The Good and the Bad of Good Calories, Bad Calories

"Perhaps it is a bit of both."

In which case, I suppose the closing closing remark would run along the lines of,

"A brilliant and groundbreaking manuscript in which the most convincing of disputations have already been broached ad nauseam by others before him. Guaranteed to convince us of things that the nutrition enthusiast already deem to be obvious (Re: Dietary fat doesn't in and of itself cause disease or obesity, the calorie balance equation in imperfect and hormones and genetics play a role in fat)."

Am I alone here? Cardiovascular exercise suppresses my appetite, especially exercise lasting over an hour and a half. Weight training, that makes me very hungry... but it is a conscious effort to eat after cardio-- and for long efforts (3+ hours) the rest of the day food seems quite unappetizing except I know I need it to recover.

There are so many variables when it comes to the biochemistry of appetite and the physiological response to exercise. I think Gary's point was that, for people who happen to be metabolically sensitive to carbohydrates, exercise cannot be counted on to take off the pounds permanently. For those NOT metabolically sensitive to carbs, no problem.

I suggest you read "Biochemical Individuality" and Nutrition Against Disease" by Roger J. Williams, PhD. If you read these books, you'll develop a better appreciation for the complexity of nature and, thus, the complexity of the obesity problem.

David Brown
Nutrition Science Analyst

I loved the book and have read it twice. While I agree with much of what Taubes wrote, I do agree that he was off on the whole "exercise and fat loss" gig. There were other aspects of the book that felt too back seat driver-ish as well, but overall, I think the book is brilliant.

I'm not even sure how to say what I want to say here, but I'm gonna take a shot.

Books, TV ad specials and websites the world over all wax poetically about how this formula or that formula is proof that something does - or doesn't - make you fat. Then along comes another one that says no, it;s this combination of chemicals and foods that make you fat. A week later, it's something else hyper-specialized.

I cannot help but feel that this fuels the "It's not my fault" attitudes so many have toward being fat and exercising. The number of people who are so sensitive to a *SPECIFIC* form of calorie - so sensitive that exercising would do them no good - are so few that most folks could probably live their life and never actually meet one.

And yet here we are, with another set of theories.

I dunno. Maybe that didn't come out right. All I know is, making *generalizations* about what are actually *exceptions* to the general rules of nutrition is a multi-billion dollar industry, and it's sad.

It may not be perfect in every way....but it definitely has begun a period of better self awareness and understanding of what we are really eating.

As for exercise, studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7493202) will show that ageing is directly related to the amount of type II muscle fibers (fast twitch) and NOT type I muscle fibers (slow twitch). So people need more strength training and less "cardio". That and too many people have the "how many calories did I just burn" mentality, when they need to focus on their diet and understand that fat burning is an all day hormonal event. (http://projectfit.org/iflifeblog/2008/02/25/fat-loss-101-master-the-basics/)

It may not be perfect in every way....but it definitely has begun a period of better self awareness and understanding of what we are really eating.

As for exercise, studies will show that ageing is directly related to the amount of type II muscle fibers (fast twitch) and NOT type I muscle fibers (slow twitch). So people need more strength training and less "cardio". That and too many people have the "how many calories did I just burn" mentality, when they need to focus on their diet and understand that fat burning is an all day hormonal event.

It's all about V02 max. when it comes to staying alive. Sorry, but aerobic fitness is the "gold" standard.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=86583

I respect your right to an opinion, but for what it's worth, I don't think your statement that HIT workouts are the only way to increase V02 max is correct. The other thing is, sustaining V02 max is the important thing once it's at a decent level. If you have a sincere interest in being fit, review the literature on V02 max. and do what you like.

But what about the book, guys?

I really want to read this book. I'm number 73 on the library's wait list. So maybe by this time next year....

Despite trying, I can't find a written, detailed professional critique or rebuttal of Taubes book by a nationally known scientist. I tried Pubmed.gov, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, JAMA, NEJM, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, American Diabetes Association website, others. Maybe it's too early.

I'm trying to avoid doing it myself, due to time constraints. And nobody knows me, anyway. Taubes challenges much of what I consider "sacred."

Can you point me to a good source?
Thanks.

-Steve Parker, M.D.
Author of The Advanced Mediterranean Diet

I've read and reviewed Taubes's piece and agree with Mike on this one. When Taubes discusses exercise, he cites very dated studies and nothing really current, as the poster did after his critique. Also, to flatly say that exercise does not contribute to weight loss for people who are "insulin sensitive" is a bit of double-speak since, depending on the type of exercise you do, determines what type of weight (fat, water, or tissue) you lose. I've lost over 120lbs, and I'm very carb sensitive, and have followed a keto diet for years. If I didn't exercise, I would look pudgy and be no where near the body fat % I have now (8% from 44%). I think that Taubes has ventured into a topic that he is not too familiar with, just as other weight loss gurus (low carb or low-fat) have: optimizing the physique after/during weight loss. This is unfortunate because a horde of fat folks out there will simply use his findings as a further excuse not to exercise, as I did with counting calories when I first did Atkins many moons ago. Go and check out low-carb forums, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

On exercise and fat loss (deep breath)... this is where Mr. Taubes and I disagree completely. His contention is that exercise does not produce any weight loss because it makes us hungry. This is what I would call a case of "armchair science" on his part. He seems to cherry pick studies that support his cause, whilst ignoring a wide body of research that says otherwise.

I have to disagree here - his contention is that dieting with exercise doesn't make you lose more weight over the long-term, not that it offers no benefit. He didn't find any good research to support the idea that exercise will make you lose moe weight as we're repeatedly told it will as part of the it's all about calories in and calories out; that he found the data doesn't support the contention that if you simply eat less and move more and you will lose more weight and keep it off.

He reached the contrarian position that exercise does not make you lose more weight from a number of studies designed to prove that exercise makes you lose more weight - studies that found instead that weight loss is similar between groups who are eating similar calories and one group is exercising and one group is not exercising.

In a recent New York Magazine article, Taubes wrote his analysis of the published data:

This is not to say that there aren’t excellent reasons to be physically active, as these reports invariably point out. We might just enjoy exercise. We may increase our overall fitness; we may live longer, perhaps by reducing our risk of heart disease or diabetes; we’ll probably feel better about ourselves. (Of course, this may be purely a cultural phenomenon. It’s hard to imagine that the French, for instance, would improve their self-esteem by spending more time at the gym.) But there’s no reason to think that we will lose any significant amount of weight, and little reason to think we will prevent ourselves from gaining it.

I point this out because no matter how clear Taubes was in the book, and no matter how many different ways he says it in interviews, somehow something is lost in translation. Taubes asserts the data supports the position that one will not lose more weight while on a diet if they exercise or that exercise will make you lose more weight.

Let's see if I can translate this - two words seem to be lost in the discussions going on about the book - WEIGHT LOSS - with or without exercise is found to be similar when one is dieting to lose weight, even in tightly controlled studies. Basically, at the end of the day, whether you exercise or don't exercise, the number on the scale is likely to be the same. Whether one will see a difference in fat loss, muscle toning or other benefit from exercise isn't the issue - the issue is does the number on the scale differ in a staticially and clinicially significant way with exercise? The data suggests that the answer is no, it does not.

Perhaps a better discussion isn't about what Taubes didn't include in his references, but rather an examination of the studies he included so that we can explain to folks who are trying to lose weight that there are health benefits related to exercise that have nothing to do with the scale number at the end of the day.

Maybe if and when we can end the wishful thinking that exercise makes us lose more weight, we can then engage in a discussion about how different types of exercise can help preserve lean body mass and lead to greater loss of fat, even if the total weight loss isn't greater with exercise.

That said, whether his contention is that there is no difference in diet vs. exercise groups or whether it is that exercise in and of itself is not useful for weight loss - I think there is in fact evidence to support the opposite in both cases. It just may not be due to the calorie balance equation - which is how it tends to be promoted. Although this is part of it, there are hormonal benefits to exercise that would favorably alter body composition. Further there are factors such as EPOC, NEAT that need to be addressed before coming to such a conclusion. Further, a discernment of the type of exercise needs to be understood to qualify any claims therof.

Favorably altering body composition isn't the same as final weight on the scale, is it? That's the main point of what he's saying...he didn't get into LBM vs. body fat loss with or without exercise...he simply looked at whether one loses more weight with and without exercise when in calorie restriction and the data points to there being no advantage to exercise with dieting as a means to lose *more* weight on the scale.

I totally agree that some forms of exercise have very favorable effects on loss of fat, reduction of LBM loss and improvements to cardiovascular function. That said, the vast majority of messages out there, directed to the public, are meant to convince people that if they exercise with dieting they'll lose *more* weight than if they just cut calories.

I think folks need meaningful information to make good decisions, and if any-ole exercise doesn't do much to stimulate greater weight loss, they should know that and then also know which types of exercise lead to favorable fat loss with preservation of LBM even if the scale number isn't going to be significantly different at the end of the day.

And total contrarian that I am....I think people should honestly be told that if, when they first start a diet they don't feel much like exercising, it hurts, whatever, that's OK, lose some weight first and then introduce exercise later, when you feel better. But few are willing to say that....and many folks out there are intimidated by the prospect that they also have to exercise *to lose weight* when the reality is that they really don't have to if they modify diet.....lose some weight....and as Taubes points out, then have access to body fat stores more readily and are more likely to want to move more with the loss of weight.