las

Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Internetiquette & The Full Email Exchange with Gary Taubes

Warning:  This post contains absolutely no science.  If you are looking for science, please look at 99% of the other content on the blog.  If you are offended by non-science posts on a predominantly science-based blog do not read this.

UPDATE  2/9/11 ~1:30 EST:   I somehow chopped out the emails!  Have edited them in.  Thanks MM for the alert!


It seems Gary Taubes has decided to use his interview to paint me as some sort of confused internet stalker whom he spent 2 weeks trying to deal with but ... you just can't win with "people like" -- rather than addressing the scientific errors and problems with his references I addressed in my interview.  In light of this, I'm going to share the remainder of our email exchange in full here and let you decide for yourselves.  He initially gave me permission to post his emails in full and I'm applying that to the entire exchange.  I am also going to share a bit of History of the Asylum with you.

Believe it or not, I'm actually coming up on my first bloggerversary!  (Feb. 21).  My first post was a rather uneventful bookmarking post to test things out going "live".  I've taken a few minutes to provide some screenshots of what I blogged on this past year to save folks who are interested in what I really do here vs. what is being said about what I do the time of perusing the archives.   Below is the content of my blog from initiation to May 31 when I "dropped the bomb":  Glyceroneogenesis v. Taubes   (As always, you can click to enlarge, "blanks" are drafts).



It was three months later when I made my first post with the GCBC Fact Check and shortly thereafter dropped "the bomb":  Glyceroneogenesis v. Taubes.    Three weeks later James Krieger published Gary Taubes: Bad Calories, or Bad Research?  Before this I had a grand total of 6 comments in mid March on my New Atkins posts and what, like ... one or two followers??  You'll see in red, I've circled the 3 posts out of some 80-odd posts that had received comments at the time.  (The others postdate the GvT "buzz")

You see, if there was anyone stalking here it was Fred Hahn who posted up a storm in the comments over at James' site and followed a link there and/or my profile for comments I had posted here.  For the record, I do not consider Fred's behavior stalking, but I am not the first to note how he trolls the internet shouting down Taubes critics and reporting his findings back to his buddies.  I suppose it's only stalking when a critic does this, because Taubes certainly has a loyal cult following that tends to swamp the comments on any criticism of his faulty science.

So anyway, Fred emailed Gary about the GvT post.  He seemed concerned.   Perhaps had he taken note of how obscure my blog was back then before needlessly alerting his buddy Gary of my troubling post we wouldn't be where we are today.   It's probably going to REALLY upset old Gary when I tell him that the G v. T post had less than like 200 total views at the time,  which I'm sure I don't have to tell him is utterly insignificant.  Yet it was this post that prompted Gary to email Fred to email me in an attempt to initiate phone contact.   Does this sound odd to anyone else?  

So Gary wanted to initiate private communication with some pseudonymous obscure blogger.  Can you say intimidation?  Clever tactic, because later he can call me unreasonable when I react the way most people would to such an invitation.  I mean, yeah, right.  I'm going to call someone to discuss this sort of thing who can't even bring himself to email me directly?   One has to wonder why he didn't just post a comment on the blog:  The 2003 Reshef paper is mostly irrelevant rat studies.  End of story!

I had intended to email him at the time, but as you can see from the screen shots below I had other areas of interest that I blogged on  after that post. 





Does this look like someone who was stalking Taubes?  Really.  I'll cop to an obsession with this science stuff.  I also took time off work this summer to work on or supervise repairs on our former home.  No TV, no husband around, just me & my broadband connection, staying in hotels at times until the home was habitable with a microwave & running water.  So I had some time to kill rather than watching paint dry (literally) at times!  Blog traffic had ticked up a bit and I was no longer getting the feeling I was just talking to myself, but in the scheme of things I was still a small small bite of a fauxtatoes.  Fun times.

So let's fast forward three months and I guess I dropped bomb #2 by using the old $ in place of the s in his name.  This, apparently sent some people into a keto-crazed tizzy.  How dare I speculate that financial interests cloud Taubes' judgment.  I'm still a bit perplexed why this caused such a feather ruffling of such grand proportions.  Here's the post:  Gary Taube$ Shai'ster.  Was it that this Shai analysis he did a blog on is part of the "new evidence" in WWGF?    Did this cut too close to home or something?  That was 9/10/10 and several days later his interview with Jimmy aired where he finally came clean on the G3P issue.  This prompted: Good Science Bad Science ~ Good Schtick Bad Schtick 9/22/10.  This may well have been the second and last post in which I used that dreaded obviously uber-insulinogenic $.   So it was following that post that - at Jimmy's urging - GT emailed me.  This was also the post Jimmy invited me on his podcast to discuss this.  Jimmy sought me out not the other way around.  Gary emailed me, not the other way around.  

The first email and my reply are shared here:    http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2010/10/update-gary-taubes-email-my-response.html , but below is just his email to read in its entirety w/o my commentary.  Yes.  It was so polite and free of personal attacks said directly to me, not opinions I've expressed on a blog.  There's a difference.

Hi Carb Sane,
I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of e-mailing you. Jimmy Moore told me that you might be going on his show, which prompted me to try to read a few of your latest blog entries. Occasionally, friends have suggested I read and respond to your critiques (attacks?) , but whenever I try I find them tough going. Your descriptions of what I wrote or said or argued never quite seem to mesh with what I actually wrote or said or argued and your certainty that you are right and that I'm a dishonest sleazeball have made me hesitant to spend time and effort trying to convince you otherwise. 
In this case, though, you asked me a simple question, to "name names", as you put it, once again implying that even on such a simple subject as this I'm bullshitting the innocent public. So, the "biggest expert in the country" (I hope I didn't phrase it like that, but doing a radio show is a different business than writing, so if I did... sigh) was indeed Richard Hanson. If you look in the acknowledgements of GC,BC you'll see Hanson among those thanked for reading the book and critiquing it in draft. You can e-mail him and ask him, if you'd like, although when I contacted him in March after my NIH lecture, he said he was dealing with cancer and would get back to me shortly. He didn't, and I didn't push it for the obvious reason. The two young NIH biophysicists were Kevin Hall and Carson Chow. You can pull up Kevin's papers by searching "Hall kd adipose" in Pubmed. The English guy who agreed with Hall and Chow's take was Keith Frayn at Oxford. 
Feel free to ask any further questions. As I suggested to James Krieger in an e-mail exchange a few months ago I'm all for critical assessments of the evidence and my interpretations. And I make this point in the epilogue of GC,BC. It's absolutely necessary. Science doesn't function without it and I wish the establishment would care as much as you do about shooting me down. (Far more pleasing than being ignored, although ideally they would do more intellectually honest job of it than you do.) If I can help you criticize my work, and do a better job, I'm happy to help. I just ask that you do a better job of describing correctly what I actually wrote and said and argued. As it is you're getting a failing grade and the glass house you're living in when you write your critiques seems awfully fragile. Also the ad hominem shit is beneath you and doesn't help your case any. You seem compelled to attack me for what you perceive as dishonesty and venality (taube$) when scholarly incompetence, time-pressure, stress and the limitations of one admittedly fallible individual would be far more reasonable explanations. Your work would be more compelling and would certainly be taken more seriously if you left your presumption of motive -- something you can know nothing about -- out of it. It’s as though you’re dedicated here not just to proving that you’re smarter than I am, but that you’re morally superior as well. The first ambition is diminished greatly by the second. You say you fear cyberstalkers in your life, and yet you come across like someone who has devoting their life to stalking me. 
Reporting the facts or the strict nature of the disagreement between us would suffice and would actually benefit both your readers and mine. Disagreeing with my interpretation of the facts and the evidence I marshal to support my argument is perfectly valid. I might even learn something from your work (although from what I've read so far, I doubt it.) Assuming that you know what I was thinking while I wrote and that my motives are less pure than yours, other than from what I might have stated explicitly in the book, is not necessary and will be counter productive should any serious reader try to follow your arguments.
I hope this helps.
All the best,
Gary Taubes
PS. If you want to post this e-mail, feel free. I just ask that you post the whole thing and not part of it. If you want to keep it private, that's fine with me. I'm CC-ing Jimmy Moore, since it was Jimmy who spurred me to try once again to read your posts.

In that email Gary made his first charge of stalking that I laughed at in my response.  So I guess I hurt his feelings or something.  One will also note that ALL these months later, he has yet to address the prime question.

Why might that be?  What did I say that was so different?  I was the first(*)  to call him on a problem with his own research and references.   * I may not have been the first, but I was the first, apparently, to publish the charge where someone picked up on it and at least a perceived audience that might listen.  Otherwise why did such a well established science journalist bother with little old me???

Anyway, since he has misrepresented our email exchange in his recent interview, I am now going to share, "the rest of the story", as the late Paul Harvey would boom,  in the form of the entire unedited email exchange that I'll put at the end of this post.  If you want to go read it now, use your browser search function to search on ****, then again to get back here.

If you read nothing else, read the pink highlighted portion of that one email.  There Gary is trying to shut me up.  Plain and simple.   Only if I can make a compelling argument as to why to share a discussion on the science will he deem something publishable???   

Now any objective reader will see that this is Gary's modus operandi - to take the discussion to a private venue so that others don't get to see what's said and he can characterize things as he wants.  If he wanted to correct my science, what part of that shouldn't be shared?  As highlighted in yellow, the emails up to that point weren't about the science.  And who's fault was that?  I asked him about the science.  He claimed to want to discuss the science and get things right, but I would have to make some sort of compelling argument to share THAT discussion?  What is he afraid of discussing the science?  I don't get that.  (Well actually I do because his own references don't support his hypotheses).

In the end we finally learn in his recent interview with Jimmy that Reshef is just mostly rat studies and irrelevant anyway.  So ALL of this back and forth for what?  How come the first email didn't just state that.  Move on.  Nothing to see here ... I tried repeatedly to get him to address the science, Reshef 2003 in particular.  He seemed more interested in criticizing my blog that he's clearly never read and telling me irrelevant details of his life story.

So anyway, I've  wasted enough time on this.  Folks are going to believe what they're going to believe.  But Gary Taubes still has a lot he should be answering to in terms of his misrepresentation of references.  Not to me.  But to YOU.   This is why I think he's bothered by me.  It's not that I've shared my opinions, used a $, whatever.  It's not that I've accused him of cherry picking, because that charge has been leveled before by many more prominent voices and he's brushed it off.  No, what I did was actually check the man's references and expose where he has misrepresented their content or ignored inconvenient facts in them.  That is a serious problem for a science journalist.    

And I'm a stalker now because I just won't go away.  It's been over 2 months after my interview was taped, Jimmy Moore gave GT 2 hours to "respond".  Did any of you learn anything new there?  Did he yet address, over 6 months after the first post, and in plenty of time after my interview, ANY of the science?   No.

To the extent that any significant portion of this blog concerns you Mr. Taubes is entirely your doing for not simply addressing one point early on.  Yet, this blog is not about you Gary.  It IS about the science, and I will not be intimidated by you and your buddy's smear campaign.

**** "the rest of the story"



Gary Taubes

 to meJimmy
 10/7/10
On Oct 6, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Carb Sane wrote:

Thanks again for these.  I must say that my suspicions on the "English guy" were wrong.  Hence my thinking of why you might not wish to name him at this point.  Still, you now say you were corrected in 2008.  Why did i t take until the most recent lecture to leave out what you knew was obviously wrong from the lectures, and to finally admit you got it wrong in your interview with Jimmy?  Your excuse that you don't have a blog or a platform doesn't pass the smell test.  You've "taken questions" and responded to Dr. Eades' readership before, I've seen him share communications from you on his blog, as have others (e.g. Josef Brandenberg).  If I used a default template I could have had my blog up and running here in 5 minutes, and you know for sure that you would have a hundred followers in a matter of hours.  I'll be looking into Hall and Chow's research to see if it warrants a conclusion that the G3P issue doesn't matter because insulin is such a controlling factor in it all.


Hi Carb Sane, 

  The paragraph above from your email is a short example of why I don't think it's worth the time to engage with you. It is indeed time consuming and what you call "for profit" work includes me having to make a living. So you say above that I say I was corrected in 2008 and then much of your accusations of my venality hinge on this two-year time lag, as you call it in another paragraph. The catch is that  I never said I was corrected in 2008.  And this is what I find so distasteful in all this is now, for reasons that are beginning to escape me, I'm going to take the time to clarify for you what you could have known all along by taking the time to ask me. (When issues are clarified on Mike Eades's blog or by Joseph, it's because they seek me out and ask me directly.You could do that. You chose not to.) Ok, so here goes:

   The lecture I gave at NIH was on February 19th, 2010. This past February. Seven and a half months ago. Kevin and Carson were in the audience. We actually had lunch together before the lecture but they didn't bring it up then. They heard me present the glycerol phosphate tale in the lecture, and brought up their issues with it in the Q&A after. Very embarrassing but that's the way it works. We discussed it after the lecture. We exchanged e-mails and a few conversations into March. On March 7th I spoke with Gunther Boden at Temple about it, but he couldn't really resolve the dispute at that level of detail we were working.  On March 8th, I spoke with Frayne. On April 1st, I moved my family of four from New York City to Berkeley California, so the weeks preceding, as you might imagine, were taken up with packing up an entire household, closing sales one one coast, renting apartments and arranging termporary housing on the other, etc. Simply put, I had other things on mind. We arrived in Berkeley and lived in a rental for eight days until our furniture arrived. In the meanwhile, I had two lectures to give at UC Berkeley, but not on this subject and those lectures had to be written and presented. 

   My first talk on this particular subject -- the Why We Get Fat talk -- was the Swedish Hospital Grand Rounds that you may have seen on-line. That was April 15th. (I also gave a talk at the ASBP meeting in Seattle on a different subject -- sugar and cancer (don't laugh) -- and had to prepare that lecture as well. I don't know what you conceive my for profit lifestyle to be, but I have no assistant or secretary and so all this has to be done myself, just like a real person. At the Swedish Hospital  lecture, I addressed the problems with g-3-p and said that my previous understanding had changed. (I don't remember exactly how I dealt with it, only that the slides I used were screwed up. You can see it on-line and maybe have.) 

    Then I returned to Berkeley to try to get my family of four settled in, the older son in school, the house unpacked, baby sitters interviewed and one hired, my work going, etc. I also had a new book to finish, and my publisher's were waiting for it, as well as the book on sugar that I'm being funded to spend half my time researching. Along the way, I discussed how to handle this with several people, but one of the things that also got sidelined with the move was my blog and website. You'll see it's still a work in progress, nine months after it was started. When I did the interview with Jimmy on June 14th -- Jimmy ran it two months later --  I took the opportunity to set the record straight. So it was effectively three months between the time I knew that what I had written in GCBC was wrong (although I still have doubts about the details, but so be it...) and the time I acknowledged it publicly. Yes, I could have asked Mike to do it on his blog and thought about it, but I actually thought it should be on my blog once I got it up. Jimmy gave me the opportunity and I took it.  

   So now I'm taking my time to defend myself to the pseudonymous carb sane, who can't get her facts straight and is ranting about the two years I sat on the truth, when it was, depending on whether you count the Swedish lecture or not, either one month or three. I have other more productive things to do with my time. If you want to ask me specific questions I will do my best to give you specific answers as I did with naming names. You have my e-mail now. If you want me to engage in this kind of lunacy, I'm too busy. If you want to continue to shoot me down, please get your facts straight. 
Best,
Gary
 



My reply to him:   10/10/10

Gary, 

I'm writing to "run" this slightly edited/timelined version of your last email by you before posting it.  Hopefully you'll find this accurately conveys the essentials of the email, but if you prefer, I'll post the whole thing.

In any case, I think if you listen to your interview with Jimmy (around the 42 min mark if memory serves), you'll see where I got the 2008 from.  That nobody reading my post (and it has had hundreds of page reads) has challenged this aspect leads me to believe that I was not the only one that interpreted your somewhat disjointed explanation in this manner. 

One question that perseveres is how you could even have included the version of G3P theory in GCBC after reading the Reshef 2003 paper:  Glyceroneogenesis and the Triglyceride/Fatty Acid Cycle.  When Fred Hahn made you aware of myGlyceroneogenesis v. Taubes post, you wanted me to call you.  I had intended to email you at the time to discuss that post, but, this isn't even my job.  You're not the only one who has other things on their plates!  Still, my view was that you had every opportunity to post on my blog or email me (as you've finally done), etc.    I have to say I about fell out of my chair when I searched my GCBC ebook for glycerneogenesis and found that paper in the references.  

I think many of my readers would like an explanation for this if you care to provide one.  If you want to do so in a separate email for me to post in full, I'll gladly give you my "floor".

Regards, CS


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Gary Taubes wrote:
On Oct 6, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Carb Sane wrote:

Thanks again for these.  I must say that my suspicions on the "English guy" were wrong.  Hence my thinking of why you might not wish to name him at this point.  Still, you now say you were corrected in 2008.  Why did i t take until the most recent lecture to leave out what you knew was obviously wrong from the lectures, and to finally admit you got it wrong in your interview with Jimmy?  Your excuse that you don't have a blog or a platform doesn't pass the smell test.  You've "taken questions" and responded to Dr. Eades' readership before, I've seen him share communications from you on his blog, as have others (e.g. Josef Brandenberg).  If I used a default template I could have had my blog up and running here in 5 minutes, and you know for sure that you would have a hundred followers in a matter of hours.  I'll be looking into Hall and Chow's research to see if it warrants a conclusion that the G3P issue doesn't matter because insulin is such a controlling factor in it all.


Hi Carb Sane, 
  The paragraph above from your email is a short example of why I don't think it's worth the time to engage with you. It is indeed time consuming and what you call "for profit" work includes me having to make a living. So you say above that I say I was corrected in 2008 and then much of your accusations of my venality hinge on this two-year time lag, as you call it in another paragraph. The catch is that  I never said I was corrected in 2008.  And this is what I find so distasteful in all this is now, for reasons that are beginning to escape me, I'm going to take the time to clarify for you what you could have known all along by taking the time to ask me. (When issues are clarified on Mike Eades's blog or by Joseph, it's because they seek me out and ask me directly.You could do that. You chose not to.) Ok, so here goes:

Timeline:

2/19/2010 NIH lecture:  Met with Kevin Hall and Carson Chow (the young biophysicists)  who brought up problems with G3P section in the Q&A period.

Email exchange and conversations ensued

3/7/10 Spoke with Gunther Boden at Temple, but "he couldn't really resolve the dispute at that level of detail we were working."

3/8/10 Spoke with Keith Frayn (the English guy)

4/1/10 Moved family cross country.  GT describes how busy he was with other lectures and moving issues (living in a rental temporarily, etc.).

4/15/10  This is verbatim from the email

My first talk on this particular subject -- the Why We Get Fat talk -- was the Swedish Hospital Grand Rounds that you may have seen on-line. That was April 15th. (I also gave a talk at the ASBP meeting in Seattle on a different subject -- sugar and cancer (don't laugh) -- and had to prepare that lecture as well. I don't know what you conceive my for profit lifestyle to be, but I have no assistant or secretary and so all this has to be done myself, just like a real person. At the Swedish Hospital  lecture, I addressed the problems with g-3-p and said that my previous understanding had changed. (I don't remember exactly how I dealt with it, only that the slides I used were screwed up. You can see it on-line and maybe have.) 
  
More discussion of the business of moving, finishing up a new book and researching another book, etc.  Blog and website were sidelined.

6/14/10 Date of the actual interview with Jimmy  "I took the opportunity to set the record straight. So it was effectively three months between the time I knew that what I had written in GCBC was wrong (although I still have doubts about the details, but so be it...) and the time I acknowledged it publicly. Yes, I could have asked Mike to do it on his blog and thought about it, but I actually thought it should be on my blog once I got it up. Jimmy gave me the opportunity and I took it."

  
   So now I'm taking my time to defend myself to the pseudonymous carb sane, who can't get her facts straight and is ranting about the two years I sat on the truth, when it was, depending on whether you count the Swedish lecture or not, either one month or three. I have other more productive things to do with my time. If you want to ask me specific questions I will do my best to give you specific answers as I did with naming names. You have my e-mail now. If you want me to engage in this kind of lunacy, I'm too busy. If you want to continue to shoot me down, please get your facts straight. 
Best,
Gary



From: Gary Taubes     Sun, Oct 10, 2010 

CS,

  This is why I wanted to speak with you on the telephone. I'm not a fan in any way of having private discussions, even about science, posted on a website. I'd like to respond to this e-mail and clarify your understanding of the science, but I'd like to do it privately to you. If you promise that's the case, then I will respond. If you then argue persuasively that there is a good reason why your readers would benefit from reading my e-mail, I will agree but I reserve the right to decide what's persuasive or not and what's a good reason. I will do my best to be fair. If you cant' make that promise and live by it, then I'm going to end the discussion here. Although if you insist on running my previous e-mail anyway, please do it again in its entirety. Do not use your edited version. 

I'm cc-ing Jimmy Moore on this just e-mail, but I won't on further e-mails if you agree to my request.
Best,
Gary
'
From: Carb Sane
Date: Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Email
To: Gary Taubes 



If it's about getting the science correct, then there's no purpose in exchanging private emails.  Frankly, if my understanding of the science is faulty, I prefer to be educated by someone with at LEAST the background in biochemistry and physiology as I have.   Which is substantial on both the undergraduate and graduate level.  Your interpretation of the science doesn't match your own references.

You complained that I didn't "seek you out" like others have, and yet now you want to keep  the discussion private?  What gives there??

To exchange private emails without giving me permission to share them is a clever way to try to shut me up.  I'm not allowed to convey anything you said?   You granted permission to share the first email, or I would never have bothered responding.  Now you want to recind that with the follow-up reply?  

Comments on my blog are open and unmoderated if you care to respond publicly, or you could get your own blog going if you feel your reputation is being diminished because of something some pseudononymous biotch wrote about you on the internet, and correct the record.

I'll can simply post to my blog that you clarified that you didn't know about the faulty theory of G3P until earlier this year at which point you removed that from the most recent lectures.   I'll also present additional evidence that you did know, or should have back when you wrote GCBC and let my readers decide.   I think you'll disappoint many of them by going this route as many are interested in what you have to say ... many who support you BTW.

The choice is yours.  

CS


Gary Taubes

 to Jimmyme
 10/11/10
I believe in private e-mails because at the moment we're not discussing the science in these e-mails, We're discussing the mistakes you've made, and I would rather not do that publicly. When we're discussing the mistakes I've made, as I said, we can do that publicly and I'll allow it. 
And I didn't say you couldn't report on what we concluded. I said I would like the e-mails themselves to be private. 
At the moment, we're done. Choice made.

  My final reply 10/11/10

First you say I can share the emails if shared in their entirety.  How do I know what can and cannot be shared?  This is nonsense.  

I'll correct the record on my blog because I got wrong what you stated in your interview with Jimmy.  That was why I thought to cut down your reply in the first place taking out some of the personal stuff irrelevant to the discussion of where I got my facts wrong.  If we clear up this misunderstanding have I gotten anything else wrong?  On YOUR presentation of the science.  (My opinions on your motivations are just that, opinions).   I think if you listen to the relevant part of the interview you could probably see why I got 2008 wrong, but, FWIW you badly misrepresented the "state of the science" circa 2005-2007 STILL in that interview.  

Don't bother emailing me unless I can share the content of the science.   I can do without the personal shit anyway.  If your response to my criticisms and opinions is to attack me, I'm going to share that and let folks decide for themselves the content of your character.

CS


124 comments:

Christian said...

"Now Taubes does his typical (intentional?) misrepresentation"
"I presumed that Taubes was being intellectually lazy"
"Do YOU have a blind spot down the center of your field of vision???? "
"OK, not in time for GCBC, but certainly predating innumerable $peaking engagement$."
" (OK, not by much, and admittedly not statistically significantly, but work with me here :) )"
"In any case. Taubes is full of Shai-t!"
"To be continued ...."

Wow. Not bad for one blog post. Maybe if you would have phrased your scientific concerns a little less offensive and insulting you would have gotten an adequate response? Just a guess.

Jason Sandeman said...

Honestly, this is kind of like a dead horse here. GT pawned you, plain and simple. I listened to your side, and I heard a lot of rambling. I listened to Gary's side, and I heard some evidence. I heard the explanation. All I heard from you was how pissed Gary made you. You cited a vague reference that Gary may have gotten wrong. You then are counseling to throw the baby out with the bath water. How does this make sense?
As for stalking? Who cares? Who cares who is right, wrong, who emailed who, what you were wearing, doing, watching on TV while this happened. Seriously, boring.
Find something else to blog about, and perhaps get a little more cred than just on the back of someone who actually did the leg-work.
If you like, I could poke about a billion holes into your misguided ramblings about diabetes, and insulin resistance. Or better yet your pound of cookies theory. An idiot can see that eating a pound of cookies does more than just adding the "calorie value" to the person. Just ask a diabetic who has a problem with blood sugar and control.
Also, in terms of insulin, I humbly suggest you go and do a bit more research as a baseline, instead of cherry picking different reports. Once you have that under your belt, with PROPER biochemistry, you won't come off as quite a hack.
May I suggest the book, "Think like a Pancreas" to get the baseline you so clearly need before you spout off verbal garbage.
Now, I'll be surprised if this actually gets into the comments sections, but, there it is. I am going to post it on my site for kicks, and see if my readers will get anything off it.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

Jason Sandeman said...
"GT pawned you, plain and simple. I listened to your side, and I heard a lot of rambling. I listened to Gary's side, and I heard some evidence."
In your dreams! Jimmy asked Carbsane a lot of personal questions which wasted a lot of time. She was also a bit nervous.

Having listened to Gary Taubes Responds To His Critics (Episode 439-Part 1), there was a lot of waffle and ad-hominem, but no evidence. If anyone's been pawned, it's Gary!

Sanjeev said...

Did you report CS to the local cops Mr. Taubes?

Probably not ... a couple of blog posts ... they'd laugh in your face. OMG - a CRITICAL LAUGH !!! Maybe you'd then call them stalkers too? Unless they took their laughter to private email I suppose.

What an insult to anyone who's ever really been stalked.

> You say you fear cyberstalkers in your life, and yet you come across
> like someone who has devoting their life to stalking m

a couple of blog posts and forum comments about (science that proves Gary Taubes is wrong) means someone seems to be devoting their lives to stalking GT. If it weren't sad it would be funny.

Yeah, I always think these things are on a par:
a buddhist checking himself into a monastery for 20 years
a nun committing to an order for the next 60 years
a couple of blog posts

Alan Aragon has criticized you to the tune of a bunch of forum postings, one of his monthly research reviews, and comments during podcast interviews. That's a lot more than CarbSane had done when you started calling her a stalker. So how come AA gets a pass?

Please, call me a stalker now too. And James Krieger. And Lyle McDonald. I'd love to see my name amongst those already honoured, even if it's prefixed with "and the stupidest of the bunch, ..."

Sanjeev said...

Jason Sanderman: As for stalking? Who cares

YOU DO.

That was the ONLY argument or evidence Taubes presented. And it convinced you.

> May I suggest the book, "Think like a Pancreas"

I suggest the book "go back to what you do best, watching TV".

Sanjeev said...

Jason Sanderman: Or better yet your pound of cookies theory.

doesn't know the difference between an anecdote and a scientific theory

I am SHOCKED to my CORE. SHOCKED I tell you

LynMarie Daye said...

LOL Sanjeev!

Mr. Sandeman refers to CarbSane as "this chick" several times on his blog. Methinks someone harbors misogynistic tendencies and as such cannot be taken seriously.

Leo said...

@Jason
you don't know what you're talking about, I would question what those ketones are doing to your brain

Nigel Kinbrum said...

Jason Sandeman said...
"Also, in terms of insulin, I humbly suggest you go and do a bit more research as a baseline, instead of cherry picking different reports. Once you have that under your belt, with PROPER biochemistry, you won't come off as quite a hack."
Carbsane is cherry picking? That's got to be irony, hasn't it? And what PROPER biochemistry book would you suggest? Oh, wait!
"May I suggest the book, "Think like a Pancreas" to get the baseline you so clearly need before you spout off verbal garbage."
May I suggest that you read some "grown-up" biochemistry books by Stryer, Salway & Frayn? You are where I was in 2001.

@Sanjeev: Hey, you left my name off the stalkers list!

John said...

From bits of info Carb Sane (aka Mysterio) has left here and there in comments etc., I see someone who has never really made LC work, either through cheating or lack of commitment to the style of eating. Maybe that should be your focus instead of ridiculing someone elses work...especially since she apparently has the RIGHT answers to all matters metabolic.

Sanjeev said...

LynMarie Daye said...
Mr. Sandeman refers to CarbSane as "this chick"
____________
yes, It's been noted from a few contestants

+++++++++++++++++++++
John said...
From bits of info Carb Sane (aka Mysterio) has left here and there in comments etc., I see someone who has never really made LC work, either through cheating or lack of commitment to the style of eating. Maybe that should be your focus instead of ridiculing someone elses work...especially since she apparently has the RIGHT answers to all matters metabolic
_____________
You've read some ... if you are curious, please read more of this blog. There are few answers here; AFAICT CarbSane is just documenting her search for answers.

Note all the NEFA/FFA studies that raise questions about her diet's health- that indicate, basically, she may be doing the wrong thing. The questioning stays open despite the possibility of being wrong. The authors of those papers are not called names.

Contrast with the other approach, where the famous author says he wished he had read Frayn's book earlier because there's stuff in there he could use to convince people he's right. Stuff he could use to write a more convincing argument. What's the agenda in that case? Pretend those last few sentences are a piece of a jigsaw puzzle. Does this piece in any way match up with another piece called "sincere questioning" ?

I canNOT see it. I can't find in there an honest search for answers. The answers are SET. They are STATIC, FIXED and IMMUTABLE. Doubt and doubters cannot be allowed.

>> ridiculing someone elses work

First, what IS that work - honest searching or cherry picking and rhetoric?

Second, since it MERITs ridicule, what's the problem?

Sanjeev said...

>> @Sanjeev: Hey, you left my name off the stalkers list!

GT already named you, but that's an affirmative, you're included.

Leo said...

@John
whether LC works doesn't have nothing to do with the fact that psedoscientific fairy tales to explain why it works, implying that it should work for everyone, are nothing but fairy tales.

If you think Taubes has the right answers you don't really know how to proof an hypothesis against scientific couterevidence.

Muata said...

Dogma dies hard, and I mean really HARD! What's sad is that I once had on LC blinders, so I have a different view of the resistance of most folks in the LC community in swallowing that GT isn't preachin' the nutritional truth. CS, I can only hope that your blog posts about GT will serve as a catalysts for those frustrated LCers who maybe questioning why in the hell that ain't losing more weight ;)

Jason Sandeman said...

@Sanjeev - Dude. What? Seriously, "umm... err... yah" - that's what I heard on the podcast whenever CS was asked a question. As for anecdotal evidence verses scientific, I can tell the difference.
CS says in the LLVLC podcast that you simply can't gain any more weight than what you put into yourself, then talks about eating a pound of cookies. For someone who vilifies GT for not doing the research, looks pretty stupid for not backing up an inane claim.
As to going back to TV? Dude, I can read. Can you? Maybe you need to go back to reading yourself, actually educate yourself before spouting off garbage.
Seriously, have you even read "Think like a pancreas?" I only ask because it boils down the essence of pancreatic function so a person like you can understand it. I mean, judging by the people that hang around here yapping about insulin, they need all the help they can get.
Take someone who actually lives with the consequence of insulin, blood sugars, carbohydrate swings, and ask them about the pet theories here. While GT may not be the messiah, at least he did some groundwork in his book. He made mistakes, fuck yes, but so has the establishment.
It is pretty easy to yap off if you are not invested in the work.
I can read a book, and actually take something from it instead of spouting off what my professors told me back in the day. It's called critical thinking - you know, the part of science that you were supposed to learn, then apply.

@Nigel - Grown up book? Make me laugh. "Think like a Pancreas" was written so diabetics and their doctors could actually understand the pancreas, instead of getting bogged down with minutiae. It IS for grownups.

In conclusion -

I mean, look at it - CS claims to be "low carb", but by her own admission, she never actually truly followed the Atkins diet. She stayed in induction. Then she points to how the Atkins plan doesn't work.
How does that make sense?

As for the "Chick" comment, sure, it is indefensible. So is attacking someone under a pseudonom. Just saying.

Jason Sandeman said...

@LynMarie Daye - No, I don't hate women. I hate stupidity. Only calling CT (*not her real name) a chick, not the actual person. Thanks though, for the theory!

Leo said...

@Jason
your type 1 diabetes is totally irrelevant to insulin fluctuation that people might experience.
So the fact that you live with the consequence of insulin is utterly meaningless to the point of this blog and the hypothesis of Taubes. And LC eaters don't have lower insulin levels than anyone else, so it's even more irrelevant than it already is.

And yes, you can't gain more weight than the total weight of what you ingest, this is a fact.

Jason Sandeman said...

@Leo - Sure, you can't gain more weight than what you eat, but you can keep it. Concept of water weight:
http://www.weightlossforall.com/Frustrated.htm
Also, calories don't have weight. It is a measure of energy. That is a fact. It is what those calories DO to you that keep the weight on or off.
Also, you have me going around in circles here. How is my diabetes making insulin irrelevant? I actually have to inject insulin into myself, based on the amount of carbohydrates that I consume. Worse, self-injecting is NOT like a real pancreas. There is a margin of error of up to 20% per shot, and that doesn't include any error that I make. So, the more that I inject, the more I need to cover, and the more insulin resistance I will get.
So, you could say that by being type 1, I actually get the front-row seat about what happens with fluctuations of insulin. I can actually control that. Irrelevant? Hardly.
Also, the fact that I live with the consequence has everything to do with this blog, because CS is all about how insulin does not promote weight gain, and poking holes in GT's theory.
Insulin sensitivity and resistance is well established in medical lit. In my case, too much insulin, and I end up getting what is known as "double diabetes." Meaning, insulin dependant, AND insulin resistant. You are right, LC's don't have less insulin than anyone else, they just have better sensitivity.
GT doesn't claim that LC is the have-all be all of insulin efficacy. In fact, he goes right out and states that the thought of food will implement the secretion of insulin.
What the problem here is - and what I take issue with is the nick picking. I mean, here you have a gestalt. You know, the big deal. Then you go off on this fatty acid, and this study in rats. You miss the point.
There comes a point when anecdotal evidence does take precedence. What happens (or should happen) is a hypothesis is made, and then tested.
From what I am hearing, that is all that GT wants... talk about the science.

If you really want to talk about an expert in insulin, I invite CS to take Dr Bernstein to task. There is a man who actually lived it, knows what he is talking about, and can back it up.
GT is easy to pick on because he is a lay-guy. A science writer. Dr Bernstien would not be so easy.

Frank said...

Jason.

What is your point being here? We're scientific-orientend people happy to have someone pointing out interesting papers about an hypothesis that is most likely wrong.

Science is not truth. Science is a tool to understand out world better. Knowledge keep evolving. GT is wrong, CS might be wrong also, but what is important is to recognized our mistake, and move on. I used to believe LC was magic. Now I don't anymore. Cool. Maybe new evidences will have me change my mind again.

You come here ranting about the same old stuff that anyone who has been around long enough knowns not to be true. Personnally, I don't even care anymore about low-carb. It's obvious that there is no magic diet, that long-term weight change are not going to be easier with a low-carb diet, that low-carb diet don't have any metabolic advantage, etc, etc.

Multiple studies have test these hypothesis already and they failed. What else do you want? If you go with anecdocte that's fine. Keep this for you tho. Anecdocte can't be use to prove anything in my book.

There's no serious expert in insulin resistance and fat metabolism that I know of who are going to tell you that it is as simple as carbs. And that's from someone who's currently doing it's master degree paper on the effect of low-carb meal on postexercice insulin sensitivty in elderly people, working with highly competent researchers in the feild of insulin resistance. Sure carbs have something to do with it. But it's by no mean the only factor. And calories do still matter and always will. Why is it just so hard to accept?

Leo said...

So, you could say that by being type 1, I actually get the front-row seat about what happens with fluctuations of insulin. I can actually control that. Irrelevant? Hardly.

No, because readers of Taubes, moderately healthy people who want to lose weight, will never have the kind of insulin fluctuation you have no matter what they have convinced themselves of. It simply doesn't occurr except in those with diabetes. So your experience with insulin as a type 1 diabetic is only relevant to other type 1 diabetics. What is happening within your body is simply never going to happen in the body of someone who is struggling with weight. Besides there's no evidence that high-carb eaters have abnormal insulin fluctuation and NO EVIDENCE that low-carbers have less insulin fluctuation than that.

The fact that you live with the consequence of type 1 diabetes has nothing to do with how insulin does or doesn't promote weight gain because your insulin fluctations are abnormal and never seen on someone who is not diabetics and also because injected insulin doesn't work in the same way that endogenous insulin does. So you can't have any meaningless analogy between your situation and the belief that certain people who are not diabetes are getting fatter because of minimal insulin fluctation (since big insulin fluctations are never observed in non-diabetics)

Harry said...

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that CarbSane is the most ill-mannered and intractable blogger in the nutrition field, GT's response can be characterised as follows:

"CarbSane's science is not worth responding to given that she is ill-mannered and intractable".

Now, it's been a while since I took Informal Logic, but it looks like a non sequitur to me!

LynMarie Daye said...

"@LynMarie Daye - No, I don't hate women. I hate stupidity. Only calling CT (*not her real name) a chick, not the actual person. Thanks though, for the theory!"

Very, uhh, interesting rationalization there. Anyway, it was CS who was called a "chick", not me, so I'll leave any further discussion (or not) of this topic up to her. I've seen all I need to see, all too clearly I'm sad to say.

Sanjeev said...

Jason Sandeman said...
@LynMarie Daye - No, I don't hate women.
__________________
It's not necessarily about hate (though it could be)

it's about compartmentalization;

about putting whole classes of people (like maybe "chicks") in a "not serious" or "not worth listening to" compartment without individual consideration.

Al said...

I have no heartburn about GT's riding a horse of financial opportunity. It's a fairly modest horse at best.... not gonna put him in to Warren Buffet territory.

I just wish that Ms CarbSane would focus her energies on teaching me to reduce appetite for calories..... the 3-ring-circus named Barnum, Bailey, and Nemesis-of-GT isn't what I came here for.

Yes, I understand that it's 100% GT's fault. But I've got plateaux to bust, ma'am.

Let's leave the soap-opera to the Vegans.

Muata said...

@Jason - save the personal attacks and post links to research. This will move the conversation along in a much more productive manner. GT keeps crying for research to be done that's been done! He continues to ignore the importance of the Doubly Labeled Water technique which continues to confirm what we've known for some time: the energy balance equation applies to everyone. So, post some links and let's elevate the discussion a bit ...

@Frank - When people don't want to be accountable for the fact that they are obese, they will grab on to any excuse that doesn't point the finger at the person in the mirror. I thought that I lost 60 lbs in @ 6 months eating more than I did when I weighed more than 300 lbs. Eating a lot of protein and fat everyday gives one the illusion that they are eating LOADS of calories and still losing weight, which we know isn't the case. There will always be an audience for the "You're fat and it's NOT your fault" it's the (insert evil macro of the week) type of nutritional thinking.

@Al - I'm going to assume that your comment was intended to be humorous, at least I hope so.

If not, here's a little "free" advice, which it's obvious you're looking for, to help you break through your plateau: Eat Less and Move More (Consistently) ....

Christian said...

"This will move the conversation along in a much more productive manner."

I think that ship has sailed a long time ago ...

CarbSane said...

It didn't have to. That was Gary Taubes' doing for ignoring the science and focusing on his hurt feelings because some obscure female blogger had a few unflattering words to say about him. Folks who have confidence in the quality and integrity of their work do not respond as he does to criticism of it.

Christian said...

I am sorry but if you call the "Shai'ster" post just "a few unflattering words" and "criticism" I think we have a major disagreement about the line between a critical review of someones work and a personal insult. I doubt that you would have phrased any of your criticism like this in an actual face-to-face conversation.

The ship sailed here: "So Gary wanted to initiate private communication with some pseudonymous obscure blogger. Can you say intimidation?"

Can you say de-escalation?

CarbSane said...

Re-read the post Christian. He wanted the phone call back in June, several months before the other posts. If he had his ducks in a row with his Shai analysis, nothing I wrote there would have struck a chord either. The reason it did had nothing to do with my post, it had to do with the fact that he misrepresented Shai in the lecture, and this is part and parcel of his "new evidence" for why carbs and not calories are what affects weight loss.

There was nothing to de-escalate back then though. He could have been an adult and posted a 3 sentence comment on the G v. T post clarifying why he didn't include glyceroneogenesis in GCBC but included Reshef amongst his references.

This guy wants private conversations because he has the celebrity to get away with characterizing the content of such any way he wants and the other parties are at a disadvantage. What was he so afraid of in my blog? He wanted a phone call that I could not share to set me straight on the science and SILENCE me. He knew that doing the more appropriate thing - commenting on my blog - would expose his inaccuracies to a wider audience.

CarbSane said...

Hi Al: That's why I put the disclaimer. Plenty of other stuff here for you so feel free to ignore the small handful of posts that don't appeal to you. Welcome! Happy reading! If there's any area I'm missing in my research, feel free to email me and I'm glad to look into it. My advice on how to reduce caloric intake? Get your protein baby! And don't douse every other vegetable or low fat protein in buckets of fat.

Muata said...

@Christian - You can't overlook the obvious, which is that GT never answered the question about his poorly researched hypothesis. What I don't get is that if GT has an alternative hypothesis to the old tried and true CICO, why is he upset when people poke holes in it? Isn't that the first step of testing your hypothesis? Trying to disprove it? This is the scientific method, right?

If you, or others, are turned off by the "$" sign in Taubes name or the "Shai'ster" comment that's fine, but it still does not excuse the fact that GT's responses could have dealt with the CS's questions right away. Hey, if I'm going to initiate contact by composing a long email to someone who is calling me out on my research (read: academic integrity), I'm going to set the record straight, address the questions posed, and then move on with my academic dignity still in check.

Although I'm not a scientist, I have taught at the college and university level for @ 15 years. Poorly done research is poorly done research no matter what the discipline.

OnePointFive said...

Jason
As another T1, I agree that Garry Scheiners book 'Think Like a Pancreas' is an excellent primer on insulin use but I don't see that he writes from a point of view that could be deemed to support Taubes.
This is from a powerpoint presentation of his

http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_presentations/carb_counting.html

Weight Gain and Carbohydrate Counting
•Your child can gain weight if:
•Count carbohydrate, but ignore fat/calorie content of foods
•No limits placed on portion sizes
•Frequent snacking counting only carbohydrate can result in weight gain!
Weight gain can result in insulin resistance; your child could end up need more insulin.
If your child eats 2 carbohydrate choices of Haagen-Dazs ice-cream in place of a fruit and a slice of bread at dinner very often, a lot of extra calories and fat will be added

Sounds like calories in and out to me!

To Leo:
Although I see your point about endogenous insulin working differently to naturally released insulin, modern insulins and pumps and technigues are designed to get as close as possible to it. It's quite a good idea to attempt to understand what's going on!
Exploring the veracity of GTs theories is important and applicable to people with diabetes since his views have gained a large influence within the diabetic community.
The diabetes forums contain many posts urging newly diagnosed diabetics to ignore everything they have been told by health care professionals and to read Garry Taubes.
In the case of T2 it's ususally suggested that he has the definitive guides to how they became insulin resistant develops, why people gain weight and therefore how to lose that weight and stay off the 'meds'. They are urged to eat a high fat diet. Since diabetics and T2s in particular are likely to die early from heart diseased it's crucial that the they are indeed not being fed a lot of 'big fat lies'

In the case of T1 people are similarly told they should reduce the carbs to a minimum in order to avoid taking too much insulin, getting fat and consequently developing insulin resistance.
Again this is contrary to most mainstream advice.

Taubes' book has a large influece on specific groups of people. It shouldn't go unchallenged, Indeed Taubes in an interview once said 'If I was writing about me, I'd begin from the assumption that I am both wrong and a quack.'
Daily Telegraph 27/Jan/ 2008
That's just what Carbsane has been doing!
Having tried to do a bit of checking myself it's certainly not an easy task given the lack of proper referencing in the book!

Christian said...

Yeah maybe you are right and he really wanted to intimidate and silence you via phone. Unfortunately we will never know that.

And btw de-escalation usually takes place in anticipation of escalation. I read the posts. In May you wrote "I'm left to conclude this man is totally bereft of intellectual honesty.". I wonder if you would have started a phone conversation with "Hello Gary, this is XY. I saw your lecture and I'm left to conclude you are totally bereft of intellctual honesty. How about we talk about that?".

MM said...

CarbSane,

You wrote, "Anyway, since he has misrepresented our email exchange in his recent interview, I am now going to share, "the rest of the story", as the late Paul Harvey would boom, in the form of the entire unedited email exchange that I'll put at the end of this post. If you want to go read it now, use your browser search function to search on ****, then again to get back here."

I can't seem to find "the rest of the story". I've tried searching for "****" and only get the ones in the above paragraph. If you've decided not to post them after all I understand. I just want to make sure I'm not somehow overlooking them. Thanks.

M. said...

Christian, you sound like some of the vegans that posted on Denise Minger’s blog after she wrote the critique of The China Study.

The truth is that people that are selling books or trying to sell an idea often see no benefit to openly debating minor figures. They are not going to debate unless you put them on TV. Being polite was kind of irrelevant. T. Colin Campbell calls his critics secret operatives of the Weston A. Price foundation and walks away, and Taubes calls his critics internet stalkers and walks away.

Anybody that misrepresents their sources or does bad science is going to be insulted though. That is the way it is. Taubes does it himself – many scientists felt insulted by Taubes’ book. Peter at Hyperlipid does it all the time. Even Stephan at Whole Health Source, one of the most polite, even-keel guys out there, will sometimes do it. Sometimes people that misrepresent their sources or do bad science need to be insulted.

At least at CarbSane’s blog, Taubes and his supporters are free to post replies if they want to. At Tom’s Fat Head blog, people that disagree with Taubes get there comments deleted (and are labeled internet stalkers and mentally deranged.)

The defense of Taubes often looks like sad guruism. Nobody outside of a subset of the low-carb community buys his Carb/Insulin theories. Taubes is well received among many Paleo bloggers because of his work with the lipid hypothesis, but even among these the vast majority of the more scientific bloggers reject his Carb/Insulin thing.

Christian said...

-_-

No I am not a GT guru, I think his major carb/insulin theory is too simplistic and wrong. But thanks for calling me a vegan anyway ...

M. said...

But thanks for calling me a vegan anyway ...

Christian, many of the vegans said that Minger should have politely discussed her gaps in understanding with Campbell in private instead of an open forum where everybody could be enlightened by the discussion. If I have mischaracterized that you have a similar argument here, then I apologize.

Frank Hagan said...

As a non-scientist, I use an "appeal to authority" method to decide first which sources I should consider. In the case of the snarky blog posts of CarbSane, an anonymous blogger who is self-described as having a BS and MS in "science and engineering" (but no indication of the institutions she earned them in), I have to consider Taubes' work a higher authority. Besides education level and professional accomplishments, you add in tone and presentation, and Taubes wins as a voice I will listen to.

Now, Taubes can be wrong, and recognizing that brings no shame. In science, nearly every truth is found to be wrong. We have a current body of truth we think is correct, but as new facts arrive, we have to evaluate them and discard the old in favor of the new.

The fact that Taubes earns his living writing and lecturing doesn't bother me. The currency of bloggers is site visits, and CarbSane seems to admit that poking at Taubes has been very rewarding in the "blog currency" of increasing her readership. Increasing the venom and "snark" will surely increase readership. Is there a "B" with lines through it so I can deface CarbSane's name as well?

And if I insult CarbSane, deface her chosen moniker, does it make my views more right than hers?

I'm not sure science works that way. But blog popularity certainly does.

CarbSane said...

Frank, I didn't seek out the blog popularity. Gary unintentionally sent it my way. Focus on the science, not the messenger if my delivery bothers you. Taubes does not have the background to educate anyone on this. You may question mine, but look at the SOURCES I quote. I link mostly to full texts of articles written by authorities in the field in prominent peer review journals. Taubes cites a few decades old text books, and misrepresents the content quite often at that.

Now he's even admitted to not even reading one of his citations! I hope it doesn't upset too many folks like you, who for some reason still read this snarky biotch enough to want to regale us with your equally snarky commentary, that I will be discussing this in a future blog post. And if it does, tough shitzky.

Christian said...

M., actually I really misunderstood you because when you read "vegan" on a non-vegan blog about nutrition, it's often used for a very specific purpose ;).

In essence you got my point correct. As far as Denise Minger's critique of the China Study goes I don't think that she actually tried to provoke a scientific discussion with Campbell about his data. This is understandable because we all know this is pretty much a dead end ...

But if you are really interested in an honest response from another human being when you confront him with critism about his work - name calling, inserting $'s and discrediting him a priori might not be a good choice then.

But again, I could be wrong. Maybe even a neutral, insult-free, initial critique would have led to the same outcome. But - as I said - that ship has sailed.

John said...

@leo
All of you brilliant scientists aside, LC does work, has worked for many years, and will continue to work for more to come for most people if they actually do it for real. There is nothing new about the concept http://www.ourcivilisation.com/fat/chap1.htm
Gary Taubes proposes one theory as to why, Carb Sane another. My supposings regarding Carb Sane stem from trying to figure out why GT has become here raison d'etre...he's not the only one who holds to that science. The fact that he has become more 'mainstream' (ie Readers Digest)will no doubt put many people on a path to a healthier way of eating whether the "science" is perfect or not.

Frank said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Frank said...

@John

Calorie restriction has worked for many years, and will continue to work for more to come for most people if they do it for real. Actually, LC is a calorie-restriction for dummies. And this is why it works.

For any scientific minded individual, the WHY is important to us, and we don't like pseudoscientist pushing wrong theory about something. And it gets even worst when you've got layman with no understanding of the science trying to educate other people on a supposedly superior way of eating, using pseudoscience to do so, a pseudoscience that they don't even understand, which is something that we see a lot in the LC crowd.

LC per se is not healthier than anything else. So I don't see what favor that does to anyone. Eat whole food, lots of vegetables, get your RDA intake, controll portions size, exercise, enjoy things you like, don't stress too much, sleep well, and you've got more than 90% of positive lifestyle handle. What happens next is mostly genetic. Worrying about macro breakdown, magic of ketosis, magic of fasting, etc. is pretty much meaningless as regard to how well and long you're going to live.

@ Mr. Hagan

I'm hoping that you know that Taube is actually even less educated to understand the topic of nutrition that CS can be. And as she said already, someone should be judge on the arguments and the justification of 'em rather than on his credential.

LeonRover said...

Frank Hagan

Where do you place the authority of Robert Lustig when he writes a Review in Nature Clinical Practice Endocrinology & Metabolism

Childhood obesity: behavioral aberration or biochemical drive? Reinterpreting the First Law of Thermodynamics

http://www.nature.com/nrendo/journal/v2/n8/full/ncpendmet0220.html

This review does focus on children, however the physiological science describes pathways applicable to the adult.

Summary

Childhood obesity has become epidemic over the past 30 years. The First Law of Thermodynamics is routinely interpreted to imply that weight gain is secondary to increased caloric intake and/or decreased energy expenditure, two behaviors that have been documented during this interval; nonetheless, lifestyle interventions are notoriously ineffective at promoting weight loss. Obesity is characterized by hyperinsulinemia. Although hyperinsulinemia is usually thought to be secondary to obesity, it can instead be primary, due to autonomic dysfunction. Obesity is also a state of leptin resistance, in which defective leptin signal transduction promotes excess energy intake, to maintain normal energy expenditure. Insulin and leptin share a common central signaling pathway, and it seems that insulin functions as an endogenous leptin antagonist. Suppressing insulin ameliorates leptin resistance, with ensuing reduction of caloric intake, increased spontaneous activity, and improved quality of life. Hyperinsulinemia also interferes with dopamine clearance in the ventral tegmental area and nucleus accumbens, promoting increased food reward. Accordingly, the First Law of Thermodynamics can be reinterpreted, such that the behaviors of increased caloric intake and decreased energy expenditure are secondary to obligate weight gain. This weight gain is driven by the hyperinsulinemic state, through three mechanisms: energy partitioning into adipose tissue; interference with leptin signal transduction; and interference with extinction of the hedonic response to food.



The writing style is closer to science journalism than formal science but Lustig is always careful to distinguish conjecture (hypothesis) from science.

(N.B. Hedonic pathway)

This is what GT should have written recently
rather than How We Get Fat.

Sanjeev said...

> Carb Sane stem from trying to figure out why
> GT has become here raison d'etre...he's

Keep repeating it. Maybe someday you'll believe it.

that belief will be a lie though - a Taubes & Nauton lie.

Why is the same accusation not leveled at Alan Aragon & James Krieger?

> put many people on a path to a healthier

If you believe Taubes, love food, LOVE the physical sensation of eating feeling full of food, you WILL eat , 4 or 6,000 calories a day.

<LAUGH>Very healthy. </LAUGH>

And you will firmly believe if you have no carbs, you will lose weight.

<LAUGH>Very healthy. </LAUGH>

CarbSane said...

I see your problem now Christian. You misunderstood that the purpose of this blog was engage Gary in a conversation. That was never my purpose, but as irony would have it I he would never have sought me out were it not for the "inflammatory" nature of my posts. History shows that is a dead end to try to talk science with this man.

CarbSane said...

@John: The thing is that LC doesn't always work, and other approaches work equally well or better for some others. If you look at many of the other voices that hold to the theory, many are parroting GT.

If a science journalist writes a piece in which they misrepresent several seminal references in coming up with a hypothesis that is not supported by the predominance of the evidence ignored by same journalist, they lose credibity. This is what is happening to Taubes ... it's there plain as day for all to see.

John said...

@Carb Sane: You are right about the "parroting". BTW, when I say LC I mean it in the whole foods / real foods / paleoish sense. I understand that it doesn't work for everyone, but most (excepting those with specific conditions) would certainly not be harmed by trying such a diet. I just feel that trying to poke holes in someone elses theory as to why a diet works is less productive then presenting a better theory. Bottom line, for the seekers who have success or failure at a way eating for health and weight control, I doubt many really care why it works or doesn't. At the very least I think GT deserves much credit for rocking the boat as far as nutrition dogma goes, which has been of great benefit to many.

M. said...

John, purely in this practical sense, I think Taubes also causes problems. A lot of people seem to stall on VLC at 20 or more lbs above their goal. The Taubes answer is to watch out for the carbs in green leafy vegetables (and apparently add more fat according to some), and if you are zero carb and still not losing weight, then you must just be at your destined weight. You end up with a lot of people stuck at 20lbs above goal or rebounding back to even higher weights. Look at Jimmy Moore.

Some of these same people that turn to other approaches (Leangains is popular now) seem to breakthrough and get to their goal weight.

CarbSane said...

Then John I think you'll be happy in the coming weeks when I do just that (present my theory as to why they work WHEN they do).

My focus has been to make sure this diet is healthy FOR ME. In researching I've come across a lot of disturbing things especially concerning very low carb versions of LC. I've heard Stephan Guyenet say something like that he's uncomfortable with carbs <20% but not really elaborated as to why. I've certainly not seen any evidence that just because sat fats aren't "dangerous" that we should be swigging shots of fat between meals and cooking beef in butter.

My personal take is also admittedly biased by my jourey. To wit, I don't consider any diet healthy if someone can't follow it with reasonable consistency for the long haul remaining relatively weight stable (say +/- 5 lbs or at most a 10 lb difference in high/low weight). Too many prominent voices advocating such diets as the ultimate answer simply fail to do that. For better or worse, if they're out there in the public eye, they ARE role models and serve as examples to prospective low carbers. When I stalled and looked around me at the women in "the movement", I was horribly underwhelmed and frightened.

Christian said...

Nice email exchange ...

"You misunderstood that the purpose of this blog was engage Gary in a conversation."

No of course it wasn't. Everyone can "read" that. But to complain in retrospect that "History shows that is a dead end to try to talk science with this man." after these blog posts and those e-mails is just amazing.

Stancel said...

Hmm, trying to talk science to Gary Taubes is like trying to talk science to a creationist. He has mastered the art of polishing a big pile of crap into a powerful religion of calorie denial and carbophobia. Despite the scientific language and academic appearance it is no more factual than the book Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe by Samuel Rowbotham. Calorie denial makes just about as much sense as denial that the Earth is a sphere.

CarbSane said...

@John, to build off of M's comments to you, a little history. I started stint 3 on low carb sometime June/July 2007 after ballooning back up and who knows how many pounds over a previous LC stint that shed 60+ pounds and had me wearing size 12's but experiencing some disconcerting symptoms of racing heart/skiddly feelings/tingly fingers. While those symptoms didn't recur this time, my losses slowed dramatically after ~10 months and seemingly came to a halt after a year. After which time I felt like I was losing ground a bit if anything when I finally weighed in April 2009. I weigh too much for my height even though I'm not large - possessing bad knees and ankles I worry about this from a non-vanity POV. My body type has changed considerably - a change from protective below-the-waist fat to the potentially risky trunk fat - should I worry? I've had an episode or two of the skiddlies though not as bad - is this WOE healthy in the long term? Am I endangering myself on carb cheats or is a more uniform carb intake day-to-day a better option. Stuff like that.

In April 2009 this Gary Taubes (to which there's an Ode sub-forum on Jimmy's forum) came to be mentioned in just about every other post. I must be eating too many carbs, cut back further, eat only meat and leafy greens, increase my fat intake, eat more calories, Gary Taubes tells us .... Stuff I was hearing didn't add up to what I remembered from my biochem and anatomy&physio classes. I started looking for answers.

Along the way I learned more than that GT made a few minor errors in the details.

CarbSane said...

Happy to amaze you Christian. I kept trying to steer him to addressing the very first issue (Reshef). He kept steering things to try to educate me on where my science is wrong. Frankly, after his interview it's obvious he's never read a damned thing here. So I don't know how he could even correct me if he doesn't know where I'm coming from. He will not engage on the science because his theories don't add up and aren't supported by his own references.

John said...

@Frank:
Calorie restriction has worked for many years, and will continue to work for more to come for most people if they do it for real. Actually, LC is a calorie-restriction for dummies. And this is why it works.

I can assure you that I am NOT calorie restricted, and have been VLC for 2 1/2 years now. A dummy, perhaps LOL

@M: John, purely in this practical sense, I think Taubes also causes problems. A lot of people seem to stall on VLC at 20 or more lbs above their goal. The Taubes answer is to watch out for the carbs in green leafy vegetables
I think it's a stratch on the "harm". To stall, you have to have lost weight. If it's really not working for you any more at the stall point, move on! The only harm is that you've lost some weight.

@CarbSane: Then John I think you'll be happy in the coming weeks when I do just that (present my theory as to why they work WHEN they do).

Indeed!!

MM said...

John,

I think another of the harmful effects is not just that people stall on VLC, but there seems to be this pervasive belief that carbs are "evil", "rat poison", "heroin", etc. I've seen lots of scary sounding labels applied to them. I think Taubes is in part responsible because of his chapters like "Dementia, Cancer and Aging". It's difficult to "move on" if you've been convinced that eating carbs will kill you slowly and horribly. This was the hurdle I had to overcome in order to move on. It was difficult, but thanks partly to the very helpful info here provided by CarbSane I have been able to. I have started losing weight again after sitting at a plateau for ~18 months on VLC. I was doing it "right". Less than 40g/day on my regular days. After a few months my weight would have crept up a few pounds. I'm obsessive about weighing daily and that prevented me from having huge regains. When it started to creep up I'd panic and "do something": 6WC, egg-fest, Atkins induction, IF. No matter what I tried or how long I tried it I would only lose those few extra pounds and would be stuck again at my stall weight. I'd give up on whatever quick fix I tried and go back to my regular 40g/day and start the cycle all over again.

CarbSane,

Ironically it was by googling "Gary Taubes" that I found your web site. I just thought you'd like to know. :)

John said...

@MM: I think another of the harmful effects is not just that people stall on VLC, but there seems to be this pervasive belief that carbs are "evil", "rat poison", "heroin", etc. I've seen lots of scary sounding labels applied to them.

I see your point. I think most people, if they spend much time looking at the Paleo, LC type blogs will come to understand it is not carbs per se, but manufactured garbage posing as food that is the thing to be shunned, however. And I've adjusted to eating certain carbs, through reading the likes of Paul Jaminet, and my basic eating philosophy is really Eat Real Food!! But I will tell you, I have no fear of sat fat, but don't go out of my way to add extra - I get what comes naturally in a meal. Curious: how do you eat now that is working for you?

MM said...

John,

I'm not sure what to call it. In another comment on this blog I called it a "Schwarzbein Principle-type of diet". I like her idea of eating "balanced" meals. That is, meals that are balanced between protein, fat, carbs, and non-starchy veg. She doesn't give macro-nutrient ratios in her books, but does think it's important to get at least 30g/meal of carbs in order to stay insulin-sensitive. I guess I'm still experimenting and trying to figure out what foods I can eat that are filling, and don't make me want to overeat. (Geez, this is long winded, and yet I continue.) So, for example, I have a very difficult time eating pizza without eating something approaching 800 calories. I've been on a bit of a curry kick. So, meat in curry sauce with rice is a common dinner for me. Also meat and roasted potatoes is another that seems to work. My weight loss has been very slow. I'd say about 0.5 pound/wk. However, I'm so ecstatic to be losing again finally that I don't care. I'm also very wary of quick weight loss that only results in falling off the diet and gaining. So, I'm trying to come up with something I can eat long-term.

John said...

@MM: it is not carbs per se, but manufactured garbage posing as food that is the thing to be shunned

I should have added 'sugar in anything resembling excess' to that statement.

John said...

@MM: but does think it's important to get at least 30g/meal of carbs in order to stay insulin-sensitive. I guess I'm still experimenting and trying to figure out what foods I can eat that are filling, and don't make me want to overeat.

That's still is fairly LC (90g / day @ 3 meals)compared to the typ. American diet...and I'm seeing mostly whole foods...except for for about 40g of carbs / day, we're not so differnt, you & I!

Wolfstriked said...

It amazes me how people can be so blind to whats really happening.You have people on weight watchers losing mad amounts of "bodyfat" eating pasta,tacos and desserts.You have people on VLC who are gaining "bodyfat".

People have been told countless times that its not the diet sodas or the broccoli that is stalling them yet they never ever believe what is staring at them point blank.Jimmy Moore puts up the video that I linked to and CS then posted on her website recently.He goes on to say this ""The tone of this documentary wasn’t exactly pro-Atkins, but this merely shows that despite the incredible weight and health improvements seen by so many of us that there’s still a stigma attached to the healthy low-carb lifestyle. We’re doing our best to change that misconception.""

He somehow totally missed the point of those videos by about a million miles.The point of those videos is that they found that Atkins works because the extra protein now being eaten causes a high reduction in appetite.This in turn causes much less calories to be consumed than we all thought.There was so much mystery when Atkins first appeared and now we are down to science yet that part was totally overlooked by Jimmy.Gary Taubes is another one who turns a blind eye to the fat loss is calorie reduction sadly.I do not understand why do people become so blinded.

I got into the meat only diet for awhile after hearing of The Bear.Me and a friend at work started on it.He lost tremendous amount of weight and I lost some.He quit and I kept on pounding just meat and stagnated with no further fat loss for a month.I decided to just eat less and the fat melted away from my stomach area......sadly I didn't keep it off because I couldn't stand zero carb eating.

Why is the calorie so hated by the LC world?Are they afraid they will lose their disciples to weight watchers??

Wolfstriked said...

Just wanna add another silly Taubes moment.He mentions these people in Africa that were starving to death.All the kids were bone thin and near death yet the mothers were all obese.He says that it was the high carb food they were eating that is to blame for this obese mother/dying kid syndrome.

I started questioning his writings after seeing that and was amazed that the LC world,being of intelligent people,would fall for that.

MM said...

John,

Yes, I figured out long ago that sugar is very bad for me. So, I generally avoid it. I have to say that the 30g/meal carbs is a minimum and I would estimate that I eat between 100-150 g/day carbohydrate. I don't know why but eating more carbs is somehow more filling for me. At one point I must have been able to eat less calories on LC, because I did lose 20 pounds, but I needed to lose another 20 to get back to my pre-pregnancy weight. (Still trying to lose the baby weight. Ugh!) However, during my long stall I was incredibly hungry on low carb. I would eat a three egg & cheese omelet with 4 strips of bacon and I would slather butter on top of the omelet and 2 hrs later I would be hungry. I thought I must be insane. Somehow, eating more carbs I'm more satisfied. I don't understand it, but maybe I'm just weird. (Actually, I'm quite sure I'm very weird, but not just because of this. :) )

Muata said...

@ Wolfstriked - Folks, like yours truly, fall for the LC diet because it's sold as being easy and effortless fat loss by eating foods most obese folks like to eat anyway. Even the most "sugar addicted" obese person will not really feel "that" deprived to trade off bread and sweets for unlimited cheese omelets and bunless burgers.

But, more importantly, there's only partial accountability. You have to count your carbs, but everything else is a free for all, especially fat. Oh, and calories don't count. LC diets appeal to the typical lazy dieter, as I was; they want you to believe that you can get something for very little work on your part when we, as rational adults, know that's simply not true.

I also did a ketogenic diet for close to a year, and being in extended ketosis while eating low calories does weird things to you in addition to helping you develop a fear of carbs ...

Sanjeev said...

Wolfstriked said...
It amazes me how people can be so blind
__________________
Ideology mixed with groupthink is a strange animal. Look at the Chinese under Mao, the USSR from Stalin to past Brezhnev. The rest of the world getting ahead (though not perfectly) while they sunk deeper and deeper

And even closer to home. The US bails out the largest banks who took massive unregulated risks. Do the free-marketers and the de-regulators entertain ONE SECOND's worth of self-doubt? One of the instigators, Henry Paulson, goes on afterwards to write that the US has to reduce old age governmental obligations, just after he & Ben Bernanke gave away in one year than the US will pay the retirees for 20 years (these are Dean Baker's numbers I believe)

Sanjeev said...

One Taubes detail that's been (kind of) missed:

He told Jimmy (I think it's in part 2) that as a journalist he gets to take a shortcut, interviewing scientists about their work rather than reading the references.

Kurt G. Harris MD said...

@Carbsane

You said:

"I've heard Stephan Guyenet say something like that he's uncomfortable with carbs <20% but not really elaborated as to why. I've certainly not seen any evidence that just because sat fats aren't "dangerous" that we should be swigging shots of fat between meals and cooking beef in butter. "

I can't speak for Stephan, but I'd be pretty shocked if the reason Stephan thought eating, say 20% carbs was healthier than eating 10% had anything at all to do with not wanting to eat too much fat. The benefits of increasing carb intake by 100% are a more likely explanation than the benefit of decreasing fat by a mere 15%.

Stephan elsewhere has alluded to it being "counterproductive" to eat VLC if you don't have to due to diabetes. I can think of two reasons on my own that this is the case, whatever Stephan thinks.

1) As you approach ketosis and get in the VLC range, peripheral (not pathologic, just muscle) insulin resistance HAS to increase to avoid hypoglycemia and keep BG stable. This means you become more "carb sensitive" the less CHO you eat. If you do binge or do cyclic carb loading, this peripheral IR does not change quick enough to prevent significant BG spikes - higher than would be the case if one were used to getting more total calories from CHO. So you may eat less but actually experience more time with dangerous (>140) BG levels, even if you are normal. If you do not binge or cycle CHO, fasting BG on VLC can rise to the point that AUC for BG is the same or even higher than if you ate more CHO. And due to peripheral IR, you have the same AUC for insulin and fasting insulin as you had at higher CHO intake. You you have gained nothing in terms of what your tissues see of BG or insulin

2) Eating VLC makes it hard to get micronutrients and solubel fiber -which Stephan believes in for sure

3) Performance for the physically active is substantially better at 20% than at 10% - you are at 2x the ketosis threshhold - which I think is no accident.

Stephan has also said he eats a lot of carbs because they are cheap!

Kurt G. Harris MD said...

Sorry, I normally can spell "soluble.."

Frank said...

@John

Unless you did some direct or indirect RMR measurement, and weight everything you eat, you can't have any idea if you're calorie restricted or not. And keep in mind that RMR varies a lot from individual, mainly because of NEAT, so it's pretty damn hard to actually knows if you're calorie restricted or not. You make a guess, and then you adjust based on the weight loss.

And there's no getting around the first law of thermo. If you're loosing weight, you're calorie restricted. That "i'm loosing weight but I eat more calorie than I was before when I was not loosing weight" is really getting tiresome. Studies have tested that already and they failed to show this to be true. People probably did not weight their, which is the best thing to do if you want to be sure to loose weight.

Kurt G. Harris MD said...

But apparently no one can spell "lose" anymore....: )

Muata said...

@Kurt - LOL! As an English professor, I can tell you that that the loose/lose mistake is made in my students' writing almost as much as the their/there/they're and to/too mix-ups ;)

Sanjeev said...

what's wrong with losing the dogs of war and letting loose the fat?

Y'all just don't like reg'lar folk playing fast & lose with your language.

jsl32 said...

just an fyi re: women, fertility and carbs. observational and personal experience suggests that pregnant and/or nursing women really do need carbs at ~100g or more per day even if they'd prefer vlc. the caloric requirements of pregnancy and to a greater extent nursing really make eating vlc questionable. and related to this, women are the ones who carry the babies, so even when they aren't exercising their fertility, it's still there and women do simply seem to have a stronger requirement for carbs than the paleo/lc/vlcsphere is sometimes willing to admit to.

the fact is, men can do pretty well without carbs before problems arise, and this is not as true with women because of the needing reserves for fertility thing. and since the paleo/lc/etc sphere is male-dominated, and dominated by older men at that, the fact that women have different nutritive needs falls by the wayside.

Stancel said...

To Gary Taubes, insulin makes us fat. An idea I've always found absurd since I heard of it.

Insulin is in fact, rather than something evil, vital and essential. Without insulin, you are diabetic. The reason insulin lowers blood sugar is that it brings glucose to the cells where it belongs.

The fact that insulin aids in bringing fuel to cells, is somehow twisted into, it's making us fat (never mind that some low-carb foods stimulate insulin secretion more than many carby foods!). You won't get fat unless you're a lazy over-eater. It has nothing at all to do with insulin but how much you are eating.

CarbSane said...

@Kurt: Thanks for the clarification on Stephan's reasons. I wasn't saying he never elaborated, should have been more specific that I was referring to his comments in one interview (with Chris Kresser I believe). Also, just to be clear, I wasn't attaching my comment on sat fats to Stephen.

I've long felt that VLC made us more carb sensitive ... an supposition I was roundly shouted down for suggesting over at Jimmy's forum. Perhaps this is why Dr. Michael Dansiger's comment on not turning folks into "carb cripples" stuck in my mind.

BTW, re: NEFA we discussed previously, you might be interested in the subject of my recent post: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/02/non-esteried-fatty-acid-metabolism-and.html

CarbSane said...

@Jason: I can't help with your hearing impediment. Perhaps you didn't hear the excerpts I read from Gary's own references that don't jibe with what he has written.

As you can see, I'm not afraid to let your screed through here. Your profanity laced rant on your own site and the chick references show where you're coming from.

As to the cookies: Please do explain to the membership exactly how someone can gain more than a pound of real body mass (not water weight, stated in my interview) eating one pound of anything. This should be good.

CarbSane said...

@Harry: Thanks for that comment. I'm a bit amused by GT's professed adoration of Peter/Hyperlipid's blog STYLE. Don't get me wrong, I like Peter and his work. But he can be brutal at times and drip with sarcasm - so I guess the only bloggers who need to be 100% above any interjection of personal opinion or perceived attack are those who criticize the great one. It's a diversion, an GT is scathing and sneering in his contempt for all those researchers who get things wrong. His distaste for Jillian Michaels is just very unbecoming.

CarbSane said...

@John: From bits of info Carb Sane (aka Mysterio) has left here and there in comments etc., I see someone who has never really made LC work, either through cheating or lack of commitment to the style of eating. Maybe that should be your focus instead of ridiculing someone elses work.

Perhaps you should read the header on my blog John. Or the about me. I have finally made it work. Matter of fact in a few months that will be 3 years and counting for the bulk of my weight loss that now totals probably over 100 lbs (don't know my exact start weight). Not only that, unlike many prominent low carb proponents, I've made it work so that I've never had a significant regain (I don't count 5 lbs water weight) since I began this 3.5 years ago.

Consistent VLC is difficult for most people to adhere to. Sooooo many fall off the wagon and binge (worse than eating carbs in the first place) and there are any number of examples of low carbers regaining despite maintaining their carb restriction. GT does not address either of these factors in "doing something about" being fat. Folks love to say that the advice to just eat less is misguided and unhelpful. Well, the advice just to eat no carbs (and be a protein and fat glutton because these have no impact on body weight) is equally misguided and unhelpful.

Low carb doesn't work for a lot of people.

CarbSane said...

@Jason re:Diabetes - I really do think part of the problem is conflating T1 = NO insulin with T2 = IR + basal hyperinsulinemia + impaired postprandial insulin response. As OnePointFive points out, insulin is the hormone of life! Without it T1's die. Ideally we want to restore insulin levels to near physiological behavior and advances have been made on that. In the absence of physiologically identical insulin therapies, Dr. Bernstein's recs are excellent. However with the advent of new therapies, there is reason to reconsider this. But I wonder over the merit to a dietary strategy in T2's that ultimately seeks to mimic the T1 state. The focus, rather, should be on improving sensitivity to insulin not just dropping levels. Indeed Taubes falls down BADLY on Shai in that he doesn't address diabetes per se. In Shai, the Mediterranean diabetics (consumed the most carbs if dietary records are to be believed) outperformed LC.

Too many low carbers that are pre-diabetic or in the early stages are convinced they can avoid all meds and do it themselves. Most fall off the wagon time and again. One has to wonder what damage they are needlessly doing to their bodies when medications might ameliorate the issues in the short run and even help effect weight loss for long term resolution.

T2's WANT a postprandial insulin response.

John said...

@MM: Weird can be OK, there should be more of us!!

@Frank:Unless you did some direct or indirect RMR measurement, and weight everything you eat, you can't have any idea if you're calorie restricted or not. And keep in mind that RMR varies a lot from individual, mainly because of NEAT, so it's pretty damn hard to actually knows if you're calorie restricted or not.

Give me a break, man. I didn't figure my calorie intake in a lab with $3 million worth of equipment, but I know how to add, and have been around long enough to know what eating alot is...in fact, I went out of my way to eat what I could be sure was high cal just because I was astounded by how easily I was able to drop #'s without being unsatisfied. Ditto a cousin of mine who had nore weight to lose. He was eating so much even I wanted to tell him maybe he should watch the potions! Don't know what to say about 1st of Thermo, I've read the theories from both sides http://sparkofreason.blogspot.com/ but all I know is waht works.

@Carb Sane:

Yes, I should have read more of the info you mention before commenting, please forgive. I am glad you have it working! Sometimes I almost feel guilty because the LC has worked so easy and well for me, and tend to think it must be the same for everyone.

Sanjeev said...

>> Don't know what to say about 1st of Thermo,
>> I've read the theories from both sides

FIRST, isn't it interesting how some of the Taubes fans claim mass/energy does NOT need to be conserved

And the other half says violating conservation is SO IMPOSSIBLE and SO DULL it shouldn't even be mentioned.
_________________

And they all leave out the key; based on pre-1980s studies (which positively did show this result) Taubes claimed in GC,BC that the obese eat less than the lean. In other words, the obese are creating mass/energy out of nothing.

He's never retracted that.

After those studies doubly labeled water studies showed that all people mis-report intake and exercise, and the obese were more prone to mis-report fat intake.

If Kinetics/Mechanics can't find a way to do it it's still impossible (thermo says carbon to diamonds is possible, and in fact easy (the energy delta is quite small) but you still need a way for it to happen - in the diamonds case, we know of no easy, low-energy, low-pressure kinetics/mechanics. It may be coming but it's not here yet.)

So your physics prof is half right about Taubes. Too bad Taubes made it impossible for the physics prof to be 100% right.

Christian said...

"Taubes claimed in GC,BC that the obese eat less than the lean. In other words, the obese are creating mass/energy out of nothing. "

So you say that Taubes claims that obese people can create energy out of nothing and that he should retract this claim?

Wolfstriked said...

@ Muata,I was delivered the lies also.I remember my brothers laughing at me and saying "yeah eat another pound of bacon w/grease".I truly believed the lie that LC works in magical ways and by passes the myth of calories in/calories out.And that fear of carbs is so grounded into us when we slip and have a huge carb meal.Getting hypo is one and bloating out is another.Problem with the water weight gain is that if your muscles are covered in fat you just look fatter.Get lean and eat carbs and you'll look more muscular by large amount instead.

@ Sanjeev,the masses as a singular thought is scary.I remember arguing with a friend of mine who was the kool kid out of our crew.We were debating how to ground a car stereo.I was saying that you needed to attach the wire to the frame of the car since thats connected to the negative battery cable and he was saying that all you need to do is touch the negative wire to any piece of metal.A lot of friends who were standing around listening instantly jumped to his defense since he was afterall the authority on life in my group.He then proceeded to tape the wire to a screwdriver and then placed into his trunk and they all stood around dumbfounded.Makes you wonder how we are where we are. :)

James Krieger said...

*******************
Give me a break, man. I didn't figure my calorie intake in a lab with $3 million worth of equipment, but I know how to add, and have been around long enough to know what eating alot is...in fact, I went out of my way to eat what I could be sure was high cal just because I was astounded by how easily I was able to drop #'s without being unsatisfied.*************************

John,

Feeling satisfied and being caloric restricted are 2 separate concepts. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds as if you think that being calorically restricted somehow equates to not being satistfied. That is not true. The main advantage of low-carb eating is due to the satiation it provides, and you automatically eat less without even thinking about it (mainly due to the high protein intake, but there is an additional satiety benefit to ketosis as well). This has been shown time and time again in scientific studies, such as this one which I wrote about:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285

So yes, you ARE calorically restricted if you are losing weight.

Christian said...

I would rather say you are in negative caloric balance if you are losing weight. These two expressions are identical in terms of content.

"Caloric restriction" is often used as a dietary advise, isn't it? When going on a low-carb diet you achieve negative caloric balance without the advise of caloric restriction. You may say that you "restrict" your intake below expenditure but that somehow implies a conscious action, which is not necessarily the case.

Christian said...

I should add:

When going on a low-carb diet you CAN achieve [...]

John said...

@James Krieger:
Feeling satisfied and being caloric restricted are 2 separate concepts. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds as if you think that being calorically restricted somehow equates to not being satistfied. That is not true.

Absolutely not. While I will tell you that I can be satisfied with less, when I was losing weight I was eating 2500 or better calories / day with very little carb, some of which was beer or that + beer, which is also not supposed to work. I have leveled out (in the first 6 mo @ 155 lbs) and have neither lost nor gained since eating as I do. I do not even think about calories anymore. I started this after reading McKarness (sp) about carbs and William Banting. Well before I discovered all the Paleo / LC blogs. I had always considered LC as so much BS before that time, mainly because I had never looked at the science / mechanics behaind it.

James Krieger said...

*******
While I will tell you that I can be satisfied with less, when I was losing weight I was eating 2500 or better calories / day with very little carb, some of which was beer or that + beer, which is also not supposed to work*******

That's fine, but if you truly were eating 2500 calories per day and losing weight, then your energy expenditure was obviously much higher than 2500. Otherwise you wouldn't be in an energy deficit and you wouldn't be losing weight.

This is the point Frank made earlier. All of these people who claim they were losing weight, yet not in an energy deficit, have no way of knowing their true energy intake and energy expenditure. And even if you were completely precise with your 2500 calorie intake estimate (which is unlikely...even dietitians have been shown to be inaccurate in their food intake estimates: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=379), you still don't know your energy expenditure, so one cannot claim weight loss and no energy deficit.

Sure, one might be able to claim weight loss and no *purposeful* energy restriction, but that is different from claiming weight loss without an energy deficit. You can be in an energy deficit without purposeful restriction of calories.

Kurt G. Harris MD said...

"BTW, re: NEFA we discussed previously, you might be interested in the subject of my recent post: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/02/non-esteried-fatty-acid-metabolism-and.html"

Have seen it and left a comment there....

Sanjeev said...

Gary Taubes: ... they eat no more than the lean—surprising as it seems, the evidence backs this up ...

GCBC chapter 14 paragraph 3

The more closely we look at the evidence and at obesity itself, the more problematic the science becomes. Lean people will often insist that the secret to their success is eating in moderation, but many fat people insist that they eat no more than the lean—surprising as it seems, the evidence backs this up—and yet are fat nonetheless. As the National Academy of Sciences report Diet and Health phrased it, “Most studies comparing normal and overweight people suggest that those who are overweight eat fewer calories than those of normal weight.” Researchers and public-health officials nonetheless insist that obesity is caused by overeating, without attempting to explain how these two notions can be reconciled. This situation is not improved by the prevailing attitude of many nutritionists, obesity researchers, and public-health authorities that it is evidence of untoward skepticism to raise such issues, or to ask questions that lead others into contemplating the contradictions themselves.

Frank said...

@ John

Here is a paper that shows perfectly well what happen with LC/whole food/paleo style diet

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/7/1/85/abstract/

Even if they were told to eat as much as they wanted, the paleo group only ate a mean 1388kcal, while feeling perfectly satisfied and with no hunger issue.

This is a constant phenomenon on LC/paleo style. You think you eat a lot because you eat a lot of meat/fat, and don't feel hunger, but you're probably actually are getting very little calorie, hence loosing weight easily.

And again, as James and I pointed out, you have no way of accuretly knowing your caloric expenditure and probably intake, so you just can't be running around telling people that you are SURE that you were eating more on LC and loosing more weight.

John said...

@James Krieger:
I am sure that my caloric count was not dead accurate, but it was reasonably close. I can tell you from my experience, and I used to count calories, when I was eating about the same # of calories / day and my diet was heavy on carbs ie pasta, rice bread and even some potato chips for good measure, my weight was starting to slowly creep up. When I was younger, it didn't matter what I ate, but that changed. I beleive that it would come back if I went to my former eating pattern. I won't do that because of how much better I feel minus the junk carbs and seed oils. Besides, I don't find eating LC boring or restrictive. I have no dog in the fight as far as the 'metabolic advatage' vs 'no such thing' battle is concerned. I am not a scientist, so I am trying to learn from both sides, and appreciate the wealth of knowledge presented by both. I do no where I lean based on the results for my self and the few who have tried making the change.

James Krieger said...

Sanjeev,

When Taubes quoted that piece from the NAS report, he left out some important adjacent sentences about underreporting (underreporting was suspected back in 1980 until it was confirmed using doubly labeled water in the 1990's). This is consistent with CarbSane's observations of how Taubes consistently cherry picks from his own references.

John said...

@FranK:
And again, as James and I pointed out, you have no way of accuretly knowing your caloric expenditure and probably intake, so you just can't be running around telling people that you are SURE that you were eating more on LC and loosing more weight.

I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but again, I can add, and if the caloric breakdown by weight of foods you can find on the web and elswhere are anywhere near correct, so were my counts. When I started looking at the Paleo / LC blogs I found right away the saiety argument, which I beleive, BTW. It's what prompted me to count even though I was losing weight. You don't have to be a rocket OR nutritional scientist to be able to figure with reasonable accuracy how many calories you are eating. I can and have told people I was losing while eating a normal or better amount of calories...they could watch me on a daily basis, and beleive it or not, it has been the case for at least a couple of them, also. My rotund cousin being the best example. If you don't beleive me, that's fine. But again, I have nothing to gain one way or the other with telling my story. It's not important to me, I'm happy in my skin.

Frank said...

@John

That's not personnal, nothing againsnt you. Sorry if i'm picking at you. It's not about beleiving you or not, it's about available evidence, and what I can justify with scientific data. As someone who's trying to be scientific and professionnal, I can't be running around saying that you can eat more calorie than you expend as long as carbs are low and that you'll still be loosing weight. There is no evidence that this is true, and worse, there is evidence that this is false.

But sure, you don't need to fix something that is not broken. If it's working for you, it's perfectly good. But it might not be the best idea to try to educate other people based on a pop-science book such as GCBC.

So no offense here :)

James Krieger said...

**********
I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but again, I can add, and if the caloric breakdown by weight of foods you can find on the web and elswhere are anywhere near correct, so were my counts.
***********

John,

Trained dietitians do the exact same thing, but they've been shown to be off in their own estimates, underestimating by 200 calories per day *on average* (which means some are off by even more). Remember, these are trained dietitans. If trained dietitians are not accurate in their estimates, what makes you think that you are better?

Numerous factors can contribute to error, including measurement error, errors on food labels (there's research showing this), etc. Even the books/public data of food energy/macronutrient content is based on averages, meaning specific items can deviate from that average. Small measurement errors can also add up. This can especially be problematic for energy dense foods (like cheese, where tiny measurement errors can add up to large differences in calories. And that's just the intake side of the matter. The vast majority of people have no clue what their 24-hour energy expenditure is, which means most people have no way of knowing if they're truly in a deficit or not based on calorie estimates.

Christian said...

"underestimating by 200 calories per day *on average*"
"The vast majority of people have no clue what their 24-hour energy expenditure is"

This seems to be the case. The bottom line is that the only way to be absolutely sure that you "achieved" a caloric deficit is if you lose weight. If you count calories and conclude that intake must be >= expenditure (based on estimates) then the estimates can not be correct if you lose weight. John, I would conjecture that your expenditure is slightly higher than your estimates. Maybe you are more active on this diet, you gained some muscle or whatever. There can be a lot of reasons to explain this.

Usually you encounter this in another situation. People claim that they estimated their intake to be almost surely <= expenditure based on calorie counting and formulas for metabolic rates. And still they don't lose weight despite of apparent "deficits" ...

King said...

I think it's fairly impossible to know your exact energy requirements. With all the possible variables in action, it cannot ever be exact. Weekly measurements (body weight, body fat etc) must be made to ensure you're on the right track. You may lose body fat while not losing body weight, and this must also be taken into account.

John said...

@Christian: John, I would conjecture that your expenditure is slightly higher than your estimates. Maybe you are more active on this diet, you gained some muscle or whatever. There can be a lot of reasons to explain this.

I have always been a fairly active person. My activity levels have been fairly equivalent since LC compared to the "old days". I think I have gained some muscle.

@James K: This is a tough room!! LOL

CarbSane said...

Re: Hernandez paper. I've just received the full text via email. Thanks!

Razwell said...

James

Sorry, your caloric bank account model of obesity is NOT valid.

NO ONE can " practice energy balance". NO ONE can balance the MILLIONS of calories they took in in 5 years to a decade with what they expended- you could NOT even do taht over a year.

Our bodies weight regulation systems are LONG TERM- YEARS- not meal to meal or month to month.


We are NOT in control of the mythical energy balance equation. FACT.



The work of Dr. Linda Bacon Ph.D. and Dr. Jeffrey Friedman M.D. Ph.D. ( the INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TOP WORLD expert) on obesity disprove you, James.

Razwell said...

Calories are only one factor among dozens, upon dozins , upon dozens in the etiology of obesity.

Science is moving in another direction from the claoric hypothesis , James. Some people chose to ignore what science has turned up.

The bank account model of obesity is DOGMA, James, NOT scientific knowledge. There is mountains of evidence aganist it.

Sanjeev said...

Hey Christian, I realized I never put in that this was for you ...

I won't write that GT claimed anything, I'll let him write it:

See also James Krieger's response to this post. I typed this out (I remembered exactly where it was in the book) then searched for it & lo and behold, James had beat me to it by 3 years. And of course Lyle has been commenting on this specific quote for a long time.
____________________________________
Sanjeev said...

Gary Taubes: ... they eat no more than the lean—surprising as it seems, the evidence backs this up ...

GCBC chapter 14 paragraph 3

The more closely we look at the evidence and at obesity itself, the more problematic the science becomes. Lean people will often insist that the secret to their success is eating in moderation, but many fat people insist that they eat no more than the lean—surprising as it seems, the evidence backs this up—and yet are fat nonetheless. As the National Academy of Sciences report Diet and Health phrased it, “Most studies comparing normal and overweight people suggest that those who are overweight eat fewer calories than those of normal weight.” Researchers and public-health officials nonetheless insist that obesity is caused by overeating, without attempting to explain how these two notions can be reconciled. This situation is not improved by the prevailing attitude of many nutritionists, obesity researchers, and public-health authorities that it is evidence of untoward skepticism to raise such issues, or to ask questions that lead others into contemplating the contradictions themselves.

Christian said...

"The first law of thermodynamics dictates that weight gain [...] will be accompanied by or associated with positive energy balance"

That is also something he wrote. I am not sure how you can read both paragraphes and come to the conclusion that Taubes claimes obese people can create energy out of nothing and that he should take that back. You have two choices when reading these statements. You can can either ignore the paragraph I quoted and interpret the one that you quoted so that Gary Taubes wants to imply fat people can gain weight without positive caloric balance (you are in good company there). Or you can acknowledge that he believes in physical laws as established facts and that his intend when writing the paragraph you quoted is something entirely different.

I read James Krieger's and Lyle McDonalds statements on this a long time ago. They are justified in so far that the data he is refering to is fucked-up.

Just for the record. I said that a few times already but here it goes again. I don't want to defend every claim of this man. I think he is wrong about a lot of things. But I also think that the books he wrote are a valuable contribution to the topic of nutrition and health. You however seem to think that he is a fraud, intellectually dishonest on every level and a moron. And therefore you will interpret every single paragraph and quote by him in such a way that it fits this premise.

CarbSane said...

Christian: How about if I put it this way. Taubes never says you can make energy out of thin air or gain weight w/o a caloric surplus, but his "fat accumulates first" theory essentially requires that to be the case. He is also inconsistent on this point. At times saying (paraphrase) 'of course you need to be in positive caloric surplus' at others 'fat accumulation causes you to eat more and/or move less' to outright denying at times that calories have anything to do at all with body weight (as he did in his Fat Head interview and seems to be the cornerstone of his 'it's the carbs' theory to weight loss).

Christian said...

"but his "fat accumulates first" theory essentially requires that to be the case."

Absolutely not. I already mentioned why. You ridiculed it because my knowledge about metabolic pathways is totally inadequate and I agree. Yes I am a retard on this subject. But there is no "physical law violatation" involved in accumalting fat in the fat tissue first (delta E > 0 at the fat tissue) and establishing positive caloric balance simply because of hunger for the whole organism later, i.e. overeating (delta E > 0 for the human being). The temporary energy delta in the meantime must not be "made out of nothing" but can simply be accounted for by other energy stores in the body. It is possible in principle that fat storage precedes the act of overeating. Period. This is a totally valid hypothesis which is not forbidden a priori by any physical laws. Your mistake is that you look at the energy balance equation averaged over a fixed amount of time, say a month. Yes, whatever someone shoved in his face and not blown out his a*s during that month is now on the hips. The question is why did he shove it in his face? Some people have and always will argue that you are a lazy bastard who doesn't know what's good for you. Other people argue that you are quite normal but sick: you do what everyone else does (eat when hungry, stop when full), but energy partitioning in the body is shitty because of some defect, because of shitty food, because of something else - i don't know. I.e. you always store a teeny weeny bit of fat more in your tissues which is follwed by a necessary overeating afterwards. I frankly don't know what is really happening. After having read Taubes book I was shocked because I never thought that the latter hypothesis could be an actual explanation about what's going on. And also a pretty plausible one for some people, too. Because when you think about the implications this means that suddenly obese people don't have to be retards (for not being able to match intake to expenditure) or gluttons (for grossly overeating and sitting on the couch all the time) anymore. I am not saying that there are no such people who get fat this way. I just doubt that it is all of them.

And when you say he is inconsistent just read the last two sentences of my reply to Sanjeev again. If you want Taubes to be a moron you interpret the second quote as you do: That he denies calories having anything to do with body weight regulation. If you however acknowledge that he knows the trivial fact that a negative caloric balance is always a necessary condition for weight loss then you can understand this quote without any inconsistency.

CarbSane said...

Christian, one of the things Taubes said early on is that any theory has to match the evidence. No doubt certain folks are genetically predisposed, through their individual hormonal/metabolic milieu, to obesity. That's the maybe couple three percent. But even their obesity results from the positive energy balance and they will reverse it if they can sustain a negative energy balance for a sufficient period followed by maintaining balance for the long haul.

So how do we do that? Well, for many, low carb eating works. It's too bad he couldn't just have done a laypersons book on the benefits of carbohydrate restriction, avoiding refined carbs and sugar, etc., rather than concocting this energy balance nonsense when it has to hold and his direction of causality thing is nonsense.

I think if I ridiculed anything you said it was the car engine going backwards. In this regard there's another flaw in Taubes directional theory. He writes the energy balance equation incorrectly. It is always Ein = Eout + Estored or Ein - Estored = Eout and progresses left to right. We don't ever run in reverse!

CarbSane said...

Christian, I would add that there is NO evidence that eating carbs and the insulin spikes cause fat to be locked away in the fat cells permanently. This is the fundamental problem with Taubes theory: he takes everything out of context and doesn't look at the 24 hour period. There is actually evidence that the body will compensate better to carb excesses by stimulating oxidation rate while it doesn't do so for fat excesses that just go into storage with little energy expended to do so. Perhaps this is why those darned Japanese and Kitivans and Jillian Michaels present such a problem for Taubes.

Christian said...

CarbSane, It seems like I am not going to be able to convince you in any way. You keep throwing the same stuff at me that you threw at me in the beginning: The same tautologies aka

"But even their obesity results from the positive energy balance and they will reverse it if they can sustain a negative energy balance for a sufficient period followed by maintaining balance for the long haul."

Then the same mistakes, where you think energy balance can tell you something which it cannot:

"He writes the energy balance equation incorrectly. It is always Ein = Eout + Estored or Ein - Estored = Eout and progresses left to right."

And in the end you always say something about carbs and insulin, despite the fact that I am not talking about that.

Your objection was that fat storage driving overeating is not possible and prohibited by physics. This statement is simply not true.
"If you store it, and you expect to burn it, then you must eat it." as Dr. Lustig phrased it. That is a valid hypothesis, worth thinking about and neither nonsense nor magical as you keep calling it.

Christian said...

Your sentence about the energy balance equation being arranged incorrectly is even more remarkable when you consider the paper you posted under "Conservation of Energy: Biophysisist Style" which I just read. Not only reveal your comments a great lack of understanding for what this model was set out to do and how it would relate to a "reverse of causality" theory - they also seem to write the energy balance equation incorrectly according to you (look at equation 1). The truth of course is, that the energy balance equation is correct either way, it doesn't change it's meaning when you rearrange terms. Your mistake is that you assign "progression" to it prior to taking the time derivative. THIS is the actual nonsense. Because the energy balance equation itself contains no notion of progression. A mistake you are unfortunately making over and over again ...

I also posted a comment in this particular blog post where I explain what I mean by "how this model was set out to do and how it would relate to a reverse of causality theory".

CarbSane said...

Christian: Obviously mathematically the equation can be arranged any way and it is correct. If I didn't specify that this time, I have in our past conversations. But if one is looking at energy balance in terms of direction in living beings - as in Taubes' direction of causality thing - has to be the way I wrote it unless you are going to claim we can be put in reverse, where we vomit out food and exhale O2. But that would be silly ... right?

Christian said...

Ehm, yeah that's why nobody claims such a thing.

And you still want to assign "direction" to energy terms by looking at energy balance ....... I am running out of ways to rephrase that you are confused about this (but procrastinating my thesis is better so .... ;) )

Direction is introduced with time derivates. Then you have intake rates which are random spikes with given variance and mean - usually 2-5 over the course of a day. Then expenditure rates which varies constantly due to activity, due to body composition, etc. and you have storage rates, i.e. constant fluxing of tissue (fat, lean, bones), glucogen and so on.

You imply that this this has to be a one-way street which simply is not necessarily true (and you cannot suddenly proof that by integrated and going back to energies). You say that the spikes drive the storage flux up. That of course happens trivially. Everyone knows that if the spikes are controlled we can make people fat and lean by forced feeding and semi-starving. The lessons we learn from those experiments are also that intake rate and expenditure rate are closely linked in the human body. Moreover we also learn they seem to work asymetrical, i.e. we are protected better from getting lean than from getting fat.

Reverse causality then just switches the dependencies. We know that the tissue flux does not work like an inert garbage can. Thus when we directly manipulate the tissue flux and we don't control for the intake spikes we would expect them to go up and down. As Taubes says, every animal model shows that this can be done without any effort.

That's all there is to say about this. I know that you want to write something about insulin now right away and if you do you keep missing the point that I am making yet again: energy balance is useless to determine causality and dependencies between the flux terms. That's all there is to it.

CarbSane said...

Christian: Intake IS a one way street, unless you want to count bulimics in the equation. We put energy in. Period. Expenditure is also a one way street. We use energy to metabolize, move mass, build/maintain tissue, maintain temperature, etc. We can't go the other way - we don't harness thermal energy or mechanical energy or chemical energy excreted.

Taubes says over and over again that everyone else misrepresents TFLOT and we all have the direction of causality wrong. He has the proper form of the equation wrong if he's going to argue this. QED.

Let's agree to disagree on this issue. I think everyone reading my work and Taubes is able to judge for themselves if they feel I'm misrepresenting his argument.

CarbSane said...

BTW, at some future date I will have a blog post on this disconnect.

Christian said...

You do not see that nobody argues any of the stuff that you wrote in the first paragraph?

"Let's agree to disagree on this issue."

Yes. Looking forward to the blog post though. Maybe you can then provide the insight about energy conversation that you seem to have and I must have missed in this conversation.

CarbSane said...

I hesitate to ask which first paragraph you're talking about. Don't take offense if I don't respond as I'm taken away at a moments notice at the moment from goofing off on the net.

Christian said...

I meant the first paragraph in your first reply after my last comment. In particular the following

"Intake IS a one way street, unless you want to count bulimics in the equation. We put energy in. Period."

No one argues otherwise.

"Expenditure is also a one way street. We use energy to metabolize, move mass, build/maintain tissue, maintain temperature, etc. We can't go the other way - we don't harness thermal energy or mechanical energy or chemical energy excreted."

Again. No one argues otherwise. You seem to confuse energy rates with energy terms if you think someone argues otherwise.

"He has the proper form of the equation wrong if he's going to argue this. QED."

Taubes argues fat storage can drive the act of overeating. This is a legitemate hypothesis not prohibited by the energy balance equation. If you still think it is then read my comment about the distinction between energy terms and energy rates again.

CarbSane said...

Taubes argues fat storage can drive the act of overeating. This is a legitemate hypothesis not prohibited by the energy balance equation.

Eventually, perhaps, if it leads to dysfunctional fat metabolism. But fat is not stored (net) in the first place without a caloric imbalance between in and out.

CarbSane said...

@Stancel, I've been swamped of late. Wanted to welcome you to the Asylum!

Christian said...

"But fat is not stored (net) in the first place without a caloric imbalance between in and out. "

yeahyeahyeah. ;) Look, fat is stored IF AND ONLY IF there is a caloric imbalance between in and out. Thats thereom 1 of how the world works. You know that, I know that and Taubes knows it too.
I know it is psychologically pleasing to always "fall back" to something we can be absolutely certain about - but it doesn't necessarily help us to understand more about a problem.

"Eventually, perhaps"

As I said, maybe this hypothesis is invalid after all. But it is definetely invalid to reject it because of energy balance. That was my main point.

M. said...

and Taubes knows it too.

I’m pretty sure Taubes argument is that fat storage comes first, then caloric imbalance. He sometimes concedes that energy imbalance can cause fat accumulation, but in the case of widespread obesity he believes that fat comes first.

The argument that some of his supporters use is that insulin causes calories to become “locked” up into fat and become unusable by the body, and over time more is eaten to balance out the calories that get “locked” into fat.

Carbs\insulin -> Fat accumulation -> energy imbalance. This is Taubes direction of causality argument.

I believe that one of the flaws that is mentioned is that over a 24 hour period insulin cannot permanently lock away the calories in fat where they can’t be utilized.

CarbSane said...

What M said!

Everything he says about insulin (not IR though) is true. It's a clever thing too, because he often references these parts and intersperses them with his theories giving the impression they are supported by the reference. He also takes it out of context of the whole body and longterm.

Christian said...

"This is Taubes direction of causality argument."

To be a little bit more precise you should have said: This is what I think is Taubes direction of causality argument.

"What M said!"

So you would say that fat storage driving overeating would require physical law breaking properties of insulin and is prohibited by energy balance?

Anonymous said...

Hello Dear, are you truly visiting this website daily, if so
after that you will absolutely get pleasant knowledge.


Here is my blog post - sky fta channel list

Post a Comment

Moderation is currently on. Thanks in advance for your patience.