Calories don't work that way...er...what?

In the past 2 days I've been introduced to the ideas put forth by Gary Taubes starting with his Science Article, his NY Times article and later his book Good Calories, Bad Calories.

What he proposes seems almost blasphemy! The argument that it is NOT about "Calories in - Calories out" when it comes to weight.  I just got a little twist in my stomach just TYPING that on this forum.

He puts forth the theory that being fat isn't simply about overeating, because it implies that the issue is behavioral as opposed to physiological.  He argues that fat storage really kicks in due to insulin and insulin kicks in via the introduction of carbs or sugars into our body.

He gives the example that its very hard for someone with type 1 diabetes to gain weight often they eat a lot and lose weight. Type 1 diabetes is when the pancreas can't make insulin.

The idea of the simple "Calorie in - Calorie Out" is also argued by Dr. Eades

"And, consequently, one would think that a diet low in carbohydrate and higher in protein and fat (both of which have to be converted to sugar) would bring about a greater weight loss than a diet of the same number of calories but with higher levels of carbohydrate. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics predicts this very phenomenon."

Um, is it crazy that any of this sounds like its reasonable? Am I just misunderstanding things? Yes, I've read up on ASP and its effect on fat storage but I've seen too many people drop the weight on low carb. Anybody can flat out show these ideas are nuts?

There's a several page long discussion in the lounge on this. I won't even try to summarize what they've been saying.

It's not completely nuts and there is a strong physiological element to weight-gain.   We've been fattening cattle for centuries on great quantities of carbohydrates in the form of grain... we know this works.  And yes, if someone eats too much sugar and refined starches over a very long period they will gain a lot of weight because sugary/starchy/fatty foods tend to be a) high in calories and b) unsatisfying nutritionally.... encourages more overeating.  

If someone has got to the point of being insulin resistant (someone with PCOS or early stage Type II diabetes for example)  they'll need to seriously cut back on their refined sugar/starch intake to control their blood-sugars as well as monitoring their total calories if they need to lose weight.  But they can consume a moderate amount of complex carbohydrates ... the kind that don't result in massive insulin production... as part of that process.  

Science aside, what people like Gary Taubes conveniently overlook is that most people aren't insulin resistant or diabetic.  There are millions of very slim people in the world that have moderate to high carbohydrate diets perfectly healthily, without ill-effect.   Think of the traditional Chinese or Japanese diet, for example.   They just don't eat too much food.... that's the single biggest difference.

I think they account for people like that.  People naturally thin even with high carb, their systems don't have the same issue as people who are obese.  Theres a great video that talks about fat storage...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE&am p;feature=player_embedded

People who are thin and have no problem aren't the ones in question. its the 1 in 4 (1 in 3 according to some) who are considered overweight or obese that is in question.

Dr. Eades makes the point that the way the human body works,  breaking down a protein is different than breaking down a sugar. I can't speak for everyone, but as a kid up until about 19 years old I ate what some would say was a SICK amount of food. My mom had me checked for worms because I ate so much but gained not even a pound. I didn't start gaining weight until I left her house and found out that I could have more than a mere cup of soda. I could have 3 or 4 or 9 or a 2 liter! The logic thats been used in their theories is that some people, upon a bombardment of carbs or sugars, they no longer respond the same.  Its damn interesting.

1 in 4 in the US or the UK perhaps.... but across the entire world obesity is not anything like those levels.   In countries where people don't routinely own cars, don't have access to copious amounts of food 24/7 or where the local diet is mostly based on simple grains and vegetables because they can't afford large amounts of meat and fish ... they're usually not particularly fat.   All kinds of ailments in 'The West'... gall-bladder removal, Type II diabetes, certain cancers... are practically unheard of elsewhere.

You were skinny as a kid because you had a teenage metabolism and it sounds like your mother had some idea of what was good for you to eat.  A lot of skinny teens are fat twenty-somethings...   If you took a skinny kid out of a Shanghai slum and gave him 2 litre bottles of full-sugar Coke, a car, a desk job plus the rest of the typical Western Diet, he'd be overweight as well..... his 'system' is exactly the same as yours and mine.

There have been studies done with 'westernised' Australian aboriginal people.... I forget the name of the academic but they took a selection of aboriginal-origin city-dwellers who were suffering from obesity, high BP, Type II diabetes etc., (it's a major problem in the population) and asked them to go back to the bush and live as they had done as kids... eating off the land, digging up roots, fishing, nomadic etc.&n bsp; All of them saw massive improvements in their state of health.  It's bigger than just 'sugar'.

But that goes against your own statement earlier that a lot of people are IN FACT thin. I know tons of thin people who ingest crazy amounts of alcohol, probably calorically equal to my 2 liter soda addiction i had for a while, and are THIN as the day is long. They have desk jobs, cars and all that good stuff. We go out to eat and they will decimate the bread basket and/or nachos. But they are thin. Exercise? HA. Most of my NYC pals don't exercise.  They're busy drinking and partying ;) 

You might say their metabolism is just higher than mine. Funny thing, when I tested out atkins about 5 years ago, I would eat a pound of roastbeef for breakfast, eggs, bacon and crazy other stuff. I think about what my calories had to be and I'm speechless. Weight started to melt off of me.

Now I gained the weight back, and assumed (because people told me this) "You gained the weight because those diets don't work! Their just a quick fix and TERRIBLY unhealthy!"

But I had to be honest with myself. I had to sit down and think about what i did after the diet. I remember celebrating the end of my diet of 4 weeks by a trip to Taco Bell.  I had another friend who did basically the same thing and we were the examples OTHER friends would give to bash low carbing.

I'm not saying that a traditionally healthy life is wrong. What I'm starting to wonder is, if they're ARE alternatives that we just dont accept. I think everyone has that pal who is constanly eating crap and some how maintains a sick thin body. Is he healthy? I dunno about that, but he oxidizes fat better.

Original Post by gi-jane:

1 in 4 in the US or the UK perhaps.... but across the entire world obesity is not anything like those levels.   In countries where people don't routinely own cars, don't have access to copious amounts of food 24/7 or where the local diet is mostly based on simple grains and vegetables because they can't afford large amounts of meat and fish ... they're usually not particularly fat.

If this statement was true we wouldn't be having this discussion today.  The topic is why in places were there are very few cars, very limited access to food, and physically demanding lives do we see such a high rate of obesity?

One suggestion is that it is because what little food they do have is mostly simple grains, flour, and sugar.

Original Post by trhawley:

  The topic is why in places were there are very few cars, very limited access to food, and physically demanding lives do we see such a high rate of obesity?

 Where are these places?...

Thats what Taubes argues.  I can tell you know in some of the poorest neighborhoods in NYC you'll notice some of the fatest people. It's not like these folks are all working computer jobs.

Original Post by gi-jane:

Original Post by trhawley:

  The topic is why in places were there are very few cars, very limited access to food, and physically demanding lives do we see such a high rate of obesity?

 Where are these places?...

 They only exist in Gary Taubes' head.

Original Post by jay_breaze:

Thats what Taubes argues.  I can tell you know in some of the poorest neighborhoods in NYC you'll notice some of the fatest people. It's not like these folks are all working computer jobs.

Yeah, but their diets aren't vegetables, lean proteins, and whole grains either.

Original Post by jay_breaze:

 I would eat a pound of roastbeef for breakfast, eggs, bacon and crazy other stuff.

 But is that a realistic long-term alternative?  If everyone in the US ate that way there simply wouldn't be enough room to graze the cattle and rear the chickens.   And it's a very expensive way to eat, out of reach to anyone other than the well-off.   And then the tacos....  there's something fundamental in our nature that we enjoy carbohydrates.   That's why Atkins is no longer popular... people often don't enjoy it enough to keep it going.   There's someone starting the South Beach Diet on this board that says if they see another boiled egg or chicken leg they'll scream.    There has to be a middle ground for many  practical reasons.... some good quality wholefood carbohydrates and the occasional sweet rather than none at all.   

Taubes actually points out the Pima Indians as just 1 example. The problem is also found in Africa and other places.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics /obesity-hits-third-world-taking-global-toll- to-300m-535577.html

"The global obesity epidemic is out of control, with more than 300 million overweight adults worldwide, specialists told the first international obesity conference in Sun City, South Africa, which ended yesterday.

The conference focused on the growing number of obese people across the developing world and stressed that many suffered from weight-related illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease."

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayA bstract?fromPage=online&aid=892460

Original Post by jay_breaze:

 I can tell you know in some of the poorest neighborhoods in NYC you'll notice some of the fatest people. It's not like these folks are all working computer jobs.

But they do have access to copious amounts of food  - yes, it's poor quality sugary, starchy and fatty junk, admittedly  - and even the poorest neighbourhood in NYC is massively privileged & wealthy compared to a third-world country...

gi-jane,

Now this has come up more than once so far in all the studies and discussions about the low carb lifestyle I've read. How hard it is to maintain.

I currently am playing with it again, and its just NOT that expensive. When I first tried it out I was almost testing what I COULD get away with. Since I've started thinking about it again that is not the case. Chicken breast, eggs, greens and other low carb foods just aren't that expensive.  I can go buy a full roasted chicken for 7 bucks. I used to spend way more money on food. I've already started planning out all sorts of meals that have variety because I know "I" get bored eating the same stuff over and over.

But I also don't beleive that working with the low carb lifestyle requries you to never under any circumstances EVER ingest a carb. I will have a taco at SOME point. I will enjoy a beer or 5 ;). But it will be a rarity or a celebration as opposed to a Tuesday.

I am Diabetic.  I read yesterday that the ADA actually acknowledges that a Low Carb diet would help regulating blood sugar but they don't recommend it because its hard to keep up...

WHAT?!?!?!?!

If something actually works, and isn't unhealthy, why would you not BACK IT. Let people try! They're are so many different ways of going low carb. You don't need 18 steaks a day! Eat other things.  If someone had some dietrary problem like wheat or something that makes them a ill (a lot of people have mild gluten or wheat allergies) and you could NOT be ill, but its gonna be a bit hard. Is that a reason not to suggest it? If it can actually help you live longer and better?

Exercising and eating 1800 calories a day is hard. Yet that we keep pounding and pounding a way at THAT.

I have to jump in here and reply with a little input on my experience with low carb diets. I started a low carb (mainly all veggies and lean meats) as well as nearly no sugar for a month or so. I did this because I was having stomach issues and food allergies not because I wanted to lose weight, but I have to say I did infact lose a ton of weight for my frame. It was one of the hardest things I can admit to saying that I've done, but it worked. I also can say the cravings for sugar and carbs were probably equivalent to a junkies cravings for crack ..but it only lasted a week or two and then my cravings suddenly diminished and looking at chocolate and bread didn't phase me anymore. Of course I couldn't keep up this lifestyle permanently but I do try to maintain it moderatly now. I believe it helps, it's just super hard to do fulltime when you work a real job outside of home and have a family who basis our socialization around food.

 The Lounge thread in question:

 Basically, Taubes thinks insulin is magic and can violate the laws of causality and thermodynamics. Patent nonsense.

 He has some points congruent with the reality the rest of us live in. Which he then uses to construct a whole pyramid of skewed non-logic to arrive at the conclusion that it's the presence of insulin in your blood steam that makes you fat and you can literally drink olive oil by the gallon and not see weight gain as long as you avoid insulinogenic carbs.

 Yeah right. So If I eat two pounds of pork rinds (50/50 protein/fat) I won't gain weight even if that's 5,714 calories, because I'm not having carbs with it.

According to Taubes, this would be true. According to everyone else in this reality though, not so much.

Original Post by melkor:

 The Lounge thread in question:

 Basically, Taubes thinks insulin is magic and can violate the laws of causality and thermodynamics. Patent nonsense.

 He has some points congruent with the reality the rest of us live in. Which he then uses to construct a whole pyramid of skewed non-logic to arrive at the conclusion that it's the presence of insulin in your blood steam that makes you fat and you can literally drink olive oil by the gallon and not see weight gain as long as you avoid insulinogenic carbs.

 Yeah right. So If I eat two pounds of pork rinds (50/50 protein/fat) I won't gain weight even if that's 5,714 calories, because I'm not having carbs with it.

According to Taubes, this would be true. According to everyone else in this reality though, not so much.

I understand the skepticism, but your argument isn't quite true.  The thermodynamic argument is disputed by Dr. Eades argues fats being metabolized differently than carbs is actually proven via the laws of thermodynamics. (I quoted it in the opening post to this thread) The idea that low carb diets help you lose weight is almost undeniable. I can't speak for you, but I know people who lose crazy weight eating a ridic amount of calories and i've lost weight eating a pound of bacon with eggs! At the time I couldnt argue any science and I totally knew diddly about calories.

But I knew i was thinner.

We can make up reasons for why people lose the weight "OH! overall their caloric intake was lower!" In some people sure it was.  But I know for me it wasnt. I remember going to a friends restaurant and ingesting 3 plate stacked high with their signature roast beef and I was lighter on my next weigh in!

Eventually common sense has to kick in.  Calories  the way we currently know it just CANT explain EVERYTHING.

Well now, I do not know anything about low carb diets.  But I do know that I am not so much a fan of carbs and for the last 10 years have eaten very little. 

I know that some of my weight gain was due to medication (steroids), but if the idea that calories are not as important as the carbs, I should not have gained weight over the last 10 years or so. 

Meat - give me meat and cheese and eggs.  But lo - I have put on a lot of weight and it did not come off until I started counting my calories.

I still say you can fill your tank with what ever fuel you want but when the tank is full its full!

Err, no.

If you go to one of the higher layers of abstraction available; the National Bureau of Economic Research or  NBER digest you'll see that the minutia that Taubes is stuck on simply don't matter.

Increased caloric intake accounted for 93 percent of the change in adult obesity from1990 to 2001 (the remainder is attributable to reduced energy expenditure)."

It's down to people eating more and moving less, and of the two eating more is the main controlling factor.

 Minutia of what your calorie intake consists of is interesting on a local level, but it's got zero explanatory power when considered over teh population as a whole. Individual exceptions exist, and various hormonal axises gets distorted with obesity (in particular the noradenaline->cAMP->TSH->HSL axis) which may play some role in individual metabolism effects and has a large explanatory effect for the observed helpfulness of herbs like Coleus foshkolhii on obese individuals, but no, Taubes is not even wrong.

As Simwaves pointed out, the most recent research does not support Taubes' assessment.

The conclusion of this study is as follows:

"Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize."

The data did not support the idea that cutting carbs would lead to more weight loss. This is the exact opposite of what Taubes is suggesting.

There is just nothing there to study. Taubes' claim boils down to insulin being magic that can cause weight gain even in a calorie deficit, which is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics and thus not worth the calories it would take to study it in greater detail apart from the trivial refutation we already have in the study Simwaves posted.

 There isn't even good evidence to support that there's any metabolic advantage to a low-carb diet beyond the first 7-14d of an induction period even though there's some lipid oxidation suppression (fat burning being turned down) occuring when insulin is elevated above baseline, because protein is in itself insulinogenic.

 Taubes raised some good points about Ancel Keyes and the vilification of fat, and then he took off on a tangent that sent him 90 degrees off from the reality that exists outside his head.

 I guarantee you that if you were to go off and try to live off two pounds of pork rinds and a vitamin pill a day for a week, you'd come back here fatter and slower if you din't simultaneously increase your exercise to maintain caloric balance.

I'm sorry I have to respectfully disagree.

First of all. The NEJM study has been disputed by numerous low carb experts simply because the trial didn't use ACTUAL low carb diets. 35 percent of your daily allowance isn't low carb. Moderate perhaps but NOT low. So that's just invalid off the top.

The NBER makes the low expenditure argument but is there really an argument made against carbs? It doesn't mention in the breakdown that it discusses that at all. It seems its done to cement the idea of calorie in-calorie out. There are numerous things that say that, but that doesnt make it right.

I have no urge to live off pork rinds. But I did eat quite a bit of them when I was on Atkins before. So basically I was downing pork rinds, bacon, roast beef, sausage, cheese, and a bunch of other stuff and amazingly enough still lost weight.  I definitely didn't RAISE my exercise level cause I was just anti the idea. I've decided to jump back on board the low carb bandwagon so I'll let you know what I'm ingesting now and we'll see if it works again.

And I guess in the end thats all that matters right? If i reach my goal weight and I enjoy some bacon, cheese and eggs regularly on my way I'll have my own life as proof. Do I think theres some decent arguments for it? Absolutely, but personal experience I guess is always the best.