Gary Taubes

[hudday48]

Big Fat Lies with Gary Taubes, 02/06/08 Stevens Institute of Technology

Gary Taubes the author of Good Calories Bad Calories makes a 70 minute speech on his opinion of weight control.

Basically to sum up the speech the first third was him giving examples of people who lived in non-toxic environments that had high levels of obesity. Then he described how the common occurrence of fat mothers with malnourished children ran means either the mothers didn't feed their children of the obesity was because of something other then excessive calorie expenditure.
Then he pokes holes in the theory that Change in energy = Energy Intake - Energy Expenditure is being misused in attempts to curb obesity. Basically he says energy intake and energy expenditure aren't independent variables and they influence one and other in order for people to maintain a stable bodyweight.
Then he synthesizes literature on fat cell ****bolism explaining why insulin is necessary for fat to accumulate in fat cells.

Basically insulin is what makes people fat. Since reducing carbs reduces insulin that would be more effective then decreasing caloric intake.

Any comments or flames are welcome

 

[Torka]

I don't think the idea that a lower carbohydrate intake promotes weight loss is controversial here. Even a lot of the people on this forum who aren't actively trying to drop weight seem to avoid eating a lot of bread and potatoes, and tend to limit the majority of their daily carbohydrate intake to the post-workout period when their insulin sensitivity is up.

 

[Mathias]

Here is Anthony Colpo's response to Gary Taubes....

"I've not read the book yet, but did read Taubes' recent article in New Yorker Magazine.

Years ago, I used to have respect for Taubes' work, and even cited his Soft Science of Dietary Fat article in TGCC. Those days are long gone. I don't know what it is about this ****bolic advantage BS, but it really sucks in a lot of gullible folks, and decorated credentials clearly offer no immunity whatsoever.

Kevino claims that "Taubes is a journalist who looked at just about every study every published on diet and weight". Taubes clearly is not familiar with the numerous ****bolic ward studies showing no such thing as a superior weight loss effect of low-carb diets at isocaloric intakes. He gets sucked in by the illusion of greater weight loss at isocaloric intakes in some, BUT NOT NEARLY ALL, free-living studies, in which the self-reported dietary intakes are notoriously prone to misreporting.

IF Taubes' message is that the current obesity epidemic is not due to insufficient activity and/or excessive calories, but simply due to high carbohydrate consumption, then his message is complete bullsh*t.

USDA food intake data shows that the average per capita intake of carbohydrates in 1909 was 501 grams; in 2000, it was 493 grams. To the best of my knowledge, there was no obesity "epidemic" in 1909...

Average caloric intake in 1909 = 3500. Average caloric intake in 2000 = 3900.

Average person in 1909 worked in manual labor. Average person in 2000 spends most of his/her day seated, with occasional breaks to shuffle his/her fat ass over to the food vending machine.

For crying out loud, this isn't exactly rocket science. Unfortunately, the plain truth just doesn't excite major publishers...

Bottom line is that Taubes is off sniffing on the wrong trail. Those who follow him can expect the same disappointing results that awaited those who believed Atkins' ****bolic advantage rubbish and thus never bothered to create an energy deficit."

 

[hudday48]

Its true that Gary doesn't try to prove that consumption of carbohydrates has increased in this speech. In his book good calories bad calories (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here since I haven't read it) that the big culprits are high-fructose corn syrup.
He doesn't mention what the diets were for most of the people he studied other then Sioux study (diet of bread and coffee).
I think he overreaches like most fad diets and exaggerates the differences in his thinking in effort to draw greater attention to his book.
I think the number of calories consumed is still very relevant (thats why there is variation among all these people with similar diets) but the types of calories are very relevant and help determine their uptake.

 

[MikeMartial]

Colpo seems to like to stir the pot in order to ride the coat tails of successful nutrition writers. He did the same thing months back regarding Dr Eades and his viewpoints on lowcarb. Eades tore him to bits in his responses, and it looks like Colpo has moved on to new targets.

I'm only into chapter 2 of Good Calories/Bad Calories, and I'm keeping an open mind on the whole book. So far, though, unless the entire book is a blatant lie from cover-to-cover, it's quite enlightening.

 

[Mathias]

I'm still confused about the whole squirmish between Colpo and Eades. They're both proponents of low-carb eating but Colpo seems to think that the whole ****bolic Advantage theory is bullshit. I haven't extensively researched the issue, but I believe it's that a person on a low-carb diet eating a certain number of calories would lose more weight than a person on a high-carb diet eating the same number of calories. I tend to agree with Colpo being against this and that it all has to do with calories in/calories out.

What's kind of funny is that Protein Power is kind of the same thing as what Colpo recomends. Colpo seems to follow Paleo-type nutrition of meat, eggs, and vegetables but isn't really against saturated fat as most other Paleo writers are. The thing that I like about Colpo is that he's actually a personal trainer/athlete with tremendous musculature unlike a lot of these nutrition writers, i.e Taubes.

 

[Torka]

"Taubes is a journalist who looked at just about every study every published on diet and weight". Taubes clearly is not familiar with the numerous ****bolic ward studies showing no such thing as a superior weight loss effect of low-carb diets at isocaloric intakes.

Most studies of "low carbohydrate" diets I've seen carried out by the medical profession are BS because they're not low carbohydrate. To a typical doctor who promotes the "ALL CARBS ALL THE TIME" diet advocated by Dean Ornish and the AMA, where you gorge yourself on grains and treat protein and fat like poisonous acids, a "low carbohydrate" diet is one where carbs make up only 40-50% of your daily calorie intake instead of 70-80%. Which bears no resemblence to the ratio of a low carbohydrate diet in the real world at all, which is more like 10-20% carbs, or even lower in some extreme cases.

 

[SVcabron]

Colpo seems to like to stir the pot in order to ride the coat tails of successful nutrition writers. He did the same thing months back regarding Dr Eades and his viewpoints on lowcarb. Eades tore him to bits in his responses, and it looks like Colpo has moved on to new targets.

I'm only into chapter 2 of Good Calories/Bad Calories, and I'm keeping an open mind on the whole book. So far, though, unless the entire book is a blatant lie from cover-to-cover, it's quite enlightening.

This book is very informative and was a pleasure to read. Colpo talked shit about a book before he even read it.

 

[jodka]

Colpo seems to like to stir the pot in order to ride the coat tails of successful nutrition writers. He did the same thing months back regarding Dr Eades and his viewpoints on lowcarb. Eades tore him to bits in his responses, and it looks like Colpo has moved on to new targets.

I'm only into chapter 2 of Good Calories/Bad Calories, and I'm keeping an open mind on the whole book. So far, though, unless the entire book is a blatant lie from cover-to-cover, it's quite enlightening.

Love that book. It's a bit of a slag to read at times, but overall it's got a ton of good info.

It's nothing that anyone who reads this forum will be surprised by. Basically, refined carbs are the devil. But, the tales of how a highly refined carb diets became government backed are hilarious and frightening at the same time. The read is worth it if it just shows you how little scientific consensus can be trusted.