# Gary Taubes: "Good Calories, Bad Calories" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448 "2009-03-05T22:28:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/1 "2009-03-05T22:28:43Z")
I read this recently and found his arguments quite compelling (assuming I understood the biochemistry correctly, given I’m not a scientist). I also know that low-carbing/Atkins was the easiest to do, easiest to sustain, most energy giving eating plan that I’ve tried, and every time I low carb my skin gets very clear. Does anyone have any thoughts on Gary Taubes’ hypothesis? ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/2 "2009-03-05T23:04:08Z")
> [@istara](#): > > I read this recently and found his arguments quite compelling (assuming I understood the biochemistry correctly, given I’m not a scientist). Which arguments and which understandings about biochemistry? > [@](#): > > I also know that low-carbing/Atkins was the easiest to do, easiest to sustain, most energy giving eating plan that I’ve tried, and every time I low carb my skin gets very clear. That’s the opposite I’ve heard from everyone I know that’s tried it. Not getting sufficient carbs (especially the meager amount one eats in Phase 1) means low blood sugar and little energy. Not easy to stay on a diet like that. Are you still following the Atkins plan? > [@](#): > > Does anyone have any thoughts on Gary Taubes’ hypothesis? This one: > [@](#): > > Taubes’ hypothesis is that the medical community and the federal government have relied upon misinterpreted scientific data on nutrition to build the prevailing paradigm about what constitutes healthful eating. Taubes makes the case that – contrary to the conventional wisdom – it is refined carbohydrates that are responsible for heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer and many other maladies of civilization. From the same article: > [@](#): > > Taubes includes information and studies which indicate that physical exercise increases appetite to a degree that makes it an inefficient tool in weight loss. > [@](#): > > Although Taubes has no formal training in nutrition or medicine > **[Gary Taubes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes)** > > Gary Taubes (born April 30, 1956) is an American journalist, writer, and low-carbohydrate / high-fat (LCHF) diet advocate. His central claim is that carbohydrates, especially sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, overstimulate the secretion of insulin, causing the body to store fat in fat cells and the liver, and that it is primarily a high level of dietary carbohydrate consumption that accounts for obesity and other metabolic syndrome conditions. He is the author of Nobel Dreams (1987); Bad Born ... Not an authority I’d take exercise and nutrition advice from. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/3 "2009-03-05T23:55:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Which arguments and which understandings about biochemistry? The claim that insulin is the only hormone that enables fatty acids to be deposited as triglycerides in fat cells, and that carbohydrates are the primary trigger for insulin release. And the claim that insulin inhibits the functions of several other hormones (such as adrenaline and human growth hormone) that cause triglycerides to be broken down from fat cells and re-released as fuel. > [@](#): > > That’s the opposite I’ve heard from everyone I know that’s tried it. Not getting sufficient carbs (especially the meager amount one eats in Phase 1) means low blood sugar and little energy. Not easy to stay on a diet like that. Are you still following the Atkins plan? Everyone I know that has tried it has found it something of a miracle: no hunger, and rapid weight loss. Neither me nor friends and associates that have tried it have done blood measurements, so I have no data on that. But when you go into higher ketosis - I say higher, because after a normal length sleeping fast nearly everyone wakes up in a minimal state of ketosis as you’ve gone through all your blood sugar, though it’s not detectable by ketostix etc - there is an appreciable loss of hunger symptoms, because you just don’t get blood sugar spikes and falls. Everything is much more steady, and I - as a fairly greedy person! - even have to remember to go for lunch sometimes. I would also note that the products pushed by the Atkins Foundation bear no real resemblance to anything that Dr Atkins promoted, except as very occasional “treats”. I realise they wanted to make money, but the actual dietary recommendations as written by Doctor Atkins are for almost exclusively unrefined, un pre-prepared, whole foods. You are supposed to get your (limited) carbs through fresh vegetables and certain fruits, and later some whole grains, definitely not Splenda-packed, artificially flavoured processed protein bars. The problems with sticking with Atkins is that it can be monotonous unless you take the time to do a lot of variety in cooking, partly as there are very few low-carb pre-prepared kind of meals. It’s also very hard to buy low-carb food “on-the-go” (eg for an office lunch), and that it is more expensive buying meat - especially good meat - than cheaper, higher carbohydrate foods. By these arguments it wouldn’t be the ideal diet according to Taubes, since part of his argument is that a diet needs to be easy to stick to, or people fall off and fail to lose weight and/or regain weight lost. But Taubes does not specifically recommend Atkins or agree with the exact science behind it, it’s just one of the many diets he discusses in his book. > [@](#): > > Taubes includes information and studies which indicate that physical exercise increases appetite to a degree that makes it an inefficient tool in weight loss. Before reading Taubes, I have come across this claim in articles on actual fitness sites. I was actually shocked when I first read it. But it does seem to be the case that while exercise has undoubted benefits for fitness and lung capacity, as a fat burner it is not particularly useful unless you do near the levels that sport and fitness professionals and athletes do. For example, when they say that activity x burns y calories per hour, that includes the basal rate that you would be burning anyway. And exercise does make one extremely hungry. I get starving particularly after exercise like swimming, and it’s hard not to eat earlier, and eat more. So while my body would have benefitted from the exercise in many ways, in terms of total calories it’s not going to contribute that much to altering the input-ouput calorie balance for me and for many people. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/4 "2009-03-06T00:47:56Z")
> [@istara](#): > > The claim that insulin is the only hormone that enables fatty acids to be deposited as triglycerides in fat cells, and that carbohydrates are the primary trigger for insulin release. But what conclusion does he reach from those claims and is his conclusion sound? > [@](#): > > And the claim that insulin inhibits the functions of several other hormones (such as adrenaline and human growth hormone) that cause triglycerides to be broken down from fat cells and re-released as fuel. All hormones can inhibit others. The question is whether or not the standard diet that’s been considered healthy for years which consists of getting most calories from complex carbs is actually unhealthy or leads to obesity. > [@](#): > > But when you go into higher ketosis - I say higher, because after a normal length sleeping fast nearly everyone wakes up in a minimal state of ketosis as you’ve gone through all your blood sugar, though it’s not detectable by ketostix etc - there is an appreciable loss of hunger symptoms, because you just don’t get blood sugar spikes and falls. Everything is much more steady, and I - as a fairly greedy person! - even have to remember to go for lunch sometimes. > [@](#): > > What Are the Health Risks Associated With High Protein, Low Carb Diets? > > High protein diets can cause a number of health problems, including: > > ``` > * Kidney failure. Consuming too much protein puts a strain on the kidneys, which can make a person susceptible to kidney disease. > * High cholesterol. It is well known that high protein diets (consisting of red meat, whole dairy products, and other high fat foods) are linked to high cholesterol. Studies have linked high cholesterol levels to an increased risk of developing heart disease, stroke and cancer. > * Osteoporosis and kidney stones. High protein diets have also been shown to cause people to excrete more calcium than normal through their urine. Over a prolonged period of time, this can increase a person's risk of osteoporosis and kidney stones. > * Cancer. One of the reasons high protein diets increase the risks of certain health problems is because of the avoidance of carbohydrate-containing foods and the vitamins, minerals, fiber and anti-oxidants they contain. It is therefore important to obtain your protein from a diet rich in whole grains, fruits and vegetables. Not only are your needs for protein being met, but you are also helping to reduce your risk of developing cancer. > * Unhealthy metabolic state (ketosis). Low carb diets can cause your body to go into a dangerous metabolic state called ketosis since your body burns fat instead of glucose for energy. During ketosis, the body forms substances known as ketones, which can cause organs to fail and result in gout, kidney stones, or kidney failure. Ketones can also dull a person's appetite, cause nausea and bad breath. Ketosis can be prevented by eating at least 100 grams of carbohydrates a day. > > ``` [http://women.webmd.com/guide/high-protein-low-carbohydrate-diets](http://women.webmd.com/guide/high-protein-low-carbohydrate-diets) I’m sure you can find counter-claims, but I’m sticking with mainstream websites that are considered reputable in the medical community such as Web MD. > [@](#): > > But it does seem to be the case that while exercise has undoubted benefits for fitness and lung capacity, as a fat burner it is not particularly useful unless you do near the levels that sport and fitness professionals and athletes do. For example, when they say that activity x burns y calories per hour, that includes the basal rate that you would be burning anyway. Where are you getting “it does seems the case” from? That’s contrary to what medical science has found to be true throughout the years. A sedentary lifestyle leads to weight gain. Exercise helps with weight loss. Sure, you can find a study that will counter any claim. My own anecdotal evidence reveals that when I stop going to the gym and leading a more active lifestyle i gain weight. This goes for everyone I’ve ever known. I’ve yet to hear someone say, “Boy, since I’ve been hitting the gym, I sure have been packing on the fat.” ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/5 "2009-03-06T02:12:09Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m sure you can find counter-claims, but I’m sticking with mainstream websites that are considered reputable in the medical community such as Web MD. Taube frequently makes the point that statements such as “It is well known that…” are part of the misinformation problem. One of his main arguments is that assumptions become accepted wisdom without clear studies and research behind them. And ketosis is not a “dangerous state”. Ketoacidosis is a dangerous state. Any form of mild fast - including sleep - induces ketosis. Otherwise your brain would starve in the night. It is a matter of degree. From the NHS (surely as reliable as they go): > [@](#): > > Your body normally uses glucose to meet its energy needs. Glucose comes from the carbohydrate in your diet. A healthy, balanced diet should provide you with all the glucose your body needs, so that ketosis does not take place. However, if your body does not have enough glucose, perhaps because your diet is very low in carbohydrates or you are starving yourself, it will begin ketosis to obtain energy from its stored fats instead. Despite their negative spin on ketosis, the clear implication is that you only burn fat when you are in ketosis. This is Taubes’ point. It is also the point of Doctor Atkins. Lipolysis produces ketones, which is the brain can use as fuel. The only question seems to be what degree of ketone release is unsafe, if indeed any level, ketoacidosis excepted, is unsafe. > [@](#): > > Where are you getting “it does seems the case” from? From fitness sites, and basic mathematics. To actually lose weight by exercise, and no dietary changes, involves far more exercise than a few 45 minutes sessions at the gym each week. And that’s far more than the average person does anyway. Nor does that change the possibility that a sedentary lifestyle likely leads to weight gain. Nor did I make the point anywhere that exercise leads to fat GAIN. The point is that only extreme amounts seem likely to lead to weight LOSS. What I am really looking for is medical articles that explain how and why Taubes’ hypothesis is wrong. Not sites that quote the same assumptions that Taubes sets out to disprove. Not arguments about the rights and wrongs of high protein diets. As you put it: “The question is whether or not the standard diet that’s been considered healthy for years which consists of getting most calories from complex carbs is actually unhealthy or leads to obesity” - though I would add that the “standard diet” considered healthy is a low-fat one, which is what Taubes disputes. Even later incarnations of the Atkins diet recommend far less saturated fat, and more olive oil: Taubes argues that saturated fat makes little difference as it raises “good” and “bad” cholesterol equally. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/6 "2009-03-06T03:16:52Z")
> [@istara](#): > > Taube frequently makes the point that statements such as “It is well known that…” are part of the misinformation problem. That’s a hallmark statement of many quacks. > [@](#): > > One of his main arguments is that assumptions become accepted wisdom without clear studies and research behind them. That’s why I chose a reputable site such as Web MD. They aren’t in the habit of spreading misinformation or making any statements about health and medicine that aren’t backed up by studies and research. > [@](#): > > And ketosis is not a “dangerous state”. Ketoacidosis is a dangerous state. Any form of mild fast - including sleep - induces ketosis. Otherwise your brain would starve in the night. It is a matter of degree. From the NHS (surely as reliable as they go): > > > [@](#): > > > > Your body normally uses glucose to meet its energy needs. Glucose comes from the carbohydrate in your diet. A healthy, balanced diet should provide you with all the glucose your body needs, so that ketosis does not take place. However, if your body does not have enough glucose, perhaps because your diet is very low in carbohydrates or you are starving yourself, it will begin ketosis to obtain energy from its stored fats instead. What you’re quoting from the NHS doesn’t say what you claim it does. > [@](#): > > From fitness sites, and basic mathematics. Fitness sites often