Why We Get Fat

I've read the samples of his books (I probably should have said I haven't "bought" his book, because I have read a little of it), and watched him a bit on YouTube, and I have so far disagreed with most everything he has said. And he's been soundly debunked by knowledgeable people I actually respect. So, you can call me ignorant if you like, and I'll continue to call a spade a spade.

We get fat because we consume too many dang calories.

/thread

We get fat because we consume too many dang calories.

/thread

Spot on, in a nutshell

All I know for sure is what worked for me, and that was getting active and severely restricting my caloric intake (Optifast 800).

Well right now we have an unprecedented obesity epidemic. Over 30% of Americans are obese, and within the next 18 years that number is projected to hit 42%. That right there is pretty significant. Now people constantly site sedentary lifestyle as a main culprit, but this problem largely began around 1980, way before video games were that popular and before the internet even existed. Most people didn't know what the internet was until probably mid 1990s. Plus there is little evidence that exercise makes that much difference in managing weight.

and Internet is the only thing that makes you sedentary?
there's another thing actually, but it seems that in US people are taking it for granted so much that they'll rather think of internet then of - cars. From what I've seen of US and from what I've heard of friends who have lived there for some time, US infrastructure is extremely pedestrian-unfriendly, and even cyclist-unfriendly. People simply don't walk any more. My partner just came back from LA and he was complaining about huge lack of pedestrian zones/paths. A friend of mine lived in mid-west for a year, she didn't have a driving licence and had huge problems doing shopping since everything is designed for cars. She even was openly told that it's her own fault since "everyone should have a car". As far as I'm concerned, this is far greater problem than internet and carbs together. When I was eating 500g of white bread daily (+ pastry from bakeries) and looked like I did on that profile picture, I was also walking for at least half an hour every morning to get that bread. No big shopping malls, no huge shopping once a week - just up and down the hill, up and down the stairs every day, to get your food in local bakeries and small shops. However, westernisation of lifestyle, opening of huge shopping malls and disappearance of small local business are taking their toll in all developed world.
where did you get this about little evidence?

Sorry I don't buy any of this. Running has grown enormously over the past couple years and has not stopped obesity. We have had cars for over a century, so you're going to use that to explain an obesity epidemic that only began skyrocketing over the past 30 years? Much of the forms of sedentary entertainment blamed for the lack of exercise as a cause of obesity also only picked up steam in the past 10 years or even less, so there is still 20 years of skyrocketing obesity to be accounted for.

The only obvious trend that began at the same time as the obesity epidemic is the change in the American diet to one where grain intake increased and fat intake decreased.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

You are saying that people who are running or simply being very active their whole life, from early childhood, and never lose that habit, get obese anyway at the very same rate like non active people? I have hard time imagining that. (btw, running twice a week is not exactly the 'active lifestyle' I have in mind).
No, you didn't have cars for a century lol. not in today's numbers and usage.
If you truly believe that it's just about diet you'll have to explain how cultures that traditionally eat a lot of grains (crazy high amounts of bread and pastry for example) are only starting to see rise in obesity in last few years. (although, you might be onto something when you say high carbs/low fat, since where I'm coming from crazy high grain usage is accompanied by a lot of animal fat.)
dismissing activity level when it comes to obesity epidemic is really hard to buy for me. here's a paper which shows very clearly importance of active lifestyle on a similar diet:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00574.x/abstract

(boys in villages are much, much more active than boys in cities)

I am all for cutting back on carbs. I try to keep mine relatively low and focus on more protein... but I don't think whole grains are going to make me fat. Sugar, ice cream and brownies outside of moderation will!

What is the difference though? When they break down, it all becomes glucose anyways?

What makes whole grain a healthier carbohydrate than a tablespoon of pure sugar?

That's exactly it, once they are broken down there really is no difference.

Satiety and overall nutrition, which imo has a big effect on how we eat now. Carb consumption is about the same as it was in the early 1900's except fiber is about 40% less (exchanging whole for refined grain products) . Not much fast food back then and life was more rural, we moved more.

I agree with your last sentence, but everything else you said before that is pure opinion.

If you are worried about satiety, then fat and protein would be the route to go.

I've read the samples of his books, and watched him a bit on YouTube, and I have so far disagreed with most everything he has said. And he's been soundly debunked by knowledgeable people I actually respect. So, you can call me ignorant if you like, and I'll continue to call a spade a spade.

Until you can show me one quote of Taubes that violates thermodynamics, then I will think you are ignorant on the subject of Taubes' arguments.

If calories from protein and fat have no effect on fat accumulation, what happens to those calories when eaten in a surplus?

"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 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat

I have never read his book. Actually, I have never heard of the guy until now. But if he thinks you can eat 8,000 calories of fat and protein a day and still lose weight as long as you eat no carbs then this guy is nuts.

I've read the samples of his books, and watched him a bit on YouTube, and I have so far disagreed with most everything he has said. And he's been soundly debunked by knowledgeable people I actually respect. So, you can call me ignorant if you like, and I'll continue to call a spade a spade.

Until you can show me one quote of Taubes that violates thermodynamics, then I will think you are ignorant on the subject of Taubes' arguments.

If calories from protein and fat have no effect on fat accumulation, what happens to those calories when eaten in a surplus?

"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 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat

I don't have the book to validate these quotes, but they do seem a bit out there to me without any context. But they still don't violate the laws of thermodynamics. Taubes does acknowledge every calorie is accounted for, he just thinks if you eat excessive protein and/or fat without carbs then they won't get stored as fat, but instead will be burned. This is obviously false which is one of the disappointments I found in Taubes. How can he understand science as he showed in debunking the lipid hypothesis, and then make these kinds of claims.

I am all for cutting back on carbs. I try to keep mine relatively low and focus on more protein... but I don't think whole grains are going to make me fat. Sugar, ice cream and brownies outside of moderation will!

What is the difference though? When they break down, it all becomes glucose anyways?

What makes whole grain a healthier carbohydrate than a tablespoon of pure sugar?

That's exactly it, once they are broken down there really is no difference.

Satiety and overall nutrition, which imo has a big effect on how we eat now. Carb consumption is about the same as it was in the early 1900's except fiber is about 40% less (exchanging whole for refined grain products) . Not much fast food back then and life was more rural, we moved more.

I agree with your last sentence, but everything else you said before that is pure opinion.

If you are worried about satiety, then fat and protein would be the route to go.

Potatoes are the most satiating food on the planet and many carbs are very satiating, refined carbs not so much to almost non exisitant. Fat on the other hand is not very satiating at all on a calorie for calorie basis.

Plus insulin is supposed to be a satiating hormone yet most obese folks secrete way too much of it but continue to overeat. And if fat wasn't satiating, then people on low carb, high fat diets would not be able to lose weight without counting calories, but many have great success. Sounds like there are paradoxes all over the place.

I am all for cutting back on carbs. I try to keep mine relatively low and focus on more protein... but I don't think whole grains are going to make me fat. Sugar, ice cream and brownies outside of moderation will!

What is the difference though? When they break down, it all becomes glucose anyways?

What makes whole grain a healthier carbohydrate than a tablespoon of pure sugar?

That's exactly it, once they are broken down there really is no difference.

Satiety and overall nutrition, which imo has a big effect on how we eat now. Carb consumption is about the same as it was in the early 1900's except fiber is about 40% less (exchanging whole for refined grain products) . Not much fast food back then and life was more rural, we moved more.

I agree with your last sentence, but everything else you said before that is pure opinion.

If you are worried about satiety, then fat and protein would be the route to go.

Potatoes are the most satiating food on the planet and many carbs are very satiating, refined carbs not so much to almost non exisitant. Fat on the other hand is not very satiating at all on a calorie for calorie basis.

Plus insulin is supposed to be a satiating hormone yet most obese folks secrete way too much of it but continue to overeat. And if fat wasn't satiating, then people on low carb, high fat diets would not be able to lose weight without counting calories, but many have great success. Sounds like there are paradoxes all over the place.

Don't underestimate the satiating effects of protein alone.

Well right now we have an unprecedented obesity epidemic. Over 30% of Americans are obese, and within the next 18 years that number is projected to hit 42%. That right there is pretty significant. Now people constantly site sedentary lifestyle as a main culprit, but this problem largely began around 1980, way before video games were that popular and before the internet even existed. Most people didn't know what the internet was until probably mid 1990s. Plus there is little evidence that exercise makes that much difference in managing weight.

and Internet is the only thing that makes you sedentary?
there's another thing actually, but it seems that in US people are taking it for granted so much that they'll rather think of internet then of - cars. From what I've seen of US and from what I've heard of friends who have lived there for some time, US infrastructure is extremely pedestrian-unfriendly, and even cyclist-unfriendly. People simply don't walk any more. My partner just came back from LA and he was complaining about huge lack of pedestrian zones/paths. A friend of mine lived in mid-west for a year, she didn't have a driving licence and had huge problems doing shopping since everything is designed for cars. She even was openly told that it's her own fault since "everyone should have a car". As far as I'm concerned, this is far greater problem than internet and carbs together. When I was eating 500g of white bread daily (+ pastry from bakeries) and looked like I did on that profile picture, I was also walking for at least half an hour every morning to get that bread. No big shopping malls, no huge shopping once a week - just up and down the hill, up and down the stairs every day, to get your food in local bakeries and small shops. However, westernisation of lifestyle, opening of huge shopping malls and disappearance of small local business are taking their toll in all developed world.
where did you get this about little evidence?

