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.

Transcript of Taubes on CNN.

TAUBES: You are not -- because you can find populations that cannot gain weight that eat plenty of saturated fats. For instance, you can find a 1928 report, two University of Chicago economists go to a Sioux Indian reservation in the Midwest. These people are poor beyond our imagination. And they have 30 percent obesity rates and 20 percent malnutrition rates. Their children are starving, but they're...

OZ: Actually, there's the Amish. Forget about (INAUDIBLE)...

TAUBES: No, no, no, no, no.

OZ: The Amish in Pennsylvania, they walk, on average, 16,000 steps a day.

TAUBES: No. But the point is...

OZ: The obesity rate in men among the Amish is 1 percent.

Just as an example. Taubes doesn't have any research that hasn't been retracted by the author more recent than Physiology of Insulin by Cahill from 1971 to back up his theories.

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.

Could you provide me with a reference that proves what you just said Um, the law of thermodynamics proves it.  In order for a system (the body) to increase in mass it needs an increase in energy (calories).  According to the law of thermodynamics a system can't increase in mass without an increase in energy.  By saying that the increase in mass can happen first, it must be able to happen without an increase in energy.  Cause if you can, let me know so that we can tell Taubes to stop wasting his time But he's not wasting his time, he's making tons of money dupping people like you. 

Original Post by melkor:

 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 have no doubt he can put his foot in his mouth.  He is not a scientist.  He just demonstrate very well in his book that every time a nutritional study is published the abstract and/or the conclusions does not fit with the results!  He set out to find out why that is, what is happening here.  He found out a lot of biased, in the form of people trying to conclude whatever they think they should appear out of their studies, because of their preconceptions.  Preconceptions we can nearly put the single root coming from Jean Mayer.

I actually did check the data myself from the studies he cites and was flabergasted to see the conclusions that ignores the results it does not like.  Come on that's not science.

Let's just say I don't trust anymore the publications that are based on the current still unproven preconceptions.  We need real unbiased science done on both hypothesis and lets just chose the one based on the real scientific method.

Valtor

Original Post by valtorpublic:

I have no doubt he can put his foot in his mouth.  He is not a scientist.  He just demonstrate very well in his book that every time a nutritional study is published the abstract and/or the conclusions does not fit with the results!  He set out to find out why that is, what is happening here.  He found out a lot of biased, in the form of people trying to conclude whatever they think they should appear out of their studies, because of their preconceptions.  Preconceptions we can nearly put the single root coming from Jean Mayer.

I actually did check the data myself from the studies he cites and was flabergasted to see the conclusions that ignores the results it does not like.  Come on that's not science.

Let's just say I don't trust anymore the publications that are based on the current still unproven preconceptions.  We need real unbiased science done on both hypothesis and lets just chose the one based on the real scientific method.

Valtor

Read through the NEJM article. Its conclusions are pretty clearly from the data. NEJM is the most prominent journal in medical research. If you can publish in the NEJM, you have to have your facts straight.

I can assure you thermodynamics is not violated.

I understand your reactions very well.    I was on here a couple weeks ago saying the same things.  Then on other forums they challenged me: "Would you just read the book!  Then come back and we will discuss".  I accepted the challenge and was utterly blown out by the magnitude of non-science our dogma has.

Again, I am not saying he is right.  I am saying everyone, just like you now, are saying "All this is already proven and it's evident ! and you can't violate thermodynamics, etc...".  When in fact not much has been proven and rest assured thermodynamics will never be violated.

Obviously we will have to agree that we won't agree

I just wanted to point out that our current hypothesis has not been proven by science yet and we should rectify that.  And that his book is at least a good read.

Valtor

Read through the NEJM article. Its conclusions are pretty clearly from the data. NEJM is the most prominent journal in medical research. If you can publish in the NEJM, you have to have your facts straight.

Thank you for the link.  I will read it, looks interesting.  I might even come back here in a while to discuss it from the point of view of the alternate hypothesis.  Could be an interesting discussion.

Valtor

Original Post by valtorpublic:

I can assure you thermodynamics is not violated.

If a system can gain weight without an increase in energy (increase in fat without an increase in calories) like you have stated Taubes hypothesis to be, then yes, the laws of thermodynamics are violated.

Original Post by valtorpublic:

I just wanted to point out that our current hypothesis has not been proven by science yet and we should rectify that. 

What current hypothesis, that an increase in energy is required for an increase in mass? That has been proven, it's a scientific law. 

Also, Frank Sacks, the lead author of the study is a prominent leader in the area of dietary research. He has quite a bit of good research behind his name.

I can assure you thermodynamics is not violated.

If a system can gain weight without an increase in energy (increase in fat without an increase in calories) like you have stated Taubes hypothesis to be, then yes, the laws of thermodynamics are violated.

What the alternate hypothesis says is.  The body starts storing energy, so the total energy is trying to increase.  In order for the total energy to increase you have to input more energy and/or reduce the energy output.  There, thermodynamics is still all happy

I just wanted to point out that our current hypothesis has not been proven by science yet and we should rectify that. 

