Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Excellent Critique of Good Calories, Bad Calories

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

  • #16
    What are you confused about? Taubes reached when he blamed carbs for the obesity epidemic. He included the hfcs issue and he discussed the increase in portions and calories, but had he balanced the 3, well, he would have been more balanced. None of those flaws have one iota to do with the diet recommendations which are probably spot on for 95% of us.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Grol View Post
      What are you confused about? Taubes reached when he blamed carbs for the obesity epidemic. He included the hfcs issue and he discussed the increase in portions and calories, but had he balanced the 3, well, he would have been more balanced. None of those flaws have one iota to do with the diet recommendations which are probably spot on for 95% of us.
      HFCS replacing sugar in soft drinks correlates chronologically with onset of the obesity epidemic as does the official low fat diet recommendations. My confusion is that the original poster suggested that none of Taubes' assertions were correct, hence Primal Blueprint wouldn't be correct (at least in terms of limiting carbs for fat loss/weight maintenance) Taubes, btw, does discuss genetic predisposition to fatness.
      www.KataStrength.blogspot.com
      Free the Kettlebell

      Comment


      • #18
        Therefore replacing HFCS with regular sugar would have quelled the current obesity epidemic........plus the consumption of HFCS has reduced since '99 with no effect on the upward trend of obesity currently. Maybe there's something other than carbs that is causing this....maybe it's over consumption; we are eating more as a nation, less activity as a whole, computer seat time for a number of leisurely reasons. Eating real food in moderation and getting regular exercise doesn't sell books, but a good scientific horror story does......and why let a little thing like controlled studies and common sense get in the way.

        http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/88/6/1716S

        http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/139/6/1219S
        Last edited by Chefgerry; 06-28-2010, 09:03 AM.
        Whether you think you can..... or you think you can't..... your 100 % correct.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Chefgerry View Post
          Therefore replacing HFCS with regular sugar would have quelled the current obesity epidemic........plus the consumption of HFCS has reduced since '99 with no effect on the upward trend of obesity currently. Maybe there's something other than carbs that is causing this....maybe it's over consumption; we are eating more as a nation, less activity as a whole, computer seat time for a number of leisurely reasons. Eating real food in moderation and getting regular exercise doesn't sell books, but a good scientific horror story does......and why let a little thing like controlled studies and common sense get in the way.

          http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/88/6/1716S

          http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/139/6/1219S
          Actually soft drink consumption (which uses HFCS primarily) grew by 135% from 1977 to 2001. A large fraction of that growth is due to kids' increased consumption. What is the fastest growing segment of the fattening population? Oh - kids. Really? Amazing. (BTW, fructose whether natural or frankensweet HCFS is very hard on the liver, responsible for elevating circulating LDL and VLDL, fatty liver, etc. Regular sugar doesn't do that.)

          In the mid-19th century. Americans were the tallest people on the planet, but relatively underweight. Now we are shorter than Europeans and 66% of us are actually fat while 33% are clinically obese. So while there may be other factors (genetics among them) what we are eating compared to the 1850s certainly has an impact.

          Taubes does a good job of presenting controlled work done pre-war that clearly demonstrates high carb association with obesity and the futility of exercise to have an effect on treating the already obese. Even the NHA/ACSM agree that more exercise isn't a cure for fatness. More people are active in the US than ever before, yet obesity still presents a problem.

          Mr.Sisson might find it distressing that in your opinion "eating real food in moderation and getting regular exercise" doesn't sell books, but even Primal Blueprint disputes the Calories In Calories Out as a sole explanation for fatness and it certainly embraces the high carb explanation as a major contributor to fatness.
          www.KataStrength.blogspot.com
          Free the Kettlebell

          Comment


          • #20
            What pre-war controlled studies are you referring to? I wonder what's wrong with current research?
            Last edited by Chefgerry; 06-28-2010, 01:03 PM.
            Whether you think you can..... or you think you can't..... your 100 % correct.

            Comment


            • #21
              couch handy, regular sugar is 50% fructose.
              Height: 5'4" (1.62 m)
              Starting weight (09/2009): 200 lb (90.6 kg)
              No longer overweight (08/2010): 145 lb (65.6 kg)
              Current weight (01/2012): 127 lb (57.5 kg)

              Comment


              • #22
                Some things to consider. Since the low fat hypothesis came out in the US, fat consumption actually went up. But refined carb consumption went up even more and the population is less active than ever inspite of what one poster above says. 35 years ago you had to get up to change channels, you would walk to the corner store - now we drive everywhere. We hire maids to clean the house and peopel to walk our dogs. We are more likely to work at a desk job. There wasn't a fast food restaurant on every corner - people actually ate most of their meals at home - most people had gardens etc etc.
                Whether Taubes is right or wrong, i found his book very poorly researched and very lopsided. he had a real agenda to push so he ignored research that proved him wrong and made some really bizarre statements (none that I can recall off hand) I remember being very disappointed.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Mirrorball View Post
                  couch handy, regular sugar is 50% fructose.
                  Yes, sucrose, a disaccharide, is 50/50 glucose and fructose. HFCS used in soft drinks is 55% fructose/45% glucose and are composed of two monosaccharides. Sucrose and HFCS digest differently.
                  Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain
                  www.KataStrength.blogspot.com
                  Free the Kettlebell

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Chefgerry View Post
                    What pre-war controlled studies are you referring to? I wonder what's wrong with current research?
                    So you haven't actually read Good Calories Bad Calories, then? If you had, you would know that pre-war Austrian and German obesity researchers had pretty much settled the science over the causes and effective treatment of obesity. The trouble with much of the contemporary science is, there isn't much that actually supports calories-in calories out or any of the public health policy that promotes it. (IIRC, there are only two papers from the 50s, the results of which have never been duplicated, that support the CICO hypothesis)

                    This is a good primer.

                    Lustig's "Sugar: the Bitter Truth" lecture
                    if you don't want to take Taube's (a mere science writer) word for it.
                    Last edited by couch handy; 06-29-2010, 07:09 AM.
                    www.KataStrength.blogspot.com
                    Free the Kettlebell

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Wow...

                      Lustig is even worse than Taubes for cherry picking data.

                      http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...tose-alarmism/

                      Fat is not the Boogey Man.

                      CHO is not the Boogey Man.

                      Fructose is not the Boogey Man.

                      Insulin is not the Boogey Man.

                      There is NO Boogey Man.
                      Don't be a paleotard...

                      http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...oxidation.html

                      http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...torage-qa.html

                      http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...rn-fat-qa.html

                      http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...-you-need.html

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        "Actually soft drink consumption (which uses HFCS primarily) grew by 135% from 1977 to 2001. A large fraction of that growth is due to kids' increased consumption. What is the fastest growing segment of the fattening population? Oh - kids. Really? Amazing. (BTW, fructose whether natural or frankensweet HCFS is very hard on the liver, responsible for elevating circulating LDL and VLDL, fatty liver, etc. Regular sugar doesn't do that.)"

                        Regular sugar does do this.

                        Even if the soda was sweetened with sugar obesity would have risen. The increase in soda represents an increase in calories since soda does not replace another calorie source. If soda replaced another source of sugar calories there would have been no increase of obesity.
                        Don't be a paleotard...

                        http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...oxidation.html

                        http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...torage-qa.html

                        http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...rn-fat-qa.html

                        http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...-you-need.html

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Thanks for the feedback. I see this place is primal in more ways than one. Does rubbing two sticks together cause fire? Please discuss.
                          www.KataStrength.blogspot.com
                          Free the Kettlebell

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by couch handy View Post
                            So you haven't actually read Good Calories Bad Calories, then? If you had, you would know that pre-war Austrian and German obesity researchers had pretty much settled the science over the causes and effective treatment of obesity. The trouble with much of the contemporary science is, there isn't much that actually supports calories-in calories out or any of the public health policy that promotes it. (IIRC, there are only two papers from the 50s, the results of which have never been duplicated, that support the CICO hypothesis)

                            This is a good primer.

                            Lustig's "Sugar: the Bitter Truth" lecture
                            if you don't want to take Taube's (a mere science writer) word for it.
                            No, I though you might produce the studies......anyway those studies and all studies where self reporting of food consumed could never be used as scientific proof and the foundation for any hypothesis where caloric intake is in question. Personally I think sticking his head in the sand and cherry picking his study material in this manner is more in line with his journalistic background and only proves he's no scientist....not even close.
                            Whether you think you can..... or you think you can't..... your 100 % correct.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I'm down 93 pounds. I know how I got there.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I am just saying that because of Taubes misleading research there are alot of people who have somehow interperted what he has to say as "Eat as much fat as you want and lose weight!".

                                This is simply not what is happening. It's still about calories.
                                Don't be a paleotard...

                                http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...oxidation.html

                                http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...torage-qa.html

                                http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...rn-fat-qa.html

                                http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...-you-need.html

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X