Excellent Critique of Good Calories, Bad Calories page

[MMH]

James Krieger really punches a lot of holes in Gary Taubes' book. This is definitely worth a read.
http://weightology.net/?p=265

[Suse]

Interesting. I've just received my copy of GCBC and am looking forward to weeks of reading it (it's heavy, I assume it will take me a while) Then I'll come back and have a look at what this guy is saying... Of course this guy you're peddling is a nutritionist, and I assume likes to follow the CW dogma. I think we'll find that both sides like to leave stuff out to make their hypotheses work...

[Stabby]

Yeah well clearly it's kind of incomplete and the "carbohydrate hypothesis" isn't quite good enough to stand on its own as the theory of obesity. There have to be multiple factors in place (the SAD, basically) and if you start out on a good foot carbs aren't necessarily going to make you fat, even if it's a large percentage of calories. But in the context of the SAD with downright terrible nutrient intake, polyunsaturate balance, and an influx of non-foods, chemicals, stress, and substance abuse it's a damn good place to start the healing. The vast majority of overweight people are highly insulin resistant by the very virtue that they have excess adipose tissue and they would have other factors contributing to their insulin resistance so to lose weight they should start out on a low carb, moderate protein, high good fat diet because otherwise they're just shooting themselves in the foot and impeding weight loss due to the whole carbs in, insulin explosion, massive de novo lipogenesis which in turn causes leptin resistance and elevated insulin disproportionate to energy available. Then the calories in calories out fervent and chronic exercise dorks will show some studies where they fed people 1200 calories a day for a couple of months and they lost weight and then point their fingers and go "look look calories do matter, the only way to lose weight is to consume less than you burn, etc" but that is a strawman because the idea of low carb is that you can lose tons of weight and become metabolically healthy while doing it instead of starving oneself without addressing the issues. We know that if you starve yourself you lose weight (fat and muscle) but it's stupid to do so without addressing HEALTH primarily.

Most people around here including myself laud Taubes for demolishing the lipid hypothesis and the notion that calories in calories out is the only way to lose weight. He demonstrates that people can do it without cutting calories and if you ask anyone who has tried caloric restriction they will tell you how miserable that kind of thing is. So this guy is a douche who needs to fall out of a window.

[Griff]

Meantime, applying Gary Taubes' observations to my life has resulted in a regularization of blood sugar and cholesterol numbers, a reduction of weight to the tune of 90+ pounds in 10 months, and a cessation of migraines, arthritis, and IBS. And I'm not the only person on this forum to have these kinds of results - quite the opposite, actually.

Sorry, no amount of hole-punching contradicts that kind of evidence. I call troll.

[Grol]

Kreiger has some very bizarre bone to pick here, but in the end if Taubes, Eades, Harris and co want to take him apart they will. Here's just one example of how biased Kreiger's cites are. (I've been reading him for months and he does not convince if you care to look at each man's cited research; though it does become a he said she said pissing match).

Kreiger uses this study with the following two hypotheses:

1. The first hypothesis is that fat is overeaten because it affects satiety and satiation less than carbohydrate. (I hope we all get a chuckle out of this garbage)

2. The second hypothesis is that the high energy density of fat facilitates its overconsumption.

So basically the only thing they considered in this study is that carbs are good and fats are bad, so why are fats bad. Terrible. This happens with study after study cited by Kreiger. What Kreiger completely avoided or evaded in his beat down was this bit from the study he cited.

On the other hand, the energy density of foods has been demonstrated to have a robust and significant effect on both satiety and satiation, independently of palatability and macronutrient content.

And we don't over consume if we eliminate the grains and sugars. People who eat fat, grains and sugars over consume. If you want to be high carb low fat, fine, but that's the debate that Kreiger is asking for, and when that happens, he loses very badly based on study after study after study.

[Allbeef Patty]

I'm not going to go through that piece by piece to take it apart, but the traditionally living Pima probably expend more energy because they have it. All I can say is that my weight loss experience supports what Taubes writes about. I exercise because I have more energy. I have more energy because my fat stores are being released rather than held on to. I exercise because I lose weight, not the other way around. The guy who is doing the critiquing sounds like someone who would advise Oprah, and we can all see how well that's working out for her. I'm down almost a hundred pounds.

[DarthFriendly]

He demonstrates that people can do it without cutting calories and if you ask anyone who has tried caloric restriction they will tell you how miserable that kind of thing is. So this guy is a douche who needs to fall out of a window.

a-Yup.

Lived 5 years on a raw vegan diet of 200-1200cal a day. If you can call that living. In the end I freaked out, and gained back all the weight I'd lost.

Doing it the primal way I feel quite stable.

...and if he doesn't fall out that window, he needs to be pushed.

[Stabby]

Force-push!

[Mirrorball]

Every criticism is spot on as far as I can tell. But if there is one theory that I hate even more than the stupid carbohydrate hypothesis is the theory that obesity is caused by "gluttony and sloth". Like Dr Lustig says, if six-month-old babies are fat nowadays, is it because they eat too much and don't exercise? It's ridiculous. There is something in the SAD that messes up our ability to regulate food intake and energy expenditure. The SAD makes me hungry all the time. I can lose weight while eating unlimited carbs from fruits and tubers. I can't lose weight while eating the processed crap that passes for food nowadays.

But definitely this current low-carb obsession that makes people quote from GCBC as if it was the bible has to die.

[DarthFriendly]

Another factor, that works hand in hand with SAD is the chemicalization of our environment. We're all constantly surrounded by house hold cleaners, plastics, off gassing building supplies, and home furnishings... Our living spaces are many, many times more chemicalized than even our grandparent's time.

Dr.Majid Ali talks about this quite a bit, and recommends a diet that's tangentially related to primal.

Force pushed, black magic, or demons... take your pick.