of fact, I would say this is the major strength of Taube's book. While there are other books on real nutrition which I would sooner recommend as being more accessible and less dry, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is perhaps one of the most comprehensive books I have read as far as the volume of research presented as well as the history of how we have come to the nutritional paradigm which is most commonly espoused today (and which is destroying the health of those who follow it).
The fact is that much of the material presented by Taubes (and many more sources) run counter to what most people have been spoon fed about nutrition, and that makes him a target for those who would put up big, flashing signs to discredit him without offering any thoughtful counter-thesis, most of him who probably have never even given open-minded consideration to his material.
Remember, you can't disagree with what you don't understand or are not familiar with. You can only make derogatory and ill-founded statements in ignorance.
Read "Good Calories, Bad calories" and then we can have an intelligent discussion.
I don't need to read his book to have an intelligent discussion on the matter, because all of the research is out there and available for anyone to read. The majority of the research contradicts his theory. He merely picked research that fit his theory, and cites it in his book for scientific cred. While this may fool the majority into thinking his theory is scientifically sound, the fact of the matter is, it is not. Here is a meta-analysis done in 2006 comparing low-carb vs low fat diets. Meta-analysis look at all of the available peer reviewed published scientific papers that meet the criteria of being able to be compared side by side (amongst other things).
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=409791
Note the results and conclusions sections.
Again, Taubes simply looks for research that fits his agenda, and ignores the rest. Cherry picking.
BTW, I found this by doing a simple Google search. No need to line Taubes pockets by buying his decidedly unscientific books. I give him props though for being a good bait and switch master. He can convince thousands to buy his books, but his methods cannot deliver.0 -
[/quote]
I thought you were looking for advice, so I gave you advice. Now it seems you're looking for someone to practice clean eating arguments with. I'm not interested right now. Maybe later.
[/quote]
Actually, my OP was to please share your thoughts on Taubes IF you have read any of his books/articles.
If you (or others) have not, no need to share. That is all.0 -
Seems you're really only interested in hearing from people that believe his book.0
-
Seems you're really only interested in hearing from people that believe his book.
Completely wrong jonnythan - just want to hear from those who have read him, regardless of what they believe about nutrition - or only based on what they hear from other.
Such as the following: Why is it wrong? Why is it right? Is there middle ground?0 -
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.
You said that what you eat does not effect what you burn, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I scored well above average on the reading comprehension section of the MCAT so perhaps it's your writing that's hard to comprehend.
Yes, and you needed to read the post I was respond ing to (within the quotes) rather than just my response to it, for the proper context. In the future you will find that will save you from posting lengthy lectures that have no relevance.
http://advances.nutrition.org.cyber.usask.ca/content/4/4/418.long0 -
I'd like to see the scientific research it is based on. From what I have heard, it is zero.
Well, then you shouldn't rely on hearsay (wouldn't even be admissable in court) but oh, I don't know, maybe actually look into it?
The amount of research cited in Taube's book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is astounding and is much of the same research I have encountered from numerous other sources. As a matter of fact, I would say this is the major strength of Taube's book. While there are other books on real nutrition which I would sooner recommend as being more accessible and less dry, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is perhaps one of the most comprehensive books I have read as far as the volume of research presented as well as the history of how we have come to the nutritional paradigm which is most commonly espoused today (and which is destroying the health of those who follow it).
The fact is that much of the material presented by Taubes (and many more sources) run counter to what most people have been spoon fed about nutrition, and that makes him a target for those who would put up big, flashing signs to discredit him without offering any thoughtful counter-thesis, most of him who probably have never even given open-minded consideration to his material.
Remember, you can't disagree with what you don't understand or are not familiar with. You can only make derogatory and ill-founded statements in ignorance.
Read "Good Calories, Bad calories" and then we can have an intelligent discussion.
I don't need to read his book to have an intelligent discussion on the matter, because all of the research is out there and available for anyone to read. The majority of the research contradicts his theory. He merely picked research that fit his theory, and cites it in his book for scientific cred. While this may fool the majority into thinking his theory is scientifically sound, the fact of the matter is, it is not. Here is a meta-analysis done in 2006 comparing low-carb vs low fat diets. Meta-analysis look at all of the available peer reviewed published scientific papers that meet the criteria of being able to be compared side by side (amongst other things).
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=409791
Note the results and conclusions sections.
Again, Taubes simply looks for research that fits his agenda, and ignores the rest. Cherry picking.
BTW, I found this by doing a simple Google search. No need to line Taubes pockets by buying his decidedly unscientific books. I give him props though for being a good bait and switch master. He can convince thousands to buy his books, but his methods cannot deliver.
Hi, I shared this exact paper on this thread a few pages back and if you look you will see my response to someone else who said that this meta analysis does not support a high fat diet. If you actually know enough about the literature and LOOK AT THE DATA in light of more recent advances in classifying LDL, you will see that a high fat diet has no obvious adverse effects and was superior to the high carb in every measure. The authors were cautious in their conclusions but that doesn't change the data. Also worth pointing out to anyone who doesn't notice, this analysis compared high carb energy restricted diets with high fat, not energy restricted diets and found that people lost more weight by cutting carbs, not calories.