get things wrong and as far as I know, most fitness sites advocate exercise routines as proven methods for losing weight. Basic mathematics does not dispute that exercise programs are successful tools for weight loss. > [@](#): > > To actually lose weight by exercise, and no dietary changes, involves far more exercise than a few 45 minutes sessions at the gym each week. And that’s far more than the average person does anyway. What the average person does is irrelevant. What evidence do you have that a few 45 minutes sessions at the gym each week is not effective for weight loss? I can find you plenty of reputable cites that even a moderate amount of exercise can help keep the pounds off. > [@](#): > > Nor did I make the point anywhere that exercise leads to fat GAIN. The point is that only extreme amounts seem likely to lead to weight LOSS. My point was that not only does the mainstream medical world advise that exercise leads to weight loss, my own experiences lead me to the same conclusions. When I and others I know keep up going to the gym, we lose fat. My anecdotal evidence supports the evidence the medical community has been advocating for years: exercise programs help keep fat off. > [@](#): > > What I am really looking for is medical articles that explain how and why Taubes’ hypothesis is wrong. Not sites that quote the same assumptions that Taubes sets out to disprove. Not arguments about the rights and wrongs of high protein diets. Why are you calling what’s claimed in medical articles assumptions? > [@](#): > > As you put it: “The question is whether or not the standard diet that’s been considered healthy for years which consists of getting most calories from complex carbs is actually unhealthy or leads to obesity” - though I would add that the “standard diet” considered healthy is a low-fat one, which is what Taubes disputes. Even later incarnations of the Atkins diet recommend far less saturated fat, and more olive oil: Taubes argues that saturated fat makes little difference as it raises “good” and “bad” cholesterol equally. That’s already been answered by the cites I gave you and I can find many more if you like. I’m not sure what other evidence you’re looking for regarding diets high in saturated fats not being healthy. ---
**Author:** ![Geek\_Mecha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecae2f/32.png) [@Geek\_Mecha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Geek_Mecha)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/7 "2009-03-06T03:37:48Z")
I just finished this book last weekend, and wanted to start a thread like this but hadn’t, because I plan to re-read it and let all the study analysis really sink in. I didn’t feel I could do his research or conclusions justice. While it is true that Taubes’ training is not in medicine, he appears to have done more direct meta-analysis of obesity and diet studies than some of the people currently responsible for formulating national dietary guidelines. He’s also a respected science writer, and his methodology and reasoning seem sound. He does not try to sell specific diet or exercise programs, but just pokes holes in conventional wisdom. I don’t see any of the usual reasons to discredit him. What struck me the most about this book is, if you buy what he says, how human nature has shaped so much of what we believe today about diet and exercise. One guy does a study and comes to a biased and therefore flawed conclusion. Others with the same bias do their own flawed studies with the same flawed results and form a chorus of incorrect information. First guy comes to be highly respected because of this. Others do studies free of such flaws, but since their study is funded by someone tied to the first guy, they cave to pressure to come up with reports to support the initial incorrect research. Data that doesn’t match up with the conclusions is dismissed as either biased or irrelevant. The media catches wind of it and reports it all as fact and sensationalizes it to sell copy. Then the government gets involved, alarmed by the media reports, and decides to formulate national nutritional standards. Because he’s viewed as the genius who came up with the data first, they hire the guy who did the flawed study in the first place to help formulate national guidelines. One mistake gets amplified and the incorrect conclusions of a study become the truth, affecting millions of people. His point is that we assume our logical and common-sensical beliefs about diet, obesity, weight loss, and exercise are based on tons of properly-done and thought-out research, performed by researchers who were studying exactly what they set out to study and did so in an unbiased manner. But humans aren’t machines; even the most educated, logical, and disciplined professional will have his biases and make mistakes. In this book he simply points out the flaws in the process that led to our current conventional wisdom about what makes us fat and keeps us fat. Nowhere did I feel he was asserting something he could not back up with evidence. I’m eager to see what others think of this book. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/8 "2009-03-06T03:43:53Z")
