Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions

"Hollywood" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

1. Dietary fat doesn't cause obesity, heart problems, or other
chronic diseases of civilization.

I can buy this.

Quoted message said:

2. Yes, carbs are the real problem. It's in how they work with
insulin and therefore the entire hormonal regulatory system.

I think that depends. If carb consumption is out of line with activity
level, then there is a problem.

Quoted message said:

3. Sugar is the worst. We're talking table sugar and HFCS here. And
it's the duality of glucose+fructose that's the real killer (OJ
Simpson's quest for the real killers not withstanding).

Don't have a problem with this one, especially if they aren't burned off
quickly.

Quoted message said:

4. Carbs cause coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the
most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's, and other chronic
diseases of civilization.

Don't have a problem with this one, especially if they aren't burned off
quickly.

Quoted message said:

5. Being overweight/obese is a disorder of excess fat accumulation,
not overeating and not couching around. The "too much to eat and too
little movement causes fat folks to be fat" crowd has it backwards.
Being fat makes you couch around and overeat.

Well, this seems like the chicken and the egg thing.

Quoted message said:

6. Excess calories don't make you fatter. Excess energy use doesn't
lead to weight loss in the long term. It does lead to hunger.

I think the research is either not solid on this point or Taubes is wrong.
Note that a carb intake which might drive hormones out of balance can be
fixed by appropriate / heavy exercise. That's why people can lose weight on
a low-fat, high-carb diet. Too much food intake can create an anabolic state
within the body, as too little food intake can create a catabolic state
within the body. Insulin will follow those states. Exercise can affect
those states as well, either by lessening the anabolic state or by
increasing the degree of catabolism within the body.

If Taubes doesn't believe that excess calories don't make us fatter over
time, then he must point to evidence of significant human food energy
existing within our [censored].

Quoted message said:

7. Fattening is caused by an imbalance in the hormonal regulation
of fat tissue and fat metabolism. Fat creation and storage outpace fat
use. To get lean, you must get your hormones back into balance (i.e.
your insulin under control)

No problem there.

Quoted message said:

8. High insulin = fat goes into storage. Low insulin = an
environment where you can move fat out of fat cells.

No problem there.

Quoted message said:

9. Carbs stimulate insulin secretion, which leads to fat storage.
Fewer carbs = leaner us.

Where is exercise in the equation? It is well known that exercise can
influence this balance.

Quoted message said:

10. Carbs also make us hungry. If hunger/cravings are signals that
cells need nutrition and insulin is putting everything into storage,
you can imagine what chronic hyperinsulemia can do to your
"willpower". Carbs also make us move less, through the same fat
storage story. If you are chronically elevated, and your food is going
into storage, instead of use, the use cells will be starved and not
feel like doing anything. It's the same story, and it's the
explanation of why people have it backwards.

Well, I can buy this too, to a degree. He does say "chronically elevated"
though.

Quoted message said:

For the folks who maintain that it's the quantity of macronutrients
rather than the quality or that dietary fat is the enemy of
weightloss, I would like to see an alternative model that accounts for
the role of insulin vs. all other hormones in fat accumulation/fat
loss. I would like to see a hole punched in these "inescapable
conclusions" by Chung, Kaz, and all the other volume/calorie/fat
watchers out there who dismiss low carb, either as a calorie limiting
mechanism or as inferior to any other approach to weight loss.

Well, I don't see why one must use this as a reason to justify low carb.
This explains why we get fat : we generally eat too many carbs for our
activity level. Carbs aren't evil. They have a place. We engineer food to
taste good and we generally like to eat carbs and we slow down as we get
older (many of us slow down must quicker than others, too). We end up
getting fat. I can buy that too many carbs (relative to activity level)
creates a situation that makes us lazy, too.

Quoted message said:

For the rest of us, can we make this the Low Carb Equivalent of Martin
Luther's 95 Theses? The kind of thing we tack to the doors of our
local branches of the USDA, the AHA, both ADAs, local fitness
celebrities, etc? I live in the residential half of a complex that
houses the Diabetic ADA. I work about half a mile from USDA
headquarters. Are they in need of Martin Luther thesising?

No. It's about controling (or adjusting) carb consumption relative to your
activity level {What Atkins referred to later on a "controlled carb"
nutrition.}. It should be tacked to the doors of the ADA for sure however,
and perhaps the AHA since they seem to think fat is dangerous. They do have
it wrong, by and large, IMO, but a flat out "carbs are evil" statement
{which is what the above sounds like} is no better than "fat is evil". The
question about what is a healthy diet is critical here, though. Too many
carbs and too little activity is unhealthy. But so is too many calories and
too little activity. The latter may not be so easy to do compared to the
former if the calories are really low carb calories, but it is still more
true than false, IMO.

Thanks for the post.

x-no-archive: yes

Hollywood said:

7. Fattening is caused by an imbalance in the hormonal regulation
of fat tissue and fat metabolism. Fat creation and storage outpace fat
use. To get lean, you must get your hormones back into balance (i.e.
your insulin under control)

This is too narrow a view. Cortisol is implicated in obesity, upper
body fat storage, appetite control problems, and obesity even with
severe caloric restriction.

Quoted message said:

8. High insulin = fat goes into storage. Low insulin = an
environment where you can move fat out of fat cells.

Not if you're one of the many obese folks wiht HPA dysregulation or
subclimical/occult Cushing's syndrome. A large number of type 2 DMs
turn out to have this condition.

Quoted message said:

9. Carbs stimulate insulin secretion, which leads to fat storage.
Fewer carbs = leaner us.

Carbs inhibit cortisol binding globulin and steroid hormone synthesis by
inducing high insulin levels. This causes the body to compensate by
overproducing cortisol, which leads to pronounced upper body obesity,
and an unquenchable appetite.

Quoted message said:

For the folks who maintain that it's the quantity of macronutrients
rather than the quality or that dietary fat is the enemy of
weightloss, I would like to see an alternative model that accounts for
the role of insulin vs. all other hormones in fat accumulation/fat
loss. I would like to see a hole punched in these "inescapable
conclusions" by Chung, Kaz, and all the other volume/calorie/fat
watchers out there who dismiss low carb, either as a calorie limiting
mechanism or as inferior to any other approach to weight loss.

I'd like to see someone not treading over the same old narrow ground,
and considering the silent epidemic of subclinical hypercortisolemia,
which, btw, is common in the very obese, as a cause, IMO, not an effect.

Susan

Roger Zoul said:

"Hollywood" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

6. Excess calories don't make you fatter. Excess energy use doesn't
lead to weight loss in the long term. It does lead to hunger.

I think the research is either not solid on this point or Taubes is wrong.
Note that a carb intake which might drive hormones out of balance can be
fixed by appropriate / heavy exercise. That's why people can lose weight on
a low-fat, high-carb diet. Too much food intake can create an anabolic state
within the body, as too little food intake can create a catabolic state
within the body. Insulin will follow those states. Exercise can affect
those states as well, either by lessening the anabolic state or by
increasing the degree of catabolism within the body.

If Taubes doesn't believe that excess calories don't make us fatter over
time, then he must point to evidence of significant human food energy
existing within our [censored].

IIRC: He does point to [censored] calories. But it's more based on a
cellular
level conservation discussion than a macro, person level conservation
issue.
I found it compelling. I have not slacked in my exercise, either. I
don't know
that this is cognitive dissonance or just I like the other, non-weight
loss
things I get from exercise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

9. Carbs stimulate insulin secretion, which leads to fat storage.
Fewer carbs = leaner us.

Where is exercise in the equation? It is well known that exercise can
influence this balance.

If it's about the exercise lowering insulin/improving response, then
it fits
fine. If it's about exercise calories burning adipose tissue, well,
there's
room for discussion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

10. Carbs also make us hungry. If hunger/cravings are signals that
cells need nutrition and insulin is putting everything into storage,
you can imagine what chronic hyperinsulemia can do to your
"willpower". Carbs also make us move less, through the same fat
storage story. If you are chronically elevated, and your food is going
into storage, instead of use, the use cells will be starved and not
feel like doing anything. It's the same story, and it's the
explanation of why people have it backwards.

Well, I can buy this too, to a degree. He does say "chronically elevated"
though.

Don't recall as the book is at home. If I were going to start Martin
Luthering
the district, I think I'd quote the book directly. Maybe email Taubes
to see if
it'd be a problem. Of course, better to ask forgiveness than
permission.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the post.

No problem. Thanks for the response.

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Hollywood said:

7. Fattening is caused by an imbalance in the hormonal regulation
of fat tissue and fat metabolism. Fat creation and storage outpace fat
use. To get lean, you must get your hormones back into balance (i.e.
your insulin under control)

This is too narrow a view. Cortisol is implicated in obesity, upper
body fat storage, appetite control problems, and obesity even with
severe caloric restriction.

