Good calories Bad Calories

[accunav]

I just finished reading Gary Taubes book "Good calories, bad calories" and its a great read. A little long-winded but he is trying to be careful.

He is pointing out an "alternate hypothesis" for fat gain and there is a LOT of verbiage around it. Some of the main points (at least to me) appear buried in a few sentences.

I wonder if any other readers agree with me that the chain of reasoning for the "alternate hypothesis" is, in a nutshell:

1. Hunger originates from a slight lack of nutrients available for transport into cells making up tissue that is not adipose tissue.

2. Nutrients that cells use are glucose and free fatty acids present in the bloodstream.

3. Prolonged (over 10 years) use of too many high glycemic index carb calories cause insulin resistance to develop in non-adipose tissue (muscle, organs, etc.) and that insulin resistance develops first in non-adipose tissue.

4. When insulin resistance develops and high carb eating continues, the average level of insulin in the blood is higher (averaged over a day) than in a normal person.

5. When average insulin levels are high, the glucose does not get through to the cells as well since the tissues are insulin resistant AND, since the adipose tissue is not yet insulin resistant, fat tends to stay in the adipose tissue.

6. Because the the cells are not getting enough glucose (insulin resistance) AND there are not enough free fatty acids floating around, the cells get slightly less energy than they need.

7. Because the cells are "hungry", hormonal feedback mechanisms come into play that cause the person (eventually) to eat. If more carbs are eaten, the cycle perpetuates.

8. Now this is interesting and it is my main "take". Because the cells are hungry, overeating takes place in order to increase the amount of stored adipose tissue. With an increased store of adipose tissue, more free fatty acids are available in the bloodstream, even in the presence of elevated levels of insulin. The adipose tissue is (almost) blocked by execess insuling but a bigger "tank" can still leak enough free fatty acids out to satisfy muscle and organ tissue requirements.

9. Adipose tissue can be increased by excess eating AND/OR decreased caloric expendture. Calorie ingestion(eating) and expenditure (body temperature, basal metabolism, exercise, etc.) are thus "hormonally" driven by hunger at the tissue cellular level.

This is the metabolic "trap" of high carbs for some people.

I thought it was interesting that Taubes mentioned, almost by-the-by, that nicotine aids release of free fatty acids from adipose tissue and almost all long time smokers that quit put on 6 to 30 pounds. (I put on 35 pounds and they are vey stubborn!!!). Has anyone seen really heavy smokers (> 40 cigarettes a day) that are really really fat??

Would like to know if any others see the chain of reasoning the same way, or did I take a wrong turn somewhere?

Cheers!

[Mitra]

Welcome, and thanks for the synopsis. I've bought this book, but haven't had time to read it yet, and I think it's going to be a couple of weeks before I get a chance.

[maxlharris]

I see some fat smokers. I have no way to gauge their habit, other than anecdotally; they go outside to smoke in DC in august, they go outside to smoke when we were having the Biblical Floods last year, they go out to smoke in the snow, etc. They are dedicated, but this doesn't suggest depth of habit, only commitment.

FWIW: I cannot fathom it and am pretty sure I don't want the first hand experience required to.

Last: Not done with the book, but there's a lot of other stuff in GCBC. Like exercise. Heart health. Diabetes. Calories. And how we got to where we are now (Eat less, move more, and A Calorie is a Calorie, and Sat Fat as Satan, etc).

Thus far (270 pages) it is the most engaging tough read I have done in a while. By tough read, I mean it's dense. But high quality throughout.

[Dharmalisa]

I'm halfway thru the book now. I'm at the part where it's starting to sound like there's no hope for losing and keeping weight off!! I'm sure it gets better - from what you've said.

His theory makes a lot of sense, and I'm one of those people that gains EXTREMELY quickly when eating carbs. I have to stay around 30 ECC pretty much all the time to even maintain, then lower calories to lose. I should be grateful knowing what insulin does to my body, but I have a hard time not wishing I was one of those who burn off everything they eat!!

I do know he's right about exercise. Makes me ravenous. I love what weight training does for me, but cardio just makes me wanna eat more and more.

It's a hard read, but worth it. Not sure how well it will be received by the general public though because it is so difficult. I'm hoping it gets to best seller status!!

[Spruce Goose]

Book is purchased and waiting for time. Right now as time permits I'm working through Stumbling Upon Happiness which is more about how the brain works (not low-carb related). Been entertaining so far. Short book so I should be on GCBC soon.

[chip]

I agree with everything in the book except his exercise viewpoint. He looks at cardio-based exercise, such as walking or jogging. But these burn blood sugar leading to sugar cravings later on. High intensity exercise produces a lot of Growth Hormone which acts like a steroid in the body: Increases protein absorption and use by muscle tissue and at the same time sparing blood sugar.

[accunav]

I agree with everything in the book except his exercise viewpoint. He looks at cardio-based exercise, such as walking or jogging. But these burn blood sugar leading to sugar cravings later on. High intensity exercise produces a lot of Growth Hormone which acts like a steroid in the body: Increases protein absorption and use by muscle tissue and at the same time sparing blood sugar.

I think high intensity exercise (esp. weight lifting with really heavy weights) is good. But if your diet is poor (lots of processed carbs) then I don't think the small hit of Growth Hormone is going to overcome the damage.

Cardio exercise burns both glucose and fatty acids and beyond 45 minutes of cardio, it is likely around 80% energy from fatty acids. So if your ambient insulin level is high (after the exercise effect is over), your cells need energy and its not going to be completely fulfilled from fat stores, so you crave sugar. The insulin stays high if your insulin resistant from years of too many processed carb calories.

[maxlharris]

But we're evolved and not doing 45 minute cardio sessions. We're doing high intensity intervals, 20-25 minutes at a session. Maximize metabolism rather than stunt it, burn the glycogen out and hit the HGH (naturally, not Ankiel-y).

Agree that feeding the machine crap is a recipe for less than great results, though post lift carbing didn't seem to stall me or knock me out of ketosis. It's about excess carbs, not just any carbs, imho. If you are dumping your glycogen, it will be serve first from the blood sugars. If you're not particularly insulin resistant, yet, it's not a problem. If you are, I dunno. It might still not be a problem, assuming you keep the carbs to your glycogen store needs and not beyond.

More research would be useful, to be sure.

Long slow cardio does = more hunger. Can't argue that one.

[laughingW]

Actually high intensity intervals can also increase hunger. Did you guys read the section on the theory of a "hormonal lock on fat release?" In such a scenario, even 20-25 minutes of high intensity intervals can keep the lock on fat release, from excess cortisol, and intensify the "internal hunger" .

It happened to me. But then I am a female and have lots of hormonal issues.

[maxlharris]

Back on the topic, I have now completed Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. It is, in one way, a better read than Protein Power or Life Plan. In reviewing the history of the science, I think I understand it now, better than after either PP or PPLP. Of course, GCBC doesn't offer a plan, so we're talking apples and oranges here.

The best, most useful page in the book is in the epilogue. Quoth Taubes:
As I emerge from this research, though, certain conclusions seem inescapable to me, based on the existing knowledge:(I'll paraphrase his 10 inescapable conclusions)

Dietary fat doesn't cause obesity, heart problems, or other chronic diseases of civilization.
Yes, carbs are the real problem. It's how they work with insulin and therefore the entire hormonal regulatory system.
Sugar is the worst. We're talking table sugar and HFCS here. And it's the duality of glucose+fructose that's the real killer (OJ should take note).
Carbs cause coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's, and other chronic diseases of civilization.
Being overweight/obese is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating and not couching around (The wisdom of too much to eat and too little movement causes fat accumulation has it backwards)
Excess calories don't make you fatter. Excess energy use doesn't lead to weight loss in the long term. It does lead to hunger.
Fattening is caused by an imbalance in the hormonal regulation of fat tissue and fat metabolism. Fat creation and storage outpace fat use. To get lean, get your hormones back into balance.
High insulin = fat goes into storage. Low insulin = an environment where you can move fat out of fat cells.
Carbs stimulate insulin secretion, which leads to fat storage. Fewer carbs = leaner us.
Carbs also make us hungry, though the same fat storage story. Carbs also make us move less, through the same fat storage story.This is oversimplifying, perhaps, but considering five years of open review of the science (the best thing I have heard Taubes say is that he would take back 40% of the "Big Fat Lie" story, specifically the stuff around calories being calories, because his research has revised his understanding), I would trust Taubes, who really doesn't have incentive to come to any conclusion in particular, save a book worthy one, before anyone in the government (except for me).

My tweak takeaway is that I'm not gonna eat before doing intervals anymore. I don't eat anything that would provoke a large insulin response, but I'm thinking that intervals are the ideal tool to move fat out of the fat cells, and having any insulin going is anti-progress. On lifting, I think it's important to have enough nitrogen around to build the muscle, but I don't think I understand that process thoroughly enough to suggest a course of action. Again, it comes down to goals. I think I'm still in a place where I have more fat to burn.

[Ottawa]

Nice summary Max and Accunav.
I'm still not done but love the way it's going. It's ranked #31 in hardcover GOOD CALORIES, BAD BY GARY TAUBES (Knopf) but I doubt that it will ever make top 10, just from the way it is written.


Concerning exercise:
One thing that I have noticed about exercise (strength or aerobic activity) while low carbing with a large IF window, is that my Blood/Glucose never drops below 5.1 (92 mg/dL) regardless of workout even though the fasting window is up to 23 hours. Aerobics for sure leaves me with a hunger, but the body catches up quickly, under 2 hours.
I do agree with him that a regular North American diet would lead you to eat, to replace depleted stores from exercise. For those in Ketosis still carrying some excess fat, that hunger may be triggered by other than depleted energy.

[Benay]

Max, I think you have done a superb job of condensing Taubes findings from his extensive literature review. I found Taubes impressive in that his review covered over 100 years of research, covered a broad range of the research in medical and other specialties dealing with food and nutrition, covered all kinds of research methods/protocols, and followed up with interviews and governmental publications. His work is overwhelming. He deserves more attention than he is getting.

[Dharmalisa]

I finished it this morning. Sooooo impressed!!! The bibliography is a whole chapter by itself. The ending snuck up on me cause I thought I had more to go than I did!!

One of the tidbits that stood out for me (not saying this is a main point or anything) was where he quotes an expert in childhood obesity (I don't have the book in front of me). This person was talking about carbs and addiction. He said that it took 12 to 18 months for the "craving" for carbs to go away. Also that many people could remember the exact day or week that it went away.

This was really an eye opener for me. I experience that craving when I eat carbs. And one bite brings it right back. I've always figured a couple of weeks was all it took to break the addiction cycle. But looking back, I can remember deciding after losing weight and being low carb for a period of time (6 months or so) that I would have a carb meal for a special occasion, like Christmas. And, after that meal, I could NOT stop eating them. The strong cravings came back so hard that I was out of control for awhile again. This happened more than once.

This reinforces for me the need to be committed long enough to lose my taste for those things that are gonna inevitably spike my insulin and wreak such havoc.

Currently I'm experiencing a huge drop in appetite. I am eating almost no carbs and plenty of protein and fat. I've stopped counting calories. From what I've read, this is really the only way to avoid that "cellular hunger" that Taubes talks about. We'll see if he's right!!

[maxlharris]

Dharma: That one struck me too. 12-18 months. I wonder if that's completely free from sugar or 90%?

[Missy]

I'll look forward to getting to this book! :D This board is so awesome! :thumbsup:

12- 18 months! :eek: Interesting. No wonder why my cravings returned with a VENGEANCE! :cool:

[laughingW]

That matches the time for the brain to re-wire after stopping alcohol, cocaine, or meth too. Too bad the addiction researchers and the junk food researchers aren't publishing what they know.

And today, I bet the cravings would not go away in 12-18 months if the person was still using artificial sweeteners (taste of sweet keeps the brain receptors in the bad state regardless of nutritional non-calories)

[David M]

I found Good Calories, Bad Calories' to be the best treatise I have read to date on the key factors in the modern diet affecting health. And I am much more knowledgeable after having read Taubes's book. The issue that Taubes barely touched on, which I consider to be equally as important as controlling carb intake, is obtaining adequate amounts of the two essential fatty acids - Linolenic Acid - omega 6 and Alpha Linoleic Acid - omega 3 in the correct ratio while eliminating as much as possible all other forms of PUFAs from the diet. When taken together and in the correct ratio only a very small amount of the two EFAs is required. The key lesson that comes out of Taubes's book is that information in general should be subject to constant review and when found to be inaccurate, discarded. The reason this almost never happens is that certain segments of our society can and do tend to get invested both financially and personally (ego, academic status, social pressures, etc.) in information. For this reason I think it improbable that the current proponents of the low fat dogma will relent. Instead I expect that they will become even more aggressive in maintaining and even expanding their position.

[Dharmalisa]

And today, I bet the cravings would not go away in 12-18 months if the person was still using artificial sweeteners (taste of sweet keeps the brain receptors in the bad state regardless of nutritional non-calories)

Eeeek I hope not!! I've given up many things (quit smoking 17 yrs ago, went 9 years not drinking alcohol in my thirties, give up sugar and carbs off and on) and by far the hardest thing for me to give up permanently is Diet Coke. I swear they put something in there that alleviates depression!!! I know that sounds crazy, but it's not the caffeine. I've given up diet coke and drank coffee instead, and it was NOT the same. Currently I've given up coffee but I cannot function without diet coke. Kinda scarey....

David M - on the Omega 3 & 6 issue: I was wondering if this was kinda like the antioxidant issue in that when we don't eat the carbs, our bodies "need" for those things decreases? Not to say we don't still need it, but maybe we get enough in protein when we're just eating protein and fat? I personally still take cod liver oil just to be sure.

[maxlharris]

I The issue that Taubes barely touched on, which I consider to be equally as important as controlling carb intake, is obtaining adequate amounts of the two essential fatty acids - Linolenic Acid - omega 6 and Alpha Linoleic Acid - omega 3 in the correct ratio while eliminating as much as possible all other forms of PUFAs from the diet.

If you keep your carbs low and your protein adequate, your 3:6 ratio tends to get a lot better. I know that I, as a big meat eater, don't worry about this at all. I worried about it once (reading protein power), but after looking at my diet, I don't get a lot of 6. I get a lot of omega-9 from olive oil. But my added fats are olive oil and butter. Not much 6.

In the grand scheme of things, I think keeping the insulin in check is the thing that nets 80% of the results. That's why it got the lion's share of good talk in the book. 3:6 balance, cortisol control, etc, that's the 80% that gets you 20% results. Nice, but good for tweaking after you get the Pareto 80 for 20.

[laughingW]

Eeeek I hope not!! I've given up many things (quit smoking 17 yrs ago, went 9 years not drinking alcohol in my thirties, give up sugar and carbs off and on) and by far the hardest thing for me to give up permanently is Diet Coke. I swear they put something in there that alleviates depression!!! I know that sounds crazy, but it's not the caffeine. I've given up diet coke and drank coffee instead, and it was NOT the same. Currently I've given up coffee but I cannot function without diet coke. Kinda scarey....

Aspartame activates your body's receptors for dopamine and beta-endorphin. Both of those are feel-good sensations, for sure. But what happens is your brain, knowing that a supply is constantly coming in from outside (your diet cola), down-regulates the receptors. After all there's a lot flowing so why have a lot of receptors.

This is what sets up the dependency. If you suddenly quit taking the cola, your few receptors are coming up empty and your brain screeches into low dopamine and endorphin. Thus withdrawal and cravings. The fastest fix is then to drink it and return the system to its previous "normal" - dependent on cola.

[Ottawa]

Here is a recent article on appetite, brain circuitry and hunger levels. It does not get into insulin, and goes with other released hormones. It relates to appetite and calories consumed.

12:05 15 October 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Anna GoslineThe brain circuitry that influences how much food a person will eat – whether they feel starving or full – has been revealed by a new imaging study. The results may help target new treatments against obesity, say researchers.

Rachel Batterham at University College London, UK, and her colleagues have previously shown that a hormone called peptide YY or PYY, which is released by the gut in proportion how many calories we eat, is a powerful appetite suppressant. Previous experiments show that treating normal and obese subjects with intravenous PYY decreases food intake by up to 30% (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4129-hormone-jab-beats-hunger-in-the-obese.html).

Batterham's team used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate how PYY affects the brain. They scanned each of eight subjects twice, once while they were on an intravenous drip of PYY, mimicking its release after a meal, and once while just receiving a saline solution. All the subjects had fasted for 14 hours prior to the scans.

Half an hour after they left the scanner, Batterham dished out an all-you-can-eat buffet of each subjects' favourite meals, which included spaghetti Bolognese and macaroni cheese.

As expected, those who received PYY ate less – on average 25% fewer calories. The fMRI scans showed that PYY not only lit up the hypothalamus – the main hub for controlling metabolism, – but also increased activity in higher processing areas of the brain that are associated with reward and pleasure, notably the orbital frontal cortex (OFC). "I absolutely wasn't expecting it to affect the reward circuit," says Batterham.

Gastric bypass

What is more, changes in the activity of these two areas could accurately predict how much food the subjects would eat at their buffet lunch. For those on the saline drip, activity in the hypothalamus predicted how many calories they would consume. But for those subjects who received PYY, it was the pleasure centre of the brain that determined calorie intake.

Batterham hopes to repeat the study on both underweight and overweight subjects. Previous research has shown that obese individuals have lower levels of PYY and release less of the hormone after a meal compared with normal weight people. Gastric bypass surgery has also been show to boost levels of PYY. "We still have a lot to learn about PYY," she says.

Neurologist and obesity researcher Clifford Saper at Harvard Medical School in Boston, says the study is interesting, as it is the first to explore cognitive aspects of eating behaviour with respect to an appetite hormone. What is more, he says, understanding the higher level drives behind eating behaviours is key for treating obesity.

"We humans are surrounded by all these tempting foods that taste good, and many people eat way past the point of metabolic satiety," Saper says.

Michael Schwartz at the University of Washington in Seattle, who also studies the relationship between brain activity and eating, says: "I think it's an impressive body of work and it does push the field forward."

Journal reference: Nature (DOI: 10.1038/nature06212 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06212))

[Dharmalisa]

Aspartame activates your body's receptors for dopamine and beta-endorphin. Both of those are feel-good sensations, for sure. But what happens is your brain, knowing that a supply is constantly coming in from outside (your diet cola), down-regulates the receptors. After all there's a lot flowing so why have a lot of receptors.

This is what sets up the dependency. If you suddenly quit taking the cola, your few receptors are coming up empty and your brain screeches into low dopamine and endorphin. Thus withdrawal and cravings. The fastest fix is then to drink it and return the system to its previous "normal" - dependent on cola.

Thanks laughingW. This makes sense. So apparently the receptors either take a really long time to up-regulate after quitting the DCoke, or, they never up-regulate. I've stayed DC free for 4 months before and I never started feeling normal again. Or possibly my brain never DID have enough dopamine and endorphin to begin with, hence my addiction. I also take 5-HTP and it helps too. I just don't know if this is a good trade-off......or what my other options are. My quality of life is pretty important.

Any opinions?

[laughingW]

I've stayed DC free for 4 months before and I never started feeling normal again. Or possibly my brain never DID have enough dopamine and endorphin to begin with, hence my addiction. I also take 5-HTP and it helps too. I just don't know if this is a good trade-off......or what my other options are. My quality of life is pretty important.

Any opinions?

There is a reported six-month "life is flat" period between quitting intense, manufactured sweets, and then life brightens up again. (from experiential reports at radiantrecovery). No wonder people go back to the old ways. That flat seems like it's not something anyone would live with. But it goes away.

Quite possibly you had low levels to start with. Does your family have a history of drama, risk-taking and addiction? That's one clue. Also years of regrettable eating make the receptors down-regulate.

You can help upregulate endorphins and dopamine by doing things that raise them gently instead of "spiking." (spiking is up like a rocket, down like the stick) Like giving yourself hourly non-food treats, laughing, good sex, performing in community theater, all kinds of healthy highs. Over time the overall level of the substance raises, so it becomes impossible to "empty the pool" in the same way as when the pool was only coming from diet coke, if you know what I mean.

[laughingW]

What is more, he says, understanding the higher level drives behind eating behaviours is key for treating obesity.

"We humans are surrounded by all these tempting foods that taste good, and many people eat way past the point of metabolic satiety," Saper says.

Hm, I would have said that the molecular level was a lower level drive, myself. It's like anything to do with the brain is automatically "higher level?"

This brain/mental bias is why people get confused trying to separate the emotional and physical when they are interdependent. My NSHO.

[Dharmalisa]

There is a reported six-month "life is flat" period between quitting intense, manufactured sweets, and then life brightens up again. (from experiential reports at radiantrecovery). No wonder people go back to the old ways. That flat seems like it's not something anyone would live with. But it goes away.

Quite possibly you had low levels to start with. Does your family have a history of drama, risk-taking and addiction? That's one clue. Also years of regrettable eating make the receptors down-regulate.

You can help upregulate endorphins and dopamine by doing things that raise them gently instead of "spiking." (spiking is up like a rocket, down like the stick) Like giving yourself hourly non-food treats, laughing, good sex, performing in community theater, all kinds of healthy highs. Over time the overall level of the substance raises, so it becomes impossible to "empty the pool" in the same way as when the pool was only coming from diet coke, if you know what I mean.

Yes on the family history......all of those things apply. And I've always been very conscious of my diet, but didn't always have good information, and have gone long periods of eating crap as well.

Thanks for the suggestions. You must have quite an educational background in this stuff. Great information!!!

It's good to know there are ways to upregulate and I already enjoy several of those!! :razz:

[laughingW]

Thanks for the suggestions. You must have quite an educational background in this stuff. Great information!!!

I wish ! It's all in research papers and a few books right now. It would be cool if the science was mature enough to have distilled the story into mainstream like some of our other memes. Also it's from listening to people who are going through it.

This receptor situation is what finally convinced me that "pleasure is a nutrient" is physically true too. I would always read those women's magazines tellin us to take a bubble bath and thought, "yeah right"... but some of it's true for me it turns out. I was so earnest and grim before but now I treat myself.

[Dharmalisa]

This receptor situation is what finally convinced me that "pleasure is a nutrient" is physically true too. I would always read those women's magazines tellin us to take a bubble bath and thought, "yeah right"... but some of it's true for me it turns out. I was so earnest and grim before but now I treat myself.

Have you read Candice Pert's book, "The Molecules of Emotion"? It's older, but I loved it. The science and the politics were both interesting.

That's an "AHA" concept - "pleasure is a nutrient"!!!!!!!! I've always felt like that deep down.....like I was missing something. I felt tense and on guard all the time. But, I too have found ways to get more pleasure in my life. Simple things like deep breaths, and staying 'present' work well for me too.

[Ottawa]

Larry King Live (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/) (tonight)

Tonight's Show: Diet Debate


What if fat doesn't make you fat? What if carbs really do? The biggest diet debate since Atkins with Joy Behar, Gary Taubes, Dr. Andrew Weil, Oprah's health guru Dr. Oz, a 'Biggest Loser' trainer and more!

"It will be interesting. I’ve heard from Gary that the interview was kind of a farce. As I understood it, there was a guest host. Gary will also be responding to the Gina Kolata trash job in the NY Times Book Review on Oct. 28.

Cheers–

MRE "

[maxlharris]

Taubes and Oz got together on the Charlie Rose show back when "What if it's all a Big Fat Lie?" article came out. They were joined by a lil ole lady from AHA (kind of mean) and Dean Ornish. Oz sat in for Charlie Rose, but started talking to Taubes by pulling a big fatty heart out of a bucket. Ornish, well, he was any number of euphemisms for body parts or waste products.

I think you can you tube for it.

Any rate, Weil is probably in for Ornish because Ornish is scary looking now and can't be bothered to read the book. I'm guessing Joy Behar is sitting in for Larry.

Favorite Larry King story. He used to write in his books about he and Sandy Koufax were great friends in their childhood. Only, it turns out, Sandy Koufax, when asked, doesn't remember King at all.

[chip]

I'm still wading through the book, somewhere around page 430 now. I've been thinking about the high intensity vs low intensity argument. High intensity stumulates growth hormone, as I mentioned earlier. But high intensity relies on sugar. If you burn off blood sugar the body responds with the 'flight or fight' reaction. Meaning endogenous steroid release leading to gluconeogenesis which makes more sugar. If I understand Traubes, the body is forced to catabolize muscle to produce sugar. The body doesn't go for amino acids in the blood. Instead it sends the amino acids back the the muscles to replace what's been taken via gluconeogenesis.

What I'm getting at, the conventional wisdom is to carb-load after a workout to put more glucose back in the muscles. But Traubes says these carbs will short-circuit fatty acid release from fat stores. It seems to me after a workout I should eat protein, not carbs.

[maxlharris]

Chip. Yeah. I had started a little fast carb post workout for a while and, while it didn't put me off, it didn't really seem to improve gains or anything. That said, always have taken protein either right before or right after. The thing is, you eat your chicken, and it's not from plate to amino acids and muscle tissue two seconds later.

PS- it Taubes, not Traubes.

[laughingW]

Any rate, Weil is probably in for Ornish because Ornish is scary looking now and can't be bothered to read the book.

Ooh, cool gossip on Ornish. How do you know he's scary looking?

Once I saw a late-night video of McDougall the "eat starch and ultra low fat" guy, and I was amazed that his followers don't seem to mind that he has wasted musculature all over and an insulin tummy, even if he does say he's active. Catabolism city! yikes.

[Ammy]

I'm watching the interview on Charlie Rose now. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPyme62niYM) it is. It's 57min long.

[Rhyme'n Reason]

Gary Taubes has the patience of a saint. Ornish all but called him a hypocrite when he accused him of violating his own scientific rules.

If I had no background in understanding the role that carbohydrates play in weight gain, I would be utterly confused by the "professionals" on the panel. I've tried the other approaches--they are just unsustainable. I end up so hungry, I could eat the cardboard boxes the "whole grains" come in and have the plastic bags containing those pretzels for dessert, and still be hungry.

Very interesting, Amy--thanks for the posting the link. It was my "entertainment" while working on my lesson plans.

[Gaelen]

I admit, I barely have the time to read what I *have* to read for work at this point; tackling GCBC will be very tough to fit in. Part of 'simplifying' is recognizing my limits, and right now, writing, editing and reviewing the 40+ scripts for the testing project are just about all the reading I can handle!

That said, if you're in my boat, you may want to read this 'soundbyte' of Gary Taubes' book, just to tide you over until you have more time. It's posted on the ABC new website:
4 page excerpt from Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=3654291&page=1)

Enjoy.

[gitfiddle]

Thanks, Amy. I watched it this afternoon.

[maxlharris]

Re: Ornish as scary. One bad sign for how people look now is when every picture you see of them is more than 10 years old. Such is the case with Ornish. The picture of him on his books is the same one they've been using since his first book, and the pictures at my supermarket are older than he was 4 years ago on the Charlie Rose show.

You be the judge. The pic on the right is his pic from his bio on PMRI's web site. The one on the right was randomly found.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/images/ornish200.jpghttp://www.harrywalker.com/photos/Ornish_Dean.jpg

Lastly, here's a link to him at 2006's TED conference.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/10
If going from his younger picture to his current image is what ultra-low fat + high carb, smoking cessation and meditation does for you, I think I'll eat prime rib, start smoking, and continue not meditating.

[laughingW]

If going from his younger picture to his current image is what ultra-low fat + high carb, smoking cessation and meditation does for you, I think I'll eat prime rib, start smoking, and continue not meditating.

Totally agree with you. Even last night on Larry King, Taubes looked better than Oz, and I bet it's because of Oz's relative lack of saturated fats (it sounds like he avoids them)

[bluejay111]

The thing I found interesting about Dr Oz on Larry King is that he said he carries walnuts around because he's always hungry. Duh, do you think it's the diet?

[Songwriter]

Who is Oz? Are you talking about Ornish?

[bluejay111]

It's Dr Memhet Oz. He's a cardiologist and heart surgeon. He is on the Oprah show a lot. He and anther doctor have written several books. Off hand I can only recall the title of one "You on a Diet"

[maxlharris]

Oz is Dr. Mehmet Oz, co-author of "You! An Owner's Manual" and "You! On a Diet", and half of the mind behind the Real Age test. (I am 34.7, but my real age is 23.1, and I don't eat vegetables, grain or fish hardly ever and I eat way too much red meat according to Dr. Oz).

He's mostly famous because of Oprah. And he's a pretty telegenic guy. You! on a Diet is, to my understanding, roughly the Mediterranean diet with low saturated fat, and roughly balanced in everything else, though with probably 40% of calories from carbs, and mild calorie restriction for gradual weight loss. Not really a foil for Ornish at all. If they are rock bands, Oz is Huey Lewis and the News (pleasant, same old same old, corporate version of things). Ornish is maybe Kurt Cobain (it's the basics, only stripped and pushed to the extreme, frequently dissonant, and it winds up with you emaciated and unhappy). Taubes is maybe Lester Bangs, the iconic rock journalist. You have to push a diet/play an instrument to be in this metaphor.

[chip]

Who is Oz? Are you talking about Ornish?

I think he's famous because he's Orpah's doctor and appears on her show often. He's probably written a diet book.

[Ottawa]

Here is the transcript (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/19/lkl.01.html) of the show from Friday. I'd really like to see it and hope that it shows up on YouTube or someone loads a torrent for it.

This link (http://http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/10/21/lkl.diet.debate.cnn) has a 15 minute video on the Larry King Live debate with Taubes/Oz.

[Ottawa]

For some reason I cannot edit my above posting.

Here is the correct link from CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/10/21/lkl.diet.debate.cnn) (16 minutes) of the segment on Larry King Live "Good Calories/Bad Calories".

[Gabriel Guzman]

I watched the debate on Larry King. Somebody mentioned above that Gary Taubes has the patience of a saint... quite true. What surprised me was to hear Dr. Weil backing up from the anti-fat rhetoric. Now he blames the genes.

What really exasperated me was to hear the comments from the trainer that works with the contestants in The Biggest Looser. Her comments "when you have somebody lose 100 pounds then let's talk" (ok... paraphrasing here). That kind of attitude and nonsense argument is what keeps science way behind and researchers in a continuous circle of misinformation.

Taubes said from the beginning, "I'm not a scientist; I'm a journalist", and quite frankly, with a lot more authority in nutrition-related topics than the trainer. Her comment "what he says about exercise is a de-service and very convenient to sell his book..." One could use the same argument to say that she is so adamant in perpetuating the calories-in-calories-out stupidity in order to sell her own books. Sure she can make somebody lose 100 lb after killing themselves doing what she tells them to do. If exercising that way was the solution (and the easiest, most effective way to regain health), don't you think that we would all do it? The point she misses, in my opinion, is that just because somebody can lose 100 lb by doing the spartan effort we all see in The Biggest Looser, that doesn't mean that it is the most effective way of achieving that. If that was true, what would happen with people who just can't move (paralyzed by whatever reason). Are they doomed to be obese because they can't move (and move in the way she suggests). I think not. I think that exercise is a plus but it's not the whole story and definitely, if somebody still thinks that this problem is just a matter of energy in and energy out, quite frankly, that person has a lot of studying to to.

I'm still reading the book and I'm enjoying how thorough Taubes is. If there is something lacking in medical research, especially research related to metabolic issues, is thoroughness and a really open mind to accept that 'if it's based on the fat-will-make-you-fat hypothesis', the argument is flawed right from the beginning.

I think what really ticks all these famous doctors that become famous because they appear in somebody else's show (also famous), is to hear that everything they think they knew about nutrition is not quite correct and it really takes guts to admit that, perhaps for years now, they've been advising their patients the wrong way.

Excluding Taubes, of the three 'experts' in that debate (the silly moderator included), I think Oz was the one who one may hope will keep an open mind.

I'm really glad the book is creating so much controversy. Hopefully it will pick up and it will go to the next step and the debate will be held not on a talk show but in scientific symposia, with researchers presenting 'the other side of the story' in which fats are no longer the villains.

[LisaS]

the trainer "JM" has a Sunday AM talk show on the radio here in LA area - I didn't catch the LK segment but caught the opening to her show on Sunday while driving (before it was preempted for coverage of our fires) -- anyway, she was absolutely LIVID...here it was Sunday already - she trashed Taubes up one side and down the other and repeatedly told us that she was deliberately not mentioning his name or his book because she didn't want her listeners to even think she wanted them anywhere near it - and on and on she ranted. And it was obvious (to me) that she hadn't even come close to reading his book or doing any research about him. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, she was probably sandbagged a litle by LK show who probably told her some new "diet book guy" was going to be on and they needed an exercise person - but still...it really made her look bad to rant and rant against this straw man of Taubes she was making up -

[laughingW]

.it really made her look bad
As if she didn't already, from her performance on that TV show? eesh.

Totally into the gluttony and sloth theory of obesity. No wonder she is ranting. This threatens her livelihood.

[LisaS]

As if she didn't already, from her performance on that TV show? eesh.

Totally into the gluttony and sloth theory of obesity. No wonder she is ranting. This threatens her livelihood.
as far as I can tell (I've heard 15-20 mins of her show more than once), her radio persona is quite different than her TV-show persona - but she is very much in the "calorie counting" camp -

[Spruce Goose]

I DVR'd the Larry King interview and watched it last night.

It would have been nice to have a bit more balance to all the people (Where was the Drs. Eades invites??) but I was pleasantly surprised by Dr. Weil. Oz was a little frustrating but he earned some points with me at the end where he talked about letting some new scientific studies address Taubes findings in his research.

The part that kept annoying me about the night is the anti-LC folks kept bringing up anecdotal evidence. Just because you know someone who lost weight eating an all-pasta diet doesn't mean the all-pasta diet works.

During the calories in / calories out thing from the trainer I was wishing Dr. Mike was there to set her straight.

The show wasn't as annoying as I thought but still... the format was horrible. People kept interupting each other and shouting out little snippets without backing it up in any way.

Still haven't read the book but looking forward to it.

[Ammy]

I haven't read the book yet, but I thought of this while reading the Use it or lose it thread...

My sister did the Weight Watchers thing. She was paying attention to fat and calories. She lost 60lbs and is now a size 6.

My sister hasn't broken a sweat ONCE in her life. She does not LIKE working out and decided it did not need to be part of her life.

SO...now that she is this SKINNY size 6, she honestly looks like a holocost survivor (I mean no offense by this, but when I saw her naked that is EXACTLY what she looked like). There is NOTHING to her legs and arms, in fact they are the same size, and not much bitter than a baseball bat. A baseball bat size thigh????

It's not pretty, not pretty at all...however, she was able to JUST lose weight without exercising.

So I guess, from what I'm reading about the book, she is backing up Taubes theory? It IS possible to lose the weight without exercise?

[laughingW]

I'm sorry to hear about your sister. That is so sad.

Taubes is saying, the clinical trials do NOT show that exercise is needed for weight loss. They sometimes show a benefit, sometimes not.

Did you think you had to, for fat loss? PP doesn't say that I don't think. The Eades say you need to exercise for health but not for fat loss?

[Ammy]

I USE To think you had to do both...I know that when I exercise I FEEL so much better, but I have lost weight on PP without exercising. My weight loss INCREASED as I exercises, so I did both...and felt great!

But I was just putting 2&2 together...
My sister lost a lot of weight and refused to exercise.
Taubes said exercise in not necessary to weight loss.

Therefore, his theory is correct, with my sister anyway!


It IS sad about my sister. She has noticed that since she lost the weight she has a bit more energy and has started walking (YEAH). She walks about 20 minutes a day, so I have hopes that her legs start to fill out...ANY muscle would be an improvement!
I also loaned her my Pilates tape. I think she would really benefit from Pilates!

[Mitra]

I had a bit of free time today, so I started reading GCBC. Haven't got very far yet, but it's looking good. I haven't reached the exercise part, but I didn't really exercise during the weight loss part of PP (about 6 months). I did a bit of exercise, but less than I'd been doing before I started. As closely as I can tell from Tanita readings and the PP calcs for LBM, I didn't lose any lean body mass. If I'd been eating low fat/low protein it might have been different. I exercise mainly for to feel better and for long term health benefits (including maintaining bones/strength/mobility).

[Gabriel Guzman]

I'm sorry to hear about your sister. That is so sad.

Taubes is saying, the clinical trials do NOT show that exercise is needed for weight loss. They sometimes show a benefit, sometimes not.

Did you think you had to, for fat loss? PP doesn't say that I don't think. The Eades say you need to exercise for health but not for fat loss?

Actually they do say that resistance exercise helps to lose fat and in Protein Power the type of exercise they mention is the kind that encourage muscles to use fatty acids instead of carbohydrate to supply the energy demand. What they don't' say is that exercise alone does the trick. In fact, in Protein Power LifePlan they wrote that carbohydrate restriction is more effective for weight loss than exercise alone, and the combination is even better. To that end, I always think that for people that are overwieght (including morbid obese), carbohydrate restriction would help them lose a lot of volume so they are better fit to engage in and enjoy exercise.

Why resistance exercise helps with weight loss is based on the fact that when done in a way in which muscles rely more on using fatty acids to supply the energy demand, then the fuel comes from the fat in store (assuming that one is not having unnecessary fat in the diet, sometimes called 'unnecessary calories from fat'), which is not a bad thing per se unless the aim is weight loss through using the fat in store.

[Joe212]

SO...now that she is this SKINNY size 6, she honestly looks like a holocost survivor (I mean no offense by this, but when I saw her naked that is EXACTLY what she looked like). There is NOTHING to her legs and arms, in fact they are the same size, and not much bitter than a baseball bat. A baseball bat size thigh????


Size 6 is thin, but not exactly skinny. The dress size is based on other proportions (waist, hip, chest) not arms and legs.

It is very well possible that she has lost a lot of muscle mass on that diet (which would normally be on legs and arms), which would not make it a particularly desirable diet.

[maxlharris]

http://rodale.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/24/0704_burn_blubber.jpg

I'm pretty sure I've kicked this in another thread. Jeff Volek and company at University of Connecticut study diet and exercise, and particularly low carb diets (he is the co author of "The TNT Diet" which is a goal customizable LC diet/weight lifting plan covering everything from large fat loss to weight gain with LC diets). They did a study, looking at different types of exercises effect on dieting men on a 1500 calorie diet (cannot tell from abstract if it was LC or not).

Now, this was not a large study, but the diet only people lost about 21 lbs on average, the diet + aerobic exercise group lost about 19 and the diet + weight lifting + aerobic exercise group lost about 22. I dunno if the 2 lb difference between diet only and diet + aerobic is significant, but it would back up Taubes pretty well if it were.

The bigger thing, and this is not something that Taubes talks about, and provides a real rationale for exercise and weight lifting in particular is the weight of fat they lost. Diet + Aerobics is about the same, slight improvement with aerobics, but considering the sample, it's probably not really different. But, the aerobic exercise is somewhat protective of muscle. The lifting + aerobics group, on the other hand, well, the graph speaks for itself, right?

So, it comes down to a question of goals. If your goal is to move the scale, regardless of what's leaving, diet is good, aerobics are probably not particularly helpful. If the goal is to lose the fat and keep the muscle, well, the graph speaks for itself, right?

And ultimately, that's the difference. Not much benefit to weight loss versus diet, but a huge benefit to the type of weight lost.

[Ammy]

Size 6 is thin, but not exactly skinny. The dress size is based on other proportions (waist, hip, chest) not arms and legs.

It is very well possible that she has lost a lot of muscle mass on that diet (which would normally be on legs and arms), which would not make it a particularly desirable diet.

Did I mention she is six feet tall??

Six 6 at that height is pretty skinny...unless you're some scary lookin supermodel.

She use to be a size 24, so I guess I can see such a change I think she's scary skinny...but she doesn't look good. She would look FANTASTIC at the size she's at if she had some muscle mass...sOMETHING other than baseball bats as thighs.

[Mitra]

I've finished reading GCBC now. It was much better than I'd expected: the best nutrition-type book I've read for a long time. It not only does a good job of explaining the politics of how we ended up with the low fat advice becoming standard, but it also explains a lot of detail about how carbs affect health and how weight is regulated. If you're vacillating, it's well worth the time to read this one.

Having had a rapid read through, I need to go over it again a bit more slowly, so I'll try to pull out a few interesting points.

[Shadow]

Mitra - I agree - it's a great book :nod:! I can't keep all my people straight :razz: but I definitely understand how we ended where we're at :mad:. Wonder if the government will ever figure it out :rolleyes:.

I'm just glad that I know so much more than the gov't does about what I should eat and what I shouldn't :nod:!

[bluejay111]

I've read the book for the 2nd time. I was amazed at what I missed during the first read.
I don't think the government will ever figure it out as long as big pharma, their medical lakeys, and the food industry lobbiests are in the picture.

[gitfiddle]

I'm still trying to get through the book for the first time, but I'm sure I missed things, even though I read slow and made lots of marks for reference. If anything can keep me from playing games with my food, this information can. It's perfectly clear to me, and stronger than any cravings that come along. It has removed any doubts I still carried. Pffft! :cool:

I agree, Bluejay, that it seems unlikely that the mainstream will ever flow low carb. Too much at stake for the players. I just feel blessed that I heard about the book!

[maxlharris]

So, it doesn't take a government recommendation to validate anything, especially in this era of the growing government relevance problem.

Likewise, it doesn't take a profit center to validate anything. And, as was demonstrated back in 2003, if LC becomes the paradigm, there's formulations of products for that.

Given the growing lack of trust of big pharma and the FDA and the Internet, it's probably 20 years before the majority of people stop caring about their total cholesterol numbers and other pharma fixable non-problems.

At the same time, you have Men's Health slowly and surely moving towards a more LC stance. You have The Brain Trust Program out there. You have Gary Taubes all over the media. You have a million plus reading along with Jimmy Moore.

You still have researchers who kick the science in the Ancel Keys style. But you wouldn't be nuts for feeling a little optimistic about Taubes' book maybe changing that for the better.

I forgot, you have a LC advocate, Mary Vernon, as the head of the bariatric surgeon association. You have a large Atkins foundation grant at UConn producing tons of interesting research around controlled carb diets and exercise programs. You have a growing population of diabetics who might ask more questions about managing their metabolisms better.

Lots of stuff suggests the tide is turning. But of course, as you know from your reading, getting to where we are took 20-40 years. If you take the 2003 "Big Fat Lie" Taubes article as the restart of controlled carb living in the popular conscience, you're still looking at 15-35 years to shift the paradigm.

Last thing: You have a guy running for President who lost something like 100+ lbs and is beating Type 2 diabetes on a low carb diet. Now, agree or DISAGREE with Mike Huckabee on almost every issue, it's still an impressive story, and one that the longer he runs, the more attention it might get. Lord help us if he wins, but if he did, you might see the food pyramid change, and a much more friendly department of ag.

It's not as grim as you might suspect.

[Ottawa]

AN interesting piece of information in Prevention on exercise agreed with his take on Aerobic Exercise and Weight loss studies but ...

"Diet and exercise are a dynamic duo --- only the combination will shrink abdominal fat cells, too many of which raise your risk of diabetes and heart disease. Wake Forest University asked 45 obese women to start a diet: 2/3's also walked 3 times a week at a slow pace for 55 minutes or a slightly faster pace for 30 minutes.

After 20 weeks everyone had lost about 25 pounds, but the walkers also changed the size of their abdominal fat cells by 19% (reduction in fat cell size). The diet only women had no such change. It wasn't power walking, just 3-4 MPH with slower ones at half as fast."

Makes you want to take up walking ...

[hawk]

Walking sounds good to me. I wish I could. I am getting around the house better and almost back to walking normal on my fractured foot. I need to desparately. I made a mile before the plague hit me.I am very tempted today. It is 50* out. I just broke a fever yesterday. If it's not raining I may give it a go. Thanks for the study results Randy.

[Ottawa]

Hang in Lyne. You'll be clomping around in no time.;)

I found it amazing that diet and walking could actually help target an area since exercise alone (other group) still lost pounds but not directed at the waist.

[HerselfNYC]

I too read the Taubes book -- in fact, it's what brought me (back) to Protein Power and low-carbing. I was very impressed with the information, and for the first time felt I thoroughly understood the whys of the low-carb philosophy.

[hawk]

I noticed that while I was really focused on the "body for life" weight lifting program, I lost all my inches around my middle and rear end, None in my legs and arms...they just toned up and became really muscular.

By the way, I did two miles today with Gus. I ended up carrying the little guy for about half a mile. His short legs couldn't make it/ It is actually 59* now. It was 50 at 2:30 when I left.I coughed all afternoon and my chest still hurts but I think the fresh air and the deeper breathing was a good thing.

So tomorrow, I work all day..I may hit the track after work with no Gus. I'm trying to get my gait back to where it was and then get my weights back to where they were. I have gained no weight , but my waist line has gotten larger. What you say is true.

[maxlharris]

On Body4Life. I'm going to suggest that the program has you do too many isolation moves and not enough full body, multi muscle, functional moves. This based on my new reading on lifting. I don't think it's not a good program, but I think a better program would focus more on movement and less on isolation moves. Your (Hawk's) observation on results would back this up.

[Ottawa]

Here is another radio talk show with Taubes. It is from CBC's Quirks and Quarks. You can listen to it on CBC at http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2007-2008/mp3/qq-2007-11-17.mp3

[gitfiddle]

Thanks, Randy! I'm glad he had the chance to speak.

[Ottawa]

Here is another one Carol, given at Berkley. It requires Real Player.

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216

It is over an hour long and is dealt with a little differently than his other discussions. I found it the best of all his discussions with great slides, study info and he even adds some humor.

[tapper47]

What a great discussion going on here.

Low carbing is hopefully going to be my ticket to good health. Looks like I have some issues with hyperglycemia and the DASH diet the doctor gave me is not going to be followed by me.

Bad, bad diet.

[Gaelen]

AN interesting piece of information in Prevention on exercise agreed with his take on Aerobic Exercise and Weight loss studies but ...

"Diet and exercise are a dynamic duo --- only the combination will shrink abdominal fat cells, too many of which raise your risk of diabetes and heart disease. Wake Forest University asked 45 obese women to start a diet: 2/3's also walked 3 times a week at a slow pace for 55 minutes or a slightly faster pace for 30 minutes.

After 20 weeks everyone had lost about 25 pounds, but the walkers also changed the size of their abdominal fat cells by 19% (reduction in fat cell size). The diet only women had no such change. It wasn't power walking, just 3-4 MPH with slower ones at half as fast."

Makes you want to take up walking ...

For all the concentration here on lifting as the most effective form of exercise, the bottom line is that walking is weight bearing, can encompass the full body and core muscle system if done correctly, improves balance, also has cardio value in endurance-building if done regularly over time at slow/medium pace, and is cheap and accessible. Even at the height of complicated treatment, I somehow managed to walk a mile most days (walking the dogs 1/2 mile twice a day) and two-three times per week, managed to walk more. It costs nothing more than a good pair of shoes, and even the most time-challenged can find ways to work it in...if not for an hour in a row, as three 20-minute periods or more throughout the day. If you don't like weather, you can walk in the mall, or the supermarket. One turn around most big-box stores is going to be a mile at least. ;)

Walking isn't everything, but it can be a lot and a huge component in body reshaping. It's also a perfect moving meditation, for those who find that they don't have enough 'me' time. ;)

[Songwriter]

Here is another one Carol, given at Berkley. It requires Real Player.

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216

It is over an hour long and is dealt with a little differently than his other discussions. I found it the best of all his discussions with great slides, study info and he even adds some humor.

Thanks for that. The last 40 minutes were worth it! I really wish Taubes would put out a DVD designed as a message to the masses. He could really do a lot of good. I don't think the book will reach nearly as many people as it should because it's hard to read.

[Jeanne Marie]

I don't care any more if anyone else gets it, as long as my Safeway continues to stock CarbSmart Ice cream bars!:p
I just didn't know what to say when I was asking about where had all the low carb ice cream gone, and this obese store manager told me, "Oh that low carb stuff is a fad that's gone now!"

The Taubes book was wonderful. No matter how difficult it is for me to lose lbs, I know I am eating the right way now, and I can't think of any reason to quit.

[laughingW]

can encompass the full body and core muscle system if done correctly
A good source for great walking form is "Chi Walking" by Danny Dreyer.

I met with an instructor and got great tips on form for pain-free walking even when super sized.

Point two: my Fitness Ed instructor says (and I agree) while walking is weight-bearing, because it's non-impact when done right it doesn't really pull and tug on the bones in the same way as resistance exercise. For those of us who want our bones healthily pulled and tugged.

[Ottawa]

Thanks for that. The last 40 minutes were worth it! I really wish Taubes would put out a DVD designed as a message to the masses. He could really do a lot of good. I don't think the book will reach nearly as many people as it should because it's hard to read.

Agreed.
Though not as much content as his book it mus much easier to take and I got more from it than the dry style of the book.
There were some really amazing slides in his presentation and his discussion was light but thorough.

[dvdmon]

I asked for and got GCBC for a holiday present and have been reading it (slowly) since. I'm only about 100 pages in (did I say slowly ;-) ) but I find it extremely interesting to read about the history of the diet-heart hypothesis and how it became seemingly set in cement. I'm wondering if later in the book he tackles Ornish and his studies showing arterial effects using scans and how they are affected by very low-fat vs low-carb approaches? That would an interesting subject, since Ornish has been bringing these scans out for the last 5 years at least (I think he does this on the Charlie Rose show) as his "proof" that his approach is better. I'm not sure, though, whether his scans of the low-fat effects also include the other lifestyle changes he has in in his approach (exercise and meditation).

Anyway, this is an interesting discussion. I would love to see more stuff in the media about GCBC, but now that it's been out for several months, the buzz seems to have died down a little. I wonder if we'll see much more before the paperback comes out? I was originally hoping for an audio book version, but when I wrote the publisher, they said there were no plans. I subsequently heard that the publisher was considering it if holiday sales were better than expected, but I have no idea how it did. I should probably write the publisher again to find out. I figure making the audio book will increase the lifespan of the buzz a bit, especially if it's read by a good narrator. But I somehow doubt that they will make it unabridged, since it is very dense! And abridging that thing down will be a big job!

[Rhyme'n Reason]

I'm almost done--the next chapter is on the carbohydrate hypotheses, and finally, I feel like I'm understanding some core concepts I have been missing. I did not understand how the fat cells operated in those with metabolic disorders until I read the last chapter. The book is a slow read for me (and I'm normally a fast reader) because I really want to take it all in as I go, but it's been so worthwhile.

It all makes me so mad. I could never understand how I could lose a hundred pounds and put it all back on in no time. The diets I was on, I'm sure, only exacerbated the metabolic issues that contributed to my initial weight gain. My mom, a nurse, always told me that it was the starch I ate that was the problem. She passed away back in the 80s and I don't remember ever discussing Atkins or any other LC plan with her, but I can't help wondering what she'd think of this book.

This book has confirmed so much of what my own experience has taught me. I'm very appreciative of the work Taubes has put into it.

[bluejay111]

Ruth,
I agree completely. Just recently I started reading it for a second time. After reading this book I find it very frustrating to see the daily barage of low fat/ high carb garbage displayed on tv. IMO every person involved with diet, nutrition, medicine, etc. should read this book. Maybe then the people of the world may start to enjoy better health.

[Rhyme'n Reason]

Yeah--for instance, the Today show this morning had several features on eating right for Super Bowl Sunday. They probably mentioned five times how bad blue cheese dressing is for you, but extolled the value of baked Doritos over Pringles. The whole thing was disgusting--all about cutting out the fat so you could eat however much you want!

[maxlharris]

My favorite:
Don't do hot wings (with or without bleu cheese). Replace with breadsticks.

[deirdra]

I just finished reading it through for the first time & am about to head into a second reading ... it already has three greasy fingerprints on the cover from reading while eating eggs cooked in coconut oil ... how fitting!

[maxlharris]

My favorite:
Don't do hot wings (with or without bleu cheese). Replace with breadsticks.

Checking on this thread, this doesn't make a lot of sense out of context. This was on the Today Show's superbowl recommendations. As everyone who is a GCBC person would know, Hot wings, with bleu cheese or ranch (abomination against God :evil:) would clearly be the better choice over breadsticks. As has been demonstrated, several times over, by yours truly.

Nevermind that they are actually the better taste value as well.

[petra65]

This thread is so long I didn't have time to read every post. I've just started this book. It is quite dense. I have to say one of the first things I did was look through the bibliography and I was shocked to find Dean Ornish's name missing. He has been a major player in this controversy so it is interesting that Gary Taubes has chosen to leave him out of this book. I see you all have rehashed some of the bad blood between these two.

I also saw a couple posts about Jillian Michaels. I didn't see the interview so I don't know what she said. I have read her book. And although I am fearful of creating another controversy, if you haven't read it, it has some redeeming qualities. It is one of the few "diet books" I have read that actually makes an attempt to deal with emotional issues in eating-maybe not optimal but at least she took a stab at it. She also promtoes "metabolic typing" which is something I'm not sure I totally believe in, but at least one of the diets she recommends is low carb, another would be Schwarzbeinesque. I wouldn't put her in the anti-fat category after reading her book.

[laughingW]

Is Ornish out of the index, also? I don't have my copy. I know there were some people who are mentioned as characters without having their works cited in the bibliography.

I have to agree with you about Jillian Michaels maybe not being quite so black-and-white idiotic. I thought she looked like a shrill psycho on Larry King, but when you read her book, it's clear she's done the work with actual people, unlike some researchers, and she does talk about individual variation (the metabolic typing) and while she has it backwards about emotional eating at least she acknowledges it's a big deal for some.

[petra65]

Max-I am with you on the hot wings and bleu cheese. Ranch or breadsticks would be total heresy! :lol: