People judge - that's just "reality" - BULL****!

That's my point though. I don't like the comparison to cavemen when they were structurally a lot different. We don't know if they were fat, thin, or made of synthetic alloy.

Depends what you mean by cavemen. Homo Sapiens neanderthalensis may have been slightly different in structure to modern humans, but homo sapiens sapiens, who left Africa around 100-70000 years ago were the same subspecies as the humans on Earth today, and there is plenty of evidence in their skeletal remains to show us their build and diets. You wouldn't believe how much research has been done on the micronutrients in bones and hair of early humans. We know exactly what they ate in different areas, and exactly how fat/muscled etc they were.

It's great to see a post from someone who isn't single-handedly ripping my caveman comment to shreds!

I wonder if it's "all" true: the hypothesis of insulin created fat cells and the amount of calories one burns? Certainly we know every body is it's own unique ecosystem with tailored genes and hormones for balance. Personally, I'm glad you're talking about Gary Taubes here because I've noticed that in the whole race for calories in calories out, there seems to be a large amount of side-stepping about what kind of calories are consumed and what quality. Just because I eat a Weight Watchers frozen meal, protein bar, and ice cream sandwich (which may only come to a total of 500 calories total) doesn't mean I won't produce fat cells from that. Granted, some people don't have the insulin sensitivity like I do...because all our bodies are different....so they would succeed very well at the whole calorie reduction scenario.

I wonder if there are actually a lot of people on this site who fall by the wayside, whether it's for lack of motivation, or the fact that calories in-vs-calories out just isn't working for them.

For me, the calories in vs calories out doesn't work and I think that Gary Taubes is a godsend...a little cranky and opinionated...but a godsend nonetheless. I also do think that since carbs are cheaper to process and manufacture, they are more readily marketed to people, especially to dieters that are willing to accept anything packaged "low fat/low cal" with open arms because we are taught that is what we need to avoid....

But not ALL people need to avoid that, because after all, we all have very different bodies with very different needs.

Personally, Taubes book reminds me of when I was young and visited my great-aunt who was the historian of my family. She pulled out all these pictures of my Dad's family, all crossbreeds of Blackfoot and Irish descent...and not an overweight lot in the bunch. The family didn't start becoming overweight until the 1930's during the great depression...and I'm surmising it's because of the reliance on grains (and the factory work they did). I noticed the pictures in the 1960's and 70's looked slimmer and that would make sense because they could afford more vegetables and meat. In all, I think Taubes is right, for some body types, a diet primarily of carbs and sugars will most definitely lead to adiposity (production of fat cells)

(By the way, my relatives were farmers in the 1930's so I don't think it was from laziness that they gained weight. I remembered my aunt telling me that during the depression they only ate meat on holidays...they were that poor)

Anyway, I'm so glad you brought this topic up because I think that for everyone that is working on their body, the more ammunition they have, the better. Personally, I'm going to stay on this diet, because even after one week, I've seen incredible results. I also FEEL better than I ever have. My skin looks amazing, my nails are growing like crazy, and I've dropped 6 lbs in one week and leave the table feeling full after every meal.

For me, cutting sugar and simple carbs is WAY easier than starving myself. I felt, before, that I was just fighting this hopeless battle against myself (because the body wants to eat!), but now I actually feel like I'm managing an addiction or an allergy. I know that if given the chance, I would go carb nuts if I could....but it's just the way my body is built. My husband who went on this diet with me had way less sugar and carb cravings than I did...so you see, for some, it's just exercise and calorie maintenance.

My goal is to keep logging all my food and exercise here because I want tot be able to show myself and anyone who asks that yes, I did lose weight from cutting all refined sugars and simple carbs from my diet. I didn't starve myself, I didn't deprive myself of the rich food I love.

I've found some of the reactions on this topic very interesting...the comments are much harsher than I've seen on other topics. I wonder of it's because this is very much a sore spot for everyone who struggles with weight...we want to know WHAT IS THE ONE RIGHT WAY TO LOSE WEIGHT. And sadly, there isn't such an answer. Ater all, the medical field of pharmacology knows quite well that even our standard drugs don't effect everyone in the population the same way, we cannot think food is any different.

I think, it's just going to take people like us who do succeed at lowering our fat cells through abstaining from simple carbs, to show the world that there isn't just one way...and who knows, we might just give hope to a whole bunch of people sitting in the silence that would benefit from such information....so thank you very much for posting this!

By the way, If there's anyone out there who's looking for meal plans, just do a search for GI Cooking (Low GLycemic Index Cooking) this is all basic knowledge for diabetics who need to manage their blood sugar levels.

That's my point though. I don't like the comparison to cavemen when they were structurally a lot different. We don't know if they were fat, thin, or made of synthetic alloy.

Depends what you mean by cavemen. Homo Sapiens neanderthalensis may have been slightly different in structure to modern humans, but homo sapiens sapiens, who left Africa around 100-70000 years ago were the same subspecies as the humans on Earth today, and there is plenty of evidence in their skeletal remains to show us their build and diets. You wouldn't believe how much research has been done on the micronutrients in bones and hair of early humans. We know exactly what they ate in different areas, and exactly how fat/muscled etc they were.

It's great to see a post from someone who isn't single-handedly ripping my caveman comment to shreds!

You just can't compare us to them...no, it's not like comparing a cat to a mountain lion. It's like comparing a domesticated dog to a wild dog. If you got stranded in the woods and lived off tubers and bugs, you'd end up really lean. But since you live in a house and get your food from a grocery store, it's not comparable.

ETA: The epigenetics stuff is super cool! It's very new. I wish I'd known about it in undergrad.

That's my point though. I don't like the comparison to cavemen when they were structurally a lot different. We don't know if they were fat, thin, or made of synthetic alloy.

Depends what you mean by cavemen. Homo Sapiens neanderthalensis may have been slightly different in structure to modern humans, but homo sapiens sapiens, who left Africa around 100-70000 years ago were the same subspecies as the humans on Earth today, and there is plenty of evidence in their skeletal remains to show us their build and diets. You wouldn't believe how much research has been done on the micronutrients in bones and hair of early humans. We know exactly what they ate in different areas, and exactly how fat/muscled etc they were.

It's great to see a post from someone who isn't single-handedly ripping my caveman comment to shreds!

You just can't compare us to them...no, it's not like comparing a cat to a mountain lion. It's like comparing a domesticated dog to a wild dog. If you got stranded in the woods and lived off tubers and bugs, you'd end up really lean. But since you live in a house and get your food from a grocery store, it's not comparable.

ETA: The epigenetics stuff is super cool! It's very new. I wish I'd known about it in undergrad.

So is it the food we eat that makes us overweight?

Oh no, not just that. You'd have to dig up the tubers, search for the bugs, make fires at night, cry yourself to sleep, scream for help, etc. You'd be much more active.

That's my point though. I don't like the comparison to cavemen when they were structurally a lot different. We don't know if they were fat, thin, or made of synthetic alloy.

Depends what you mean by cavemen. Homo Sapiens neanderthalensis may have been slightly different in structure to modern humans, but homo sapiens sapiens, who left Africa around 100-70000 years ago were the same subspecies as the humans on Earth today, and there is plenty of evidence in their skeletal remains to show us their build and diets. You wouldn't believe how much research has been done on the micronutrients in bones and hair of early humans. We know exactly what they ate in different areas, and exactly how fat/muscled etc they were.

It's great to see a post from someone who isn't single-handedly ripping my caveman comment to shreds!

You just can't compare us to them...no, it's not like comparing a cat to a mountain lion. It's like comparing a domesticated dog to a wild dog. If you got stranded in the woods and lived off tubers and bugs, you'd end up really lean. But since you live in a house and get your food from a grocery store, it's not comparable.

ETA: The epigenetics stuff is super cool! It's very new. I wish I'd known about it in undergrad.

So is it the food we eat that makes us overweight?

Oh no, not just that. You'd have to dig up the tubers, search for the bugs, make fires at night, cry yourself to sleep, scream for help, etc. You'd be much more active.

So is it exercise and low food intake that keeps one slim?

Many, if not most, people in my field agree that exercise is the cure-all. But low food intake doesn't do much in terms of metabolic changes. I'm not sure how many calories are burned while crying or screaming, though.

That's my point though. I don't like the comparison to cavemen when they were structurally a lot different. We don't know if they were fat, thin, or made of synthetic alloy.

Depends what you mean by cavemen. Homo Sapiens neanderthalensis may have been slightly different in structure to modern humans, but homo sapiens sapiens, who left Africa around 100-70000 years ago were the same subspecies as the humans on Earth today, and there is plenty of evidence in their skeletal remains to show us their build and diets. You wouldn't believe how much research has been done on the micronutrients in bones and hair of early humans. We know exactly what they ate in different areas, and exactly how fat/muscled etc they were.

It's great to see a post from someone who isn't single-handedly ripping my caveman comment to shreds!

You just can't compare us to them...no, it's not like comparing a cat to a mountain lion. It's like comparing a domesticated dog to a wild dog. If you got stranded in the woods and lived off tubers and bugs, you'd end up really lean. But since you live in a house and get your food from a grocery store, it's not comparable.

ETA: The epigenetics stuff is super cool! It's very new. I wish I'd known about it in undergrad.

So is it the food we eat that makes us overweight?

Oh no, not just that. You'd have to dig up the tubers, search for the bugs, make fires at night, cry yourself to sleep, scream for help, etc. You'd be much more active.

So is it exercise and low food intake that keeps one slim?

Many, if not most, people in my field agree that exercise is the cure-all. But low food intake doesn't do much in terms of metabolic changes. I'm not sure how many calories are burned while crying or screaming, though.

Ha, probably not many! Well, essentially it sounds like we agree then, because my original point was that monitored food intake and exercise are the key the most peoples' weight loss (again, clinical conditions excluded). My concern was that there are a million and one excuses for being overweight.You have helped clarify that of course this is a variable, but essentially it is the same factors that affect weight gain and/or loss as that of other animals. We eat more and have a lessened level of exercise because we are domesticated, not because we are naturally overweight.

Now time I worked out, thanks for your help and good luck with the rest of your weight loss!

That's my point though. I don't like the comparison to cavemen when they were structurally a lot different. We don't know if they were fat, thin, or made of synthetic alloy.

Depends what you mean by cavemen. Homo Sapiens neanderthalensis may have been slightly different in structure to modern humans, but homo sapiens sapiens, who left Africa around 100-70000 years ago were the same subspecies as the humans on Earth today, and there is plenty of evidence in their skeletal remains to show us their build and diets. You wouldn't believe how much research has been done on the micronutrients in bones and hair of early humans. We know exactly what they ate in different areas, and exactly how fat/muscled etc they were.

It's great to see a post from someone who isn't single-handedly ripping my caveman comment to shreds!

You just can't compare us to them...no, it's not like comparing a cat to a mountain lion. It's like comparing a domesticated dog to a wild dog. If you got stranded in the woods and lived off tubers and bugs, you'd end up really lean. But since you live in a house and get your food from a grocery store, it's not comparable.

ETA: The epigenetics stuff is super cool! It's very new. I wish I'd known about it in undergrad.

So is it the food we eat that makes us overweight?

Oh no, not just that. You'd have to dig up the tubers, search for the bugs, make fires at night, cry yourself to sleep, scream for help, etc. You'd be much more active.

So is it exercise and low food intake that keeps one slim?

Many, if not most, people in my field agree that exercise is the cure-all. But low food intake doesn't do much in terms of metabolic changes. I'm not sure how many calories are burned while crying or screaming, though.

Ha, probably not many! Well, essentially it sounds like we agree then, because my original point was that monitored food intake and exercise are the key the most peoples' weight loss (again, clinical conditions excluded). My concern was that there are a million and one excuses for being overweight.You have helped clarify that of course this is a variable, but essentially it is the same factors that affect weight gain and/or loss as that of other animals. We eat more and have a lessened level of exercise because we are domesticated, not because we are naturally overweight.

Now time I worked out, thanks for your help and good luck with the rest of your weight loss!

I can agree with that. Thanks and you too!

Thank you soooooooooooooo much for your post. I wish everyone could educate themselves on the root causes of obesity.

Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Weight Loss Tools

Gosh, what a debate I have started. I'm sorry my viewpoint appears to have offended so many people. However, I stand by my opinions. I am not claiming to be an expert in human development... but I do believe that we live in an excuses culture in which people will do anything to avoid facing reality. I also think that is a great shame.

Some people are predisposed to gain more weight than others, I have a friend who eats takeaways constantly, yet I eat more than one a week and I gain two stone in a year (reality). I am on this website to lose weight, and therefore consider myself someone who puts on weight easily. I don't blame my parents, my flat, my cats or the socks I put in the wash last week. I am psychological sound enough to assess the food I was eating and the link it had to my weight gain.

I also stand by my comments about wild animals - - - last time I checked humans are animals, just ones that don't chase or get chased often enough! Some people have clinical conditions that cause weight gain, I am not including those in my post, I am including the other millions who try desperately to apply reasons other than over-eating to the causes of their weight gain.

My flat you UK are adorable and I mean that genuinely.

Ha, is 'flat' a strange choice of words?

No We just don't technically have them here in the states, er, well I guess it's just not used. I've tried to just because I love how it sounds and what it means, but nobody gets it or I get chastised for it. Back to the good comments!

Ah I see, well keep plugging it over there;) good luck with the rest of your weight loss!

Everyone is different and responds differently. If I reduce my carbs I get very lethargic, don't have the energy to work out, want to sleep all day, etc. I don't have a carb sensitivity at all. I could eat carbs all day long and be just fine. Do I eat them all day? No. Because my goal is my body weight in protein a day, but I COULD do it if I wanted to. Please, do not make assumptions. I currently weigh around 145lbs and I have lost 60lbs still eating carbs AND sugar.

Everyone's body is different. We all respond differently to things. Don't make mass generalizations because one thing works or doesn't work for you.

I'm not fat anymore - not even close. I eat carbs. I eat sugar. This isn't a diet, it is a lifestyle.. I eat what I want and I eat it in MODERATION. I truly believe PORTION CONTROL is a huge problem in America and probably one of the biggest reasons why we are an overweight society. No one has ANY clue how much 1 cup of rice is, what 4oz of chicken is, etc.

THIS!!!!

I was re-reading this topic and I really do love it. I liked how the moderator for the site came in to say 'tone it down a bit,' but at the same time, she didn't take it down. Why? TOUGH LOVE.

I made a post before about how western society doesn't take responsibility for it's actions (hellooooo debt!). At the same time, I agree with this post whole-heartedly and that people need to understand that everyone handles food differently. I'm lactose intolerant, and my body doesn't process carbs well. At the same time, if I don't eat enough carbs (or food in general), I find myself getting lethargic and I can't work out properly.

AT THE SAME TIME!!!! The post I quoted speaks about moderation. Everything has to happen in moderation.

That's all I wanted to say about that, lol. In other news, I loved this topic and, from a critical analysis standpoint, it's interesting to see the responses.

