THE MYTH OF CALORIE DEFICIT

so, some of you know I'm kind of a big fan of Gary Taubes. Tsearcher asked me to do a thread outlying Gary Taubes ideas on diet/nutrition. I could do that, but you would lose some of the info with me summarizing it and it would take me a ****ton of time. I found a way around both shortcomings. Here is a one hour book presentation Mr. Taubes gave on his latest publicity tour.

Informative video

In it, Gary outlines why he doesn't believe in the 'calorie deficit' theory of obesity. This theory entails both overeating and/or sedentary lifestyles as the causal factor in obesity. Mr. Taubes disagrees strongly. Instead, he goes back through the history of obesity research and argues that we went astray, that there is a strong argument that it is the carbs (especially refined sugars and starches) that magnify a metabolic/genetic root to obesity, and that the way to a lower body weight with less body fat is to cut out carbs. This talk will give you the summary. If you want, buy the 500 page + heavily annotated book. It will give you science from his point of view.

It falls short in that the book doesn't take on fitness. It only deals with health. Those of us that want to increase our strength, endurance, power, etc will definitely have to make adaptations of the recommendations of the book.



As for myself, I've been on a search for many years regarding 'thinness.' I come from a family that has a long history of being overweight. Many years ago, I had a ton of success using the 'atkins diet.' However, the questions over it and my inability to eat that way forever caused me to quit. I then slowly gained weight despite being one of the most active people around (about 15 hours per week of real physical activity) and ingesting about 2300 calories per day (which isn't alot for my activity rate). I was pretty bad regarding where I got the calories, so I decided to change that. I went with something like South Beat or Men's Health Abs Power Diet. I lost about 3 pounds and no more despite sticking with it for a long, long time (about 6 months). This really left dissuaded, so I kept on a search for what I could do. I somehow found the work of Taubes the week it was released, because I'm a bookstore nerd. It turns out that it was one of the most coherent and logical books I've read. Since reading it, I've changed my diet quite a bit. I've lost about 1 to 1.5 pounds per week since excepting two different weeks I spent on vacation where I gained a pound or two. During this time, I have not been working out at all. I've been eating all the crappy fats and mainly proteins. I limit carbs to less than 10% of my intake except for cheat days (which is about once every 6 days for me). That is my background and why I pimp Taubes.

BTW, this isn't some new or controversial diet recommendations

much of this matches what was the traditional recommendations stemming from 19th century France through the early 20th century

One has to wonder how someone overweight eating an 1800 calorie per day diet with 1/3 healthy carbs, 1/3 healthy fats, and 1/3 proteins has about a 1% chance of long-term weight loss,
while someone overweight eating a 1200 calorie per day diet that is 0 carbs, 1/2 fat, 1/2 protein will lose 1 to 2 pounds per week until they reach their weight goal.

I can only speak from my own experience here.

My knowledge of nutrition is basic, as my only experience has been from an introductory college nutrition course. During this course, we had to have our body composition tested, and I ended up at 200lbs, 19% body fat. I decided I wanted to cut my body fat down to 15% or so, which meant I needed to lose around 10 pounds.

I ended up succeeding over a 2 month period of time. All I did was this: figured out my BMR/RMR (adjusted for daily exercise), cut 500 calories off of that, and ate 5-6 small meals a day. Didn't really focus that much on my macro breakdown, just stayed consistently at a deficit. I had plenty of carbs during this period (although I made sure that almost none were simple - 100% whole wheat breads and pastas mostly). If I had to estimate my macros it was probably somewhere near 40/40/20 carb/prot/fat.

As far as I'm concerned, carbs play an essential role in my diet, especially since they are the body's source of energy (glucose). What does a day of eating look like for you as far as the meal sizes and timing?

i guess i'm some kind of freak of nature, because i can get lean and still eat candy bars, rice, a mexican coke or 2 per day, etc

this is very common

cohort studies of lean verse overweight people show very little difference in what and how they eat

the difference is in how their bodies respond

I don't think about a normal day, meal sizes, or timing. Sometimes, I eat once a day. Sometimes, I eat 5 times a day. I eat when I feel hungry. It is tons of meat (fatty or lean), eggs, fatty cheese (none of this BS that replaces the fat with carbs), and very low carb veggies for flavoring (such as bell peppers and onions). Today, I ate an egg omelet with peppers, onions, and spinich in the omelet with a piece of 70% fat hamburger pattie as a substitute for sausage (I like the taste and price of the hamburger meat more). I plan on having some chicken drumsticks later that I baked earlier in the week (just some drumsticks put in a glass dish with olive oil at 375 degrees for an hour--added some cayenne pepper and a touch of garlic salt for seasoning and covered with foil to keep moist). Tonight, I'll probably grill some tilapia fillets I thawed out with some olive oil in a skillet. I'll eat it with tartar sauce.


What your diet and almost all the others I see that use carbs are doing is finding ways to manage insulin release. That's why there are numerous small meals. That's why there are very few refined sugars and starches.

In celebration of this. I'm gonna eat a loaf of French bread.

Is this the point of the book? If so, 600 less calories a day doesn't really seem to support the point that calories don't matter, even though it's low carb.

Obviously a calorie is not a calorie (not all fats made equal, nor carbohydrates,etc), especially in the context of body composition. But to say that caloric intake is not the major (or even a major) factor for weight gain or loss is ridic.

MyTurn if you're looking to lose I'd suggest trying to eat a constant # of meals per day. Switching from 1 yesterday to 5 today is not the best way to get it done. Not implying that you switch like this all the time, just a suggestion .

This statement is nonsensical, whether you're talking about muscles, organs or the brain.


http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25758/figure/1

based solely on my personal observations, i disagree with the idea that this guy presents, but obviously its just my opinion. but, do you know of any links to any studies that show this?

Well, the brain runs exclusively on glucose...

are you suggesting that carbohydrates are not converted into glucose/glycogen, stored in the muscles/liver, and used as needed?

PR,

Resume sucking off BW. No more trolling HF.

No it doesn't.
Glucose is the preferred source of energy, and you don't need to eat a lot of carbs for their to be enough glucose for the brain.

Someone on a high-fat, low-carb diet will still have enough glucose floating around for the brain to use. The liver can make glucose from the leftover glycerol molecules of fat oxidation in addition to whatever carb. is taken in through the diet.
And if someone goes into ketosis, the brain doesn't have a problem using ketones as an energy source.

"Good Calories, Bad Calories" is 600 pages long. It is well documented including 40 pages of endnotes and a 55 page bibliography. As MyTurn stated, any summary is going to be incomplete and somewhat misleading. Nevertheless I'll paraphrase (and quote) Taubes' conclusions which can be found on pg 454 of said book.

1.) Dietary Fat(including saturated fat) does not cause obesity or heart disease.

2.) The problem is carbohydrates and their effect on insulin.

3.) The worst carbs are sucrose and HFCS.

4.) Refined carbs are the dietary causes of heart disease and diabetes, and may even be linked to Alzheimer's and other chronic diseases.

5.) "Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior"

6.) "Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child to grow taller. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.

7.) Obesity is caused by an imbalance in the regulation of adipose tissue and fat metabolism.

8.) Insulin is the main regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are high we accumulate fat in the adipose tissue. When insulin levels are low, fat is released and used for fuel.

9.) "By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. The fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be."

10.) "By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity"

I have a real problem with this one. Can someone actually elaborate on what it actually means? Is he suggesting that I could eat 10,000 calories a day, but as long as they are all 'good calories' then I won't gain weight? Surely this is BS?

I can only guess it's like saying you can eat it but you'll just doo doo it out.

Its complete BS.

there have actually been studies where they have tried to fatten people up by making them consume 10k calories per day... they gain a little and then plateau
the body finds ways to use up the energy, such as NEAT
non-exercise activity thermogenisis (IIRC)

alright... I could have also said
someone eating 1800 calories per day of 1/3 good carbs (non-refined sugar and starches), 1/3 of good fats (full of omega 3 and other polyunsaturated), and 1/3 of protein has a 1-2% chance of long-run weight loss.
Someone eating 1800 calories per day of 1/2 fat (any kind except trans) and 1/2 protein loses 1 to 2 pounds per week until they reach a low body fat percentage. Many people also find this diet too restrictive, but it is much more successful. Something, like 20%+ in the studies that have looked at it.

also, it is very, very tough to eat that many calories a day of fat and protein
guess what? fat fills you up and limits the hunger mechanism of the body
on the other hand? carbs do just the opposite... eating carbs hurts satiety

or it was the standard way of viewing things until medicine could magically measure cholesterol in total

"Most studies comparing normal and overweight people suggest that those who are overweight eat fewer calories than those of normal weight."

National Research Council, Committee on Diet and Health, Food and Nutrition Board, Commission on Life Sciences. 1989. Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

My favorite is the numerous populations that suffer from malnutrition (largely, too few calories), yet still have prevelant obesity.

As far as activity, we know that obesity continued to climb in the 1990s, yet the evidence is that people were no less active according to:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. "Physical Activity Trends--United State, 1990-1998." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports. March 9; 50 (9):166-69. Online at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5009a3.htm

Add into that the levels of obesity among the poor that actually don't have sedentary jobs and you're left with a puzzle to the whole calorie surplus theory.

In addition, you have that overweight people have a higher resting metabolism on average. They're bigger which requires more fuel to keep going.

So, they eat fewer calories and they have a higher daily metabolism on average.... hrmmmmmm???? Most rational people would start to sense a problem here.

The basic thing is the argument that people have screwed up the first law of thermodynamics

change in energy stores = energy intake - energy output
simply
fat change = eating - (Exercise + resting body metabolism)

the 'conventional' hypothesis of today is that the elements on the right can be manipulated independently to affect the fat change on the left. However, time and time again this has shown to be wrong. The people that have subscribed changes on the right side have failed over and over and over and over and over and over and...
In addition, there are numerous other studies that go directly against such a hypothesis being true.

What this book is arguing is that it isn't a causal factor on the right that needs to be manipulated. The right side of the equation are not independent variables. This book argues that the causal factor comes in things that cause the left side of the equation to change. The right side is forced to meet it.

Things that change the left side are genetics and hormones.

Instead of repeating failed exercise and semi-starvation diet prescriptions, this book analyzes why and how fat stores change. Guess what? it is mainly due to insulin flowing through the blood. Guess what causes insulin secretion? Carbohydrates.

Somehow, every study seems to fit in with this fattening carbohydrate hypothesis.

there are scores and scores and scores of studies that fail to support the 'conventional' hypothesis that rules today