Pasta, Not Bacon, Makes You Fat. But How?

124

Replies

  • grinch031
    grinch031 Posts: 1,679
    Acg has proven nothing more than that Taubes insulin hypothesis is flawed and incomplete. Doesn't mean that it is completely wrong.

    The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

    Google "Russel's teapot"

    His claim is that Taubes book is junk. That seems to be his most compelling argument against Taubes theory.

    Taubes book is junk because it makes unsupported claims and ignores the contradictory evidence.

    I think that premise has been well supported. If you don't, then you haven't been paying attention.

    Taubes book is based on the work of decades of research and dozens of researchers who believe in the same hypothesis. Just because you can disprove a couple of his scientific explanations, does not make the entire hypothesis wrong.

    Then Acg's second argument is that insulin is not required to store fat so Taubes' theory on that is also wrong. So what, it is impractical to even eat a diet without any insulin produced. Whether ASP or insulin stores the fat doesn't matter, the point is insulin DOES inhibit fat mobilization.
  • Anayalata
    Anayalata Posts: 391 Member
    Pasta and bread portions in this country are completely out of control. If you eat a sensible portion size and incorporate pastas into a healthy balanced diet, they do not make you fat. Sorry, but millions of Italians can't be wrong. (I'm talking in Italy, not the Americanized super-size-me Italian restaurants). Just like white rice as a staple of Asian diets.

    Everything in moderation and as part of a balanced diet with your calories in/calories out balanced.

    Exactly. I don't know why PORTION CONTROL is so hard to understand.
  • RonSwanson66
    RonSwanson66 Posts: 1,150 Member
    Taubes book is based on the work of decades of research

    While completely ignoring the last 3.

    and dozens of researchers who believe in the same hypothesis.

    Many of his sources believe no such thing. In several instances, his distorts and/or misquotes them.

    Just because you can disprove a couple of his scientific explanations, does not make the entire hypothesis wrong.

    Read what I said about burden of proof.
  • jpalimpsest
    jpalimpsest Posts: 24
    When I was avoiding simple carbs (processed grains, refined sugars, potatoes, corn, etc), I was eating **more** calories than I am now and was losing weight faster. I did not experience any lag in energy levels. This held true for over a year and a half.

    In mid-December I started using MFP and watching calories instead of carbs. I also increased my exercise 30+ minutes a day. I'm eating *less* calories and exercising *more*, yet I'm losing weight at half the rate I was on South Beach. I'm getting frustrated and strongly considering a return to South Beach.

    I don't know how people can argue so adamantly against diets that stress complex carbs over simple carbs. Every body reacts differently to different foods. I'm not diabetic or insulin resistant, but personal experience tells me that my body cares far more about the type of carbs I'm ingesting than the amount of calories I'm eating and burning.

    Rather than digging through all the conflicting science and what everyone else says, pay attention to what *your* body tells you. That will be your personal truth.
  • grinch031
    grinch031 Posts: 1,679
    Taubes book is based on the work of decades of research

    While completely ignoring the last 3.

    and dozens of researchers who believe in the same hypothesis.

    Many of his sources believe no such thing. In several instances, his distorts and/or misquotes them.

    Just because you can disprove a couple of his scientific explanations, does not make the entire hypothesis wrong.

    Read what I said about burden of proof.

    Taubes presented an alternate HYPOTHESIS. He used this word more times in his book than probably any other word.

    Last I checked, a hypothesis is not proven. And so far, neither you nor Acg have provided compelling evidence to disprove his hypothesis.
  • RonSwanson66
    RonSwanson66 Posts: 1,150 Member
    Taubes book is based on the work of decades of research

    While completely ignoring the last 3.

    and dozens of researchers who believe in the same hypothesis.

    Many of his sources believe no such thing. In several instances, his distorts and/or misquotes them.

    Just because you can disprove a couple of his scientific explanations, does not make the entire hypothesis wrong.

    Read what I said about burden of proof.

    Taubes presented an alternate HYPOTHESIS. He used this word more times in his book than probably any other word.

    Last I checked, a hypothesis is not proven. And so far, neither you nor Acg have provided compelling evidence to disprove his hypothesis.

    Cognitive dissonance is truly an amazing thing.


    More reading:

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
  • ishallnotwant
    ishallnotwant Posts: 1,210 Member
    You don't have to believe. I'll just reap the benefits and continue to astound doctors with excellent cholesterol/trig/ blood glucose readings and nice, low blood pressure readings as they say, "You're eating mainly meat and leafy greens? Meat with SKIN ON? MARBLED grass-fed steak?! You're a freak of nature!" And I'll just laugh.

    and are you going to substantiate this claim at all?

    "I think it's funny how no matter how much proof there is that carbs, especially refined ones (although all of them to a degree), not fat, cause obesity, people will still shake their heads and stomp around like a three year old who has been told they can't have a lollipop.
    "

    It works for her so it automatically must work for everyone else and we are evil if we eat carbs.

    And now for a pop quiz question: If all snorks are gronks, and all gronks are snoods, are all snoods snorks? :tongue:

    Who said anything about being evil? :huh:

    Good question. I guess I did...but then you did. :laugh:

    I did? When? Quote me?

    Who said anything about being evil? :huh:
    :tongue:
  • RonSwanson66
    RonSwanson66 Posts: 1,150 Member
    More from the same source:
    The hypothesis that insulin, in a physiological context, increases body fatness has been around for a long time. However, most obesity and metabolism researchers considered it defunct by the mid-1980s, if not before, because of its failure to explain a number of basic observations (11). The case against this hypothesis has expanded considerably since then.

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/09/hyperinsulinemia-cause-or-effect-of.html
  • Emilia6909
    Emilia6909 Posts: 309 Member
    Replace white rice with SHORT GRAIN BROWN RICE
    Replace white pasta with BUCKWHEAT or WHOLEWHEAT pasta
    Replace white bread with RYE BREAD
    Replace a baked spud with BAKED SWEET POTATO
    Replace fries with VEGETABLE FRIES

    The perfect carbs as far as I am concerned..... :wink:
  • rybo
    rybo Posts: 5,424 Member
    Who knew one would need degrees in biochemistry, human physiology, liguistics, debate, & cellular bioology, just to make it thru a thread on eating carbs.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Who knew one would need degrees in biochemistry, human physiology, liguistics, debate, & cellular bioology, just to make it thru a thread on eating carbs.

    :laugh:
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Taubes book is based on the work of decades of research

    While completely ignoring the last 3.

    and dozens of researchers who believe in the same hypothesis.

    Many of his sources believe no such thing. In several instances, his distorts and/or misquotes them.

    Just because you can disprove a couple of his scientific explanations, does not make the entire hypothesis wrong.

    Read what I said about burden of proof.

    Taubes presented an alternate HYPOTHESIS. He used this word more times in his book than probably any other word.

    Last I checked, a hypothesis is not proven. And so far, neither you nor Acg have provided compelling evidence to disprove his hypothesis.

    Ok here's the clifs on his book

    The obese eat the same as or less than the lean therefore the energy balance equation doesn't hold (incorrect btw)
    Carbs and only carbs cause the secretion of insulin and insulin is the only thing that drives fat storage therefore carbs are the sole macro that makes you fat (also incorrect)

    so what is possibly correct about his hypothesis?
  • ishallnotwant
    ishallnotwant Posts: 1,210 Member
    As an Irish girl it makes me sad to see people always saying to stop eating potatoes and sub something else. STOP THE MADNESS, PEOPLE!!! POTATOES ARE GOOD!!! :laugh:

    This was brought to you by your local Irish Potato Lovin' Association.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Interesting infographic/article. Not sure how accurate it is, but it seems to make sense, so I thought I'd share:

    http://www.fastcodesign.com/1668916/pasta-not-bacon-makes-you-fat-but-how

    I drastically cut my breads and pastas when I lost my weight, so I'm thinking there's some truth to this.


    To make it simple...........and the short version that was explained to me by my metabolic Endocrinologist some years ago.

    Pasta causes an insulin response which causes the carbs to be stored as fat.

    Bacon is protein and fat, which does not cause an insulin response in the body. Thus the recommendation of why T2 Diabetics and people with insulin resistance should follow a controlled carb lifestyle.

    Incorrect, in fact things like eggs (fat + protein) will spike insulin higher then both brown and white pasta
  • KBGirts
    KBGirts Posts: 882 Member
    You don't have to believe. I'll just reap the benefits and continue to astound doctors with excellent cholesterol/trig/ blood glucose readings and nice, low blood pressure readings as they say, "You're eating mainly meat and leafy greens? Meat with SKIN ON? MARBLED grass-fed steak?! You're a freak of nature!" And I'll just laugh.

    and are you going to substantiate this claim at all?

    "I think it's funny how no matter how much proof there is that carbs, especially refined ones (although all of them to a degree), not fat, cause obesity, people will still shake their heads and stomp around like a three year old who has been told they can't have a lollipop.
    "

    It works for her so it automatically must work for everyone else and we are evil if we eat carbs.

    And now for a pop quiz question: If all snorks are gronks, and all gronks are snoods, are all snoods snorks? :tongue:

    Who said anything about being evil? :huh:

    Good question. I guess I did...but then you did. :laugh:

    I did? When? Quote me?

    Who said anything about being evil? :huh:
    :tongue:

    Oh I think I get it now.... There's not a slaps forehead smiley so I'll just do this: :flowerforyou:
  • ishallnotwant
    ishallnotwant Posts: 1,210 Member
    You don't have to believe. I'll just reap the benefits and continue to astound doctors with excellent cholesterol/trig/ blood glucose readings and nice, low blood pressure readings as they say, "You're eating mainly meat and leafy greens? Meat with SKIN ON? MARBLED grass-fed steak?! You're a freak of nature!" And I'll just laugh.

    and are you going to substantiate this claim at all?

    "I think it's funny how no matter how much proof there is that carbs, especially refined ones (although all of them to a degree), not fat, cause obesity, people will still shake their heads and stomp around like a three year old who has been told they can't have a lollipop.
    "

    It works for her so it automatically must work for everyone else and we are evil if we eat carbs.

    And now for a pop quiz question: If all snorks are gronks, and all gronks are snoods, are all snoods snorks? :tongue:

    Who said anything about being evil? :huh:

    Good question. I guess I did...but then you did. :laugh:

    I did? When? Quote me?

    Who said anything about being evil? :huh:
    :tongue:

    Oh I think I get it now.... There's not a slaps forehead smiley so I'll just do this: :flowerforyou:

    :heart: Extending a flower is much less painful than slapping your forehead, so i'm glad they are missing the slapping forehead smiley for you lol.
  • grinch031
    grinch031 Posts: 1,679
    Taubes book is based on the work of decades of research

    While completely ignoring the last 3.

    and dozens of researchers who believe in the same hypothesis.

    Many of his sources believe no such thing. In several instances, his distorts and/or misquotes them.

    Just because you can disprove a couple of his scientific explanations, does not make the entire hypothesis wrong.

    Read what I said about burden of proof.

    Taubes presented an alternate HYPOTHESIS. He used this word more times in his book than probably any other word.

    Last I checked, a hypothesis is not proven. And so far, neither you nor Acg have provided compelling evidence to disprove his hypothesis.

    Ok here's the clifs on his book

    The obese eat the same as or less than the lean therefore the energy balance equation doesn't hold (incorrect btw)
    Carbs and only carbs cause the secretion of insulin and insulin is the only thing that drives fat storage therefore carbs are the sole macro that makes you fat (also incorrect)

    so what is possibly correct about his hypothesis?

    Neither one of these inaccuracies matters in the grand scheme of his hypothesis. But I want to read the articles RonSwanson just posted because they actually have substance in them. But I need to reconcile them with other sources before I draw my own conclusion.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Taubes book is based on the work of decades of research

    While completely ignoring the last 3.

    and dozens of researchers who believe in the same hypothesis.

    Many of his sources believe no such thing. In several instances, his distorts and/or misquotes them.

    Just because you can disprove a couple of his scientific explanations, does not make the entire hypothesis wrong.

    Read what I said about burden of proof.

    Taubes presented an alternate HYPOTHESIS. He used this word more times in his book than probably any other word.

    Last I checked, a hypothesis is not proven. And so far, neither you nor Acg have provided compelling evidence to disprove his hypothesis.

    Ok here's the clifs on his book

    The obese eat the same as or less than the lean therefore the energy balance equation doesn't hold (incorrect btw)
    Carbs and only carbs cause the secretion of insulin and insulin is the only thing that drives fat storage therefore carbs are the sole macro that makes you fat (also incorrect)

    so what is possibly correct about his hypothesis?

    Neither one of these inaccuracies matters in the grand scheme of his hypothesis. But I want to read the articles RonSwanson just posted because they actually have substance in them. But I need to reconcile them with other sources before I draw my own conclusion.

    So what is Taubes hypothesis then?
  • RonSwanson66
    RonSwanson66 Posts: 1,150 Member
    So what is Taubes hypothesis then?

    I'm curious about this as well.
  • grinch031
    grinch031 Posts: 1,679
    Taubes book is based on the work of decades of research

    While completely ignoring the last 3.

    and dozens of researchers who believe in the same hypothesis.

    Many of his sources believe no such thing. In several instances, his distorts and/or misquotes them.

    Just because you can disprove a couple of his scientific explanations, does not make the entire hypothesis wrong.

    Read what I said about burden of proof.

    Taubes presented an alternate HYPOTHESIS. He used this word more times in his book than probably any other word.

    Last I checked, a hypothesis is not proven. And so far, neither you nor Acg have provided compelling evidence to disprove his hypothesis.

    Ok here's the clifs on his book

    The obese eat the same as or less than the lean therefore the energy balance equation doesn't hold (incorrect btw)
    Carbs and only carbs cause the secretion of insulin and insulin is the only thing that drives fat storage therefore carbs are the sole macro that makes you fat (also incorrect)

    so what is possibly correct about his hypothesis?

    Neither one of these inaccuracies matters in the grand scheme of his hypothesis. But I want to read the articles RonSwanson just posted because they actually have substance in them. But I need to reconcile them with other sources before I draw my own conclusion.

    So what is Taubes hypothesis then?

    That excess carbohydrate intake and the body's subsequent insulin response is the root cause of overeating, excess fat storage, health problems typically associated with obesity, lack of exercise
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member


    That excess carbohydrate intake and the body's subsequent insulin response is the root cause of overeating, excess fat storage, health problems typically associated with obesity, lack of exercise

    So why then say that only CHO makes you fat, not just excess CHO? the reason being is that his actual hypothesis in his books is the one i posted above
  • grinch031
    grinch031 Posts: 1,679


    That excess carbohydrate intake and the body's subsequent insulin response is the root cause of overeating, excess fat storage, health problems typically associated with obesity, lack of exercise

    So why then say that only CHO makes you fat, not just excess CHO? the reason being is that his actual hypothesis in his books is the one i posted above

    I've only read Good Calories, Bad Calories, not "Why we get fat" but I've heard the message is the same. My understanding of his message is that diets high in carbohydrates are the problem. I can't quantify the amount he is talking about other than that.

    Actually just noticed this on the cite Ron presented. It came right out of the book:

    This alternative hypothesis of obesity constitutes three distinct propositions. First, as I've said, is the basic proposition that obesity is caused by a regulatory defect in fat metabolism, and so a defect in the distribution of energy rather than an imbalance of energy intake and expenditure. The second is that insulin plays a primary role in this fattening process, and the compensatory behaviors of hunger and lethargy. The third is that carbohydrates, and particularly refined carbohydrates-- and perhaps the fructose content as well, and thus perhaps the amount of sugars consumed-- are the prime suspects in the chronic elevation of insulin; hence, they are the ultimate cause of common obesity.
  • crazybeautifulkittie
    crazybeautifulkittie Posts: 86 Member
    Wow. I thought Med school is hard. I guess understanding "practical application of carbohydrate biochemistry in relation to metabolism" is more difficult. The way I see it, Its hard to stop at one piece of bread or one piece of bacon, thus just don't eat it if you don't have an iron will because carbs really don't keep you full for long.
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    As an Irish girl it makes me sad to see people always saying to stop eating potatoes and sub something else. STOP THE MADNESS, PEOPLE!!! POTATOES ARE GOOD!!! :laugh:

    This was brought to you by your local Irish Potato Lovin' Association.

