View Poll Results: Do you subscribe to Gary Taubes's alternative hypothesis of obesity?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    28 40.58%
  • No

    17 24.64%
  • Eh, kinda

    24 34.78%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Do you subscribe to Gary Taubes's alternative hypothesis of obesity? page 2

  1. #11
    paleo-bunny's Avatar
    paleo-bunny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SW England, UK
    Posts
    2,667
    Shop Now
    It's multifactorial - the body doesn't need so many carbs or calories full stop when it's completely sedentary most of the time and wrapped in cotton wool.

    Reduced physical activity due to mod cons and central heating are obvious interdependent factors in causing the current obesity epidemic.

    That said I believe that the demonization of saturated fat along with promotion of PUFAs and excess carb consumption, in particular fructose, are the leading dietary causes of the current obesity epidemic.

    It's obviously not true that everyone needs to go on a very low carb diet in order to rectify these problems, however, I believe that consuming carbs in moderation in line with physical activity is key.
    F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

  2. #12
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,134
    It's definitely part of the picture. Not a stand alone all encompassing thing, but not many hypothesis are.

  3. #13
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    798
    Shockingly low voter turnout. Don't be shy, Gary won't see this.

  4. #14
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    929
    I voted Eh, Kinda
    Because I'm not fully up to speed on his theory, just read an overview and he has the Sugar/Carb as the guilty party, which seems to be the same as the majority of alternative theories on obesity, but all has not been revealed yet.
    Like I read somewhere else just because there is an observational relationship doesn't mean it is causal, there are hundreds of factors that have changed in line with obesity in the Western world, we all know about the vegetable oil thing, but one could easily argue that Soy, low fat products, Artificial sweeteners, Internet, Computers, Cars, Mobile Phones etc. etc. their usage increased over the same period, so any of them may be the cause of obesity.
    For the science as we know it, it seems to point mostly towards the Sugar/Carbs and to a lesser degree other dietary factors like Vegetable oils, but nothing is for certain yet.

  5. #15
    OneDeltaTenTango's Avatar
    OneDeltaTenTango is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    861
    I thought GCBC was quite influential. The biggest accomplishment of the book was pulling the curtain back on the whole body of work masquerading as science that has driven the conventional approach to weight management and diet. That said, there is clearly more going on than carbs and insulin. If Taubes has replaced the word 'insulin' with 'a host of interacting metabolic hormones', then people would have and less problem with the book. Of course, the book would have gotten even longer if he had done that.

  6. #16
    jsa23's Avatar
    jsa23 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    347
    Quote Originally Posted by Apex Predator View Post
    It may be one factor in some cases, but that's about it.
    Yep. Obesity is a complex, multifactorial problem. Anyone who tries to focus too much of the blame on a single element is probably going to miss other aspects that contribute. The Carb/Insulin Hypothesis, Food Reward, and other hypotheses all have their place, and from individual to individual the relative influence of different factors may vary. I think Taubes' efforts to shine light on an alternative hypothesis to mainstream nutritional dogma definitely have value, but sometimes people take his writing a step or two too far, and completely dismiss other contributing factors to obesity.
    Last edited by jsa23; 06-17-2012 at 07:37 AM.

  7. #17
    lssanjose's Avatar
    lssanjose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tigard, OR
    Posts
    1,491
    I think he prefaced the issue itself early on in the book by saying it was a multi-factored issue. I think he was more or less directing his effort against the longstanding hypothesis of saturated fat being the demon it's been portrayed.
    If you have a problem with what you read: 1. Get a dictionary 2. Don't read it 3. Grow up 4. After 3, go back to 1/ or 2. -- Dennis Blue. | "I don't care about your opinion, only your analysis"- Professor Calabrese. | "Life is more important than _______" - Drew | I eat animals that eat vegetables -- Matt Millen, former NFL Linebacker. | "This country is built on sugar & shit that comes in a box marinated in gluten - abc123

  8. #18
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by lssanjose View Post
    I think he prefaced the issue itself early on in the book by saying it was a multi-factored issue. I think he was more or less directing his effort against the longstanding hypothesis of saturated fat being the demon it's been portrayed.
    Yes, he did. Anyone who keeps repeating the "Taubes is all about teh evil insulinz" line is just parroting a line from a blog who got their info from a Cliffs Notes summary or from yet another blog. If one bothers to actually read the book, this is obviously not the case.

  9. #19
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,134
    Quote Originally Posted by lssanjose View Post
    I think he prefaced the issue itself early on in the book by saying it was a multi-factored issue. I think he was more or less directing his effort against the longstanding hypothesis of saturated fat being the demon it's been portrayed.
    Good point.

  10. #20
    primalswan's Avatar
    primalswan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    126
    I have lost 15- 25 lbs 3 times in my life. The first time I was in my late teens and I did it the CW way. Took me 4-5 months, I was miserably hungry and obsessed with food. If I was awake I was counting the hours until my next meal/snack. The second time was in my late 20's with Atkins. I dropped 15 lbs in about 2 months and stuck with low carb for about a year until I got pregnant and I could no longer tolerate all the low carb replacements I was eating. This time I restricted my carbs based on Mark's curve and ate Paleo. I have dropped about 25 lbs in 3 months. I eat anywhere from 1400-1800 calories a day, vs the 1200 a day on CW (AND I was exercising a lot!) So for me, my body seems to subscribe perfectly to his theory. I upped my carbs last month to the 75-100g/day level because I was having heart palpitations when eating VLC. My weight loss has slowed down. I actually have a feeling I will be maintaining where I am at with this level, but I am happy here. I feel well, sleep well, and don't feel restricted food wise or hungry. If his theory was 100% fact, anyone eating high carb/low fat would be overweight and that is definitely not the case.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •