Alan Aragon VS Gary Taubes Epic Fitness Summit (video clip)

[PAU1]

mobile: https://youtu.be/gSEVkiTCCNw

[klaximilian]

mobile: https://youtu.be/gSEVkiTCCNw

I saw that yesterday. Talk about going in for the kill.

Alan FTMFW.

From what I've read so far it sounded like Taubes was unprepared and kinda of douchy in the debate - referring people to read his book rather than backing his stance with maybe some science? This was a scientific debate, no?

So he probably deserved it.

[PAU1]

Yeah, that is my understanding as well. "Knife to a gunfight" sums it up.

[usersignup2]

Taubes is a jack@ss. he is only looking for headlines and his preambles are always misleading. any average non-dedicated fitness person will be mislead by what he says.

[Mrpb]

Anyone seen more clips or reviews of the Summit?

[DannPM]

I haven't seen the fitness summit video (hoping it comes out soon) but my guess would be that Alan crushed him exactly like he did when he presented after Volek at the NSCA conference. Great vid to watch btw.

http://www.nsca.com/videos/conferenc..._for_athletes/

[DannPM]

Here's s summary of the debate from Ben Carpenter, who was there.

[JerryB]

Gary Taubes is not a fitness expert in my opinion. He is influential in exposing the dietary myths about fats and has had a great impact on changing the misinformed perceptions of fats in diets at the national level. I don't think he needs the money to train anyone at the summit.

[alan aragon]

It wasn't even an actual debate. It was Gary hypothesizing without supporting research, then me presenting a metric shit-ton of research supporting my position, followed by Gary flippantly dismissing and denying said shit-ton of research. Gary should have approached the debate very differently. The overwhelming consensus was that he got his ass handed to him. I personally was VERY disappointed in Gary's lack of decorum. He consistently ran way over his time slots, and interrupted me several times during my opening statement, which was very time-sensitive. It was very insulting to the audience, moderator, and of course me. To top things off, he admitted to me that even if NuSI research refuted his position, he likely wouldn't change his current opinions. So, in essence, he's not swayed by evidence. Bottom line is that he made a bad impression on everyone.

[ErikTheElectric]

But does he even lift?

[HealingHands8]

It wasn't even an actual debate. It was Gary hypothesizing without supporting research, then me presenting a metric shit-ton of research supporting my position, followed by Gary flippantly dismissing and denying said shit-ton of research. Gary should have approached the debate very differently. The overwhelming consensus was that he got his ass handed to him. I personally was VERY disappointed in Gary's lack of decorum. He consistently ran way over his time slots, and interrupted me several times during my opening statement, which was very time-sensitive. It was very insulting to the audience, moderator, and of course me. To top things off, he admitted to me that even if NuSI research refuted his position, he likely wouldn't change his current opinions. So, in essence, he's not swayed by evidence. Bottom line is that he made a bad impression on everyone.

It was clear to see for all of us that were there, and anyone who watches the recording at a later date, that Gary holds this position to make a living. He couldn't sell his books, give talks or engage in 'debates' across the world without holding this position, as if he held a balance, evidence based position such as you, Brad & most of the other speakers at the summit do he would be the last person you would ask to give a talk. This gives him an advantage.

And as you say, even if the NuSI research refutes his opinion, which it most certainly will, he will find some flaw or error to blame which will keep him in the public eye for another few years.

[Mrpb]

I haven't seen the fitness summit video (hoping it comes out soon) but my guess would be that Alan crushed him exactly like he did when he presented after Volek at the NSCA conference. Great vid to watch btw.

http://www.nsca.com/videos/conferenc..._for_athletes/

Thanks for sharing. Hadn't seen this before. Very informative. (on spread)

[klaximilian]

It wasn't even an actual debate. It was Gary hypothesizing without supporting research, then me presenting a metric shit-ton of research supporting my position, followed by Gary flippantly dismissing and denying said shit-ton of research. Gary should have approached the debate very differently. The overwhelming consensus was that he got his ass handed to him. I personally was VERY disappointed in Gary's lack of decorum. He consistently ran way over his time slots, and interrupted me several times during my opening statement, which was very time-sensitive. It was very insulting to the audience, moderator, and of course me. To top things off, he admitted to me that even if NuSI research refuted his position, he likely wouldn't change his current opinions. So, in essence, he's not swayed by evidence. Bottom line is that he made a bad impression on everyone.

This is pretty much in line with everything I've read so far.

So what you're saying is that you didn't enjoy a few libations with him at the bar afterwards?

[LollyLifts2015]

So, did Taubes completely dismiss Calories In/Calories Out? Or did he state it had importance, but more so to do with genetics and hormonal imbalances?

[PAU1]

So, did Taubes completely dismiss Calories In/Calories Out? Or did he state it had importance, but more so to do with genetics and hormonal imbalances?

His opinion is the former. He's a figurehead in the 'a calorie is not a calorie' camp.

[Maximox]

It wasn't even an actual debate. It was Gary hypothesizing without supporting research, then me presenting a metric shit-ton of research supporting my position, followed by Gary flippantly dismissing and denying said shit-ton of research. Gary should have approached the debate very differently. The overwhelming consensus was that he got his ass handed to him. I personally was VERY disappointed in Gary's lack of decorum. He consistently ran way over his time slots, and interrupted me several times during my opening statement, which was very time-sensitive. It was very insulting to the audience, moderator, and of course me. To top things off, he admitted to me that even if NuSI research refuted his position, he likely wouldn't change his current opinions. So, in essence, he's not swayed by evidence. Bottom line is that he made a bad impression on everyone.

Well, of course it is just an hypothesis. If it were a known fact, the debate would have been pointless. The reason he may have pointed to the book is because he backs up his hypothesis with humongous amount of research there.

I was actually interested (still am) in watching your side of the debate to see what was the alternative view of how carbs, fats, proteins and exercise work to maintain you lean and healthy without any need to go low-carb (going deep into the metabolic paths).

I think it would be disappointing if you just spent your time debunking low carbs by showing research, as you did with Jeff Volek. I mean, it is fair enough, but while I can get new ideas from Taubes or Volek about what may be the reasons for me not to be able lose my fat (or why I get it back very easily), I would get nothing from you except "don't do low-carb", which would not advance my understanding on what is really going on inside our bodies, even if you were absolutely 100% right about low-carb being bonkers.

If that is how it went, then the debate was an EPIC waste of time and I am happy to have missed it.

[HealingHands8]

I think it would be disappointing if you just spent your time debunking low carbs by showing research, as you did with Jeff Volek. I mean, it is fair enough, but while I can get new ideas from Taubes or Volek about what may be the reasons for me not to be able lose my fat (or why I get it back very easily), I would get nothing from you except "don't do low-carb", which would not advance my understanding on what is really going on inside our bodies, even if you were absolutely 100% right about low-carb being bonkers.

If that is how it went, then the debate was an EPIC waste of time and I am happy to have missed it.

As Alan said numerous times in his talk, he is not anti low carb. He believes there is a wide range of carbohydrate intakes which can 'work' depending on the specific individual.

But what he did however was show a wealth of research which shows that low carb doesn't trump non low carb in terms of weight reduction. Gary, and Volek, present nothing but a hypothesis. No evidence. No data. Just a theory. Which the current research disputes.

It's pointless to have the debate again. At least until some of the NuSI research gets published.

[Mrpb]

As Alan said numerous times in his talk, he is not anti low carb. He believes there is a wide range of carbohydrate intakes which can 'work' depending on the specific individual.

But what he did however was show a wealth of research which shows that low carb doesn't trump non low carb in terms of weight reduction. Gary, and Volek, present nothing but a hypothesis. No evidence. No data. Just a theory. Which the current research disputes.

Exactly this ^. Also see:

If you're comparing diets that match sufficient protein intake, you don't lose fat more quickly with lower carbs (yes, even at keto levels). This has been demonstrated repeatedly:

"Body-weight loss and weight-maintenance depends on the high-protein, but not on the 'low-carb' component of the diet, while it is unrelated to the concomitant fat-content of the diet." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22935440

"KLC [ketogenic low-carb] and NLC [non-ketogenic low-carb] diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046

Also see the results of this meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials (mean carb proportion in the LC groups was 23% of total kcals):

"Reductions in body weight, waist circumference and other metabolic risk factors were not significantly different between the 2 diets." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23035144

Regarding diet comparisons in general:

"Significant weight loss was observed with any low-carbohydrate or low-fat diet. Weight loss differences between individual named diets were small. This supports the practice of recommending any diet that a patient will adhere to in order to lose weight." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25182101

And:

"Trials show weight loss in the short-term irrespective of whether the diet is low CHO or balanced. There is probably little or no difference in weight loss and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years of follow-up when overweight and obese adults, with or without type 2 diabetes, are randomised to low CHO diets and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets."

Low Carbohydrate versus Isoenergetic Balanced Diets for Reducing Weight and Cardiovascular Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0100652

"Significant weight loss was observed with any low-carbohydrate or low-fat diet. Weight loss differences between individual named diets were small. This supports the practice of recommending any diet that a patient will adhere to in order to lose weight."

Comparison of Weight Loss Among Named Diet Programs in Overweight and Obese Adults, A Meta-analysis
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1900510

A Diet by Any Other Name Is Still About Energy
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1900489