Is it the cortisol itself or is it some insulin related response to
the cortisol?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

8. High insulin = fat goes into storage. Low insulin = an
environment where you can move fat out of fat cells.

Not if you're one of the many obese folks wiht HPA dysregulation or
subclimical/occult Cushing's syndrome. A large number of type 2 DMs
turn out to have this condition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

9. Carbs stimulate insulin secretion, which leads to fat storage.
Fewer carbs = leaner us.

Carbs inhibit cortisol binding globulin and steroid hormone synthesis by
inducing high insulin levels. This causes the body to compensate by
overproducing cortisol, which leads to pronounced upper body obesity,
and an unquenchable appetite.

I don't have the science to dispute anything about cortisol (and don't
really
want it either), but I wonder if the cortisol-hunger relationship can
just
be explained through an insulin-nutrient removal (to storage)
mechanism
rather than a special status explanation as offered.

x-no-archive: yes

Hollywood said:

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Hollywood said:

7. Fattening is caused by an imbalance in the hormonal regulation
of fat tissue and fat metabolism. Fat creation and storage outpace fat
use. To get lean, you must get your hormones back into balance (i.e.
your insulin under control)

This is too narrow a view. Cortisol is implicated in obesity, upper
body fat storage, appetite control problems, and obesity even with
severe caloric restriction.

Is it the cortisol itself or is it some insulin related response to
the cortisol?

Oh, it's the cortisol! In my case, I'm type 2 DM with a fasting insulin
half the low end of normal. Many folks with hypercortisolemia develop
DM, and get rid of it with successful curative surgery. But you're
correct that it's never one hormone alone in any case. Cortisol raises
bg, and that triggers higher insulin. But cortisol triggers a somewhat
different fat distribution; upper body, yes, but with disproportionally
skinnier arms and legs, very often, and an especially pronounced under
the chin fat pad and neck roll, even in non obese hypercortisolemics,
frex. Red or blotchy face, too, at times, sandpapery skin on the face
and/or chest.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

8. High insulin = fat goes into storage. Low insulin = an
environment where you can move fat out of fat cells.

Not if you're one of the many obese folks wiht HPA dysregulation or
subclimical/occult Cushing's syndrome. A large number of type 2 DMs
turn out to have this condition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

9. Carbs stimulate insulin secretion, which leads to fat storage.
Fewer carbs = leaner us.

Carbs inhibit cortisol binding globulin and steroid hormone synthesis by
inducing high insulin levels. This causes the body to compensate by
overproducing cortisol, which leads to pronounced upper body obesity,
and an unquenchable appetite.

I don't have the science to dispute anything about cortisol (and don't
really
want it either), but I wonder if the cortisol-hunger relationship can
just
be explained through an insulin-nutrient removal (to storage)
mechanism
rather than a special status explanation as offered.

Cortisol drives hunger like I've never experienced before, and I suspect
it has everything to do with those of us who do not experience appetite
suppression at all with low carbing.

It's never just ONE hormone, they all readjust to compensate for each
other, but with a pituitary or adrenal tumor secreting excess ACTH and
cortisol, there's no predictability or rhyme or reason for the hormonal
secretion patterns.

Cortisol increases appetite, reduces LBM and bone density, raises bg and
therefore insulin (how's that for an obesity double whammy?) and
appetite, causes increased susceptibility to infections...

Susan

"Jackie Patti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Susan said:

It's never just ONE hormone, they all readjust to compensate for each
other, but with a pituitary or adrenal tumor secreting excess ACTH and
cortisol, there's no predictability or rhyme or reason for the hormonal
secretion patterns.

The problem with focusing on insulin is that there is no such thing as
just one hormone; the endocrine system is incredibly complex and operates
on feedback loops that change everything else in the system. It's not
about just insulin or just cortisol or just thyroid or just
estrogen/progesterone imbalance... it's all one system and you can't
change any individual bit of it without changing ALL of it. There is no
simplistic cause-and-effect in the endocrine system; everything is a cause
and everything is an effect and it goes on like that, wheels within
wheels.

I think the reason Taubes focuses on insulin is that's where most fo the
research has been done at the time of his work. It probably catches a good %
of the T2DM & obese out there, but certainly not all.

Quoted message said:

My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the stuff
we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and glucagon; it
sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of low-carb, though
much more well-organized than most. No one posting about it has said
anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into it very far yet, so
don't know if there will be more useful info or not.

I think his book is more about how we've come to this point of
understanding...with "researchers" having tunnel vision and all...not seeing
(or trying to see) the full picture and blindly slaving (or getting rich) at
finding prove for what they want to believe.
Well, at least in the first chapter.... 🙂

It may well be that from time to time the medical research needs to be
reviewed by objective external reviewer team. Heck, if Taubes can do it
than those with more formal and current research backgrounds can do so too.

Susan said:

It's never just ONE hormone, they all readjust to compensate for each
other, but with a pituitary or adrenal tumor secreting excess ACTH and
cortisol, there's no predictability or rhyme or reason for the hormonal
secretion patterns.

The problem with focusing on insulin is that there is no such thing as
just one hormone; the endocrine system is incredibly complex and
operates on feedback loops that change everything else in the system.
It's not about just insulin or just cortisol or just thyroid or just
estrogen/progesterone imbalance... it's all one system and you can't
change any individual bit of it without changing ALL of it. There is no
simplistic cause-and-effect in the endocrine system; everything is a
cause and everything is an effect and it goes on like that, wheels
within wheels.

My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the stuff
we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and glucagon; it
sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of low-carb,
though much more well-organized than most. No one posting about it has
said anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into it very far yet,
so don't know if there will be more useful info or not.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

x-no-archive: YES

Jackie Patti said:

Susan said:

It's never just ONE hormone, they all readjust to compensate for each
other, but with a pituitary or adrenal tumor secreting excess ACTH and
cortisol, there's no predictability or rhyme or reason for the
hormonal secretion patterns.

The problem with focusing on insulin is that there is no such thing as
just one hormone; the endocrine system is incredibly complex and
operates on feedback loops that change everything else in the system.
It's not about just insulin or just cortisol or just thyroid or just
estrogen/progesterone imbalance... it's all one system and you can't
change any individual bit of it without changing ALL of it. There is no
simplistic cause-and-effect in the endocrine system; everything is a
cause and everything is an effect and it goes on like that, wheels
within wheels.

My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the stuff
we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and glucagon; it
sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of low-carb,
though much more well-organized than most. No one posting about it has
said anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into it very far yet,
so don't know if there will be more useful info or not.

Actually, I don't think Taubes is strongest on the subject of diet and
insulin so much as he is with the history of the misuse of epidemiology
in developing clinical medical guidelines.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

I think the reason Taubes focuses on insulin is that's where most fo the
research has been done at the time of his work. It probably catches a good %
of the T2DM & obese out there, but certainly not all.

Not so, Roger. There's no shortage of research on cortisol, HPA axis or
Cushings, and even the role of cortisol in obesity. Even if there were,
if he'd done the most rudimentary study of endocrinology, he'd
understand that there is NO SUCH THING as just one hormone out of
whack, as Jackie and I both like to point out.

Quoted message said:

I think his book is more about how we've come to this point of
understanding...with "researchers" having tunnel vision and all...not seeing
(or trying to see) the full picture and blindly slaving (or getting rich) at
finding prove for what they want to believe.
Well, at least in the first chapter.... 🙂

He's very strong in his review of the epidemiology, from the bits I've
read, and he's spot on in this regard.

But both he and Gina Kolata got it wrong by not doing even a modicum of
endo research before staking out wrongheaded, tunnelvision positions.

Quoted message said:

It may well be that from time to time the medical research needs to be
reviewed by objective external reviewer team. Heck, if Taubes can do it
than those with more formal and current research backgrounds can do so too.

Taubes is supposed to BE that guy, but he cherry picked what suited him
and ignored a lot of what's true and can help.

Susan

Hollywood said:

For the rest of us, can we make this the Low Carb Equivalent of Martin
Luther's 95 Theses? The kind of thing we tack to the doors of our
local branches of the USDA, the AHA, both ADAs, local fitness
celebrities, etc? I live in the residential half of a complex that
houses the Diabetic ADA. I work about half a mile from USDA
headquarters. Are they in need of Martin Luther thesising?

Dr. Davis rants about the AHA the same way educated diabetics rant
against the ADA. A while back, his blog discussed the AHA logo on the
box of Cocoa Puffs:
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs.html

He summarized, "My advice: Until they change their tune, anything that
carries the endorsement of the American Heart Association should be
eliminated from your diet."

Personally, I noticed the box had one of those "whole grains" logos too.

The reason I keep referring to Dr. Davis is... he has his patients have
heart scans to actually measure their coronary plaque. Then he suggests
various dietary changes (cutting out wheat is primary and he isn't fond
of corn either), exercise, supplements and drugs as needed (he uses
drugs much less than most cardiologists), and the patients get lower
scores on subsequent heart scans.

He has found out what actually works to REVERSE coronary plaque, similar
to how Bernstein found what actually worked for controlling bg in diabetics.

He is somewhat anti-saturated fat, but he seems to be wavering on that
question to some degree. Like the Eades, he changes his mind when it
turns out to be useful. For example, his book suggests l-arginine
supplementaiton, but his blog has back-pedaled as he's noticed a lot of
patients improving their scores without using it.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

"Jackie Patti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul said:

"Jackie Patti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the stuff
we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and glucagon; it
sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of low-carb,
though much more well-organized than most. No one posting about it has
said anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into it very far yet,
so don't know if there will be more useful info or not.

I think his book is more about how we've come to this point of
understanding...with "researchers" having tunnel vision and all...not
seeing (or trying to see) the full picture and blindly slaving (or
getting rich) at finding prove for what they want to believe.
Well, at least in the first chapter.... 🙂

I'm not yet sure if there's anything actually *new* or even relatively
recent.

Maybe, the mainstream hasn't "got" the whole carb thing just yet, but the
relationship of sugar and insulin was well-established back when I was in
college a couple decades ago. And it goes back even further - farmers
have known to feed lots of corn to fatten pigs for one heck of a long
time.

It seems Taubes is largely preaching to the choir; selling a book to
low-carbers to justify why they do what they do. Is anyone besides us
reading this thing?

Well, that's going to be extremely hard for us here {LCers} to know.
However, I'd guess that since he has had some press that he might get some
non-LCers to read his book. Jim posted a "response" that some low-fat guy
wrote almost the day Taubes' book hit the stands.

Quoted message said:

Most people who mistake Cocoa Puffs for a heart-healthy whole grain are
not exactly gonna be the sort to work their way through a book of
research, so I'm not sure what good this book will do.

Well, those types don't do much beyond listen to 30-second sound bites
anyhow.

"Susan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

I think the reason Taubes focuses on insulin is that's where most fo the
research has been done at the time of his work. It probably catches a
good % of the T2DM & obese out there, but certainly not all.

Not so, Roger. There's no shortage of research on cortisol, HPA axis or
Cushings, and even the role of cortisol in obesity. Even if there were,
if he'd done the most rudimentary study of endocrinology, he'd understand
that there is NO SUCH THING as just one hormone out of whack, as Jackie
and I both like to point out.

I don't think he said that it was just insulin out of whack, though {I'm
still in the second chapter}. His putting the blame on insulin doesn't mean
that other hormones aren't thrown out of balance as well. Taubes is
certainly not the first to point a finger at insulin, either. So, on that
point I'll give him a break. His whole point, though, IMO, is that it's not
what they {the medical establishment} were saying it was. While he may have
overstepped appropriate bounds to try and pin down the problem, at least he
exposes the incredible lie. Oh, wait -- isn't he the "Big Fat Lie" guy? 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think his book is more about how we've come to this point of
understanding...with "researchers" having tunnel vision and all...not
seeing (or trying to see) the full picture and blindly slaving (or
getting rich) at finding prove for what they want to believe.
Well, at least in the first chapter.... 🙂

He's very strong in his review of the epidemiology, from the bits I've
read, and he's spot on in this regard.

But both he and Gina Kolata got it wrong by not doing even a modicum of
endo research before staking out wrongheaded, tunnelvision positions.

Well, what can you expect from a writer? He's not an MD, he doesn't do
science, etc. Hence, he probably had his own built in bias when he started
researching his book. He probably never bothered to follow *every* possible
road, because he likely didn't see all the possible connections. Hence, it
would not surprise me at all if Taubes is guilty of the exact same kind of
tunnel vision he finds in those researchers he exposes. Frankly, it's part
of the human condition and truth be told, none of us are free of it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It may well be that from time to time the medical research needs to be
reviewed by objective external reviewer team. Heck, if Taubes can do it
than those with more formal and current research backgrounds can do so
too.

Taubes is supposed to BE that guy, but he cherry picked what suited him
and ignored a lot of what's true and can help.

See above! It would have been nice if he had been that guy...but, honestly,
it was about exposing the lie and then, I guess, making some moolah! Or, he
simply didn't have the tools and/or time, to make the entire trip. Perhaps
you should e-mail him and set him upon the right path!

Roger Zoul said:

"Jackie Patti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the stuff
we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and glucagon; it
sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of low-carb, though
much more well-organized than most. No one posting about it has said
anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into it very far yet, so
don't know if there will be more useful info or not.

I think his book is more about how we've come to this point of
understanding...with "researchers" having tunnel vision and all...not seeing
(or trying to see) the full picture and blindly slaving (or getting rich) at
finding prove for what they want to believe.
Well, at least in the first chapter.... 🙂

I'm not yet sure if there's anything actually *new* or even relatively
recent.

Maybe, the mainstream hasn't "got" the whole carb thing just yet, but
the relationship of sugar and insulin was well-established back when I
was in college a couple decades ago. And it goes back even further -
farmers have known to feed lots of corn to fatten pigs for one heck of a
long time.

It seems Taubes is largely preaching to the choir; selling a book to
low-carbers to justify why they do what they do. Is anyone besides us
reading this thing?

Most people who mistake Cocoa Puffs for a heart-healthy whole grain are
not exactly gonna be the sort to work their way through a book of
research, so I'm not sure what good this book will do.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Zoul said:

"Jackie Patti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul said:

"Jackie Patti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the stuff
> we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and glucagon; it
> sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of low-carb,
> though much more well-organized than most. No one posting about it has
> said anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into it very far yet,
> so don't know if there will be more useful info or not.

I think his book is more about how we've come to this point of
understanding...with "researchers" having tunnel vision and all...not
seeing (or trying to see) the full picture and blindly slaving (or
getting rich) at finding prove for what they want to believe.
Well, at least in the first chapter.... 🙂

I'm not yet sure if there's anything actually *new* or even relatively
recent.

Maybe, the mainstream hasn't "got" the whole carb thing just yet, but the
relationship of sugar and insulin was well-established back when I was in
college a couple decades ago. And it goes back even further - farmers
have known to feed lots of corn to fatten pigs for one heck of a long
time.

It seems Taubes is largely preaching to the choir; selling a book to
low-carbers to justify why they do what they do. Is anyone besides us
reading this thing?

Well, that's going to be extremely hard for us here {LCers} to know.
However, I'd guess that since he has had some press that he might get some
non-LCers to read his book. Jim posted a "response" that some low-fat guy
wrote almost the day Taubes' book hit the stands.

There was a really nasty response in my local paper this morning, by a
Yale Medical School "expert" on obesity (an MD, no less). It really
amounted to him saying that he didn't *like* the book, because it
contradicted everything he'd been recommending, both to patients and in
popular columns.

--
"[[censored]] has very definite opinions, and does not suffer fools lightly.
This, apparently, upsets the fools."
---BB cuts to the pith of a flame-fest

"Alice Faber" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Zoul said:

"Jackie Patti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul wrote:
> "Jackie Patti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the
>> stuff
>> we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and glucagon; it
>> sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of low-carb,
>> though much more well-organized than most. No one posting about it
>> has
>> said anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into it very far
>> yet,
>> so don't know if there will be more useful info or not.
>
> I think his book is more about how we've come to this point of
> understanding...with "researchers" having tunnel vision and all...not
> seeing (or trying to see) the full picture and blindly slaving (or
> getting rich) at finding prove for what they want to believe.
> Well, at least in the first chapter.... 🙂

I'm not yet sure if there's anything actually *new* or even relatively
recent.

Maybe, the mainstream hasn't "got" the whole carb thing just yet, but
the
relationship of sugar and insulin was well-established back when I was
in
college a couple decades ago. And it goes back even further - farmers
have known to feed lots of corn to fatten pigs for one heck of a long
time.

It seems Taubes is largely preaching to the choir; selling a book to
low-carbers to justify why they do what they do. Is anyone besides us
reading this thing?

Well, that's going to be extremely hard for us here {LCers} to know.
However, I'd guess that since he has had some press that he might get
some
non-LCers to read his book. Jim posted a "response" that some low-fat guy
wrote almost the day Taubes' book hit the stands.

There was a really nasty response in my local paper this morning, by a
Yale Medical School "expert" on obesity (an MD, no less). It really
amounted to him saying that he didn't *like* the book, because it
contradicted everything he'd been recommending, both to patients and in
popular columns.

See...this is good...when folks read this...they might read the book, so
they can ask their doc what's up. Of course, s/he'll say Taubes is an
idiot...most people think their doctor walks on water if they like
h/im/er....

Roger Zoul said:

Quoted message said:

6. Excess calories don't make you fatter. Excess energy use doesn't
lead to weight loss in the long term. It does lead to hunger.

I think the research is either not solid on this point or Taubes is wrong.
Note that a carb intake which might drive hormones out of balance can be
fixed by appropriate / heavy exercise. That's why people can lose weight on
a low-fat, high-carb diet. Too much food intake can create an anabolic state
within the body, as too little food intake can create a catabolic state
within the body. Insulin will follow those states. Exercise can affect
those states as well, either by lessening the anabolic state or by
increasing the degree of catabolism within the body.

If Taubes doesn't believe that excess calories don't make us fatter over
time, then he must point to evidence of significant human food energy
existing within our [censored].

Remember that Taubes told the stories of the fat Japanese wrestlers,
with diets as high as 80% carbohydrates and fats below 15%. These guys
were over 300 pounds and consumed over 5,000 calories a day of "pork stew".

He told other stories.

The secret to excess calories piling on the pounds in his examples was
attributed to the high carbohydrate content (possibly the refined carb
content) of the excess calories. So, at least, is what I seem to have
read today.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

7. Fattening is caused by an imbalance in the hormonal regulation
of fat tissue and fat metabolism. Fat creation and storage outpace fat
use. To get lean, you must get your hormones back into balance (i.e.
your insulin under control)

No problem there.

Quoted message said:

8. High insulin = fat goes into storage. Low insulin = an
environment where you can move fat out of fat cells.

No problem there.

Quoted message said:

9. Carbs stimulate insulin secretion, which leads to fat storage.
Fewer carbs = leaner us.

Where is exercise in the equation? It is well known that exercise can
influence this balance.

Quoted message said:

10. Carbs also make us hungry. If hunger/cravings are signals that
cells need nutrition and insulin is putting everything into storage,
you can imagine what chronic hyperinsulemia can do to your
"willpower". Carbs also make us move less, through the same fat
storage story. If you are chronically elevated, and your food is going
into storage, instead of use, the use cells will be starved and not
feel like doing anything. It's the same story, and it's the
explanation of why people have it backwards.

Well, I can buy this too, to a degree. He does say "chronically elevated"
though.

Quoted message said:

For the folks who maintain that it's the quantity of macronutrients
rather than the quality or that dietary fat is the enemy of
weightloss, I would like to see an alternative model that accounts for
the role of insulin vs. all other hormones in fat accumulation/fat
loss. I would like to see a hole punched in these "inescapable
conclusions" by Chung, Kaz, and all the other volume/calorie/fat
watchers out there who dismiss low carb, either as a calorie limiting
mechanism or as inferior to any other approach to weight loss.

Well, I don't see why one must use this as a reason to justify low carb.
This explains why we get fat : we generally eat too many carbs for our
activity level. Carbs aren't evil. They have a place. We engineer food to
taste good and we generally like to eat carbs and we slow down as we get
older (many of us slow down must quicker than others, too). We end up
getting fat. I can buy that too many carbs (relative to activity level)
creates a situation that makes us lazy, too.

Quoted message said:

For the rest of us, can we make this the Low Carb Equivalent of Martin
Luther's 95 Theses? The kind of thing we tack to the doors of our
local branches of the USDA, the AHA, both ADAs, local fitness
celebrities, etc? I live in the residential half of a complex that
houses the Diabetic ADA. I work about half a mile from USDA
headquarters. Are they in need of Martin Luther thesising?

No. It's about controling (or adjusting) carb consumption relative to your
activity level {What Atkins referred to later on a "controlled carb"
nutrition.}. It should be tacked to the doors of the ADA for sure however,
and perhaps the AHA since they seem to think fat is dangerous. They do have
it wrong, by and large, IMO, but a flat out "carbs are evil" statement
{which is what the above sounds like} is no better than "fat is evil". The
question about what is a healthy diet is critical here, though. Too many
carbs and too little activity is unhealthy. But so is too many calories and
too little activity. The latter may not be so easy to do compared to the
former if the calories are really low carb calories, but it is still more
true than false, IMO.

Thanks for the post.

Jackie Patti said:

Roger Zoul said:

"Jackie Patti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My understanding is that Taubes book is primarily a review of the
stuff we've known for a long time about carb, fat, insulin and
glucagon; it sounds like it's primarily just a typical explanation of
low-carb, though much more well-organized than most. No one posting
about it has said anything unfamiliar or new yet. But I'm not into
it very far yet, so don't know if there will be more useful info or not.

