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.

From my understanding Taubes is saying that Ein and Eout are biologically linked.  If you increase Ein it's likely that Eout will also increase (higher metabolism/person has more energy) and if you decrease Ein it's likely that Eout will also decrease (slower metabolism/person feels sluggish).

The gaining weight without increasing calorie thing is also biological according to Taubes.  The excess of insulin causes a biological reaction (hormonal I believe I read) that makes us want to eat more and be less active.  Kinda like the adage about eating Chinese food and being hungry 30 minutes later.

Is that about right Valtor?

Do either of those violate the law of thermodynamics?

I've heard advice like this everyday on CC - If you're stuck on a plateau it might mean your metabolism has slowed and you need to eat more calories to raise it back up.  And, eating simple carbohydrates makes you crave more simple carbohydrates which creates a vicious carb eatin' cycle.  To me that what it sounds like Taubes is saying.

Original Post by valtorpublic:

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

The low carb ratio decreased insulin levels by 12% below base level. Insulin doesn't have an action potential. Its not like you have to reach a certain level of decrease in order to see an effect. If carbohydrates have an enhanced effect on the ability to manage weight, then the difference in insulin levels of these patients would have shown a difference in weight loss. In biochemical terms, a 12% decrease would result in a significant change in hormonal activity. 

The low carb ratio decreased insulin levels by 12% below base level. Insulin doesn't have an action potential. Its not like you have to reach a certain level of decrease in order to see an effect. If carbohydrates have an enhanced effect on the ability to manage weight, then the difference in insulin levels of these patients would have shown a difference in weight loss. In biochemical terms, a 12% decrease would result in a significant change in hormonal activity. 

You say "base level".  I was not aware our current metabolism hypothesis even had the concept of "a base level of insulin"?  You even say it yourself "Its not like you have to reach a certain level of decrease in order to see an effect.".  Basing your point of view from the current hypothesis, your are perfectly right.

The alternate hypothesis makes a prediction that such a concept exist.  That on a per individual basis, there is a level of insulin that causes all sorts of effects and not just obesity.  This prediction does not even relate to weight loss, it relates to weight gain.  We have experiments we can do now to try to disprove this hypothesis, until it is proven wrong it is as good as our current hypothesis, and more so since our current one has not even been validated yet.

I understand the rest of your argumentation regarding weight loss.  But you are basing all your arguments and point of views from an untested hypothesis.  And now we have an alternate one that makes predictions that could disprove our current hypothesis.

Tell me why we should not do these tests?  In science we have to base our research on theories because it's the best we have.  BUT when you have unexplained observations and you also have a new hypothesis that not only explains the observations but makes new predictions that we can tests.  Then, as scientists, it is our duty to follow the scientific method and try to disprove one or even both of these hypothesis.

Valtor

From my understanding Taubes is saying that Ein and Eout are biologically linked.  If you increase Ein it's likely that Eout will also increase (higher metabolism/person has more energy) and if you decrease Ein it's likely that Eout will also decrease (slower metabolism/person feels sluggish).

The gaining weight without increasing calorie thing is also biological according to Taubes.  The excess of insulin causes a biological reaction (hormonal I believe I read) that makes us want to eat more and be less active.  Kinda like the adage about eating Chinese food and being hungry 30 minutes later.

Is that about right Valtor?

I give you 100% mark on your understanding of the basics of Taubes hypothesis!

But it is still just an hypothesis, just like our current one.  At least now we can try and disprove one of them and go on to make a proper theory of human metabolism that we could base our nutritional studies on.

Do either of those violate the law of thermodynamics?

Absolutely not ! Thermodynamics as far as I know is not disputed by any scientists, except perhaps some crackpots.  And Taubes hypothesis follows thermodynamics perfectly.

I've heard advice like this everyday on CC - If you're stuck on a plateau it might mean your metabolism has slowed and you need to eat more calories to raise it back up.  And, eating simple carbohydrates makes you crave more simple carbohydrates which creates a vicious carb eatin' cycle.  To me that what it sounds like Taubes is saying.

Yes exactly!  The thing is that right now our simple Ein - Eout does not always fits our observations.  The example you give is a good one.

We now have an hypothesis that would explain all of this and even makes other not yet observed predictions.  We need to test this !  Our current one not only does not always explain all this, it's never been tested !

Can you imagine what would happen if we disprove our current hypothesis and are not able to disprove Taubes hypothesis?  One of the things that would happen is that we would stop looking at obese people as if it is their lack of willpower that makes them big!  Instead we will know what biological processes has made them big and we can truly work on resolving the issue.  It not only brings back some much needed respect for these people, it actually helps them for real without any ambiguities !  With our current hypothesis, we are only making suppositions, with the alternate one we advance real science.

At this point anyone that as read this whole thread cannot seriously tell me that we should not do the proposed experiments???  Taubes even have a couple lined up that could disprove his hypothesis and it only cost 50,000$, that's pocket money in research!  But nobody cares because "we all know that it's Ein - Eout" !

It truly blows my mind !

Valtor

Original Post by floggingsully:

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.

 You cannot disprove a hypothesis with an opinion, you need the science.

So prove that this has never happened and you will have done what Taube is asking you to do.

Original Post by melkor:

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.

 Does the passage of time invalidate the results of a study?

Original Post by trhawley:

Original Post by floggingsully:

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.

 You cannot disprove a hypothesis with an opinion, you need the science.

So prove that this has never happened and you will have done what Taube is asking you to do.

It's not opinion, it's the laws of physics. The current theory states that in order for energy in a system to increase (gain mass) you must increase the energy going into the system (eat more) or decrease the energy going out of the system (move less).  This 'alternative hypothesis' states that the cause/effect are reversed and that a change in energy in the sytem causes the amount of energy going in/out to alter.

Think about that for a minute, if an increase in energy in a system causes an increase in energy going in or decrease going out then the energy in the system must be able to increase before the energy going in/out changes, which would require energy to appear out of nowhere, which violates the laws of thermodynamics. 

Original Post by floggingsully:

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. 

 

 This is not what the law of thermodynamics says.  The Law say that in order to increase mass the body needs an increase in the surplus of energy.  This can occur, as you say, with an increase in energy input BUT it can also occur according to the Law with a decrees in energy output.  So which is it?

Original Post by trhawley:

 This is not what the law of thermodynamics says.  The Law say that in order to increase mass the body needs an increase in the surplus of energy.  This can occur, as you say, with an increase in energy input BUT it can also occur according to the Law with a decrees in energy output.  So which is it?

So, either a change in energy going in or a change in energy going out is required? Isn't that exactly what the current theory states? 

Change in energy in or energy out causes a change in total energy, not the other way around. 

Original Post by clairelaine:

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.

 In the Berkley Presentation Taubes doesn't explore why people are healthy or why they live longer.  He only goal is to discover why some people become obese.  Our current model say that people become obese because they are glutinous, slothful, or both.  Taubes offers an alternative hypothesis that he thinkis worthinvesting scientifically.  Because, Taubes claims, not all obese people are slothful and/or glutinous.

In our society, obese people are often discrimiated against because of the belief that their obesity is an outward display of their glutinous and slothful behavior.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by trhawley:

 This is not what the law of thermodynamics says.  The Law say that in order to increase mass the body needs an increase in the surplus of energy.  This can occur, as you say, with an increase in energy input BUT it can also occur according to the Law with a decrees in energy output.  So which is it?

So, either a change in energy going in or a change in energy going out is required? Isn't that exactly what the current theory states? 

Change in energy in or energy out causes a change in total energy, not the other way around. 

 I think you are starting to catch on.

Original Post by trhawley:

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by trhawley:

 This is not what the law of thermodynamics says.  The Law say that in order to increase mass the body needs an increase in the surplus of energy.  This can occur, as you say, with an increase in energy input BUT it can also occur according to the Law with a decrees in energy output.  So which is it?

So, either a change in energy going in or a change in energy going out is required? Isn't that exactly what the current theory states? 

Change in energy in or energy out causes a change in total energy (the current theory), not the other way around (the 'alternative theory'). 

 I think you are starting to catch on.

 my thinking hasn't changed at all.

Thank you trhawley for the much needed help!  I'm getting out of breath here.

I think at this point in the thread, if anyone reads it from at least post # 28 to here, they will have more than enough information to make their own mind.

We will probably not do squat with anyone closed minded, but open minded people should be able to see that some more science is needed here.

Also, I have already given too much of my time here and will now withdraw from the thread.

I will come back here to give to those interested, the results of my personal experiment I am currently doing.  That does not constitute science of course, but I might be able to disprove the current dogma just for myself.

Thank you all !

Valtor

 Err, on average the middle-aged person with a bit of a paunch will have gained a pound a year for 20 years, not all in one go.

 That's an average calorie surplus of 9.5kcal/d or 67kcal/wk; or about the calorie content of 13 peanuts extra per week.

 Obesity is just a more dramatic example of this; 10lbs/year requires a daily energy surplus of 95kcal/d or 670kcal/wk, just over 100g peanuts. I've had more than that in a saturday's worth of watching TV, how about you?

Have one extra 16oz coke a day for 194 kcal/d or 1358kcal/wk extra, gain 20.2lbs in a year.

 No gluttony required, just a poor understanding of energy balance or a lack of caring about long-term consequences.

Taubes presupposes that you gain the weight first, and then eat to fill the system with the equivalent energy that your newly gained mass contains.

 It's so badly off the mark it's not even science.

If one interprets his theory along the lines that he thinks obesity is a genetic condition along the lines of acromegaly (gigantism) and the obese person eats because his/her genetic set point is obesity, there might be some marginal testable predicitions to come out of it.  But that's not what he says, he does claim that insulin is literally Star Trek replicator-level magic able to create energy and mass from nothing.

(Edited to add) And no, being old doesn't invalidate science, been a while since Archimedes and we still use his stuff. But our understanding of the role insulin plays in the metabolism has advanced a bit since Cahill ;)

Original Post by melkor:

Taubes presupposes that you gain the weight first, and then eat to fill the system with the equivalent energy that your newly gained mass contains.

And like I've been saying, if the energy in a system increases or decreases before the energy inputs/outputs change then energy must either appear out of nothing or disappear into nothing, which violates the law of conservation of mass, and should be obvious to anyone who's taken a middle school physics class.

Original Post by melkor:

 Err, on average the middle-aged person with a bit of a paunch will have gained a pound a year for 20 years, not all in one go.

 That's an average calorie surplus of 9.5kcal/d or 67kcal/wk; or about the calorie content of 13 peanuts extra per week.

 Obesity is just a more dramatic example of this; 10lbs/year requires a daily energy surplus of 95kcal/d or 670kcal/wk, just over 100g peanuts. I've had more than that in a saturday's worth of watching TV, how about you?

Have one extra 16oz coke a day for 194 kcal/d or 1358kcal/wk extra, gain 20.2lbs in a year.

 No gluttony required, just a poor understanding of energy balance or a lack of caring about long-term consequences.

Taubes presupposes that you gain the weight first, and then eat to fill the system with the equivalent energy that your newly gained mass contains.

 It's so badly off the mark it's not even science.

If one interprets his theory along the lines that he thinks obesity is a genetic condition along the lines of acromegaly (gigantism) and the obese person eats because his/her genetic set point is obesity, there might be some marginal testable predicitions to come out of it.  But that's not what he says, he does claim that insulin is literally Star Trek replicator-level magic able to create energy and mass from nothing.

(Edited to add) And no, being old doesn't invalidate science, been a while since Archimedes and we still use his stuff. But our understanding of the role insulin plays in the metabolism has advanced a bit since Cahill ;)

 I didn't read the book so I don't know what he say in it but in the in Berkley presentation he doesn't suggest that you gain weight first then eat to supply the energy it took to make the fat after.  He suggests that insulin causes your body to want to store fat so when insulin is increased you will either eat more or burn less in order to be able to store fat.

What he is really asking is why do you eat those peanuts when you don't have a current need for the energy that they supply?  Is it because your body wants to store fat or is there some other reason?  Could it be that you eat those peanuts because something else you ate caused your insulin level to go up and the increase in insulin caused an increase in appetite?

He does suggest that genetics and hormone production has an effect on body size and shape.  Do you disagree?  Do you eat the extra peanuts because you have not reached your genetic predisposition for fat storage?

I'm not a scientist and I don't play one on TV and I'm not siding with or against Taubes.  But I am older that a lot of people on these boards and I remember a time when it was considered common wisdom that eating too much starch made you fat and to lose weight you should cut back on the starches and increase your level of activity.  We don't even use the word starch anymore, what happened?  I also recall the disaster of the low fat fad and the damage it is still causing today. 

I also read these board almost daily and if I had a dollar for every poster that was maintaining a 500 calorie daily deficit and not losing any weight I wouldn't even know that we were in a recession.  Why aren't they losing weight?  I think they aren't losing weight because they don't actually have a deficit.  When it comes to the laws of thermodynamics the only variable the we can consciouslycontrol is Energy In.  So Energy Out has to be the problem, right?

Anyway it makes for interesting discussion.

Taubes presupposes that you gain the weight first, and then eat to fill the system with the equivalent energy that your newly gained mass contains.

And like I've been saying, if the energy in a system increases or decreases before the energy inputs/outputs change then energy must either appear out of nothing or disappear into nothing, which violates the law of conservation of mass, and should be obvious to anyone who's taken a middle school physics class.

I can't resist replying to this one, but it's the last.

Lets say you eat 1000 calories composed of 80% very simple carbs, and you do this for a long time.  After a while, the constant demand on insulin to get rid of so much glucose deregulates your metabolism (metabolism syndrome).  You are still eating 1000 calories / day, but then your deregulated body starts storing energy as fat.  This is not an output of energy but it decreases the energy available that you can output.  What do you do then?  You are eating 1000 calories / day and your body stores as fat 400 of those calories, there is only 600 calories left for you to output, to make your body work and to move around.  What do you think would happen?  You will probably feel that you are missing energy, you might be fatigued.  Normally if we feel we are missing energy we will start eating more.  You are getting fatter and yes you are increasing the total energy by eating more, but the reason, the root cause of why you are getting fatter is not because you were eating too much, it is because your body became deregulated and as a reaction you eat more.  Thermodynamics are respected completely here.

Valtor

Original Post by trhawley:

Our current model say that people become obese because they are glutinous, slothful, or both.  Taubes offers an alternative hypothesis that he thinkis worthinvesting scientifically.  Because, Taubes claims, not all obese people are slothful and/or glutinous.

In our society, obese people are often discrimiated against because of the belief that their obesity is an outward display of their glutinous and slothful behavior.

This I can agree with. There is plenty of science coming out that suggests that our biochemical makeup has a strong role in determining appetite and eventually body mass. My point is that insulin is the wrong hormone to be looking at. The hormonal effects of insulin come in much later, after significant weight gain has already occurred. 

Obesity: The Integrated Roles of Environment and Genetics

Obesity: The Integrated Roles of Environment and Genetics

Cool study!  Thank you so much for the link !  Now I can relax a little bit, because this study shows that there is still some good science happening !

Here is my favorite quote from the abstract: "The lipostatic model not only explains why some people become obese whereas others do not, but also allows us to understand why energy-controlled diets do not work."

So at this point, I don't care if people use Taubes or not to research the cause of what I have highlighted.  As long as we are looking for it, I'm happy !

Thanks again!

Valtor

Original Post by valtorpublic:

Here is my favorite quote from the abstract: "The lipostatic model not only explains why some people become obese whereas others do not, but also allows us to understand why energy-controlled diets do not work."

After thinking a bit more about your post, I wanted to clarify something in the case that you misunderstood what they are saying here. According to the lipostatic model, energy-controlled diets don't work because people don't stick to them. Eventually, hormonal drives within your body will cause you to give up counting calories/weight-watchers/Atkins/etc. Very few people have the self control to consistently fight these drives, so weight loss is almost universally temporary. 

What this is not saying is that you may not lose weight while you reduce calorie consumption. If you eat less calories than you burn in a day, you will lose weight, period.