Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91   ^
Old Fri, Jan-27-17, 15:08
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,378
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

So much to appreciate in Stephan's post. Like this;
Stephan;
Quote:
During the course of his argument, Taubes uses sleight of hand to portray the views of researchers as more favorable to his ideas than they really are. For example, in chapter 9 he argues that obesity and physical inactivity are not the real causes of insulin resistance, rather sugar causes both insulin resistance and obesity. To support his theory, he invokes the work of Stanford endocrinologist Gerald Reaven, claiming that he “was bringing back the notion that carbohydrates were bad”. This seemed mighty fishy to me, so I looked up what Reaven actually thinks. Here’s a quote from a review paper he wrote (emphasis mine) (32):

Reaven's paper;
Quote:
Since being overweight/obese and sedentary decreases insulin sensitivity, it is not surprising that the prevalence of the manifestations of the [insulin resistance syndrome] is increasing at a rapid rate. From a dietary standpoint, there are two approaches to attenuating the manifestations of the [insulin resistance syndrome]: (a) weight loss to enhance insulin sensitivity in those overweight/obese individuals who are insulin resistant/hyperinsulinemic; and (b) changes in macronutrient content of diets to avoid the adverse effects of the compensatory hyperinsulinemia [i.e., replacing carbohydrate with unsaturated fat- SG].


How exactly is saying that carbohydrate being replaced by fat (albeit unsaturated) not saying that "carbohydrates were bad?" Reaven was at the very least suggesting that replacing fat with carbohydrate might have been a step in the wrong direction.

Here's a quote from an interview with Reaven;

Quote:
The more controversial question is, if you are not loosing weight, what should be the macronutrient
content of your diet. The evidence clearly suggests that saturated fat intake should be limited to
reduce LDL cholesterol. The problem is, what do you add to the diet to replace the saturated fat, if the
person is not gaining weight. Up to now, advice has been to replace the saturated fat with
carbohydrate. If a person is insulin sensitive, this advice is acceptable and there are no adverse
effects. However, if the person is insulin resistant, increased amounts of insulin are already being
secreted throughout the day in response to food intake. A diet with more carbohydrates will worsen
the manifestations.
It will raise triglycerides, insulin levels and postprandial lipemia, and small dense
LDL will appear


"carbohydrates will worsen the manifestations." Maybe Reaven never did say that carbohydrates were "bad" again. We seem to have gone from bad to worsen.

http://www.cacpr.ca/information_for.../0009Reaven.pdf
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #92   ^
Old Fri, Jan-27-17, 15:45
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,378
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Is Taubes giving the impression that Reaven said that sugar caused the problem in the first place, as Stephan says? There's misrepresenting of what a person says, and then there's having a different interpretation or hypothesis about the implications of a person's research than they have themselves, these are two different things. Not the first time Taubes has been accused of misrepresentation of Reaven.
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=473333

I know of a number of low fat researchers whose work can easily be put into a different light, and seen as just as supportive of low carb as they ever were of low fat.
Reply With Quote
  #93   ^
Old Sun, Jan-29-17, 10:55
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,965
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

So this is what Reaven says:

Quote:
The evidence clearly suggests that saturated fat intake should be limited to reduce LDL cholesterol. The problem is, what do you add to the diet to replace the saturated fat, if the person is not gaining weight. Up to now, advice has been to replace the saturated fat with carbohydrate. If a person is insulin sensitive, this advice is acceptable and there are no adverse
effects. However, if the person is insulin resistant, increased amounts of insulin are already being secreted throughout the day in response to food intake.


He seems to miss the point that carbohydrates can create the insulin resistance in the first place. "Do this thing until X happens, and then do the Other Thing" seems stupid to me when we should be doing the Other Thing.
Reply With Quote
  #94   ^
Old Wed, Feb-01-17, 06:35
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,491
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Gary Taubes responds to his critics (Guyenet, Freedhoff, etc):

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2017/0...asily-dismissed

Long, extensive wide ranging response to criticism, with links to his original essay, three response essays, research imbedded. Very good and worth reading.

https://www.dietdoctor.com/gary-tau...sing-case-sugar

Run-in with a Gary Taubes photo yesterday...there is a free, large format print magazine of book reviews called BookPage. You may find it at book stores and libraries. Our library puts it over the return bin, and there on the Front Cover is an intense photo of Taubes, titled "SUGAR, you ain't so Sweet. Gary Taubes on the health toll of our favorite addiction." Not a comprehensive interview, but it was hard to miss and good to see him featured on the cover. Only 12 books a year get that amount of press.

http://bookpage.com/interviews/20810-gary-taubes

Last edited by JEY100 : Wed, Feb-01-17 at 07:33.
Reply With Quote
  #95   ^
Old Wed, Feb-01-17, 07:19
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,965
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

For a supposed scientist, Guyenet's arguments are always a "twisty turny thing."
Reply With Quote
  #96   ^
Old Wed, Feb-01-17, 08:33
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,902
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

I can no longer read Guyenet, as his arguments are definitely circuitous and seem to be leading me down a rabbit hole. He's a prodigious writer, and I'm sensing the presence of an agenda, either from him or me! I might accept some of his contentions if they were presented in a clear, concise manner. While I agree that the topic of metabolism is very complex, I don't think eating for good nutritional value needs to be anything but simple.
Reply With Quote
  #97   ^
Old Wed, Feb-01-17, 09:38
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,902
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Gary Taubes responds to his critics (Guyenet, Freedhoff, etc):

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2017/0...asily-dismissed

Long, extensive wide ranging response to criticism, with links to his original essay, three response essays, research imbedded. Very good and worth reading.


Excellent response by Taubes.
Reply With Quote
  #98   ^
Old Wed, Feb-01-17, 09:53
inflammabl's Avatar
inflammabl inflammabl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,826
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 296/220/205 Male 71 inches
BF:25%?
Progress: 84%
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Gary Taubes responds to his critics (Guyenet, Freedhoff, etc):

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2017/0...asily-dismissed
Getting on Cato Unbound is a big deal. A lot of serious alternative thinkers read that.
Reply With Quote
  #99   ^
Old Wed, Feb-01-17, 10:08
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,714
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
I can no longer read Guyenet, as his arguments are definitely circuitous and seem to be leading me down a rabbit hole. He's a prodigious writer, and I'm sensing the presence of an agenda, either from him or me! I might accept some of his contentions if they were presented in a clear, concise manner. While I agree that the topic of metabolism is very complex, I don't think eating for good nutritional value needs to be anything but simple.
I can no longer read Guyenet either. When he was a grad student he was open minded and posted a lot of interesting stuff. But he seems to want to be known as the expert on something, and chose palatability as the cause of all metabolic problems. He is guilty of exactly the same blinders-on closed-mind pursuit that he accuses Taubes (sugar/insulin) and Keys (fat) of, but worse.
Reply With Quote
  #100   ^
Old Wed, Feb-01-17, 11:13
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,902
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Palatability is an interesting hypothesis that does not take into account that humans may experience a distorted pleasurable taste for those things that were rarely available in pre-agrarian times due to seasonal or local influences. The pleasurable taste causes overeating during the times when it is needed. That pleasurable taste caused me to overeat all the time.
Reply With Quote
  #101   ^
Old Wed, Feb-01-17, 11:54
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,714
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

I agree that palatablility is a part of the equation and may explain why we started eating sugar, but it doesn't explain why I was attracted back to the half gallon of icecream when I had a cold & couldn't even taste it. And the spikes & troughs in my bloodsugar could be directly correlated with feeling hungry an hour or two later. Also, I find steak and bacon to be very palatable and can eat 2-3X more than necessary, but they don't make me fat and diabetic.
Reply With Quote
  #102   ^
Old Wed, Feb-01-17, 15:22
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,965
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
I can no longer read Guyenet either. When he was a grad student he was open minded and posted a lot of interesting stuff. But he seems to want to be known as the expert on something, and chose palatability as the cause of all metabolic problems. He is guilty of exactly the same blinders-on closed-mind pursuit that he accuses Taubes (sugar/insulin) and Keys (fat) of, but worse.


Palatability is not a good choice of horse to ride in on. Because I have found it to be extremely subjective and changeable.

I'm hungry! Ribeye steak with blue cheese crumbles and butter and green beans almandine -- let me at it. Not hungry any more -- not nearly the pull.

Oh, does he mean stuff people binge on? That's not steak or vegetables. That's stuff with wheat and sugar.

Ruh roh. Taubes was right
Reply With Quote
  #103   ^
Old Wed, Feb-01-17, 16:05
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,378
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

I can binge on steak... just about any low carb food, really. But make my diet a bit more ketogenic, and no binges. It's not that the food becomes less palatable--a lot of it becomes more so, soup made with cheese and heavy cream is not less palatable than cheese itself. Also, I don't think adding heavy cream and cocoa to peanut butter makes it less palatable. Also--maybe all that fat does make these foods less palatable, somehow--but I'm satisfied with a small handful of peanuts, or a bit of cheese. As long as I'm keeping carbs very low, and being precise with my protein intake as well. Everything is just plain more satisfying--more rewarding, so that it takes less to do the job, when I'm in ketosis. This is even the case with cookies, I learned that at Christmas--but of course I didn't stay in ketosis that long after eating them, so any benefit was pretty short-lived. Maybe some time should be spent looking at the effect of diet on palatability/reward instead of the other way around.
Reply With Quote
  #104   ^
Old Thu, Feb-02-17, 08:47
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,714
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Fung just put up a good blog post on fructose:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/
Reply With Quote
  #105   ^
Old Thu, Feb-02-17, 09:19
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,902
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Palatability is only part of the story. Yes, some of the foods that I used to consider palatable were also trigger foods for me. Steak, lobster were no problem because I could eat them and be satiated for a longer period of time than some of the palatable sugared carbs that I would eat for dessert or snacks. They were the insidious foods that I ate because I never became satiated, and worse, within a couple hours after consumption, my low blood sugar caused me to be crave food again. Yeah, they were palatable, but they also set off a hormonal chain of events that triggered over eating. So, I still consider steak, lobster, and other full fat meals palatable, but they are the food types that enable me to be successful with a LCHF approach. The other stuff was simply feeding my sugar/carb addiction in an unending cycle leading to poor health.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:45.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.