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.

I have the book and I definitely need to read it.  I also plan on reading Dr. Ornish's latest work as well.  It would be interesting to see how they correlate.  They seem to be at odds with each other. 

Original Post by moonikins:

I also find it hard to believe that if I continue to eat more than I burn, but all of the calories come from fat and protein that I won't gain weight. That just seem illogical to me.

Well after reading Good Calories Bad Calories I switched from low carb to a diet of only fatty meats.  I calculate it to be close to 2200 Calories and sometimes more per day.  I rarely workout.  I do not have some strange high metabolism (I used to weigh 190lbs at 5'6").  I lost 25lbs eating this way.  I plateaued at 150lbs counting calories. Learn it. Live it.  Love it.

I am now convinced it's mainly fructose, caffeine and PUFA vegetable oils that are the worst offenders and represents the cause of 80% of obesity.

Patrick

Sorry to revive an older post, but I just wanted to jump in and say that apparently energy in-energy out does not apply to me.  I spiralled into anorexia because I could not lose weight following those guidelines.  I am a 20 year old, 5'10" female, I used to work out 6-7 days a week.

2000 calories + workouts? No weight loss

1800 calories + workouts?  No weight loss

1500 calories + workouts?  No weight loss

....

900 calories + workouts?  Started GAINING, probably because I was ONLY eating a ton of fruit, also veggies....insulin response?

500 or fewer calories + running four miles a day= VERY SLUGGISH WEIGHT LOSS

So?  What's wrong with me, everyone?  Don't go "starvation mode" on me....I've TRIED upping my calories, "fixing my metabolism," blah blah...I am also fairly certain that I am now flat out STARVING and not in "starvation mode."  I'm also FAIRLY CERTAIN that I am not drastically underestimating my calories ;)

Energy in-Energy out seems to fail to work with me.  My nutritionist was rather bewildered.

I wish it was so matter-of-fact.

When I'm ready to start upping my calories, I'm fairly certain I'm going to make sure the vast percentage of them come from fat.

Original Post by p0llyanna:

but I just wanted to jump in and say that apparently energy in-energy out does not apply to me. 

Can you make grits in 5 minutes? 

Of course the "calories in minus calories out" equation is not at the root what causes us to become obese.

I will try to validate my assumptions(precepts) with anyone reading this and wanting to argue properly.

Do you agree with the following three statements?

- The laws of thermodynamics applies to the human body as a whole, but they also applies to all systems inside our body and even to all cells individually.

- Our internal systems are all regulated in big part by our whole hormonal soup (not just insulin).

- These systems are also independent of each other, including adipose tissue.  So if what regulates them is not in order, they will not react properly.

Until we have agreed on these statements we will not understand each other.  If you do not agree, please let me know what your version of the facts is.

I will assume for now that you do agree.

Now our hypothesis says that obesity is a symptom of a problem in the regulation of our adipose tissue.

Here is how this works.  Let's say you eat a good satisfying meal.  Once this energy is in the blood stream, it is available to be taken up by the cells of your body, including your fat cells.  Normally, a meal will give you enough energy to function until the next meal.  Your liver (via glycogen from glucose) and your fat cells (via fatty acids) gather a great deal of energy a short time after the meal.  This energy will be used in between meals.

Our body tries extremely hard to maintain our total energy at the same amount.  So when your reserves starts to get under a certain point.  You will start to get hungry.  When you eat your next meal, you will eat until you are not hungry anymore.  If you eat less or there is not enough food, then you will stay hungry for a while and if there are still no food coming, your body will start compensating.  It could slow down and/or you could become fatigued and won't feel like moving too much.  This will prevent you from using too much of your reserves.  It's a simple evolutionary survival tactic.

Of course, even with this mechanism, you still need to use some energy.  So gradually, you will use some energy mainly from the glycogen and to a lesser extent from the fat cells.  Once there is no glycogen left, your muscles will start to be broken down to create glucose and your fat cells will provide energy too.

Once you start eating again, your body's priority will be to replenish these reserves to their nominal level.  So whether you force feed or underfeed yourself, your body will do what it needs to do to bring back your energy reserves to their nominal levels.  If you force feed a runner, once the food is digested, he won't be able to stand in place.  He will definitely feel the need to get up and go running.  Because his body is efficient at making available the ingested energy to his muscles, instead of storing it.  Of course, if you prevent that person from moving, he will fatten up.  But only temporarily, until he is allowed to move again, then he will quickly shed the extra pounds.

Now, if your fat cells are not regulated properly, weird effects could happen.  They could store energy and be reticent to release the stored energy.  This is where insulin can play a central role.  If for some reason insulin stays too high all the time, your fat cells will have a hard time releasing their energy.  This is what happens to people who are insulin resistant for instance.

So whatever is deregulating your fat cells could result in them storing energy but not releasing it properly in between meals.

When this happens, there is less energy available for the rest of your cells.  You will have to compensate one way or another.  You will be hungry faster, so you will eat more often and/or eat more at the next meal.

Your total energy is going up, but you did not start eating more for this to happen, you had to eat more or expand less for this to happen.  In this case, the cause of your obesity is not overeating or lack of exercise, it is a deregulated homeostasis.

Patrick

I'm going to give an example with numbers.  I won't include exercise here to keep it simple.

Let's say we have a person in a metabolic ward with a measured BMR that is currently at 2000 calories per day, before they start the experiment.  This person eats exactly 1800 calories per day of a low-fat diet (60% carbs, 15% fat, 25% protein).

He eats his first meal of the day.
600 calories total.
400 is taken up by the fat cells to be used in between the next meal.
200 stays in circulation in the blood stream and/or was used for digestion.

Normally when the circulating available energy becomes a bit low, your insulin will also be lower, allowing energy to exit from your fat cells.  BUT if this person has a problem with insulin resistance, the insulin levels will stay high longer after the meal and less energy will be able to exit the fat cells.
If non IR: In 5 hours 400 calories will be released from fat cells.
If IR: In 5 hours only 200 calories might be released from fat cells.

For the same time frame depending on your metabolism you might use less energy from your fat cells.  Also, if the person is IR they will become hungry earlier than if they were not insulin resistant.

So when the person reaches the second meal.
If non IR: 0 calories from the previous meal is still stored in the fat cells.
If IR: 200 calories from the previous meal is still stored in the fat cells.

Repeat this for all the meals and you come to this.
If non IR: 0 or -200 calories removed from fat cells.  His metabolism could have slowed down to match the available energy (1800 calories).  So his actual measured BMR at the end of the day would be 1800. No weight change.  If his metabolism did not yet adjusted to the lower available energy, an extra 200 calories will have been taken from the fat cells and a small weight loss occurred.

If IR: 400 calories added to fat cells.  His metabolism could have slowed down to match the available energy (1200 calories).  So his actual measured BMR at the end of the day would be 1200 and weight was gained.  If his metabolism did not yet adjusted to the lower available energy, this person will really be hungry now.  In the longer period from super to breakfast of the next day, his insulin will have a chance to be lower.  So his fat cells might be able to release an extra 400 calories during this time and there was no weight change.

So as you can see with the same numbers you could lose, maintain or even gain weight on the calorie restricted diet.  BUT your calorie intake per say had nothing to do with losing or gaining here.  It's only the type of calories and/or the way that your body handles the food molecules that had an effect on gaining or losing.

This scenario would be completely different if the person was eating a zero-carb diet (75% fat, 25% protein), but I'm just too tired of typing for now and might do this part in another post. :)

Patrick

Wow!  Patrick, I thank you profusely for your extremely detailed post.  Hopefully I absorbed most of it correctly :)

So, my only hope is that my metabolism might NOT doomed if I choose to increase calories in a completely different way?  Before I was a low fat vegetarian (later added some seafood) so basically all carbs.  I became a vegetarian on a whim several years ago, and it kind of stuck.  Pretty sure I could eat meat for the sake of eating at ALL, though...

Anyway, I'm going to my student health center tomorrow to try to get them to run some damn tests.  They'll probably just send me right to the counselor, though.

Patrick, what you stated above seems to me to be significantly different from what you have been saying for most of this thread. I agree with most of what you said above.

The only thing that I would add is that, when a person is insulin resistant, their body does not hold on to energy tighter, it actually gives up energy more easily. Remember that the effects of insulin are to store energy (simply put). If a person is resistant to the effects of insulin, then two things happen. One is that the end organs that usually absorb glucose don't get a strong enough signal to do just that, so the amount of energy that is stored is reduced, leaving more free energy in the blood stream (hence the elevated blood sugar levels that are used to make the diagnosis of IR). The second thing that happens is that the pancreas reacts to the increased levels of glucose by releasing more insulin, in the attempt to compensate for the low effect that normal levels of insulin have.

If we are just talking about IR, then the compensation is enough to keep some regulation; however, when you reach full blown diabetes, the increased insulin isn't enough to compensate for the increased blood sugar. The body can't store much of the energy and is constantly in "starvation mode." Of course during this time, the person's hunger increases more than enough to keep their weight constant, if not increasing.

It seems that the point that you have been consistent with throughout this whole conversation is where the blame lies for the obesity epidemic. It seems that your interest is in showing that people are not responsible for their increased weight. Perhaps that is partly true.

To pollyanna, you have to also consider the fact that calories don't have a specific weight. If you are really exercising a lot, you may be reducing the amount of fat, while increasing your muscle mass. In this situation, even if you don't lose weight, you are still using more energy than you are putting in (because muscle has a higher weight/calorie ratio).

Seriously though, the laws of physics do not come to a halt when you are looking at anyone's diet. If you really think that you are using more energy than your taking in, and still have the same amount of fat and muscle, then you are missing something.

Taubes does not at any point say that the insulin has some kind of magic effect that removes the first law of thermodynamics. All he is saying is that the EIn - EOut equation does not have a directional arrow. In order to store fat the body must somehow achieve an energy surplus. Nobody disputes that. What we are arguing over is how that energy surplus is achieved.

Instead of human obesity, which is a very emotive subject, let's talk about hibernating animals. That way nobody will be influenced by a subconscious need to hold onto their sandwich.

Quote from Wikipedia: "In preparation for winter, bears gain hundreds of kilograms of fat, during a period of hyperphagia, before going into a state of false hibernation". So we have 3 facts:

1. They eat a lot

2. They gain weight

3. It happens at a particular time of year

If I ask the question what causes bears to gain weight in autumn? The simple answer is "They eat more". That doesn't really answer my question. I'll rephrase it. What causes bears to eat more in preparation for hibernation? Here are some possible answers.

A. There is simply more food available in autumn than at any other time of year.

B. The bear makes a conscious decision to start eating more in preparation for winter.

C. The bear suffers a breakdown of willpower in autumn and can't resist all the delicious food. In winter he regains his willpower and fasts in order to readjust his weight.

D. The bears metabolism is primed for fat accumulation in autumn leading to hormonal changes that trigger an increase in appetite.

If we are talking about bears only D makes a lot sense. Why is it that when we are talking about humans A, B and C suddenly make sense instead of D? Is it because we overestimate the extent of our own free will.

In the case of bears at least we can probably agree that energy intake may be driven by hormones. Maybe we can even stretch to agreeing that hormones have some influence on humans despite all that free will.

Energy intake is only one part of the equation. What about the energy output.

Quote from Wikipedia: "There is some debate amongst professionals as to whether grizzly bears technically hibernate. Much of the debate revolves around body temperature and the ability of the bears to move around during hibernation on occasion."

Let's not get involved in the debate about what is and isn't hibernation and just stick to the facts:

1. They stay inside their den and move very little

2. Their metabolism slows down with a corresponding drop in body temperature

If I now ask the question "What causes the bear to expend less energy?"

A. There is nothing worthwhile for it to do in winter so it has no motivation to go outside and move around.

B. It consciously decides to be as inactive as possible to preserve energy.

C. It is overcome by laziness.

D. A hormonal change triggers inactivity and a drop in metabolism.

Again, why does D make sense for bears and A,B and C somehow make more sense for humans?

Let's just start by accepting that maybe our behaviour and our metabolism are driven by our hormones. The next logical step would be to wanto to know more about how those hormones work. Now can we start talking about insulin without worrying about the first law of thermodynamics?

mmm zombie bumpage