Gary Taubes is the man.

[redheadlaw7]

He is what I like to call a "giant slayer." He gives the middle finger to the FDA and tries to break down all kinds of fitness/nutrition myths. If ya'll have time for a read. (maybe while working out on the elliptical...)take a look!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes#cite_ref-4

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/ma...g-fat-lie.html

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/c...ubes-responds/

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/70314/

[schismatik]

i'm a lyle fan myself, but i'll give these links a read. Always welcome new reading material to get through teh work day :]

[redheadlaw7]

i'm a lyle fan myself, but i'll give these links a read. Always welcome new reading material to get through teh work day :]

Taubes has one hell of a bio. He is brilliant and rather enjoys fighting "the man". Here's more fun...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...cardio&spell=1

If you are a bodybuilder that hates cardio and loves eating low carb...he should be your hero.

[MsDetermined]

He is what I like to call a "giant slayer." He gives the middle finger to the FDA and tries to break down all kinds of fitness/nutrition myths. If ya'll have time for a read. (maybe while working out on the elliptical...)take a look!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes#cite_ref-4

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/ma...g-fat-lie.html

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/c...ubes-responds/

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/70314/

I have that book and have read it a couple of times. Getting ready to read it again. Very, very interesting.

[s.o.u.p]

I'm a skeptic of science aswell, for some reason people seem to think that any scientific study is impecably perfect and the findings are infallible.

[signature166]

I'm a skeptic of science aswell, for some reason people seem to think that any scientific study is impecably perfect and the findings are infallible.

Yes you are.

Nonetheless, Taubes continues to spew ignorant anti-carb bullsht every chance he gets. The references in his book are cherry-picked to support his position that carbs are evil, and he conveniently avoids the studies from the 1980s on that cast doubt on the insulin hypothesis.

He has a silly argument about the Energy Balance Equation in his book. Luckily for us, Lyle McDonald posted a thorough analysis of the Energy Balance Equation in an article on his website yesterday.

[redheadlaw7]

Yes you are.

Nonetheless, Taubes continues to spew ignorant anti-carb bullsht every chance he gets. The references in his book are cherry-picked to support his position that carbs are evil, and he conveniently avoids the studies from the 1980s on that cast doubt on the insulin hypothesis.

He has a silly argument about the Energy Balance Equation in his book. Luckily for us, Lyle McDonald posted a thorough analysis of the Energy Balance Equation in an article on his website yesterday.

That is an excellent article. I think what makes the calories in=calories out equation seem to not really apply in so many situations is because, based on all the variables McDonald talks about, people can not plug in calories and activity into a computer program and predict what their results will be. I find it odd that so many people on here are Lyle fans but on a daily basis somebody will put their stats and diets up and ask Eileen what they should do to tweak it. It seems like it is almost a game of luck and people really have to experiment to see what works for them. I mean, how many people have posted about stalls or plateaus and how many people have posted a thousand different suggestions to deal with them like... increase your calories, or decrease your calories, or up the cardio, or lift more or eat more fat. I am one of those people! It's a wonder so many people on here are so successful! And I in no means want this to be a criticism of anything or anybody. Just making an observation.

[signature166]

That is an excellent article. I think what makes the calories in=calories out equation seem to not really apply in so many situations is because, based on all the variables McDonald talks about, people can not plug in calories and activity into a computer program and predict what their results will be. I find it odd that so many people on here are Lyle fans but on a daily basis somebody will put their stats and diets up and ask Eileen what they should do to tweak it. It seems like it is almost a game of luck and people really have to experiment to see what works for them. I mean, how many people have posted about stalls or plateaus and how many people have posted a thousand different suggestions to deal with them like... increase your calories, or decrease your calories, or up the cardio, or lift more or eat more fat. I am one of those people! It's a wonder so many people on here are so successful! And I in no means want this to be a criticism of anything or anybody. Just making an observation.

One of Taubes' biggest mistakes is his failure to appreciate the active role of fat cells themselves in fat storage. He also ignores Acylation Stimulating Protein and other hormones that can cause fat storage independent of insulin.

[redheadlaw7]

One of Taubes' biggest mistakes is his failure to appreciate the active role of fat cells themselves in fat storage. He also ignores Acylation Stimulating Protein and other hormones that can cause fat storage independent of insulin.

Well...in Taubes defense...he is a reporter and not an exercise or diet guru. I think he writes about most of the stuff he does for shock value more than anything else.

[signature166]

Well...in Taubes defense...he is a reporter and not an exercise or diet guru. I think he writes about most of the stuff he does for shock value more than anything else.

He claims to be a science writer, and he writes as if he had exhaustively searched the scientific literature for information about the topics contained in his book. Jerry Springer, South Park, and Lindsay Lohan do stuff for shock value, but they are entertainers and everyone knows that they are entertainers. They don't honestly attempt to pass off what they do as anything more than distraction from the realities of daily life.

Taubes fancies himself a lone crusader battling the combined evil forces of the proponents of low-fat diets, corn producers and refiners, big agribusiness, and the USDA using reasoned argument and the weight of the scientific evidence to expose the grand conspiracy. In reality, Taubes realized that packing his book with a large, biased chunk of the scientific literature was the only way to give the appearance legitimacy to his flawed ideas. He built himself a massive pile of horse**** on which to stand to increase his visibility so that he could tell all the world about how noble and clever Gary Taubes is.

If you claim to tell the truth, then tell the truth. If you claim to educate, then educate. But if you are spreading misleading information and outright lies, and then you continue to defend those lies in the face of contradictory information in the hopes of staying in the spotlight and increasing your own wealth, the please shut the f*ck up!

[redheadlaw7]

I'm confused. Taubes believes that fat does not make you fat and excessive cardio does not make you thin. I think I like him so much because at least for me both of these points seem to apply. I tried doing Weight Watchers meticulously for about a year. I weighed over 150 pounds, I was eating my 25 points which was essentially 1200 calories, and I was walking for an hour or two everyday. I got NADA results. I was starving, fat, exhausted and depressed.

I cut out carbs, I upped my calories and my fat and I started lifting weights. I transformed myself in a matter of a few months both mentally and physically. This was something I could not and did not accomplish playing by the FDA's rules.

I will concede that Taubes ticked off quite a few people by not using every study and every quote out there and some thought his book and original article were very misleading. Yes.

[signature166]

I'm confused. Taubes believes that fat does not make you fat and excessive cardio does not make you thin. I think I like him so much because at least for me both of these points seem to apply. I tried doing Weight Watchers meticulously for about a year. I weighed over 150 pounds, I was eating my 25 points which was essentially 1200 calories, and I was walking for an hour or two everyday. I got NADA results. I was starving, fat, exhausted and depressed.

I cut out carbs, I upped my calories and my fat and I started lifting weights. I transformed myself in a matter of a few months both mentally and physically. This was something I could not and did not accomplish playing by the FDA's rules.

I'm really glad that you found something that worked for you. I know how frustrating it can be to seemingly be doing everything "right" while not making progress toward your goal. Even though you were at 1200 calories and you thought you were doing everything right, your body was able to outmaneuver your efforts to lose fat. And to be completely honest, walking really isn't that great for purposes of body composition--it is inefficient and burning calories and does nothing to help maintain lean muscle mass while eating at a caloric deficit.

Your body was altering your energy expenditure via decreases in RMR/BMR, TEA, and SPA/NEAT in the equation: Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores

When you cut carbs, upped fat and total calories, and began weight training you added several novel stimuli that simultaneously changed the variables in the energy balance equation and altered the psychological/emotional side of fat loss and dieting of which the powerful placebo effect is one component. My guess is that you also spontaneously increased your protein intake which would have helped with satiety and preservation of LBM while in a caloric deficit.

However, none of the above says that Taubes's central theses, and the supporting information that he offers, are accurate. "Fat [by itself] does not make you fat" is correct, but no one with any realistic, evidence-based view of the obesity issue thinks otherwise. Every reasonable person knows that the causes of obesity on a large scale are multifactorial, but the fact of the matter remains that, in individuals, obesity is caused by an excess of calories--not just fat, not just carbs, but eating more than you expend.

Low-carb/ketogenic diets usually work so well in the short term because of the following:

1. An increase in protein intake boosts satiety and staves off hunger pangs

2. Cutting out carbs naturally leads to a decrease in total calories consumed because carbs are tasty and easy to eat.

3. Some people cannot be trusted around certain carb-containing foods, so cutting them out reduces the risk of binging--at least in the short term, though food-avoidance usually backfires in the long-term.

4. The initial water weight loss bolsters the dieter's belief in the effectiveness of the diet. This helps, in the short-term, to increase placebo effect and adherence.

The most effective diet for a given person is the diet that they will follow the longest. Point #4 above helps with adherence to the diet, at least in the short-term. However, when people resume eating carbs again, they'll regain the water weight. This can lead to more yo-yo dieting.

Long-term studies show no advantage, with respect to body composition, of low-carb diets over moderate to high-carb diets as long as protein intake and total calories are matched. Any perceived advantages in the earlier stages of the diet can be accounted for by water weight, or are neutralized later on by dieters' return to their earlier eating patterns.

I will concede that Taubes ticked off quite a few people by not using every study and every quote out there and some thought his book and original article were very misleading. Yes.

Well, thanks for the concession. Its not that he didn't use "every study and every quote out there" but that he intentionally ignored the large body of evidence that failed to support his ideas, while including largely irrelevant and problematic studies. He failed to recognize the problematic nature of studies involving ad libitum (self-reported) eating. Studies that studied ad libitum reporting found that dieters UNDERreported their food intake and OVERreported their daily activity by 40-50%. If thats not bad enough, he then conveniently forgets to mention the satiating effect of protein, and that studies that showed low-carb diets to be superior to moderate- or high-carb diets contained significant differences in protein intake between the treatment groups wherein the low-carb dieters invariable consumed more protein than the carb-eating treatment groups, thus reporting greater satiety and showing restraint in snacking or grazing.

He leads the charge against the low-fat guys and the grain producers and the corn refiners with his throbbing hard-on for the insulin-hypothesis of fat storage. So what if the low-fat advocates are wrong, that doesn't make Taubes's false dichotomy acceptable or say anything about the validity of the insulin-hypothesis or any of Taubes's other assertions.

Once again, he ignores weight of the evidence, from the 1980s on, that debunks this idea. He fails to mention the information about the active role of the adipose cells themselves in initiating fat storage and inhibiting lipolysis. It is true that insulin plays a role in the process of fat accumulation, but the presence elevated insulin levels in the blood is not a sufficient condition for the storage of fat. The body must be in a caloric surplus, as defined by the equation above, for fat accumulation to take place. Regardless of what Taubes might think, you cannot gain fat while maintaining a caloric deficit, nor can you lose fat while maintaining a caloric surplus. This is not nitpicking nor semantics. Taubes completely misses everything that is important while on his limelight-seeking rant against the evil people who would have us eat sufficient carbs to support our daily activities and to ensure adequate micronutrient intake.

Furthermore, his myopic, self-indulgent nonchalance with the scientific literature involving insulin, carbohydrates, and obesity ruins his credibility and taints any other accurate, useful information that he may provide in his book.

I will continue to zealously argue against Taubes's fatally flawed ideas and his lack of integrity as long as he continues--through his book, articles, interviews, and lectures--to defecate in the minds of individuals who haven't developed the skill or the knowledge base to elude entrapment in his shiny, alluring web of half-truths and blatant falsehoods.

Low-carb diets "work" for some people and don't "work" for other people. Since I am most interested in people finding eating and exercise patterns that will help them achieve long-term healthy body composition, I won't recommend against someone trying a low-carb diet if they have failed to lose weight and maintain the lost weight on moderate- to high-carb diets. Though I would ensure that they are meeting their daily micro- and macronutrient needs.

Congratulations on your transformation! You should be proud of yourself and all of the hard work that went into it.

[redheadlaw7]

I'm really glad that you found something that worked for you. I know how frustrating it can be to seemingly be doing everything "right" while not making progress toward your goal. Even though you were at 1200 calories and you thought you were doing everything right, your body was able to outmaneuver your efforts to lose fat. And to be completely honest, walking really isn't that great for purposes of body composition--it is inefficient and burning calories and does nothing to help maintain lean muscle mass while eating at a caloric deficit.

Your body was altering your energy expenditure via decreases in RMR/BMR, TEA, and SPA/NEAT in the equation: Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores

When you cut carbs, upped fat and total calories, and began weight training you added several novel stimuli that simultaneously changed the variables in the energy balance equation and altered the psychological/emotional side of fat loss and dieting of which the powerful placebo effect is one component. My guess is that you also spontaneously increased your protein intake which would have helped with satiety and preservation of LBM while in a caloric deficit.

However, none of the above says that Taubes's central theses, and the supporting information that he offers, are accurate. "Fat [by itself] does not make you fat" is correct, but no one with any realistic, evidence-based view of the obesity issue thinks otherwise. Every reasonable person knows that the causes of obesity on a large scale are multifactorial, but the fact of the matter remains that, in individuals, obesity is caused by an excess of calories--not just fat, not just carbs, but eating more than you expend.

Low-carb/ketogenic diets usually work so well in the short term because of the following:

1. An increase in protein intake boosts satiety and staves off hunger pangs

2. Cutting out carbs naturally leads to a decrease in total calories consumed because carbs are tasty and easy to eat.

3. Some people cannot be trusted around certain carb-containing foods, so cutting them out reduces the risk of binging--at least in the short term, though food-avoidance usually backfires in the long-term.

4. The initial water weight loss bolsters the dieter's belief in the effectiveness of the diet. This helps, in the short-term, to increase placebo effect and adherence.

The most effective diet for a given person is the diet that they will follow the longest. Point #4 above helps with adherence to the diet, at least in the short-term. However, when people resume eating carbs again, they'll regain the water weight. This can lead to more yo-yo dieting.

Long-term studies show no advantage, with respect to body composition, of low-carb diets over moderate to high-carb diets as long as protein intake and total calories are matched. Any perceived advantages in the earlier stages of the diet can be accounted for by water weight, or are neutralized later on by dieters' return to their earlier eating patterns.



Well, thanks for the concession. Its not that he didn't use "every study and every quote out there" but that he intentionally ignored the large body of evidence that failed to support his ideas, while including largely irrelevant and problematic studies. He failed to recognize the problematic nature of studies involving ad libitum (self-reported) eating. Studies that studied ad libitum reporting found that dieters UNDERreported their food intake and OVERreported their daily activity by 40-50%. If thats not bad enough, he then conveniently forgets to mention the satiating effect of protein, and that studies that showed low-carb diets to be superior to moderate- or high-carb diets contained significant differences in protein intake between the treatment groups wherein the low-carb dieters invariable consumed more protein than the carb-eating treatment groups, thus reporting greater satiety and showing restraint in snacking or grazing.

He leads the charge against the low-fat guys and the grain producers and the corn refiners with his throbbing hard-on for the insulin-hypothesis of fat storage. So what if the low-fat advocates are wrong, that doesn't make Taubes's false dichotomy acceptable or say anything about the validity of the insulin-hypothesis or any of Taubes's other assertions.

Once again, he ignores weight of the evidence, from the 1980s on, that debunks this idea. He fails to mention the information about the active role of the adipose cells themselves in initiating fat storage and inhibiting lipolysis. It is true that insulin plays a role in the process of fat accumulation, but the presence elevated insulin levels in the blood is not a sufficient condition for the storage of fat. The body must be in a caloric surplus, as defined by the equation above, for fat accumulation to take place. Regardless of what Taubes might think, you cannot gain fat while maintaining a caloric deficit, nor can you lose fat while maintaining a caloric surplus. This is not nitpicking nor semantics. Taubes completely misses everything that is important while on his limelight-seeking rant against the evil people who would have us eat sufficient carbs to support our daily activities and to ensure adequate micronutrient intake.

Furthermore, his myopic, self-indulgent nonchalance with the scientific literature involving insulin, carbohydrates, and obesity ruins his credibility and taints any other accurate, useful information that he may provide in his book.

I will continue to zealously argue against Taubes's fatally flawed ideas and his lack of integrity as long as he continues--through his book, articles, interviews, and lectures--to defecate in the minds of individuals who haven't developed the skill or the knowledge base to elude entrapment in his shiny, alluring web of half-truths and blatant falsehoods.

Low-carb diets "work" for some people and don't "work" for other people. Since I am most interested in people finding eating and exercise patterns that will help them achieve long-term healthy body composition, I won't recommend against someone trying a low-carb diet if they have failed to lose weight and maintain the lost weight on moderate- to high-carb diets. Though I would ensure that they are meeting their daily micro- and macronutrient needs.

Congratulations on your transformation! You should be proud of yourself and all of the hard work that went into it.

Thank you for the nice compliment and the very detailed well thought out post. I'm curious to see what you think about this thread. And please read through the whole thing so you can see where it ultimately goes. I'd really enjoy seeing your reactions. You seem like a very intelligent individual. Are you a trainer btw?

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=1175532

[signature166]

Thank you for the nice compliment and the very detailed well thought out post. I'm curious to see what you think about this thread. And please read through the whole thing so you can see where it ultimately goes. I'd really enjoy seeing your reactions. You seem like a very intelligent individual. Are you a trainer btw?

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=1175532

You're very welcome. I don't subscribe to any one diet or any one approach to fitness and weight loss/maintenance, but rather I am seeking to develop a skill set that will enable me to help anyone reach any fitness or body composition-related goal. I am always glad to hear about someone finding a successful approach. Right now I am working with division 1 athletes in person as a strength and conditioning intern, and I am counseling friends and family on diet and exercise.

I was not able to open the link. Do you have another one for that thread?

[redheadlaw7]

You're very welcome. I don't subscribe to any one diet or any one approach to fitness and weight loss/maintenance, but rather I am seeking to develop a skill set that will enable me to help anyone reach any fitness or body composition-related goal. I am always glad to hear about someone finding a successful approach. Right now I am working with division 1 athletes in person as a strength and conditioning intern, and I am counseling friends and family on diet and exercise.

I was not able to open the link. Do you have another one for that thread?

This was the initial post...Can you find the thread with this info?

Old 07-08-2009, 04:10 PM #1
bigdaz07
Registered User


Will too many calories still equal fat loss ???
Hi All,

I'm new to Keto. I recently started my first Keto diet. I have been in ketosis for nearly 6 days, my ketosticks went to dark red after 24 hours of no carbs. The problem I have is keeping my calories down. I have a big appetite and eating that much fat soon adds up to a lot of calories. I think im eating about 50:50 Protein:Fat. I have been bodybuilding for 7 years and want to retain my muscle and just lose fat.

My question is- if im eating 500-700 calories over my limit each day but still in ketosis will I still lose fat?

I also feel that my muscles are getting smaller (and weaker) by the day, will this improve during my carb up?

Thanks
Darren

[signature166]

This was the initial post...Can you find the thread with this info?

Old 07-08-2009, 04:10 PM #1
bigdaz07
Registered User


Will too many calories still equal fat loss ???
Hi All,

I'm new to Keto. I recently started my first Keto diet. I have been in ketosis for nearly 6 days, my ketosticks went to dark red after 24 hours of no carbs. The problem I have is keeping my calories down. I have a big appetite and eating that much fat soon adds up to a lot of calories. I think im eating about 50:50 Protein:Fat. I have been bodybuilding for 7 years and want to retain my muscle and just lose fat.

My question is- if im eating 500-700 calories over my limit each day but still in ketosis will I still lose fat?

I also feel that my muscles are getting smaller (and weaker) by the day, will this improve during my carb up?

Thanks
Darren

I read through it. I'm not sure what you are looking for. The thread ultimately goes to potty jokes and the strange behaviors of ketoers. Anything in particular you wanted me to comment on?

[redheadlaw7]

I read through it. I'm not sure what you are looking for. The thread ultimately goes to potty jokes and the strange behaviors of ketoers. Anything in particular you wanted me to comment on?

I was hoping you could comment on why, at least anecdotally, people eating this way can in general eat more than their higher carb counterparts? And yes, the thread did go downhill but point was that there people went back and forth and good info was shared, at least in the beginning.

There is science shared in that thread also, that suggests that a low carb diet can give people a bit of a metabolic advantage.

[signature166]

I was hoping you could comment on why, at least anecdotally, people eating this way can in general eat more than their higher carb counterparts? And yes, the thread did go downhill but point was that there people went back and forth and good info was shared, at least in the beginning.

There is science shared in that thread also, that suggests that a low carb diet can give people a bit of a metabolic advantage.

Given equal protein intake and adequate fat intake in both low-carb and moderate-to-high-carb diets, there is no metabolic advantage of low-carb diets over the long-term with respect to achieving and maintaining fat loss. The TEF of protein is higher than that of carbs, but the TEF of carbs is higher than that of fat, by alot. If two diets are isocaloric and isonitrogenous, then there will not be a significant difference in fat/weight loss over the long-term in the low-carb group because of TEF. Furthermore, if the dieter is lifting heavy weights on a regular basis and eating at a reasonable deficit, hormone levels and energy levels should stay high enough to prevent an unmanageable drop in RMR/BMR and SPA/NEAT. RMR/BMR and SPA/NEAT will decrease under conditions of caloric deficit, but, under the conditions in my previous sentence, they wouldn't decrease to the extent that you'll feel as bad as you felt on 1200cals/day while walking (and probably eating insufficient protein for purposes of satiety).

If some people feel better on low-carb and have more energy, and they are consuming adequate fruits and vegetables, then more power to them. I strongly disagree with the food avoidance principles necessary to the ketogenic diet. Not only is it challenging for the dieter to obtain adequate micronutrients from whole foods, but also the negative psychological effects of making a whole class of foods taboo has been well demonstrated.

Also, sustained high-intensity training requires carbohydrates. And, even after the initial fat adaption period, people experience occasional "brain-fog" and lethargy when eating ketogenic diet or very low carbs. And, some people have great difficultly sleeping at night on low-carbs. Finally, when the dieter eats carbs after being in ketosis, the dieter will gain rapid water weight and potentially become bloated. This is an additional negative psychological effect of the diet.

Anything else?

[Tiffany_P]

I was hoping you could comment on why, at least anecdotally, people eating this way can in general eat more than their higher carb counterparts? And yes, the thread did go downhill but point was that there people went back and forth and good info was shared, at least in the beginning.

There is science shared in that thread also, that suggests that a low carb diet can give people a bit of a metabolic advantage.

I actually found the opposite to be true. When I tried keto, I found my maintenence level was quite a bit lower than on a moderate carb diet. Also, the only studies that showed a metabolic advantage for keto were flawed because either they were comparing to a diet that was low in protein, or they weren't accounting for the initial water weight loss that happens with ketogenic diets.