Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 187

Thread: Evidence that Taubes and Lustig are both wrong!!! page 9

  1. #81
    Black Timber's Avatar
    Black Timber is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    174
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by charlii View Post
    It's not about the food just tasting good, it's about it having the right properties that trigger the reward system. I like smoked cheese and I like cakes, the difference is I only eat smoked cheese to appetite..if I'm not hungry I'm not interested in it. However I eat cakes even when I am not hungry and one bite will set off a reaction in my reward system to consume all the cakes in the packet and then go looking for some other junk food. One of the most notable things with people who are susceptible to this is that they get to a point where they stop enjoying the junk food but carry on the binging anyway even though they feel bloated.
    ok. But that is even more far fetched than my generic take. What are the chances the the world obesity crisis is being caused by taste engineered foods? Not that they are not playing a part. But we could probably list 100 potential target causes and maybe come up with a top ten. And then the chances of us being wrong on many would be very high. The older I get the more I realize that I have more questions than answers and anyone touting absolutes is more than likely wrong

    Now I know that you started this discussion regarding a couple of media oriented health investigators. I agree that they both overstate their claims by about 80% but some of what they say is true.
    Some of you may die, but that is a risk I'm willing to take.

  2. #82
    Giblets's Avatar
    Giblets is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    59
    I was reading one of Taubes's books last night. He was making a strong point about processed flour having all the nutrition stripped out of it, leaving just empty calories. Ditto for processed white sugar. Both the flour and the sugar then have ungodly long shelf lives. Both can be shipped over long distances and stored almost forever. And very tasty things can be made of them, with just an egg and some water. Maybe some PUFA oils. MMMmmmm, Oreos -- nobody can eat just one.

    ... then PRESTO, wherever those processed commodities end up, people soon exhibit the same modern maladies. Big mystery? well, not so much, evidently.

    So I find Taubes to be pretty much on the mark, at least in terms of stark cause and effect. He's not harping on mere carbs (like tubers and such that some hunter-gatherers thrive on), it's the processed industrialized carbs that he's on about.
    I have great faith in fools; self-confidence, my friends call it.
    Edgar Allan Poe

    My diet? Very low carb to initially lose weight, then moderate carbs (the past 12 years) for effortless weight maintenance. For me, the "carb curve" works like a charm. Once a week or so, I eat only one meal during the day (at late evening), as sort of a mini-fast.

  3. #83
    Jimm's Avatar
    Jimm is offline Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    44024
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by charlii View Post
    Lustig claims the fructose in sugar causes fatty liver, which causes hepatic insulin resistance, which causes elevated insulin levels all over the body and that insulin blocks leptin in the brain as they share the same receptor.

    Someone point me to the talk (and moment within it) where Lustig says fatty liver causes insulin resistance.

    When you challenge the Biochem of Lustig, you are actually challenging Jean-Marc Schwarz. You have to have at least the experience and knowledge base of JMS for me to consider your opinion. I have friends challenging all of Religion, and the heaviest text they've ever read is the Richard Dawkins Facebook page. So when you're challenging Biochemists, you need to break out the arrows and enzymes. Otherwise you're spamming the boards.

  4. #84
    charlii's Avatar
    charlii is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    England
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimm View Post
    Someone point me to the talk (and moment within it) where Lustig says fatty liver causes insulin resistance.

    When you challenge the Biochem of Lustig, you are actually challenging Jean-Marc Schwarz. You have to have at least the experience and knowledge base of JMS for me to consider your opinion. I have friends challenging all of Religion, and the heaviest text they've ever read is the Richard Dawkins Facebook page. So when you're challenging Biochemists, you need to break out the arrows and enzymes. Otherwise you're spamming the boards.
    Lustig's biochem is correct until he guesses that insulin blocks leptin because of one study where octeotride caused very minor weight loss. Sugar does cause fatty liver, insulin resistance and obesity but it causes them independently of each other. The fructose in the sugar combined with excess calories and a diet low in choline causes fatty liver, but the insulin resistance and obesity is caused by excess calories because sugar makes foods hyper palatable. Something like only 70% of obese people have fatty liver, and some very lean people have it. Sugar is the main culprit just not by the mechanism he proposes.

  5. #85
    charlii's Avatar
    charlii is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    England
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Giblets View Post
    I was reading one of Taubes's books last night. He was making a strong point about processed flour having all the nutrition stripped out of it, leaving just empty calories. Ditto for processed white sugar. Both the flour and the sugar then have ungodly long shelf lives. Both can be shipped over long distances and stored almost forever. And very tasty things can be made of them, with just an egg and some water. Maybe some PUFA oils. MMMmmmm, Oreos -- nobody can eat just one.

    ... then PRESTO, wherever those processed commodities end up, people soon exhibit the same modern maladies. Big mystery? well, not so much, evidently.

    So I find Taubes to be pretty much on the mark, at least in terms of stark cause and effect. He's not harping on mere carbs (like tubers and such that some hunter-gatherers thrive on), it's the processed industrialized carbs that he's on about.
    Taubes is quite clear in blaming carbs. If refined carbs caused obesity the Asian countries subsisting on white rice would have had an obesity epidemic long ago but they have always been lean and only recently has obesity appeared in correlation with sugar intake. It's the taste of processed foods not their lack of nutrients that causes obesity.

  6. #86
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,167
    Quote Originally Posted by charlii View Post
    I think my lack of posts adds credibility to my opinions.
    Really?

    I agree that people should be judged by the content of their posts, but you think a *lack* of posting history makes you more credible on the internet?

    Quote Originally Posted by charlii View Post
    All people are different I'm sure some people do better on low carb. Low carbers seem to have the viewpoint that humans are designed to eat low carbs which all the evidence suggests is wrong.
    You're making a few assumptions there. What do you think 'low carb' is? Some people think that's 'no carb'. Some people think it's <50g/day. Others, 100g, others 150g.

    Quote Originally Posted by charlii View Post
    We have big brains that require a lot of glucose, fair enough it can be replaced to some extent with ketones...but minimum requirements for humans are 40-50g per day..the body will make this if it has to.
    Agreed. I think that 50g seems like a pretty good baseline for minimum carb consumption, although as you say, your body can make some if it needs to if you fall below the minimum on any given day.

    Quote Originally Posted by charlii View Post
    The most convincing evidence that humans are not designed for low carb is that our closest relatives in the animal kingdom gorillas, chimpanzees and oragutans all eat high carb diets...they seek out fruit above any other food.
    Actually, chimpanzees seek out meat over fruit, even if fruit is still a much higher percentage of their diet.

    The most convincing argument to me against low carb to my mind is the genetic adaption to produce more copies of the enzyme amylase, which helps us digest starch more readily than our close cousins.

    Quote Originally Posted by charlii View Post
    Our brains are much bigger than theirs so if anything we have a greater demand for glucose than them. I also do not think it is a coincidence that we along with them are the most intelligent animals....glucose seems to be essential for big brains.
    Well, I think that the real thing is an energy dense diet (whether it's fat or starches) that allows us to get enough energy out of a shorter gut length, making the bigger brain possible.
    Last edited by magicmerl; 10-21-2013 at 05:54 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

  7. #87
    AMonkey's Avatar
    AMonkey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    772
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Timber View Post
    So your take on increased obesity is that food tastes good now and it didn't before. Great.

    Don't you think that it is probably a lot more complicated than that?
    I think the obesity problem is relatively simple. Compare modern life to life 100 years ago when most of humanity was involved in physical labour, primarily agriculture:

    -We've become significantly more sedentary, to the point that many of us do essentially no exercise
    -Food has become a luxury, none of us ever starve
    -Food is extremely cheap, plentiful and accessible
    -There is amazing choice of food and some are engineered to be as addictive as possible
    -We don't tend to home cook any more, instead buying pre made meals
    -We live in a society in which we blame others for our problems
    -We live in a society which constantly tells us to reward ourselves and YOLO

    So is it any wonder obesity and ill health have sky rocketed? To some degree I'm surprised we aren't fatter. Right now, beside my desk is a table full of various biscuits, juice drinks and sugary snacks. Why aren't I chowing down on them? It will make me feel good and I'm thin enough that it won't impact my weight. And who cares about the future? My reptilian brain only cares about now.
    http://lifemutt.blogspot.sg/ - Gaming, Food Reviews and Life in Singapore

  8. #88
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,648
    Yeah but both Taubes and Lustig are probably more or less right, or at least more right than the public health "experts".

    Taubes just points out that starting in the early 1800s this idea that sugar/carbs makes you fat has been around, and there has been a lot of evidence it is in fact true. That evidence has been ignored by public health people.

    Lustig just points out that sugar is really freakin' bad, and probably the cause of lots of problems (same thing Weston Price observed in his travels).

    The splitting of hairs gets old. White flour, sugar and processed grain oils are really bad, done.

  9. #89
    charlii's Avatar
    charlii is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    England
    Posts
    105
    They are both on the right track because they say sugar should be removed and I can't think of a food that I want to eat when I'm not hungry that doesn't contain sugar. Sugar, wheat and veg oils being bad is beyond all doubt, Taubes and Lustig are just exceptionally arrogant considering they are wrong. Lustig needs to answer why choline doesn't cure obesity.

  10. #90
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by charlii View Post
    If refined carbs caused obesity the Asian countries subsisting on white rice would have had an obesity epidemic long ago...
    Stop.

    Just please, stop the insanity. I'm so sick of Westerners babbling on about "yeah but Asia does it so we can too!". Guess what? It's not working for you so shut up. Also unless you get on an airplane and live in Asia, you don't know shit.

    Both North Americans and NE Asians (JP/KR) are devoloped societies that eat large amounts of grains, and smaller amounts of meat. As a percent of calories it's more or less 60% grains, 15% meat, and the rest plants/dairy. All post-neolithic societies are like that. That's how it's been for 10,000 years. There's not enough meat/vegi to feed the population, so the planners need to fill it out with grains/dairy. But it's HOW the societies do that which makes the difference. Are you eating grains by eating a small bowl of rice, or are you eating grains by drinking a Coke? Get it?

    So my first point is -- studying one non-ideal post-neolithic society vs another is flawed. You're ignoring what's likely the ideal; the non-neolithic societies (which are mostly extinct).

    Next, even if you study two grain based socities (US vs JP), and both are eating 60% grains / 15% meat, the plates when placed in front of you look NOTHING alike. Americans eat most of their calories from processed white flour, super process grain oil, and ultra processed grain syrup (which is injected into everything). NE Asians eat grains (still recognizable as a grains), and don't particularly like sugar (KR), or use plant based sugar (JP), and don't particularly care for dairy (KR). A piece of meat or fish in NE Asia is NOT covered with grain dough, fried in grain oil, and covered in grain syrup. It is a small piece of meat/fish with nothing on it except some salt, with some vegetables, and some grains, no dairy, and no desert except a slice of pear (if even that). And it's a normal sized plate in Asia.

    Summary: 1) Taubes and Lustig are correct, no grains/sugar is probably ideal, 2) stop saying that processed grains are not the problem for the US (because of Asia), processed grains are the problem and you're diet is nothing like Asia's diet so shut up.

    Thank you.

Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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