Hello everyone. This is a re-post from another forum; however, I'm interested in what folks here have to say about Taubes's new book and the excerpt I mention below.
***
I guess I'll chime in since I finished reading my copy yesterday. I powered through it since I just bought it a couple of days ago, but I couldn't put it down. What I found really interesting is that from reading Dr. Ellis's two books Ultimate Diet Secrets and The Net Carb Scam covered a lot of the information that Taubes addresses. I found myself going back and forth between books because as I read Taubes's book, I would come across researchers and studies that Ellis had referred to. Also, the first section of the book reminded me a lot of what Anthony Colpo discussed in The Great Cholesterol Con. Nevertheless, it really made me happy that his book is being put out by a major publishing house because the history that he gives needs as much exposure as it can get. It may sound a bit hyperbolic, but if this book gets a lot of attention, it could really stir things up and have people asking questions, especially about the unproven belief that saturated fat and high cholesterol levels are responsible for obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc. when it more accurately should be directed towards carbs and sugar.
The weakest aspect of the book IMO is his reasoning why exercise doesn't cause you to lose weight and makes you hungry. He discusses this in chapter 14; however, it's not a convincing argument in light of his argument that hunger is regulated by hormonal and enzymatic controls. Since exercise is one way to lower insulin levels, besides diet, why would one be hungry when their blood is full of free fatty acids and ketones? Again, I'm assuming that the person is following a low-carb diet that he is talking about. If he is discussing that this hunger after exercise is seen in folks following the low-fat diet, then that's a different story and that should be clearly noted. Or maybe it was and I missed it.
The strongest point, besides the history and bibliography, is Taubes's twist on the laws of thermodynamics. Now, I'm definitely part of the energy balance equation school of thought, but I found his interpretation of the this equation very interesting and wanted to know what you guys thought:
from page 293
Full Version: Good Calories, Bad Calories
| QUOTE |
| ... This faith in the laws of thermodynamics is founded on two misinterpretations of thermodynamic law, and not in the law itself. When these misconceptions are corrected, they alter our perceptions of weight regulation and the forces at work. The first misconception is the assumption that an association implies cause and effect. Here the context is that first law of thermodynamics, the law of energy conservation. This law says that energy is neither created or destroyed, and so the calories we consume will be either stored, expended, or excreted. This in turn implies that any change in body weight must equal the difference between the calories we consume and the calories we expend, and thus the positive or negative energy balance. Knows as the energy balance equation, it looks like this: Change in energy stores = Energy intake - Energy expenditure The first law of thermodynamics dictates that weight gain--the increase in energy stored as fat and lean-tissue mass--will be accompanied by or associated with positive energy balance, but it does not say that it is caused by a positive energy balance--by "a plethora of calories," as Russell Cecil and Robert Loeb's 1951 Textbook of Medicine put it. There is no arrow of causality in the equation. It is equally possible, without violating this fundamental truth, for a change in the energy stores, the left side of the above equation, to be the driving force in cause and effect; some regulatory phenomenon could drive us to gain weight, which would in turn cause a positive energy balance--and thus overeating and/or sedentary behavior. Either waY, the calories in will equal the calories out, as they must, but what is cause in one case is effect in the other. All those who have insisted (and still do) that overeating and/or sedentary behavior must be the cause of obesity have done so on the basis of this same fundamental error: they will observe correctly that positive caloric balance must be associated with weight gain, but then they will assume without justification that positive caloric balance is the cause of weight gain. This simple misconception has led to a century of misguided obesity research. When the law of energy conservation is interpreted correctly, either of two possibilities is allowed. It may be true that overeating and/or physical inactivity (positive caloric balance) can cause overweight and obesity, but the evidence and the observations, as we've discussed, argue otherwise. The alternative hypothesis reserves the causality: we are driven to get fat by "primary metabolic or enzymatic defects," as Hilde Bruch phrased it, and this fattening process induces the compensatory responses of overeating and/or physical inactivity. We eat more, move less, and have less energy to expend because we are metabolically or hormonally driven to get fat. |
Muata
Muata:
I had the same thought when I read about the "lack of energy" but it seemed clear to me that he was talking about individuals on the types of diets involving the studies to which he referred.
Dr. Eades just posted on the energy equation as used in the book, here:
Karl Popper, Metabolic Advantage, and CBL57/6 Mice
Regards,
Charles
I had the same thought when I read about the "lack of energy" but it seemed clear to me that he was talking about individuals on the types of diets involving the studies to which he referred.
