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
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Jan-06-11, 09:49
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,755
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default Why We Get Fat: A Book Review

A recent post by Dr Barbara Berkeley over at the Refuse to Regain blog:

Quote:
January 03, 2011

Why We Get Fat: A Book Review

by Barbara Berkeley, MD


For most people, the prospect of meeting a favorite movie star or sports hero would set the heart aflutter. Call me a nutrition geek, but I get palpitations from meeting the researchers and authors whose work on obesity I revere.

Several years ago, a friend from residency,who is now chief of endocrinology at a major academic center,invited me to meet Gary Taubes, the author of "Good Calories, Bad Calories". Taubes is a science writer with a long track record of producing sophisticated and meticulously researched articles for Science, the NY Times, and other highly respected publications. In recent years, he had become especially interested in the science of obesity writing a number of controversial articles that supported carbohydrate restriction and called into question the conventional wisdom of low-fat eating. "Good Calories, Bad Calories" was the a book that collected all the research that supported his contention (and mine) that the idea of controlling weight by eating less than you burn is insanely simplistic and that it is insulin-stimulating foods that cause weight gain and illness. A dense, lengthy book (the paperback version is 640 pages), GCBC defeated many readers. For me though, every page was a "eureka" moment packed full of research that supported everything I had learned clinically in more than 20 years of working with overweight patients. It became my bible, my favorite book, my go-to reference: the book that had my back. The pages of my copy were so underlined, annotated and studded with stars, arrows and exclamation points as to be barely readable.

The day that I was to travel to the east coast to meet Gary Taubes dawned to reveal an old-fashioned Cleveland blizzard. I was booked to fly on a small regional jet and believe me, I'm a nervous flyer. Normally, I would have taken one look out the window at the wind and snow and cancelled my flight. Instead, I tucked my trusty GCBC under my arm, packed an overnight bag and headed across icy, unplowed roads to the airport. I sat on the tarmac as our tiny plane (one of those that bounces and creaks across the runway) was doused with pink and green de-icing fluid. Moments later, the snow was reaccumulating on the windows and the wings were bouncing in the wind. Was I nuts? This was definitely a form of temporary insanity. But moments later, we ascended shakily into the sky, broke through the clouds and continued on to Philadelphia where a cold sun was shining.

At the university, I greeted my old friend and he ushered me into a large lecture hall where Taubes had just begun what was to be a long and detailed talk. The assembled crowd was composed of serious academic researchers in the field of diabetes and obesity. They listened politely and asked many questions, but seemed skeptical. Taubes answered each question with a wealth of data and a great deal of patience. It was clear that he was used to speaking to doctors and other scientists, most of whom had spent the past twenty to thirty years believing that dietary fat was the great villain. I understood his position well. My practical experience with obese patients was often ignored by peers who listened politely to what I had to say but went on to advise their patients that they eat "moderately",follow a "low fat diet" and eat lots of "healthy carbs".

After the lecture, I had the great opportunity of spending an hour or so in discussion with my friend and Gary Taubes. Naturally, I had him sign my copy of GCBC. The inscription reads: "This is the most annotated copy of my book I've ever seen." Later, we all had dinner with other members of the department. Gary and I avoided carbs while the others ate the rolls, ordered potatoes and (in some cases) fretted about their inability to lose weight.

In the years since the publication of Good Calories, Bad Calories, I have recommended it to many people but few have been able to wade through it and pretty much no one has enjoyed it with the blind excitement that I have. Apparently, this was a common scenario and now Taubes has produced a scaled down version of his master work called "Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It" (Knopf). While it (intentionally) lacks the intensive attention to research that characterizes GCBC, it does an excellent job of giving readers the basics. I recommend it. And if you are intrigued by what you read, I would suggest going on to GCBC to fill in the blanks.

The bottom line? It is the overproduction of the hormone insulin that makes us fat. This overproduction comes from two sources: eating too many foods that require insulin for processing (the starches and sugars), and the overproduction of insulin that results from body cells that become "resistant" through aging or eating too many S Foods. Dietary fat and protein do not stimulate insulin. Consumed alone they cannot make us fat. Most importantly, insulin prevents us from using the fat in our fat cells as fuel. We are thus always running on sugar. We crave more when we run out and we never get into fat burning mode. We are built to run on the fat in our fat cells as a major fuel. Most of us can't use it.

This knowledge is the currency of my world. It is obvious to those of us who "do" weight loss as a career. It has even---finally---become obvious to entrenched diet programs like Weight Watchers, who recently revamped its point system to reflect the fact that all calories are not alike. Some make you fat. Others don't.

