We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, September 14. 2021
Yes, it is about carbs and not so much about calories.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Hopefully the idea is picking up steam
Overall, most people still have to learn to eat less to make definite advances in weight loss, though. Especially in our 'dine-out' culture.
60 years old. Went from 5'8" 230lbs to 143lbs. Started with low carb and dropped 60 0f the 87. It was an excellent kick starter but stalled. Final 27 lbs to actually lean out was a balance of protein, carbs and fat. Second phase really came down to energy balance.
So anecdotally, I would say low carb to get started and macro balance to really lean out.
I would agree, but also posit that people are getting fat/sick because they are eating more in a desperate quest for nutrition. The availability of nutrients in the soil and hence the nutrient density of our food is only a fraction of what it was a generation ago.
I think the most recent info is coming down on the idea that we are exposed to things that screw up our leptin levels, causing us to not believe we are full or fat. This kicks into another gear starting around 1980. There are a few strong nominees and some unlikely ones. We can override this with effort, but it's not as easy as it used to be, and for those whose brains have been most confused, it can be very hard indeed.
The idea that people who display enormous self-discipline in hours worked, sexual continence through longer years of education, getting exercise, and saving money should somehow have suddenly lost this discipline when it comes to weight is ludicrous. It is only believed because of our general narrative that "Damn kids these days can't even shoe a horse" and our recent ancestors were of much stronger character than we are, and because people who do not feel the level of constant hunger that others do like to feel smug and virtuous.
There are no diets identified that have a proven, generalised record of sustaining a 20% loss of body weight for five years.
Taubes is a quack.
"People get fat because they take in more calories than they expend. They stay lean when they don’t."
That is an over simplification. The real question is WHY do some people overeat and some people do not. It is Genetic.
I'll admit to growing up a shrimp and not a fatso. This was due to poverty. Real poverty. No food stamps. No government cheese. Single mom (by proud choice!). Now I'm in my fifties and I can get as fat as I want or down do my bare minimum of 199. I bounce around, but when I have a wedding to go to or just want to wear that pair of pants that mock me from the closet, I load up on beef and butter. It's surprising how the pounds just melt away when you live on busting ass and eating animal grease. It's also a great way to get your body into the blessed ketosis. My wife resents the shit out of it because she's been on and off of diets since we were little together. We don't talk about this subject because she is an expert and I'm just some lucky asshole.
Weight Watchers deleda est.
I know for a fact that Taubes is right. How many calories can dance on the head of a fork? lol
Energy balance is a delusion.
Oh oh! Maggies Farm now embraces censorship of opinions that don't agree with their opinion.
Reducing food intake will always work if you cut it low enough. Some folks don’t have the willpower to cut it far enough, but that’s a different topic.
Carbs can be Evil in big doses but are still part of a balanced diet.
“How much” we eat is the primariy weight loss discussion question and then “what” we eat is more about nutrition and health. Both matter and they influence each other.
Physics background here (long time ago). I think the "energy balance" has to be correct in the end. You can't generate new mass without intaking more energy than you burn up (even plants take in more energy from the sun/environment than they use in order to grow).
However, i do think that both your genetics, and the type of calories you consume must have a dramatic impact on how your body decides to process calories thru metabolism or store them as fat. And i suspect different people will tend to do better on different "diets", low carb, low fat, etc depending on their genetics (that's probably also a reason different studies return different results)
Part 1. This is the classic 20% correct solution that people have been embracing for decades but is inadequate. I don't want to kick you as a stupid person, Jeff. The last person I know who told me this is literally the smartest person I have every met, who went to MIT at 16, got a PhD in Chemistry at U Wisconsin, with patents in low-temperature ceramics (no, I don't know what it is either) that the Japanese still send him checks for. But he was wrong and so are you. Taubes's shtick is that the experts all say Calories In, Calories Out, but he knows better. Yet as far as I know, no serious researchers say CICO, just get more exercise anymore. It works great for 6-12 months, and people often lose up to 10% of their body weight. Then it levels off and the body fights you back even more intensely by re-metabolising. Some people can still keep going, losing even 20% of body weight, but not many. And after that, only the people who are digging in with intense willpower in order to face surgery or avoid certain death continue to lose. And those are temporary losses, as they regain quickly when they stop.
I try to be pithy and to the point with a minimum of wordiness because it’s a comment section not a blog — and then people read into it and refute things I did not say or imply.
Part 2. The usual explanations about fast foods, less exercise, lazy bastards showed a reasonable progression from 1950-1980, and we might guess that this slight increase is still there underneath all the other rises we have seen since then. But in 1980 things moved to a higher gear, and none of the usual explanations about carbs, fats, exercise, or calories fit the data. Lots of people have theories about what happened - GMO foods, seed oils, lithium exposure, PFAS, with varying degrees of plausibility. (Hint. Don't even bother about the GMO foods. It's all noise with no data.)
I have my own favorite, but I think the important piece is to just keep your eyes open going forward about which explanation gains steam. Bottom line: CICO has a real, moderate effect, but something else started happening right around 1980.
My experience matches #2 rbm - with a heart attack along the way because Taubes and others said " eat all the meat and eggs you want.
So imo and experience the truth is a combination - high sugar high carb will wreck your metabolism and cause a cascade of obesity and heart disease.
But there is no such thing as "eating all you want" and staying healthy in our modern society of abundance and lack of physical challenges. And giving that advice to already overweight people - whose natural satiety circuits have been dulled by the insulin resistance Taubes himself documents - is bound to be abused.