Dr. Eades just posted on the energy equation as used in the book, here:
Karl Popper, Metabolic Advantage, and CBL57/6 Mice
Regards,
Charles
Great article, Charles! Thanks!
If you look at the totality of what Taubes has offered with his book, then it is undeniable the conventional wisdom we have been led to believe regarding diet and health has been wrong--DEAD WRONG! That's a more important message for us to focus on rather than some petty squabbles over this and that point he makes.
The bottom line is we need a paradigm shift in thinking to take place and that can only happen in increments. Getting people to stop fearing fat is priority one in this debate which is why we should shine the light on the evidence about this as much as possible.
Taubes has done yeoman's work and should be lauded for what he has uncovered.
The bottom line is we need a paradigm shift in thinking to take place and that can only happen in increments. Getting people to stop fearing fat is priority one in this debate which is why we should shine the light on the evidence about this as much as possible.
Taubes has done yeoman's work and should be lauded for what he has uncovered.
Charles,
I can't thank you enough for telling me about Dr. Eades's latest post; it was really eye opening and the comment section was just as informative. OK, this is the comment that I posted and would love feedback from you guys because I really think that with the re-interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics, we are heading into a direction that will probably move beyond the debate of a metabolic advantage or not. Here's my post, let me know what you think. Thanks
***
(Epiphany alert) I think I’ve finally got it! Now, I have been one of the folks that don’t believe in any metabolic advantage (MA) of eating LC because the controlled metabolic studies don’t support this hypothesis; however, after reading this post, as well as devouring Taubes’s book, I think I finally have it. I think that many people don’t agree there is a metabolic advantage because it appears to violate the law of thermodynamics, and this is what I use to argue. OK, in light of another interpretation of the law which does not invalidate it, which you’ve discussed in your post, maybe the problem in the two camps (pro-MA & anti-MA) is a matter of semantics. If we accept that eating LC returns us to the diet that we evolved off as a species, then the healthful side effects of the diet (e.g., weight loss, more energy, etc.) happens not so much as a result of a metabolic advantage as it is a metabolic “restoration”. I hope I’m making sense since this is coming off the top of my head . . .
Great post.
I can't thank you enough for telling me about Dr. Eades's latest post; it was really eye opening and the comment section was just as informative. OK, this is the comment that I posted and would love feedback from you guys because I really think that with the re-interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics, we are heading into a direction that will probably move beyond the debate of a metabolic advantage or not. Here's my post, let me know what you think. Thanks
***
(Epiphany alert) I think I’ve finally got it! Now, I have been one of the folks that don’t believe in any metabolic advantage (MA) of eating LC because the controlled metabolic studies don’t support this hypothesis; however, after reading this post, as well as devouring Taubes’s book, I think I finally have it. I think that many people don’t agree there is a metabolic advantage because it appears to violate the law of thermodynamics, and this is what I use to argue. OK, in light of another interpretation of the law which does not invalidate it, which you’ve discussed in your post, maybe the problem in the two camps (pro-MA & anti-MA) is a matter of semantics. If we accept that eating LC returns us to the diet that we evolved off as a species, then the healthful side effects of the diet (e.g., weight loss, more energy, etc.) happens not so much as a result of a metabolic advantage as it is a metabolic “restoration”. I hope I’m making sense since this is coming off the top of my head . . .
Great post.
| QUOTE (mrlowbodyfat @ Oct 1 2007, 12:05 PM) |
| (Epiphany alert) I think I’ve finally got it! Now, I have been one of the folks that don’t believe in any metabolic advantage (MA) of eating LC because the controlled metabolic studies don’t support this hypothesis; however, after reading this post, as well as devouring Taubes’s book, I think I finally have it. I think that many people don’t agree there is a metabolic advantage because it appears to violate the law of thermodynamics, and this is what I use to argue. OK, in light of another interpretation of the law which does not invalidate it, which you’ve discussed in your post, maybe the problem in the two camps (pro-MA & anti-MA) is a matter of semantics. If we accept that eating LC returns us to the diet that we evolved off as a species, then the healthful side effects of the diet (e.g., weight loss, more energy, etc.) happens not so much as a result of a metabolic advantage as it is a metabolic “restoration”. I hope I’m making sense since this is coming off the top of my head . . . Great post. |
Muata, I think you ARE getting it now.
IMO, the pro-con MA camps are not as far off from each others positions as many of them tend to believe. The difference for the most part is in the definition. Even hard core "no advantage" people, if they are honest, have to concede that LC eating produces greater fat loss, better muscle sparing, and better cardio vascular benefits, and better blood lipids, even if calories are the same if not higher than LF eating.
The argument only arises when there's a disagreement as to the definition of what exactly the advantage is, and where it comes from.
My copy of Taubes' book is still in the mail...I'm waiting impatiently. Like you, I'm less than impressed by his position on exercise ( I just finished reading an excerpt of that chapter in New York Magazine), and it has me worried about how the rest of the book will be received by the public at large. No matter how many good things he has to say, if he can be so wrong about that one thing**, it makes it easy for people to dismiss the whole book outright.
**I said this before, and I'll say it again, I believe that Gary is being deliberately deceptive on this issue. The scientific literature doesn't even come close to backing up his claim, the references he gives on this subject are shotty at best, and the argument itself is very poorly constructed. It's completely unlike Gary's work on any topic before. This is a very smart guy, who KNOWS what he's talking about. That's why I think the deception is deliberate, I just can't see how there is any possible way that he actually believes what he wrote. IMO, his publisher probably pushed him to throw in something new and controversial just to drive book sales.
| QUOTE (Bryan @ Oct 1 2007, 02:34 PM) |
| The argument only arises when there's a disagreement as to the definition of what exactly the advantage is, and where it comes from. |
I think the argument only arises when weight loss slows or stops.
Weight management is on a continuum. When someone who has been 100 pounds overweight and has been GAINING 6 pounds a year on average since college, switches to low carb (eating the same amount of calories) and STOPS GAINING, they ARE experiencing that advantage.
If they lose 30 pounds and stall, they ARE experiencing an advantage! Maintaining a weight 30 pounds lighter while eating the same number of calories is a miraculous advantage and all one has to do is go back to eating carbs to realize how profound it was.
Stalling out doesn't prove that the MA doesn't exist...It proves that it does (otherwise you never would have lost enough to be able to say you stalled!.
It's also a totally separate subject as to whether you need to count calories but the conversations around here seem to morph into "MA exists so no need to count calories" or " MA does not exist so I don't need to count."
That’s like saying "My car gets great gas mileage so I never have look at the gas gauge.” It sort of misses the point.
Low carb works better than low fat. (Hence, a metabolic advantage exists or why do low carb at all?)
For some people, even LC with that metabolic advantage isn’t enough to pull off all the weight. (Hence some people need to count calories as well.)
It’s not an mutually exclusive situation.
Just my thoughts.
| QUOTE |
| It's also a totally separate subject as to whether you need to count calories but the conversations around here seem to morph into "MA exists so no need to count calories" or " MA does not exist so I don't need to count." |
Couldn't agree more, and even though I was in one camp, I never liked the "either/or" position, especially when I teach my basic composition students that this is a logical fallacy. LOL!
I know that I lost weight eating LC and not counting calories, just as many folks here; however, when I wanted to go further, I had to start counting my calories.
After reading Taubes's book and going back over Ellis's book, this could have happened because I'm an endomorph and how my body partitions the calories.
| QUOTE |
| That’s like saying "My car gets great gas mileage so I never have look at the gas gauge.” It sort of misses the point. |
Bro, I hope you don't mind me using this example because it's one that I believe anyone can understand.
| QUOTE |
For some people, even LC with that metabolic advantage isn’t enough to pull off all the weight. (Hence some people need to count calories as well.) It’s not an mutually exclusive situation. |
I couldn't agree more . . . thanks for your insight!
| QUOTE (mrlowbodyfat @ Oct 1 2007, 12:05 PM) |
| I can't thank you enough for telling me about Dr. Eades's latest post; it was really eye opening and the comment section was just as informative. If we accept that eating LC returns us to the diet that we evolved off as a species, then the healthful side effects of the diet (e.g., weight loss, more energy, etc.) happens not so much as a result of a metabolic advantage as it is a metabolic “restoration”. I hope I’m making sense since this is coming off the top of my head . . . |
You're very welcome. I think that is a very good observation that you've made. "Restorative" is more inline with my experience. The changes in body composition were more fascinating to me than the weight loss. I lost weight by cutting calories and eating low fat, but I did not get the body composition changes until I went low carb. Yes, I would agree with your assessment.
As far as exercise goes, I'd also have to agree with Gary Taubes. Hey, I lift weights and I run many miles, but I did not see great results until I changed my diet. I lifted and got hungrier until my weight crept up. I look back and I can honestly say it was much more diet than anything I've done. I haven't seen anything in that article or the book that implicates low carb diets, but as I've said, I think I eat practically the same amount of food now as when I was 30 or 40 pounds heavier. Perhaps its the weight lifting, but I eat really good for a little guy.
