Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was reading Taubs' "Why we get fat" this morning and found this

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Maybe I should clarify:

    High carb makes me fat, and no one wants to see that naked.

    Moderate carb makes me mentally healthy with a good attitude and a reasonably decent body.

    Low carb makes me into a obnoxious, critical, irritable shrew, and I don't care how lean I get, no one wants to see a raging bitch naked. At least not without earplugs.
    Durp.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by RitaRose View Post
      Maybe I should clarify:

      High carb makes me fat, and no one wants to see that naked.

      Moderate carb makes me mentally healthy with a good attitude and a reasonably decent body.

      Low carb makes me into a obnoxious, critical, irritable shrew, and I don't care how lean I get, no one wants to see a raging bitch naked. At least not without earplugs.
      Lol! This has to be the best explanation I've ever seen for why I don't do VLC.
      “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

      Owly's Journal

      Comment


      • #18
        Also note...

        Magic, I'm not sure that your assertion is entirely correct. When calories are controlled in studies comparing low-carbohydrate and high-carbohydrate diets, there are significant differences in weight loss. In the 4-8 weeks studies, it is on the order of around 10 pounds. I do not have the studies on hand, but would be happy to look them up if you give me a few days -- I'm about to go out of town and will not have the time in the immediate future. If I remember correctly, there is at least one dating back to the 1960s -- however, that could be the study in which the low-carbohydrate group self-regulated their caloric intake. Nevertheless, there was recently a preliminary communication in the Journal of the American Medical Association which very decisively illustrated that individuals on a low-carbohydrate diet burned, on average, 300 more calories per day than individuals on a high-carbohydrate diet. In other words, there is a description of weight loss by HFLC in an isocaloric diet comparison. I'm sure that further confirmation will be both required and provided; however, there is a big difference in weight loss "between people eating HFLC vs LFHC." There is, of course, more to the story than my half-assed summary, Again, that was in the Journal of the American Medical Association, from June 27, 2012. The article is entitled, "Effects of dietary composition on energy expenditure during weight-loss maintenance," Ebbeling et al. Have a great night!

        Edit: Also note that the total amount of exercise between the groups in the study was kept constant. Basically, all things being as equal as possible, those individuals on a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet will burn significantly more calories per day than any other study group. Does that equate to increased weight loss? Probably, but more data is required. Was fun, good night!
        Last edited by GeoMike; 07-23-2012, 08:44 PM. Reason: Forgot to clarify the exercise issue.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by GeoMike View Post
          Magic, I'm not sure that your assertion is entirely correct.
          It's entirely possible that I'm wrong. I was going off of this post by Anthony Colpo eviscerating Dr Michael Eades (who *does* think that there is a low carb metabolic advantage).

          I find Anthony Colpo credible as a source, because he presents his facts in a transparent way that makes it easy to call him on his BS (hint: there isn't any aside from the schoolyard bullying). He has such an inflammatory style that I would imagine that Dr Eades would be all over any errors in his post.
          Last edited by magicmerl; 07-23-2012, 09:36 PM.
          Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

          Griff's cholesterol primer
          5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
          Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
          TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
          bloodorchid is always right

          Comment


          • #20
            Hi again. I couldn't sleep so I read the blog posts and the articles cited therein suggested by you, magicmerl. I was not very impressed by either side of the argument. It was clear, however, that Anthony Colpo did not know or realize that many of the studies he cited were not isocaloric studies, but, rather, were caloric-adjusted. It seemed as though he had some difficulty interpreting the data. I did think that Dr. Eades's argument was less than spectacular as well. That being said, and although I did appreciate the link, I will not likely be reading more of Mr. Colpo's work as I did, indeed, find it incredibly inflammatory and executed in an extremely petty manner. I realize that he may have been making an attempt at humor or trying to suggest an ironic, tough-guy facade -- it's just not for me. I would hazard a guess that this Dr. Eades has not responded because it is not worth his time.

            Plus, while browsing his website I found that he has some sort of ongoing legal dispute with that 30 Bananas guy as well as others. I don't want to be involved in any sort in any sort of online discussion involving the points of view of any of those people. I had read a number of studies, including the most recent article that I posted information about, that suggested that true isocaloric comparisons of diet types do reveal increased weight loss in low-carbohydrate diets. I'd be happy to try to find those citations, but that's about as far as I'd like to take it. I have no strong opinion either way and my only veseted interest is in my own health -- which has, coincidentally, improved dramatically while following Mark Sisson's suggestions. So, thanks again for the links, it was nice to see vigorous discussion on the topic, but not my style. If I find those citations again, I'll post them. Good night for real this time all!

            Comment


            • #21
              Ummm...thanks for clarifying!

              Comment


              • #22
                Yeah, I just can't take Colpo seriously for a goddamned thing. The man is too plainly butthurt. And I'm afraid I might strain something with the exaggerated spontaneous eyerolls his writing induces. He could be 100% right, but if the man can't state facts simply and directly without screaming in my face how stupid somebody else's ideas are...meh.

                The whole Eades/Colpo thing is a silly interwebs flounce designed to increase Colpo's readership. Fail, in my case.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by GeoMike View Post
                  I will not likely be reading more of Mr. Colpo's work as I did, indeed, find it incredibly inflammatory and executed in an extremely petty manner. I realize that he may have been making an attempt at humor or trying to suggest an ironic, tough-guy facade -- it's just not for me. I would hazard a guess that this Dr. Eades has not responded because it is not worth his time.
                  I agree. Also I think Colpo may be going after a really big homemade strawman there. Dr Eades is not a strong proponent of any magical metabolical advantage. This is from his blog.