Sorry I don't buy any of this. Running has grown enormously over the past couple years and has not stopped obesity. We have had cars for over a century, so you're going to use that to explain an obesity epidemic that only began skyrocketing over the past 30 years? Much of the forms of sedentary entertainment blamed for the lack of exercise as a cause of obesity also only picked up steam in the past 10 years or even less, so there is still 20 years of skyrocketing obesity to be accounted for.

The only obvious trend that began at the same time as the obesity epidemic is the change in the American diet to one where grain intake increased and fat intake decreased.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

You are saying that people who are running or simply being very active their whole life, from early childhood, and never lose that habit, get obese anyway at the very same rate like non active people? I have hard time imagining that. (btw, running twice a week is not exactly the 'active lifestyle' I have in mind).
No, you didn't have cars for a century lol. not in today's numbers and usage.
If you truly believe that it's just about diet you'll have to explain how cultures that traditionally eat a lot of grains (crazy high amounts of bread and pastry for example) are only starting to see rise in obesity in last few years. (although, you might be onto something when you say high carbs/low fat, since where I'm coming from crazy high grain usage is accompanied by a lot of animal fat.)
dismissing activity level when it comes to obesity epidemic is really hard to buy for me. here's a paper which shows very clearly importance of active lifestyle on a similar diet:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00574.x/abstract

(boys in villages are much, much more active than boys in cities)

Well when I was in high school I had a low body fat percentage, did less exercise, and ate whatever I wanted in as much quantity as I desired. In my 20s and 30s, I now do more exercise (marathon running, competitive tennis, lift weights), eat less calories, and continued to gain weight until I went on a low-carb diet. I'm right now at about 15% body fat, but I can feel the pressure to overeat as soon as I start eating too many carb foods.

Anyways I'm not going to make claims that exercise has exactly the same effect on weight loss as non-exercise, because I don't believe that. I do think a primary benefit of exercise is improved insulin sensitivity among other benefits. I just think for weight loss purposes it would be a disappointment, because the body will simply increase appetite. It might suppress it temporarily, but in the end body fat is regulated and exercise expedites some fat burning which would lead to a compensatory response.

Side- thanks for all those links.

Glad I am not alone in thinking his claims and conclusions seem pretty... odd. I have no idea why so many people recommended his book.

Because people want to believe that "they" got it wrong. People want to be among a small group that sees the true light while the masses of lemmings and sheep cluelessly follow futile directions from their overlords. It props up their ego and makes them feel good about themselves, something that a lot of overweight people have an issue with.

Yep - we got fat - let's blame carbs! Or fat! Or something that wasn't the fact that we simply just eat too much food. It really is as simple as eating less. Unfortunately unless you count calories some people just really don't realise how much food they are actually eating.

I do think more protein is a good thing though - more satisfying and all that. But I don't agree with eliminating carbs at all, especially if it's something you can't stick with.

I have read the book. He spends chapter after chapter talking about science of it. I thought much of that was personal opinion and not backed up. I was anxious for the practical "and What to Do About It" part, and it left me wanting.

As far as results go, I ate low carb for 4 months and lost 30 pounds. I have switched to calorie counting and exercise and have gained back 7 of what I lost over the last 7 weeks. I am discouraged, but am sticking with it, because I have a hard time thinking that I can live the low carb lifestyle. If the trend continues, I will have to go back to it though and give it a shot. I don't want to go back to being fat! I do wonder if Taubes has a point, since instead of losing, I am gaining on the calorie counting program. Of course, the trauma of the change may be inhibiting my loss, or maybe I am one of those people he is talking about who just can't handle the carbs. IDK. I am going to stay the calorie counting course for now with more calories and see what happens. I had been sticking with about 1200-1400 calories, but reading and listening to fat2fit radio and a couple of others I found out about through MFP and think that maybe 1800-2000 is more appropriate for me. I am learning how to eat those 1800 calories healthfully, not empty calories. I fear that my metabolism is screwed up really bad from the yo-yo-ing.