I also believe Gary Taubes that fat people don't eat any more than lean people. I know some lean people who can really put the food away, yet there are fat people who subsist on salads and diet coke. Check out that guy in Jimmy Moore's blog with the weight loss story. I really believe him when he details what he ate.
I also agree with Hogs Fan that people who have "stalled" are still experiencing what Muata would call a "restoration." I'm sure there is much cellular repair and many other benefits that are going on in the body that doesn't translate to the scale. The word "advantage" makes it sound like the two dietary approaches are equal, and the fact is that they are not. One is restorative and the other has the potential to make you go the other way because it starts all sorts of processes in the body which manifest themselves in the outward signs of obesity, to which we're all familiar.
Gary Taubes' main point in that chapter is that the one area that the "experts" have not looked at is the biological processes that lead people to behave in ways that we interpret as Obese behavior, such as overeating and sedentary lifestyles. But just looking at the outward signs doesn't answer the question as to "Why?" Why do the people overeat despite the fact that it is unhealthy (even though there are people who have healthy lipid profiles despite their excess weight). He shows us examples of rats, like the Zucker rat. This rat, even if starved from birth, will always be fatter than a lean mouse. Regardless of how you feed it, it will make fat out of its food. He shows how rats, when overfed, they purposely restrict their activities and have to be shocked in order to get on the exercise wheel. Once the biological process towards obesity has happened, it's like swimming uphill to reverse it and I believe the low carb diet is the best way to begin that process. There are starvation studies where humans exhibit the same behavior. When they restrict calories, their activity goes down, not up. When a person consumes more fat on a low carb diet, their energy level tends to go up until their bodies achieve a certain balance.
His point, Muata is that it could be possible that restoration for some people might indeed lead to more weight. The body does indeed balance the thermogenic equation, but that balance might come at a higher weight, thus the stall. If that is the case, there seems to be little that a person can do about it, without some biological change, or they come up with a way to alter that balance. Weight lifting on a regular basis seems to do that because we've created a situation that the body has to adapt to. I can do more pullups today than I could a few weeks ago, because I keep requiring my body to get stronger and adjust. However, I can't argue that this, in and of itself, causes weight loss. It makes me stronger, it makes me hungry.
What do you think of that?
Charles
All of you, thank you for an invigorating discussion. This is what an exchange of ideas is supposed to be. No one picked up their ball and went home because the game wasn't being played by his or her rules. No intimidation, no threats..just that fluid communication between open minds. When it is flowing, the words ring like music in the ears: every false note is heard, and every clear, bell like tone resonates and inspires awe. Please, play for us again soon. It was a symphony.
Chrysalis
Chrysalis
Great discussion!
Muata, you are looking great mate! Look forward to your more detailed blog post about Taubes book.
Muata, you are looking great mate! Look forward to your more detailed blog post about Taubes book.
| QUOTE (Bryan @ Oct 1 2007, 12:34 PM) |
| **I said this before, and I'll say it again, I believe that Gary is being deliberately deceptive on this issue. The scientific literature doesn't even come close to backing up his claim, the references he gives on this subject are shotty at best, and the argument itself is very poorly constructed. It's completely unlike Gary's work on any topic before. This is a very smart guy, who KNOWS what he's talking about. That's why I think the deception is deliberate, I just can't see how there is any possible way that he actually believes what he wrote. IMO, his publisher probably pushed him to throw in something new and controversial just to drive book sales. |
You may change your mind after you read the book. The scientific literature doesn't support the suggestion that exercise alone can reduce weight. Exercise and a change in diet can and does lead to weight reduction but the question is...what actually causes the weight loss?
Charles: I think that you're on to something my friend. What you said makes perfectly good, logical sense because this was my experience. I experienced the same thing with the stall, as you guys know. Looking at my stall from a different perspective, maintaining my lost weight for a year and not gaining was a sure sign of eating LC. Also, I remember reading in Audette's Neanderthin that it could take the body more than two years to reach it's final destination by just changing your diet, and that this will be accelerated if you exercise, which is something that Dr. Eades pointed out yesterday on his blog's comments section. One guy who, like me, wants to get ripped and have low BF and asked Dr. Eades what should he do. Eades told him that he'll have to count calories and carbs.
So, I really think that all the argument about an "advantage" or not has been basically semantics to a degree because, as you correctly pointed out IMO, both diets are not equal. I'm now taking the stance that just because we as a species can adapt to damn near any diet (e.g. low-fat, high fat & high carb, vegetarian, etc.) that doesn't mean that we should. I know I'm treading lightly on that one diet for everyone philosophy, but I'm just going by our body's biochemistry which I believe would apply to at least 85-90% of us.
Bro, you also bring up another good point that I'm not sure if Taubes's addressed specifically in his book--body compositon. I can't remember
Anyway, one of the best things about eating LC is that research has shown that it changes the body composition and cause a person to lose more body fat and preserve and build more muscle. I lost weight eating low-fat and taking weight loss pills and was absolutely soft as margarine! 
But, the total opposite is true now.
Chrysalis: I couldn't agree with you more.
Dave: Thanks for the compliment bro.
Taoschick & Brian: Actually, I agree with both of you. I re-read a chapter in Ellis's UDS last night titled, "How Physical Activity Affects Weight Loss" and he mentioned many of the studies that Taubes's does. Here's a quote from his chapter:
So, I really think that all the argument about an "advantage" or not has been basically semantics to a degree because, as you correctly pointed out IMO, both diets are not equal. I'm now taking the stance that just because we as a species can adapt to damn near any diet (e.g. low-fat, high fat & high carb, vegetarian, etc.) that doesn't mean that we should. I know I'm treading lightly on that one diet for everyone philosophy, but I'm just going by our body's biochemistry which I believe would apply to at least 85-90% of us.
Bro, you also bring up another good point that I'm not sure if Taubes's addressed specifically in his book--body compositon. I can't remember
Anyway, one of the best things about eating LC is that research has shown that it changes the body composition and cause a person to lose more body fat and preserve and build more muscle. I lost weight eating low-fat and taking weight loss pills and was absolutely soft as margarine! But, the total opposite is true now.Chrysalis: I couldn't agree with you more.
Dave: Thanks for the compliment bro.
Taoschick & Brian: Actually, I agree with both of you. I re-read a chapter in Ellis's UDS last night titled, "How Physical Activity Affects Weight Loss" and he mentioned many of the studies that Taubes's does. Here's a quote from his chapter:
| QUOTE |
| ...Exercise helps people lose weight if they do enough of it. Armed with the facts, people can say, "Well, I just can't exercise that much." They can accept that; it's their choice. However, scientists, of all people, should not hand-out misleading, generalized statements such as "Exercise doesn't help people lose weight," without clarifying what aspect of exercise doesn't contribute to weight loss. And that aspect is: the insufficiency of time invested in it, in exercise that is. These false claims cause people to reject the very thing that's of greatest cause for weight loss and weight control. |
He goes on to recommend that people do an hour of exercise a day that's equivalent to a "well paced walk". I'm really enjoying reading these books side by side because their arguments are very similar in many respects.
So, I believe Taubes's is right about the studies he mentions and their conclusions; however, what's interesting, and this is when I agree with Brian, the studies say that you can't maintain the weight loss from cutting calories and exercising (on a low-fat diet) which I can definitely relate to and I understand the biochemistry behind this now. Therefore, I think that the pushing of "exercise doesn't count" could be more of an attention getter to draw attention to his book because there are so many other aspects of his argument that he could have written an article on to promote this book, IMO.
What do you guys think?
Thanks . . .
Muata
| QUOTE (mrlowbodyfat @ Oct 2 2007, 07:42 AM) |
| Therefore, I think that the pushing of "exercise doesn't count" could be more of an attention getter to draw attention to his book because there are so many other aspects of his argument that he could have written an article on to promote this book, IMO. What do you guys think? |
Muata:
I think the last part of your comment sums up the reason for the New York Magazine article, The Scientist and the Stairmaster. He spends a great deal of time in that article attempting to debunk the myths of exercise in a general sense by stating such facts as how many calories one would have to burn to get rid of a single slice of bread or how much is burned by taking the stairs. From a thermogenic perspective, it's hard to disagree with that.
However, I think the point of his article which we all agree with is found only at the very end, where he suggests that the reason we get fat despite our best efforts to exercise is because we can't lay off the sugar. He subtly argues that diet has a far more reaching effect than how much exercise we do. To me, it's a shame that so little of that article dealt with that point. He really doesn't go into the effect that exercise brings when one is on such a diet.
We all would have enjoyed that!
Regards all,
Charles
Fascinating thread! Thanks. I agree with Chrysalis it is delightful.
Rozi
Rozi
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
