Was reading Taubs' "Why we get fat" this morning and found this page 3

[lambchop]

Ummm...thanks for clarifying!

[brahnamin]

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.

[Paleobird]

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."

[Paleobird]

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.

[magicmerl]

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.

[Paleobird]

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.

[anastasia]

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.

[lambchop]

I think I follow now, thanks.

[JoanieL]

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.

[sbhikes]

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.