# I unhappily report that I am right about obesity and diet (Very long) **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [February 16, 2011, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543 "2011-02-16T04:25:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 33
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/641 "2011-03-15T19:16:34Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > they’re pretty damning in regards to his journalistic integrity. I said I wouldn’t argue with you about the diet…but I have to disagree with you about this. The man said that Taubes quoted him accurately - his problem is with Taubes’ larger thesis and how his quotes may associate him with it. If Taubes was reporting his quotes accurately, that’s what matters. His fear that others will conclude he agrees with Taubes’ doesn’t mean Taubes’ journalisti integrity is wanting. Nor does the fact that he didn’t report what everyone wanted him to, (the other researchers he didn’t quote). It’s a given that he could find BOATLOADS of obesity doctors and researchers who would tell him that calories are it and fat is bad. That he didn’t tell us that in that article means nothing - the article was questioning all that well-known information. And you said it yourself: this was about his article, which is now ten years old and actually just asked questions more than anything. So I think it’s a pretty weak proof of gaps in Taubes’ journalistic integrity. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/642 "2011-03-15T19:19:02Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Nor does the fact that he didn’t report what everyone wanted him to, (the other researchers he didn’t quote). It’s a given that he could find BOATLOADS of obesity doctors and researchers who would tell him that calories are it and fat is bad. That he didn’t tell us that in that article means nothing - the article was questioning all that well-known information. I think this is a pretty classic definition of “cherry-picking”. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/643 "2011-03-15T19:24:47Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > I think this is a pretty classic definition of “cherry-picking”. I disagree. If you are writing an article that is _questioning_ the thoroughly familiar and widely accepted, why would you spend a lot of space quoting people saying it repeatedly? What is the purpose or value? You think someone is going to read an article in the New York Times that questions whether low-fat/low cal is the answer and be in the dark about low-fat/low-cal dogma? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/644 "2011-03-15T19:27:14Z")
I think it’s plenty to say, as Taubes’ did: > [@](#): > > The A.M.A. attacked Atkins’s diet as a ‘‘bizarre regimen’’ that advocated ‘‘an unlimited intake of saturated fats and cholesterol-rich foods,’’ and Atkins even had to defend his diet in Congressional hearings. Thirty years later, America has become weirdly polarized on the subject of weight. On the one hand, we’ve been told with almost religious certainty by everyone from the surgeon general on down, and we have come to believe with almost religious certainty, that obesity is caused by the excessive consumption of fat, and that if we eat less fat we will lose weight and live longer. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/645 "2011-03-15T19:31:52Z")
And here’s where Reaven’s name appears: > [@](#): > > ``` > The crucial example of how the low-fat recommendations were oversimplified is shown by the impact -- potentially lethal, in fact -- of low-fat diets on triglycerides, which are the component molecules of fat. By the late 60's, researchers had shown that high triglyceride levels were at least as common in heart-disease patients as high L.D.L. cholesterol, and that eating a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet would, for many people, raise their triglyceride levels, lower their H.D.L. levels and accentuate what Gerry Reaven, an endocrinologist at Stanford University, called Syndrome X. This is a cluster of conditions that can lead to heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. > > > It took Reaven a decade to convince his peers that Syndrome X was a legitimate health concern, in part because to accept its reality is to accept that low-fat diets will increase the risk of heart disease in a third of the population. ''Sometimes we wish it would go away because nobody knows how to deal with it,'' said Robert Silverman, an N.I.H. researcher, at a 1987 N.I.H. conference. ''High protein levels can be bad for the kidneys. High fat is bad for your heart. Now Reaven is saying not to eat high carbohydrates. We have to eat something.'' > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/646 "2011-03-15T21:11:15Z")
**Stoid** , if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re claiming that Taubes’ reporting of a researcher’s quotes accurately is what matters, regardless of the larger context of Taubes’ intent. Is that right? Why, then, should we consider everything you’ve said in the context in which you said it? When I quoted you regarding calories (“Since the number of calories is the same, it’s nonsensical to say that ‘calories count’. They don’t. The composition of the calories is what counts.”), you said pulling quotes out of context like that was “ridiculous.” I quoted you accurately … isn’t that what matters? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/647 "2011-03-15T21:27:39Z")
> [@Sauron](#): > > **Stoid** , if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re claiming that Taubes’ reporting of a researcher’s quotes accurately is what matters, regardless of the larger context of Taubes’ intent. Is that right? You’re not understanding me or Reaven correctly. He referenced Reaven on Syndrome X as part of what he was saying. Reaven did not find that Taubes’ took him out of context, he was concerned that simply because he was referenced, and referenced accurately, that people reading the piece would conclude that he supported Taubes’ entire thesis. All Taubes’ did was include Reaven’s research, and he did so accurately, and in the correct context. Reaven just didn’t want anyone to make assumptions based on that, which they might or might not, but as you can see from the way Taubes’ wrote it, he didn’t make that assertion: > [@](#): > > \*\* …eating a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet \*\*would, for many people, raise their triglyceride levels, lower their H.D.L. levels and accentuate what Gerry Reaven, an endocrinologist at Stanford University, called Syndrome X. This is a cluster of conditions that can lead to heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. > It took Reaven a decade to convince his peers that Syndrome X was a legitimate health concern, in part because to accept its reality is to accept that low-fat diets will increase the risk of heart disease in a third of the population. ’ Reaven did not say any of this wasn’t true, and none of this says “Reaven agrees with everyhting I’m saying in this whole article”. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/648 "2011-03-15T21:32:23Z")
Actually, now that I think about it, Reaven wasn’t complaining about being _ **taken out** _ of context, he was complaining about being _ **placed in** _ the context of Taubes’ whole article. But again: Taubes simply _cites_ his work, cites it _accurately_, and in fact his work _does support some of what Taubes’ is saying_. All factual, all true, all accurate, all fair. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/649 "2011-03-15T21:34:33Z")
I’m not talking about the research itself. I’m talking about accurate quoting regardless of context. Earlier you seemed to feel the context was important: > [@Stoid](#): > > … I’m not going to continue to respond to anyone who tries to make it seem honest or legitimate in any way to pull out a sentence, or a phrase, in the thousands of words I’ve written in this thread, and make me answer for it as though it represents the entirely of my thoughts, ideas, or opinions. That’s ridiculous, and you know it. and then later you didn’t: > [@Stoid](#): > > The man said that Taubes quoted him accurately - his problem is with Taubes’ larger thesis and how his quotes may associate him with it. If Taubes was reporting his quotes accurately, that’s what matters. Just trying to alleviate the cognitive dissonance. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/650 "2011-03-15T21:36:29Z")
> [@Sauron](#): > > I’m not talking about the research itself. I’m talking about accurate quoting regardless of context. Earlier you seemed to feel the context was important It is. And in this case, _nothing was quoted or taken out of context_, so your dissonance came from misunderstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/651 "2011-03-15T21:41:24Z")
So were you mistaken when you said calories don’t count? ---
**Author:** ![Elysian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c77e96/32.png) [@Elysian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elysian)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/652 "2011-03-15T22:24:36Z")
I have read (listened to) most of the book and I thoroughly agree with that review as well. He’d say something like squirrels will build fat before winter no matter what they are fed, and I wanted to scream “BUT WE’RE NOT FUCKING SQUIRRELS ARE WE” but didn’t because I was on the treadmill at the gym. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/653 "2011-03-15T22:27:47Z")
> [@Elysian](#): > > I have read (listened to) most of the book and I thoroughly agree with that review as well. He’d say something like squirrels will build fat before winter no matter what they are fed, and I wanted to scream “BUT WE’RE NOT FUCKING SQUIRRELS ARE WE” but didn’t because I was on the treadmill at the gym. Fucking squirrels is frowned upon at the gym. Er, so I’ve heard. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/654 "2011-03-15T22:41:28Z")
> [@Sauron](#): > > So were you mistaken when you said calories don’t count? I’ve answered that in depth. Read the thread. If the copious words I’ve already writtin in direct response to all questions about my thoughts and words on calories are not sufficient to answer this question, I can’t imagine any other words I could assemble that would. But you’ll find in the following some more information on the subject, along with a great deal more. I found Taubes’ [response](http://www.lowcarbportal.com/archives/2003/03/04/taubes_response.php) to Fumento’s criticism, and it seems what I found self-evident was Taubes’ view exactly regarding not quoting everybody: > [@](#): > > Among Fumento’s primary criticisms are that I only cite individuals who support my thesis and disregard those who don’t. He ignores the fact that because the article challenges the accepted dietary dogma, and indeed acknowledges that challenge in the opening paragraph,\* by definition it implies that considerably more than half of all researchers and administrators believe the accepted dogma. If they didn’t, it wouldn’t be dogma.\* The point of writing the article was precisely to note that some equally respectable scientists question this dogma, and then to explain why. …The obvious point is that this majority has gotten plenty of space to air their views over the decades. They didn’t need my help. > [@](#): > > If Fumento did interview more, then it’s conceivable he omitted the comments, for instance, of those who believed that my article had merit. And then _ **he** _ was undeniably selective about which opinions he would publicly embrace in support of his thesis from those researchers he did interview. For instance, he first cites Harvard’s Walter Willett chastising me for neglecting his anxieties about red meat and colon and prostate cancer. But then Fumento characterizes me as “clipping the data” for saying “that the percentage [Fumento’s emphasis] of fat in the American diet has been decreasing for two decades,” when Fumento thinks it would be more relevant to discuss the absolute number of fat calories consumed.\* Yet Willett is perhaps the most outspoken proponent of the idea that total fat calories are irrelevant to the obesity epidemic, a point he makes in print several times a year.\* > [@](#): > > Fumento next accuses me of tricking Stanford University researcher John Farquhar into seeming to support the Atkins diet and he quotes an **infuriated Gerald Reaven,** also of Stanford, calling my article “outrageous” and saying that I set him up. > \*\*For starters, Reaven was not quoted in the article, a fact that he and Fumento apparently consider irrelevant. **Reaven’s name and research were mentioned in the context of two paragraphs on the history of Syndrome X that have precisely zero to say about the Atkins’s diet and sit over 3000 words and 24 paragraphs after one discussion of the Atkins diet and 1500 words and 18 paragraphs before the next.** When I interviewed Reaven last year, however, he did say the following about Atkins’s diet, on tape, on the record, and I trust he won’t mind me repeating it: “I think it’s a great way to lose weight. That’s not the issue.” \*\*The issue, he said, was whether it was safe for long-term weight maintenance, which he doubted. Reaven believes saturated fat should be avoided, as well as carbohydrates. Atkins only advocates avoiding the latter. He pretty much **shreds** everything Fumento says. It’s quite lengthy and those interested in both sides, and who feel swayed by Fumento need to read it in order to decide if Fumento’s criticism is accurate. For instance: (And to the Copyright gods: Follow the link. The rebuttal is VERY VERY VERY long. These quotes do not represent a significant percentage) > [@](#): > > Fumento then goes on to **accuse me of shoving aside “decades of published, controlled randomized clinical trials comparing nutrient intake and weight loss.”** Regrettably, Fumento seems unclear on the concept of a “controlled randomized clinical trial,” an unfortunate failing for a wannabe medical journalist. The relevant clue and the salient point is that there **were no such trials**. > [@](#): > > The [other study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8561057&dopt=Abstract) is even more interesting, if for no other reason than the fact that one of the co-authors is the recently infuriated Gerald Reaven. His collaborator and first author was Alain Golay, a Swiss researcher. The study was published in 1996. In this study, Golay and company randomly assigned obese individuals to receive one of two 1000-calorie diets. One was a low carb diet–32 percent protein, 15 percent carbohydrates and 53 percent fat–and the other was a high carb diet–29 percent protein, 45 percent carbohydrate and 26 percent fat. After six weeks, the low carb dieters lost an average of 8.9 kg plus or minus .6 kg, while the high carb dieters lost 7.5 kg plus or minus .5 kg. While the authors concluded that there was “no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to the diets,” the difference between these two diets is 1.4 kg or 3 pounds in six weeks, and the error bars–the plus or minus–do not overlap, which is an elementary measure of statistical significance. If this 3 pounds in six weeks difference were to be real and sustainable, which Golay’s study cannot establish, it would translate to an extra 25 pounds of weight loss over a year, without eating a single calorie less. It may or may not be real, but it is certainly evidence that this study does not refute the aforementioned contention. > [@](#): > > Fumento also **quotes Hill saying “I haven’t seen any data anywhere saying Atkins is better than these other diets for weight loss.”** In the very next paragraph, \*\*Fumento then quotes Hill’s collaborator, \*\*Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania, saying that \*\*the recent diet trial he did with Hill resulted in greater weight loss for those on the Atkins diet. \*\* \*\*Twice the weight loss to be precise. \*\*The statements of Hill and Foster are contradictory, which could be more a figment of Fumento’s reporting than the actual data or their opinions. It would be nice, however, if the three got together and worked this one out. Maybe they could get back to us > [@](#): > > **Fumento’s next assault on my reporting is to accuse me of not being able to extract a single useful line from five other “top obesity researchers.” One of these, however, Xavier Pi-Sunyer, I did not interview for this story. One of them, Marion Nestle, is a nutritionist and administrator with a background in molecular biology. She is not and never has been an obesity researcher, nor has she ever treated obese patients. One of them, Arne Astrup, co-authored with Hill the December 2000 International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders meta-analysis. My earlier comments about meta-analyses and controlled trials would suggest why I might have shied away from quoting Astrup for the enlightenment of my readers. And one of them, Jules Hirsch of Rockefeller University, I did quote in early drafts of my article,** but the relevant paragraphs, regrettably, were among the last to be cut for space reasons. **First it quoted Hirsch saying “Of all the damn unsuccessful treatments, the treatment of weight reduction by diet for obese people just doesn’t seem to work. " It then continued: > This has led Hirsch, for example, into such a state of frustration that when we spoke last March, he said he could no more explain how obese individuals could lose weight, then he could explain how they gained it to begin with. “I’ve been working on this since 1960,” he said. "That’s a hell of a long time. You think I would have gotten a little farther along with it.” For the last 20 years, Hirsch has worked with Rudy Leibel on some of the seminal experiments in obesity research. When I interviewed Leibel, who is now at Columbia University, he capped our conversation this way: “if you do feel you understand this,” he said, "it will probably indicate that you’ve lost your mind**." > [@](#): > > Fumento’s finale is his insistence that I misrepresented an American Medical Association [critique](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=4739993&dopt=Abstract) of the Atkins diet that was released publicly in March 1973 by the AMA and published the following June. Fumento agrees with my characterization of the critique as scathing, but he takes exception to my claim that the AMA’s anonymous author “acknowledged that the diet probably worked but expressed little interest why.” **In his own press release touting his article, Fumento accuses me of having “grossly misrepresented” the AMA’s position. Fumento then quotes many of the scathing comments included in the critique, but he neglects to mention, as is his wont, one key sentence: “The fact remains, however, that some patients have lost weight on the low-carbohydrate diet `unrestricted in calories’.”** This seems to me–and perhaps, once again, I’m being naïve here–to be an admission that the diet probably works. (And rememebr that all of this was in relation to Taubes’ NYT article from 2002.) ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/655 "2011-03-15T23:07:22Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > There \*\*_IS_ \*\*something wrong with the “standard weight loss advice”. The standard low-fat low calorie diet simply does not work for most. Low carb works for many. (The Mediterranean diet also works for many). I have no problem believing low carb works for people as a means of reducing their overall calorie consumption, just like you said here: > [@DrDeth](#): > > I lost weight on a low carb/high protien diet, but I was doubtful of the whole “ketosis” thing, etc. But then I noticed- “junk food” is carb heavy and so are snacks. It’s actually hard to snack low carb. I ate less calories as I consumed hwaaaaayy less snacks (beef jerky, cheese sticks, some nuts). I also don’t really feel like it’s dangerous, except insofar as it gives people the idea that they can gorge on huge numbers of calories and still lose weight. The problem with all weight loss advice, so far as I can see, is the required willpower necessary to stick to the plan. I agree with you that diets should be tailored to the individual, and if a given person finds that low carb works for them, that’s great. But is there any evidence that low carb diets are easier to stick with long term? I’ve poked around online and while I find many extremely zealous people who claim long term success, I also see many references to people who found the diet near impossible to stick to, due to the extreme limitations and side effects like bad breath and constipation. I did find the [National Weight Control Registry](http://www.nwcr.ws/), which tracks the small percentage of dieters who maintain long term weight loss. Their website says “Most [successful dieters] report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity”. Several other sources report that less than 1% of registry members used low carb diets. If they’re so great and have been around since the 70s (in the form of Atkins), why aren’t they more heavily represented? I also found this [study](http://www.hospitalsiriolibanes.org.br/pacientes_acompanhantes/nucleo_nota_obesidade/artigos_cientificos/pdf/perda_de_peso.pdf), which found that the rate of adherence of low carb dieters was less than that of low fat dieters. [This](http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/debunking-diet-myths-atkins-ornish-weight-watchers-zone-dietall-poop-out.html)doctors blog sites a study that says “People do a pretty good job of losing weight for about half a year, and then their weight tends to drift back toward their pre-diet number.” in reference to several kinds of diets, including Atkins. Obviously, I don’t know the answer to long-term diet success - if I did, I’d be a millionaire. If people find a diet they can stick to long term, that’s great, but also pretty unusual unfortunately. What I disagree with is that low-carb diets are the solution for absolutely anyone who’s overweight. I also disagree with the idea that you can eat as much as you want as long as it doesn’t include the dreaded carbs. And I seriously doubt that most people who lose weight on low-carb diets do so for any other reason than calorie reduction. And I don’t think the rise in obesity is due to increased carb intake - it’s due to an increase in total calorie intake and a decrease in physical activity. Overall, I don’t see an issue with people trying low-carb diets. Whether or not I think low-carb diets succeed at getting people to lose weight (at least temporarily) has very little bearing on whether or not I think Gary Taubes is full of shit. As [Harvard](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-weight/best-weight-loss-diet/index.html)University says “Want to know the secret to losing weight that diet books have been hiding from you? Take in fewer calories—it doesn’t really matter how […] what you eat takes a backseat to how much you eat”. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/656 "2011-03-15T23:13:59Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > Several other sources report that less than 1% of registry members used low carb diets. If they’re so great and have been around since the 70s (in the form of Atkins), why aren’t they more heavily represented? I think there are a few reasons. 1. Low carb is boring for people who really like a ton of variety in their food. Personally, I can pretty much eat the same thing every day, so this isn’t a huge drawback for me, but it is for some people. 2. Societal pressure really does push back against low carb, especially doctors. 3. Many of the proponents set up unrealistic claims for the diet, that you can gorge yourself all day every day, lose weight, then keep it off. I don’t care what you’re gorging on, if you’re gorging, you’re doing it wrong. 4. Side effects can be off-putting. 5. Picky eaters struggle because of the lack of those bland foods so often favored by the picky. 6. It can be expensive and inconvenient. 7. Most importantly, it ain’t a miracle. It takes work. It’s not the easy way to waltz to weight loss and a lot of people don’t want to work at all on themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/657 "2011-03-15T23:14:33Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > He pretty much **shreds** everything Fumento says. Of course he does. He’s not going to say “yes, that’s right - I did cherrypick the research”, is he? I will note that part of his defence to the accusation of cherrypicking is pretty much ‘well he did it too’, which I find less than compelling. I also like his reasoning for dropping one of the people he interviewed - “[…] Marion Nestle, is a nutritionist and administrator with a background in molecular biology. She is not and never has been an obesity researcher, nor has she ever treated obese patients.” That’s quite rich, coming from someone who has never even studied biology, nutrition, or medicine at all. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/658 "2011-03-15T23:40:09Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > Of course he does. He’s not going to say “yes, that’s right - I did cherrypick the research”, is he? Do you mean to sell the idea that his thousands of words, which include direct quotes and emails from the researchers in question, along with tons of other information that completely underminds what Fumento has said, is nothing more than him _bitching_ about Fumento to protect his ego, vs. proving that Fumento’s critique was dishonest? > [@](#): > > I will note that part of his defence to the accusation of cherrypicking is pretty much ‘well he did it too’, which I find less than compelling. This is a dishonest characterization. He is not “defending” what you call cherrypicking by saying Fumento did it “too” - he is flat out busting Fumento for being hypocritical enough to accuse Taubes of cherrypicking BY cherrypicking. These are entirely different, particularly in light of the fact that he makes it very clear that he absolutely did not “cherrypick” at all! Cherrypicking means “pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, _ **while ignoring a significant portion of related** _ cases or data that may contradict that position. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherrypicking](http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherrypicking&sa=X&ei=iPV_TbjzLZL2swPa0aWCBg&ved=0CAgQpAMoAA&usg=AFQjCNGrAwbg9ixI1Sn7yqeQP5BIcGi8NA)” He ignored nothing! He stated at the outset: we all know that X is what most folks in this field say…now let’s look at the stuff we don’t hear about so much. The very purpose of cherrypicking is to suggest, by the complete absence of opposing data, that there is no opposing data, therefore what you’re trying to prove must be true. So if he’s cherrypicking, he’s totally missing the point of it by stating clearly that other voices are saying something other than what he’s now telling us. Cherrypicking is what the man who sold us the calorie theory (Ancel Keys) did when he did his research on fat and heart disease. He started with a belief, untested, that eating fat leads to heart disease. Then he looked for countries where heart disease and fat consumption were both high, leaving out countries where fat was high and heart disease low, or fat low and heart disease high. Then he “studied” these _ **cherrypicked** _ countries and concluded that correlation =causation. THAT is cherrypicking. Ancel Keys, or perhaps it was the people who reported, also “cherrypicked” when he/they sold us the idea that the key to losing weight was calorie restriction, while failing to note that said restriction also leads to getting fatter, and having a higher fat percentage overall, than you were when you started. So we’ve been led around by some heavily cherrypicked information for a long time - Taubes’ is finally exposing that fact. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/659 "2011-03-16T00:25:49Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > I have no problem believing low carb works for people as a means of reducing their overall calorie consumption, Which is another way of saying you have no problem continuing to believe what you are convinced of to start with, in spite of any and all evidence you are shown that _should_ lead you to question it. By the way, you were very convinced that Fumento’s piece was “damning” to Taubes’ journalistic integrity; Now that you’ve seen evidence of _Fumento_’s journalistic integrity, (less than impressive, to put it mildly) I guess you now think _ **he’s** _ not to be trusted, right? Or do you still find him the voice of reason, seeing as how he’s agreeing with your position, the one you won’t consider re-thinking in the face of any evidence you’re shown? None of it matters, of course… we are all entitled to believe as we see fit, and do as we see fit. I’d just like to understand exactly how you come to your conclusions and convictions. Because so far you’ve offered up your “bullshit meter” based on reading a lot of “scientific writing”, and Fumento, who Taubes’ has thoroughly discredited. Again…you’re entitled. You can believe anything at all based on nothing at all, I’d just like to know for my own reference when we engage in debate and discussion. (And really, Meyer, I’m only picking on you because you at least made the effort to come up with _something_ other than your own opinion, when almost everyone else who is pooh-poohing this is working off nothing _but_ their opinion. Since you tried, it would be very nice to see you demonstrate some consistence in how you assess integrity. Doing so would speak well to _your own_ integrity, and that in turn would lend a little weight to your opinion of others’. Cool how that works…) ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543/660 "2011-03-16T01:36:01Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I think there are a few reasons. > > 1. Low carb is boring for people who really like a ton of variety in their food. Personally, I can pretty much eat the same thing every day, so this isn’t a huge drawback for me, but it is for some people. Agreed. > [@](#): > > 1. Societal pressure really does push back against low carb, especially doctors. VERY MUCH agreed. This is what kept me from embracing it- what’s the point of using a diet that you have to abandon because it’s so terrible? And that’s why I’m passionate about Taubes’ book and the information he’s gathered; I think many people have shied away from something that really would be the right answer for them in terms of both weight and health, but they’ve been bullied into believing it isn’t and so keep trying to make starvation work…and keep getting fatter. > [@](#): > > 1. Many of the proponents set up unrealistic claims for the diet, that you can gorge yourself all day every day, lose weight, then keep it off. I don’t care what you’re gorging on, if you’re gorging, you’re doing it wrong. Hmmm…maybe some. It’s hard to imagine any but the most compulsive of emotional overeaters being ABLE to “gorge” to such an extent that all bets are off and NO weight loss occurs, since many longtime low carbers report very high-calorie eating on a consistent basis alongside successful weight loss AND, as we’ve all agreed, eating this way is so very satisfying that “gorging” is not desired at all. I think of gorging as driven by three factors: hunger driven by blood sugar spikes, appetite driven by blood sugar spikes, and both or either of those _ **in combination with** _ emotional eating. I say this because I’ve overeaten, and I’ve gorged. Overeating is something almost everyone does sometimes, and many low-carbers _always_ overeat, in that they are consistently eating