> [@istara](#): > > Taube frequently makes the point that statements such as “It is well known that…” are part of the misinformation problem. :dubious: I’ll just point out that this is the same argument that every single conspiracy theorist in the world uses. “The experts are inept and the non-expert knows more than them because he isn’t being forced or bribed into following the herd.” There are areas of science that are on less firm ground than others, specifically in the non-biological side of psychology and macroeconomics, but that’s really pretty much it. That we don’t have a perfect understanding of the human body as a mechachemical machine is of course certain, but that’s not because anyone is slacking off. Decades of research and billions of dollars are spent checking the effects of drugs and nutrients on health. It’s always possible that they missed some vital aspect in the tests, but it’s unlikely that a layman is going to be the one to notice, and if he did he would be publishing serious, eyebleeding boring documents about it that would be being taken seriously by people in the FDA (and other groups). He wouldn’t be out writing books yelling at them for being lazy, incompetents who won’t recognize His genius. The easy check is to see if Taubes has been published in any peer reviewed journals. If he can’t even make it to that step, it’s really not worth your time trying to decide whether he has a leg to stand on. > **[Gary Taubes tries to overwhelm the reader with sheer verbiage](https://reason.com/2003/03/01/gary-taubes-tries-to-overwhelm/)** > > Gary Taubes has written a response to Michael Fumento's article "Big Fat Fake," which appeared in the March issue of… ---
**Author:** ![Discipline](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Discipline](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Discipline)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/9 "2009-03-06T05:40:26Z")
> [@AudreyK](#): > > One guy does a study and comes to a biased and therefore flawed conclusion. Others with the same bias do their own flawed studies with the same flawed results and form a chorus of incorrect information. First guy comes to be highly respected because of this. Others do studies free of such flaws, but since their study is funded by someone tied to the first guy, they cave to pressure to come up with reports to support the initial incorrect research. Data that doesn’t match up with the conclusions is dismissed as either biased or irrelevant. The media catches wind of it and reports it all as fact and sensationalizes it to sell copy. Then the government gets involved, alarmed by the media reports, and decides to formulate national nutritional standards. Because he’s viewed as the genius who came up with the data first, they hire the guy who did the flawed study in the first place to help formulate national guidelines. One mistake gets amplified and the incorrect conclusions of a study become the truth, affecting millions of people. Oh yeah, this is totally it. A vast conspiracy of completely deluded pseudo-scientists colluding to trick you into running your fat ass off. That’s definitely what happened. > [@AudreyK](#): > > But humans aren’t machines Oh, but they are exactly that. We’re not going to try to deny physics in this thread, are we? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/10 "2009-03-06T17:00:11Z")
> [@AudreyK](#): > > What struck me the most about this book is, if you buy what he says, how human nature has shaped so much of what we believe today about diet and exercise. One guy does a study and comes to a biased and therefore flawed conclusion. Others with the same bias do their own flawed studies with the same flawed results and form a chorus of incorrect information. First guy comes to be highly respected because of this. Others do studies free of such flaws, but since their study is funded by someone tied to the first guy, they cave to pressure to come up with reports to support the initial incorrect research. Data that doesn’t match up with the conclusions is dismissed as either biased or irrelevant. The media catches wind of it and reports it all as fact and sensationalizes it to sell copy. Then the government gets involved, alarmed by the media reports, and decides to formulate national nutritional standards. Because he’s viewed as the genius who came up with the data first, they hire the guy who did the flawed study in the first place to help formulate national guidelines. One mistake gets amplified and the incorrect conclusions of a study become the truth, affecting millions of people. So it’s a conspiracy theory, then. 'Cause we all know that unfettered science is so often plagued with generations-long suppressions of ‘data that doesn’t match up with the conclusions’. Well, that _really_ increases my confidence in the guy. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/11 "2009-03-06T18:05:44Z")
My theory is that High protien Low carb diets work (and they do work) mostly because there are few snack foods which qualify. No candy, chips, cookies, etc. Nothing to do with Ketosis. And when the diet was tested none of those health dangers showed up in the testees. Of course, the studies were fairly short term. Longer term studies are needed. > **[Low-carbohydrate diet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research_related_to_low-carbohydrate_diets#Scientific_research)** > > Low-carbohydrate diets restrict carbohydrate consumption relative to the average diet. Foods high in carbohydrates (e.g., sugar, bread, pasta) are limited, and replaced with foods containing a higher percentage of fat and protein (e.g., meat, poultry, fish, shellfish, eggs, cheese, nuts, and seeds), as well as low carbohydrate foods (e.g. spinach, kale, chard, collards, and other fibrous vegetables). > There is a lack of standardization of how much carbohydrate low-carbohydrate diets must have,... [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/359/3/229](http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/359/3/229) "Conclusions Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets may be effective alternatives to low-fat diets. The more favorable effects on lipids (with the low-carbohydrate diet) and on glycemic control (with the Mediterranean diet) suggest that personal preferences and metabolic considerations might inform individualized tailoring of dietary interventions. " ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/12 "2009-03-06T18:25:44Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > My theory is that High protien Low carb diets work (and they do work) mostly because there are few snack foods which qualify. No candy, chips, cookies, etc. The way any diet works is by getting you to eat fewer calories than you burn. It’s that simple, so your comment is certainly in the ballpark. My theory on Atkins or any diet that strictly limits carbohydrates, fat or protein is similar to what you stated, that it simply tricks you into eating less. Particularly for Atkins, there is only so much protein and fat you can eat before the lack of variety will impact your desire to eat. [Diets That Reduce Calories Lead to Weight Loss, Regardless of Carbohydrate, Protein or Fat Content](http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/diets-reduce-calories-lead-weight-loss-regardless-carbohydrate-protein-or-fat-content-18959.html) Basically, studies of all different types of weight-loss programs including Atkins’ have shown that they work by getting the dieter to reduce calorie intake. That’s not at all a surprise. There is nothing magical about eliminating specific types of calories like carbohydrates or fat, though ratios of carbohydrates, fat and protein certainly could have effects on your health. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/13 "2009-03-06T19:50:42Z")
[Calories are what counts](http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090304/sc_livescience/caloriescountdietsfail;_ylt=AuxAqc_RFckIeZKVWtkKn8KISbYF) ---
**Author:** ![Geek\_Mecha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecae2f/32.png) [@Geek\_Mecha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Geek_Mecha)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/14 "2009-03-06T20:34:24Z")
I didn’t say it was a conspiracy, I said it was human nature. The OP asked if anyone read the book and has insight into Taubes’ hypothesis. I don’t object to criticisms of Taubes as a person or researcher, but if no one else has read the book and everyone’s just going to rehash the arguments we did 6 years ago, I have no interest in participating in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/15 "2009-03-06T20:58:25Z")
> [@theR](#): > > The way any diet works is by getting you to eat fewer calories than you burn. It’s that simple, so your comment is certainly in the ballpark. My theory on Atkins or any diet that strictly limits carbohydrates, fat or protein is similar to what you stated, that it simply tricks you into eating less. Particularly for Atkins, there is only so much protein and fat you can eat before the lack of variety will impact your desire to eat. > > [Diets That Reduce Calories Lead to Weight Loss, Regardless of Carbohydrate, Protein or Fat Content](http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/diets-reduce-calories-lead-weight-loss-regardless-carbohydrate-protein-or-fat-content-18959.html) > > Basically, studies of all different types of weight-loss programs including Atkins’ have shown that they work by getting the dieter to reduce calorie intake. That’s not at all a surprise. There is nothing magical about eliminating specific types of calories like carbohydrates or fat, though ratios of carbohydrates, fat and protein certainly could have effects on your health. That’s the magic of Atkins. If there is no benefit of reduced insulin levels (which may be debatable) at least people feel sated after eating a high protein meal. One of the biggest problems with most weight loss programs is feeling hungry. And, remember, Atkins allows a return to carbs once weight is lost (which can be substantial amounts for some people). ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/16 "2009-03-06T21:23:28Z")
> [@AudreyK](#): > > I didn’t say it was a conspiracy, I said it was human nature. Uh, no. You said much more than “it was human nature.” You went step by step and described a conspiracy by he mainstream scientific community and the government. Read again what **begbert2** quoted you saying; maybe you forgot what you wrote. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/17 "2009-03-07T00:37:55Z")
I’d like to correct a common misconception about the Atkins diet. I’ve been on one for more than 8 years, and it is not a high protein diet. Atkins, when done properly, is more accurately a high fat diet. I do best when 65% of my calories come from fat, 20% from protein, and 15% from carbohydrates. Atkins isn’t without flaws, I find it difficult to get enough calcium and magnesium and take mineral supplements, you end up spending a lot of time reading labels. (I mean really, who puts high fructose corn syrup in Caesar salad dressing?), and if you eat in those medium priced restaurants a lot you’ll eat a lot of grilled chicken or salmon salads, as they’re the only food I can eat at a lot of places. As far as the comment that Atkins diets only work because you’re not hungry so end up eating less, so what? ---
**Author:** ![PeskiPiksi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e495f1/32.png) [@PeskiPiksi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeskiPiksi)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/18 "2009-03-07T02:21:29Z")
Another pro-Atkinser here. I don’t know why it worked, but it did. After the first three days or so, I loved it. Energy through the roof, clearer skin, appetite suppression, and consistent weight loss. Atkins does get a bad rap because people seem to think it’s the “all-bacon, all-the-time” diet, which is completely false. On Atkins, you should be eating basically lean protein and lots and lots of fresh veggies. Fruit within limits. No sugar. It’s healthy and it works, as long as you follow it correctly the way Dr. Atkins originally wrote it. Forget all the modern Atkins bars and shakes–that stuff is crap. And no, Dr. Atkins didn’t die obese and suffering from heart problems. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/19 "2009-03-07T03:30:21Z")
> [@PeskiPiksi](#): > > It’s healthy and it works, as long as you follow it correctly the way Dr. Atkins originally wrote it. You don’t know that. > [@](#): > > When the chief health officer for the State of Maryland,[2] was asked “What’s wrong with the Atkins Diet?” He replied “What’s wrong with… taking an overdose of sleeping pills? You are placing your body in jeopardy.” He continued “Although you can lose weight on these nutritionally unsound diets, you do so at the risk of your health and even your life.”[3] > > The Chair of Harvard’s nutrition department went on record before a 1973 U.S. Senate Select Committee investigating fad diets: “The Atkins Diet is nonsense… Any book that recommends unlimited amounts of meat, butter, and eggs, as this one does, in my opinion is dangerous. The author who makes the suggestion is guilty of malpractice.”[4] > > The Chair of the American Medical Association’s Council on Food and Nutrition testified before the Senate Subcommittee as to why the AMA felt they had to formally publish an official condemnation of the Atkins Diet: “A careful scientific appraisal was carried out by several council and staff members, aided by outside consultants. It became apparent that the [Atkins] diet as recommended poses a serious threat to health.”[5] > > The warnings from medical authorities continue to this day. “People need to wake up to the reality,” former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop writes, that the Atkins Diet is “unhealthy and can be dangerous.”[6] > > The world’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals,[7] calls the Atkins Diet “a nightmare of a diet.”[8] The official spokesperson of the American Dietetic Association elaborated: “The Atkins Diet and its ilk–any eating regimen that encourages gorging on bacon, cream and butter while shunning apples, all in the name of weight loss–are a dietitian’s nightmare.”[9] The ADA has been warning Americans about the potential hazards of the Atkins Diet for almost 30 years now.[10] Atkins dismissed such criticism as “dietician talk”.[11] “My English sheepdog,” Atkins once said, “will figure out nutrition before the dieticians do.”[12] > > The problem for Atkins (and his sheepdog), though, is that the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific body in the United States, agrees with the AMA and the ADA in opposing the Atkins Diet.[13] So does the American Cancer Society;[14] and the American Heart Association;[15] and the Cleveland Clinic;[16] and Johns Hopkins;[17] and the American Kidney Fund;[18] and the American College of Sports Medicine;[19] and the National Institutes of Health.