The Low Carb Diet Myth

[Mprtz]

Gary Taubes is an idiot just an FYI. Makes unsubstantiated claims, misinterprets research, and is a sugar-phobe. Not an unbiased source of information about this topic.

I personally know Taubes to not be an idiot, and his claims are highly substantiated by the extensive references he provides. That someone (anyone) so knowledgeable about hormones in general would insist on staying in the dark ages regarding this topic is baffling.

 

[Mprtz]

... from an energy standpoint - a calorie is still a calorie, and we must burn more than we consume to reduce fat stores.

The part in italics is so glaringly and demonstrably false that you really owe it to yourself to look deeper in to this.

 

[joliver]

I think a calorie is a calorie from a very basic stand point. But when we get into super-specialized training, optimized macronutrient profiles become important from a performance and body recomposition standpoint. Sugars impact insulin resistance and response over time and can impact visceral fat levels. Medium chain triglycerides will be readily used as fuel while long chain triglycerides are less likely to be utilized. Plus, a hundred million more small changes that optimize an athlete's diet. But to the average joe that thinks he can eat 6000cals of bacon and still be in the good from a weight loss standpoint--he must know that the "calorie is a calorie" rule must be observed.

I don't really think that anyone is wrong here, but most of the difference is a question of "how efficient/effective" any of these methods might be.

But for someone looking to drop weight (I chose that word wisely), you must know that a caloric deficit is mandatory.

 

[DreDay187]

I personally know Taubes to not be an idiot, and his claims are highly substantiated by the extensive references he provides. That someone (anyone) so knowledgeable about hormones in general would insist on staying in the dark ages regarding this topic is baffling.

Taubes is a storyteller who picks & chooses his own selection from the body of evidence to fit his gripping tale. Aragon & McDonald review the research in its totality, and point out the weight of the evidence behind various claims - even if the answers aren't very gripping or exciting. There's a HUGE difference between the two approaches.

Nutritionist^^^

"I was greatly offended by how Gary Taubes tricked us all into coming across as supporters of the Atkins diet," says one such source, Stanford University cardiologist John Farquhar. "I think he's a dangerous man. I'm sorry I ever talked to him."

Stanford University cardiologist^^^

"I thought [Taubes'] article was outrageous," Reaven says. "I saw my name in it and all that was quoted to me was not wrong. But in the context it looked like I was buying the rest of that crap." He adds, "I tried to be helpful and a good citizen, and I ended up being embarrassed as hell. He sort of set me up." When I first contacted Reaven, he was so angry he wouldn't even let me interview him.

But it's Taubes whom Farquhar wants to apologize. "I was greatly offended by how Gary Taubes tricked us all into coming across as supporters of the Atkins diet," he wrote in an e-mail he broadcast to reporters and to colleagues who were stunned that Farquhar might actually hold the beliefs Taubes attributed to him. "We are against the Atkins Diet," he wrote, speaking for himself and Reaven. "I told him [Taubes] there is the minor degree of merit" to the idea that "people are getting fatter because too much emphasis is being placed on just cutting fats," Farquhar told me. But "once I gave him that opening -- bingo -- he was off and running, even though I said about six times that this is not the cause of the obesity epidemic."

Stanford University endocrinolgist^^^

Taubes proved as adept at clipping data as at clipping quotes. Thus he claimed that one of the "reasons to suggest that the low-fat-is-good-health hypothesis has now effectively failed the test of time" is "that the percentage of fat in the American diet has been decreasing for two decades." (Emphasis added.)

That's true, but irrelevant. The amount of fat consumed has been steadily climbing, as has consumption of all calories. Individual caloric consumption jumped from 3,300 calories per day in 1970***65533;79 to 3,900 in 1997, an 18 percent increase. Per-person consumption of fat grams increased from 149 to 156, a 4.5 percent increase. "We're eating just too darned much of everything," says Farquhar.

Taubes also shoved aside decades of published, controlled, randomized clinical trials comparing nutrient intake and weight loss. His apparent justification in the article was that the "research literature [is] so vast that it's possible to find at least some published research to support virtually any theory." But that's sheer nihilism. Good science is cautious and skeptical, not permanently open-ended. That's why terms like weight of the evidence are used. And the evidence against Atkins-like low-carbohydrate diets is crushing.

