Is a New Hypothesis in the Works?

I have to admit, my eyes glaze over reading most of what Gary Taubes has to offer these days.  His latest seemed so much more of the same old same old.  Old paradigm, new paradigm ... research will never move forward until they embrace the new paradigm.  Thousands of scientists can't be right when Gary Taubes knows they're wrong.  

But Taubes tucked something new into his latest post that I missed on the first read:
In this paradigm, meals stimulate hormonal responses—insulin, in particular, either in the short term (glucose) or the long term (fructose)— and this in turn directly influences both the storage of fat and the oxidation of fatty acids elsewhere in the body.
In recent lectures Gary has been turning his ire towards fructose/sugar as the ultimate cause of obesity.   He has in the past tried to explain the Japanese away by claiming they eat very little sugar.  I suppose compared to the SAD this is true, but they do eat sugar (and they don't eat brown rice either, but can't we cut Taubes some slack when he makes stuff up?  Swallow one for the cause!)   Myself and others have pointed out the problem with this and  TWICHOO -- that being that fructose does not stimulate an insulin response.  Therefore it does not fit into TWICHOO as stated in  GCBC or  WWGF .   Is he about to change his tune a bit by introducing some long term influence of fructose on insulin behavior?  His toothpick of a fork tine is bent so badly at this point he's gotta fashion something to do his cherry picking with.  Only to do that, he'll have to do some more cherry picking.  

TWICHOO sounded pretty darned strong in earlier lectures.  Damn convincing were those many ways carbohydrates spike insulin leading to fat accumulation.   Poor glycerol-3-phosphate!  I feel bad for the molecule that showed such promise as a biochemical star.  Only in recent lectures  Gary's not rescinded any of the defunct sub-hypotheses formally, he's just left them out and hopes nobody will notice while  he diverts attention trying to tear down a hypothesis that actually DOES explain the Pima!  All in the interest of making WWGF readable, I suppose. 

There is certainly evidence out there implicating large bolus fructose doses in the development of short term insulin resistance as measured by peripheral glucose disposal.  Long term?  Not so much.  Meanwhile there's a lot of studies out there exonerating sugar as a seminal factor in the development of obesity.  (Which should not be interpreted as any endorsement by yours truly of a high sugar diet).   The livers of the LF (high sugar) fed rats in the CAF rat study don't look good for sugar.  But speaking of that study, the relatively low carb high fat diet (45% lard) fared rather poorly.  Stephan added some info in the comments about fat quality that might have impacted the results ... but then one must wonder if the fat quality in the CAF diet is equally altered by processing? 

And here I was feeling a bit like Rush Limbaugh when Bill Clinton left office ...  LOL   (Not really, but I'm sure my detractors were wondering what I'd be blogging on when Taubes fell by the wayside.  Seems we're not going to have to worry about that one for a while - grin!)


I remember reading somewhere - I think it was KGH's blog - that given we've had fruit around for so long in the human diet, having fructose in amounts limited to what you can eat when found in nature (ie. as the whole fruit) is actually hormetic. Kind of like exercise; I remember Stephan talking about that. Also, I know via Danny Roddy that Ray Peat advocates have sugar (OJ without the pulp) to "feed" the liver and help the thyroid. I'm beginning to think that bookstores should start putting GCBC in the Fiction section right next to the Fairytales.
Harry said…
Dear Taubes et al,

Sugar causes obesity in the same way as water causes hyponatremia. The poison is in the dose (he says, beating head against brick wall).

And, so long as (1) you're in calorie deficit (or calorie balance at a reasonable weight), and so long as (2) you're getting sufficient protein and micronutrients from the remainder of the diet, the threshold dosage levels for sugar 'poisoning' will not be breached.

question: since TWICHOO is obviously wrong, and too many NEFAs free-floating about is the problem which insulin helps to solve by locking them away in fat tissue, then what people really should be eating are foods that raise insulin while not sending their blood sugar through the roof, right? Which things like protein & even whey protein powders do. Is this why some of the diabetes researchers are recommending high protein?
Muata said…
Harry said, "And, so long as (1) you're in calorie deficit (or calorie balance at a reasonable weight), and so long as (2) you're getting sufficient protein and micronutrients from the remainder of the diet, the threshold dosage levels for sugar 'poisoning' will not be breached."

Why does it seem that these two points are often overlooked, seldom discussed, or out & out ignored when folks start talking about the "harmful" effects of eating (enter "evil" macronutrient of the month)?

It seems as if the whole "over-consumption" or "eating too much damn food, regardless of macros" idea is not give the attention it truly deserves.
Galina L. said…
I think the main question is to find the regiment on which your body functions by self-regulation and over-consumption is avoided with minimal effort and stress. Hunger control is very important for me, that is why I don't care if fruits are hormetic or somehow liver wants to be feed fruits, if it causes overeating, it is not beneficial for me. It doesn't mean it can't be beneficial for somebody else. The question is - what kind of priorities to choose?
@galina In theory the idea of self-regulation is a good one. I wish it applied to me. When I rely on my internal hunger gauge, I overeat. It's like my "your full" meter is rusty or something. However, I have a calorie intake "budget" for the day, I don't overeat, provided I'm nourished, in which case if I do eat something like fruit, I'm able to exercise some willpower to not eat more. And yes, most every day is a bit of a struggle for me with food; I guess it just is what it is.
Galina L. said…
Fashiontribes ,

Everybody got into our extra body fat situation differently. I am a grazer, and I found by experience that eating inside 8 - 6 hours window, sometimes 4 hours, works for me if I avoid foods I more likely would eat to excess. For example, nuts are calling my name. I try not to create a situation when I need an extra will power all day long. I am not trying to trick you into thinking that it is possible to rely on a complete self-regulation. Self-regulation ,in my understanding ,is the smallest forcing of myself possible in order to keep max control. I am 50 years old now and most of my adult life I was avoiding eating to satiety, I sort of have had enough of it by now. So, during each of my two meals I eat to satiety nutritiously dense food, it helps me to avoid grazing in-between. On the morning I am not hungry and use some of my will-power to postpone the first meal, which is not very difficult at that time of the day. Sometimes I practice 24 hour fast. I hope such regimen helps me to avoid over-nourishment, which is nowadays I think of as a priority. I am not advising you to follow my example, as what you are doing works for you. I just try to explain my strategy. Variety is difficult to achieve sometimes, with just two meals.On week-end there are 3 meals.