What current hypothesis, that an increase in energy is required for an increase in mass? That has been proven, it's a scientific law. 

We just assumed from the start that total energy increases because we eat more and/or because we move less.  There is an alternate hypothesis, that I stated above, that also explains all observations.  But it actually explains more if not all obversations, which is not the case for hypothesis # 1.

This is why I say we must test it.  The alternate hypothesis makes predictions the first does not.  If we can test these predictions, we will either disprove the alternate hypothesis or not.  And if not we will try other things to disprove it.  All this time doing science instead of assuming things like we do right now.

By the way, the linked study comparing types of macro nutrient diets does not contradict the alternate hypothesis.  We can obtain the same results with both hypothesis. We really need to test the predictions specifically to know for sure.

Valtor

This is fascinating, when we apply the alternate hypothesis to the NBER study "Why is the Developed World Obese?", we can explain the findings, if not better at least as good as, than what they concluded.

Their conclusion "...The increase in caloric intake appears to be driven by technological innovations, such as lower food prices and the ease with which businesses can enter the marketplace, as well as changing sociodemographic characteristics such as increased labor force participation and increased urbanization...".

It certainly makes sense but it still does not contradict the alternate hypothesis.  The alternate hypothesis would explain those results like thus:

The increased consumption of simple carbs caused the level of insulin to reach a point where the body, on a per individual basis, can become deregulated and starts trying to store energy.  The energy stored as fat is then stolen from your needs and you need to either eat more (you become hundry) and/or to move less (you are more fatigued and/or less motivated) so that the increasing total energy demand is met.  Thermodynamics and all of physics is still ok with this and we have an alternate hypothesis that stands.

So would you agree that we need to find ways to specifically test the actual reasons why we get obese?  We have two competing hypothesis and need to disprove at least one...

Valtor

Original Post by valtorpublic:

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.

 Good Video, well worth the time it takes to watch it.

Original Post by valtorpublic:

By the way, the linked study comparing types of macro nutrient diets does not contradict the alternate hypothesis.  We can obtain the same results with both hypothesis. We really need to test the predictions specifically to know for sure.

Valtor

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.

We all know that reducing calories generally results in weight loss, when they're cut low enough.

But weight loss doesn't necessarily mean fat loss. If the people on high-carb, low-fat are losing a lot of muscle along with some fat loss and the people on high-fat, low-carb are losing mostly fat, then they may well have equivalent weight loss, but which group is going to be more likely to keep it off and have less hopefully-temporary damage to metabolic rates?

Original Post by simwaves1:

Original Post by valtorpublic:

By the way, the linked study comparing types of macro nutrient diets does not contradict the alternate hypothesis.  We can obtain the same results with both hypothesis. We really need to test the predictions specifically to know for sure.

Valtor

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.

Do not forget that if you are looking for the cause of obesity like they were and at the same time assuming that you first need a variation of C in and/or C out to make it happen, they will be looking at what causes people's behavior to increase their intake and/or decrease their output.  So I'm not saying their conclusions are wrong for what they were looking for.

I'm saying there is a perfectly good alternative explanation that also fits the observations of this study and for which it's not a question of behavior that cause the increase but a biological reason that changes your behavior.  The difference is that the root cause proposed are not the same.  In hypothesis #1 you look for the reasons why you would eat more calories in a psychological, economical, environmental or social context and with hypothesis #2 you look for the biological reasons your body could make it so that you start eating more.

The carbs in excess, in the alternative hypothesis, is just a predicted cause of the insulin induced deregulation of the metabolism.  That of course is just one of the predictions that needs to best tested.  We are not even in the subject of weight loss here guys, we are talking about the science of the human metabolism and I'm telling you that at this very moment, our beliefs in the matter are far from being scientifically sound because of the basic expectation with which we look at all the data.

Don't tell me that, at this point, you are not at least intrigued by all of this?  Those two hypothesis needs to be researched in their own context and then we can call it science.

It's not about diets, low-fat or low-carb or whatever.  That's just the medias saying this.  It's about doing real science in the field of human metabolism.

Valtor

We all know that reducing calories generally results in weight loss, when they're cut low enough.

See this is exactly what I'm talking about !  "We all know that..."  The fact is we don't know and I am as surprised as you of that !  I thought it was a proven fact too!  But in reality, it's not even a theory yet, because the hypothesis itself as never been truly tested.  It's not been tested because "we all know" so there is no need.  It blows my mind !  And now we even have an alternate hypothesis that makes other predictions so we have even more tests to do!

I understand everyone's reactions here, really !  After all the research that has been done in the last 40 years all the time with the same expectation.  Then trying to accept the possibility of an other explanation is really hard.  But that is what science is, if you have a new hypothesis that explains some observations you could not before.  You at least need to try and disprove the new hypothesis.  But here it's worst than that, we never even did that for the one we use today !  And that is what shocks me so much.  Me too I always thought "We all know that..." when it comes to nutrition.  But it just isn't, as much as we want to believe it.  Until proper science as been done here, we just don't know.

Valtor

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.

 Good Video, well worth the time it takes to watch it.

Thank you, I thought people would at least be intrigued after watching it.

I would like to mention that Gary Taubes does not eat low-carb.  His book is not about "diets" or weight loss.  He stumbled on all this while investigating the science of nutrition and he just would not believe it himself !  How could a whole societies' nutritional advice be based on suppositions??

He is still astounded as much as anyone who is open minded enough to truly look into it.  The best way for this is of course to read the book.  Or at least watch that presentation he gave at UC Berkeley

Valtor

I've read some of what Taube wrote, and a question pops up

If high carbs are so harmful, then why is the Mediterannean diet, high in carbs and fats and low in protein, so healthy for the people who eat that way every day?  People who eat in this style live longer and have fewer diseases than most of the world. The Italians are among the slimmest people in the world and they eat pasta every day.  Same goes for the basic Asian diet - the Japanese live longer than we do, by a LOT - Japan's life expectancy is among the highest in the world. According to the CIA World Factbook, Japan ranks 6th worldwide, but first among major countries.. 

I'm sorry, but what he's saying just doesn't make sense.  However, I do agree that most of what people think about food and what makes you fat is wrong, and that more research is needed.

Original Post by valtorpublic:

Do not forget that if you are looking for the cause of obesity like they were and at the same time assuming that you first need a variation of C in and/or C out to make it happen, they will be looking at what causes people's behavior to increase their intake and/or decrease their output.  So I'm not saying their conclusions are wrong for what they were looking for.

I'm saying there is a perfectly good alternative explanation that also fits the observations of this study and for which it's not a question of behavior that cause the increase but a biological reason that changes your behavior.  The difference is that the root cause proposed are not the same.  In hypothesis #1 you look for the reasons why you would eat more calories in a psychological, economical, environmental or social context and with hypothesis #2 you look for the biological reasons your body could make it so that you start eating more.

The carbs in excess, in the alternative hypothesis, is just a predicted cause of the insulin induced deregulation of the metabolism.  That of course is just one of the predictions that needs to best tested.  We are not even in the subject of weight loss here guys, we are talking about the science of the human metabolism and I'm telling you that at this very moment, our beliefs in the matter are far from being scientifically sound because of the basic expectation with which we look at all the data.

Don't tell me that, at this point, you are not at least intrigued by all of this?  Those two hypothesis needs to be researched in their own context and then we can call it science.

It's not about diets, low-fat or low-carb or whatever.  That's just the medias saying this.  It's about doing real science in the field of human metabolism.

Valtor

From what he says, Taubes seems to emphasize the role of carbohydrates above other macromolecules in diet and weight control. This is the opposite of what was found in the article that I posted.

In this article, they are testing the existence of priority of one macromolecule over the others (which Taubes suggests) in weight management. This relationship is not an assumption made by the authors, it is the exact science that you suggest should be researched.

If high carbs are so harmful, then why is the Mediterannean diet, high in carbs and fats and low in protein, so healthy for the people who eat that way every day?

Since no real nutritional science has been properly done yet we can't be sure.  And our current hypothesis just assumes to know why.  In fact, there are other places in the world where you see a substantial number of mothers who are obese, with their children who are dying of malnutrition in their arms.  Would you say those mothers are eating enough food to get obese instead of giving it to their children so they can live?  Because that is what we would think of those mothers if we apply our current hypothesis.

Now if we look at it from the point of view of the alternate hypothesis, then the metabolism of these mothers reacts to too much insulin and makes them obese, even while there is not enough food.  Because nearly all their calories comes from refined carbs and this hyper stimulates their insulin levels, thus making them obese.

I think it is worth looking into.  Because this would change our view of obesity and then we might be able to better help people.

I'm sorry, but what he's saying just doesn't make sense.  However, I do agree that most of what people think about food and what makes you fat is wrong, and that more research is needed.

I agree 100% with your last sentence.  And it is perfectly fine for you to disagree with the hypothesis Taubes has highlighted.  In fact this is how science work, you disagree and you set out to prove he's wrong.  Of course if no matter what you try, you can't disprove it, as a scientist you should begin to accept it might be true.

We are at the point here were clearly our scientists have a lot of work to do.

Valtor

From what he says, Taubes seems to emphasize the role of carbohydrates above other macromolecules in diet and weight control. This is the opposite of what was found in the article that I posted.

In this article, they are testing the existence of priority of one macromolecule over the others (which Taubes suggests) in weight management. This relationship is not an assumption made by the authors, it is the exact science that you suggest should be researched.

You see, in this study the lowest carb ratio was 35%.  So we can't use this study to try and disprove Taubes hypothesis, because 35% carbs is still way too high to substantially reduce insulin.  Thus this study does not verify or disprove Taubes hypothesis.

We really do need specific tests for this.

Valtor