Interview with Gary Taubes

[Merpig]

Tom Nuaghton at the Fathead blog interviews Gary Taubes about his new book:
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2011/01/13/why-we-get-fat-interview-with-gary-taubes/

Interesting Q&A session, though I admit this exchange depressed me a little bit!

Fat Head: You wrote something in Why We Get Fat that I think every frustrated dieter needs to hear: the proper diet will help us become as lean as we can be, but not necessarily as lean as we’d like to be. Once we become fat, is there a limit to how much fat we can lose without starving away our lean tissue? If so, what’s the barrier to mobilizing and burning those last 10 or 20 pounds of excess fat?

Gary Taubes: Simple answer, I don’t know. But it’s obvious that not every woman can have the body of an Angelina Jolie, regardless of how few carbs they eat. And not every man can have the body or the body-fat percentage of, I don’t know, a Matthew McConaughey, one of these actors who’s always taking his shirt off in movies.

That’s for starters. Some of us are wired to have more body fat than others from the get-go. Then I think when we grow up in a carb-rich environment, some degree of chronic damage is done to the way we partition fuel. Maybe our muscle tissue never quite loses its insulin resistance, or our fat tissue remains more insulin sensitive than it would be had we never seen carbs. Maybe our pancreas secretes a little too much insulin.

It’s hard to tell, but the way I describe it is this: if I grew up in a hunter-gatherer environment — and my mother did as well, because there are effects that are passed from mother to child through the uterus — I’d probably weigh around 175 pounds, even as an adult. Had I stopped eating carbs in my late teens, I might naturally weigh about 190 or 200, which was my football weight in high school. The fact that I not only kept eating carbohydrates into my forties but gorged on them during the low-fat, you-can’t-get-fat-if-a-food-doesn’t-have-fat-in-it years of the late 1980s and early 1990s means the best I can do now, even eating virtually no carbs at all, is about 220. And there’s nothing I can do to go lower, short of starving myself. Semi-starving myself doesn’t work. I tried that long ago.

Fat Head: So what’s the message for those people? Lose what you can and focus on being healthy, as opposed to obsessing with squeezing into a size-8 dress?

Gary Taubes: Precisely.

[Requin]

Yup. That depresses me. So I'm going to choose to adhere to the old adage of 'You can't always be right' and assume that as right as Gary often is, he's wrong on this one ;)

[Nancy LC]

I think he's right, having tried to diet off these last 20-30 pounds for forever now. It takes some pretty extreme measures to move them.

[Atrsy]

They say that you put on extra fat cells 3 times during your lifetime--as an infant, puberty and pregnancy. If you put on too many at those times, you will never lose the fat cells but only shrink them to a smaller size. That is what is disturbing about all the overweight children.

So, you can lose weight, to a point, but those fat cells will never go away. That is, without liposuction or surgery.

[IvannaBFit]

If it makes anyone a little happier, 20 lbs overweight looks a lot better as you age. The face naturally thins with age and the extra 20 might be where it doesn't look TOO bad -- like hips or butt.

I hate having a fat face. :(

[M Levac]

It’s hard to tell, but the way I describe it is this: if I grew up in a hunter-gatherer environment — and my mother did as well, because there are effects that are passed from mother to child through the uterus — I’d probably weigh around 175 pounds, even as an adult. Had I stopped eating carbs in my late teens, I might naturally weigh about 190 or 200, which was my football weight in high school. The fact that I not only kept eating carbohydrates into my forties but gorged on them during the low-fat, you-can’t-get-fat-if-a-food-doesn’t-have-fat-in-it years of the late 1980s and early 1990s means the best I can do now, even eating virtually no carbs at all, is about 220. And there’s nothing I can do to go lower, short of starving myself. Semi-starving myself doesn’t work. I tried that long ago.
I have to disagree with Taubes on one point. We can do something about it. But not with diet alone. In bodybuilding circles, they use clenbuterol and growth hormone, to name a few, to grow leaner independently of diet. Never mind that the same people who do that still believe it's all about calories. But I digress. If Taubes really wanted to grow as lean as he wanted, he could. But then, maybe Taubes doesn't want to look like he's advising people to do something illegal or immoral. Yet I can't help but note that he is telling us that the moral thing to do (semi-starve himself) doesn't actually work.

[ImOnMyWay]

They say that you put on extra fat cells 3 times during your lifetime--as an infant, puberty and pregnancy. If you put on too many at those times, you will never lose the fat cells but only shrink them to a smaller size. That is what is disturbing about all the overweight children.

So, you can lose weight, to a point, but those fat cells will never go away. That is, without liposuction or surgery.

Well I was a chubby at puberty, so I think there's a liposuction in my future. Not to be defeatist or anything, but even when I was in the best shape of my life, dancing several hours a day, 6 days a week, and by NO means fat, in fact pretty hot, I still thought I had too much body fat around tummy and thighs. It could be just body image issues. Once I get close to goal, I'm going to have some of those extra fat cells sucked out. So they can't reinflate.

I think cellulite is a separate problem? Need to do more research.

*

[leemack]

I'm more disturbed by the idea of everyone trying to attain a 'perfect' body. What's wrong with us all being different sizes as long as we're healthy. The overweight category of the bmi range is the healthiest with the lowest mortality rates, that's what I'm aiming for. So I agree with Gary that we can't all be a size 8 - and we don't need to be.

I think that this idea that everyone has to strive for skinny is ultimately destructive. I know several young girls (16 & 17) of normal size - the upper end of the healthy bmi range, but their lives are completely overtaken by diets and obsessing about losing weight and controlling food. They are convinced that they are fat and hate not conforming to the images of super skinny-ness that they see every day. They tell themselves that once they get to this 'ideal' size their lives will start and they will be happy. Sometimes you see it on the forum, someone will post saying they're grossly fat, and when you check their stats, they have a BMI of 23 or something similar.

Lee

[AnniMin]

That is depressing, especially when your fat cells will forever tell your brain you need to eat. That means the drive to over eat will never go away? Yeah, that's depressing. Not to mention the saggy skin some of us get from losing a great deal of weight. Still, hungry fat cells and droopy skin are better then remaining fat.

[WereBear]

I'm more disturbed by the idea of everyone trying to attain a 'perfect' body. What's wrong with us all being different sizes as long as we're healthy.

Lee

I think that's a wonderful point to make; who is to say what is extra, and how many of us could ever attain the degree of skinniness our current society demands?

Obviously some people, like Gary Taubes, feels thwarted; but he continues to make the very good point that even if we cut our carbs and don't lose "enough" weight, it might be better to accept it than to endanger our health with unreasonable demands, or feel badly about our inability to keep up a grinding regimen that can't be sustained.

Remember, those models on the magazine covers are airbrushed, often down two sizes! Their bumps are smoother over, their arms thinned, their hips reduced beyond normal pevic bones.

When professionals aren't good enough; we've reached a ridiculous point.

[Nancy LC]

Fat cells die like other cells. 10% of them die every year and can be replaced by new ones.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/health/research/05fat.html

[Atrsy]

I think the best thing we can do is observe people. Some thin people look horrendous in what they wear, but I've seen obese people look beautiful. If we watch people and get a feel for why some people look beautiful, we may apply those things to ourselves. For me, I just loved the clothes that Louise Jefferson wore on The Jeffersons and also the clothes Bea Arthur wore on Golden Girls. I loved the soft flow of the fabrics and the colors. But then look at how Roseanne Barr dressed in her sitcom and I certainly didn't want to emulate that!

Nancy, is it that the fat cells CAN be replaced or ARE? I always heard that the number never goes away.

[Nancy LC]

Nancy, is it that the fat cells CAN be replaced or ARE? I always heard that the number never goes away.
According to that article, they're replaced with shiny new ones! Bleh. Or you can get lipo or nowadays they're freezing them to death too.

And... if you gain a lot of weight, you will make new ones.

[ImOnMyWay]

Fat cells die like other cells. 10% of them die every year and can be replaced by new ones.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/h...arch/05fat.html

Oh crap! I hope that they aren't replaced after lipo...that's my fallback position! And there's this CoolSculpt procedure available now...if I still have chicken wings for arms, I wonder if sufficient strength training would resolve that, the procedure is not cheap...

Thanks for the informative article, Nancy.

*

[Altari]

I think that this idea that everyone has to strive for skinny is ultimately destructive.
I unwittingly stumbled upon an pro-ana channel on YouTube today, while looking for a show about a model doing a crash diet to become a "size 0" as a media experiment. I flipped through some of the other documentary videos on the channel and was appalled. Girls starving themselves from a size 8 to a size 2...or 0...or 00 - what difference does it make? How different can you really look with a 2 fewer inches on your waist? For many of them, it was the difference between looking smoking hot and seeing ribs.

Now, I'm by no means satisfied with how my body looks right now, but I've come to accept that this is about all I'm going to get from diet. I may drop another 10/15 pounds, if I'm lucky. I've moved on to toning exercises to firm up what the children stretched. And, yes, I'll be more than a little upset if I'm stuck at a size 10 for the rest of my life, but it sure beats the 22/24 I was in when I started. The idea of pushing for a 2 or a 4? It seems almost impossible, and definitely unhealthy.

Back to the interview, I think a lot of what he said depends on where you are. Most of the women here have gone through 2 of the 3 fat creating stages, many of us all 3. A 15 year old embarking on a weight-loss mission, though, they have much better odds...

[Merpig]

I'm more disturbed by the idea of everyone trying to attain a 'perfect' body. What's wrong with us all being different sizes as long as we're healthy. The overweight category of the bmi range is the healthiest with the lowest mortality rates, that's what I'm aiming for. So I agree with Gary that we can't all be a size 8 - and we don't need to be. I agree too, and certainly don't have any need or even desire to be tiny and skinny. The statement bummed me as I have been more or less stalled in the 260-something range for over a year. And when I first tried LC back in the late 90s I also got down to the 260-something range and then stalled there for 2 1/2 years despite trying every trick in the book recommended to me by the friends from my LC community back then - and eventually gained it all back and then some after getting depressed over such a long stall with still so much weight to lose.

So I get bummed out thinking maybe I've hit the wall, and I'll never drop any more weight. I'd be pleased as punch with 20 pounds to lose, even 40 pounds to lose. But 100+ pounds to lose? Not so much.

[Merpig]

Sometimes you see it on the forum, someone will post saying they're grossly fat, and when you check their stats, they have a BMI of 23 or something similar. Heck, my sister begins to think of herself as uncomfortably fat if her BMI slips up into the 18 range.

[leemack]

I agree too, and certainly don't have any need or even desire to be tiny and skinny. The statement bummed me as I have been more or less stalled in the 260-something range for over a year. And when I first tried LC back in the late 90s I also got down to the 260-something range and then stalled there for 2 1/2 years despite trying every trick in the book recommended to me by the friends from my LC community back then - and eventually gained it all back and then some after getting depressed over such a long stall with still so much weight to lose.

So I get bummed out thinking maybe I've hit the wall, and I'll never drop any more weight. I'd be pleased as punch with 20 pounds to lose, even 40 pounds to lose. But 100+ pounds to lose? Not so much.

I completely understand what you're saying. I've been doing LC for 5 months, with not a lot of weight loss, and its crossed my mind - what if I'm one of those people who really can't lose. I tweak this and that, come off of meds, giving up dairy at the moment and looking to try other things, but I wonder whether at some point I will have to say that this is what my weight is, and I'll have to live with it. At the moment, I'm just telling myself that this is what I need to eat for health and not to focus on the weight loss, let it happen in its own time.

But I have a feeling that your stall is going to break this year, so don't give up hope just yet.

Lee

[Merpig]

But I have a feeling that your stall is going to break this year, so don't give up hope just yet. I hope you have a very accurate crystal ball. ;)

[Merpig]

But I have a feeling that your stall is going to break this year, so don't give up hope just yet. Another follow-up on breaking stalls. I recently read the "Perfect Health Diet" and have begun following the blog of the authors, who are very open to responding to comments their readers make on their blog. A woman named Suzan posted on their blog:

I’ve been low-carb for about 18 months with 50 pounds to lose. I lost a bit of weight when I went gluten-free, but nothing for over a year. I have been using coconut oil for about 4 years now, and obviously it hasn’t done anything for me regarding weight, though my HDL is off the charts high. I’m not the only one who has this problem, either. I know of others, females, also over 50, who are frustrated because they are eating properly but the scale does not budge.

Paul, what do you think about Gary Taubes statement (not a direct quote) about those of us who are on low carb diets, yet still can’t lose weight – that perhaps it might be too late for us? That due to eating poorly (high grains/pufas/low fat) for many years, and perhaps being post-menopausal, our body weight might not budge? I fear that may be the case with me, and it is very discouraging. Paul (one of the PHD co-authors) responded: If you’re having trouble losing weight, here’s what I would suggest. First, get wholly on the diet and nutritional supplements. Second, try intermittent fasting — restrict food to an 8-hour window each day, but drink lots of water. Third, try conscious control of calorie intake for a while – say, a month.

The target would be a calorie-restricted version of the Perfect Health Diet — something like, 400 carb calories, 300 protein calories, 700 fat calories, total of 1400 calories, plus all of our micronutrient recommendations including the “micronutritious foods.” This will be healthy and sufficient.

A typical day’s food would look like: 1 lb potato or sweet potato; 1/2 lb meat or fish; 3 egg yolks; vegetables; and modest oil, just enough to achieve palatability.

This should keep you well nourished, appetite low, and force weight loss. I would definitely try to squeeze in 3 egg yolks a day, since choline deficiency is obesity-inducing in mice.

Then, once you’ve gotten used to this level of food intake, adjust intake so you like how you feel and like the pace of weight loss.
It sounds sort of depressing to cut to 1400 calories a day. But I know that I can eat at that level and not be hungry as long as my carbs are low enough. So maybe I will give this a try.

[leemack]

It'll be interesting to see how you go on PHD, Debbie. For myself, I couldn't deal with calories that low, or carbs that high. My calories are at around 1800, and its the lower level of what I can tolerate. I do IF though - I'm aiming for a 5 hour eating window, though at the moment I'm at about a 7 hour window. I'm trying to eat a few tablespoons on coconut oil while fasting as its supposed to boost the ketosis.

Lee

[AnniMin]

Thanks for sharing that, Debbie. I was wondering what the authors of the PHD recommended in the way of weight loss. I've heard so many times that its not about calories, its about controlling your insulin levels, yet lately some of the experts have been suggesting that calories do count. I recently listened to an interview with one of the authors of NAFANY, Westman, and he said basically the same thing. He said his patients on a low carb diet are able to control their hunger so they can eat less calories and lose weight. There might be something to it, but I sure don't like the idea of going back to weighing and measuring my food to control my calorie intake. :confused:

[teaser]

When people have trouble losing that last hundred pounds, I think there might be something "else" going on. But when someone has twenty extra pounds? I'm not so sure. That's a pretty comfortable weight, the benefits of losing that last ten or twenty pounds just don't compare, generally, to the benefits of getting to the point where that's all you have to lose.

[JL53563]

I agree too, and certainly don't have any need or even desire to be tiny and skinny. The statement bummed me as I have been more or less stalled in the 260-something range for over a year. And when I first tried LC back in the late 90s I also got down to the 260-something range and then stalled there for 2 1/2 years despite trying every trick in the book recommended to me by the friends from my LC community back then - and eventually gained it all back and then some after getting depressed over such a long stall with still so much weight to lose.

So I get bummed out thinking maybe I've hit the wall, and I'll never drop any more weight. I'd be pleased as punch with 20 pounds to lose, even 40 pounds to lose. But 100+ pounds to lose? Not so much.

Please keep in mind, though, that without sugar and refined carbs in your diet, you're much healthier than you'd otherwise be. We all may not be as thin as we'd like, but there's a lot to be said for being as healthy as you can be, regardless of weight.

[M Levac]

I think Taubes is saying that growing fat somehow changes something permanently that can't be reversed just by cutting carbs. I think it goes something like this.

Insulin level determines the size of a fat cell. Insulin level also determines the number of fat cells. The more insulin, the bigger a fat cell. The more insulin, the greater the number of fat cells. If we have one cell and a normal insulin level, we'll have a normal amount of fat. If we have two fat cells and a normal insulin level, we'll have twice the amount of fat. That's because we now have two fat cells with a normal amount of fat inside each fat cells. If we wanted to have an equal amount of fat as we had when there was one fat cell, we'd have to have no more than half the fat in each fat cell. But to get to this point, we'd have to drop insulin below normal. We can't do that just by cutting carbs. Cutting carbs only returns insulin back down to normal. This is why it seems we stall at some point 10 or 20 lbs from our original goal. We don't actually stall, we just reach the new normal fat level according to our existing insulin level and existing number of fat cells. To go back to our original goal, we have to apply a negative pressure, not just a normal pressure. And to do this, we must take extraordinary measures, cutting carbs just doesn't cut it.

I agree with teaser when he says that the benefits of losing that last 10-20 lbs don't compare to the benefits of losing the bulk of the weight before. But then, I have to ask if there's any benefit in keeping those last 10-20 lbs when compared to finally losing them. Then again, that might depend on the method.

[Seejay]

Another follow-up on breaking stalls. I recently read the "Perfect Health Diet" and have begun following the blog of the authors, who are very open to responding to comments their readers make on their blog. A woman named Suzan posted on their blog:
Paul (one of the PHD co-authors) responded: It sounds sort of depressing to cut to 1400 calories a day. But I know that I can eat at that level and not be hungry as long as my carbs are low enough. So maybe I will give this a try.Aw Debbie, that sounds depressing to me too.

Wasn't there a place in GCBC where Taubes said something like, on 1000 calories of very low carb, success rate was almost everyone, but add in 400 calories of carb, and the success rate went way down?

Sounds like the author is guessing, Debbie. Their diet is not long enough to have a track record - but how many people in your situation have responded well to that.

Have you ever tried the frequent small meals thing? I find it annoying but my body responds to it every time.

[Merpig]

Thanks for sharing that, Debbie. I was wondering what the authors of the PHD recommended in the way of weight loss. I've heard so many times that its not about calories, its about controlling your insulin levels, yet lately some of the experts have been suggesting that calories do count. From what they say on the PHD blog, and elsewhere too, calories *do* count - but you are not supposed to count them! The bottom line being that any diet that causes you to arificially restrict calories below your appetite level is doomed to failure. But if you total system is healthy and healed you will naturally just eat to appetite at a lower level, and it will not be a deprivational thing, but just what your body needs.

But sometimes our bodies don't quite know what that level is, or as Paul says in the PHD blog: Some people have (through leptin resistance in the hypothalamus) lost the ability to autoregulate their food intake. This can be got around by conscious control of food intake until the hypothalamus heals. So this is the point of the 1400-calories for a *brief* period of time, supposedly as you drop some weight your system will also be healing itself and you will then stabilize your caloric intake, and adds: Then, once you’ve gotten used to this level of food intake, adjust intake so you like how you feel and like the pace of weight loss. But if I eat to appetite now my caloric intake seems to run in the 1900-2200 calories range, which "theoretically" should still be plenty low enough for someone who weighs 260 pounds to lose weight on, and Paul even agreed with that.

But just one more example of how there is more to this business than that tired old "calories in, calories out" business.

[Merpig]

Please keep in mind, though, that without sugar and refined carbs in your diet, you're much healthier than you'd otherwise be. We all may not be as thin as we'd like, but there's a lot to be said for being as healthy as you can be, regardless of weight. So true! The last time I plateaued at this weight, and then went off the diet in despair, it was all about weight loss for me. I wasn't losing so decided the hell with it.

But this time I am far more focused on health and trying to be healthy. Naturally I think I'd be healthier yet if I could lose this 100 pounds! But I'm not going to let the perfect interfere with the good this time around. I'm going to continue to concentrate on health (which is one reason I'm enjoying reading the Perfect Health Diet) and hope that eventually some weight loss will occur also.

[Merpig]

Sounds like the author is guessing, Debbie. Their diet is not long enough to have a track record - but how many people in your situation have responded well to that. Yeah, I suspect he is guessing, but I've reached a point of being willing to try people's guesses. Can't hurt any more than some of the other things I've tried. :D And I know when I'm low carb enough (and he does recommend borderline ketogenic carb levels for weight loss) I have no hunger at all even when eating only 1200 calories. My biggest issue then is just *boredom* from having so little to eat. But that's a different issue altogether.
Have you ever tried the frequent small meals thing? I find it annoying but my body responds to it every time. Not really? How frequent? How small? How often?

[Seejay]

Yeah, I suspect he is guessing, but I've reached a point of being willing to try people's guesses. Can't hurt any more than some of the other things I've tried. :D And I know when I'm low carb enough (and he does recommend borderline ketogenic carb levels for weight loss) I have no hunger at all even when eating only 1200 calories. My biggest issue then is just *boredom* from having so little to eat. But that's a different issue altogether.
Not really? How frequent? How small? How often?Totally annoying. The only thing way I can make sense of it is that I honestly don't have a big window for taking in fuel to use it instead of store it. When what I want is not to think about eating until I'm off the cliff and then eat everything. But that doesn't work.

How frequent? Every 2.5 to 3 hours. when I can stand to do this my times are 7:30, 10, 12:30, 3, and 5:30. Note that it leaves a 14 hour window for overnight fasting.

meal
snack
meal
snack
meal
(optional snack)

How small? Remember I'm a pretty small person (frame, I mean, :))

each meal is:
2 oz animal protein
~15 g net, starchy carb, avoiding grains
non-starchy veg
no need to avoid fat, but not gobs of it either. Just enough for cooking or flavor.

each snack is:
2 oz animal protein
~10 g net, fruits that are low carb friendly

When I run the numbers it's
60-70 g protein
50-60 g carb
60-80 g fat

Right in line with JK - only on the lower end of fat. I don't want this to work but it does. It just seems like frequent eating is yukky like grazing - but these are deliberate meals so maybe it's not the same. I don't like having to watch the clock.

But I am, like you, to the point of trying things I never wanted to.

[Nelson]

Personally, I believe that at menopause (and andropause?) the drop in reproductive hormones complicates the issue mightily. I think conventional wisdom wildly overestimates how many calories are needed to fuel our systems, especially when we are no longer in our child-bearing years.
I have finally begun seeing movement again on the scale AND body fat monitor only by reducing total calories to less than 1000 per day (I am 4 foot 11 inches and menopausal). 800/day is tough, but doable in ketosis.

It just makes sense, really. Why would my body burn adipose tissue day in day out if I am providing it more than I need in dietary fat? Even if I don't store the extra calories in the absence of high insulin, there is certainly no mechanism for burning fat stores if my metabolic rate doesn't require it.

I should note that my macro ratios are 15% carb, 35% protein, 50% fat. A long way from Kimkins.

[Water Lily]

Another follow-up on breaking stalls. I recently read the "Perfect Health Diet" and have begun following the blog of the authors, who are very open to responding to comments their readers make on their blog. A woman named Suzan posted on their blog:
Paul (one of the PHD co-authors) responded: It sounds sort of depressing to cut to 1400 calories a day. But I know that I can eat at that level and not be hungry as long as my carbs are low enough. So maybe I will give this a try.


Suzan - That's me, AKA Water Lily. :D

I just started this today. I don't have much of an appetite, so I think I can do this. But the question is, will I lose weight? I'll keep you posted.
Here's my blog regarding my little diet plan experiment if you want to follow along: http://waterlily11.blogspot.com

[Merpig]

Suzan - That's me, AKA Water Lily. :D ROFL, and I'm the "Debbie C." who responded to your post! I decided to try to give it a try. at least for a little bit. I was already taking the supplements recommended for the PHD except for vitamin C, and I just bought a bottle today. Though my iodine is probably not at optimal levels.

But my intake today was 1345 calories, though the macronutrient ratios are more in line with my OD plan than the PHD plan - 7% carb, 13% protein, 80% fat. Must be the coconut oil I'm taking bumped up the fat quite a bit!

[Merpig]

For a very anti-Taubes review of his book, see here:
http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/01/comments-on-tom-naughtons-interview.html (and see the rest of the blog for a lot more anti-Taubesian posts)

[322432]

Wondering which laws of physics are violated; usually it's "The law of thermodynamics". Unbeknowest to most who use this argument, there are four basic laws, then two more--one the combination of the first two, and the other, the combination of all four.

[M Levac]

Personally, I believe that at menopause (and andropause?) the drop in reproductive hormones complicates the issue mightily. I think conventional wisdom wildly overestimates how many calories are needed to fuel our systems, especially when we are no longer in our child-bearing years.
I have finally begun seeing movement again on the scale AND body fat monitor only by reducing total calories to less than 1000 per day (I am 4 foot 11 inches and menopausal). 800/day is tough, but doable in ketosis.

It just makes sense, really. Why would my body burn adipose tissue day in day out if I am providing it more than I need in dietary fat? Even if I don't store the extra calories in the absence of high insulin, there is certainly no mechanism for burning fat stores if my metabolic rate doesn't require it.

I should note that my macro ratios are 15% carb, 35% protein, 50% fat. A long way from Kimkins.
There's a difference between adipose tissue and fat. We don't burn adipose tissue, we burn the fat inside it after it's been released. There's two ways to grow fat; increase the size of fat cells, increase the number of fat cells. But with diet, there's only one way to shrink: Reduce the size of fat cells. So even if we cut carbs and calories, if we grew fat by increasing the number of fat cells, we won't grow back as lean as we were, only as lean as we can now.

It makes sense. Why would cells just kill themselves when they do a perfectly good job of staying alive by using up non-essential material instead, which is what they are designed to do?

[M Levac]

Let's turn this around to get a better perspective. Are women naturally fatter than men because their insulin is naturally higher than men? Or instead, is it because the sex hormones have programmed women to have more fat cells than men? Can we grow only so lean because we have higher insulin than we used to, or because we have more fat cells then we used to?

Let's take one fat cell and fill it with 1x amount of fat. The amount of fat inside is determined by insulin, here 1x insulin will dictate 1x amount of fat. If we increase insulin to 2x, we'll end up with 2x amount of fat. Parallel to this function, insulin also determines how many fat cells there will be. If insulin level is 1x, there will be 1x number of fat cells. If insulin level is 2x, there will be more fat cells. Cells aren't just inert material, they're alive. Live cells don't just kill themselves once the system doesn't need them anymore. They want to stay alive and will do everything they can to do that. It would be bad for us if it wasn't like that. If we starve them, they will sacrifice inert material like protein just to stay alive a little longer. This will make us weaker. They will also drop their fuel consumption which will make us lethargic. If we starve them, we'll end up weaker and more lethargic and our fat cells will stay the same number. Once we eat again to full appetite, our fat cells will fill back up to a normal size but we'll have more fat cells so we'll be fatter overall.

If we go back to our previous diet that causes insulin to stay high, we'll keep popping new fat cells. We'll grow fatter because insulin tells fat cells to increase in size, but also because insulin tells fat cells to increase in number. We'll want to grow leaner once more and will starve ourselves with the same consequence: Weaker and more lethargic. Do this binge and starve often enough and we'll just end up with most of our weight as fat tissue. Just like the Zucker rats Taubes told us about.

I keep repeating myself but I just realized all of this last week. This is why we stall, not because of some mysterious water retention or mysterious plateau. We can't grow as lean as we want just by cutting carbs or calories because we are now normally fatter than we used to be. If we want to grow as lean as we used to be, we must use a method that will reduce the number of fat cells to what it used to be.

[AnniMin]

I don't like the idea of grazing either, but maybe your small meal plan would help break my stall, too. Its worth a try. It sounds close to the ratio in the PHD except maybe a little less fat. Actually, it reminds me of Barry Sears advice in the Zone with equal parts protein, carb and fat at every meal and snack. He said it was to keep your insulin level on an even keel.

Martin, your explanation makes all kinds of sense. The sad thing is once you have those extra fat cells you're pretty much stuck with them. That must be the point Gary Taubes was making when he talked about not being able to lose that last 20 lbs.

[leemack]

For a very anti-Taubes review of his book, see here:
http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/01/comments-on-tom-naughtons-interview.html (and see the rest of the blog for a lot more anti-Taubesian posts)

I've read some of the posts on her blog. she really can't go a single paragraph without mentioning or alluding to how much she hates gary taubes and also some other mainstream lc bloggers. She also seems to twist some of what taubes has said, takes it out of context, and interprets it in a way that I don't think was his intention.

I have to be skeptical of someone who attacks others on such a regular basis - and also while accusing others of cherry picking their science, does the same thing herself.

I'm also suspicious of someone who won't identify herself, but is very free with her opinions about those who do.

Lee

[WereBear]

But Martin, what about apoptosis? Cell death does occur; in fact, the theory goes that cancerous cells subvert this natural function in order to thrive.

[Grubber]

Interesting. He makes it seem different than it should be. Do you think that when he speaks of the insulin loss, it is something you have trained your body to cope with, like Pavlov's dogs? Should you just accept where you are, or try to change the way you deal with hunger, or insulin loss? I've seen many very large people from large families change their ways...

[WereBear]

I've read some of the posts on her blog. she really can't go a single paragraph without mentioning or alluding to how much she hates gary taubes and also some other mainstream lc bloggers. She also seems to twist some of what taubes has said, takes it out of context, and interprets it in a way that I don't think was his intention.

I have to be skeptical of someone who attacks others on such a regular basis - and also while accusing others of cherry picking their science, does the same thing herself.

I'm also suspicious of someone who won't identify herself, but is very free with her opinions about those who do.

Lee

Not only that, she quotes Taubes' response, saying in his experience people who complain about his conclusions are usually people who haven't read the book, and then admits she hasn't read the book!

[M Levac]

But Martin, what about apoptosis? Cell death does occur; in fact, the theory goes that cancerous cells subvert this natural function in order to thrive.
I don't know. Cells don't just kill themselves for no reason. We're talking about healthy fat cells, not sick cancerous cells. We want surplus fat cells to die so we can grow lean. But the surplus fat cells don't know that and don't have a reason to kill themselves otherwise. As far as they know, they're doing their job of storing and releasing fat for the system even if the system is 50kg overweight. Merely cutting carbs and returning insulin level back to normal won't make them kill themselves. If we simply do that, then every cell will simply return to normal, including the surplus fat cells. Which fat cell is a surplus fat cell and which fat is a normal fat cell? They don't know that either. As far as every fat cell knows, they are all normal fat cells. In order to make them kill themselves, we have to do what the system does: Tell fat cells what to do. Returning insulin level back to normal doesn't cut it, we have to do something else like use drugs or other hormones.

[Hutchinson]

I've read some of the posts on her blog. she really can't go a single paragraph without mentioning or alluding to how much she hates gary taubes and also some other mainstream lc bloggers. She also seems to twist some of what taubes has said, takes it out of context, and interprets it in a way that I don't think was his intention.

I have to be skeptical of someone who attacks others on such a regular basis - and also while accusing others of cherry picking their science, does the same thing herself.

I'm also suspicious of someone who won't identify herself, but is very free with her opinions about those who do.

LeeBlogger CarbSane Calls Gary Taubes A Willful Fraud (Episode 436)
Written on January 17, 2011] (http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/3557/blogger-carbsane-calls-gary-taubes-a-willful-fraud-episode-436/) How about listening to her podcast with Jimmy Moore?
I don't know whether I can stomach it or not?
I keep arguing with her in Jimmy's forum and that makes me pretty cross much of the time, I'd be pleased if someone listened on my behalf and reported back if it was worth investing the time. It would be better if there was a transcript so you could skip the bits that were boring.

[leemack]

Not only that, she quotes Taubes' response, saying in his experience people who complain about his conclusions are usually people who haven't read the book, and then admits she hasn't read the book!

What??? How can she comment if she hasn't read the book?

I'm listening to a Jimmy Moore interview with her right this minute - I would loosely call it an interview - she hasn't shut up long enough for him to get many questions in!

Lee

[jmh]

The woman sounds a bit unbalanced. This is supposedly an email Taubes sent her, although I have my suspicions, because I can't see why Taubes would waste his time. She's comes across very badly.

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2010/10/update-gary-taubes-email-my-response.html

I guess she's getting great publicity though.

[leemack]

Blogger CarbSane Calls Gary Taubes A Willful Fraud (Episode 436)
Written on January 17, 2011] (http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/3557/blogger-carbsane-calls-gary-taubes-a-willful-fraud-episode-436/) How about listening to her podcast with Jimmy Moore?
I don't know whether I can stomach it or not?
I keep arguing with her in Jimmy's forum and that makes me pretty cross much of the time, I'd be pleased if someone listened on my behalf and reported back if it was worth investing the time. It would be better if there was a transcript so you could skip the bits that were boring.

She is really, really annoying. She keeps making little jokes and points and then laughing at them herself. Jimmy Moore is pretty quiet.

What she's saying is that calories count, we eat fat then we store fat, low carb works due to the appetite suppression effect of protein.

I'd be interested in someone with a better science background than me looking at the papers she references. It sounds like she's read review articles, but not necessarily gone back and looked at the standard of the actual studies. She also seems to have forgotten that type 1 diabetics - pre insulin used to control their condition on very low carb. The other thing she doesn't realise is that you can look at someone else's research and come to different conclusion, you don't have to accept their conclusion.

I saw the email exchange between her and Gary Taubes (or what she says the exchange was), she went on and on about something he'd already admitted he'd made a mistake on. I'd be really interested to see his response to the review articles she mentions.

I'm pretty open minded, and I'm open to new ideas and interpretations, but nothing she's said yet convinces me to change my mind - nothing she's said explains why type one diabetics can't gain weight - until you give them insulin and then they have difficulty losing it. Why undiagnosed type II diabetics lose weight when their insulin levels fall. It doesn't explain why I got PCOS before I was a teenager. Also doesn't explain the blood results on low carb, why triglycerides go down, HDL goes up, bad LDL goes down. Why plenty of people can give accounts of their carb addictions - which she doesn't seem to believe exists.

I don't think that Taubes' theory tells the whole story, I think there's other things going on as well, yet to be discovered which will explain long term stalls etc. Personally I wonder if some of the stalls are still due to insulin resistance - and that some people need metformin to help as well as low carb.

It would be great to hear others views on the podcast.

http://llvlcshow.libsyn.com/


Lee

[Water Lily]

ROFL, and I'm the "Debbie C." who responded to your post! I decided to try to give it a try. at least for a little bit. I was already taking the supplements recommended for the PHD except for vitamin C, and I just bought a bottle today. Though my iodine is probably not at optimal levels.

But my intake today was 1345 calories, though the macronutrient ratios are more in line with my OD plan than the PHD plan - 7% carb, 13% protein, 80% fat. Must be the coconut oil I'm taking bumped up the fat quite a bit!

LOL, Debbie! I haven't been measuring anything, just going by Jaminet's recoomendations to me. I really should plug it into fitday, but I am no very number-phobic due to obsessing about food/weight etc. for so many years.

[teaser]

She (CarbSane) puts a lot on Taubes failing to write (or speak) about glyceroneogenesis;

My greatest criticism of Taubes is that despite several years of "exhaustive" research, and a deluge of references in his book, the bulk of his "Adiposity 101" is either unreferenced, or based on decades old physiology texts and papers.


In this lecture (Slide 48 at around 46 min in) is his discussion of glycerol-3-P. Taubes is a master of stating facts ... in a misleading way that (1) leads the listener/reader to incorrect conclusions, and (2) enables Taubes to use the "I never said that" out when challenged.


He first quotes a 1970's text on the Fatty Acid Cycle and shows an updated text of similar. In both he highlights the need for glycerol-3-P to esterify FFA's to triglycerides. This is true.

However on Slide 48 he presents a bunch of cobbled together "facts" that are either not considered settled science or are taken out of context. And I note that while he now (2009) lists glyceroneogenesis on his slide, the word never passes his lips. He jumps right over this bullet point on the slide!! I cannot help but think that he has been informed since the 2007 publication of his book that such a metabolic path exists. But since acknowledging it would probably require scrapping this entire section of his lecture and derail his money train, he prefers to include a term on a slide in a long lecture and hope nobody notices. Since this is a term few if any have a clue about, he's successful, and anyone who is reading his slides is likely to take at face value his assertion that it is only a small amount. If not outright deception in the name of financial gain, Taubes is at the very least displaying a degree of willful ignorance.


Glyceroneogenesis is an alternate pathway of glycerol synthesis, no glucose involved. So, fat can be stored without glucose.

The idea that Taubes is so stupid that while he finds glyceroneogenesis horribly embarrassing, he still includes it in on one of the slides for his presentation, as well as in a study in the sources for GCBC seems kind of silly.

Here's what Taubes said in GCBC;

A single molecule plays the pivotal role in the system. It goes by a number of names, the simplest being glycerol phosphate. This glycerol-phosphate molecule is produced from glucose when it is used for fuel in the fat cells and the liver, and it, too, can be burned as fuel in the cells. But glycerol phosphate is also an essential component of the process that binds three fatty acids into a triglyceride. In other words, a product of carbohydrate metabolism--i.e., burning glucose for fuel--is an essential component in the regulation of fat metabolism: storing fat in the fat tissue. In fact, the rate at which fatty acids are assembled into triglycerides, and so the rate at which fat accumulates in the fat tissue, depend primarily on the availability of glycerol phosphate. The more glucose that is transported into the fat cells and used to generate energy, the more glycerol phosphate will be produced. And the more glycerol phosphate produced, the more fatty acids will be assembled into triglycerides. Thus, anything that works to transport more glucose into the fat cells--insulin, for example, or rising blood sugar--will lead to the conversion of more fatty acids into triglycerides, and the storage of more calories as fat.

CarbSane accuses Taubes of having known about Glyceroneogenesis at the time of writing this. Of withholding vital information that would have made his whole book look stupid (at least this is the impression I get from reading her blog). Problem is, I don't see how the existence of glyceroneogenesis hurts the value of this passage about glycerol phosphate, let alone the book as a whole.

More glucose or insulin, more glycerol phosphate, decreased release of free fatty acids from fat cells--as far as I know, this is still true. There is no question that, when everything is working right, eating carbohydrates will decrease the release of fat from fat cells. Whether this is why we get fat is another question. But I really don't see the dishonesty.

