Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It - Gary Taubes

Stinger911

Purple Belt
@purple
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
7
Does anyone have an opinion on this man and his theories?

He wrote a very highly rated book on amazon that Bryan Callen mentioned on Rogan's last podcast called "Why We Get Fat : And What to Do About It."

Here is a link to one of his lectures that summarizes his ideas:


Here's a summary of his thesis:

1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of heart disease, or any other disease of civilization.

2. The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis - the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.

3. Sugars - sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup specifically - are particularly harmful, probably because of the combination of fructose and glucose simultaneously elevates insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbohydrates.

4. Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are most likely the dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and other chronic diseases of civilization.

5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior.

6. Consuming excess calories does not CAUSE us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child to grow taller. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.

7. Fattening and obesity are caused by an imbalance - a disequilibrium - in the hormonal regulation of adipose tissue and fat metabolism. Fat synthesis and storage exceed the mobilization of fat from the adipose tissue and its subsequent oxidation. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this imbalance.

8. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated - either chronically or after a meal - we accumulate fat in our fat tissue. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and use it for fuel.

9. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. The fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be.

10. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.
 
Lots of big words - but I'll make a note to watch it later.
 
I was finding the summary reasonable until points 5 and 6.
 
His insulin hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked by real scientists, even by scientists funded by his own organization (NUSI).

Disregard him.
 
His insulin hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked by real scientists, even by scientists funded by his own organization (NUSI).

Disregard him.

Can you source this? A lot of what I'm reading doesn't seem to suggest this at all... even right now, NuSI is finishing up a 2 year study into almost this exact topic about insulin resistance and whether or not a "calorie is a calorie is a calorie" in regards to fat vs carb. If you're talking about their 30 day "trial" program as debunking, then I think you're being a bit short-sighted.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show...arb+vs.+Low+Fat+and+Insulin+Resistance&rank=1

I think a lot of what he says is interesting... lots of people get their panties in a bunch when you challenge their carb-heavy diet.... especially the vegans.
 
Taubes own funded study has early results that are contradictory to his theory.

 
Taubes own funded study has early results that are contradictory to his theory.



This study sounds like it was done in a very poor manner. I'm not a nutritionist, but I am a guy who has been fighting fatness my entire life.

-The first 4 weeks were a high sugar diet, but constrained calories. So the people lost weight... makes sense.
-The second 4 weeks were a low carb, high protein diet and immediately people lost a good amount of weight, but it started to plateau after 2 weeks.

Everybody experiences plateaus during weight loss so after 6 weeks of constantly losing weight, especially the big jump in weight loss after going keto, it makes sense that there was a plateau. I would be interested to see how this happens in reverse... first 4 weeks is keto, then second 4 weeks in sugar, and see what the results are.

Either way it's a 2 month study which was performed in an A then B manner with only 17 participants. I think it's going to take a hell of a lot more here to get any real data, especially a B then A study. Do you have a link to the full study?

Edit: this guy is pretty insane to believe that a 2 month study can completely falsify an entire hypothesis. 17 patients, all men, all with a BMI between ~25-30..... that's not even enough data points for any kind of real analysis. It sounds like this guy, and the cameraman, were both very biased. When they said keto was giving an extra 100calorie/per day metabolic burn, they just dismissed it away as "nothing substantial." I also find it interesting that in the first 30 days it looks like people lost about 1 kg, but during the next 30 days they lost about 2 kg. Reminds me of this :
20160225_nothing_to_see_here.jpg
 
Last edited:
This study sounds like it was done in a very poor manner. I'm not a nutritionist, but I am a guy who has been fighting fatness my entire life.

-The first 4 weeks were a high sugar diet, but constrained calories. So the people lost weight... makes sense.
-The second 4 weeks were a low carb, high protein diet and immediately people lost a good amount of weight, but it started to plateau after 2 weeks.

Everybody experiences plateaus during weight loss so after 6 weeks of constantly losing weight, especially the big jump in weight loss after going keto, it makes sense that there was a plateau. I would be interested to see how this happens in reverse... first 4 weeks is keto, then second 4 weeks in sugar, and see what the results are.

Either way it's a 2 month study which was performed in an A then B manner with only 17 participants. I think it's going to take a hell of a lot more here to get any real data, especially a B then A study. Do you have a link to the full study?

Edit: this guy is pretty insane to believe that a 2 month study can completely falsify an entire hypothesis. 17 patients, all men, all with a BMI between ~25-30..... that's not even enough data points for any kind of real analysis. It sounds like this guy, and the cameraman, were both very biased. When they said keto was giving an extra 100calorie/per day metabolic burn, they just dismissed it away as "nothing substantial." I also find it interesting that in the first 30 days it looks like people lost about 1 kg, but during the next 30 days they lost about 2 kg. Reminds me of this :
20160225_nothing_to_see_here.jpg

The only advantage a keto diet has is enabling its practitioners to consume less calories, besides maybe 1-2% of the population it is always calories in vs calories out.
 
One of the smartest things I've read about keto diets is that they are really low calorie diets in disguise. Because you are cutting out carbs and carbs tend to have a high calorie count, but they're not good at keeping you full. So you tend to eat again very soon. Hence the old joke about being hungry an hour after eating chinese, it's because rice is all carbs.

It makes a lot of sense. But I'm always interested in hearing new research.
 
Calories in and out.

As for restricting carbs, keto isn't for everyone, its a small minority of people who can do it, and perform well with it.

I can agree that an excessive amount of sugar isn't healthy in the long term, but in terms of losing weight, it bears no difference and wouldn't hinder a person's goal to lose weight; Given the person in question have a good grasp on calorie counting, and is accurately eating the correct amount of their daily caloric needs (losing weight, eating at a deficit, or eating at their maintenance calories). I function very well on high carbs; However, nearly half of it comes from sugar. I consume between 500-540g carbs as I am currently on a surplus. On a deficit it drops to around 375-400g.

#5. Not true, though somewhat related. Fats are the most dense macro-nutrient other than alcohol (which I also contribute to most people being overweight-- weekend chugging down pack and packs of beer, etc). 1g fat = 9 calories, 1g protein/carbs = 4g. Its double the amount, so yes indulging in excess fat will lead to gaining weight, but its not the sole provider responsible for obesity. The low fat diets of the 80s were debunked awhile ago.

#6. WTF. Expending more energy (exercise) does not lead to long term weight loss, I'm guessing his meaning is that when people stop exercising their TDEE decreases due to the drop in activity level. No shit, but its the best way to allow you to eat more. I'm pretty active and because of that my TDEE is 3250, if I was just working my office job and didn't workout at all, my TDEE would be 2400, which to anyone is craptaclar. Being more active = allowed to consume more calories. Just for sanity purposes, being allowed to eat more is a plus.

#9. Carbs retain water glycogen. 1g carbs holds up to 3-4g of water, of course trimming down on carbs will appear to the person that they've lost weight, when really its mostly water and glycogen.
This is actually one of the main reasons everyone and their ignorant mother "prescribes" low carb to everyone for fat loss

From the summary points, it seems like he is advocating a diet plan of low carbs, and low fat. A big no no. Protein is a terrible energy source, if the person in question decides to strip both carbs AND fats, without upping their protein intake to cover the vacuum, they'd most likely end up in starvation mode:

eg. TDEE (maintenance) of 2800 @ 180lbs.
180g protein
30-100g carbs
20-40g fat
total 1020-1480 calories. Too low, and will definitely affect mood, sex drive, energy levels, etc

to fill the gap, protein would have to be increased to 510-625g, which is insane, and will very likely be bad on the liver
 
So basically it's not fat people's fault that their fat? Is that what you're trying to say, TS?
 
George Foreman said to eat cheeseburgers, and then a small salad to balance everything out.
 
Horse shit.

Eating too much of the wrong food (processed, high fat, high sugar) and lack of exercise will make you fat. Carbohydrates (within reason) will only make you fat if you don't exercise sufficiently.

I've recently lost 50 pounds in the last 4 months and I did it by exercising regularly and avoiding processed, high fat, high sugary foods. I eat plenty of good carbs which i use for energy for when I exercise.
 
Horse shit.

Eating too much of the wrong food (processed, high fat, high sugar) and lack of exercise will make you fat. Carbohydrates (within reason) will only make you fat if you don't exercise sufficiently.

I've recently lost 50 pounds in the last 4 months and I did it by exercising regularly and avoiding processed, high fat, high sugary foods. I eat plenty of good carbs which i use for energy for when I exercise.

Eating too much of any food will make you fat. Doesn't matter if it's 4,000kcal/day of Twinkies, Broccoli or Protein Shakes.
 
Eating too much of any food will make you fat. Doesn't matter if it's 4,000kcal/day of Twinkies, Broccoli or Protein Shakes.

True.

Calories that contain nutritional value will of course be more beneficial.
 
Back
Top