True.
I think it probably goes without saying at this point that I don’t consider the OP in any way a spokesmodel for any way of eating. 
Travis, your interest in my personal choices is…interesting.
I have made choices I’m comfortable with, they are working excellently for me. As I’ve said a few times, my personal position is that everyone with an obesity issue should read this book, along with any and all other information on the subject. If they find it compelling and are interested in finding out if carb restriction will work for them, they should take that information and determine how it is most effectively applied in their own lives, which is what I’m doing.
I find not only your personal choices interesting, but the fact that you’re proclaiming a diet that you have yet to actually follow the end-all be-all of dieting. Not only this, but your constant poo-pooing of any rational discussion of the merits of this diet, and its originator. Perhaps if you weren’t engaging in hero worship AND actually following the diet that your hero is a proponent of, I, and the rest of this board, would take you seriously. Until then, be interested in my interest in your personal choices, if that’s what floats your boat.
The fact that you are preoccupied with making an issue of two meals over three weeks demonstrates where your interest lies - and it’s not with having a rational discussion. (There is no particular diet, by the way, something that’s been stated multiple times, including the post you are quoting.)
As was pointed out above, this study really doesn’t test the “calories-in-calories-out” concept but it is also a little dubious to use to counter M. Obama’s health initiative for another reason. “Let’s Move” bills itself as “America’s move to raise a healthier generation of kids”, not post menopausal women.
I’m all topped off on the WHI study.
Other questions? Actually, this thread is spent. I think I’ll start a new one: Questions for Gary Taubes.
So I’ll take that to mean no, you don’t intend to address his misuse of that study in his research. Why don’t you let Gary Taubes answer questions himself if he feels it necessary instead of bravely defending his work for him. You linked him the thread, presumably if he feels he is being unfairly attacked he will know where to go to defend himself.
That’s precisely what I’m doing. I invited him to join, but he said he doesnt’ keep up with what he’s already got on his plate, he can’t jump into a group of people and try to keep up.
I won’t paraphrase him or anything, I’ll repost exactly what he says.
When I was a teenager, I had a girlfriend. You wouldn’t know her though–she lived two towns over. But we talked on the phone every weekend…
Carbs are addictive. I’m always amazed when people talk about food in the same way I’ve heard addicts talk about their drug of choice, but nobody ever stops to think “Hmm, maybe it’s unhealthy to NEED a certain type of food above all others.” The fact is, you don’t need carbs. You don’t need to give into the urges. You don’t need to poison yourself. You can walk away from it, and it won’t be easy, but it’s possible. I’m the only one in my family low-carbing right now, which means I’m surrounded by all sorts of delicious carbs every day, but I’m indifferent to them now. I’m in week 10 now and it’s easier every day. The cravings have stopped and I don’t even seek out my favorite low-carb sweet treats anymore.
I’ve indulged in about five or six “planned cheats” since January. Not because I desperately craved/needed/wanted anything in particular, but because I needed to teach myself about portion control and stopping when I found food pleasurable. It’s no great difficulty to STOP eating spinach, but my favorite pizza? You better believe I’d want more than one slice of that. Freshly made tortillas? I could shotgun those things. But I don’t. I have one reasonable serving, and I’ve taught myself to be satisfied with that. I’m sure other people don’t have to teach themselves how to eat one serving, but clearly, it’s an issue for people who are on a diet.
Oh, in Canada!
You know, after reading the Slate article by Taubes, I remain convinced that the guy is a hack journalist who couldn’t figure his way around a scientific research paper if his life depended on it. Check out his article, but actually click on the links that he cites in his work.
Not only does he blatantly misrepresent the WHI article, saying that it was a diet that cut calories instead of a diet determined to demonstrate whether or not increasing the percentage of calories from fat resulted in weight gain, he blatantly misrepresents multiple other research as well. He states that the result of that study, which was not designed to lose weight, was that the participants lost only one pound. But the study did not restrict calories.
From the link he presents “proving” that exercise does not result in weight loss, within the same article, his statement of summary is "As they put it, the data supporting the idea that increasing our energy expenditure will lead to weight loss—or even a slowing of weight gain—“are not particularly compelling.”
The article itself states: “To help prevent unhealthy weight gain, some adults will need to exceed minimum recommended amounts of physical activity to a point that is individually effective in achieving energy balance, while considering their food intake and other factors that affect body weight.” He again fails to mention that the research was intended to demonstrate a link between physical activity and cardiovascular fitness, NOT WEIGHT LOSS.
In the article he quotes saying “When researchers have tested diets that restrict how many calories are consumed—counseling their subjects to eat, say, 500 or 1,000 fewer calories a day than they normally would—the results have been depressingly predictable,” he neglects to leave out that the study again, did not control for calorie consumption and was only testing whether consistent counseling of patients on diets improved how well they stuck to the diet. NOT WHETHER OR NOT THE DIET WORKED.
Instead, he likes to quote research from 1825, about how carbs are fattening. So not only does he rely on research that is nearly 200 years old to prove his theory, he can’t seem to figure out how to successfully read modern research papers in a way that demonstrates that he actually understands how modern research is conducted.
So, selective reporting, misquoting, difficulty understanding specialized topics and blaming the specialists for whatever misunderstandings exist…
I think I’ve met him or someone just like him. If only I could figure out where.
I can’t believe that in that article he tries to make Michelle Obama’s attempts to curtail childhood obesity seem terribly misguided. He’s basically saying that it’s pointless to try and educate parents about balanced, healthy diets and exercise, because it won’t work anyways. The only solution is to ban carbs forever from everywhere, ever.
Yeah, good luck with that. First off, growing children need nutrition and the effects of low carb have not been tested on kids, so far as I know. Second, low carbing is expensive, and some of the poorest states have the highest obesity rates - good luck getting them to give up feeding their kids pasta and bread. Third, the likelihood of getting people to moderate their intake without giving up any of their favourites is much greater than convincing them to swear off some foods entirely.
But more to the point, it doesn’t even make sense with his underlying theory. He says that some people have yo-yo dieted themselves into a ‘broken metabolism’, due to over intake of the big bad carbs. So they now cannot eat carbs without magically making them straight into fat. But in this case we’re talking about children, who surely haven’t already got ‘broken metabolisms’. So why can’t we teach these children to eat right and exercise and never get fat in the first place?
I think it’s dangerous and stupid of this guy to try and spread the idea that healthy eating and activity are worthless goals for families. I think (like **ladyfoxfyre **does) that he either can’t properly interpret scientific research or chooses to misrepresent it. But at the very least he could keep his ideas internally consistent.
Going back to a very early discussion, I thought Stoid would be interested in this study:
I believe that he’s actively misrepresenting things. What sells more books: You have to stop filling your fat face and start exercising; or You can eat as much as you want and sit your fat ass down on the couch?
People are inherently lazy and will inevitably take the easy road: Filling their fat face with bacon and sitting on the couch. If you tell them that it’s good for them and that they’ll loose weight, all the better…
Why can’t we teach these children to eat right? Because ‘eating right’ is what exactly?
What is ‘eating right’?
What no one addresses is how things work in the real world, which plays out over many years and decades.
Asking someone to ‘eat right’ is akin to asking them to become an absolute medical freak. EATING RIGHT (ya know, in the real world), apparently (LOOK AROUND), is virtually impossible, except for the occasional medical freak (see Doctor OZ and the tiny % of trainers in the world who do it. I am married to one. – Oh WAIT! I done gone and guess what you mean by eating right! Darn!
Yes, with proper tools, you can paint like DaVinci, or sculpt like Michelangelo, or throw a football like Tom Brady. Just do what they did to ‘do it right!’ LMAO!!! To be skinny or fit, just eat like the people who eat right. LMAO!
And who are we talking to? Once obese, you are DONE. It’s OVER. Mail it in. You can’t ‘eat right’. Oh, wait… you know some obscure exception to this rule? Are they gravely ill or are they some tiny part of society we can declare ‘medical freaks?’
.
For those who don’t intend to read the book but would like to know more, the documentary “Fat Head”, which was a response to Morgan Spurlock’s Supersize Me, is a very entertaining and informative way to get the same information.
It’s instant-watchable on Netflix.
My God, this topic brings out the crazy.
No, this topic is the one topic on SDMB that flies under the science radar, ignores reality and perpetuates myths.