Oddly, people also get upset if someone instead assumes that they do know all the facts but are too lazy and weak-willed to put that knowledge to use.
Taubes is arguing, controversially, that some calories make you fatter than others. This is a legitimate scientific debate that is far from settled. As one reviewer wrote: “Taubes ignores what diabetes researchers say is a body of published papers documenting a complex system of metabolic controls that, in the end, assure that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. He also ignores definitive studies done in the 1950s and ’60s by Jules Hirsch of Rockefeller University and Rudolph Leibel of Columbia, which tested whether calories from different sources have different effects. The investigators hospitalized their subjects and gave them controlled diets in which the carbohydrate content varied from zero to 85 percent, and the fat content varied inversely from 85 percent to zero. Protein was held steady at 15 percent. They asked how many calories of what kind were needed to maintain the subjects’ weight. As it turned out, the composition of the diet made no difference.” (Cite.) However, as I say, the issue is a live and controversial one.
But when you say calorie-counting doesn’t matter, you’re going one step beyond Taubes. From what I can tell, there is no significant debate in the nutritional community over whether lowered calories is a crucial factor for fat loss. Taubes thinks so, as he has explicitly stated in at least one article, and so do his critics. (The article is a Washington Post article that’s not available for free, but you can find the text by googling for his response to Sally Squire’s criticism of him.) You’re reading a line or two of hyperbole from the book, that occurs in the context of challenging the low-fat thesis, into much more than it is. His point isn’t that calorie counting doesn’t matter, but that the type of calories is also important.
You can’t conflate caloric surplus/deficit with fat loss. There is little or no doubt that fat loss is a result of caloric deficit. The debate in the scientific community is over which factors (insulin, metabolism changes, other hormones) mediate the relationship and to what extent, and whether and to what extent the macronutrient distribution effects those factors.
I meant to add: I think Taubes gets the better of the argument on the first point, though I’m no expert. My point was simply that that is the issue over which there is so much dispute, not the low-calorie thesis.
I think most low-carb aficionados would agree with that. For many/some/most (I dunno which) people who try upping the fat and protein and lowering the carbohydrates, they find that it’s easier to reduce calories by eating low-carb simply because you don’t get as hungry. There are others who will go craving mad and need a noodle.
Generally, I’d recommend people try low-carb for a week or two. Once they have a sense if it’s a manageable program for them, they should start paying attention to calories. And they should pretty much always avoid frankencarbs.
If you are looking for scientific truth, you should realize that science is rarely as cut and dried as all that. As Richard Parker said, this science is controversial. That doesn’t make it not real science or a hoax or anything - lots of science is controversial. If there wasn’t controversy, if there weren’t things that were unknown, then we could just stop doing research, close up shop, and go home. It would save everyone a lot of money.
The point is, you can’t really take this one book as gospel, even if it seems scientifically sound. Obesity is a complex issue with a myriad of factors, and so there are going to be multiple viewpoints about studying it and finding ways to deal with it. This authors views should be balanced with other scientific theories, and with observed results that contradict what this guy is saying (such as the studies Richard brought up). There is not likely to be a single simple answer to such a complex issue.
That’s the nature of science. And if you genuinely cherish facts and truth and reality, you should realize that.
Although this is the first time I’ve posted in this thread, I’ve been following with great interest.
First of all, within the past few months I also read both of Taubes’ books and I can say that I understand where Stoid is coming from in terms of feeling like, wow, things are not as simple as I have been told. Clearly, there is more to the story in terms of weight gain and management for certain individuals.
Just for context, my interest in the books is twofold- I have a family recently diagnosed with diabetes that has caused me to consider losing some weight so that I can put myself in the lowest risk category for diabetes in terms of BMI. I’ve never really dieted and thanks to the magical powers of roller derby am in pretty good shape, but I could stand to lose some weight. I have always struggled with not feeling full though, which I think Tabues sheds some light on. The second reason is that a component of my work relates to public health, so I am very interested in this topic for obvious reasons.
Let me just say that Taubes is certainly not a quick fix in any way. Calories are still the essential story. It really requires a fundamental change of thinking about how you think about the food you want to consume. I basically had a zero fat diet (I don’t eat dairy) and it was so hard to change that because I don’t like fatty foods. I almost threw up eating mayonnaise for the first time in my life. And I now know how to cook red meat and pork.
The main point is that certain people are prone to weight gain and that carbs only exacerbate that tendency. Easy enough. However, if you are seriously going to follow that advice, then you have to pretty much commit yourself to never eating many foods that you’ve been eating your entire life. Anyways, Stoid I wish you luck- it is a huge way of changing how you eat, which is always a challenge.
First, I disagree. A “single simple answer” (backed by lots of complex study, research and facts) that actually produces results is perfectly acceptable - particularly, especially since treating it like something that is wildly complex and might have a dozen answers has led us exactly nowhere. Oh wait, that’s not true. It has led us to be sicker and fatter than we have ever been.
Because remember, prior to the 60’s/70’s and since, it was generally accepted that “starches” made you fat and cutting them down or out was the answer. Worked, too. Very simple. But then simple was pushed aside for complicated arguments about fat, calories, exercise…all while we cut down our fat and exercised like never before, and got insanely fat and diseased.
So yeah, a simple answer actually makes a bunch of sense.
All along, I’ve known that low carb works. Why, I’m not that clear about, but I know I can eat bacon, chicken skin, hamburger and eggs fried in butter and lose weight and not be hungry. Bored, yes. Hungry, no.
All along, I’ve known that I can eat so little that I’m hungry almost constantly. And if I do it this way I know I also become obsessed with food in a way that I really don’t want to be. But if I make myself uncomfortable enough, both mentally and physically, and drain myself of energy… I can lose weight. And the older I get, the harder this kind of weight loss has become. The more sure I am that I’m probably doomed, because I can’t live like this long term. I know me, I know my limits.
So this book did what I needed: made me understand why the very simple answer of restricted carbs works, why it automatically reduces my overall food consumption (although they are still way higher than they must be in order to lose weight eating carbs) AND made me understand why it is actually safer for me than drastically restricting my overall intake of food.
It gave me hope that I might actually be able to lower my weight significantly as well as manage and control my triglycerides, blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar and therefore significantly improve my chances for avoiding an early death without first figuring out how to face doing so on a regimen I find genuinely torturous over the long haul.
In other words, it confirmed everything I’d experienced for myself over 40 years of battling my weight, ***experience that flew in the face of everything ***I was being told by “the experts”.
So yeah, when my own experience finally gets support in such an impressively well-researched, agenda-free way, I’m happy to embrace it. My reality and the experts have finally converged so of course I embrace it, and no one has showed why I shouldn’t. There has been very little in this thread in the way of genuine refutation of what Taubes has said. A lot of sneering and scoffing, and some links to some argument, but not a whole lot in the way of major refutation of his core contentions, which he supports with boatloads of research.
So yeah, I’m very comfortable believing that I really am getting some truth at last. (and it is complex, under the hood. It’s just not complex in terms of practical application)
Thanks. And I hope this doesn’t have to be true. (“Never” is not a word I’m comfortable with). I expect it will take some time to really gauge what I can and can’t eat without having an impact on my weight and health.
If I can take off 50 pounds and keep my weight stable, that will be wonderful. I think I can. That’s all I want right now.
You have a long, long way to go if that is your belief.
I agree with you that that is not the way to weight loss, but I want to clarify that the point of the Taubes’ book is not that you can eat horribly and lose weight. The point is, eating differently will stop you from being so hungry, which will allow you to better control calorie intake. I hope most people don’t immediately dismiss it because of this misinterpretation/ casual remark.
I do follow the diet recommended and I mainly eat poached eggs and veggies, with some protein (usually fish, turkey or chicken) at every meal. Of course I add in fat sources and have fattier proteins, but I would hate to think that people are going to outright dismiss what Taubes is pointing out without reading it. I’m not saying you are doing that, but I want to be sure people who are genuinely interested in this topic read up on it and don’t dismiss it as the old-Atkins-eat-bacon and-eggs-and-butter-diet.
I am interested by the Taubes book but have very little faith that it is being accurately represented here by Stoid, who frankly is acting like some kind of born-again zealot who has finally seen the One True Light.
If you’re at all scientifically minded, his book from a few years ago Good Calories, Bad Calories is probably the best place for serious analysis of his arguments. Why We Get Fat is what I like to call the airplane version- very informative and a good read, but somewhat less rigorous if you are looking to understand his biological and medical arguments.
As I mentioned before, I can understand the feeling of true discovery and new understanding after reading these books. They made sense related to what I’ve seen and experienced, after hearing and seeing so much that did not. I would guess that’s the root of any zealousness.
Not “belief” experience.
You really need to get out of the realm of faith and belief and into the realm of information. I have been saying all along that anyone who is interested in the subject should read the book, so if you are looking to me or anyone else to somehow transmit a whole book to you in some message board posts I think you will remain unconvinced and uneducated.
oh wait.. it’s just a book and you seem to think books are stupid and pointless.
Never mind.
Three words: Why haven’t you?