To the OP, I just want to say this (and I hope you've continued to read these posts) - I said before that you took the comments too personally, and I still stand by that. You came out guns a-blazing, essentially saying that anyone who judges you on your weight should just f*** off. You get what you give. Maybe re-read the posts and take yourself out of the equation - pretend they're talking to someone else. There's a lot of good advice in here. There's also some tough love, like my post.

BUT!!!!!! Just so you know, I posted because I understand. I think we all understand the feeling of shame that we got for walking around overweight and the looks that you get for having a few extra pounds, ESPECIALLY!!!! if you're a woman. Women, in our religion of popculture (thank you Lady Gaga), are expected to have no fat and to have the perfect body, have the perfect makeup, hair, etc. (Victoria Beckham and Angelina Jolie, anyone?) You will never see a fat actress in a leading lady role in an action flick. Not going to happen. It's not fair.

At the same time, I read your posts and I commend you on wanting to take control of your life and trying to understand why everything happened to you and how to change. GOOD FOR YOU.

Sometimes, you need the tough love. So I commend you for posting this topic, and I hope you've continued to read these comments because some of them are very insightful and intelligent observations. This is a good site with smart people who are all in the same position - we want to lose weight and get healthy. Again, good for you for posting this. You've got balls, lady!!!! =D

Here's the thing with carbs - if you consume carbs and exercise, the carbs will convert to energy and not to sugar (simplistically speaking, obviously it's more complicated than this). It's the reason they tell marathon runners to fuel up on pasta the day before the marathon, for example. There are also distinct differences between refined carbs (white rice, pasta, bread) and wholeweat, which is invariably better for you. No 'diet' or 'lifestyle' should ban carbs totally as they are vital for our energy stores.

Aside from this, everyone I know who is fat (myself included) is this way for one simple reason - eating too much and not being active enough. Everyone I know who has lost weight, has done so by eating less (and/or more healthily) and exercising. Whether there are other factors involved, for most people, is a totally moot point - the majority of people (who don't have medical conditions etc) WILL lose weight by making healthy food choices and getting their a*ses off the sofa.

To me, looking at all the science is over complicating a fairly simple issue - as someone else said, rather than spending all your time wondering why, just get on with it.

I, for one, think I deserve to be judged for being fat...I have spent too long stuffing my face and being lazy and I deserve to be judged for that. And when I'm slim and healthier I'll deserve the glory for that too!

I don't want to offend anyone, this is just how I feel about it.

Here is where I disagree with you.

The obesity epidemic is only recent...last 20 maybe 30 years or so. It is a direct result of the foods we are eating (i.e. the processed foods, manufactured food, soda) and modern convieniences that limit our activity (video games, TV, appliances). I mean 100 years ago you didn't see the quantity of obese people as you do today. Back then people had to walk everywhere and do everything manually. There wasn't any TV or video games or phones and factories had people doing everything not robots or machines. Life was harder. There weren't hormone induced chickens and cattle and food was eaten at the most natural state. Also, people couldn't afford to sit around and eat all day...they had to work and food was scarce. The overweight people back then were the ones that had money and priveledge and to be overweight was a sign of wealth and prosperity. So to say that it's this complicated scientific reasoning for weight gain..it's not. For some cases (very minimal) it's a condition or illness but for the majority it's having an abundance of food and not being active.

It is more evident than ever when you see 3 out of 5 kids are already fat....bad habits taught and passed on to their offspring. I'm willing to be a lot of these children don't have the illnesses that cause weight gain.

It's not an "either / or" situation.

People get fat by eating too much. (Yes, there is a tiny segment of the population that can gain weight due to some horrible genetic problem, but that's a TINY segment.) To pretend that the overwhelming majority of people gained weight without overeating is to deny reality.

It's also true that the composition of your diet can have severe ramifications on your health, your hunger levels and your propensity to gain weight and your relative ease or difficulty in losing weight.

I think it's great that you're researching the ways in which diet composition affects your health and weight. Hopefully this will make your weight loss and maintenance easier. However, I think you've drawn some unreasonable conclusions.

Word.