                  The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D. » Low-carb and calories

                  "On a low-carb diet your body burns fat for energy. But it doesn’t care where this fat comes from; it can come from the diet or it can come from the fat cells or it can come from both. If you are consuming enough fat to meet all your body’s requirements, your body won’t go after the fat in the fat cells no matter how severely you restrict your carbs. You will burn dietary fat only and no body fat. And you won’t lose weight. It’s that simple.

                  It has been shown countless times that when people go on low-carb diets they spontaneously reduce their caloric intake. Most foods available on low-carbohydrate diets are satiating and those following these diets get full quickly. They just don’t eat that many calories. In most studies of low-carb diets people drop their caloric intake down to the 1500-1700 kcal range and are quite satisfied. At that level of caloric intake, they need a fair amount of their own body fat to make up the difference between their dietary intake and the 2400-2600 kcal (or more) that they burn every day. As they consume this body fat, they lose weight."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by OneDeltaTenTango View Post
                    What Taubes got right is that all of the correlative, epidemiological diet studies kept barking up the wrong trees with reallypoor study designs.

                    What he got wrong is over simplifyinging the issue to carbs/insulin. His writings would be more valuable if he did an auto-replace to change every instance of "insulin" to "a suite of interacting metabolic hormones"
                    Lambchops, I agree with this as the best clarification possible. Taubes wasn't wrong, just too simplified. His first book, Good Calories, Bad Calories went into a lot more detail and a lot more scientific evidence. The follow up book, Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It, is kind of the Cliff's Notes version of GCBC.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                      Lambchops, I agree with this as the best clarification possible. Taubes wasn't wrong, just too simplified. His first book, Good Calories, Bad Calories went into a lot more detail and a lot more scientific evidence. The follow up book, Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It, is kind of the Cliff's Notes version of GCBC.
                      PB, do you think that this review of the book is accurate?

                      Or how about a couple of low carb proponents, Yoni Freedhoff and Carbsanity. They both agree with the idea that saturated fat is not bad, low carb is good. Yet they strongly disagree with the arguements put forward by Taubes explaining them.
                      Last edited by magicmerl; 07-24-2012, 02:47 PM.
                      Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                      Griff's cholesterol primer
                      5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                      Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                      TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                      bloodorchid is always right

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
                        PB, do you think that this review of the book is accurate?

                        Or how about a couple of low carb proponents, Yoni Freedhoff and Carbsanity. They both agree with the idea that saturated fat is not bad, low carb is good. Yet they strongly disagree with the arguements put forward by Taubes explaining them.
                        Interesting reviews. The first two basically deal with what I said in my calorie counting threads. Both the quality and the quantity are important. You can't just eat unlimited amounts of Primally "perfect" food and not gain weight. The first review lost my interest a bit when it started in quoting the China Study.
                        The third review was lambasting Taubes for not being accurate in some of his references (e.g.the Pima diet). I haven't fact checked everything Taubes wrote so I can't speak to that.

                        Basically, I think he got a big part of the puzzle and put it in place for us. The fact that he didn't get the whole puzzle is not a reason to vilify him. I don't think anybody has the whole puzzle figured out. That's why we are all still here investigating.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by magicmerl View Post

                          When calories are strictly controlled there is NO difference in weight loss between people eating HFLC vs LFHC.
                          That is not necessarily true. I have strictly counted calories for longer than I care to remember. More recently, the last 3 months I have tracked and weighed everything. The month just gone, I averaged the same calories in (and out, via exercise) that I did the previous 2 months. However, by going low carb, I lost 2.6kg and 8.5cm. So, macros do make a difference.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I think I follow now, thanks.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              If you reduce carbs, you may very well reduce calories because (for eg.) a hunk o' steak fills you up more than air bread.

                              If you reduce calories, you may well reduce carbs because if you want any nutrients at all, you won't "waste" your calories on things like (for eg.) air bread.

                              There are certainly things to learn about diet, and people study extensively to try and figure out the optimal diet for us all. In the few months I've been reading, learning, etc., I've learned tons about soy, grains, beans, etc., that I didn't know before. Especially about the evil corn conspiracy.

                              Eat as you move (iow, if you don't move much, you can't eat boatloads). Don't eat out of boxes, cans, or any eating establishment that is a chain. Shop the outside of the grocery store (produce, butcher, etc.), and don't shop much from the aisles of pretty boxed foods. If possible eat locally sourced food so you don't leave a lot of nutrients in the trucks that carry the food. Take a day off from eating once in awhile. Eat too much once in awhile. Sleep. Don't believe much that the government tells you about health - they've been bought off. In fact, don't blindly believe any one health guru.

                              Know your own body. If lower carbs gets you into that size two denim skirt, go for it. If you can do it on cakes and cookies, well, you're not reading this thread anyway.
                              "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                              B*tch-lite

                              Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Just remember that lots of people believe that automatic appetite control (isn't ghrelin a metabolic hormone?) and spontaneous calorie reduction (because you should manage your calories with willpower) aren't metabolic advantages.
                                Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X