Think about what you’re saying here. Your intolerance of boredom is so tremendous that you can’t follow an easy path to solving (apparently) the most important problem in your life. (Of course that’s absurd and can’t possibly be true… so there must be another truth here, what do you suppose it is?)
Let me add another two data points. My husband has lost over 50 pounds eating low-carb (Paleo-esque, with the addition of dairy), with very little exercise and no calorie counting. I started doing it in January, and I’ve lost almost 15 pounds, also with no calorie counting, and eating liberal amounts of everything listed in Stoid’s post. More importantly, I’ve been on a weight plateau for three weeks, but since February 18th, I’ve lost 1.5 inches on my waist and another inch of my hips, despite only losing about a pound in that time period. So clearly I’m burning fat. I’ve done this with minimal exercise (I went on two walks in the last three days, but that’s about it). Let me show you an average day’s diet:
Breakfast: 3 eggs and 4 slices of bacon
Lunch: A pan-seared salmon filet and a roasted tomato caprese salad
Dinner: Crab cakes (made with lump crabmeat and egg as the binder, along with some minced celery and shallots) fried in olive oil, with homemade caper-garlic aioli and a large salad with vinaigrette.
Breakfast: Corned beef hash made with roasted parsnips and turnips, 3 fried eggs, and a slice of lox.
Skipped lunch, but had a small bowl of cabbage fried in bacon fat.
Dinner: Two slices of meatloaf (made with a mixture of ground pork, beef, and veal, with egg and almond flour as the binders) stuffed with ham, raw Jack cheese, and hard-boiled eggs, topped with slivered almonds. Braised endive on the side. Glass of red wine.
I am rarely hungry, eating a lot of fatty foods, and losing weight and inches. Do I need a reality check, or do you?
I’m not looking to you to transmit a whole book in message board posts. I’m saying that your posts make the book sound really stupid and frankly unscientific. I am additionally saying that I’m willing to give it a try anyway, because I don’t trust your reporting on this issue.
Serious question: Does Taubes rely on peer-reviewed evidence in his book, or is it mostly anecdotal common-sense stuff? Because, Stoid, from your posts in this thread, it sounds like a lot of the latter. (Yes, yes, I know, you’ve said it’s so super sciencey and jam packed with science and it’s more sciencey than a science-filled thing that is sandwiched between two loaves of science, but I’m just asking, are we talking about actual, peer-reviewed science? Or just some sciencey stuff that sounds sensible?)
Drain Bead, your two sample days are low calorie. Just eyeballing it, I’d say it’s around 1600-1800 calories each, maybe less (you didn’t say how the eggs were prepared, or some other minor details). You may not be counting calories, but you’re also not eating very many of them. That is one of the chief benefits of a carb restriction – American portions of refined carbs have a lot of calories and reasonable portions of lean protein do not.
Come on now, Americans didn’t get fat and diseased by cutting down fat and ‘exercising like never before’, they got fat by eating fast food, hugely reducing the amount of physical labour they do, and driving everywhere. If you’re going to claim that diet advice is responsible for America’s obesity epidemic, I’m going to have to say you’re way off the mark.
I wasn’t trying to refute what Taubes said, and I wasn’t sneering or scoffing. I was pointing out that there is lots of science on either side of the argument, and this book is necessarily only presenting one view. Anyone in the field can write up a book that mentions only things that support their own side and sound completely scientific. There are two problems with this - it doesn’t sound peer-reviewed (as **MsWhatsit **said), and the readers (you) are not generally scientists. So when the author presents his ideas, they seem unchallenged, and when the reader reads them, they seem complete - because they don’t know the science enough to read it with a critical eye, and because it’s telling them what they want to hear.
I’m not saying he’s wrong. I don’t know. I’m not a doctor, dietitian, or someone trained in nutritional science (although, incidentally, neither is Taubes). I’m saying that if you want to throw away absolutely everything else and proclaim things like:
I’m going to say that you are either wildly misunderstanding or intentionally misapplying scientific theory. I wish you the best of luck, I sincerely hope low-carb works for you. I’ve seen it work for others - I’ve also seen it fail spectacularly. But I’ve also seen calorie counting work, and increased exercise work. There are too many variables to consider this ‘case closed’.
And that’s the beauty of it. When people claim that you can’t lose weight eating bacon and eggs and skin-on chicken and such, and not counting calories, they’re wrong. What they ignore is that fat and protein is very filling, while carbs only leave you craving more after the inevitable crash. Just because you’re not counting calories, it doesn’t mean you’re not eating fewer of them. And that’s how it works.
I get about 60 grams of carbs a day. I care more about percentages than calories. I average about 65% of my calories from fat, 10-15% from carbs, and the rest from protein. And it works. No rude awakenings here.