Gary Taubes

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 study had 11 people in it. That's a really small sample size and definitely not large enough to reach any conclusions.

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.

As
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.

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.

That is absolutely incorrect on so many levels. But hey I'm allowed to say you're wrong once because it's all you have been doing on this thread. Ya "protein" spikes insulin? No. Sorry. High glycemic index carbs spike insulin like your favorite pastas and bread. Protein has very little effect on insulin response. Low carb has been a savior to diabetes and Even heart disease. Anything you put into your body has an effect on insulin. It's about what you put into it that spikes it. This stuff is more successful for overweight people as far as weight loss goes. Not like you and some of the genetic smaller dudes that have probably never been too overweight.

As
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.

so you replaced moderately high calorie sources with lower calorie foods and you lost weight, do think this was more to do with the reduction in carbs specifically or reduction in overall calories.

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.

That is absolutely incorrect on so many levels. But hey I'm allowed to say you're wrong once because it's all you have been doing on this thread. Ya "protein" spikes insulin? No. Sorry. High glycemic index carbs spike insulin like your favorite pastas and bread. Protein has very little effect on insulin response. Low carb has been a savior to diabetes and Even heart disease. Anything you put into your body has an effect on insulin. It's about what you put into it that spikes it. This stuff is more successful for overweight people as far as weight loss goes. Not like you and some of the genetic smaller dudes that have probably never been too overweight.

Just, no.

"A number representing the ability of a food, relative to that of glucose, to increase the level of glucose in the blood." as per definition.

Pretty much, you want to cover the essential macros first, Fat and Protein. How much you need is extremely variable person to person based on basal metabolic rate, activity, athletic performance, diseases, etc. Once these are figured out, then you fiddle around with carbohydrates based on how much of a calorie surplus or deficit you want and your average daily activity level.

Let's say I want a 250kcal deficit, after figuring out my protein and fat requirements, I have 250 kcal left to reach my maintenance. I then figure I will burn 500 kcal from walking 1 hour (now 750 kcal from maintenance and 500 kcal from my goal deficit). I have 500kcal to reach my goal, so I eat 125g carbohydrates to reach my goal. Alternatively, I could just forgoe exercise altogether and eat no carbohydrates, but still reach my calorie deficit goal. Ideally, your calories from burnt from exercise should match the calories you eat from carbohydrates since carbohydrates are the easiest macro to convert into energy. This approach is what is used for people in fitness/modeling/bodybuilders/etc.

I am sure with some research, you might be able to find specific macros for protein and fat based on needs (medical conditions). That's where the whole keto-diet came from - originally catered for people with seizures.

Going low/no carb will cause exercise performance to suffer but is perfectly fine on days where your activity is low/minimum.

Certifiably wrong as hell? Hmmm. Right. Since you are a nutritionist. Go ahead buddy, tell us how he is wrong and you're right.