Edit: I just realized you are the same person who criticized this paper for not saying what I think it said, you changed your picture! I can't blame you, piglets are adorable. However, I stand by what I said before about this paper that it actually supports Taubes, not disproves him.0 -
Could you highlight the data that supports Taubes?0
-
BrainyBurro (smartass) the answer to your question is yes. I tracked my calories and exercised based on the calories in and calories out theory and got nowhere fast. For me being carbohydrate sensitive made eating even so called healthy carbs was a challenge. I was hungry and always craving food. My willpower no matter how strong at the get go would always get to a point of thinking if this is what it takes to be thin I would rather stay fat.
Eating healthy fats and keeping my carbs low changed everything. I no longer have blood sugar spikes causing cravings and hunger, I feel energetic and my mood is wonderful. I have no doubt for me this is the only solution to improved health. Diets don't work and you have to find a lifestyle that you can live with. I am sure there a some people that have been successful doing it a different way but that is the point. Just because something isn't effective for you as an individual does not mean it is not the exact right thing for someone else.
THIS!!! ^^ I have read his books and watched many of his lectures. Gary Taubes is a very intelligent man who did research on the subject of excess carbohydrate intake as an answer to the obesity epidemic. His research is extensive to say the least! I must add that I do not agree with every single thing that he talks about, but he is definitely on the right track.
This!
It is fantastic that you are open to new ideas and want to educate yourself.
You can find scientific data to back up just about any theory, thought etc.. now a days.:)
Continue to be open to new ideas and experiment till you find what works for you!0 -
BrainyBurro (smartass) the answer to your question is yes. I tracked my calories and exercised based on the calories in and calories out theory and got nowhere fast. For me being carbohydrate sensitive made eating even so called healthy carbs was a challenge. I was hungry and always craving food. My willpower no matter how strong at the get go would always get to a point of thinking if this is what it takes to be thin I would rather stay fat.
Eating healthy fats and keeping my carbs low changed everything. I no longer have blood sugar spikes causing cravings and hunger, I feel energetic and my mood is wonderful. I have no doubt for me this is the only solution to improved health. Diets don't work and you have to find a lifestyle that you can live with. I am sure there a some people that have been successful doing it a different way but that is the point. Just because something isn't effective for you as an individual does not mean it is not the exact right thing for someone else.
THIS!!! ^^ I have read his books and watched many of his lectures. Gary Taubes is a very intelligent man who did research on the subject of excess carbohydrate intake as an answer to the obesity epidemic. His research is extensive to say the least! I must add that I do not agree with every single thing that he talks about, but he is definitely on the right track.
This!
It is fantastic that you are open to new ideas and want to educate yourself.
You can find scientific data to back up just about any theory, thought etc.. now a days.:)
Continue to be open to new ideas and experiment till you find what works for you!
People say this all the time but it's simply not true. The more science we have, the more limited the set of possible theories.0 -
This is my experience and two cents, for what it's worth:
When I finally decided I was ready to lose weight, I started off with Atkins. I read all the books (including Taubes), I tracked all my food on fatsecret.com, and put my online settings to only display grams of carbs (as that's all I was interested in). I lost 20 lbs in about 3 months. Awesome!
...But then... I decided that I just couldn't live my life without some of my favourite foods - pasta, sandwiches, fruit, etc. The Atkins way of eating could never be sustainable for me long term. I switched to simply eating foods that I enjoyed (ANYTHING, by the way, including wine and treats here and there), watching my portions, tracking my food on MFP, and moving my body more. I lost 20 more lbs in the first two months. Even more awesome!
...then... out of curiosity, I logged back into my fatsecret account to look at what I HAD been eating. I enabled the calorie display, and what did I find? Lo and behold, I had been eating at a deficit all along on Atkins! What I THOUGHT was weight loss that could be attributed to a low carb diet was really just plain and simple calorie deficit all along.
Hmmm.... so then, by and large (no pun intended), a calorie deficit MUST be the key regardless of what you're eating! That was such a liberating realization for me.
Now I eat the things I want, enjoy it all without guilt, make room for everything, and live my life a little healthier each day. And I'm happy to not always be "waiting for my diet to be over". This is how I live, and it's pretty comfy. And sustainable. And I'm still losing.
I wish everyone the best on their respective journeys, and I hope we can all eventually find our liberating moment. :flowerforyou:0 -
Seems you're really only interested in hearing from people that believe his book.
Completely wrong jonnythan - just want to hear from those who have read him, regardless of what they believe about nutrition - or only based on what they hear from other.
Such as the following: Why is it wrong? Why is it right? Is there middle ground?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18927395Science. 2008 Oct 17;322(5900):449-52. doi: 10.1126/science.1161550.
Relation between obesity and blunted striatal response to food is moderated by TaqIA A1 allele.
Stice E, Spoor S, Bohon C, Small DM.
Author information
Abstract
The dorsal striatum plays a role in consummatory food reward, and striatal dopamine receptors are reduced in obese individuals, relative to lean individuals, which suggests that the striatum and dopaminergic signaling in the striatum may contribute to the development of obesity. Thus, we tested whether striatal activation in response to food intake is related to current and future increases in body mass and whether these relations are moderated by the presence of the A1 allele of the TaqIA restriction fragment length polymorphism, which is associated with dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) gene binding in the striatum and compromised striatal dopamine signaling. Cross-sectional and prospective data from two functional magnetic resonance imaging studies support these hypotheses, which implies that individuals may overeat to compensate for a hypofunctioning dorsal striatum, particularly those with genetic polymorphisms thought to attenuate dopamine signaling in this region.0 -
All I'll add since the original poster threw his name out there is this:
I've followed some of the recommendations of GT and have 3 years of blood work profiles that continue to be excellent (something I'm greatly happy about considering that just walking in the door as a black male, most profiles automatically put one of my feet in the grave). I've heard quite a bit of ridicule from co-workers on my heart-busting diet, etc., yet my life insurance rate is at the top preferred level (and yes, I do have a family history of diabetes, heart disease and high blood-pressure).
I do not agree with GT on everything (e.g. stance on exercise), but I don't agree with my own mother about everything. So what. But I can say that it's always good to have a dissenting voice in an area because group think is strong in every field. When I was a trainer, I told clients Atkins was horrible 10 years ago not because I tried it or read the book, but because everyone in the exercise field was hating the guy and carbs and Cooper and his aerobic craze were sweeping the nation.
My how things have changed...
So if you don't care about food combinations or whatever else and you are healthy and look great naked, great.
If you are on BP pills, insulin, etc. and still eating basically the same way you were before these conditions, just in much more moderation as the good doctor says...well, I guess good for you as well.
Personally, I'd be changing something cause if it's broke, it needs to be fixed.0 -
Could you highlight the data that supports Taubes?
I am assuming this is directed at me?
Taubes recommends a high fat, low carb diet to combat diabetes and obesity and he discusses other factors such as why this is not going to increase risks of cardiovascular disease, the main argument often put against high fat diets.
Here is what I said before, in response to the comment that this meta analysis does not say what I think it says:
Yes, the study was cautious in going against the current national dietary recommendations however, they looked at weight loss, blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL, HLD, and triglyceride levels. Of these 6 measures of cardiovascular health, 4 improved on a high fat diet (weight, blood pressure, HLD, triglycerides). As for the measures that increased unfavourably with the high fat diet: LDL increased because saturated fat intake increased, however it is the ratio of HDL to LDL that is more predictive of heart disease than LDL levels alone, and so as the LDL increase was accompanied by an increase in HDL (if you look at individual studies the HDL increase is greater than the LDL increase) it is likely not increasing CVD risk. Total cholesterol increased because both HLD and LDL increased.
Also, high triglycerides are a better predictor of CVD risk than cholesterol, and triglycerides decrease on the high fat diet.
Another consideration with the increased LDL being considered a problem: LDL exists in multiple forms and not all are equally dangerous. There are small dense LDL (strongly related to CVD) and larger, lighter LDL particles which are actually beneficial. I believe one of the studies I already shared (the A to Z one) discusses how the large LDL is increased in a high fat diet whereas a high carb diet promotes the small dense (bad) LDL.
So yes, in the brief conclusions in the abstract the researchers are cautious in their recommendations but if you have a knowledge of the current literature and look at the data, it supports the high fat, low carb diet as beneficial. Yes, this study is 7 years old but the data is sound and stronger than any single randomized controlled trial. If you can find a newer comprehensive meta-analysis I would be very interested in reading it.
So to summarize that, compared to a high carb, low fat, calorie restricted diet, the high fat, low carb, not calorie restricted diet showed:
- greater weight loss
- lower serum triglycerides (high serum triglycerides are strongly associated with heart disease)
- higher HDL (low HDL is a stronger measure of heart disease risk than cholesterol)
Now the parts that the authors warn against:
- higher LDL ('bad cholesterol')
Why this is not actually a bad thing: more recent research (after the publication of this article) discuss the different subgroups of LDL. It has been determined that high fat diets promote the production of a form of LDL not linked to atherosclerosis. High carbohydrate diets are linked to the production of a form that is highly linked to atherosclerosis.
- higher total cholesterol
This measure does not consider the different types of cholesterol (mainly, an increase in HLD only would cause an increase in total cholesterol and be considered negative, when that is actually a positive change). It also does not consider the subpopulations of LDL that I just mentioned.
This is an article that I also already shared but they discuss the different types of LDL.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205916
Does that answer the question?0 -
I'd like to add something. If someone is taking a hard look at their lifestyle and making changes for the better and having success by following a low fat diet I fully support that! I just think that if someone is struggling to adhere to the conventional recommendations, there is evidence to support the benefits of taking another approach and trying low carb. Low carb diets have been unnecessarily vilified for years when for some people they may be the key to the weight loss results they are looking for.0
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