[20] > > In fact there does not seem to be a single major governmental or nonprofit medical, nutrition, or science-based organization in the world that supports the Atkins Diet.[21] As a 2004 medical journal review concluded, the Atkins Diet “runs counter to all the current evidence-based dietary recommendations.”[22] [http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/25/Atkins\_Nightmare\_Diet.htm](http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/25/Atkins_Nightmare_Diet.htm) > [@](#): > > “The Atkins diet is a viable option that requires more testing,” Gary D. Foster, PhD, clinical director of the weight and eating disorders program at the University of Pennsylvania, tells WebMD. “The Atkins diet works at producing weight loss. If you are looking for weight loss, yes, it works. If you are looking for improvement in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol, yes, it works.” > > But Foster, like other experts, remains concerned about the long-term safety of the diet. > > Robert H. Eckel, MD, director of the general clinical research center at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver agrees. He tells WebMD, “Our worries over the Atkins diet go way past the question of whether it is effective for losing weight or even for keeping weight off. We worry that the diet promotes heart disease. … We have concerns over whether this is a healthy diet for preventing heart disease, stroke, and cancer. There is also potential loss of bone, and the potential for people with liver and kidney problems to have trouble with the high amounts of protein in these diets.” > > The American Dietetic Association also has concerns about the Atkins diet. Gail Frank, PhD, former spokeswoman for the organization and professor of nutrition at California State University in Long Beach, says, “The body needs a minimum of carbohydrates for efficient and healthy functioning – about 150 grams daily.” Below that, normal metabolic activity is disrupted. > > “The brain needs glucose to function efficiently, and it takes a long time to break down fat and protein to get to the brain,” says Frank. Carbohydrates, especially in the form of vegetables, grains, and fruits, are more efficiently converted to glucose. And this more efficient use of glucose has developed over a long period of time, according to Frank. “Fruits and berries are much more indicative of early man’s eating pattern than eating only protein, and we haven’t changed all that much physiologically.” > **[Atkins Diet Plan Review: Foods, Benefits, and Risks](https://www.webmd.com/diet/atkins-diet-what-it-is?page=4)** > > The Atkins diet: It's a diet that allows you to eat things like bacon, cream cheese, and steak too good to be true? Learn more about this popular weight loss plan. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448/20 "2009-03-07T03:59:58Z")
> [@istara](#): > > From fitness sites, and basic mathematics. To actually lose weight by exercise, and no dietary changes, involves far more exercise than a few 45 minutes sessions at the gym each week. And that’s far more than the average person does anyway. Huhwha? I am not a dietician or a doctor or an expert on weightloss (although I have taken off, and kept off for several years now, 40lbs through what most would describe as a “sensible diet” - whole grains, complex carbs, lean protein and dairy, lots of fruits and veggies, very little crap - and plenty of exercise) but let’s do some basic mathematics: A pound of fat stores roughly 3500 calories. Exercise burns anywhere from a few hundred calories per hour to over a thousand per hour depending on exactly what you’re doing, but even a brisk 3mph walk is about 300 calories/hour. Here’s a chart from a fitness site to get you started: [http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm](http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm) So let’s say someone takes a nice 45 minute walk each day and doesn’t alter their diet one bit. That’s about 225 calories per day, over 1500/week - if nothing else changes that’s about a half pound per week weight loss, 25+ pounds in a year, simply by getting a little walking in. R.e. Atkins, there have been plenty of medical cites presented, I’ll throw in some anecdotal stuff. I have a number of friends who were overweight and went on Atkins to lose weight. They all talked about how easy it was (at first) and many of them did lose some weight. Every single one of them “fell of the wagon” and could not stay on that diet and without exception they have all put the weight back on, if not more. One friend told me the reason that Atkins worked for him was that the eating plan was so distasteful that he just didn’t eat much. You name a food or food group and I can tell you how to shed pounds by eating nothing but that, however it doesn’t necessarily make it a good idea. Ask me about the All Butter Diet - 1500 Calories Per Day Of Yummy Land O’ Lakes! [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gary-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/488448.md?page=2)