Gary Taubes

BTW, eggs are very low on the insulin index since they are have a good amount of fat. Combining fat with protein slows insulin release (lowers the insulin index) and combining fat with carbohydrates slows blood glucose conversion (lowers glycemic index). This is all because fat in general slows gastic emptying and delays nutrient absorption in the small intestines.

That is basically why a high fat diet is good for controlling blood glucose and insulin (so long as fat is eaten with everything)

So we could just eat cake and ice cream?

From what I've read, I've come to the belief that the absolute worst thing you can do for both cardiovascular health and weight management is eat a high fat, high carb diet. I think the ratios must be inversed for someone who has weight struggles, although I'd argue the majority of the obese would probably fare better on low carb.

With low carb, high fat, your insulin levels stay fairly low and your body is adapted to burning more fat with more stable hormones and thus lower hunger.

With low fat, high carb, your insulin levels are higher, so you are inhibiting fat release and burning more glucose. However there

isn't much fat to store and DNL is not a significant factor in fat accumulation.

But when you combine them, you end up with high insulin levels with inhibited fat release and tons of fat to store. So you're burning glucose, storing fat, and then asking for more glucose because your fat isn't being mobilized fast enough. That's the perfect storm for creating a caloric surplus.

Free will.

Your body adapts itself to the way you treat it. Overeat, and your body will adapt itself and adjust hunger and satiety signals to match the overeating pattern. Under eat, and the body will adapt the other way. You have to remember, from an evolutionary standpoint, human beings evolved with a feast or famine metabolism. When food was plentiful, humans gorged and gained fat. That way, when the food ran out, they could survive on fat stores. Early humans generally ate once every 2-3 days most of the time, sometimes eating every day, sometimes going weeks without food. The body evolved and adapted to this practice.

Now, of course, modern humans have 24/7 access to food. The human body hasn't adapted to that. It still responds to feast and fast. So when a person starts overeating, the body adapts its responses to store fat, as it's preparing for the eventual fast that it expects to come next. Unfortunately, the fast usually doesn't come, other than crash dieting. This is why people yoyo diet. The body is just doing what it has evolved to do. The body itself doesn't think, it just does. Our brain does the thinking. Unfortunately, a lot of people tend to turn their brain off when it comes to eating.

It's the same thing with activity levels. The more active you make yourself, the more your body adapts itself to being active. The more sedentary you are, the more the body adapts itself to being sedentary. The body will generally adapt itself to any condition that it's told to adapt to by the mind. The mind controls the body. A lot of people ignore that fact, and then try to blame it on their body, like Taubes. He blames overeating on the body being obese, rather than the body becoming obese because the person allowed themselves to over eat. It's a classic logical fallacy of the circular argument.

Metabolic set point has no bearing on hunger and satiety signals. If you are constantly eating one way, and develop a specific eating habit your body is trained to expect food at those times. If metabolic rate drops, your body is still trained to eat at the same times and amounts you are eating. People eat so often nowadays the the body never signals "true" hunger. What most people think is hunger is really just the body saying "hey, we usually eat now."

As for leptin resistance, it's a real possibility. The problem is, leptin resistance is caused by obesity. It doesn't cause obesity. So again, it comes down to overeating. Overeating does not mean gluttony. It means eating over your metabolic set point. Due to individual set points, it can be easier for some people than others. That doesn't change the cause, or the basic reason.

It's never a matter of what is eaten, it's always a matter of how much.

Metabolic set point has no bearing on hunger and satiety signals. If you are constantly eating one way, and develop a specific eating habit your body is trained to expect food at those times. If metabolic rate drops, your body is still trained to eat at the same times and amounts you are eating. People eat so often nowadays the the body never signals "true" hunger. What most people think is hunger is really just the body saying "hey, we usually eat now."

As for leptin resistance, it's a real possibility. The problem is, leptin resistance is caused by obesity. It doesn't cause obesity. So again, it comes down to overeating. Overeating does not mean gluttony. It means eating over your metabolic set point. Due to individual set points, it can be easier for some people than others. That doesn't change the cause, or the basic reason.

It's never a matter of what is eaten, it's always a matter of how much.

So can you substantiate any of your claims that set point has nothing to do with hunger / satiety signals and that its all based on learned behavior?

Can you also substantiate your claim that leptin resistance is caused by obesity and not a cause of obesity? How does obesity cause leptin resistance anyways?

Your theory doesn't explain why people fall off the wagon after several months or even years of dieting. If it was all about learned behavior, then it should be possible to train yourself not to fall off the wagon. The reality is that the vast majority of dieters end up regaining their lost weight, probably because the mind has much less control over food intake then we think.

If its not a matter of 'what' but 'how much', then how can you explain people automatically lowering their calorie intake when they cut out carbs or cut out processed foods? Is it about behavior or is it about satiety? How do you explain people who substantially increase their exercise without restricting calories and don't lose any weight? If its all about behavior, why would someone who exercises eat more by default?

Why does leptin replacement therapy make it easier for people to maintain lost weight?

Too many holes in your theory the way I see it.

I'm not talking about learned behavior. I'm talking about biological and hormonal adaptations to behavior. Leptin and ghrelin cycles adjust based on your eating patterns. If you eat the same number of calories, but split it into 6 regular meals, ghrelin will adapt and start sending out hunger signals at the usual times you eat, even if you aren't actually hungry at those times, due to adaptation to a feeding schedule. Same reason a person who adapts to intermittent fasting doesn't feel hungry during their fasting periods, or a person who chronically under eats stops feeling hungry. It's not a learned behavior, it's a physiological adaptation. And yes, people will tend to feel hungry during their normal eating times, even if they aren't hungry and don't need to eat, which is where the free will and being mindful of food intake comes in.

As for people spontaneously reducing calories when cutting carbs, I haven't seen any real evidence of that, other than proponents of low carb diets making the claim. I know from personal experience I actually eat more calories when I reduce carbs, because I love meat, and fatty foods, and without carbs to fill up on, I will overeat on meat and fat if I'm not actually counting my calories and being mindful of them.

And leptin resistance is caused by too much leptin in the body, leading to desensitization. Leptin is made by adipose tissue, having excessive adipose stores causes excessive amounts of leptin to be made and released. So in order to become leptin resistant, you need to have excessive body fat. Excessive body fat is obesity. Obesity causes leptin resistance.

As for people spontaneously reducing calories when cutting carbs, I haven't seen any real evidence of that, other than proponents of low carb diets making the claim.

Here's an old study that was to hand - http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/23/7/948

770 calories less per day on an "ad lib" but low carb eating regime.

Certainly worked that way in my family, taking away the potato / fries / pasta / bread and replacing with an additional vegetable took a wack out of the calories and the carbs for the same protein portions. Earlier I was discussing with a guy on Atkins induction (265 lbs) that he was full yesterday but only ate 950 calories.

Taking away one of the three groups of macronutrients, and one of the two with no limit on useful consumption, is very likely to reduce intake. "But what do I eat" came the cry.

The whole "insulin spiking" argument that people like Taubes make does not make sense. Protein "spikes" insulin also, not just carbohydrates while fat does not acutally "spike" insulin.

If you read all the posts to this point you have more patience than me.

Taubes is either loved or hated. Personally I think he's brought a lot of value to my own nutritional knowledge, and it has paid off.

Ultimately though, Mark Sisson >>>> Gary Taubes. I read Mark's stuff daily.

Picking between reading Taubes or Sisson is like choosing between getting punched in the face or kicked in the crotch, both choices suck

No. Just know. Before you act like a nutrition god spewing that your way is correct and everyone is wrong. Please prove to me that protein spikes your insulin like carbs do. I PROMISE you it doesn't. A GI of a bowl of oatmeal is way higher than eggs. A potato has a way higher GI than a steak. But I'm wrong. Because you say so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYqCLteXwMA