The problem with the linked article is that, contrary to what the intro above says, Gary Taubes does not weigh up all the facts.
Among those he does quote are:

"Since insulin is the primary hormone affecting the activity of LPL on our cells, it's not surprising that insulin is the primary regulator of how fat we get. 'Fat is mobilised [from fat tissue] when insulin secretion diminishes,' the American Medical Association Council on Foods and Nutrition explained back in 1974, before this fact, too, was deemed irrelevant to the question of why we gain weight or the means to lose it. Because insulin determines fat accumulation, it's quite possible that we get fat not because we eat too much or exercise too little, but because we secrete too much insulin or because our insulin levels remain elevated far longer than might be ideal."

another fact:
"As it turns out, it's carbohydrates - particularly easily digestible carbohydrates and sugars - that primarily stimulate insulin secretion. 'Carbohydrates is driving insulin is driving fat,' as George Cahill Jr, a retired Harvard professor of medicine and expert on insulin, recently phrased it for me. So maybe if we eat fewer carbohydrates - in particular the easily digestible simple carbohydrates and sugars - we might lose considerable fat or at least not gain any more, whether we exercise or not."

The "fact" that Taubes has either not seen, or chosen to omit, is that exercise, particularly High Intensity, or anaerobic exercise, is dis-proportionally a sugar burner. So even though a particular exercise session may only burn 400 calories, if that is made up of 80 grams of glucose and 10 g fat, then it may
have a similar impact as reducing one's carb intake by 80g, which many on this site would agree can have a significant impact on metabolism.

Taubes misses this in GCBC also.

Consider the following lines from GCBC
"When we are physically active we work up an appetite. Hunger increases in proportion to the calories we expend, just as restricting the calories in our diet will leave us hungry until we eventually make good the deficit, if not more." (Last paragraph inthe "hunger" chapter)

Taubes is something of a rhetorical conjurer here.
He baits with a first line almost everyone can agree on.
He leads into the ambiguity of "proportional" which doesn't necessarily mean "equal", but we all know where he's going.
And then he uses the sleight of hand of the analogy with "diet" to deliver the "make good the deficit, if not more" punchline.

So he has finished the chapter with a ritual killing of the "exercise" beast, despite the fact that he has never actually laid hands on it with credible evidence.
The reason he has not laid hands on it is because he knows he is unable to provide evidence to back up the verdict.

He admits as much on the previous page to the above where he says that Finnish researchers could only find 12 trials that addressed the issue of exercise and weight gain/loss, and these were inconsistent.

Nowhere I can see in GCBC does Taubes investigate whether differences between between hi-intensity (sugar burning) and low intensity (fat-burning) exercise might affect the outcome on bodyweight.

This to me is as serious an omission as if I were to say that lowering carbs couldn't work, because we all know that reducing calories doesn't work to reduce weight, and lowering carbs is reducing calories,(all other things being equal).

I was just reading the other day of an alleged new discovery that rather changes some perspective on the muscle thing; suggesting that it used to be believed that even a little extra muscle had big metabolic effects, but is now believed to be trifling, and that the organs use most of the energy of the body. (So much for the "3 lbs of muscle equals 21 miles of jogging per week in metabolism" myth.)

I personally like exercise and I think the improvement of insulin resistance, as well as simple improvement in being able to move your body around, make it well worth it. That said, it's critically important to supersized people to be able to lose without it.

I used to run a few shipping/receiving warehouses and it was not uncommon for new people to lose weight just from working their ass off all day, without any conscious change in eating habits. That suggests to me there may actually be fat loss related to exercise no matter what the official endocrinology guide says. Whether this was merely a side effect of their exercise reducing their insulin resistance, I've no idea.

I know what you mean about the shipping/receiving warehouses. I dropped weight like crazy when I started loading trucks for UPS years ago & I was eating like a pig, since manual labor makes you hungry! Almost everyone who started the job lost weight & firmed up. Same went for going into the military. I lost over 20 lbs in 9 weeks & ate a LOT of food, including those high calorie MREs (yuck!). I happen to like exercise & when I exercise & am more likely to crave good foods instead of junk. I also feel more in control of my eating & feel better overall. I know you don't have to exercise to lose weight, but for me personally, it is a huge help.

Will let you guys know! I just joined a gym. I just tried on a bathing suit in a 3-d mirror, and jesus h christ. there is a reason why we only have eyes on the front of our face. it was tragic.

will update in some weeks to see if i lost any more weight.

Yes of course, exercise does increase insulin sensitivity and helps cleanup the mess that fructose creates. So on the matter of exercise, I agree that Taubes has not looked into it enough. He has put most of his research on diet, which I think was a good move.

That said, what you eat still has a much bigger impact on weight loss than exercise and you can lose weight just fine without exercise. Saying that exercise is not beneficial is not realistic. I'm just saying that people should understand that exercise is optional. Do it if you want the small boost or if you like it. But otherwise, don't feel bad if you do not like exercising.

Patrick

What is sort of aggravating about all the armchair pontificating everywhere about Taubes book is that

a) He had to REDUCE the size of the book greatly just to get it published, and

b) He had to LIMIT the scope of the book greatly for the same reason.

I'm sure he could have added another 2,000 pages but then we wouldn't have it at all, would we. He didn't cover exercise enough, he didn't cover fructose enough, he didn't cover 2 tribes in a remote region! My god, it's a book, it's not supposed to be the Bible, all-encompassing for reference to every possible need.

It is what it is, period. If something is not addressed or very-much there, it does not mean he was wrong it merely means he did not have time/space to address it or very much. That's all it means.

I have no issue with what GT wrote. The problem IMHO, are the sweeping conclusions other people are drawing based on what he wrote with out knowing the limitations of the information. You are correct, it is not all encompassing, its a good start. But that's all it is.

I don't think Taubes had much to say about weather either. Two days ago we were in the upper 80's. Last night we had snow flurries which continued this morning. I realized last night that my appetite was much larger because of the cold snap.

I know in the military they're required to eat upwards of 5000 calories per day in winter weather events like war games.

It was worse for me because I limit myself to two meals a day. Last night I ate too much food, to the point of feeling stuffed. No breakfast this morning but I'm watching the clock for lunchtime. I fear it will be a challenge to control intake as the weather gets colder.

Actually, I think there was a section about how lab animals gain weight in winter, even when they're in controlled conditions. It was tantalizingly brief.

amergin/kadill - well summarized! Regardless of how much GT had to trim his book down, he made blanket statements without qualification and (to my knowledge) has yet to define what he means by "exercise". Clearly this is a HUGE variable. Here are my summary points on this debate;

- You must be eating reasonably well for exercise to have an appreciable impact on fat loss.
- Exercise alone has only a modest effect on fat loss as per most meta-analyses I've seen on the subject.
- To suggest in any way that exercise is "useless" is false or at least needs to be taken into context.
- To suggest (as John Cloud does) that exercise is the very factor that may be KEEPING people from losing weight is ludicrous and irresponsible. Just as irresponsible as GT for not defining "exercise".
- If you use diet alone to lose weight you will still look like ass.
- Strength training in particular plays a very key role in maintaining muscle tissue and also boosts EPOC. These factors don't have massive roles in fat burning but they are very helpful long term.
- Further, adding HIIT or otherwise vigorous exercise is more helpful for fat loss.
- Don't forget about NEAT - which also accounts for some caloric expenditure.
- Exercise is perhaps even more important in keeping weight off.
- In the majority of studies, exercise DOES NOT increase hunger and/or lead to compensatory eating as Taubes/Cloud suggest. They cerry-picked data to support their confirmation biases. I provided citations to show this isn't the case.

Well, this I can definitely agree with!

Actually kilton I provided studies to back up my contentions. You provided snarkiness and red herrings. Are you suggesting that biological hunger is the only reason people eat? We wouldn't have an obesity issue if people only ate when they were truly hungry and stopped when they were satisfied.

I've seen pictures of Hutchinson and he's a good-looking guy. He does not look like ass. How rude!

haha...speaking from personal experience only here. I learned that lesson the hard way and am working to undo the assiness of my own almost-slim-but-not-even-close-to-fit body.

Nonsense. Carbs aren't as satiating as fat & protein (and over the last 40 years carb consumption in the U.S. has increased while fat consumption has fallen). This is particularly true for liquids such as soda, as anyone who doesn't live in a cave is well aware. Blaming the obesity epidemic on people eating even though they're not hungry is the path most governments and dieticians have taken over the past few decades, and we all see where it has gotten us.