significantly more calories than they “should” be; calories that would, we’re told, lead to no weight loss or even weight gain. But they don’t. Again: I am amazed that so many people make the assertion that it’s “hard” to replace the calories of the high-carb foods when switching to low-carb: one ounce of carbohydrate equals 112 calories. One ounce of fat equals 252. In more real world terms that account for water and other nutrients, compare one ounce of potato, 27 calories, to one ounce of sausage, 101 calories. Granted, you aren’t going to sit down and eat “fat” like you’ll eat popcorn, but since fat IS so calorie dense, it’s a snap to eat lots of calories. Gorging is ultimately very uncomfortable on pretty much every level, ranging from shame to bowel movements, so unless someone is using food as a drug, in combination with insulin driven cravings, it’s hard to see many people consistently gorging. All to say, in the absense of emotional eating and blood sugar crazies, I can’t see many people gorging. Eating plenty, till unquestionably sated, but not gorging. And that will lead to weight loss, although perhaps not as fast as they would like. (\*\*FTR: \*\* while I have been stumping for the idea that calories are not the reason for obesity, I DO AGREE that eating enormous amounts of food is going to present a much greater challenge to even the world’s most smoothly running fat regulation system. In other words, you’ll probably lose weight faster and more easily if you try to leave a little room. I believe, I know, that you do not have to eat “low calorie” to lose weight eating low carb, but the fewer fat and protein calories you give your system to use, you make it easier for your system to use up your bodyfat. Because, as I’ve said and explained to exhaustion, yes, the body does respond to restricted calories by eating itself. So, within the context of a low-carbohydrate diet, where the body’s fat regulation system is working properly to burn off the bodyfat _ **no matter how much you eat** _, reducing calories is a way to rev the engine and lose weight _ **faster** _. We’re only animals, after all, and if our poor systems are forced to work as hard as they can to keep burning “gorge” calories, it’s going to be a far greater challenge to expect it to do a great job burning off the bodyfat at the same time.) > [@](#): > > 1. Side effects can be off-putting. Agreed, says the woman with bad breath and “regularity” challenges. > [@](#): > > 1. Picky eaters struggle because of the lack of those bland foods so often favored by the picky. That’s what’s so great about carbs: the blank canvass. One thing about low-carbing it, everything you eat is going to have an assertive flavor to it, which is why it’s so hard to come up with low-carb foods to replace the carby food. (Like Drain Bead’s coconut flour tortillas. I’m willing to give it a shot, but…coconut? Although it does seem that the food scientists of the world could find away to pretty much remove most of the flavor from some things like coconut, leaving a blank canvas.But that’s the “frankenfoods” that most dedicated low-carbers decry.) I never thought about how people who don’t like assertive flavor might be put off, but it makes sense. I’m very thankful that I love meat as much as I do, because if I didn’t I’d be stumped how to make this work over the long haul. > [@](#): > > 1. It can be expensive and inconvenient. Agreed. I’ve been eating fried chicken wings because I really like them and I want to eat what I really like, otherwise why bother. But setting up to fry chicken wings is a much bigger mess and hassle than toast or a sandwich or opening a can of soup or eating a frozen meal… And mess is big. Especially dealing with chicken, a subject I’m a little hysterical about after a bad experience a year or two ago. I feel the need to douse my whole kitchen in bleach every time I go near raw chicken, terrifeid that I have forgotten what I touched or that it might have spashed. (My experience was on the heels of the most fleeting encounter with raw chicken - it was fast and violent. Learned me a big lesson I THOUGHT I’d learned long ago. Evidently I needed some experience to drive it home.) > [@](#): > > 1. Most importantly, it ain’t a miracle. It takes work. It’s not the easy way to waltz to weight loss and a lot of people don’t want to work at all on themselves. And still more agreement. That’s what I find curious about any suggestion that anyone turns to this as some kind of miracle answer. Eating tasty fatty food I like is definitely much better than severe restriction of fat and calories, but it’s not as though I don’t want sweets or bread or rice or whatever. I wish like hell I could have a tall cold glass of Collins mix right now. A simple pleasure, but I can’t have it and that’s a drag. Nothing, \*\*\*absolutely nothing \*\*\*that results in significant weight loss, is without some kind of meaningful sacrifice and discomfort that must be weathered. **There is no easy way.** The only thing that’s easy is eating whatever you damn please, and that’s not going to lead to weight loss. But some ways are easier and healthier and more sustainable than others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-unhappily-report-that-i-am-right-about-obesity-and-diet-very-long/571543.md?page=34)