This is stupid. They are not mutually exclusive. You can overeat to a point where you have more mass. And then you will need to eat more to maintain that mass.
Also, newsflash. If you eat less, you will gradually lose mass.
Why do you have to “maintain your mass?” What does that even mean? It sounds like you’re saying you have to overeat to stay fat, which…duh.
If you really knew anything about diet and nutrition you wouldn’t be eating hamburgers for dinner in the first place.
Eww? To lettuce? Okaaay. That explains a LOT.
Of water. It’s common knowledge that low-carbing causes the body to dump large amounts of water weight. That’s all that has happened here. You have not lost any fat.
If your nearly 1000-calorie :eek: hamburger is typical of the meals you are eating, you’ve probably actually *gained *weight and are actually fatter than ever. :rolleyes:
I agree with you, in theory. But in the real-world conversations I’ve had with people who try lowering carbohydrates, some people can be pretty flexible with how many carbs they can eat while other people have to be pretty strict. For some people, it will make them hungry and have a lot of cravings and will cause what seems like instant weight gain (which is just water and glycogen, but which can be discouraging).
I think I’d say I prefer to call this style of eating “thoughtful carbs.” Don’t mindlessly scarf down sugary or starchy foods. Ideally, don’t mindlessly scarf down any foods at all.
I don’t really care what Atkins says. It is perfectly common for people to successfully lose weight on a low carb diet while cheating every now and then.
However, she has not been successful on any self-inflicted diet thus far. Your pedantry doesn’t change that.
ETA: This is also the method that Taubes himself suggests in the book. So if you want to say that yeah you can be on a low-carb diet and still gorge on an incredibly high amount of carbs after a whopping 2 1/2 weeks of dieting and still lose weight, sure. But it’s a stupid way to try.
For those following along, pg. 177.
Sure - though the reason may well be because such diets ultimately work, whether their proponents know it or not, by calorie-reduction. Thus a bit of cheating really isn’t a big deal.
If they worked the way their proponents think they work, it ought to be a big deal, since cheating ought to negate their alleged mechanism of action.
I am? Okay, please explain how I am wildly misrepresenting his claims. Since you’ve read the book, you have some credibility. Please be specific.
Pardon? Care to clarify this? Are you sure you read the book? “certain calories do more for your insulin resistance than others”? What does that mean?
Seriously, you aren’t really being clear. Where is the “calories count” part?
Let’s say I eat 2000 calories of fat and protein. My insulin doesn’t spike and my body burns and excretes all 2000 calories. Then it reaches into my fat cells and burns another 1500 and I lose 8 ounces of fat.
Or I eat 2000 calories of cornbread. My insulin goes crazy and stuffs my fat cells with an extra 8 ounces of fat.
2000 calories.
One scenario, I lose weight.
The other, I gain.
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. Are they composed of fat and protein, or carbs?
So what exactly are you saying?
I’m going to guess, based on what other people are saying: that in scenario 2, if I stick with the 2000 calories of cornbread, I won’t gain because of it, but because of the insulin spike I will get hungry again and eat another 2000 calories and THEN gain the extra 8 ounces, is that it?
Because if it is, fine, that’s your claim. But it’s not Taubes’.
Taubes says that the extra 8 ounces of fat in my cells *will demand that my body feeds it *after it is already there.
Thank you, Labrador. The simplest things seem to overwhelm some people’s circuits.
Dieters rewarding themselves with taboo food is like smokers rewarding themselves with cigarettes after going a couple of days without. It defeats the purpose.
You just can’t keep that knee from jerking, can you?
Don’t call me pedantic when you’re the one nitpicking the he’ll out of her version of a low carb diet. People cheat on diets all the damn time.
Also, she probably ate 40 grams of carbs in her cornbread. That isn’t an incredibly high amount.
No it doesn’t. Dieters don’t quit food cold turkey.
Look, I’ve said repeatedly that* I don’t know* if he’s right or not. I also never said he was lying or twisting things, just that he is only presenting one side of the story. I also am not convinced that his physics degree gives him the credentials to analyze obesity, any more than my biology degree gives me the credentials to argue astrophysics with Stephen Hawking.
I don’t know if you’re misrepresenting Taubes work or not, or if you’re just filtering out the parts you want to hear or not. * I don’t know*. What I do know is you’ve gone from this:
to this:
in a matter of days. Do you not see how that seems excessively overzealous? Do you not see that the you of only a week ago would have viciously disagreed with the you of today? Doesn’t that seem weird?
Part of your problem is that you’re taking this book as the gospel of dieting and weight loss. There are a lot of people in this thread who haven’t read it, it’s really not that great of a book for someone who is so focused on “science” and “data” that you love so much. But he tells you what you want to hear, which is that calories are irrelevant to the weight discussion. There is a good article about the effect of carbs on the body, written by an actual doctor, with actual scientific jargon: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/saturated-fat/changing-dietary-trends-and-the-obesity-epidemic/
I find it confusing that you read the book and don’t understand that calories from different sources have varying impacts on insulin production. In fact, you go on to explain parts of it in the next section of your post:
Yes, the composition of calories counts. That crazy theory that you yourself support and that I stated in the part you quoted earlier. Go re-read the part about hormones and their impact on weight gain. Calories do count, but it depends on where they come from as you state. 2000 calories primarily from carbs is going to spike your insulin and be stored as fat. Nobody is arguing that the composition of calories is not important. What you seem to be arguing is that they do not matter whatsoever. What he is saying is that strictly accounting for only calories without regard for their impact on insulin levels is not effective for weight loss. This is essentially the entire position of the low-carb movement. You really should read more about it from other perspectives instead of latching onto this book as the solution.
Taubes is not a scientist, as you pointed out earlier. And he makes some mistakes in his analysis of thermodynamics and the contention that when you consume more calories you grow, and when you consume fewer and burn more you lose mass. He seems to think that this requires some sort of qualitative explanation for the relationship, and the fact that he cannot see one means that it nullifies the contention.
“Not all foods that contain carbohydrates are equally fattening. This is a crucial point. The most fattening foods are the ones that have the greatest effect on our blood sugar and insulin levels. These are concentrated sources of carbohydrates, and particularly those that we can digest quickly: anything made of refined flour (breads, cereals, and pasta) [snip], starches (potatoes, rice, and corn)”. Which is where my criticism of your decision to binge on cornbread came from. You’re holding the information in this book to a high level, and seemingly ignoring it at the same time. If you really felt that the composition of the calories was the only thing that mattered, and that carbs were the enemy, why on earth would you bake cornbread? This will not result in you losing weight, even by his predictions.
No, that’s not what people are saying. Again, you’ll find a lot of low-carb enthusiasts on this board for many reasons that are backed up by “science” and “data” that you so love. What they are saying is that in scenario 2, if you eat the 2000 calories of cornbread, you will be more likely to experience that spike in insulin and more likely to store those calories as fat. It’s not that you will continue to eat beyond the 2000 calories, but that is actually a reasonable possibility. But no, it’s not just that 2000 calories is 2000 calories is 2000 calories. You’ve just chosen a really dumb 2000 calories to take in if your goal was to stick with his recommendations.
I am with you on the low-carb thing. But I don’t think that you totally get that this book is not the be-all end-all of scientific inquiry into the nature of nutrition.
I’m pretty sure that the ‘ew’ referred to the mayo and not the lettuce.
And isn’t initial water weight loss common to all diets and not just low carb? 
I admit to not having a cite for this, but I thought that this was the usual assumption as to why you lose more weight when you first start a diet and less as your body adjusts.
Hey, Submerged? waves politely Can you take a break from being a jerk to Stoid and talk to me for a minute? I promise it won’t hurt.
I eat very much like what Stoid just described, minus the cornbread of course, and have been doing it religiously since the beginning of January. Since January 19th, I have lost 2.5 inches on my hips, 2 on my waist, 1.5 on my bust, and 15 pounds. I have done this without exercising, so it’s just diet and nothing else. According to my scale, which measures body fat, I’m down about 4% body fat since I started. I’m down a pants size and am well on my way to the next one. Acquaintances are beginning to ask me how much weight I’ve lost and what I’m doing. Am I really just getting fatter and I don’t realize it? Or have I lost a clothing size worth of water weight?
You can deny it works all you want. You can disbelieve my single anecdote. So I’ll just point you in the direction of Dave. And there’s more where he comes from.
Please tell that guy he’s fatter. He’d probably kill you with his bare hands. 
Meyer6, PM me for info on the book if you’re curious to read parts of it.
And one more thing, Taubes does quote studies in the beginning of his book of people being put on calorie-restricted diets and it being effective at weight loss. One included people being put on a 600-calorie a day diet of primarily meat and fish. They lost a ton of weight. What he concludes though is that the calorie restriction is not possible to maintain on a long-term basis. So several of the cites he provides do demonstrate that calorie restriction results in weight loss.
Many proponents of the low-carb diet even say that it is also inherently calorie-restrictive, and the high fat content suppresses hunger and does not negatively impact insulin production.
True, but someone who’s making fundamental changes to their relationship with food must.
That’s why diets fail and permanent behavioral changes succeed.
Right, which is why occasional cheating is often beneficial when trying to make long term changes to eating habits. It keeps one from giving up all at once. Dessert every now and again is okay. Bread every now and again is okay.
On the other hand, 2000 calories of cornbread is rather excessive, if that’s actually how much Stoid knocked back in one sitting.