For those with limited patience or someone who can only borrow "Why We Get Fat" for a day, I particularly recommend the second section of the book called "Adiposity 101". These facts are well presented and give you a good introduction to the problems created by insulin. (A similar discussion can also be found in the third chapter of Refuse to Regain on Metabolic Syndrome).

One of the points that Taubes makes repeatedly is that nutritionists and doctors remain entrenched regarding their thinking about weight loss. They insist that you can lose weight by eating less and exercising more when this formula has been an ineffective proposition for 95% of those who try. It simply doesn't hold up long term. He acknowledges that obesity doctors understand his thesis and support it and that docs who don't treat obesity are unwilling to listen to those who do. That's true. But it is also true that those who write about and research obesity, but don't treat it, are not privy to the daily observations of this knowledge in practice. So let me add some brief critiques of what is otherwise an excellent book.

1. Genetically Consistent vs. High Fat, Low Carb

Taubes touches briefly on the wisdom of eating foods that are like the foods eaten by our ancient ancestors. Theoretically, these are the foods to which we are best adapted. Following that, however, he pins the blame for obesity on carbohydrates and exonerates fat and protein. I agree unequivocally with his blame placing, however I remain very circumspect about the sources of our fat and protein. Taubes is fond of bacon and steak. I wouldn't have a problem with this if it were not for the fact that the meat we produce today is very nutritionally distinct from the meat we've always "known" how to eat. Bacon contains carcinogenic nitrites and other preservatives. Corn fed beef has a reversed profile of omega 6 to omega 3 fatty acids when compared to the meat of animals that graze. If we hypothesize that we get sick from eating a diet full of carbs because we are not genetically prepared to eat large amounts of carbs, how can we ignore the fact that eating meat that is very modern in composition may be equally damaging? The way I see it, logic leads me to believe that we get both fat and sick when we eat fuels that our body is not prepared to process genetically. Trying to get as close as possible to original food sources makes the most sense. There is no research on this by the way other than voluminous observation of hunter gatherer tribes that survived into modernity and were absent modern diseases.

2. How to Lose Weight

Many of the sources consulted by Taubes in this book suggest an Atkins-style diet for weight loss. There are also many obesity clinics that still use something called the "Protein-Sparing Modified Fast". This is essentially an extreme Atikins diet that has patients eat small amounts of mostly chicken, eggs and certain cheeses. While these diets do cause weight loss, they also can lead to complications of dehydration, dizziness and potassium and salt depletion. We have found them to be completely unneccessary and I can't understand why people persist in using them. Our diet has many more grams of carbohydrate than Atkins or the PSMF. Our patients eat one piece of fruit and alot of vegetables and salad each day. It works beautifully and we achieve large weight losses. We have rarely had a patient who is resistant. In other words, it is very possible to lower insulin levels enough to get brisk weight loss without going to total carb elimination. You just have to know which carbs to avoid and how much to include.

3. Calorie Lowering for Weight Loss

One of Taubes' interests is establishing a study that would document that fact that people on the Atkins diet could eat enormous numbers of calories yet still lose weight. This would prove that weight loss isn't about the amount of calories at all, but is about how the body uses the calories it gets. In other words, does it burn up the calories and get rid of them or does it store them? In the practical world of the weight loss clinic, however, we have found that to get weight loss, patients need to get calories low. Having tried the Atkins diet myself many times, I found that my calories were automatically limited by the boring nature of eating only meat and cheese. I don't know if Taubes is right about his belief, but it seems beside the point. Eating huge amounts of fat and protein doesn't feel good to many people, and weight loss can easily be gotten on a low insulin diet of about 1200-1400 calories that suppresses appetite as a side benefit.

4. Exercise

Taubes makes the very interesting point that obese people are sedentary not because they are lazy, but because their energy stores are locked up (insulin traps fat energy and makes it inaccessible). They simply don't have enough energy to exercise and therefore don't want to. I agree with this. Our patients who lose weight become much more interested in moving. You only need to read a few weight loss blogs to see how frequently obese, sedentary people turn into avid exercisers, even marathoners. Taubes discounts exercise as an important factor in weight loss. So do I. However, I still stick to my guns when stating that exercise is crucial for weight maintenance. I don't know the technicalities of why it works, but we can suppose that it keeps the muscles efficient in their use of calories and allows for the whole bodily machine to run better. Exercise is like the oil or lubricant for our metabolic system. Keep it going.

I highly recommend that you take a look at "Why We Get Fat" and see if it doesn't get you thinking. I hope you will come out believing that restructuring your diet to permanently rid yourself of the bulk of your grains and carbs is the true solution for permanent weight control. It has worked for me and it has worked for all of those I've been able to convert.
http://refusetoregain.com/refusetor...ook-review.html
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Jan-06-11, 10:09
Fat Freddy Fat Freddy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 440
 
Plan: Lighterlife (UK) sort of!
Stats: 397/244/173 Male 6'2"
BF:50.1%/31.3%/22.2%
Progress: 68%
Location: Worthing, West Sussex, UK
Default

Excellent - GCBC Lite, and available for Kindle too, which means I'll start reading it tonight!

Thanks for sight of this.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Jan-06-11, 11:22
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,151
 
Plan: LC--Atkins
Stats: 195/160/150 Female 62in
BF:
Progress: 78%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Overall this is a great overview from someone who obviously has a lot of professional experience in weight management--not to mention a complete appreciation for the integrity of Gary Taubes.

It still makes me wonder however that this reviewer can so glibly say
Quote:
Having tried the Atkins diet myself many times, I found that my calories were automatically limited by the boring nature of eating only meat and cheese.
Sigh.

Also, as a lifelong weight management expert on ME, I'm pretty sure that 1200-1400 calories is NOT a humane way to live for the long term. Maybe that's my final failing.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, Jan-06-11, 12:18
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,684
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkloots
Also, as a lifelong weight management expert on ME, I'm pretty sure that 1200-1400 calories is NOT a humane way to live for the long term. Maybe that's my final failing.


I was right with her until she started talking such low calories. I lost 70 pounds on 2,000 - 2,400 calories a day, when I was in my forties!

When I was trying to eat 1200 a day, I was also doing low fat because you get the most food that way; and daily, raging, hunger.

I'll try to look up her "plan" and see what it consists of; I see tiny doll-size plates.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Jan-06-11, 12:42
Beez in BR's Avatar
Beez in BR Beez in BR is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 954
 
Plan: Very low carb
Stats: 192.2/160/160 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkloots
Overall this is a great overview from someone who obviously has a lot of professional experience in weight management--not to mention a complete appreciation for the integrity of Gary Taubes.

It still makes me wonder however that this reviewer can so glibly say:

Having tried the Atkins diet myself many times, I found that my calories were automatically limited by the boring nature of eating only meat and cheese. I don't know if Taubes is right about his belief, but it seems beside the point. Eating huge amounts of fat and protein doesn't feel good to many people, and weight loss can easily be gotten on a low insulin diet of about 1200-1400 calories that suppresses appetite as a side benefit.

Sigh.

Also, as a lifelong weight management expert on ME, I'm pretty sure that 1200-1400 calories is NOT a humane way to live for the long term. Maybe that's my final failing.


(I had to paste in her quote because it wouldn't pick it up while I quoted you.)

I know. She lost me there too.

I really resent that she would portray Atkins as only meat and cheese.

I think she has her own diet program and she would like to promote it rather then send clients to the Atkins program (where they can just buy a book and not have to pay her to help them.)
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Jan-06-11, 13:14
Judynyc's Avatar
Judynyc Judynyc is offline
Attitude is a Choice
Posts: 30,111
 
Plan: No sugar, flour, wheat
Stats: 228.4/209.0/170 Female 5'6"
BF:stl/too/mch
Progress: 33%
Location: NYC
Default

I'm beginning to see that way too many medical professionals see low carb and Atkins the same way....which is a basically an induction slanted POV of low carb that eliminates all vegetables....which we know that it does not.

My own experience with learning to eat this way its not just protein and fat at all!! I don't know many low carb maintainers who eat that way either...day in and day out that is.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Jan-06-11, 13:46
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
I was right with her until she started talking such low calories. I lost 70 pounds on 2,000 - 2,400 calories a day, when I was in my forties!

When I was trying to eat 1200 a day, I was also doing low fat because you get the most food that way; and daily, raging, hunger.

I'll try to look up her "plan" and see what it consists of; I see tiny doll-size plates.



To be fair, 1200 low-fat calories are very different from 1200 calories that do contain an appropriate quantity of fat. Apples and oranges. You can't really compare the two. The satiety levels are extremely different. I believe that satiety has absolutely nothing to do with how many calories you eat.

Last edited by Angeline : Thu, Jan-06-11 at 13:52.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Jan-06-11, 14:17
Hutchinson's Avatar
Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 2,886
 
Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69
BF:
Progress: 118%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beez in BR
(I had to paste in her quote because it wouldn't pick it up while I quoted you.)

I know. She lost me there too.

I really resent that she would portray Atkins as only meat and cheese.

I think she has her own diet program and she would like to promote it rather then send clients to the Atkins program (where they can just buy a book and not have to pay her to help them.)
If you had followed the link Demi provided you would have seen that a commenter on her blog raised this point and
Quote:
Barbara Berkeley said in reply to Melissa...
Hi Melissa,
Yes. I agree with you and youre right that I didnt actually characterize the Atkins diet properly. Atkins did, as you say, encourage people to increase vegetables and other allowable carbs and spoke about the CCL or critical carb level that each person needed to find. There were issues, however, after Atkins death with the question of whether unrestricted eating of high fat foods was a good idea. I know that more recent iterations of the diet suggested lower fat alternatives. Actually, my comments about dieting using very high fat, high protein methods were pointed more at the Atkins induction phase and at PSMF, neither of which I have found to be necessary in order to get weight loss. But youre right, I didnt do a good job of distinguishing. Thanks for the comment.

But again we have another "sigh" point with
Quote:
There were issues, however, after Atkins death with the question of whether unrestricted eating of high fat foods was a good idea
I think the underlying prejudices are going to take a long time to be sorted.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Thu, Jan-06-11, 18:35
Beez in BR's Avatar
Beez in BR Beez in BR is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 954
 
Plan: Very low carb
Stats: 192.2/160/160 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutchinson
But again we have another "sigh" point with:

"There were issues, however, after Atkins death with the question of whether unrestricted eating of high fat foods was a good idea "

I think the underlying prejudices are going to take a long time to be sorted.


I think the smear campaign that the PCRM created after Atkins' death really put doubt in people's minds.

I'm glad that we now have studies to back up low carb science, now if we could only get medical science to ACCEPT what they show.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Thu, Jan-06-11, 18:38
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,684
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beez in BR
I think the smear campaign that the PCRM created after Atkins' death really put doubt in people's minds.


I agree, partly because it solved the cognitive dissonance in people's minds; if they could file Dr. Atkins away under "just another diet charlatan" they didn't have to think about it.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Fri, Jan-07-11, 12:01
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,582
 
Plan: EF/Fung IDM/keto
Stats: 375/225.4/175 Female 66.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 75%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angeline
To be fair, 1200 low-fat calories are very different from 1200 calories that do contain an appropriate quantity of fat. Apples and oranges. You can't really compare the two. The satiety levels are extremely different.
True, 1200 calories a day on low fat and I'd be feeling ravenous and faint every minute of the day (been there, done that). But 1200 LC calories? I wouldn't want to do it every day, I admit, but it's fairly satiating. I gained some weight over the holidays and this Wednesday was my first day back home and back on track. My food intake for the day (every bite weighed and measured to the gram, and entered into MyPlan) came to:

1283 calories broken down as:

57.6g carb and 27.3g fiber for a net of 30.3g carbs (18% of calories)
79.6g protein (26% of calories)
76.7g fat (56% of calories)

Usually my fat intake is higher than that - but I didn't experience a single hunger pang the entire day long.

But I admit that yesterday my caloric intake was back up to my more usual 2000 calories, and I was much happier with it.

But I guess I *could* do 1200-1400 a day if I had to, as long as it was LC.

Agree about the comments about getting tired of the "meat and cheese" Atkins however, which makes you doubt a lot of the rest she has written!
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Fri, Jan-07-11, 19:25
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Are meat and cheese boring, or just more satisfying? Pizza keeps my interest longer than steak, is that a good thing?
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Fri, Jan-07-11, 21:48
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,582
 
Plan: EF/Fung IDM/keto
Stats: 375/225.4/175 Female 66.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 75%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
Are meat and cheese boring, or just more satisfying? Pizza keeps my interest longer than steak, is that a good thing?
I would choose pizza over a steak any day of the week based strictly on taste. I never needed the crust, luckily, other than as a vehicle to hold the slice. But I could eat pizza toppings all day long.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Sat, Jan-08-11, 09:17
JL53563's Avatar
JL53563 JL53563 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,209
 
Plan: The Real Human Diet
Stats: 225/165/180 Male 5'8"
BF:?/?/8.6%
Progress: 133%
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
Are meat and cheese boring, or just more satisfying? Pizza keeps my interest longer than steak, is that a good thing?


In the old days, I could eat pizza way beyond the point of fullness. 2 or 3 slices might have me feeling full, but I'd keep eating. I would probably eat just as much, if not more, after I already felt full. Not sure if it's because it tasted so damn good, or just wasn't satisfying. With fatty meat, once I'm full, I'm DONE.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Mon, Jan-10-11, 12:41
Ryality's Avatar
Ryality Ryality is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 47
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 265/250/220 Male 74 inches
BF:
Progress: 33%
Location: MD
Default

Yea I agree. I'f I'm eating Pizza I can eat a whole large pizza and be full but want to keep eating. When I eat lunch meat and cheese for lunch I can eat a few slices of eat and feel fine. I don't know the caloric difference between the two.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 16:56.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.