I think his book is more about how we've come to this point of
understanding...with "researchers" having tunnel vision and all...not
seeing (or trying to see) the full picture and blindly slaving (or
getting rich) at finding prove for what they want to believe.
Well, at least in the first chapter.... 🙂

I'm not yet sure if there's anything actually *new* or even relatively
recent.

Taubes isn't a medical researcher, so he is at his best if he doesn't
produce anything " N E W ".

He is giving a very nice documentation of a hellovamess that evolved
over about 50 years. This is what Taubes does, and nobody has done this
that well so far.

Quoted message said:

Maybe, the mainstream hasn't "got" the whole carb thing just yet, but
the relationship of sugar and insulin was well-established back when I
was in college a couple decades ago. And it goes back even further -
farmers have known to feed lots of corn to fatten pigs for one heck of a
long time.

He says this in the book too.

Quoted message said:

It seems Taubes is largely preaching to the choir; selling a book to
low-carbers to justify why they do what they do. Is anyone besides us
reading this thing?

The average low-carber ain't gonna read this whole damn large exposition
of the medical research and the average low-carber ain't gonna care
about the logical errors and oversights so many prior "medical
authorities" have made.

This book is no way directed to the low carb audience at large.

You fail to see it because it doesn't meet your expectations, or your
"wish list".

Quoted message said:

Most people who mistake Cocoa Puffs for a heart-healthy whole grain are
not exactly gonna be the sort to work their way through a book of
research, so I'm not sure what good this book will do.

Alice Faber said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Zoul said:

"Jackie Patti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul wrote:

It seems Taubes is largely preaching to the choir; selling a book to
low-carbers to justify why they do what they do. Is anyone besides us
reading this thing?

Well, that's going to be extremely hard for us here {LCers} to know.
However, I'd guess that since he has had some press that he might get some
non-LCers to read his book. Jim posted a "response" that some low-fat guy
wrote almost the day Taubes' book hit the stands.

There was a really nasty response in my local paper this morning, by a
Yale Medical School "expert" on obesity (an MD, no less). It really
amounted to him saying that he didn't *like* the book, because it
contradicted everything he'd been recommending, both to patients and in
popular columns.

Hi Alice,

You got it !!!!

The book is a public massive exposition that says "Don't Trust You
Doctor Blindly On Diet".... and probably not to trust them blindly on
more than just diet either.

Thanks for expressing it so well.

Jim

"Jim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul said:

Quoted message said:

6. Excess calories don't make you fatter. Excess energy use doesn't
lead to weight loss in the long term. It does lead to hunger.

I think the research is either not solid on this point or Taubes is
wrong. Note that a carb intake which might drive hormones out of balance
can be fixed by appropriate / heavy exercise. That's why people can lose
weight on a low-fat, high-carb diet. Too much food intake can create an
anabolic state within the body, as too little food intake can create a
catabolic state within the body. Insulin will follow those states.
Exercise can affect those states as well, either by lessening the
anabolic state or by increasing the degree of catabolism within the body.

If Taubes doesn't believe that excess calories don't make us fatter over
time, then he must point to evidence of significant human food energy
existing within our [censored].

Remember that Taubes told the stories of the fat Japanese wrestlers, with
diets as high as 80% carbohydrates and fats below 15%. These guys were
over 300 pounds and consumed over 5,000 calories a day of "pork stew".

Well, it take some calories to be a 300 lb wrestler! I doubt one could be
successful in that endeavor for long on a 20 carb / day diet with similar
calories.

Quoted message said:

He told other stories.

The secret to excess calories piling on the pounds in his examples was
attributed to the high carbohydrate content (possibly the refined carb
content) of the excess calories. So, at least, is what I seem to have read
today.

I simply cannot accept the notion that 5000 calories a day of beef won't
make the normal person fat.
I do think that the carbs will pile the weight on quickly, though,
especially if they aren't burned. Heck, if you don't burn those carb
calories, you'll get lazy. Once the intake starts to exceed the burn, and
the fat starts piling on.

Low carb calories are very different, IMO. It will be very hard to
consistently eat 5000 LC kcals/day, IMO. {Usually, overeating on LC does
means carb creep, IME, which might make things different!} And while they
won't make you lazy per se, they won't allow you do lots and lots of
exercise, or significant high intensity exercise (relative measures that
depend on the person's weight and muscle mass).