    The (mostly) Scottish girl agrees! Gotta love the spud. :heart:

    But a baked potato with cheese and bacon is even BETTER!
  • HorrorChix89
    HorrorChix89 Posts: 1,229 Member
    Pasta makes me happy :D

    I eat Grilled Chicken Alfredo nearly every night or Shrimp Scampi with Angel Hair pasta
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member


    That excess carbohydrate intake and the body's subsequent insulin response is the root cause of overeating, excess fat storage, health problems typically associated with obesity, lack of exercise

    So why then say that only CHO makes you fat, not just excess CHO? the reason being is that his actual hypothesis in his books is the one i posted above

    I've only read Good Calories, Bad Calories, not "Why we get fat" but I've heard the message is the same. My understanding of his message is that diets high in carbohydrates are the problem. I can't quantify the amount he is talking about other than that.

    Actually just noticed this on the cite Ron presented. It came right out of the book:

    This alternative hypothesis of obesity constitutes three distinct propositions. First, as I've said, is the basic proposition that obesity is caused by a regulatory defect in fat metabolism, and so a defect in the distribution of energy rather than an imbalance of energy intake and expenditure. The second is that insulin plays a primary role in this fattening process, and the compensatory behaviors of hunger and lethargy. The third is that carbohydrates, and particularly refined carbohydrates-- and perhaps the fructose content as well, and thus perhaps the amount of sugars consumed-- are the prime suspects in the chronic elevation of insulin; hence, they are the ultimate cause of common obesity.

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/11/brief-response-to-taubess-food-rewad.html
    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/01/insulin-and-obesity-another-nail-in.html
    http://www.weightymatters.ca/2011/01/book-review-gary-taubes-why-we-get-fat.html

    http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake/singlepage
  • summalovaable
    summalovaable Posts: 287 Member

    Incorrect, in fact things like eggs (fat + protein) will spike insulin higher then both brown and white pasta

    Not sure if you posted a link for this or not, but can you show me the science behind that statement?

    Personally, I believe this is why a BALANCED diet has been encouraged for years. Carbs fill me up quickly (so I eat less at the time), protein fills me up long term (so I eat less through out the day). It's worked for me so I'll keep on doing it.

    And honestly, I give props to ANY person that can go long term on a low carb diet. I would die (I tried it for all of a week before gorging on bagels and pasta).:flowerforyou:
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member

    Incorrect, in fact things like eggs (fat + protein) will spike insulin higher then both brown and white pasta

    Not sure if you posted a link for this or not, but can you show me the science behind that statement?

    Personally, I believe this is why a BALANCED diet has been encouraged for years. Carbs fill me up quickly (so I eat less at the time), protein fills me up long term (so I eat less through out the day). It's worked for me so I'll keep on doing it.

    And honestly, I give props to ANY person that can go long term on a low carb diet. I would die (I tried it for all of a week before gorging on bagels and pasta).:flowerforyou:

    Scroll down to Table 4, the insulin AUC column

    Holt SHA, et al. An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Nov, 1997; 66: 5: 1264-1276.

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html
  • grinch031
    grinch031 Posts: 1,679

    Personally, I believe this is why a BALANCED diet has been encouraged for years. Carbs fill me up quickly (so I eat less at the time), protein fills me up long term (so I eat less through out the day). It's worked for me so I'll keep on doing it.

    And honestly, I give props to ANY person that can go long term on a low carb diet. I would die (I tried it for all of a week before gorging on bagels and pasta).:flowerforyou:

    I give props to any person that can actually eat a moderate amount of pasta without starving 2 hours later.
  • MzFury
    MzFury Posts: 283 Member
    it's not pasta that makes people fat (...see the over-referenced mediterranean diet benefits...), it's overindulgence, large portion sizes, lack of balance. And sure, if you're diabetic or genuinely just stuff yourself with refined carbohydrates and sugars, you're probably sensitive now to refined carbohydrates and sugars. And if you're celiac, the pasta and any other wheat will rip up your intestines and prevent you from absorbing nutrients, so you're probably undernourished and possibly too thin. But that's not a reason to eat pasta. Anyway, yeah, I have absolutely no issue eating (real) pasta, one - two ounces, with lots of vegetables, lean protein, scant cheese and hopefully plenty of fresh herbs, inside a 400 - 500-calorie meal goal, without any sugar rushes or crashes or yeast reactions, and have had a giant bowl of food.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories