Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes

Has anyone read Gary Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories? It came out of a New York Times Magazine article. It blew my mind. I have been writing about healthy eating for years and this book really has called into question everything I believed about food and fat and carbs...and now that I am eating according to what the science says (Taubes book is NOT a diet book, it's a science book about how we have been mislead about food) I am losing those frustrating "last 20 pounds" easily and quickly. I would like to know if anyone else has read this book and what they think.

Err, no, you read that wrong, its "Taubes thinks de novo lipogenesis can't occur without insulin present" which is factually wrong.

 Taubes made some good points once in "big fat lie" though he cherry-picked out-of-context quotes for researchers all over the world to come to a conclusion that was not in fact supported by the research he quoted in support of his position.

 But Taubes' theory is in the "not even wrong" pile, it's based on the very novel idea that insulin is magic and can violate the laws of thermodynamics so that obese people can gain fat mass even in a calorie deficit, which is patent nonsense.

 Basically, Taubes has this therory that fat is metabolically inactive which is just plain wrong, it plays a large role in the leptin signaling cycle which is the master control hormone in metabolic regulation of fat/appetite/nutrient partitioning. Taubes is stuck in 1960ies nutritional science and ignores basically everything that's been published in Journal of Obesity Research since Bray published the study he later retracted.

 You can read Bray's detailed critique here which shows where he thinks Taubes went wrong in interpreting his reaserch and what parts of Taubes' hypothesis is worth testing further.

 It's just another "this or that macronutrient is bad" bit of nutritional nonsense.

Original Post by melkor:

Err, no, you read that wrong, its "Taubes thinks de novo lipogenesis can't occur without insulin present" which is factually wrong.

 Taubes made some good points once in "big fat lie" though he cherry-picked out-of-context quotes for researchers all over the world to come to a conclusion that was not in fact supported by the research he quoted in support of his position.

 But Taubes' theory is in the "not even wrong" pile, it's based on the very novel idea that insulin is magic and can violate teh laws of thermodynamics so that obese people can gain fat mass even in a calorie deficit, which is patent nonsense.

You cannot have read his book?

First, Taubes himself says his understanding was not accurate when he wrote his article "big fat lie" in 2002, he was just starting to look into all this.  Remember he is just a journalist.  Then, he published his book in 2007, 5 years latter.  What he found out during that time made him change a lot of what he thought, and now we can all review this for ourselves by reading it.

Second, Taubes is now saying that without insulin lipogenesis is at least negligible if not impossible.  Tell me why we should not test this?  What would it hurt to test this?

Finally, you said "If insulin was the problem he makes it out to be, you'd have to go on a 100% fat diet to avoid insulin or ASP presence in your system.".  Great!  And if anyone on a 5000 calories 100% fat diet cannot gain weight... boom that just shattered the simple calorie in/calorie out all by itself!

My point is why are we even arguing on it, why are we not testing this?

Valtor

I have found out for myself.

I don't care who tells me I can eat starch and sugar and not gain weight.  I'm not going to listen to them because I know from my own experience.

And melkor, I don't think you have correctly characterized what Taubes says about fat cells.  He makes the case that fat is NOT metabolically inactive - that's it's far more active than science has previously recognized.

I think you'd do well to read the book in order to criticize it -- otherwise you're having a knee-jerk defensive reaction, just like most "nutrition scientists" who claim 'results' that conflict with their own data.

Eh, anyone who claims that some process can violate the laws of thermodynamics isn't science, it's magic.

 Taubes has some narrow good points, but really, his only supporting science is in fact Bray's study that he since retracted and a nutrition textbook from 1930.

 Don't get me wrong, dietary fat has been unfairly cast as the villain in the nutritionism regime where one singles out one macronutrient as "bad" and the virtues of carbs have been severely overstated and over-emphasised in the old nutrition pyramids which are more based on pushes by grain and dairy industry lobbyists than actual science.

 That doesn't mean that it's at all helpful to go to the same extreme with opposite emphasis as Taubes does; just picking another macronutrient (carbs) as villain and cast the previously vilified dietary fat as hero does nothing to advance anything, it's just reiterating the old mistake with a new coat of paint.

I haven't been able to follow this all, but what I've gathered from some of this (esp. nomo's summary) is that even if Taubes is right, it would only apply to people who are insulin resistent? Or did I mis-read that?

You can read Bray's detailed critique here which shows where he thinks Taubes went wrong in interpreting his reaserch and what parts of Taubes' hypothesis is worth testing further.

 It's just another "this or that macronutrient is bad" bit of nutritional nonsense.

You see, the evidence that Dr Bray is one of those biased people is astounding.  Just take a look at the references on Taubes response to Bray.  And I am not saying Bray is bad here, not biased in the sense that he is protecting his money, it's just so easy sometimes for scientist to want to protect their own idea of the world.  Even Einstein did this and then regretted it.

Here is a quote "Dr Bray makes several significant errors of fact that will certainly mislead readers as to the book's actual content and arguments. Bray asserts, for instance, that GCBC includes 'a number of errors of omission or
commission that are important when relating diet to disease'... "

My friend, Taubes is not even pushing any nutritional advice.  He is just asking: How come all of this of so much non-science?

In fact by what you have said here, I think you agree with Taubes a lot more than you think.  I'm pretty sure you would find the book very interesting, just saying.

Valtor

PS: By the way, Taubes says that fat cells are a lot more active than what most researchers seems to think.  Here is good presentation and there is a nice graph of how Taubes findings describes fat cells, lipolysis and lipogenesis and all processes related.  You will more than likely find the video interesting.

Eh, anyone who claims that some process can violate the laws of thermodynamics isn't science, it's magic.

No one is saying that.  Energy in and energy out is always respected.  One of the thing the hypothesis and the data says is:  Energy out can, and does, happen by simple excretion.  An example is when you excrete unused ketones in your urine, breath and skin.  You will find the whole complete processes in the book.  As you can see, thermodynamics is not broken BUT the human body is complex and does not have to use all the energy going in.  I'm telling you, it makes perfect sense and more and more scientists agrees perfectly.

Don't get me wrong, dietary fat has been unfairly cast as the villain in the nutritionism regime where one singles out one macronutrient as "bad" and the virtues of carbs have been severely overstated and over-emphasised in the old nutrition pyramids which are more based on pushes by grain and dairy industry lobbyists than actual science.

 That doesn't mean that it's at all helpful to go to the same extreme with opposite emphasis as Taubes does; just picking another macronutrient (carbs) as villain and cast the previously vilified dietary fat as hero does nothing to advance anything, it's just reiterating the old mistake with a new coat of paint.

He is not advocating anything.  He is just saying: "Hey guys this whole cal in/cal out thing does not seem to explain it all by itself, there is something else here going on.  Why are we basing all advice on this again???".  He is just trying to understand how come nutrition is not based on science (the way I described it earlier).  If it was maybe we would have different guidelines and then again maybe not.  But we will never know if we do not do the science.

People are right up front against Taubes because they think he is talking about low-carbs and diets.  It's a book on science, that's all!

Valtor

That's a two hour video, I don't have that much time now so I'll have to get to that later, maybe after my vacation next week.

Original Post by valtorpublic:

No one is saying that.  Energy in and energy out is always respected. 

Original Post by valtorpublic:

He is just saying: "Hey guys this whole cal in/cal out thing does not seem to explain it all by itself

 So, it's still about energy in vs energy out, but not about calories in vs calories out? is there some other form of energy?

I haven't been able to follow this all, but what I've gathered from some of this (esp. nomo's summary) is that even if Taubes is right, it would only apply to people who are insulin resistent? Or did I mis-read that?

Basically he is demonstrating that excess insulin is responsible for a lot of diseases including obesity and type 2 diabetes.  People have different reactions to the excess of insulin, for some their metabolism starts storing energy without a need, for others it might be diabetes or other diseases that will manifest itself.

Since we are on a weight loss site I'll stay on the subject.  If you are one of those that starts piling the pounds, here is how it goes.  Your body starts storing energy so you can either eat more to compensate and/or your body might slow down to compensate for the energy it decided to store.  The hypothesis reverses the formula we are currently using.  And this hypothesis fits the observations better.

The low-carb camp jumped on this because they said: SEE we told you!  But all Taubes is saying is that without this excess insulin everything is peachy

So the actual excess amount is on a by person basis, which means that for most people, just cutting simple carbs does it.  And it might explain why for some others they truly must go on a low-carb WOE to get the weight off.

Valtor

That's a two hour video, I don't have that much time now so I'll have to get to that later, maybe after my vacation next week.

I think you'll find it fascinating, it's what gave me the desire to read his book

Valtor

No, if it was a book on science it would be published by Harvard Press, MIT Press, Elsevier or one of the other publishing houses, not Rodale Press.

 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.

 Anyway, if Taubes was on to something, Lance Armstrong would be the worlds fattest man. Exactly how many carbs has Lance consumed over a long cycling career?

So, it's still about energy in vs energy out, but not about calories in vs calories out? is there some other form of energy?

Calories In minus Calories Out = Total Energy is what our current "mainstream" view is.

The other hypothesis first says that Cin and Cout are linked together then it says that it is E = Cin - Cout.  So it is reversed and linked.  Physics and maths are all still fine with this at this point .

Now then, we can say things (and I will grossly simplify it here): "It is not because we eat too much and/or do not move enough that we get fatter. It is because we get fatter that we eat more and/or move less".  Fascinating hey!  So now we can try and disprove this hypothesis.  No one yet was able to disprove what I just said and in fact it seems to explain all sorts of thing the nutritionits did not understand.

Also, based on this we MOST ask ourselves why do we get fatter in the first place???  And this seems to be explained by the excess of insulin.

There you have it!  What do you all think?

Valtor

Gary Taubes on the radio: http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2007-...7-11-1 7_01.mp3

 3 minutes in, you get his complete summary of his own points. Which is that insulin can violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Original Post by valtorpublic:

"It is not because we eat too much and/or do not move enough that we get fatter. It is because we get fatter that we eat more and/or move less".  Fascinating hey!  So now we can try and disprove this hypothesis. 

 If this were the case, then body fat would increase before dietary habits change.  And since this has never happened, I just disproved your/his hypothesis.

No, if it was a book on science it would be published by Harvard Press, MIT Press, Elsevier or one of the other publishing houses, not Rodale Press...but no, Taubes is not even wrong.

It is a book about science not a scientific book.  He is asking scientists to at least do the proper nutritional science, because as a journalist what he saw does not constitute proper science and researchers agrees they have "challenges" ahead, that is how they put it mildly.

The hypothesis he brings forward explains better the observations, so yes I think it is just not yet wrong for the moment and warrants that we at leats do the tests to make him lie.

I am not saying he is right, I am saying we have to try and disprove his hypothesis. Yes I find it very interesting but I will graciously shut up if he is proven wrong.

Anyway, if Taubes was on to something, Lance Armstrong would be the worlds fattest man. Exactly how many carbs has Lance consumed over a long cycling career?

Ah here's the kicker.  Since Cin and Cout are linked, instead of getting bigger he will just have a lot more energy to spare (Cout) by eating more (Cin)!!!  Cool hey, and it even explains why he is such an athlete.

Valtor

3 minutes in, you get his complete summary of his own points. Which is that insulin can violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Very impressive !  You were able to discard in 3 minutes what took him 6 years to compile.

Calories out happens with a simple liposuction, we are not a mechanical engine!  We are much more complex, we are like a car that could just pour gaz on the floor instead of burning it 

Nothing ever violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Valtor

 Did you go listen to the radio interview?

 I'm just pointing out that Taubes' own summary of what he's saying violates the laws of physics.

 He has some points worth considering. But his conclusions based on those points are in fact not supported by any of the science that he tries to point to as evidence and are refuted by the higher-abstraction-level research in the  NBER digest you neatly ignored.

I just thought I would add that the most recent research does not support Taubes' assessment.

In general, if the NEJM publishes something, its not something you can ignore. The idea that "all calories are created equal" not being supported by science isn't true.

"It is not because we eat too much and/or do not move enough that we get fatter. It is because we get fatter that we eat more and/or move less".  Fascinating hey!  So now we can try and disprove this hypothesis. 

 If this were the case, then body fat would increase before dietary habits change.  And since this has never happened, I just disproved your/his hypothesis.

Could you provide me with a reference that proves what you just said.  Cause if you can, let me know so that we can tell Taubes to stop wasting his time.  Otherwise, you have just expressed a test for the hypothesis. 

The fact is, as shockingly as this may seam, it has never been tested.  So now I'm saying lets test this please !!!

That is the kind of thing he found out.  Why scientist say "Come on, we don't get fatter before we start eating too much!" and so nothing ever gets tested.  We are working with suppositions and not science.

So Taubes tried to find observations that would show that people get fat before they overeat.  And guess what I found tons TONS of it !!!  So now why are we not at least trying to prove that he is wrong??

We have real hard evidence that an excess of insulin while we are not overeating can cause us to get fatter and then we start eating more.

Those are the evidence we need to explain one way or another.

Here is a nice quote from Taubes that explains your understandably skeptic reactions.

"...when you let an untested hypothesis grow and infect the science to the point where people start to believe it’s true, even though it’s never been rigorously tested, the obstacles against ever overturning it get bigger and bigger. It’s like the dietary fat hypothesis: you let it sit around for 40 years, and it evolves to the point that people consider it dogma; it’s virtually impossible to overturn it..."

Valtor