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.

Do you have access to the whole text?  I don't have access to it.  I would have liked to see what is the amount of BCAA they added in the HF diet.

Patrick

Original Post by valtorpublic:

Hey Eric, have you seen this thread?  I think it explains even more things than GCBC.

http://caloriecount.about.com/obesity-epidemi c-ft134804

Patrick

Consider this quote from a paper which Dr. Lustig co-authored:

Childhood Obesity:

Why is obesity so prevalent?

Man has evolved under conditions of stress in which it was advantageous to be able to store fat. It is this genetic propensity to store fat in response to insulin, paired with our lifestyles with too much sedentary activity and processed energy-dense foods, that has contributed to the problem of overweight. Numerous genetic markers have been linked with obesity and its metabolic consequences, yet identifiable hormonal, syndromic, or molecular genetic abnormalities can presently account for less than 5% of obese individuals. This is discussed in greater detail in Causes.

Although Lustig suggests that fructose has negative effects in the liver, his research does not support the view of Taubes either.

-----------------------------------

Also, avoiding fructose isn't really a good idea for everyone. Alternative sweeteners high in fructose, such as agave nectar, have a low(er) glycemic index. It is important for people with diabetes to eat foods which have a low glycemic index in order to prevent hyperglycemia. That is why the list of sugars which are "not tolerated" in your list from boston university is only a suggestion to those who have hereditary fructose intolerance.

Original Post by valtorpublic:

Do you have access to the whole text?  I don't have access to it.  I would have liked to see what is the amount of BCAA they added in the HF diet.

Patrick

Sorry, can't help there. Although I can access the text, the specifics of the diets are part of the supplemental information, which has a broken link for some reason.

I would give you the text, but that would put me at risk of losing my access to all the journals through my school.

Thanks for the link.  Dr Lustig is only one of a whole bunch of people who co-authored it.  His view point can't always win on the wording.   Some of their recommendations are complete opposites of what Dr Lustig now says. i.e. about why exercise works.

I read the whole thing and all I can say is that, they do not say they know the specific cause or causes of obesity.  In fact they are very cautious not to be too specific in everything they say about that, because a lot of it is just based on epidemiology.  This paper is a very good example of what Taubes talks about in his book, regarding how easy it is to miss the elephant in the room when you are stuck on untested hypotheses.

Also, depending on your viewpoint, the same data can be interpreted very differently.  Here is an example of what I mean.

Numerous genetic markers have been linked with obesity and its metabolic consequences.

How can they even know if the metabolic syndrome is a consequence?  They assume it is because of their unproven premise.  In fact, we are saying that observations demonstrates that it is more likely that obesity is a consequence of the metabolic syndrome, hence the metabolic syndrome is a cause.

So now the question is. What causes the metabolic syndrome??  They do not look for the reasons because they think they already know.  They are looking at it backwards.  It's really a shame in my opinion.  But Dr Lustig's views are not tainted by this, so he sees clearly.

All Gary Taubes, others and myself are asking is that they properly test their basic hypothesis before using it as fact in every studies they do.

Patrick

Regarding fructose, you should take a look at very recent experiments.  Here's one.

Our data indicate that chronic fructose consumption induces leptin resistance prior to body weight, adiposity, serum leptin, insulin, or glucose increases, and this fructose-induced leptin resistance accelerates high-fat induced obesity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703413

Fructose in the amount we now consume is a real poison.  Replacing glucose sources by more fructose, just because it does not directly stimulate insulin, is truly counter productive.  It has been shown that fructose indirectly, by way of nefarious hormonal feedback loops, stimulates even more insulin production.

Patrick

Hi, everyone. I saw a link from the low carb forum on a thread about High Protein/Fat intake and came here to read the thread, which is interesting. Here's the response I posted there:

In response to: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/ 090407130905.htm

This study has provided the biological process behind the success of Dr. Kwasniewski's Optimal Diet - and the explanation of why some very strict LC'ers lose scale weight only for a while, and then come to a screeching halt for a very long time.

While it's true that the researchers have a mistaken interpretation of their results -- they believe it's the high fat consumption, and not the high carb intake combined with high fat that's producing the insulin resistance -- the explanation of why excess protein intake in some insulin resisitant individuals results in weight gain is very important news.

That's what Dr. Kwasniewski has been saying for years. And recently taking his advice (to greatly increase my fat intake while lowering my protein consumption) has finally allowed me to begin to lose scale weight again -- after a two-year stall!

While I've been happy that this is the case, and while I've been able to guess at the bio-mechanical reasons for it, the geekette part of me has been unhappy without a deeper understanding of what it is that drives this phenomenon for me, and for others. This article has provided it.

And it explains so much. Think about the process. We become obese because by eating a lot of carbs with or without high fat, we become insulin resistant. We develop a metabolic fat accumulation syndrome that makes us hungry all the time, fatigued, and very fat.

If we're lucky, we discover the LC WOE, and if we follow it faithfully, we lose weight. For some of us, a lot of weight. Some of us (if this forum is any indication, mostly men) reach our goals. Some of us (mostly women it seems) stall somewhere between 20-30 pounds away from that.

So we try harder. Some of us lower our carbs even further, sometimes to zero. Doesn't seem to work. Then we drop the 'high calorie' foods like nuts and cheese. Doesn't seem to work. Then we read posts here about how, when we get close to goal, calories (that we never counted before) now seem to matter. And we start to believe this, even though we began our LC WOE because we read enough of the science (in Taubes and in Groves, for instance) to know that this is absolutely, positively untrue. It was untrue when we lost 75 pounds without counting calories, and it's just as untrue even though we still need to lose another 25. But what else could it be? We're being completely strict with carb counting, or not eating any at all. It's got to the be calories.

So we decide to cut down. And what's the first thing we try to eliminate? Fat. After all, it's not only 9 calories per gram compared to 4 calories per gram for carbs and protein -- we've had 'fat is bad' drummed into us for so long it's always there in the back of our minds, like a little voice we can never completely silence.

We cut out the nuts, the cheese, the cream, the bacon, etc. etc. etc. And yet we STILL don't lose scale weight. Some of us even gain a bit back.

In despair, we go the other way - we read the 'high fat' posts and we start adding a lot more fat to our diets, while keeping our carbs low. Result? Some of us gain even MORE weight. We go on hunts for supplements, blood tests - anything that can explain this inability to move the scale.

The one thing we hardly ever think about though, or seriously change, is the third nutrient in our equations - protein. After all, we began our LC WOE by eating as much protein as we want. Many of us were eating so much fat and carbs prior to starting that we may well have been protein deficient. But over the years it's taken us to lose a lot of weight, we're protein-deficient no longer. And we weigh a lot less, so our protein needs are a lot less. What Dr. Kwasniewski believes, and what this article shows, is that for some of us, our protein needs are even lower and our fat -- and yes, our calorie needs -- are even higher.

Eat MORE calories to break a stall? Lord, how counter-intuitive is that? But again, if you study how the metabolism actually works, that makes perfect sense. If you combine that knowledge with the new information in that study, it becomes even clearer. For some insulin resistant individuals with this particular metabolic issue, the only recourse is to up our fat (and calories) while severely lowering protein intake. Carb intake can never go back to where it was pre-LC, but it no longer needs to be at rock bottom either. I've actually doubled my daily carb intake in the last month (from 20 NC to 40 NC) and still lost weight. And I've upped my caloric intake from an average 1300-1500 to an average 1700-1900.

According to Kwasniewski's formula, for my second month I need to lower my protein a bit further, and substantially up my fat - so my calories will rise too. Ditto, carbs. For my third month and thereafter, my protein goes down still more, but my fat goes down a bit too, while the carbs remain at about 60 NC a day. In other words, I can never again go up in protein a lot, nor can I ever severely lower fat or calories. Which is to my mind anyway, a very healthy way to eat for the rest of my life.

Thanks for posting the article that lets me see why, biologically and metabolically, this is so.

Original Post by valtorpublic:

Fructose in the amount we now consume is a real poison.  Replacing glucose sources by more fructose, just because it does not directly stimulate insulin, is truly counter productive.  It has been shown that fructose indirectly, by way of nefarious hormonal feedback loops, stimulates even more insulin production.

Has it actually been shown that it takes nefarious hormonal feedback loops?  Because it seems much simpler than that to me.  In aqueous solution (e.g. our bodies), fructose can rearrange itself into glucose.  Not all of it will - but enough that anyone consuming large amounts of fructose would also have a significant amount turn into glucose.

Original Post by valtorpublic:

Thanks for the link.  Dr Lustig is only one of a whole bunch of people who co-authored it.  His view point can't always win on the wording.   Some of their recommendations are complete opposites of what Dr Lustig now says. i.e. about why exercise works.

I read the whole thing and all I can say is that, they do not say they know the specific cause or causes of obesity.  In fact they are very cautious not to be too specific in everything they say about that, because a lot of it is just based on epidemiology.  This paper is a very good example of what Taubes talks about in his book, regarding how easy it is to miss the elephant in the room when you are stuck on untested hypotheses.

Also, depending on your viewpoint, the same data can be interpreted very differently.  Here is an example of what I mean.

Numerous genetic markers have been linked with obesity and its metabolic consequences.

How can they even know if the metabolic syndrome is a consequence?  They assume it is because of their unproven premise.  In fact, we are saying that observations demonstrates that it is more likely that obesity is a consequence of the metabolic syndrome, hence the metabolic syndrome is a cause.

So now the question is. What causes the metabolic syndrome??  They do not look for the reasons because they think they already know.  They are looking at it backwards.  It's really a shame in my opinion.  But Dr Lustig's views are not tainted by this, so he sees clearly.

All Gary Taubes, others and myself are asking is that they properly test their basic hypothesis before using it as fact in every studies they do.

Patrick

Dr. Lustig hasn't published anything that supports Taubes' view. Even his interview, when he emphasizes the effects of fructose and suggests that exercise increases insulin sensitivity, he is not supporting the idea of a low carb diet. It has been pretty well established that exercise increases muscle mass, increases BMR, increases insulin sensitivity, and increases weight loss. It is well known that exercise increases you metabolism, which is why the recommendations for weight loss are to decrease calorie intake and exercise.

As far as the paper goes, when I read it, I see six specific reasons why children become obese. Some of these are rooted in epidemiology; however, some are characterized down to the molecular level, such as leptin. Perhaps not everything in the process of barometric regulation has been fully characterized, but this article is a perfect example of creating recommendations off of the scientific evidence that we have. Taubes on the other hand is forming a recommendation from a lack of scientific evidence (not usually the way you want to go.).

----------------------------

I think you may be misunderstanding what "metabolic syndrome" is. Metabolic syndrome does not cause obesity. Metabolic syndrome is a state of being in which a person has met specific criteria and are at increasing risk due to those criteria. Metabolic syndrome assumes obesity. That is one of the criteria which a person must meet in order to be classified as having metabolic syndrome. The risks associated with metabolic syndrome have been well established.

Here is an example of what I mean by hormonal feedback loop.

"Two papers in the journal PNAS in 2007 and 2008 showed that glucose and fructose act quite differently in the brain (hypothalamus) - glucose decreasing food intake and fructose increasing food intake. Both of these sugars signal in the brain through the malonyl-CoA signaling pathway and have inverse effects on food intake."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/ 090325091811.htm

There's also this study: "According to lead author Manabu Nakamura, dietary fructose affects a wide range of genes in the liver that had not previously been identified."

http://www.physorg.com/news148063167.html

Patrick

Original Post by valtorpublic:

Regarding fructose, you should take a look at very recent experiments.  Here's one.

Our data indicate that chronic fructose consumption induces leptin resistance prior to body weight, adiposity, serum leptin, insulin, or glucose increases, and this fructose-induced leptin resistance accelerates high-fat induced obesity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703413

Fructose in the amount we now consume is a real poison.  Replacing glucose sources by more fructose, just because it does not directly stimulate insulin, is truly counter productive.  It has been shown that fructose indirectly, by way of nefarious hormonal feedback loops, stimulates even more insulin production.

Patrick

This study seems to support me in saying that leptin has a much more prominent role in weight management than insulin does. This paper does not support the views of Taubes.

Fructose in the amount that we now consume is a real poison. I can agree with that. Restricting your fructose consumption like that of people with HFI is not the solution though. In order to avoid fructose, you would have to stop eating fruits altogether, which have many health benefits in themselves. Even Lustig is not suggesting that we avoid fructose. Instead, he is suggesting that we consume less of it. He even suggests that eating fructose in the form of fruit is advisable.

-----------------------

In terms of diabetics, ALL morbidity and mortality from diabetes is a direct result of blood glucose levels. The cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, neuropathy, impotence, retinopathy, and vasculopathy are all directly related to the amount of glucose that flows through the blood. Insulin insensitivity may be the immediate cause of increased levels of glucose within the blood, but decreasing insulin is not the point of eating foods with a low glycemic index. Alternatively, it is the fact that low glycemic index foods, which may be a source of fructose, help to keep the blood glucose levels low.

Certainly it wouldn't be appropriate for diabetics to overload themselves with fructose either. What I am saying is that glucose consumption will do much more damage to these people than fructose consumption ever will.

Original Post by simwaves1:
Dr. Lustig hasn't published anything that supports Taubes' view.

Well I think when he says this: "The question is why does exercise work in obesity? Because it burns calories? That's ridiculous."  I would think that he understands well enough even if he does not agree on everything.

Original Post by simwaves1:

I think you may be misunderstanding what "metabolic syndrome" is. Metabolic syndrome does not cause obesity.

Oh I understand exactly what it is, but I did not explain myself properly.   The hypothesis you are using to state what you said is unproven.  I hope you agree on that part?  Because it's a fact.  Now there exist an other hypothesis that is also unproven, and this one says that all the markers, that we call metabolic syndrome, are caused by overindulgence in carbs and that obesity, just like the metabolic syndrome is also a consequence of overindulgence in carbs.

So I would say that obesity is part of the metabolic syndrome.

Patrick

Original Post by valtorpublic:

Here is an example of what I mean by hormonal feedback loop.

"Two papers in the journal PNAS in 2007 and 2008 showed that glucose and fructose act quite differently in the brain (hypothalamus) - glucose decreasing food intake and fructose increasing food intake. Both of these sugars signal in the brain through the malonyl-CoA signaling pathway and have inverse effects on food intake."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/ 090325091811.htm

There's also this study: "According to lead author Manabu Nakamura, dietary fructose affects a wide range of genes in the liver that had not previously been identified."

http://www.physorg.com/news148063167.html

Patrick

The main concern of most studies that focus on the intake of fructose is not to eliminate the consumption of fructose. Instead, the problem with high fructose consumption mainly lies with so much HFCS in the foods that are available. Most people on this site already know that HFCS isn't good for you, but you don't hear them trying to restrict all intake of fruit. I think that would be an example of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Also, take a closer look at the study involving glucose and fructose effects on the hypothalamus: Effect of glucose and fructose on food intake via malonyl-CoA signaling in the brain. The effects that are seen in the brain that cause increased energy consumption and change in appetite, are all part of the lipostat system (i.e. leptin and such). Again, this research does not support Taubes view.

Original Post by simwaves1:

This study seems to support me in saying that leptin has a much more prominent role in weight management than insulin does. This paper does not support the views of Taubes.

Fructose in the amount that we now consume is a real poison. I can agree with that. Restricting your fructose consumption like that of people with HFI is not the solution though. In order to avoid fructose, you would have to stop eating fruits altogether, which have many health benefits in themselves. Even Lustig is not suggesting that we avoid fructose. Instead, he is suggesting that we consume less of it. He even suggests that eating fructose in the form of fruit is advisable.

I agree with everything you said here   I'm not using Dr Lustig in the context of Taubes.  I should post this fructose stuff in the other thread.

Original Post by simwaves1:

In terms of diabetics, ALL morbidity and mortality from diabetes is a direct result of blood glucose levels. The cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, neuropathy, impotence, retinopathy, and vasculopathy are all directly related to the amount of glucose that flows through the blood. Insulin insensitivity may be the immediate cause of increased levels of glucose within the blood, but decreasing insulin is not the point of eating foods with a low glycemic index. Alternatively, it is the fact that low glycemic index foods, which may be a source of fructose, help to keep the blood glucose levels low.

Certainly it wouldn't be appropriate for diabetics to overload themselves with fructose either. What I am saying is that glucose consumption will do much more damage to these people than fructose consumption ever will.

Here if I apply Occam's razor, I would just tell the type 2 diabetics to stop eating carbs and all their problems, that you stated, will disappear.

Patrick

Original Post by valtorpublic:

Well I think when he says this: "The question is why does exercise work in obesity? Because it burns calories? That's ridiculous."  I would think that he understands well enough even if he does not agree on everything.

Oh I understand exactly what it is, but I did not explain myself properly.   The hypothesis you are using to state what you said is unproven.  I hope you agree on that part?  Because it's a fact.  Now there exist an other hypothesis that is also unproven, and this one says that all the markers, that we call metabolic syndrome, are caused by overindulgence in carbs and that obesity, just like the metabolic syndrome is also a consequence of overindulgence in carbs.

So I would say that obesity is part of the metabolic syndrome.

Patrick

As I said before, it has been pretty well established that exercise increases muscle mass, increases BMR, increases insulin sensitivity, and increases weight loss. It is well known that exercise increases you metabolism, which is why the recommendations for weight loss are to decrease calorie intake and exercise.

---------------------------

There are forty different studies that support the review on childhood obesity in their explanation of the causes of obesity alone. There are even more supporting the rest of the paper. The idea that everything we understand to be true in science can be proven is unrealistic. This doesn't change the fact that this review of childhood obesity gives recommendations based on the evidence that we currently have. Taubes on the other hand, gives recommendations based on the lack of evidence that we have.

Original Post by simwaves1:

The main concern of most studies that focus on the intake of fructose is not to eliminate the consumption of fructose. Instead, the problem with high fructose consumption mainly lies with so much HFCS in the foods that are available. Most people on this site already know that HFCS isn't good for you, but you don't hear them trying to restrict all intake of fruit. I think that would be an example of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Also, take a closer look at the study involving glucose and fructose effects on the hypothalamus: Effect of glucose and fructose on food intake via malonyl-CoA signaling in the brain. The effects that are seen in the brain that cause increased energy consumption and change in appetite, are all part of the lipostat system (i.e. leptin and such). Again, this research does not support Taubes view.

I know they don't want to eliminate fructose in all it's forms.  I'm not saying we should either.  I'm just saying that by focusing on HFCS we forget that table sugar is as bad for us (which I'm sure you know is 50% fructose).  The food industry will start replacing HFCS with sucrose and call their product "healthy".  This is ridiculous!

As for Taubes, I really should post this fructose stuff in the fructose thread.  I'm not citing these studies to support Taubes.  I know very well these guys completely trusts the unproven hypothesis they rely on.  Their research would in fact be a lot more fruitful if they would be open minded and look at things from Taubes point of view.

Patrick

Original Post by valtorpublic:

I would just tell the type 2 diabetics to stop eating carbs and all their problems, that you stated, will disappear.

Absolutely! Diabetics are one of the groups in which a low-carb diet is advisable, but this seems to be much easier said than done. By and large, diabetics have a real problem sticking to the lifestyle changes necessary to help their condition. It would be much better for a diabetic to turn to complex carbohydrates and sweeteners which have a low glycemic index when they do turn to carbs.

Original Post by simwaves1:

There are forty different studies that support the review on childhood obesity in their explanation of the causes of obesity alone. There are even more supporting the rest of the paper. The idea that everything we understand to be true in science can be proven is unrealistic. This doesn't change the fact that this review of childhood obesity gives recommendations based on the evidence that we currently have. Taubes on the other hand, gives recommendations based on the lack of evidence that we have.

Here is where we cannot reconcile.  Have you actually read GCBC?  What I meant by unproven is that it's not been tested.  I know that we don't prove anything in science, we disprove hypotheses.  There are tests we can do to try to disprove the "caloric deficit" hypothesis.  All research on obesity take the hypothesis for granted and they start from there to try and explain their observations!

Now we are saying our hypothesis is simpler and explains the facts better and we have predictions to tests too.  Researchers should focus on resolving this, so that they can work with the surviving hypothesis.  Because right now most are doing bad science because of this.

Patrick

Original Post by simwaves1:

Original Post by valtorpublic:

I would just tell the type 2 diabetics to stop eating carbs and all their problems, that you stated, will disappear.

Absolutely! Diabetics are one of the groups in which a low-carb diet is advisable, but this seems to be much easier said than done. By and large, diabetics have a real problem sticking to the lifestyle changes necessary to help their condition. It would be much better for a diabetic to turn to complex carbohydrates and sweeteners which have a low glycemic index when they do turn to carbs.

But here's the kicker.  Taubes hypothesis says that they would not even have become diabetics in the first place if they did not eat carbs.  Type 2 diabetes is part of the consequences of eating too much carbs.

That I think is a very good example of the kind of predictions the hypothesis makes that would change peoples lives if we were eating properly based on good science.

Patrick

Type 2 diabetes is part of the consequences of eating too much carbs. I think I can agree with that too. Overeating in general puts you at risk of developing diabetes. The study that I posted recently gives us some evidence that diets other than those which are high in carbs can lead to insulin resistance as well.

Original Post by simwaves1:

Type 2 diabetes is part of the consequences of eating too much carbs. I think I can agree with that too. Overeating in general puts you at risk of developing diabetes. The study that I posted recently gives us some evidence that diets other than those which are high in carbs can lead to insulin resistance as well.

I would like to commend you on that statement.  Most practitioners who works with diabetics still tell these poor people that they only need to cut sucrose and check their glucose levels and inject insulin when it's too high.  They could at least suggest a low-carb way of life to them.  They would be healthier.

Now by extension, since you acknowledge that eating too much carbs can make you become type 2 diabetic.  Would it not be healthier for the rest of us to eat low-carb too?  Or at least reduce the ridiculous amount of carbs our food pyramid suggests we should eat?  So that we stay healthier and do not become diabetics later on.

According to our hypothesis, if we do not eat too much carbs and/or too much protein, we will not become overweight in the first place no matter how much calories are coming from fat.  And since we do not become overweight, we will not start "Overeating in general" like you said, because from our point of view overeating is a consequence of becoming overweight.

Eric since you have a good scientific mind.  I really believe you would appreciate the way Taubes wrote his book.  He had no intentions of ending it the way it did.  Before writing his book, he just had evidence that fat was not as bad as we thought and he wanted to investigate that, that's all.  He is just showing us what he discovered in the 6 years it took him to do all this work.  He do not directly recommend eating low-carb at all.  His book is hard to read for the layman, it's a scientific book.

He's just begging the researchers to practice good science, because what he uncovered is that nutritional science has a long history of bad science that took us to where we are now.  At an epidemic of obesity, diabetes, cancer and alzheimer among other things.  He shows us that these things are all interrelated, but not in the way most scientists believe.  And most importantly, he shows us how they came to believe what you also believe to be true.

It's a truly fascinating historical book even if the reader would not agree with Taubes conclusions.

Patrick