Author Topic: Gary Taubes  (Read 912 times)

Offline Jordan Davis

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Always Move Purposefully
    • View Profile
    • AMP Freerunning
Gary Taubes
« on: February 28, 2012, 11:39:08 AM »
I want your guys opinion on the writer Gary Taubes.  Author of Good Calories, Bad Calories and the newer book, Why We Get Fat.

Most of you, I think, believe that weight loss is determined by calories in vs. calories out. 
Taubes disagrees with that theory, and suggests it's what we eat that strictly dictates weight/health.

From watching others diet, and offering diets to people, and reading some of Taubes' work, I am kind of stuck in the middle.

I am thinking about buying Why we get fat, but I want to know what you guys think of him and his theory.
Parkour Coach

Guinness World Record Holder (Side Flip) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0UEr0q2jWI

Certified Personal Trainer


-His Glory Alone-

Offline Rafe

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
  • Karma: +52/-5
    • View Profile
    • Natural Athletics
Re: Gary Taubes
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2012, 11:52:45 AM »
Ultimately weight gain or loss devolves into calories in vs calories out. The problem is people think the two variables are more independant then they are and don't understand all the hormonal systems that controll the two factors. Diet and lifestyle can stimulate increased metabolism and activity or decreased metabolism and activity, specific food sources encourage or discourage us to eat more or less food etc etc. That said Taubes carbohydrate hypothesis just doesn't accord with the science my freind and former student Stephan Guyenet has good overview of the problems with taubes hypothesis here http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
I shall not fear, fear is the mind killer the little death that precedes total obliteration

I will face my fear, I will let it pass over and through me and were it is gone, I will turn the inner eye and see its path, and only I will remain.

Offline Jordan Davis

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Always Move Purposefully
    • View Profile
    • AMP Freerunning
Re: Gary Taubes
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2012, 11:58:59 AM »
I"m still reading your post, which I like so far.

I realize that when we eat better, for instance more protein, we are satiated quicker, causing us to eat less.
Is that kind of what's coming down to on each side of the argument?

Also, i'm looking for a new book to purchase and read, I prefer digital copies, and something about nutrition, recommendations?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 12:41:53 PM by Jordan Davis »
Parkour Coach

Guinness World Record Holder (Side Flip) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0UEr0q2jWI

Certified Personal Trainer


-His Glory Alone-

Offline Alec Furtado

  • kicks butt.
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 1992
  • Karma: +27/-6
  • Balance.
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Taubes
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2012, 01:36:23 PM »
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
I'd say this reflects the understanding of most here. I don't think any of us have found ourselves in the position of "all carbs are bad" from our own research and experimenting (n=1). Unless I'm reading it wrong, Guyenet's position seems to basically support Taube's conclusion, only taking it a little further and suggesting a certain type of carbohydrate. That still follows the idea of good calories and bad calories.

It does seem like sweet potatoes are one of the best carb sources out there, assuming they fit your goals. Other carb sources like rice and potatoes seem to only be avoided because more nutritionally dense foods are available (they have more vitamins and such).

As far as Taubes book, I'm still working through it myself. It's fairly thick :D But as far as carbs are considered... it's still goals, goals, goals (some things are common for any goal, but I think the conversation must always start with what the goals are...).
Water conforms to the shape of it's surroundings. Do not be water. Shape your own life.

Offline Steve Low

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 5588
  • Karma: +287/-56
    • View Profile
    • Eat, Move, Improve
Re: Gary Taubes
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2012, 04:48:20 PM »
This is to what I subscribe

Quote
The plant to animal ratios of our ancesters and studies on hunter gatherers suggest "the animal-derived calorie percentage ranges from 25% in the Gwi people of southern Africa, to 99% in Alaskan Nunamiut. [...] The mean diet among modern hunter-gatherer societies is estimated to consist of 6468% of animal calories and 3236% of plant calories."

[...]

In modern hunter-gatherer diets, dietary protein is characteristically elevated (1935% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrate (2240% of energy)



+ my analysis

2000 kcal diet that's:

95g-175g of protein (hmmm... seems eeriely familiar to around .75-1g/lbs that people recommend for ATHLETIC populations... as you know hunter gatherers actually have to move around to get their food and hunt...). And they didn't have chronic kidney disease either!

110g-200g of carbohydrates -- which is not even low carb at all. This is what moderate carbohydrates look like, unless you are competing in an endurance sport which you may need upwards of 250g+ of carbs (which is 50% carbs). Low carb is <100g and ketogenic IIRC is <40-50 carbs or thereabouts.


You can eat a wide range of stuff and be healthy

BUT  you must be eating "high quality" foods..... e.g. plants and animals and fish

If it comes in a plastic bag or is processed or whatever else it's probably not something you want to eat.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 04:53:02 PM by Steven Low »
Posts NOT medical, training or nutrition advice
Site // Overcoming Gravity Book

Offline Rafe

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
  • Karma: +52/-5
    • View Profile
    • Natural Athletics
Re: Gary Taubes
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2012, 05:17:26 PM »
I'd say this reflects the understanding of most here. I don't think any of us have found ourselves in the position of "all carbs are bad" from our own research and experimenting (n=1). Unless I'm reading it wrong, Guyenet's position seems to basically support Taube's conclusion, only taking it a little further and suggesting a certain type of carbohydrate. That still follows the idea of good calories and bad calories.

It does seem like sweet potatoes are one of the best carb sources out there, assuming they fit your goals. Other carb sources like rice and potatoes seem to only be avoided because more nutritionally dense foods are available (they have more vitamins and such).

As far as Taubes book, I'm still working through it myself. It's fairly thick :D But as far as carbs are considered... it's still goals, goals, goals (some things are common for any goal, but I think the conversation must always start with what the goals are...).

No Taubes hypothesis is very much in opposition to what Stephan is proposing. Taubes hypothesis  is simple Carbohydrate raises insulin, causing insulin resistance, insulin resistance causes obesity. In this paradigm carbohydrate content of the diet or refined carbohydrate is the root causal factor driving obesity, with genetic propensity for adiposity being the only major confounding factor.

Stephan points out that simple doesn't accord with the evidence, studies show post prandial insulin isn't strongly corelated with insulind resistance, and hyper-insulinemia is itself not directly correlated with obesity. This is backed up by the observation of a great variety of traditional cultures which ate very carb dominant diets while having nearly non-existent obesity and metabolic syndrome incidences.

Obesity instead is driven by reward value. Carbohydrate content is one of a variety of food reward factors including fat, sweet, salt, and texture. Many of which are dose dependant, that is more sugar is more rewarding up to point after which point it becomes less rewarding, the same is true of fat content bacon is more rewarding to eat then lard, salt salted almonds are more rewarding then pure salt, etc etc. Industrial food is designed for maxed out reward value because that promotes an addictive response which drives deman for food products.

The food reward paradigm explains why a raw fodd fruit and nut diet and meat dominated paleo diet can both cause reduction in adiposity and metabolic syndrome.
I shall not fear, fear is the mind killer the little death that precedes total obliteration

I will face my fear, I will let it pass over and through me and were it is gone, I will turn the inner eye and see its path, and only I will remain.

Offline Steve Low

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 5588
  • Karma: +287/-56
    • View Profile
    • Eat, Move, Improve
Re: Gary Taubes
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2012, 05:51:28 PM »
The neuromodulation of appetite as well as hormonal responses hasn't been fully explored.

Observation studies have shown things like diet soda are "correlated" with obesity/diabetes/etc.. So once we know more about the food reward stuff in regard to neurological downstream effects on the body we can figure out the rest of the missing links.

Of course, carbohydrates are part of the problem ('specially refined carbohydrates as part of the sweet), but they aren't the whole thing which is the context of food reward (fat, sweet, salt, textures, etc.).

Think of potato chips as the ultimate in consumption -- cooked in industrial seed oils (fat), with added (salt), and high density (carbohydrate) starch from potatoes, and can be seasoned with (sweet) flavors like barbeque. All of these combine to increase consumption of calories.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 05:54:15 PM by Steven Low »
Posts NOT medical, training or nutrition advice
Site // Overcoming Gravity Book

Offline KC Parsons

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 1414
  • Karma: +80/-13
    • View Profile
    • Eat. Move. Improve.
Re: Gary Taubes
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2012, 02:15:36 PM »
Put down the Taubes Kool-Aid. It seems so enticing and it's easy to get caught up in that thought process, but it's just not backed by any sort of significant literature.


Also, Steve. Just to clarify on that quote you put up: Anything under 100g of carb/day is going to be ketogenic, but the lower the carbs the more enhanced the ketosis. That 30-50g value I see a lot hasn't really been backed by anything other than just practicality: it allows for vegetables..and that's basically it.

Offline Steve Low

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 5588
  • Karma: +287/-56
    • View Profile
    • Eat, Move, Improve
Re: Gary Taubes
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2012, 02:37:40 PM »
Ah, interesting
Posts NOT medical, training or nutrition advice
Site // Overcoming Gravity Book