An alternative method of comparing diets is a meta-analysis, which means not looking at the sum of the whole but actually combining the data. One such meta-analysis, covering 16 ad libitum studies and almost 2,000 people, appeared in the International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders in December 2000. The conclusion: Those on low-fat diets had "a greater reduction in energy intake" and a "greater weight loss than control groups."

"Aren't all these studies highly relevant to the issue of whether an Atkins-like diet works, and don't they indicate that it does not?" I ask Dr. Louis Aronne, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Program at New York's Weill Cornell Medical Center. "I agree completely," he says. "You're absolutely right."

This wasn't the first time Taubes had published a lengthy article on fat while leaving out this vital information. He also did so in one of his award-winning pieces, a precursor to the "Big Fat Lie" article called "The Soft Science of Dietary Fat" that appeared in Science in March 2001. In a subsequent letter to the journal, three obesity research co-authors, including James Hill, director of the University of Colorado Center for Human Nutrition in Denver, noted, "What Taubes does not mention are the meta-analyses of intervention studies comparing ad libitum intakes of higher fat diets with low-fat diets that clearly show reduced caloric intake and weight loss on the low-fat diet." Taubes responded to the letter but again refused to address these studies.

lylemcd
03-22-2012, 02:07 PM
My problem with Taubes has nothing to do with his personality. Just the fact that he gets mostly everything wrong and I find it amusing watching him do the same thing he criticizes the cholesterol folks for: picking a hypothesis and then cherry picking data on it.

I'd note that if you're using a 1927 medical textbook as a primary reference on fat metabolism, you may not be in a position to claim that you've spent 'years doing exhaustive 'research'.

Nutritionist^^^

Many of you already know that I have been highly critical in the past of Gary Taubes and his ***8220;alternative hypothesis***8221; of obesity. In fact, back in 2010 I had begun a chapter by chapter review of his Good Calories, Bad Calories book. After reviewing only one chapter it was already very clear that Taubes was guilty of the many things he accused other obesity researchers of, namely leaving out data that did not conform to his beliefs and ***8220;cherry-picking.***8221; On top of that, Taubes would selectively quote out-dated scientific data while ignoring more present, more reliable data that conflicted with his beliefs. In fact, even some of Taubes***8217;s own references did not support the claims that he was making, and it made me wonder whether Taubes actually read his own references. I was never able to continue on with my review as that pesky thing called life got in the way, but others, such as Eveyln over at the Carb-Sane Asylum and Dr. Stephan Guyenet have done an excellent job of refuting many of Taubes***8217;s tenets.

Of course, this has not stopped Taubes from continuing with his march with trying to gain some type of acceptance for his ***8220;alternate hypothesis;***8221; he recently published an essay in the British Medical Journal repeating many of his past claims regarding insulin, carbohydrate, and obesity. His continuous push to try to gain acceptance of his ***8220;alternative hypothesis***8221;, despite overwhelming evidence against it, has made me question whether Taubes understands the entire scientific process of hypothesis testing. Or perhaps he does, but is so emotionally and financially invested in his alternate hypothesis that he is unable to see the overwhelming evidence against it and how it is not consistent with many known observations about obesity.

Nutritionist ^^^

Thin Body of Evidence: Why I Have Doubts about Gary Taubes?s Why We Get Fat | Cross-Check, Scientific American Blog Network

Whole Health Source: A Brief Response to Taubes's Food Reward Critique, and a Little Something Extra

Why We Get Fat « Science-Based Medicine


Taubes is an idiot, just not the worst of the group. References don't mean jack shit if they're not applicable, do not help his argument or are based on faulty data points. His 'references' as you say are based on outdated, WRONG data. If anyone is in the dark ages it is Gary Taubes lol. Please don't be a kool aid drinker

 

[DreDay187]

The part in italics is so glaringly and demonstrably false that you really owe it to yourself to look deeper in to this.

The part in bold is so glaringly and demonstrably false that you really owe it to yourself to look deeper into this.

 

[DreDay187]

I think a calorie is a calorie from a very basic stand point. But when we get into super-specialized training, optimized macronutrient profiles become important from a performance and body recomposition standpoint. Sugars impact insulin resistance and response over time and can impact visceral fat levels. Medium chain triglycerides will be readily used as fuel while long chain triglycerides are less likely to be utilized. Plus, a hundred million more small changes that optimize an athlete's diet. But to the average joe that thinks he can eat 6000cals of bacon and still be in the good from a weight loss standpoint--he must know that the "calorie is a calorie" rule must be observed.

I don't really think that anyone is wrong here, but most of the difference is a question of "how efficient/effective" any of these methods might be.

But for someone looking to drop weight (I chose that word wisely), you must know that a caloric deficit is mandatory.

You're making a mistake in your assessment that the efficacy of a diet is based on a single food. The diet must be looked at as a whole and whether it eats dietary needs or not.

 

[Mprtz]

The part in bold is so glaringly and demonstrably false that you really owe it to yourself to look deeper into this.

Ok, so hormones have nothing to do with it? Androgenic compounds will not reduce midsection fat (irrespective of diet)? Insulin has no role in fat storage and metabolism. It is impossible for genetic factors or defects to affect fat storage. It's purely a matter of calories in vs. calories out. You can't possibly believe this.

 

[Mprtz]

Thanks for taking the time to assemble this. Taubes conducted many interviews, that some would feel misquoted is inevitable. I followed the links you posted and did not find them as persuasive. I guess you'll drink your Kool-aid and I'll drink mine.

 

[DreDay187]

Ok, so hormones have nothing to do with it? Androgenic compounds will not reduce midsection fat (irrespective of diet)? Insulin has no role in fat storage and metabolism. It is impossible for genetic factors or defects to affect fat storage. It's purely a matter of calories in vs. calories out. You can't possibly believe this.

1) I never said that specifically but you, Taubes, Lustwig, et al have yet to prove that nutrition mediated hormonal responses have clinical or statistical significance to any of this when study after study and real experts (not the cherry-picking taking shit out of context psuedo expert like Taubes) have shown the differences are nil or negligible.

2) are you claiming site specific fat reduction here? If so it would be a multi-billion dollar market IF true, if being the key word.

3) it may but again, for a healthy population that works out, refer to number 1 above.

4) I did not say that.

5) For WEIGHT loss this is exactly it. Conservation of mass, 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of Energy, etc. You can't possibly believe (to use your words) that these are irrelevant to the problem. Now for fat loss specifically macros themselves would matter but as. Halfwit stated, he's referring to weight loss not fat loss.

 

[casperthefriendly]

This is definitely an interesting topic. I'm no nutritionist, but I burn fat in a HURRY when I go high protein, moderate fat and low carbs. Maybe next time I'm cutting I'll try the twinkie diet, lol

 

[Mprtz]

1) I never said that specifically but you, Taubes, Lustwig, et al have yet to prove that nutrition mediated hormonal responses have clinical or statistical significance to any of this when study after study and real experts (not the cherry-picking taking shit out of context psuedo expert like Taubes) have shown the differences are nil or negligible.

2) are you claiming site specific fat reduction here? If so it would be a multi-billion dollar market IF true, if being the key word.

3) it may but again, for a healthy population that works out, refer to number 1 above.

4) I did not say that.

5) For WEIGHT loss this is exactly it. Conservation of mass, 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of Energy, etc. You can't possibly believe (to use your words) that these are irrelevant to the problem. Now for fat loss specifically macros themselves would matter but as. Halfwit stated, he's referring to weight loss not fat loss.

2) Of course androgens will produce site-specific fat reduction. I experienced this in dramatic fashion myself starting TRT. I've never been heavy, but nearing 50 any fat I had was concentrated around my midsection. Within 6 weeks on testosterone replacement therapy (TRT), with no calorie restriction (eating lots) I almost completely lost this fat while gaining about 15 pounds bodyweight during the same time. Sure, some of that was water, but the body recomposition was dramatic and undeniable. For men, fat cells around the midsection have androgen receptors. I understand that lower-body fat (thighs, etc.) respond similarly to estrogen, but have not personal experience.

5) No, halfwit wrote fat loss, I quote: "we must burn more than we consume to reduce fat stores". This is the statement I was taking issue with, clearly indicated with the bold italics.

Nobody is saying (not Taubes either) that the laws of thermodynamics don't hold. But they are misapplied to this situation in assuming that you can change energy intake without affecting energy expenditure and vice versa, and that fat storage will respond predictably as you manipulate these things. Fat cells are not a passive storage mechanism that automatically absorb any excess calories and automatically release the storage to fill a deficit. Fat metabolism is a lot more complicated than that.

 

[DreDay187]

2) Of course androgens will produce site-specific fat reduction. I experienced this in dramatic fashion myself starting TRT. I've never been heavy, but nearing 50 any fat I had was concentrated around my midsection. Within 6 weeks on testosterone replacement therapy (TRT), with no calorie restriction (eating lots) I almost completely lost this fat while gaining about 15 pounds bodyweight during the same time. Sure, some of that was water, but the body recomposition was dramatic and undeniable. For men, fat cells around the midsection have androgen receptors. I understand that lower-body fat (thighs, etc.) respond similarly to estrogen, but have not personal experience.

5) No, halfwit wrote fat loss, I quote: "we must burn more than we consume to reduce fat stores". This is the statement I was taking issue with, clearly indicated with the bold italics.

Nobody is saying (not Taubes either) that the laws of thermodynamics don't hold. But they are misapplied to this situation in assuming that you can change energy intake without affecting energy expenditure and vice versa, and that fat storage will respond predictably as you manipulate these things. Fat cells are not a passive storage mechanism that automatically absorb any excess calories and automatically release the storage to fill a deficit. Fat metabolism is a lot more complicated than that.

2) so you were deficient in something and now through testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) are no longer deficient which caused you to lose said fat in the mid section area. You're jumping to conclusions now if you're saying increasing androgens in healthy/non/deficient people will produce the same results.

5) I must have misread what Halfwit said but he does still make a valid point, to reduce weight or fat stores to a significant degree or to do so chronically, we MUST burn more than we consume.

As to the bolded, what exactly is your argument? That low carb is good/bad, high carb good/bad, etc?

 

[DreDay187]

This is definitely an interesting topic. I'm no nutritionist, but I burn fat in a HURRY when I go high protein, moderate fat and low carbs. Maybe next time I'm cutting I'll try the twinkie diet, lol

Its called calorie restriction.

 

[DreDay187]

No I apologize Mprtz, but I'm still of the opinion Taubes is an idiot and a fraud. IMO he's selling an idea, profiting off it, and categorically attacking anyone who goes against it. He's not someone I we'd ever take advice from since there are many other knowledgable people out there who look at the totality of the evidence, not pick evidence based on their 'phobias'.

 

[Mprtz]

No I apologize Mprtz, but I'm still of the opinion Taubes is an idiot and a fraud. IMO he's selling an idea, profiting off it, and categorically attacking anyone who goes against it. He's not someone I we'd ever take advice from since there are many other knowledgable people out there who look at the totality of the evidence, not pick evidence based on their 'phobias'.

No apology necessary, you are totally entitled to your opinion. That said, I don't completely understand the vitriol directed at Taubes. He is not selling a diet, and while he must profit from his books he's not exactly cashing in like Atkins.
I've read Taubes' other books ( cold fusion, etc. ) too, and I sincerely believe that his primary motivation was and is exposing how we arrived at some of our present dietary "sacred cows", i.e. cholesterol and heart disease, low fat / heart health, and approaches to treating obesity based on calories in/out.
Some of these issues do have a long history of research and clinical practice and many of the insights (they are not Taubes') are not new and have only been steamrolled in the last 40 years by a few influential people and a government putting their official stamp on conclusions only thinly supported by science.

Maybe I am at risk of having drunk the Kool-aid, but I consider myself a skeptical and critically thinking person, and I found the history laid out by Taubes on these dietary issues to be highly persuasive. I can't help but recommend that you read the book, but given your feelings I doubt you will.

 

[DreDay187]

No apology necessary, you are totally entitled to your opinion. That said, I don't completely understand the vitriol directed at Taubes. He is not selling a diet, and while he must profit from his books he's not exactly cashing in like Atkins.
I've read Taubes' other books ( cold fusion, etc. ) too, and I sincerely believe that his primary motivation was and is exposing how we arrived at some of our present dietary "sacred cows", i.e. cholesterol and heart disease, low fat / heart health, and approaches to treating obesity based on calories in/out.
Some of these issues do have a long history of research and clinical practice and many of the insights (they are not Taubes') are not new and have only been steamrolled in the last 40 years by a few influential people and a government putting their official stamp on conclusions only thinly supported by science.

Maybe I am at risk of having drunk the Kool-aid, but I consider myself a skeptical and critically thinking person, and I found the history laid out by Taubes on these dietary issues to be highly persuasive. I can't help but recommend that you read the book, but given your feelings I doubt you will.

Which is exactly why I was surprised to see you referencing him in a positive light. I will try to find an online copy/PDF or torrent it, I'm a big fan of voting with my wallet and he will not be getting my money. The vitriol directed at him has something to do with the quotes I put in earlier, anyone who puts words in people's mouths or attacks them to sell their own brand or what have you loses my respect.