Obesity Discussion Forums

[notobeseanymore]

Originally Posted by AntiCarb

Hi there,

First of all, I am in no way trying to diminsh what you have accomplished (which is awesome) or try to tell others what to do. I am not a doctor or nutritionist or any kind of authority. I have ∆ust read some really interesting ideas that no one seems to be paying attention to, and they seem like good valid important ideas.

You are also right to be skeptical of ANYONE who writes about the cause of weight loss (including/especially me). Lot of B.S. floating around does not even BEGIN to describe it.

Nevertheless, I would argue that the Law of Thermodynamics (as it pertains to whether calories count or not) CAN INDEED be looked at two ways and not ∆ust one. And I believe that the other way of looking at the Energy Balance Equation does a much better ∆ob of explaining the evidence we see in the real world. And that this other way implicates carbs, not calories, in obesity.

I'm not going to argue about physics here because ultimately it doesn't really matter. Telling people that their caloric intake doesn't matter when calorie-reduced diets using any macronutrient balance have been shown to be effective is bunk. When it comes to weight loss I've found that the simpler a program is, the more likely people are to stick to it.

Personally I don't care about thermodynamics, and an intimate understanding of thermodynamics is not necessary for effective weight loss.

Also I am beginning to wonder what your motivation is for trying to get people to accept that caloric intake is unimportant. Why are you spending your time trying to get people here to accept your argument? What's in it for you?

[AntiCarb]

Originally Posted by notobeseanymore

I'm not going to argue about physics here because ultimately it doesn't really matter. Telling people that their caloric intake doesn't matter when calorie-reduced diets using any macronutrient balance have been shown to be effective is bunk. When it comes to weight loss I've found that the simpler a program is, the more likely people are to stick to it.

Personally I don't care about thermodynamics, and an intimate understanding of thermodynamics is not necessary for effective weight loss.

Also I am beginning to wonder what your motivation is for trying to get people to accept that caloric intake is unimportant. Why are you spending your time trying to get people here to accept your argument? What's in it for you?

Look, with all due respect, the assertion that calorie-reduced diets are effective is VERY debatable. And anyone who cares about weight loss SHOULD care about thermodynamics because that is where we get the idea that calories count in the first place. See the official CDC site here for the CDCs ∆ustification.

Unless you understand WHY calories (allegedly) count and WHY fat loss does/does not occur in the fat tissue, it is very difficult to suggest HOW to fix the problem. And I assert that the Caloric Balance Hypothesis is the actual bunk here. For my complete argument, see my Why Low Carbohydrate Diets Work website here. Or read this excellent editorial here.

My motivation is frustration. It is personal. I built this website because I cannot stand that everyone is ignoring this extremely smart and extremely powerful hypothesis that has never been refuted. We have an obesity epidemic in this country that is costing us ~$122 billion a year. And if this hypothesis is correct, then our public health authorities are telling us to do the EXACT WRONG THINGS (eat more carbs and less fat). Not only that, but they BLAME US when we get fat and sick from following their advice. And then, when we diet and fail, then BLAME US for a lack of willpower and stick-to-it-tiveness.

I for one believe that people who suffer from obesity/overweight deserve better. They deserve NOT to be called sloths and gluttons. Because I earnestly believe that they are NOT. Obese people are not defective, out of control, or ignorant. Quite to the contrary. They deserve to consider this other idea that no one is telling them about.

[notobeseanymore]

Originally Posted by AntiCarb

Look, with all due respect, the assertion that calorie-reduced diets are effective is VERY debatable. And anyone who cares about weight loss SHOULD care about thermodynamics because that is where we get the idea that calories count in the first place. See the official CDC site here for the CDCs ∆ustification.

Unless you understand WHY calories (allegedly) count and WHY fat loss does/does not occur in the fat tissue, it is very difficult to suggest HOW to fix the problem. And I assert that the Caloric Balance Hypothesis is the actual bunk here. For my complete argument, see my Why Low Carbohydrate Diets Work website here. Or read this excellent editorial here.

My motivation is frustration. It is personal. I built this website because I cannot stand that everyone is ignoring this extremely smart and extremely powerful hypothesis that has never been refuted. We have an obesity epidemic in this country that is costing us ~$122 billion a year. And if this hypothesis is correct, then our public health authorities are telling us to do the EXACT WRONG THINGS (eat more carbs and less fat). Not only that, but they BLAME US when we get fat and sick from following their advice. And then, when we diet and fail, then BLAME US for a lack of willpower and stick-to-it-tiveness.

I for one believe that people who suffer from obesity/overweight deserve better. They deserve NOT to be called sloths and gluttons. Because I earnestly believe that they are NOT. Obese people are not defective, out of control, or ignorant. Quite to the contrary. They deserve to consider this other idea that no one is telling them about.

I'm sure the obese appreciate the sympathy but I can only speak from my own experience.

My experience has been that when I eat whatever I want, I get fat. When I don't exercise, my health suffers. When I eat a sensible diet (tha includes carbs), I am able to control my weight easily. With me it was and continues to be nothing more than a question of willpower and "stick-to-it-tiveness." I was a sloth and a glutton. I admit that. When I stopped being sloth-y and glutton-y, I lost the weight. Simple as.

Also, I have not seen any public health authority tell people...ever...that they should load up on sugars or refined carbohydrates. That isn't what they're telling us at all.

[AntiCarb]

Originally Posted by notobeseanymore

I'm sure the obese appreciate the sympathy but I can only speak from my own experience.

My experience has been that when I eat whatever I want, I get fat. When I don't exercise, my health suffers. When I eat a sensible diet (tha includes carbs), I am able to control my weight easily. With me it was and continues to be nothing more than a question of willpower and "stick-to-it-tiveness." I was a sloth and a glutton. I admit that. When I stopped being sloth-y and glutton-y, I lost the weight. Simple as.

Also, I have not seen any public health authority tell people...ever...that they should load up on sugars or refined carbohydrates. That isn't what they're telling us at all.

Hi again notobese,

Thanks for continuing this discussion with me. Again, I do not mean in any way to be presumptuous or out of line, and I am thrilled that you have been able to stick with your regimen and stay thin/healthy. Whether calories count or not, I think we would both agree that getting and staying in shape is tough in our society!

I would disagree, however, about the public health authority recommendations. For years, we have been told to eat 6-11 servings of carbohydrates - 300g/day. (See info on the USDA food pyramid here.) Refined carbs (bread, pasta, rice) etc served as the BASE of the Food Pyramid until 2005, when the USDA altered the pyramid... slightly.

The facts are the facts. According to the USDAs OWN NUMBERS, we eat less fat today than we did before the obesity epidemic. Yet we eat more calories. And these superfluous calories have come from carbohydrates.

My point is, we HAVE followed the public health recs (eat less fat and more carbs), and yet we paradoxically have become fatter.

Anyway, this thread is ten miles long, and I probably should stop wasting my time (and everyone elses) by continuing to add to it. I will try to post here 1x a week or so (assuming anyone cares what I have to say... which probably a bit presumptuous ).

Notobeseanymore, if you or anyone else wants to rip into my arguments more on this thread (or elsewhere), I WILL respond as best as I can next week.

Thanks everyone!

Adam

[Steve]

I wasn't going to partake in this thread as I'm extremely tired of hashing it out with Taubes' sycophants. AntiCarb, I'm not lumping you in this camp as I don't know enough about you... but personally this is a tired debate.

Taubes sodium paper though, yeah, that was a good one. His best, actually. One of the best scientific papers I've read. IMO things went downhill from there in terms of objectivity and confirmation biases.

Besides... I have a hard time caring much anymore simply b/c my clients (I've been in the weight loss biz for just shy of a decade) do perfectly fine eating moderate amounts of carbs for the most part while controlling calories. They realize lasting weight loss (relative to the success of typical diets), aren't locked into a rigid way of eating, etc., etc. I've got no real reason to make my suggestions more rigid when things are working now. Science would have to provide much more persuasive data for me to consider otherwise.

I know you like to say it doesn't work. But I have a book of business that puts food on my table that says otherwise. And I don't care if anecdote matters little to you or anyone else simply b/c I'm not in this business to make researchers happy by helping them think they have the answers.

That said, I have spent a fair amount of time researching the subject matter and I do respect the power of science. That's not to say I know more than you, or vice versa. James (the author of the article I posted) is an excellent researcher from what I've seen from him. I've invited him to this thread... we'll see if he has the time or inclination to join in on the debate.

I have a few random points to make:

1) I find it comical and concerning that there are people out there who can point their finger at one factor (insulin) and label it the sole culprit of obesity. From my perspective, it goes without saying that obesity is a multifaceted problem.

2) I'd like to see a study showing where an excess of calories doesn't lead to weight gain - where excess energy magically gets dispersed into thin air. Maybe then we can start fixing some of the energy crisis problems our world faces today. Magic energy would be awesome. And yea, no... I'm not talking about energy lost as heat dissipation, digestion efficiency rates, etc. The fact that energy is "lost" due to these sorts of factors doesn't invalidate the energy balance "theory" as many Taubes sycophants like to scream.

3) Carbophobes harp on and on about insulin blocking fat oxidation. I mean they're right. But who cares about the acute term? The big glaring hole here is that they don't account for what happens the rest of the day. What happens if, say, you eat one huge meal and spike the hell out of insulin, store fat, shut off lipolysis and all the rest - and then don't eat again for the rest of the day?

If that one meal was only 1000 calories and you need 2000 a day to cover your energy costs, why exactly is the body just going to hang on to those calories when it needs them to survive?

4) Protein elevates insulin above fasting levels.

5) A key distinction that many carbophobes like to gloss over is research on the whole does not match protein intakes between diets when testing. Who's to say when protein is matched between "high" and "low" carbs, results won't be similar - especially given things like protein's thermic effect, satiating properties, etc?

6) The Energy Balance Equation | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald - if you want a scientific debate, head over to his forum which you can find on his main site (www.bodyrecomposition.com). If you do, be prepared to support your arguments with links to peer-reviewed literature. It seems you're in the habit of mentioning research without linking to specifics.

7) For some folks, low-carb is warranted. For others, it isn't. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low-carb absolutists.

8) What are your thoughts on acylation stimulation protein in the context of this discussion?

10) Show me via peer-reviewed papers how insulin causes net weight gain in hypo-energetic conditions.

[AntiCarb]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for hearing out these points and continuing the discussion. While I do not consider myself a sycophant of Taubes (although I do think the guy's damn smart), I have become quite the carbophobe. I appreciate your challenging me and keeping me honest and would love to hear James' input as well... Obviously, I now have a confirmation bias as well, so I welcome any criticism of my points.

Originally Posted by Steve

I have a hard time caring much anymore simply b/c my clients (I've been in the weight loss biz for just shy of a decade) do perfectly fine eating moderate amounts of carbs for the most part while controlling calories. .

This is great, and your clients are lucky to have you. I would again suggest, however, that any time you restrict calories and go on a diet-and-exercise transition, you will change many things at once. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, even if you do not change macronutrient %, if you cut calories significantly, you will cut carbs too. A diet that contains 60% carbs before and after a calorie restriction of 1000 cals/day will lead to a restriction of 600 cals of carbs/day, which could (theoretically) explain the weight loss in terms of the alternative Taubesian hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Steve

1) I find it comical and concerning that there are people out there who can point their finger at one factor (insulin) and label it the sole culprit of obesity. From my perspective, it goes without saying that obesity is a multifaceted problem.

Absolutely multifaceted! I 100% agree. Genetics, hormones, enzymes (such as lipoprotein lipase), environment, etc etc all play into it. But if we agree on this, then explain why diet advice is so reductive and one-size-fits-all. 'Calories count!' we are told. This is the alpha and omega of our public health authorities' diet wisdom. Increase Cals Out, decrease Cals In, and weight loss will occur. But that assumes that we are, in Taubes' words, 'thermodynamic black boxes.' If only 'calories count,' then there is ZERO room for factors like insulin, LPL, thyroid hormones, etc to play ANY role in what is going on in the fat tissue.

Originally Posted by Steve

2) I'd like to see a study showing where an excess of calories doesn't lead to weight gain - where excess energy magically gets dispersed into thin air. Maybe then we can start fixing some of the energy crisis problems our world faces today. Magic energy would be awesome. And yea, no... I'm not talking about energy lost as heat dissipation, digestion efficiency rates, etc. The fact that energy is "lost" due to these sorts of factors doesn't invalidate the energy balance "theory" as many Taubes sycophants like to scream.

See my page about studies showing that excess cals do NOT lead to weight gain here. There are plenty more, but hopefully this is a start.

On a more theoretical note... consider pregnancy. A pregnant woman will grow a fetus inside her, and she will also establish a positive energy balance. No one would argue that the "excess calories" MAKE the fetus. Clearly, the fetus forms and it finds the calories it needs to develop. Pregnant women get hungry because they are pregnant - they do not get pregnant because they overeat. Similarly, tall people eat more b/c growth hormone drives them to need more calories. They do not grow tall because they overeat. Overeating is a secondary consequence of hormonal action.

But if we can agree that a positive enegry balance causes neither a fetus nor vertical growth -- then why is it such a stretch to consider that horizontal growth (too much fat) is also hormonally driven?

Originally Posted by Steve

3) Carbophobes harp on and on about insulin blocking fat oxidation. I mean they're right. But who cares about the acute term? The big glaring hole here is that they don't account for what happens the rest of the day. What happens if, say, you eat one huge meal and spike the hell out of insulin, store fat, shut off lipolysis and all the rest - and then don't eat again for the rest of the day?

If that one meal was only 1000 calories and you need 2000 a day to cover your energy costs, why exactly is the body just going to hang on to those calories when it needs them to survive?

Excellent point! I would argue that if you are undereating your energy needs by 1000 cals/day, the body will HAVE to get that energy somewhere. After all, the laws of thermodynamics require it. My question is, why are we so convinced that those extra cals will come out of the fat tissue? The adipose tissue is not a piggy bank for excess calories. it is active tissue that - to mention Bauer again - Lives For Itself. That 1000 cal deficit MUST come from somewhere, as you suggest. But if you have insulin locking fat in the fat tissue, then the energy will come from other places in teh body - the lean muscle and organs, eg. This is why, when you starve genetically fattened Zucker rats to death, they will die obese - with shriveled muscles and organs.

Originally Posted by Steve

4) Protein elevates insulin above fasting levels.

Sure.

I actually believe that the high protein, low carb, low fat approach is probably wrong. That the best diet is (generally) low carb/moderate protein/high fat. But that is another discussion!

Originally Posted by Steve

5) A key distinction that many carbophobes like to gloss over is research on the whole does not match protein intakes between diets when testing. Who's to say when protein is matched between "high" and "low" carbs, results won't be similar - especially given things like protein's thermic effect, satiating properties, etc?

This is an excellent point. I would agree with you. WHo knows?

Originally Posted by Steve

6) The Energy Balance Equation | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald - if you want a scientific debate, head over to his forum which you can find on his main site (www.bodyrecomposition.com). If you do, be prepared to support your arguments with links to peer-reviewed literature. It seems you're in the habit of mentioning research without linking to specifics.

I really like this site. I actually refer to Lyles work. You suggest a good pro∆ect. But as you mentioned, gotta prove assertions with peer-reviewed links. That means I better do my research before wandering into that den

Originally Posted by Steve

7) For some folks, low-carb is warranted. For others, it isn't. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low-carb absolutists.

Look, as far as I know, all this stuff is up for debate. I am of the opinion that a lot of the research out there sucks. It seems like you agree to an extent - you did say you liked Taubes salt paper which implies as much.

the one thing that seems pretty conclusive is that human beings did not evolve to eat a lot of refined carbs and sugar. What is the perfect diet, how much fat/protein/vitamins/good carbs/etc we should eat, etc - these are great qs, and we should definitely discuss/research them.

My question is, how can a diet in which most calories are from refined carbs and sugar be any good for us? Where is the evidentiary and evolutionary ∆ustification?

Originally Posted by Steve

8) What are your thoughts on acylation stimulation protein in the context of this discussion?

I had never heard of this, so I cannot in good faith make any comments

I did a google search on it, however, and turned up an interesting link to a blog written by a physics professor (with a pro-Taubes tilt) about ASP. Here is the link.

Originally Posted by Steve

10) Show me via peer-reviewed papers how insulin causes net weight gain in hypo-energetic conditions.

Gotcha. Here I think I can do this.

Diabetics who in∆ect insulin will often form nodules of fat at the in∆ection sites - independent of any changes to diet or exercise (thus, in hypo-energetic states as well). Here is a paper that demonstrates this. I quote from the abstract:

SOON after the discovery of insulin, clinical observers reported the occurrence of atrophies (Depisch, 1926; Barborka, 1926) and hypertrophies (Eeg-Olofsson, 1930; Rowe and Garrison, 1932) of subcutaneous adipose tissue at the site of repeated insulin injections.

IN other words, in∆ect insulin, your adipose tissue will become hypertrophied, a.k.a. you will gain fat in the fat tissue. Insulin, in other words, is cleary lipogenic.

***
Anyway, whew, another long post. Did those answers make sense? Do you buy any of it?

Thanks again, and sorry that my ∆ key does not work. I have to get that fixed!

Adam

[notobeseanymore]

Originally Posted by AntiCarb

Hi again notobese,

Thanks for continuing this discussion with me. Again, I do not mean in any way to be presumptuous or out of line, and I am thrilled that you have been able to stick with your regimen and stay thin/healthy. Whether calories count or not, I think we would both agree that getting and staying in shape is tough in our society!

I would disagree, however, about the public health authority recommendations. For years, we have been told to eat 6-11 servings of carbohydrates - 300g/day. (See info on the USDA food pyramid here.) Refined carbs (bread, pasta, rice) etc served as the BASE of the Food Pyramid until 2005, when the USDA altered the pyramid... slightly.

Bread, pasta, and rice do not have to be refined carbs. I rarely eat bread these days but I do eat whole wheat pasta and brown rice. You can make anything into crap. I recall even 10 years ago being told by doctors that I shouldn't eat white bread or too much pasta. I remember as a child in elementary school being told that white bread was bad for me, and that was before there was even such a thing as the USDA food pyramid.

The facts are the facts. According to the USDAs OWN NUMBERS, we eat less fat today than we did before the obesity epidemic. Yet we eat more calories. And these superfluous calories have come from carbohydrates.

So what?

My point is, we HAVE followed the public health recs (eat less fat and more carbs), and yet we paradoxically have become fatter.

Only by conveniently ignoring recommendations on caloric intake.

Anyway, this thread is ten miles long, and I probably should stop wasting my time (and everyone elses) by continuing to add to it. I will try to post here 1x a week or so (assuming anyone cares what I have to say... which probably a bit presumptuous ).

Personally I don't care about winning an argument with you, but I don't want people to take what you say as the gospel truth...which is the only reason I'm spending any time doing this.

Notobeseanymore, if you or anyone else wants to rip into my arguments more on this thread (or elsewhere), I WILL respond as best as I can next week.

Thanks everyone!

Adam

Looks like Steve has that well in hand.

[AntiCarb]

Okay, this is REALLY my last post for the week. Cant spend all my life engaged in this debate, altough it is fun, and I appreciate the challenge and thank you all for pushing these points so hard. Notobese, if you or Steve or anyone else responds, I will do my best to research your points and respond to them next week in a new post. I want to treat any and all ob∆ections with respect.

Okay... with that caveat...

Originally Posted by notobeseanymore

Bread, pasta, and rice do not have to be refined carbs. I rarely eat bread these days but I do eat whole wheat pasta and brown rice. You can make anything into crap. I recall even 10 years ago being told by doctors that I shouldn't eat white bread or too much pasta. I remember as a child in elementary school being told that white bread was bad for me, and that was before there was even such a thing as the USDA food pyramid.

From what I gather, you are saying quite loudly that macronutrient % does not matter. What ultimately matters is calorie count. Okay. But did you even read what I wrote earlier about the two ways to interpret the First Law of Thermodynamics? Because it sounds like you did not.

Are you really saying the fat tissue is nothing but a garbage bag for excess calories? Are you really saying that all calories have identical impacts on the fat tissue?

What about the proposition that A Calorie is a Calorie violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Originally Posted by notobeseanymore

So what?

So what? Are you serious??

We have been told that eating fat makes us fat. This is gospel in the health and diet community. Ask basically any doctor, you will be told that fat makes you fat. Fat is more than twice as calorie-dense as protein or fat (9 cals/g vs. 4 cals/g for protein/carbs)

So what???

We eat LESS FAT today, and yet we have an OBESITY EPIDEMIC.

The excess calories we have been eating have come from DIETARY CARBOHYDRATES.

How does that not set off a thousand alarm bells that something about the conventional dietary wisdom is NOT RIGHT?

Originally Posted by notobeseanymore

Only by conveniently ignoring recommendations on caloric intake.

Once again, we are back to sloth and gluttony. Blame the fat people. They are weak and ignorant. They cannot control themselves. I do not buy that.

You, notobese, for example, strike me as NEITHER weak NOR ignorant. Even from ∆ust the tone of this debate, you seem smart and very strong willed! And I know plenty of overweight/obese people who are likewise VERY in control of themselves and conscious (sometimes overly so) of health issues.

(Not trying to make this ad hominem at all, by the way... I am arguing the opposite )

Look, regarding the obesity epidemic, nearly everyone believes (And I used to) that we are all getting fatter because we are lazier and we overeat calories. But this theory, while obvious sounding, DOES NOT explain the evidence we find in the real world. Do me a favor and read this essay I wrote about the cause of obesity. You can shred the thinking as much as you want afterwards, but please ∆ust read it so you know where I am coming from.

Originally Posted by notobeseanymore

Personally I don't care about winning an argument with you, but I don't want people to take what you say as the gospel truth...which is the only reason I'm spending any time doing this.

I take it as a compliment that you find my arguments so compelling that you feel you have to save other people from them.

Originally Posted by notobeseanymore

Looks like Steve has that well in hand.

We can let other people decide. If you think Steve has been able to take me out on all counts, then why bother responding at all?

Okay, one last thing. I would like challenge you guys a bit. I have been on the defensive throughout this thread. So I want to go on offense once and see a point by point refutation of these ideas:

1) IN the November 2009 issue of Nature, author Steven O Rahilly is quoted as saying: " Obesity is most simply defined as a state in which the total amount of triglyceride stored in adipose tissue is abnormally increased."

This is the technical definition of obesity. Would you agree? If not, why not?

2) In fat tissue, there is a cycle of fatty acids and trigylercides that is constantly going on. It is known as the fatty acid triglyceride cycle. Fatty acids get bound up into triglycerides, which break down again into fatty acids. It is a biochemical dance.

Would you agree that this cycle exists? If not, why not?

3) An intermediary molecule called alpha glyercol phosphate can interfere with this cycle and cause the preferential formation of triglycerides over fatty acids. In other words, alpha glyercol phosphate can cause us to store excess triglycerides in the fat tissue.

Would you agree that glycerol phosphate can do this? If not, why not?

4) We produce alpha glycerol phosphate primarily in response to the oxidation of glucose in the adipocytes.

Would you agree with this statement? If not, why not?

5) The primary mechanism by which glucose enters the fat cells (where it will be oxidized) is the hormone insulin.

Would you agree with this statement? If not, why not?

6) We secrete insulin PRIMARILY as a result of consuming carbohydrate foods. (Yes, protein can lead to insulin secretion. Yes, other factors like certain meds can lead to insulin secretion irrespective of diet.)

Would you agree with this statement? If not, why not?

7) Where in this chain of cause and effect do you think I am going wrong?

a) we eat carbs ->
b) carbs are broken down into sugar by body; pancreas secretes insulin ->
c) insulin pulls glucose into the fat cells of the fat tissue ->
d) glucose gets burned and produces alpha glyercol phosphate ->
e) alpha glyercol phosphate messes up the fatty acid triglyceride cycle, causing a preferential amount of triglycerides to form ->
f) these excess triglyerides get stuck in the fat tissue because they are too big to escape ->
g) the fat tissue becomes engorged with triglycerides ->
h) this is Obesity, as defined technically in Nature (as quoted above)


Thanks again everyone for a spirited discussion! I look forward to your responses (if I get any) and appreciate that we have all been able to be civil and friendly given the passion we all feel about these issues.

Adam

[notobeseanymore]

Originally Posted by AntiCarb

From what I gather, you are saying quite loudly that macronutrient % does not matter. What ultimately matters is calorie count. Okay. But did you even read what I wrote earlier about the two ways to interpret the First Law of Thermodynamics? Because it sounds like you did not.

Are you really saying the fat tissue is nothing but a garbage bag for excess calories? Are you really saying that all calories have identical impacts on the fat tissue?

What about the proposition that A Calorie is a Calorie violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I do believe I have already made it clear that I don't care about thermodynamics and that yes, I DO believe that it is overall calorie count that matters. I'm certainly not alone here either.

So what? Are you serious??

Yes, quite.

We have been told that eating fat makes us fat. This is gospel in the health and diet community. Ask basically any doctor, you will be told that fat makes you fat. Fat is more than twice as calorie-dense as protein or fat (9 cals/g vs. 4 cals/g for protein/carbs)

So what???

We eat LESS FAT today, and yet we have an OBESITY EPIDEMIC.

The excess calories we have been eating have come from DIETARY CARBOHYDRATES.

Again, so what? Excess calories are excess calories. I never heard that eating fat makes you fat. All I heard all my life was eating too much of ANYTHING would make you fat. Next.

How does that not set off a thousand alarm bells that something about the conventional dietary wisdom is NOT RIGHT?

Spare me the drama and see above, please.

Once again, we are back to sloth and gluttony. Blame the fat people. They are weak and ignorant. They cannot control themselves. I do not buy that.

Again, I believe I already stated that in MY case, YES, sloth and gluttony were to blame. I admit that without an ounce of shame. I know plenty of other obese people who cannot seem to control themelves around food. Everyone I know who is obese overeats and none of them exercise. They all eat different things, but the end result for all of them is the same: obesity. Coincidence? Probably not.

You, notobese, for example, strike me as NEITHER weak NOR ignorant. Even from ∆ust the tone of this debate, you seem smart and very strong willed! And I know plenty of overweight/obese people who are likewise VERY in control of themselves and conscious (sometimes overly so) of health issues.

They would be the exception to the rule given what I've seen.

Look, regarding the obesity epidemic, nearly everyone believes (And I used to) that we are all getting fatter because we are lazier and we overeat calories. But this theory, while obvious sounding, DOES NOT explain the evidence we find in the real world. Do me a favor and read this essay I wrote about the cause of obesity. You can shred the thinking as much as you want afterwards, but please ∆ust read it so you know where I am coming from.

No thanks, I'm not interested in reading up more on your theories.

I take it as a compliment that you find my arguments so compelling that you feel you have to save other people from them.

I find them to be complete nonsense, actually. I just don't want other people to find them compelling...at least not without seeing you defend them vigorously.

Sorry Adam, but I'm not going to do your homework assignments. I have a life, a job, a boyfriend, and 2 cats at home...and a degree from a fine institution of higher learning on my wall, so I'm done with school and homework.

Please don't take it personally.

[valr]

Well goodness me - I have to confess I have just skimmed through these posts but 2 points occur to me-
Isn't this just Atkins again?
and
Was 19th century Ireland full of fatties, when their diet consisted mainly of carbs? Same in Scotland for that matter - animals were too precious to eat protein every day. (I have studied a lot of history which touched on this.) No, they were not. Why? Because they burned more calories and ate less fat, surely?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by AntiCarb

This is great, and your clients are lucky to have you. I would again suggest, however, that any time you restrict calories and go on a diet-and-exercise transition, you will change many things at once. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, even if you do not change macronutrient %, if you cut calories significantly, you will cut carbs too. A diet that contains 60% carbs before and after a calorie restriction of 1000 cals/day will lead to a restriction of 600 cals of carbs/day, which could (theoretically) explain the weight loss in terms of the alternative Taubesian hypothesis.

That's a massive assumption on your part, no? What with all the changing variables that offer obvious causations, pointing to a reduction in carb intake as the catalyst is funny, if you ask me.

What is the limit to which carbohydrates need to fall in order to realize your carb magic you speak of? Is it an absolute number or a relative number?

Unfortunately for your case I've had, quite often, dealt with people who were brainwashed by Atkins and the rest of the boobs about carbs being evil. They came to me eating low carb. I restructure some things (including raising carb intake for no other reason to diminish rigidity) and they're successful in losing weight - after, of course, the initial water fluctuations.

Also, would you like to place a wager via paypal where I record myself eating nothing but ramen noodles throughout the day? I'll ensure my calories are half of that required to maintain myself. If the scale falls, I win. If it doesn't, you win.

I'm partly joking as I know you'd never commit to it given the fact I could do things like exercise through the roof, etc. etc. But that shouldn't really matter since, in your world, calories expended or shorted don't matter - if I'm eating a large dose of refined carbs insulin will block my fat mobilization and oxidation on net terms.

Absolutely multifaceted! I 100% agree. Genetics, hormones, enzymes (such as lipoprotein lipase), environment, etc etc all play into it. But if we agree on this, then explain why diet advice is so reductive and one-size-fits-all. 'Calories count!' we are told. This is the alpha and omega of our public health authorities' diet wisdom. Increase Cals Out, decrease Cals In, and weight loss will occur. But that assumes that we are, in Taubes' words, 'thermodynamic black boxes.' If only 'calories count,' then there is ZERO room for factors like insulin, LPL, thyroid hormones, etc to play ANY role in what is going on in the fat tissue.

I don't know where you carbphobes get your data, but it's always funny. I should say I don't know why you compare and contrast your data to that of the "Public health authorities." "Public health authorities" may spew exactly what you're saying. I don't know as I don't pay attention to that nonsense. Anyone who's worth a damn in this industry knows quantity and quality of diet matters. You can't have one without the other.

I argue that assuming calories are accounted for, as long as you're obtaining adequate amounts of the essentials (amino acids, efas, micronutrients), it really doesn't matter what you're eating. And that's not a rare case that's being presented. It's what's being passed around most of the diet-related fitness circles on the net, for instance.

See my page about studies showing that excess cals do NOT lead to weight gain here. There are plenty more, but hopefully this is a start.

I'm not visiting your site. If you want to present studies, simply post links to them on pubmed.

On a more theoretical note... consider pregnancy. A pregnant woman will grow a fetus inside her, and she will also establish a positive energy balance. No one would argue that the "excess calories" MAKE the fetus. Clearly, the fetus forms and it finds the calories it needs to develop. Pregnant women get hungry because they are pregnant - they do not get pregnant because they overeat. Similarly, tall people eat more b/c growth hormone drives them to need more calories. They do not grow tall because they overeat. Overeating is a secondary consequence of hormonal action

Oh man, you *really did* drink the kool aid Taubes was serving, huh? Good for you. I'm surprised you didn't simply use the example Taubes spews about Yao Ming time and time again. I could've had more of a laugh.

If you're trying to draw meaningful parallels between growth of fat mass and growth of bone length... you're going to have to do a much better job of proving your point.

If it were possible, I'd love to place a wager with you on a study:

We have two subjects. One is an adolescent (A) who comes from a long line of men who were near 7 foot tall. The other (B) is an average adolescent.

We place A on a slight hypocaloric diet throughout development while ensuring adequate nutrition for health. And we place the average adolescent on a hypercaloric diet throughout development.

I'd bet A still grows tall and I'd bet B gains weight above and beyond what'd be expected per the typical maturation process.

Why? All growth is not created equal and I laughed my ass off when I saw Taubes first attempt making this argument. Tallness is determined primarily by genetics and adiposity is determined primarily by excess energy.

But if we can agree that a positive enegry balance causes neither a fetus nor vertical growth -- then why is it such a stretch to consider that horizontal growth (too much fat) is also hormonally driven?

lol, thanks for that.

See above.

Excellent point! I would argue that if you are undereating your energy needs by 1000 cals/day, the body will HAVE to get that energy somewhere. After all, the laws of thermodynamics require it. My question is, why are we so convinced that those extra cals will come out of the fat tissue? The adipose tissue is not a piggy bank for excess calories. it is active tissue that - to mention Bauer again - Lives For Itself. That 1000 cal deficit MUST come from somewhere, as you suggest. But if you have insulin locking fat in the fat tissue, then the energy will come from other places in teh body - the lean muscle and organs, eg. This is why, when you starve genetically fattened Zucker rats to death, they will die obese - with shriveled muscles and organs.

Another massive assumption on your part. Funnily enough body fat analysis of my clients wouldn't agree with you. Like I said, there are too many moving parts carbophobes don't consider causal b/c they're too worrying about worrying about insulin as if it acted in a vacuum.

Like I said above, ensure adequate essentials (for instance protein as a pool of aminos in the boodstream will be preferentially tapped into before muscle) and pair this with an appropriately structured resistance training program. Both of these send strong signaling to ward off atrophy of muscle.

Overlay this with a diet that contains carbs and is hypoenergetic and presto... you have fat loss.

Go figure.

I should note that I have and will continue to use low carb dieting approaches for a number of my clients. However, you'll never catch me saying, "It's the One Way to lose fat." Unless someone finds some stronger kool aid to offer me.

This is an excellent point. I would agree with you. WHo knows?

I find it very odd that you realize the truth in this statement, don't do this for a living so can't base what you read from the likes of Taubes on real world testing across wide populations, and that you have created a website latching onto one particular way of eating for fat loss.

There are simply too many unknowns and too many people succeeding with other means.

I am successful at what I do b/c I avoid the absolutist mindset and don't latch onto one particular way of doing things given psychological/physiological individuality.

I really like this site. I actually refer to Lyles work. You suggest a good pro∆ect. But as you mentioned, gotta prove assertions with peer-reviewed links. That means I better do my research before wandering into that den

If you're really in this to hash out the existing data and uncover the truth, I'd think you'd jump at the opportunity to discuss this with some of the brightest minds in the biz who pride themselves on objective skepticism. That's certainly more than you can say about your god, Tard. I mean Taubes.

Look, as far as I know, all this stuff is up for debate. I am of the opinion that a lot of the research out there sucks. It seems like you agree to an extent - you did say you liked Taubes salt paper which implies as much.

Yup.

See my point above about finding it peculiar you latching onto one concept so much that you go out of your way to preach the belief on communities such as this and you create a website that you slam down everyone's throat given this fact pertaining to the research as well as the successes that oppose your supposed necessary way of eating to realize fat loss.

the one thing that seems pretty conclusive is that human beings did not evolve to eat a lot of refined carbs and sugar. What is the perfect diet, how much fat/protein/vitamins/good carbs/etc we should eat, etc - these are great qs, and we should definitely discuss/research them.

When we have trials showing macronutrient matched and energy matched diets comparing one with refined carbs and the other without and the one without kicks the pants off the one with... then it'd make sense you latching onto this concept with such enthusiasm.

Until then though, you're simply shooting in the dark.

And I'm realizing success without all the rigidity.

My question is, how can a diet in which most calories are from refined carbs and sugar be any good for us? Where is the evidentiary and evolutionary ∆ustification?

Yea, I don't care. I don't set up diets that have the majority of calories coming from refined sources. Anybody who's worth a damn in this business doesn't either. But as always with the low carb zealotry espoused by carbophobes, everything is in absolute, binary terms. It's a low carb diet vs. a diet that's primarily refined junk.

Not a low carb diet compared to a nutrient-matched diet where protein is matched.

I had never heard of this, so I cannot in good faith make any comments

I did a google search on it, however, and turned up an interesting link to a blog written by a physics professor (with a pro-Taubes tilt) about ASP. Here is the link.

I'd suggest doing some research on the subject beyond someone's blog, which I've read btw.

While you're at it, you might want to check out FSP27 as well.

Research is young, but that's my entire point. If you spend most of your time obtaining your information from carbophobes like Taubes... guess what? You're developing a strong case of confirmation bias like it or not.

Gotcha. Here I think I can do this.

Diabetics who in∆ect insulin will often form nodules of fat at the in∆ection sites - independent of any changes to diet or exercise (thus, in hypo-energetic states as well). Here is a paper that demonstrates this. I quote from the abstract:

SOON after the discovery of insulin, clinical observers reported the occurrence of atrophies (Depisch, 1926; Barborka, 1926) and hypertrophies (Eeg-Olofsson, 1930; Rowe and Garrison, 1932) of subcutaneous adipose tissue at the site of repeated insulin injections.

IN other words, in∆ect insulin, your adipose tissue will become hypertrophied, a.k.a. you will gain fat in the fat tissue. Insulin, in other words, is cleary lipogenic.

Site-specific injections? That's questionable in terms applicability to the discussion, I'd wager.

And what about the fact that insulin metabolism is improved with hypocaloric eating regardless of the amount of carbs included in the diet, which is clear in the scientific data?

I'd also be interested in your thoughts pertaining to the fact calorie consumption has risen by nearly 600kcal since the 70s per USDA Economic Research Service Data. Using the same data set, the percentage of daily calories from added sugars decreased 1% during this period. Also NHANES data shows a substantial drop in physical activity since the 80s.

Survey data is certainly not gospel... but it does a pretty good job at painting trends.

[AntiCarb]

Originally Posted by Steve

That's a massive assumption on your part, no? What with all the changing variables that offer obvious causations, pointing to a reduction in carb intake as the catalyst is funny, if you ask me.

What is the limit to which carbohydrates need to fall in order to realize your carb magic you speak of? Is it an absolute number or a relative number?

Unfortunately for your case I've had, quite often, dealt with people who were brainwashed by Atkins and the rest of the boobs about carbs being evil. They came to me eating low carb. I restructure some things (including raising carb intake for no other reason to diminish rigidity) and they're successful in losing weight - after, of course, the initial water fluctuations.

Also, would you like to place a wager via paypal where I record myself eating nothing but ramen noodles throughout the day? I'll ensure my calories are half of that required to maintain myself. If the scale falls, I win. If it doesn't, you win.

I'm partly joking as I know you'd never commit to it given the fact I could do things like exercise through the roof, etc. etc. But that shouldn't really matter since, in your world, calories expended or shorted don't matter - if I'm eating a large dose of refined carbs insulin will block my fat mobilization and oxidation on net terms.

Hi Steve, let me try to respond point by point here:

1) Yes, you do change a lot of variables. That makes causation difficult to adduce, as you point out. Then why make the assumption that the key variable is calories? You are changing carbs too. And you are putting these people on exercise regimens. You change lotsa stuff. So what makes YOU think that calories are the key?

2) No magic number. everyone is different. Who knows. That is not my point.

3) I do not appreciate being referred to as a boob. Come on, man. I am trying to wrestle with this stuff intellectually, too. I am not telling anyone what to do. I am not a doc or nutritionist. I am simply reporting on what I believe is a very important story.

4) No way for me to say anything about what has happened with your clients.

5) I would take that bet. But there would have to be caveats. You would have to extend the experiment for months. We would have to measure all sorts of factors. I guarantee that to do that kind of experiment properly (to scientifically tease apart whether the wl comes from carb or cal restriction) would be too unpalatable.

6) Not saying that calories do not matter. You are misreading me. If you really think insulin does not matter, then why does insulin therapy cause weight gain in so many people. DO you really think that insulin acts directly on appetite? That the fat tissue has no say in the matter?

Originally Posted by Steve

I don't know where you carbphobes get your data, but it's always funny. I should say I don't know why you compare and contrast your data to that of the "Public health authorities." "Public health authorities" may spew exactly what you're saying. I don't know as I don't pay attention to that nonsense. Anyone who's worth a damn in this industry knows quantity and quality of diet matters. You can't have one without the other.

No that is not what the public health authorities tell us, Steve. Again, for reference, here is the CDCs webpgae on caloric balance. It says VERY CLEARLY that the ONLY thing that matters in terms of weight loss is the QUANTITY of calories, NOT the QUALITY.

Originally Posted by Steve

I argue that assuming calories are accounted for, as long as you're obtaining adequate amounts of the essentials (amino acids, efas, micronutrients), it really doesn't matter what you're eating. And that's not a rare case that's being presented. It's what's being passed around most of the diet-related fitness circles on the net, for instance.

It really doesn't matter what you're eating? Seriously??

Live on 2000 cals of paprika every day for months, then. Take supplements for the essentials. See how you feel.

Originally Posted by Steve

I'm not visiting your site. If you want to present studies, simply post links to them on pubmed.

I spent a lot of time compiling studies on my website so I would not have to repost them. And if you want to bash my points (which you are obviously entirely welcome to do), I wish you would at least understand where I am coming from first, instead of assuming you already know the line of reasoning.

Originally Posted by Steve

Oh man, you *really did* drink the kool aid Taubes was serving, huh? Good for you. I'm surprised you didn't simply use the example Taubes spews about Yao Ming time and time again. I could've had more of a laugh.

Do you not understand the example? I really do not think you do. Explain to me, in your own words, what the Yao Ming example was supposed to demonstrate.

Originally Posted by Steve

If you're trying to draw meaningful parallels between growth of fat mass and growth of bone length... you're going to have to do a much better job of proving your point.

So you are saying that fat tissue is a garbage bag for calories? That is plays no role in metabolism at all? Really?

See the following link, which I quote below:
Adipose tissue metabolism: An overview

Before earlier ‘50s., it was generally believed that adipose tissue was a simple repository of fat. The first report suggesting fat was an active metabolic tissue was published by Von Gierke, (493), who noted that glycogen accumulation in adipose tissue took place if an animal had been fasted and re-fed or else overfed from the start. He concluded that the adipose tissue had its own internal metabolism.


However it was not until 1965 that an acceptable review on the subject was published, comprising 894 pages, 69 chapters and about 4.100 references on adipose tissue metabolism.


Now it is widely recognized that the main function of the fat cells is to act as a reservoir of energy, as tryglicerides, but it has also been implicated in sex hormones metabolism. (473)


The fat cell is one of the most metabolic- active tissues all over the human body, nearly triplicating the blood circulation of any other organ.(155-264-414)


Adipocytes from living species are specially adapted for the uptake and release of energy in the form of fatty acids. Fatty acids accumulate in the form of triglycerides inside the fat cell, and released as fatty acids back to the circulation as needed.(13-298-393-467).[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Steve

If it were possible, I'd love to place a wager with you on a study:

We have two subjects. One is an adolescent (A) who comes from a long line of men who were near 7 foot tall. The other (B) is an average adolescent.

We place A on a slight hypocaloric diet throughout development while ensuring adequate nutrition for health. And we place the average adolescent on a hypercaloric diet throughout development.

I'd bet A still grows tall and I'd bet B gains weight above and beyond what'd be expected per the typical maturation process.

Why? All growth is not created equal and I laughed my ass off when I saw Taubes first attempt making this argument. Tallness is determined primarily by genetics and adiposity is determined primarily by excess energy.

Dude, you are not getting it. The point is not that there arent variations in people and that genetics and such are not important.

Give A a hypocaloric diet, and his body will find ways to grow tall b/c his hormones will direct the use of energy to build him tall. (Of course, starve him enough, and he will not grow that tall. Witness the nation of dwarves that is North Korea)

And yes, give B a hypercaloric diet that is LOW IN CARBS, and I bet you he will NOT become obese. I will take that bet and raise you.

Have you ever heard of luxuskonsumption?

Originally Posted by Steve

Another massive assumption on your part. Funnily enough body fat analysis of my clients wouldn't agree with you. Like I said, there are too many moving parts carbophobes don't consider causal b/c they're too worrying about worrying about insulin as if it acted in a vacuum.

I NEVER say that. I say the opposite in fact. SO MANY different factors determine the balance of hormones and enzymes in the body. It is you and other people who believe in caloric balance who simplify. It is all about counting calories, according to your theory. Energy in energy out. NO NEED to discuss fat tissue metabolism, hormones, enzymes, etc.

Also, you bring up the experiences of your clients a lot. FIrst of all, without data to support your claims, I can in no meaningful way comment. Second, it is very dangerous to extrapolate from anecdotal experience. Third, you change MANY THINGS with your clients at once. So why are you so sure that CALORIE CONTROL is the key controllingvariable?

Originally Posted by Steve

Like I said above, ensure adequate essentials (for instance protein as a pool of aminos in the boodstream will be preferentially tapped into before muscle) and pair this with an appropriately structured resistance training program. Both of these send strong signaling to ward off atrophy of muscle.

Overlay this with a diet that contains carbs and is hypoenergetic and presto... you have fat loss.

Go figure.

I should note that I have and will continue to use low carb dieting approaches for a number of my clients. However, you'll never catch me saying, "It's the One Way to lose fat." Unless someone finds some stronger kool aid to offer me.

How can you know if the kool aid is strong if you refuse to drink it

I am not saying it is the only way to lose fat. I am saying that the Calories Count theory has a lot of holes. And that the better theory is that problems w/ excess fat tissue accumulation should address defects in fat tissue metabolism. That is ALL.

Originally Posted by Steve

I am successful at what I do b/c I avoid the absolutist mindset and don't latch onto one particular way of doing things given psychological/physiological individuality.

You appear to be an absolutist about the idea that Calories Count.

Originally Posted by Steve

If you're really in this to hash out the existing data and uncover the truth, I'd think you'd jump at the opportunity to discuss this with some of the brightest minds in the biz who pride themselves on objective skepticism. That's certainly more than you can say about your god, Tard. I mean Taubes.

I would welcome the challenge and plan to dive in there when I have some time.

Funny pun on Taubes name.

As for the objective skepticism... are you really trying to paint Taubes, Dr. Atkins, Dr. Bernstein, the Drs. Eades and all the other 1000s of pro low carb authorities as little more than mouth-breathing hooligans who have never cracked a science book?

Originally Posted by Steve

Yup.

See my point above about finding it peculiar you latching onto one concept so much that you go out of your way to preach the belief on communities such as this and you create a website that you slam down everyone's throat given this fact pertaining to the research as well as the successes that oppose your supposed necessary way of eating to realize fat loss.

Again, if you view my measley website and comments here as a threat to the entire community, I can only take it as a compliment and a sign that I am onto something.

Originally Posted by Steve

When we have trials showing macronutrient matched and energy matched diets comparing one with refined carbs and the other without and the one without kicks the pants off the one with... then it'd make sense you latching onto this concept with such enthusiasm.

Until then though, you're simply shooting in the dark.

Yes, we need more studies. Agreed. But the data we have (showing lc diets work even when cal unrestricted, and that high carb low cal diets fail) strongly suggest that the Caloric Balance Hypothesis has failed and that the Lipophilia Hypothesis is better.

Originally Posted by Steve

Yea, I don't care. I don't set up diets that have the majority of calories coming from refined sources. Anybody who's worth a damn in this business doesn't either. But as always with the low carb zealotry espoused by carbophobes, everything is in absolute, binary terms. It's a low carb diet vs. a diet that's primarily refined junk.

If you believe that calories count, why NOT make a diet primarily of refined carbs and sugar (and supplemented by whatever you want)?

Originally Posted by Steve

I'd suggest doing some research on the subject beyond someone's blog, which I've read btw.

While you're at it, you might want to check out FSP27 as well.

fine.

Originally Posted by Steve

Research is young, but that's my entire point. If you spend most of your time obtaining your information from carbophobes like Taubes... guess what? You're developing a strong case of confirmation bias like it or not.

Tarring Taubes with the epithet of carbophobe does nothing to disprove the arguments he makes.

Yes, I absolutely at this point have a confirmation bias. (As do you re: the Caloric Balance Hypothesis). This is obviously a problem.

Originally Posted by Steve

Site-specific injections? That's questionable in terms applicability to the discussion, I'd wager.

Insulin makes you fat when you inject it!!

How is that not relevant to a discussion about what regulates fat?

Originally Posted by Steve

And what about the fact that insulin metabolism is improved with hypocaloric eating regardless of the amount of carbs included in the diet, which is clear in the scientific data?

really? show me the research on this.

Originally Posted by Steve

I'd also be interested in your thoughts pertaining to the fact calorie consumption has risen by nearly 600kcal since the 70s per USDA Economic Research Service Data. Using the same data set, the percentage of daily calories from added sugars decreased 1% during this period. Also NHANES data shows a substantial drop in physical activity since the 80s.

Survey data is certainly not gospel... but it does a pretty good job at painting trends.

The 600kcal/day increase is all from carbs, my friend. As I have pointed out before, the USDAs own numbers tell us that fat consumption has DECREASED since the advent of the obesity epidemic. All the extra eating we have been doing is carb eating.

Also, the drop in physical activity could be a RESULT OF the primary defect of obesity; not necessarily the CAUSE OF it. Would you at least acknowledge that this is a possibility, according to the laws of thermodynamics?

[AntiCarb]

Okay, I will respond again on Wed to whatever people write back.

But I first would again challenge you guys (esp Steve) to provide a point by point refutation of these ideas. Until I get a point by point refutation, I am going to keep throwing this out there:

1) IN the November 2009 issue of Nature, author Steven O Rahilly is quoted as saying: " Obesity is most simply defined as a state in which the total amount of triglyceride stored in adipose tissue is abnormally increased."

This is the technical definition of obesity. Would you agree? If not, why not?

2) In fat tissue, there is a cycle of fatty acids and trigylercides that is constantly going on. It is known as the fatty acid triglyceride cycle. Fatty acids get bound up into triglycerides, which break down again into fatty acids. It is a biochemical dance.

Would you agree that this cycle exists? If not, why not?

3) An intermediary molecule called alpha glyercol phosphate can interfere with this cycle and cause the preferential formation of triglycerides over fatty acids. In other words, alpha glyercol phosphate can cause us to store excess triglycerides in the fat tissue.

Would you agree that glycerol phosphate can do this? If not, why not?

4) We produce alpha glycerol phosphate primarily in response to the oxidation of glucose in the adipocytes.

Would you agree with this statement? If not, why not?

5) The primary mechanism by which glucose enters the fat cells (where it will be oxidized) is the hormone insulin.

Would you agree with this statement? If not, why not?

6) We secrete insulin PRIMARILY as a result of consuming carbohydrate foods. (Yes, protein can lead to insulin secretion. Yes, other factors like certain meds can lead to insulin secretion irrespective of diet.)

Would you agree with this statement? If not, why not?

7) Where in this chain of cause and effect do you think I am going wrong?

a) we eat carbs ->
b) carbs are broken down into sugar by body; pancreas secretes insulin ->
c) insulin pulls glucose into the fat cells of the fat tissue ->
d) glucose gets burned and produces alpha glyercol phosphate ->
e) alpha glyercol phosphate messes up the fatty acid triglyceride cycle, causing a preferential amount of triglycerides to form ->
f) these excess triglyerides get stuck in the fat tissue because they are too big to escape ->
g) the fat tissue becomes engorged with triglycerides ->
h) this is Obesity, as defined technically in Nature (as quoted above)

[JamesKrieger]

Originally Posted by AntiCarb

I will, however, take this time to beat up on one of Kriegers points:

I have not read the studies that Krieger cites.

You should really read these papers, then, because they are not consistent with the concept that insulin makes you gain weight.

Rapid weight gain results from overeating and under exercising; weight loss results from calorie deprivation and exercise. At least, so says the Caloric Balance Hypotehsis

Not quite. Weight gain results from an energy imbalance, where energy intake exceeds energy expenditure. You don't have to be "underexercising." Your daily energy expenditure could be reduced for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with formal exercise. For example, maybe you were a construction worker and now you work at a desk job. Your daily energy expenditure will be reduced.

The Lipophilia Hypothesis, on the other hand, says that the real problem is the over-secretion of insulin.

I don't see how this is "evidence of your own." You're just rehashing the carbohydrate hypothesis here. But I showed on my blog how the data is not consistent with this hypothesis.

If rapid weight gain shows a correlation with insulin levels, it would suggest that Lipophilia is right.

Not quite. First, correlation does not equal causation. Even if there was a correlation between insulin and weight gain (which I already showed that there isn't in the majority of prospective studies), this would not indicate the relationship is causative. It could be just as plausible that that there is another factor related to both the increase in insulin and the weight gain that plays a role.

Here are four articles plucked randomly from cyberspace that confirm this. (And surely dozens if not hundreds more articles could also do the job.)

But the fact is, the majority of prospective studies show NO relationship between insulin and weight gain.

Rather than getting into the details of this study, which aren't necessarily important to our purpose, let's focus on this quote from the results section:

"For each diet, decreasing levels of... insulin were significantly associated with the weight loss."

First, this paper does not support a relationship between higher insulin levels and weight gain. You're trying to show a relationship between lower insulin and weight loss, which is a separate issue.

Second, the correlation coefficient between insulin and weight loss was -0.39. This gives an R-squared value of 0.15. This means that only 15% of the variance in weight loss between the groups could be explained by the variance in insulin. This is hardly suggestive of a causal role between lower insulin and weight loss.

Third, you again are committing the cum hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because there was a correlation between insulin and weight loss does not mean that the lower levels of insulin caused the weight loss. In fact, all the evidence indicates the relationship is NOT causal. It is well established that weight loss causes improvements in insulin sensitivity. Greater weight loss means greater improvements in insulin sensitivity. Insulin sensitivity affects fasting insulin levels....the higher the insulin sensitivity, the lower the fasting insulin levels. This means that you are always going to see a correlation between weight loss and fasting insulin because of the effects of weight loss on insulin sensitivity.

Fourth, you really need to read this paper that you're citing, because the Atkins diet, the lowest-carbohydrate diet of all of them, failed to reduce fasting insulin levels at 1 year. However, the other diets, including the high carbohydrate Ornish diet, significantly reduced fasting insulin levels at 1 year. This completely goes against what you're trying to say.

2. 'Fasting hyperinsulinemia is a predictor of increased body weight and obesity in Pima Indian children.'[2]

First, there's only a few studies that show fasting hyperinsulinemia as a predictor of weight gain. The MAJORITY of studies show no relationship. Thus, the weight of the evidence indicates no relationship.

Second, you need to understand what causes fasting hyperinsulinemia in the first place. It is NOT carbohydrate intake. It is caused by insulin resistance. And what causes insulin resistance? ENERGY IMBALANCE

3. 'Insulin, body mass index, and cardiovascular risk factors in premenopausal women.'[3]


Here's a quote from the abstract:

"This study assessed the relationship between insulin, glucose, body mass index and cardiovascular risk factors in a sample of 489 white premenopausal women... these data confirm the previous findings of a strong association between insulin and CHD risk factors."

A primary CHD (Cardiovascular Heart Disease) risk factor is obesity. So this study again tells us that insulin has a strong association with obesity.

Again, you need to read the papers you're citing. Obesity was NOT a "CHD Risk Factor" in this study. The risk factors were blood pressure, triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol and its subfractions.

And again....correlation does not equal causation.

4. 'Acute post challenge hyperinsulinemia predicts weight gain: a prospective study.'[4]

Again, you need to actually read the papers you're citing.

There was only one subgroup of individuals in this study (the insulin-sensitive ones) where there was an association between high insulin secretion and weight gain. Otherwise, no association was observed.

And, you have to be careful with studies like this, because they only did ONE oral glucose tolerance test, and then followed them up an average of 17 years later. I don't know about you, but I have a hard time putting faith in a study that tries to predict long term weight gain from a single oral glucose tolerance test.

Obesity is associated with... high fasting and postprandial serum insulin levels."

Yes, obesity is associated with high serum insulin because obesity is associated with INSULIN RESISTANCE.

Again, you need to stop confusing correlation with causation.

WHY does this association exist? If obesity is all about calories -- if "overeating" and "lack of activity" make us fat -- then why on earth would this hormone insulin be so closely linked with weight gain?

But it's NOT closely linked with weight gain. Again, you need to read what the MAJORITY of prospective studies show.

Second, even if it was closely linked with weight gain, it would only indicate a correlation. Remember, correlation does not equal causation.

Furthermore, why do insulin levels predict risk for other 'CHD risk factors' like diabetes, arthrosclerosis, etc?

Because insulin resistance also predicts these diseases.

This neat and robust correlation between insulin and rapid weight gain is an elephant in the room.

The only elephant in the room is your constant confusion of correlation with causation, and your ignorance of how insulin resistance affects fasting and postprandial insulin levels.

[johnita36]

Calories obviously matter and what makes me believe this is the fact that all I have done to loose weight is reduce calories and exercise, I do not worry about what types of foods I eat. I worry about how much I eat. I try and make my carbs count, for the most part, but if I want a piece of cake or a cookie I have it. I simply count the calories in it and go from there. And you can say what you want anticarb it obviously works since I'm down almost 91 pounds in 10 months. There's no denying counting calories works.



Johnita

[JamesKrieger]

I'd like to see Anticarb explain a few things here:

1. Please explain how someone who consumes 2000 kcal of carbohydrates and expends 2000 kcal of energy will gain weight.

2. Explain how fat overfeeding causes the same amount of weight gain as carbohydrate overfeeding

[AntiCarb]

Wow James! You throw down hard. You are no doubt right that the studies I cite need cleaning up and better analysis. Your thoughtful response deserves one in kind, and I will aim to deliver on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, do you have any thoughts on the chain of cause-and-effect I wrote in my last post (leading from eating carbs -> triglycerides in the fat tissue)?

in other words, if you want to break the carbohydrate hypothesis: Where in this chain of cause and effect do you think I am going wrong?

a) we eat carbs ->
b) carbs are broken down into sugar by body; pancreas secretes insulin ->
c) insulin pulls glucose into the fat cells of the fat tissue ->
d) glucose gets burned and produces alpha glyercol phosphate ->
e) alpha glyercol phosphate messes up the fatty acid triglyceride cycle, causing a preferential amount of triglycerides to form ->
f) these excess triglyerides get stuck in the fat tissue because they are too big to escape ->
g) the fat tissue becomes engorged with triglycerides ->
h) this is Obesity, as defined technically in Nature (as quoted above)

[AntiCarb]

Originally Posted by JamesKrieger

I'd like to see Anticarb explain a few things here:

1. Please explain how someone who consumes 2000 kcal of carbohydrates and expends 2000 kcal of energy will gain weight.

2. Explain how fat overfeeding causes the same amount of weight gain as carbohydrate overfeeding

Thanks James. I will attempt to do both on Wednesday (setting limits on when I post so I do not spend all day in this debate!).

You are clearly a very circumspect thinker, and I appreciate your taking the time to engage me in this discussion. If you are interested, I lay out the anti-calorie case on this page about the first law of thermodynamics.

Would you agree that this alternative interpretation of the 1st law is at least possible (even if you ultimate disagree with it)?

[JamesKrieger]

Originally Posted by AntiCarb

Consider this study, which he throws out to support the idea that insulin and weight gain do not coincide: The Entero-Insular Axis and Adipose Tissue Related Factors in the Prediction of Weight Gain in Humans. This is Kriegers main evidence to attack the idea that insulin and weight gain coincide.

AntiCarb, again, you need to read the entire journal article and not just get information on the abstract. This article is not a "study." It is a review article, reviewing the large body of existing research on this topic.

Who knows what this study found, why it found what it found, who conducted it, how they conducted it, and so forth.

It's not a study. It's a review article, reviewing the huge body of studies in existence.

It is the ONLY evidence Krieger uses to try to falsify the proposition that,

I use it because it summarizes the existing research quite well. I could've cited a bunch of individual studies but I cited a review paper to save space, as my blog post was already long enough as it was.

Conversely, Taubes (and I to a much more minor extent) has cited literally hundreds of studies to support his arguments and challenge the standard line that Calories Count.

And you need to read the studies Taubes cites. First, he selectively cites studies that support his viewpoint. Second, he selectively quotes information from studies and leaves other important information out. He doesn't give you important detail about certain studies. For example, in his pages on fructose, he doesn't tell you the dose and context of the studies for which show detrimental effects of fructose. My most recent blog post was about how Taubes leaves a lot of important information out regarding fructose.

Taubes is a journalist. He's good at telling a story, but a good storyteller isn't necessarily a good scientist.

1) overeating calories does NOT lead to weight gain.

I challenge you to show me a single piece of evidence showing otherwise

2) lack of exercise does NOT lead to weight gain.

Of course, as long as you're eating less to compensate for the sedentary lifestyle

3) exercising more does NOT lead to weight loss.

Of course it won't, if you eat more to compensate for energy expended during the exercise session.

1) A famous U of Vermont overfeeding study conducted in the 1960s strongly suggests that overeating calories does NOT lead to weight gain. Consider this quote from my website (hopefully I can soon start linking instead of quoting directly and taking up space!):

Again, you actually need to read these studies for yourself rather than getting the information secondhand like you do from Taubes. The subjects in the Vermont overfeeding study certainly DID gain weight.

...In chapter 16 (pages 272 to 291), Taubes describes a study conducted at the University of Vermont in the 1960s, in which state prisoners were put on a regimen of 'forced gluttony.' At first, they ate 4,000 calories a day, then 5,000, and finally 10,000. Some subjects fattened more than others.

Yes. They all gained weight by overfeeding. No surprise there.

And yes, there were differences in how much weight they gained. But you need to look at the data on non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) and how this explains a large variation in the weight gain response to overfeeding. In other words, when people overfeed, some people's body's "sense" the extra calories better than others, and they automatically increase their spontaneous physical activity (I'm not talking exercise here....I'm talking general activity like fidgeting or general moving around) to help compensate. They do this without even thinking about it, and there's evidence this is partly genetic (i.e., some people simply have the genes that drive them to be more active during overfeeding periods).

So, if I have variations in the increase in energy expenditure and NEAT due to overfeeding, then yes, I am going to have variations in weight gain in response to overfeeding. But the fact remains is that it still comes down to energy imbalance.

But when the experiment ended, "all the subjects 'lost weight readily...

Again, no surprise there....you reduce your energy intake, and you lose weight

That passage may sound a little dry. But think about what it's saying! We've had a hypothesis for over 50 years that being inactive -- sitting on the couch -- will make you fat and that, conversely, going to the gym every day and burning calories is going to make you thin.

Ummm, no. It's not about going to the gym every day. It's about total daily energy expenditure....the vast majority of which is accounted for by resting metabolic rate and NEAT. Exercise, if you do any, only makes up a small portion of daily energy expenditure.

In fact, the data is quite strong that NEAT plays the biggest role in all of this. Jim Levine has some nice studies showing that obese people do have lower NEAT levels than thin people when you correct it for body weight.

"'In general, for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless,' says Eric Ravussin, Chair in Diabetes and Metabolism at Louisiana State University and a prominent exercise

But what you're not showing here is the overwhelming evidence that exercise is critical for weight maintenance after weight loss. There's quite a large number of studies on this.

And I don't know why you keep getting hung up on exercise (which is only a small chunk of total daily energy expenditure). You should be focused on total daily energy expenditure (of which NEAT makes up the biggest portion of which people have some conscious control over).

studies demonstrate time and again that low calorie diets and very low calorie diets fail to lead to weight loss

"Time and time again"? I could show you at least 100 studies showing caloric reduction to result in weight loss....and that's just a fraction.

• Experiments done by researchers like Frank Evans, George Bray, Jules Hirsch, and Albert Stunkard, which all demonstrate convincingly that calorie restriction doesn't make you thinner; it just makes you hungry.

Well yeah, it makes you hungry, if your protein intake is too low. But that has nothing to do with carbohydrate.

[JamesKrieger]

Originally Posted by AntiCarb

Meanwhile, do you have any thoughts on the chain of cause-and-effect I wrote in my last post (leading from eating carbs -> triglycerides in the fat tissue)?

in other words, if you want to break the carbohydrate hypothesis: Where in this chain of cause and effect do you think I am going wrong?

a) we eat carbs ->
b) carbs are broken down into sugar by body; pancreas secretes insulin ->
c) insulin pulls glucose into the fat cells of the fat tissue ->
d) glucose gets burned and produces alpha glyercol phosphate ->
e) alpha glyercol phosphate messes up the fatty acid triglyceride cycle, causing a preferential amount of triglycerides to form ->
f) these excess triglyerides get stuck in the fat tissue because they are too big to escape ->
g) the fat tissue becomes engorged with triglycerides ->
h) this is Obesity, as defined technically in Nature (as quoted above)

Anticarb,

There's quite a bit wrong with your chain of thinking here.

For example, (f) is flat out wrong. Triglycerides can't be "too big too escape." Triglycerides are broken into their component free fatty acids and the glycerol backbone...a process called lipolysis. The free fatty acids can then easily leave the cell, where they can then either be oxidized somewhere in the body for energy, or repackaged again into triglycerides.

Another big problem with your thinking is that you forget that insulin just doesn't stay high all day and all night long.....even if you're on a high carbohydrate diet. Insulin fluctuates throughout the day in response to fluctuations in blood glucose. What do you think happens when you go to bed at night and don't eat for 8 hours? Do you think insulin just stays high? Of course it doesn't.

The body is constantly going through a flux of anabolic (tissue building) and catabolic (tissue breakdown) states. The fact is, if you're eating more calories than you're expending, you're going to be in an anabolic state more throughout the day than a catabolic state....which eventually leads to tissue creation and weight gain. If you're eating less calories than you're expending, you're going to be in a catabolic state more throughout the day than an anabolic state....which eventually leads to breakdown of tissue and weight loss.

Another problem with your reasoning is that you seem to think that insulin is necessary for fat to take up glucose. It's not. Fat cells have what are called GLUT-1 transporters, which are insulin-independent transporters. This means fat cells can take up glucose in the absence of insulin, and research shows that GLUT-1 activity is upregulated in obesity...something Gary Taubes doesn't tell you. This means that fat cells can create triglycerides in the absence of insulin.