[leemack]

She was saying something on the podcast about insulin resistance affecting the fat cells first and causing increased release of fatty acids from the cells and that everyone should get tested for free fatty acids, because its a sign of pre diabetes. She also said something about it being responsible for sudden cardiac arrest (if I remember it right), and that eating fat can also cause increased free fatty acids. She said we get fat because we eat too many calories and that the fat we eat gets directly stored as fat. I didn't take notes, but I think thats basically what she said.

She also doesn't seem to like eades, or davis, can't remember who else she mentions but a few others.

Lee

[gwynne2]

Not only that, she quotes Taubes' response, saying in his experience people who complain about his conclusions are usually people who haven't read the book, and then admits she hasn't read the book!

Yeah, that's when I stopped reading. I guess he/she's getting vague buzz right now, since this is the second time I've seen the link, but I can't get through the overwhelming aura of crazy, bitter crank long enough to find out if there's anything useful there. I think last time I tried I got to a sentence that ended in many, many exclamation points and gave up.

I want to read differing opinions. But if people can't avoid being asshats about it (i.e., they lack sufficient command of the language and their own emotions to debate effectively), credibility drops rapidly. At least for me.

And since I can't help but play follow the money: am I surprised that Jimmy Moore (per GT's alleged email to crazy blogger) was nudging Gary to read her stuff? And now he has dueling/alternating interviews with them both? No, not surprised. I wish Taubes had never gotten involved in that particular circle.

[WereBear]

She said we get fat because we eat too many calories and that the fat we eat gets directly stored as fat.

Lee

That's not right. I don't know what agenda she is pushing; but if she truly believes this, why is she a "low carb guru" then?

Carbs wouldn't matter if her scenario is correct.

[WereBear]

But if people can't avoid being asshats about it (i.e., they lack sufficient command of the language and their own emotions to debate effectively), credibility drops rapidly. At least for me.

Oh, I like your "asshat" rule, and it certainly works for me.

[Merpig]

Not only that, she quotes Taubes' response, saying in his experience people who complain about his conclusions are usually people who haven't read the book, and then admits she hasn't read the book! To be fair, she has read GCBC. I guess it's his new book she hasn't read.

[Merpig]

It would be great to hear others views on the podcast.
http://llvlcshow.libsyn.com/ I just finished listening to the podcast though it was a great trial for me, as I am not a good listener and I hate podcasts as a rule. I want to *read* things. So I have problems of my own about what I can contribute.

1) Just a gripe about the podcast in general. Grrr, we had to listen to a little promo from Mark Sisson, and then THREE promos in a row from Adam Kossof (not sure of spelling on that name). It wasn't until 21 minutes into the podcast that CarbSane actually came on for her interview.

2) She was clearly nervous, spoke very rapidly, lots of nervous titters, the words "you know" (one of my pet peeves) came out about twice a sentence. Of course all those things don't mean a person can't have something important to say - but it makes it a lot harder to hear.

3) The first 10 minutes were all about her own lowcarb journey(s). I add the 's' as she admits she lost weight on low carb several times and gained it back, before this last effort which it sounds like she began in 2007, and I guess it is working for her this time as she has gone from a size 22W down to about a size 10 now, which is certainly in the normal range. Her own journey sounded remarkably non-controversial, basically following Atkins induction with planned cheats here and there along the way. When she outlined some of her own daily eating menus they were pretty non-controversial too.

4) Finally at about 31 minutes into the podcast she starts in on Gary Taubes. But here's where I run into trouble as she spoke far too fast for me to take an meaningful notes, especially as I was pretty clueless about what she was talking about anyway. She did accuse Gary Taubes of cherry-picking the data he used to support his hypotheses, and discarding anything that didn't agree - of which she seemed to feel there were hundreds of examples, or at least dozens. :D

5) She seemed to feel Taubes was unsound over glucose-3-phosphate for one. Way over my head so I don't even recall what her argument was there. She also had a lot of emphasis on non-esterifying fatty acids. Again I haven't the least clue what they are, how they are produced, how you can prevent or diminish them. She didn't say, but did say that if she were a diabetic (which she is not but which I, alas, am) she would go to her doctor to have these tested. Sheesh, is that a standard medical test? I get into so many fights with my doctor over medical tests as it is.

6) Anyway, among the reasons she says to test is that high levels of NEFAs is a cause of Sudden Cardiac Death - where an apparently healthy person with no heart disease issues just falls over dead. I had read about this elsewhere, describing it as a sort of electrical short circuit to the heart that just hits you, BOOM, with no warning, and you fall over dead. In fact I had read an article elsewhere about a woman who had this happen. She was giving a presentation in a corporate training class, and BOOM, just fell over - essentially dead. But one of the students jumped up and did CPR on her until the EMTs got there, and she was successfully revived.

And after that she was fine. Unlike a myocardial infarction a SCD attack causes no physical damage to the heart, other than stopping it of course! :eek: But if you can get it restarted you can recover. Just that apparently that rarely happens.

So CarbSane seems to feel this is a major risk for obese people because they have high amounts of non-esterifying fatty acids in their systems. So great, now on top of all my other worries I have to worry about just falling over dead totally out of the blue!

She did pop in one comment at the last minute about the dangers of diabetics trying to control their condition with a low carb diet rather than medications - I think it had something to do with this whole NEFA thing, but I'm not really sure, and don't have any desire at this point to listen to the podcast over again.

7) She is an absolutely firm proponent of the calories in=calories out theory and feels that any sort of anecdotal evidence that might refute it is misguidedly incorrect at best and bogus at worst.

But that's about all I can recall right now.

[teaser]

When free fatty acids are high, on a high carb diet, that's bad. During a fast, or a low carb diet, high free fatty acids are normal and downright boring. Unless you're diabetic, and you have high free fatty acids and high blood glucose even while on a low-carb diet, in which it gets worrisome again.

Why would free-fatty acids get high on a high fat, low-carb diet? Isn't ASP doing it's job? :lol:

[M Levac]

7) She is an absolutely firm proponent of the calories in=calories out theory and feels that any sort of anecdotal evidence that might refute it is misguidedly incorrect at best and bogus at worst.
That's the gist of it. It seems she hasn't yet realized that when we eat a high carb diet and we cut total calories, we invariably cut carbs. We could then say that we now eat a low(er) carb diet. It's ironic that she would continue to argue in favor of calories after she quoted a passage on glycerol phosphate from a biology textbook.

[Hutchinson]

Thanks for that summary. I don't think there is anything in the podcast that isn't on her blog.
7) She is an absolutely firm proponent of the calories in=calories out theory and feels that any sort of anecdotal evidence that might refute it is misguidedly incorrect at best and bogus at worst. This is the problem that she cannot or will not accept that I've never made any attempt to count calories or carbs. I just don't eat those that raise insulin high and fast and for me that worked.

I do appreciate that because I'd been running a low inflammatory diet for some years before I low carbed, just eliminating grains, caloric sweeteners and fruit juices and alcohol was sufficient for me and once I'd achieved target the red wine was resumed. More details here of why I think I get away with eating more than the calculators suggest are necessary for a sedentary person like me. (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost.php?p=8256672&postcount=6)

I think I was lucky I acted before irreparable damage to the control mechanisms was done and so now I'm able to eat as appetite demands without regaining. Not being hungry means I can skip the odd meal and don't eat between meals so stay in ketosis but I do appreciate that some people lose the metabolic flexibility to easily get into ketosis.

[leemack]

That's not right. I don't know what agenda she is pushing; but if she truly believes this, why is she a "low carb guru" then?

Carbs wouldn't matter if her scenario is correct.

It seems she eats low carb lower fat, but mainly because she believes protein gives her satiety, and low carb, lower fat, keeps her calories low enough - I think she mentions 40% fat somewhere.

Excerpts from her blog:

Personally I believe the obesity epidemic can be blamed primarily on two phenomena:
1. The abundance of high calorie foods high in fats & carbs (I'll call them CF) in ever larger portions, and
2. Liquid calories loaded with sugar and/or fat

To prevent obesity my solution is simple: Keep the fats and carbs separate. If you're going to eat carbohydrate, eat it with lean protein and/or in whole form so you get sufficient fiber. Go easy on the fat. If you're going to eat fat, chances are it is attached to protein, forgo the carbs. If you simply must eat CF foods, rely on portion control/calorie counting and not on satiety to determine how much you eat. Keep the total caloric load low, perhaps in the 2-300 cal range, to keep the unnatural assault on your metabolism to a minimum.


__

Presuming your condition has not progressed to this stage, it appears that your metabolism CAN indeed be fixed. In most cases it boils down to insulin RESISTANCE, not insulin per se. Taubes' would tell you that high insulin levels (both basal and post prandial) are the reason you can't lose weight, because insulin has you fats "locked" away in your fat cells unable to escape. True? Nope! As I've posted several times before, insulin resistance is not caused by eating a lot of foods that trigger its release, it is caused primarily by an accumulation of lipids and/or lipid metabolites in the cells as a result of chronic positive energy balance and/or stuffed adipose tissue. The way things are supposed to work, we metabolize mixed fuels at all times, but carbs and proteins are given preference. Therefore lipid oxidation (fat burning) rates go down when we eat carbs and go up when we're in a fasted state. Whether we burn carbs or fats doesn't seem to alter the total fuel requirements by much if at all (the whole metabolic advantage thing).


But Taubes and Atkins (and New Atkins authors Westman, Volek & Phinney) would have you believe that if you are obese and hyperinsulinemic due to being insulin resistant, you don't have a lot of fats available to your cells for fuel. These would be those free fatty acids (NEFA/FFA). One problem with this. Obesity and insulin resistance are associated with both elevated insulin levels AND elevated NEFA!! How can that be? It's all about the insulin resistance that seems to develop in the fat cells FIRST ... not last. Insulin's role in adipose tissue is to suppress lipolysis. When adipocytes develop IR, lipolysis is suppressed less, the body has a hard time keeping fat stored where it belongs.


The thing that is needed to lose fat mass -- e.g. deplete the fat cells -- is a chronic caloric deficit. Improved insulin sensitivity will improve one's metabolic profile, but it's not likely to have much effect on weight loss per se, except indirectly how the deranged BG, NEFA, etc. may effect mood and energy levels and appetite signaling.

__



In my case insulin resistance caused pcos then later I became obese. Therefore as the first pcos symptoms came when I was really skinny, I certainly didn't have 'stuffed adipose tissue', therefore the obesity didn't cause the insulin resistance.
Lee

[gwynne2]

1) Just a gripe about the podcast in general. Grrr, we had to listen to a little promo from Mark Sisson, and then THREE promos in a row from Adam Kossof (not sure of spelling on that name). It wasn't until 21 minutes into the podcast that CarbSane actually came on for her interview.

I think Moore's original plan was to actually make people pay to hear the podcasts. Or is that the deal now?

[leemack]

Just a gripe about the podcast in general. Grrr, we had to listen to a little promo from Mark Sisson, and then THREE promos in a row from Adam Kossof (not sure of spelling on that name). It wasn't until 21 minutes into the podcast that CarbSane actually came on for her interview.


I just skip past the promos. I suppose he has to pay for his costs somehow, and advertising is better than me having to pay.

Lee

[AnniMin]

So is this lady saying she does food combining? All that's been said before. Maybe she ought to read Zoe Harcombe's books.

[Hutchinson]

The thing that is needed to lose fat mass -- e.g. deplete the fat cells -- is a chronic caloric deficit. And that is the one thing I've NEVER EVER achieved.
Even on the days I skip a meal, my total calorie intake that day will more than cover BMR.
I'm a greedy pig and can't stand being hungry.
That is why Taubes was my saviour.

[deirdra]

To prevent obesity my solution is simple: Keep the fats and carbs separate. If you're going to eat carbohydrate, eat it with lean protein ... Go easy on the fat. If you're going to eat fat, chances are it is attached to protein, forgo the carbs.I do agree with these parts of her blog (I deleted the bit about fiber), however, for me if I eat carbs & protein I have to limit calories to 1100 to avoid gaining weight (& feel cold and hungry all the time, with dried out hair & skin and wrinkles galore); if I eat fat & protein, I can eat 1900 sumptous calories & feel and look great, even with no exercise.

Thanks Debbie for the summary; I too prefer to read things rather than listen and now I don't have to listen to the podcast!

CarbSane must have a lot of free time on her hands to devote her life to attacking Gary Taubes.

[Merpig]

I just skip past the promos. I suppose he has to pay for his costs somehow, and advertising is better than me having to pay. Yeah, me too. And I've listened to his podcasts before and heard the promos. Since they are usually from low carbers I've heard of they are usually interesting, almost mini-interviews themselves. But in this case they just went on and on and on, much more so than in any other podcast I'd heard.

[Merpig]

So is this lady saying she does food combining? All that's been said before. Maybe she ought to read Zoe Harcombe's books. Oh she seems to have a down on Zoe almost as great as the one she has on Gary Taubes. Feels Zoe is a liar as well. See: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/01/zoe-harcombe-walking-advertisement-for.html

Among her comments about Zoe: Clearly she's drunk the Taubes Kool Aid on calories and insulin.

[teaser]

This whole thing reminds me of the thing between Anthony Colpo and Dr Eades a few years back over the metabolic advantage. Colpo thought Eades was wrong about metabolic advantage, and that's fine. But he seemed to think that if Eades was wrong on that one thing, people should ignore him in general. This is a fallacy, whether metabolic advantage exists or not--if we only accept the thinking of people who are all-knowing, never wrong, then pretty much everything ends up in the trash-bin.

I think CarbSane has what it takes to challenge Gary Taubes' thinking on a lot of these issues. But instead of challenging, she attacks. And Gary Taubes responds, more or less in kind, just as Eades responded to Colpo. Because that's what people do when they're attacked on a personal level.

When Stephan Guyenet or Chris MasterJohn respectfully question low-carb dogma, we're given an opportunity to learn something.

I think we should try to look at people in the best light possible. That's a much better world to live in.

[leemack]

This whole thing reminds me of the thing between Anthony Colpo and Dr Eades a few years back over the metabolic advantage. Colpo thought Eades was wrong about metabolic advantage, and that's fine. But he seemed to think that if Eades was wrong on that one thing, people should ignore him in general. This is a fallacy, whether metabolic advantage exists or not--if we only accept the thinking of people who are all-knowing, never wrong, then pretty much everything ends up in the trash-bin.

I think CarbSane has what it takes to challenge Gary Taubes' thinking on a lot of these issues. But instead of challenging, she attacks. And Gary Taubes responds, more or less in kind, just as Eades responded to Colpo. Because that's what people do when they're attacked on a personal level.

When Stephan Guyenet or Chris MasterJohn respectfully question low-carb dogma, we're given an opportunity to learn something.

I think we should try to look at people in the best light possible. That's a much better world to live in.

Absolutely. Think how much we could learn if there was a respectful dialogue between her and other low carb bloggers on the science - but thats not going to happen when she starts calling them liars, money hungry and questioning their intelligence. Its time she realised that you can have a good debate with different points of view without getting personal. Unfortunately we can't question her personal motives, look into her background, see if she's published books - she could be anyone. She certainly seems to be pretty worshipful of Krieger and Frayn. I hadn't heard of Frayn till yesterday. Not that I advocate giving her the same treatment she gives others, just saying she sidesteps the possibility of looking at her motives and connections by being anonymous.

Just keep to the science, carbsane, stop being malicious.

Lee

[Seejay]

Just keep to the science, carbsane, stop being malicious.Gosh yes, that's why I don't read her.

On insulin resistance being caused by overfull fat cells - there is a research study which I'm surprised people don't keep bringing up in arguments. They found insulin resistance in young, healthy, LEAN people -

Problems in the Furnace (http://thyroid.about.com/b/2005/08/22/type-2-diabetes-problems-in-the-furnace.htm)

Shulman and his colleagues found that the rate of insulin-stimulated energy production by mitochondria is significantly reduced in the muscles of lean, healthy young adults who have already developed insulin resistance and who are at increased risk of developing diabetes later in life.

[Hutchinson]

Problems in the Furnace (http://thyroid.about.com/b/2005/08/22/type-2-diabetes-problems-in-the-furnace.htm)~This is why we have to pay attention to improving our mitochondrial stock by encouraging mitochondrial biogenesis.
Ketone burning, intermittent fasting, exercise all promote mitochondrial biogenesis. (http://www.mitochondrial.net/showabstract.php?pmid=20078222)
that is why I leave 5 hrs between meal, sometime skip meals altogether, use coconut oil and MCT(medium chain triglyceride) oil.
It doesn't have to be huge amounts of vigorous exercise to improve mitochondrial flexibility. Low Levels of Physical Activity Increase Metabolic Responsiveness to Cold in a Rat (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013022) or at least it does in rats.

[leemack]

Gosh yes, that's why I don't read her.

On insulin resistance being caused by overfull fat cells - there is a research study which I'm surprised people don't keep bringing up in arguments. They found insulin resistance in young, healthy, LEAN people -

Problems in the Furnace (http://thyroid.about.com/b/2005/08/22/type-2-diabetes-problems-in-the-furnace.htm)

From what I read yesterday, she seems to think that all skinny people with insulin resistance are skinny-fat, with loads of hidden fat they don't know about.

Lee

[JL53563]

She was saying something on the podcast about insulin resistance affecting the fat cells first and causing increased release of fatty acids from the cells and that everyone should get tested for free fatty acids

If that were true, wouldn't people with insulin resistance be getting thinner, and not fatter?

[SilverEm]

Hutchinson, that is great news about the 60% percent exertion for 30 minutes. I really appreciate your posting the link to the rat study.

Both those links were encouraging.


Thanks very much.

[ImOnMyWay]

I, too, appreciate the links, but the articles are over my head. My science education consists of 1 semester of geography and 1 of field biology. The articles are full of acronyms and even symbols which I don't recognize. Am I going to have to take classes in chemistry 101 and biology 101 to have a hope of understanding this stuff? (Not adverse to continuing education, but my focus is on the performing arts.)

Can I take away from this research that moderate exercise, especially when temperatures drop below a certain level, increases the body's ability to use fuel efficiently and create new cells?

*

[Hutchinson]

I, too, appreciate the links, but the articles are over my head. My science education consists of 1 semester of geography and 1 of field biology. The articles are full of acronyms and even symbols which I don't recognize. Am I going to have to take classes in chemistry 101 and biology 101 to have a hope of understanding this stuff? (Not adverse to continuing education, but my focus is on the performing arts.)
Here is an article that summarizes the research
Burning calories while resting (http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20100110-21371.html)
It is widely known that weight gain is due to an imbalance between food intake and energy expenditure, and that exercise is vital for maintaining a healthy weight by burning calories as a result of muscular activity.

But new research from the University of Sydney published in the scientific journal Public Library of Science ONE (PLoS ONE), has found another positive impact of exercise: it can significantly increase cellular metabolism and hence the body's ability to burn calories while at rest.

The study by Associate Professor Frank Seebacher and PhD student Elsa Glanville from the School of Biological Sciences found that even low levels of physical activity - such as a daily brisk walk for 30 minutes - is necessary to turn on the right molecular switches so that cells can metabolise and burn energy effectively.

First author of the study, Associate Professor Seebacher said the bodies of mammals, including humans, were designed to be exercising regularly.

"Our research using a mammal model shows a sedentary lifestyle is doubly bad and may lead to weight gain because energy is not used up by muscular activity and metabolic signalling is disrupted, which reduces the body's ability to burn energy," he said.

In humans and other mammals, the metabolism of a resting body will increase as ambient temperatures decrease below 30 to 35 degrees Celsius. This means that resting bodies will burn more energy at cooler conditions, below 30 degrees Celsius. Most people and animals will experience temperatures well below this level most of the time, so in theory, our bodies should be stimulated to burn energy at everyday "cold" temperatures.

However, the results of the study, showed in tests using wild native Australian bush rats (Rattus fuscipes) that cold conditions did stimulate a rise in metabolism - but not in the absence of exercise.

"Rats that had exercised for half an hour a day did show a metabolic response to cold, and burnt more energy as expected," Associate Professor Seebacher said.

"But in rats that did not exercise, lowering the air temperature even down to a chilly 12 degrees Celsius did not stimulate their metabolism and energy consumption at all."

He said this research - the first of its kind to show the interaction between exercise and temperature on cellular metabolism - shows that physical activity has a subtle effect on our body's energy expenditure by opening up a number of cryptic genes that control the rate of cellular metabolism.

"To take advantage of the metabolic boost we receive at temperatures below 30 degrees Celsius, we need to do some light exercise every day. In other words, you don't need to take exercise seriously, just regularly."

For a basic starter guide to gut flora here is a reasonably recent video From Weston Price conference (http://vimeo.com/10507542) Sorry I've been going on about gut flora so much recently I'd forgotten I've not yet had a gut flora rant in this thread. (it's another of those issues Taubes ignored but as most of the research is recent that's not surprising and although gut flora is important (for those who plateaux) it's not as basic as insulin)


Can I take away from this research that moderate exercise, especially when temperatures drop below a certain level, increases the body's moderate exercise, especially when temperatures drop below a certain level, increases the body's ability to regulate body temperature while you are asleep by upregulating the mitochondria in brown adipose tissue to burn more calories to keep you warm in bed when the electric blanket and central heating are switch off.

We already knew that Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT) plays an important role in the energy balance and thermogenesis. (heat production).

The drop in temperature (getting cold in bed at night) is NOT in itself a good enough stimulator to initiate BAT heat production in sedentary people
but this research tells us that 30 minutes moderate exercise is necessary for this to happen.

[ImOnMyWay]

Here is an article that summarizes the research
Burning calories while resting (http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20100110-21371.html)


For a basic starter guide to gut flora here is a reasonably recent video From Weston Price conference (http://vimeo.com/10507542) Sorry I've been going on about gut flora so much recently I'd forgotten I've not yet had a gut flora rant in this thread. (it's another of those issues Taubes ignored but as most of the research is recent that's not surprising and although gut flora is important (for those who plateaux) it's not as basic as insulin)

moderate exercise, especially when temperatures drop below a certain level, increases the body's ability to regulate body temperature while you are asleep by upregulating the mitochondria in brown adipose tissue to burn more calories to keep you warm in bed when the electric blanket and central heating are switch off.

We already knew that Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT) plays an important role in the energy balance and thermogenesis. (heat production).

The drop in temperature (getting cold in bed at night) is NOT in itself a good enough stimulator to initiate BAT heat production in sedentary people
but this research tells us that 30 minutes moderate exercise is necessary for this to happen.

Wow I get it now! Hutchinson, thank you SO much for taking the time to explain! 30°C (86°F) is pretty warm, so following these recommendations one would exercise most every day except the hottest days of summer! Seems like only the hardest of the hardcore (or those whose transportation depends on cycling) exercise outside on those days!

Can I take "at rest" to mean not just sleeping, but when I'm whiling away the hours at my computer or (gasp!) enjoying a TV program?

:)

[Nancy LC]

I'm always freezing cold when I get into bed at night. I pile on my impossibly warm silk comforter from china and another heavy thing. Then I awake around 2am sweating.