Is Gary Taubes Onto Something?

Even though the lecture you watched explained it fairly well, you may want to read his book next for more meat. :-)

You may be able to lose weight on a starvation (low-fat, high carb) diet but you'll be damaging your health at the same time most likely.

Best of luck!

I know it's completely unscientific, but I try to work on the principle that if people ate it for thousands of years, it has some nourishing qualities, thus being why brown rice is healthier than white rice which is healthier than a Twinkie; brown rice has been eaten for a longer period of time, and the same goes for whole grain bread and white bread. In a world based on subsistence rather than luxury/indulgence, something that had no nutrition would not be consumed. The question then becomes what do you want to prioritize. As far as I know, so long as you try to balance your diet between the major food groups (and the USDA food pyramid is not balanced), that doesn't lead to major problems. Two or three servings of grain/starch a day aren't what lead to problems, it's eating seven or eight servings and having those replace more nutrient dense foods that lead to problems.

I know some people think that because the human body has so many ways to function without glucose indicates the body doesn't need it, but (admittedly I was better at chemistry and physics than biology) it seems to be that the body is so desperate to get energy, it has a lot of back-up systems for when it lacks glucose. I think the main thing is that you have to decide if you'd rather eat bread/pasta/rice and a bit less fat or if you'd rather eat more meat and fat and no grains.

(Admittedly this whole comment was based on logical thought/historical consideration rather than science because that's what I'm familiar with, but it's just my two cents. And what is "scientifically proven" tends to change based on what specific questions are being asked, what scientific data has already been uncovered, and what the researcher wants to uncover.)

It makes sense if you stop thinking that fat storage is all about how many calories you consume but instead is a hormonal response. If you think about the seasons, the high carb foods (fruits) are available in the summer/fall when you need to store fat away for winter. It really makes a ton of sense.

And following on to your statement about WW .. it "works" too, because if you reduce your calories low enough, you will also lose weight. But it seems to make a lot of sense to me that eating fats and protein will prevent fat storage if, as he states, insulin drives fat storage. Because certainly, carbohydrate consumption drives insulin, anyone who has known a diabetic knows that.

Now the next step is, what are organizations like the American Diabetes Association DOING by putting out magazines with pictures of low sugar, low fat, but high carb, pineapple upside down cakes? Answer: Killing people, to make money for the drug manufacturers.

There are several holes in Taubes' theories about the insulin hypothesis as well as the "exercise doesn't do anything for weight loss" hypothesis.

I could go on for quite a while about this but I'll try to be as brief as possible. Let's just say that the insulin hypothesis that Taubes preaches with such fervor and conviction is not comensurate with the evidence.

GCBC is an impressive book on some level. The historical accounts of diets is a very rich learning experience. He really does put the nail in the coffin of the lipid hypothesis.

The rest of his absolutes are questionable at best.

On the insulin theory:
The evidence that insulin is an independent factor in fat accumulation isn't terribly convincing. Research to this point shows that energy restriction improves glycemic control over a wide range of carb proportions (from 15 - 73% of dietary calories) Freedman et. al. Obes. res. 2001)

Also, a trial demonstrated that under hypocaloric conditions, the most insulin resistant and hyperinsulinemic subjects lost weight as effectively as the most insulin sensitive ones (McLaughlin. J. or clin endocrin meta. 1999)

de Luis et. al, 2006 and Noakes et al, 2006 found the same thing - despite the lowest carb group's 33% reduction in fasting insulin levels.

A diets insulin-inducing capacity may have some short-lived interference of fat metabolism but in longer term studies these results seem to disapear.

Protein intake is the trump card here. When protein intake is adequate, the remaining macronutrient make-up matters very little. Of course the low carb taliban will compare "low fat" with "low carb" diets and claim victory when in fact protein levels are set higher in low carb groups.
Here's an example..

Energetics of obesity and weight control: does diet composition matter? Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2005 May;105. Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC.

"Nonetheless, diets high in protein, but either low or modest in carbohydrate, have resulted in greater weight losses than traditional low-fat diets. We speculate that it is the protein, and not carbohydrate, content that is important in promoting short-term weight loss and that this effect is likely due to increased satiety caused by increased dietary protein"

In terms of calories in, calories out - it isn't fullproof, but it's a massive leap of faith to suggest it doesn't matter at all.

Look at the metabolic ward studies - the gold standard when it comes to control. With very scant exception and when glucose, water and muscle tissue loss is taken into account, calories DO matter.

This of course is just a small piece of Taubes' fallacies. But the extreme low carbers hang on his every word and don't want to hear otherwise.

Just to clarify - I'm not knocking low carb per se so much as I am questioning the beliefs of the low carb extremists like Taubes.

You ask: "So, how is it that you can lose weight while eating less fat, and as much pasta as you like, but on the other hand you can eat as much fat as you like, but no pasta - and this also works?"

Not everyone can lose weight on a low-fat diet. When my weight hit 180 pounds my doctor insisted that I go on an strict low-fat, low-calorie diet. I ate no more than three ounces of meat, poultry or fish a day, with red meat only once a week, and two eggs a week. The rest of my diet was cereal, fruit and fat-free milk for breakfast and a lot of vegetables, fruits and pasta in strictly measured amounts.

Within an hour of each meal I was hungry again, and was counting the minutes until snack time when I could have a couple of celery or cuke sticks or a piece of fruit. Then I couldn't do anything except think about food until the next meal. I'd wake up at night with my stomach rumbling with hunger.

I still gained weight, even faster than I had prior to going on that strict diet. My doctor was insisting that I was cheating on the diet and kept urging me to "tighten up on it." After three miserable years of following that diet I had gained 25 pounds.

When I heard about the Atkins Diet I bought the book. Prior to going on the low-fat diet I had been able to lose weight with a diet of my own design -- nothing but broiled steaks, chicken breasts, hard-cooked eggs, and salad greens with oil and vinegar. I could eat as much as I wanted on it, and could lose as much as 15 pounds in two or three weeks, but I never followed it for longer than that because (despite the fact that I felt great while on it) I was afraid it was bad for my health, and after several weeks it got boring. So Atkins sounded wonderful to me. It promised the same type of results I'd gotten from my own diet, but allowed a much larger variety of foods.

I went on Atkins and within just under four months I lost the 25 pounds I'd gained in three years of low-fat, low-calorie eating. I ate all I wanted of the large variety of allowed foods, and I felt wonderful. After less than two years of Atkins I'd lost 60 pounds, reached my goal weight, and was on an easy-to-follow maintenance phase that allowed even more foods. And in the almost-15 years since then I've managed to maintain my weight, staying between 145 and 150 pounds.

Mike Howard is right.

And, Sigrunde, most people in my experience will not lose weight on a low-fat "eat all the pasta you want" diet.

But I'm glad it worked for you.

"Calories in, Calories out" really does matter. Even those who lose weight on Atkins have reduced their caloric intake below baseline. To paraphrase Dr. Dean Ornish, "There's only so much bacon, butter, and brie you can stand."

-Steve

Lyle McDonald, one of the most respected fat loss experts on the planet and my personal fat loss guru through his fantastic books, is highly critical of Taubes.

I have been a Weight Watchers leader, have lost weight on a Low Carb diet, and eventually have found my best success/health on a mostly raw diet, learning a lot of tricks from the Low Carb diet and a lot about myself and behavioral processes that help me to lose/maintain weight from Weight Watchers. Their diet leaves a lot to be desired, and it bothered me selling some of the junk that they carried at the meetings as a leader (one of the reasons why I ultimately left), but the PROCESSES that they teach really DO work, and there are healthy habits to be learned there mixed in with some of the outdated things that they use as their "plan". There is no "magic" that will allow you to eat all of the pasta you want on a low fat diet, nor all of the protein/fat that you want on a low carb diet. Ultimately calories will kick in....if not immediately, then eventually.
Also, ill health you can derive from extreme diets (too low in fat, too high in protein/fat/cholesterol) might kick in at some point unless your prior diet was SO bad that even these extremes are an improvement!
Ultimately health--including a good weight as well as overall health, which is far more important than weight alone--will combine exercise, sleep and low stress with a balanced diet that includes moderate amounts of healthy fats and proteins, as much varied and nutritious raw fruits and vegetables as you can enjoy, and cutting out as many unhealthy processed foods, sugars (including corn syrup and certain unhealthy sweeteners such as splenda and aspartame) and "filler" starches (rice, wheat, pasta) as possible. Many people can't handle dairy and, even though they may not be allergic to dairy per se, the dairy can cause phlegm and asthma and many other side effects. Healthy raw goat cheese/yogurt or organic dairy from a good known source is preferable. Organic is also preferable wherever you will be eating the skin of the vegetable or fruit or where the skins are very thin. It is not as meaningful for fruits such as avocados and watermelons, where the skin is not eaten. Organic and/or kosher meats and wild fish are also best. Buying from the best sources and NOT overcooking meat/fish is preferable to eating very well cooked meat, which is shown to have harmful effects on the body.
I could preach all day, but really you should look at all the plans out there and ultimately, the parts of each that will resonate and work best for you should leave you with a diet that is moderate, keeps YOU in good health (everyone's body is different, and needs some different ideal combination of foods for ideal health than the next person's) and works for you as a good long term way of eating/maintaining health. Good luck to each of you on your respective journeys....

I'm surprised nobody brought up The Biggest Loser as an example yet. They are filming season 8 now I think. My friend was the at-home winner of season 5 (Bernie Salazar he went from 300 to 160 pounds) and I know the dietitian for the show, Cheryl Forberg. While they lose weight at an excessive rate, it's because they exercise excessively. However, if that exercise was pared down to 1-2 hours a days, the rate would be much more close to what we expect, about two pounds a week.

I counsel dozens of clients a week on weight loss. The clients who do best have the following characteristics:
1. regular exercise - reduces stress, increases energy expenditure, builds muscle mass, and improves sleep
2. adequate sleep > 6 hrs/night
3. eat mostly whole foods, plant-based diet with some lean meat (if they eat meat), and dairy (if they like dairy) and they minimize refined processed foods and they don't drink their calories, and they portion control their meals and snacks
4. stress management via yoga, massage, deep breathing, journaling, and relaxing
5. they eat mindfully most of the time (avoid eating when not hungry)

Most of my clients have issues with body image and emotional eating. They also diet all day but then eat more and more as the day goes on even if their total calories are low. They are successful when they are able to make long term behavior changes. But weight management goes way beyond what I said here. People struggle. The hormones leptin, grhelin, cortisol all play a role in weight management. Then there's the thyroid conditions.

I have had clients unable to lose weight, interested in gastric bypass, and I've helped them choose a surgery. They were successful as well.

Of all the people I know who were successful at losing weight, only one followed Atkins and she did not like to exercise.

My opinion is that our society loves dieting and deprivation, but eating healthy is not about deprivation - or over indulgence. As a dietitian, I would not put someone on a ketogenic diet unless they had epilepsy. I also would not put someone on a strict raw foods diet either.

If you want to learn more about what Biggest Loser contestants eat, I wrote a blog post a couple years ago after attending an education session on the show.
http://rebeccascritchfield.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/science-behind-the-biggest-loser-diet/

hi to all,,,It seems there will never be a storage to talk about when it comes to weight loss. First, let me say I have not read the book and do not know anything about the author but will soon. I lost 140 pounds over 25 years ago and have kept it off for all of those years. I am a weight loss success story and there are millions of us out there.

I was a fat kid and obese teen and almost died on Optifast and the rest of the garbage out there that was readily available to me years ago. I decided to take matters into my own hands and it took me years to figure out what worked for me for you see not one thing will work for everyone. The key to my success and what saved my life was EXERCISE,rarely talked about where most conversations revolve around diets or dieting.

I started to exercise at 315 pounds and found that motivated me to lose the weight and change my life. I am in the fitness/health field and preach exercise to anyone who will listen to me. I believe that exercise is not a weight loss program but it the start of what can be a life altering change. While we are not all meant to be a size 2, I am a 12, we are can be healthy and fit. I eat 90 percent of diet fresh fruits and veggies and lots of lean protein with an occasional ice cream, cake or candy. It is also important to remember the most overweight people have themselves programmed to feel hungry most of the time and do not stop when they are full, that is called EMOTIONAL EATING. For whatever reason they have food is the thing they turn to for all sorts of reasons. Losing weight is so complicated but keeping it off is more complicated. I know what works for me, 1/3 exercise, 1/3 good nutrition and 1/3 positive thinking and NEVER GIVING UP.

DEBRA MAZDA

Matt makes a very good point, in the fact that fat storage is mostly hormonal. Although, there are definitely different ways to lose weight. Some work better for others.

A response to Taubes NYT article published stating how he took the expert quotes that he used out of context in order to "prove" his point.
http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_02/bigfatlies.pdf

Very interesting comments from everyone.

I'm just here to add my $.02

As a weight watcher "lifetime member" who lost over 60 pounds on the diet - only to gain it back - by DOING THE SAME THING - as in counting points, eating low-fat & high fiber - I can absolutely contest that the low carb, high fat diet (such as atkins) really is the way to go.

The fact that - when it comes to "low-calorie/low-fat" dieting - specifically diets such as weight watchers - people tend to try and see how they can fit the most junk food into their diet for the smallest amount of calories.

Atkins - and other low-carb diets, however - really teaches people how to eat WHOLE foods and it's NOT just "bacon, eggs & cheese" - in fact - bacon, specifically, is not looked upon as a free food and many true atkin-eers need to make sure that #1 it's nitrate/nitrite free & #2 sugar free - and that's really hard to find at any major supermarket, otherwise most don't eat it.

Atkins also preaches VEGEES like crazy. You're also allowed to eat some dairy (not the awful sugar-filled milk you buy commercially, but you learn to look for grass-fed dairy without hormones/antibiotics, etc). You also eat wholesome filling nuts, berries, beans, etc.

Basically - what atkins has taught me that weight watchers NEVER even came CLOSE to teaching me was that Fat is filling - and when you eat the right kinds of fat, you're not starving an hour later so you're not trying to find more food to eat. And all that low-fat junk food out there - is just as worse, if not worse, than its counterparts. Plus, WW never spoke of the evils of High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Whole unprocessed foods are the way to go. On WW I was allowed to eat a 100 calorie snack for a snack, but it would leave me STARVING a few minutes later because I didn't know the correlation between the added sugar spiking my insulin - which in turn made me hungry again.

Sugar is the real culprit. Not fat. Plus, without fat, your body doesn't function correctly - and there is no scientific or biological reason that the human body needs sugar (or grains, which turns straight to sugar when consumed).

As stated earlier - I lost 60 pounds on WW - and slowly gained it back, while constantly following the program. I came to found out I had Insulin Resistance. After that I even followed WW'rs "Core program" which I did for a few months - but barely lost 10 pounds on it. why? because i didn't truly realize how bad those extra 35 points were of consuming "low-fat junk food".
Been on Atkins for 7 months now - I've lost 26 pounds (and counting) and I've never felt more energized or happier in my life.

I have Gary's book at home and while I'm barely a few chapters in - it's just incredible the wealth of information it contains.

For most of my adult life (I am a 42-year-old male, 6'2" tall), I have been overweight. I have tried WW and most every other type of diet plan. I had some moderate success with each but inevitably gained the weight back over a period of several months. Then, 6 years ago, after resisting efforts by my friends and family, I decided to try a low carb diet. I lost 120 pounds over the following year and I now weigh a svelt 170 lbs. I continue to eat low-carb to this day. I am diligent in keeping track of my nutritional intake on Fitday.com.

The most amazing thing about my 120 lb weight loss was that my average intake of calories for the entire year was 3,453. I have maintained my weight loss for 5 years and I still consume in excess of 3,000 calories per day. I don't really exercise (I walk 1 mile every other day).

I believe Gary Taubes has stumbled onto the true secret of weight loss and weight maintenance.